Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Not to mention this plan will invariably involve raising taxes (which the Democrats have been wanting to do for a while now). What needs to be done now is a decrease in government spending that doesn't involve the military. I have no doubt the raise in taxes will be disproportionately higher than the raise in spending on whatever the taxes are meant to be spent on.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said Democrats don't need to unveil their security agenda, because Americans already have seen it:
"They threaten to filibuster border security. They brag about how they 'killed' the Patriot Act. They call the NSA terrorist surveillance program 'illegal.' And they want to cut and run in Iraq rather than stay and fight al Qaeda," Cornyn said.
Bottom line: Democrats are weak on defense, and weak on national security. In fact, I would say these are their weakest links. To think that the Republicans will have this issue taken from them (by Democrats) is laughable. Not that the Republicans haven't been weak in their own right (border security, e.g.), but they have been a heck of a lot stronger on securing this nation and working to prevent another 9/11 than the Democrats by far.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Let's also not forget the others being persecuted for Christ in Afghanistan and around the world. Keep them in your prayers.
Also, it isn't just that they didn't care about our laws to begin with, it's that they still don't. Not only THAT, but they hate this country (the country they were desperate to enter in the first place I might add). Just look at this picture taken in southern California:
Disgusting. Why would we even consider amnesty as an option for these people? They don't respect our laws, our borders, our customs, our language, or us as a people. They spit in our face then ask us for jobs. I realize not all are like these protestors, but I have little more respect for them since they still didn't care about our sovereignty to begin with. Such blatant and overt hatred for this country while at the same time wanting to gain benefits from it reprehensible and hypocritical.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
However, he has now apparently disappeared and was last seen with his family. It seems likely that he is dead given the "peaceful" nature of his Islamic family toward him. I pray he isn't, but I think he is.
Also, more Christians are being persecuted in Afghanistan. Be sure to pray for them, too. You would think that if people truly belived in a religion, its adherents would welcome criticism for the sake of proving us infidels wrong or finding the truth about God rather than trying to simply kill anyone who opposes their viewpoint. Further, you would think God wouldn't be so insecure about what people thought about Him that he would command His followers to kill dissenters.
Monday, March 27, 2006
The spokesman for Wal-Mart made the comment that "we're a retailer, not a hotel." Maybe Mr. Bartels just gave Wal-Mart a new market to enter!
Afghans rally during a demonstration in the northern city of Mazar-i-Shariff, Afghanistan March 27, 2006. In the first protest over the case of Afghan man, Abdur Rahman who converted from Islam to Christianity, several hundred people led by clerics demonstrated in Mazar-i-Shariff, demanding Rahman be tried under Islamic law.
"...led by clerics." That is the scariest part of the whole paragraph. These people are ignorant. That's the bottom line of it, and clerics (presumably) are not. Whether or not the clerics are as ignorant as the people they are leading is immaterial, though. The point is that they are afforded authority among the people and their views are considered to be the views of divine or enlightened people.
This is why I will always oppose a civilization based on religious leadership. Because when the desires of the man in power come into the equation (and they always do), the authority of God is used to do the works of the Devil. Case in point: Abdul Rahman.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Abdul Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to, not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet.
Steyn also mentions how the Quran teaches that it is incumbent on its adherents to "command and forbid." In other words: force their religion on others. Read the whole thing, he makes a lot of good points. (via: Michelle Malkin)
I believe Steyn got this completely right. The thing about Islam is that it is set up to only grow. Further than that, it is set up to grow by any means possible. This has less to do with God (as Muslims claim) and more to do with the violent and militaristic nature of its foundational beliefs.
Friday, March 24, 2006
So as of now, to show my condemnation for such unethical practices, I'm taking this blog off of my blogroll. People willing to plagiarize are not worth my (or your) time.
I cheered for Ben, the editor of my last book at Regnery, when he announced his new position. I criticized unhinged bloggers on the Left who leveled vicious ad hominem attacks against him. It's clear, as the good folks at Red State (which Ben co-founded) note, that his detractors were on a search-and-destroy mission from the get-go.
But now the determined moonbat hordes have exposed multiple instances of what clearly appear to me to be blatant lifting of entire, unique passages by Ben from other writers. It is one thing to paraphrase basic facts from a wire story. But to filch the original thoughts and distinctly crafted phrases of a writer without crediting him/her--and doing so repeatedly--is unacceptable in our business. Some of the cases occurred while Ben was in college; he is blaming an editor for these transgressions. But at least one other incident involved a piece he wrote for NRO after he graduated. The side-by-side comparisons of these extensive passages is damning.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
All televisions tuned to FOX News (please let the Advance Office know if it is satellite or cable television)
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Also, Bush had this to say about the ordeal.
"We expect them to honor the universal principle of freedom," Bush said. "I'm troubled when I hear, deeply troubled when I hear, the fact that a person who converted away from Islam may be held to account. That's not the universal application of the values that I talked about. I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship."
I'm not sure what he means by "held to account," but it is indeed troubling. The problem here, with all due respect Mr. Bush, is that Islam is inherently against individual freedoms. These people are trying to abide by universal human rights laws, while at the same time trying to have sharia law. The two are mutually exclusive. It's like saying you want to walk east while at the same time saying you want to walk west. It just doesn't work. Unless you push Karzai to somehow pull (or wean) his people away from their desire to institute theocratic law, this sort of thing is going to continue to happen.
Speaking of Bush; in a press conference recently, he mentioned the "improvements" that have been made since the end of the Taliban's rule.
There was no such thing as religious freedom. There was no such thing as being able to express yourself in the public square. There was no such thing as press conferences like this.
Hollow words, I must say, when we can see this sort of thing is still going on. When I see converted Christians able to openly profess their faith on the streets of Kabul without fear of death or beatings, THEN I will count it as an improvement. The terrorists may be gone, but the full concept of what democracy should look like among the Afghan people still has a ways to go. In other words, this situation proves they still need our help and will continue to need our help for years to come.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Rahman, who is about 41 years old, converted from Islam to Christianity over 16 years ago. He was turned in to authorities last month by his own family for rejecting Islam. Afghanistan’s new constitution declares that no law can be contrary to the religion of Islam, which radical Muslims say demands the death penalty for any Muslim who abandons their faith. However, Afghanistan’s constitution also demands that the state protect the liberty and dignity of all people, and affirms the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in Article 18:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Now, I'm no fan of the U.N., but that's a pretty straight-forward, clear, declaration on how to exercise religious freedom. The problem is that Islam is not a religion that wants religious freedom. The closest it comes is requiring a tax on all non-Muslims to practice their faith. Any converted Muslims to another faith are to be killed according to the Koran (4:89). This is why the middle east, the arab world, or the Muslim world, are so far behind the rest of the world. The greatest advancements in society for the past 2-300 years has been because of democracies and individual freedoms. Something Islam could never be the progenitor of by its very nature. Also a reason people in the middle east are still living in medieval times.
Monday, March 20, 2006
It isn't because he's practicing Christianity, but because he has rejected Islam. While people who were Christians to begin with are allowed to practice their faith under the new government, Muslims, by law, are forbidden to convert. Here is yet another example of how other countries get it wrong when trying to copy our example. Also notice that his family were the ones that turned him in. Such a loving faith.
Seventy percent of Americans said the U.S. is wealthier because there is plenty of opportunity and work available in the United States, but 62 percent of Mexicans said the U.S. is wealthier because it exploits others, the Zogy Poll said.
This is exactly the liberal viewpoint that if someone has more or is better off than someone else, they MUST have done something to unfairly get ahead. Speaking of exploiting others, I wonder if they think Mexico is exploiting the U.S. in the same way they think we are exploiting other countries? I'm guessing not.
My theory is that the media in Mexico paints a dark picture of America for the benefit of its government. Apparently the media in Mexico is constantly afraid of how the current administration will react to critical news about them.
Although nominally independent, the news media are subject to a variety of mainly indirect economic and political pressures from the government. The Secretariat of Communi-cations and Transport supervises the news media, granting publishing and broadcast licenses and ensuring adherence to the media laws. Successive PRI governments have influenced the news media by paying individual journalists for favorable coverage, by restricting access to newsprint and ink (the state monopolizes the production of both, although this control was somewhat reduced under President Salinas), by withholding information from critical journalists, and especially by granting or withholding government advertising, an important source of revenue for the press. Many newspapers accept government payments for the insertion of official announcements disguised as editorials. Occasionally, the government provides indirect financial inducements to particular journalists (for example, by offering them part of the payment for official advertising run by their newspapers). Some journalists and opposition political parties have accused the government of trying to conceal the extent of official subsidies to journalists by redirecting payoffs through the PRI's Office of Information.
As a result, the people who read this media take these biased reports as objective facts and then form the opinion that America is bad. Indeed, it would seem Mexican media lives in constant fear of whoever is in power. They apparently haven't quite got the "freedom of press" part of the example we laid out (and what they're trying to follow) just yet.
Also, isn't it odd that in America the media issue is when the White House grants press passes to bloggers, while the Mexican problem is that they simply revoke press licenses to anyone they don't like?
Sunday, March 19, 2006
For you atheltes out there, I also found the army field manual FM 21-20, which deals with all aspects of physical training in the Army. It isn't just for military types, though. It can also be used as a guide for anyone looking to do well-rounded training or healthy living.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
The powerful don't care as much to dress up their omnipotence with utopian affectations; the weaker, in lieu of military strength, have only such pretensions. And note how America's forging of closer ties with Japan, Australia, and India somehow does not meet European requisites of "multilateralism" — a neologism for deference to Europe.
It's easy for people to sit in an arm chair and dictate to the world how they think things should be based on academic exercises of "fairness" and whatnot, but it's a far different thing for those same people to actually act on those beliefs in the real world. Also, note the arrogance of the Europeans that we should care what they think when their relevance in the world doesn't exist.
If a group of people are not willing to take a stand for any code of moral values
or stand up for--let alone state--core principles other than "I disagree with America," then what point is there to listen to them or their perspectives? Even terrorists have a set or moral values and principles, and their effect in the world has been felt, as perverted as their views are.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday.
The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.
The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm....
Document dated Sept. 15, 2001
An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:
-That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
-That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
-That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
-That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.
At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.
(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document -- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)
I've said before that the "anonymous sources" thing is hardly reliable. It all depends on who is asking us to trust something is true. Given the MSM's track record, I'm not willing to believe on the face of it that "anonymous sources" cited by the media are of the same reliability as the "anonymous sources" cited by people who actually know what's going on.
My point is, though, that the MSM NEVER makes this same editorial comment when it comes to wanting us to trust their sources or the worldview of its editors. In fact, they never make that comment when something from questionable sources supports their worldview. Maybe they have seen the error of their ways and we can expect this kind of help from the editors for us to understand the context of all "anonymous sources." Right.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
America did not get where it is today without being a leader in the world. If America were using the rest of the world as a rubric for how it should govern her people, we would not have a democracy; in fact, we would have another monarchy. The reason our founding fathers started this great experiment was that they saw oppression and injustice throughout the world and said "there has to be a better way."
What makes America great is its leadership in human rights, freedom, and free trade throughout the world. There is no place on Earth where people breathe free that the U.S. didn't have some level of involvement. To suggest that we should be taking cues from other countries (least of all South Africa), is antithetical to the intent of this country's founding fathers and betrays everything subsequent generations have bled for to preserve.
Perhaps Ginsburg should remember this before suggesting the supposed superiority of other nations. Funny she made these comments outside the country (ala Dixie Chicks).
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
The point of the show was evident. The white family, on the defensive the whole time, was supposed to experience “racist” America as blacks. They were obviously tense and very careful about what they said, which resulted in lines like this from Carmen: “I love black. Visually and heart-wise, there’s a warmth.”
Whatever that means.
That's a good point. I'm so sick of being defensive about race all the time. If I'm white, and somehow wrong a black person (no matter what the situation) or don't apologize for slave traders in the 18th century, it's racist! Blacks in this country have become so hyper-sensitive to racism (because there isn't any real racism to speak of anymore) that things like how people try to avoid looking at blacks is "racist."
In another so-called racist encounter, Brian (no make-up) and Bruno (in blackface) were walking down the street and passed a group of whites. Brian asked Bruno if he noticed how the people avoided looking at them. Bruno didn’t notice. The two men clearly have different outlooks on life. The overly sensitive Brian has been conditioned to see signs of prejudice everywhere, real or perceived, and the optimistic Bruno hasn’t. “I’m trying to enlighten you to the fact that you’ve got to approach life in a certain way and not expect you’re being mistreated because you’re black,” said Bruno.
I think this all goes to prove a further point that civil rights leaders have done their job so well, that they have utterly convinced an entire group of people that they are victims by birthright.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Army Update II
I'm shipping out to Ft. Jackson, SC for my basic training on June 7th beginning 9 weeks of learning about the Army... the hard way. After that, I will go straight to Ft. Benning, GA for OCS and upon completing that will be a full-fledged second lieutenant! I will still have my officer basic course (OBC) to take after that and probably won't be completely done with the "entrance" learning until sometime in February. I'll have my branch assignment by then and will know more specifically what I am doing in the Army.
After finishing all the paperwork, my dad was the one who gave me the oath swearing me into the Army--no turning back now! I'll post pictures of it as soon as I can.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
I had a chance to talk to a Captain (who also went to UW) about the process and what to expect. It was quite informative and pretty much what I expected. Basically, they are looking for people who aren't just in it for themselves... people who can be trusted with soldier's lives. They also aren't looking for "cheesy answers" like "I've always wanted to be an Army officer since I was 12." There is such a thing as a BS meter, and that is the sort of thing that sets it off.
Anyway, I just learned about this Tuesday afternoon and had to ramp up my homework schedule to get everything done in time since next week is spring break. I can't say I'm happy about the short notice, but I'm dealing with it. Sometimes situations call for improvisation. After this Thursday/Friday thing, I will be going to visit the parental units and introduce them to the girlfriend (she's pretty excited about it). As a result, I will probably not be posting until AT LEAST Monday... possibly later. I'll give a debriefing of how the interview went. It will be nice to know up or down if the Army is going to work out--it's been a pretty long wait.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
So illegal abortions in SD, and military recruiters doing their thing in broad daylight on campuses? What is this country coming to?! I would say it's erasing 40 years of wrong-headed ideologies. It's not much, but it's a start. Dean Polsby's comment to PowerLine sums it up nicely.
This is really a stinging rebuke, not only to FAIR but to an entire industry that has become complacent and self-indulgent. Many law professors really do believe, with the late Justice Brennan, that their own strongly-held policy preferences are all encoded somehow in the Constitution. This is a timely reminder that it just isn’t so.
Though he's talking about activist law professors, the quote can easily apply to liberal dogma as well because the lines between the two are quite blurry.
If this law is upheld by the Supreme Court, and it WILL get there mark my words, it will present an interesting experiment to see if it actually does curb the number of abortions. My guess is women will simply go to another state to have them done; however, it's nice to see a state take a moral stand on the side of life.
This is a chance for the Supreme Court to uphold the tenth amendment and affirm South Dakota's law as constitutional; unlike Roe v. Wade, which has never had constitutional ground on which to stand.
Monday, March 06, 2006
The idea also goes for those Christian evangelists who go out saying "you are going to burn in hell, sinner," while completely neglecting the doctrine of God's grace through Christ.
Another thing I thought about is how is our country is distinguishing between a terrorist and a criminal? I mean, serial killers usually have no other goal than to feed their own delusions while a terrorist usually has some religious or political objective in mind... but they, like terrorists, go around killing lots of innocent people--or at least try to do that. So if a serial killer isn't a terrorist, but this guy is, where does our legal system draw the line? I've wondered this for a while now because if the definition is too broad, we could have people who speed be classified as terrorists, but if it's too narrow nobody will fall under the definition "terrorist," and the whole thing as a legal concept won't mean anything.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
The gay cowboys of "Brokeback Mountain" lassoed the best feature prize at the Independent Spirit Awards, the art-house world's equivalent of the Oscars, on Saturday, a day before the picture competes for a leading eight honors at the Academy Awards.
Why people are so willing to praise movies like this one that promote immorality, I will never understand. I don't even have a problem that these guys are Gay butt-pounders, but I do have an issue with their erotic love outside of their marriage to their wives. This film basically says "do what feels good, even if it seems wrong." In other words: "even if feeling good hurts the ones you're already lying to, and who legitimately love you, do it anyway." What a great moral lesson that couldn't possibly have any repercussions later on in real life. Ratings for the Oscars has been going down since "Titanic" where they had the highest audience ever and is it any wonder?
One thing I think Hollywood would be very slow to admit is that movies that promote Christian values or themes ("Passion," "Narnia," etc.) are the highest grossing films per invested dollar than the crap they continually try to ram down the public's throat regarding moral relativism and anti-Americanism ("Brokeback Mountain," "Syriana.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
I'm pretty sure that while law as an academic endeavor is fun, enjoyable and compelling, its process is quite dull, boring and uninteresting. I know this because I've read contracts before. Just read any liability statements or the fine print on car commercials (if it's on long enough) and try to tell me you don't need a nap after that stuff! Anyway, some "mild ribbing" would seem to be a good way to keep good-natured about a boring, but necessary, process. Also, it's to law's discredit he had to file a reply brief telling the court to consider "sea sponge" as sua sponte.
Michelle Malkin and Slapstick Politics have a transcript and linkage for more.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Whatever the sordid or brutal motives and actions of the Crusaders, they were still for the most part driven by a spiritual imperative to restore the Holy Land to the Christian civilization that had defined the Middle East for six centuries before being violently transformed by the armies of Allah. For the most aggressively imperialistic culture in the history of the world to whine now about Western imperialism — and be taken seriously by Westerners — testifies to the intellectual corruption endemic in the West.
The whole thing is absolute gold. It really is worth wondering: what is worth killing and dying for? Personally, I would be willing to die if it meant irradicating Islam from the face of the Earth. Not because I want to die, but because its influence has led to so much pain and suffering for humanity since its inception that it can only be inspired by the devil. I know this sounds like I'm some ignorant "simple" Christian fundie, but I truly believe this.
I am not saying that open hostile war is the answer. I'm simply saying that to die for the cause of eliminating this religion would be a noble death. Whether that's being beheaded for witnessing, or otherwise.
I think there are many in the west who need to reevaluate their convictions and what they believe if they ever hope to understand the level of evil and determination among militant Muslims.