Are We Taking Democrats Out of Context?

From Ace of Spades:

Juan Williams and other liberal partisans believe in drawing distinctions for their own political advantage, but when their opponents point out those distinctions, they claim there aren't really any meaningful distinctions in the first place.

It's a replay of the Democrats' notorious 2004 campaign "position" on gay marriage: John Kerry has the exact same policy on gay marriage as Bush and Cheney, but Bush and Cheney are terrible homophobes for supporting that policy.

At the risk of being obvious (but apparently some liberals need to read the obvious): You can claim to either have a better policy than Bush, or you can claim your policy is exactly the same as Bush's, but you can't claim your policy is both exactly the same as Bush's and also, somehow, better than Bush's. Either they're different or they're not.

The real "context" which explains this nonsense is that Democrats want it both ways. They want to be viewed as tough and resolute on matters military while simultaneously rejecting military solutions and calling for withdrawals; they want to placate their strenuously antiwar base while reassuring moderates who think that maybe it's a good idea to win wars our country begins.

These competing demands really can't be met simultaneously, so they say one thing one day and the complete opposite another, and then cry foul when someone (accurately) quotes one day's statement.

The real "context," in other words, is that they don't have a policy at all on the War on Terror. At least none they feel comfortable publicly and clearly admitting to.

Separation of sex and state

Carol Platt Liebau is an attorney, political analyst and guest radio talk-show host. She wrote an op-ed in the LA Times (yes, the LA Times). Click on the link the read the whole thing. some excerpts:

ONE OF THE most difficult tasks of a democracy is deciding which messages are suitable for universal consumption in the public square — especially when it comes to sex and religion.
...

So it's worth wondering: In a nation founded on religious principles, why should spiritual messages be tailored to the sensitivities of nonbelievers, while sexual messages are not similarly constrained for the sensibilities of traditionalists?

If there's a standard for deciding what content is appropriate for the public square, surely it should be uniformly applied. At the very least, we should rethink a status quo that presumes religious messages will elicit the kind of indignation once reserved for the crude sexual messages that pass without comment (or censure) today.

Mathematical Viewpoint

This is a strictly mathematical viewpoint...it goes like this:

What Makes 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%?

We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%?
What makes up 100% in life?
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:

If: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z is represented as: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then: H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K 8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

and K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E 11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But, A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E 1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

And, B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T 2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%

AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.

A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G 1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%

So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that While Hardwork and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the Bullshit and Ass kissing that will put you over the top.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome

"But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them?

Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!

Unfortunately, one or two will make that call.

One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

God, help us.

And if that last sentence offends you, well ... just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard .... that the vast majority don't care what they want.

It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him.

That is your right, and we will honor your right.

But by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away.

Attributed to Paul Harvey

Why is Bob Cratchit So Poor?

Christmas is a time for oft told tales like Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol." At first glance, this story fills us with pity for the Cratchit family, always struggling to make ends meet. Poor Bob Cratchit is forced to work for Ebenezer Scrooge, whose personality makes an easy target for the cause of Bob's financial troubles. But, the true source of the Cratchits' poverty is not Scrooge but Bob's own impulse to live a lifestyle worthy of the Lord Mayor himself.

Bob Cratchit is a clerk and a member of the British middle class. He lives a genteel life. He goes to work with a coat and tie on. His family lives in a four-room house and has a much easier working existence than most of Victorian England.

Bob Cratchit earns more than an ample wage. His salary, we are told, is fifteen shillings a week. The British pound was divided into twenty shillings, and each shilling was divided into twelve pennies or pence. So, Bob Cratchit makes 15 shillings or 180 pence each week-about the wage of a metropolitan police officer and well above the truly needy.

Perhaps it was easier for the Spirits to reform Eboneezer Scrooge than make Bob Cratchit a responsible father.Essays of the Victorian era included titles such as, "How to live on eight shillings a week."

The Cratchit's daughter, Martha, is apprenticed to a milliner and earns additional income. And Peter, their eldest son, is about to obtain a job earning five shillings and six pence weekly. He, too, is to be a man of business. So why is the Cratchit family so poor?

Bob Cratchit is a spendthrift, or shopaholic. The shopaholic is one of eight different personality types in Bert Whitehead's book, "Facing Financial Dysfunction." Cratchit is on the opposite end of the spectrum from Ebenezer Scrooge. Whereas Scrooge combines greed with a propensity to save, Bob Cratchit combines fear with a propensity to spend.

Spendthrifts are some of the most pleasant people to be around. They are socially outgoing and often demonstrate their own friendliness by buying things for other people. As a typical spendthrift, Bob was probably raised in poverty. Buying gives spendthrifts great pleasure in life. Spending produces an addictive high and helps them establish their social status. In Bob's mind, raising his social status mistakenly depends on the amount he spends, not the amount he saves. For Bob Cratchit, living within a budget and saving money would be like setting out to deprive yourself and suffer.

Spendthrifts live for the pleasure of the moment. Eating out or buying clothes are viewed as immediate pleasures for relatively small amounts of money. They do not realize that the purpose of budgeting and saving is to make sure they are spending money on the things they really want instead of frittering it away.

On Christmas Eve, Mr. Scrooge has brought his banker's book home with him to review all evening. Shopaholics, on the other hand, almost never keep any records of their purchases. But, records would show the Cratchit family that Bob's spending habits are exposing his family to want and suffering.

Christmas grew in popularity during the Victorian era as a time of feasting and a time for those of stature to show their affluence. During the Victorian era, Christmas was more about food than about giving gifts and the Cratchit family is determined to show that they know how to keep Christmas.

The Cratchits buy a beautiful goose and then admired it for its cheapness. Spendthrifts typically go bankrupt saving money. We are not told what Bob paid for his Christmas goose, but stories of the day suggest that a goose conservatively cost about 400 pence (1.5 Pounds). At this amount, the Cratchit family goose is costing the family a year's supply of medical attention for the entire family.

Many spendthrifts justify their purchases as "investments." They often buy jewelry, clothes, or even fancy house wares as an investment to provide themselves an excuse to gain the trappings of a richer lifestyle. This purposeful self-deception shows the depth of a typical spendthrift's denial. An investment is something which pays you money, not an article of clothing.

But the Cratchit family are typical spendthrifts when it comes to clothing. On Christmas day, Bob Cratchit confers on his son Peter a shirt in honor of his apprenticeship. It was common in the day for the rich to go through the Parks to show off their finery. And Peter is amazed to find himself so gallantly attired that he too is anxious to show off his fashionable new linen in the park.

Even Mrs. Cratchit is described as "brave in ribbons, which are cheap and make a goodly show for sixpence." Making a good show is important for spendthrifts. Mrs. Cratchit's ribbons cost about two to three weeks of medical attention for the entire family. Their second daughter, Belinda, is also brave in ribbons too-another three weeks of medical attention. The Cratchit family is clearly living beyond their means.

While Bob Cratchit fears poverty, he also resents wealth. He is caught in the consumerism of the rising Victorian social and professional class. It is this propensity to spend that is the true cause of the Cratchit family's lack of means.

The tendency toward over-consumption and immediate gratification isn't limited to Victorian England. It is nearly the defining character traits of our baby-boomer generation. Like the Cratchit family, our generation has a tendency to blame financial troubles on the more productive members of society. If Scrooge was shown the starving children of Ignorance and Want, Bob Cratchit would be shown the starving children of Addiction and Entitlement.

Scrooge has earned the financial means necessary to help the Cratchit family, but the Spirits don't always give us a reformed Scrooge to bail us out of our financial problems. Sometimes they want us to become a reformed Cratchit! Perhaps this is why the Spirits visited Ebenezer? It was easier to make a frugal man generous than it was to make a spendthrift father financially responsible.

Bert Whitehead at the end of his section on shopaholics writes, "Before accepting a client whom I know is a severe shopaholic, I require them to begin intensive psychotherapy with a qualified professional." That sounds even worse than being haunted by Christmas Spirits!

Thanks to David John Marotta at Marotta Asset Management

GOP Shows "Cut and Run" Democrats Video

See the video here

The White Moor As Willing Executioner

By Phyllis Chesler and Nancy Kobrin in TCS

Excerpt (read the whole thing):

An increasing number of Western men and women have converted to Islam. According to one report cited in an article by Ian Johnson in the Wall Street Journal, in the year after the 9/11 attacks, 71, 000 Germans had converted to Islam. If this number is correct, we might be looking at what people do when they are afraid or when they want to be on the "winning side." According to Osama bin Laden, people everywhere identify with the "strong" or "winning" horse. According to prison psychiatrist, Theodore Dalrymple, who has worked with Muslim prisoners in Britain, "a large part of the attraction of Islam to increasingly and essentially secularized men" is the opportunity Islam allows for the "abominable abuse of women."

Denying the Soviet Holocaust

By Stephen Schwartz.

Excerpt (read the whole thing):

I was interested, however, to note that Conquest's polemic against Canfora coincided with a brief item in the Daily Telegraph of London, dated December 1, reporting that the parliament of the Czech Republic is considering whether it should be a criminal offense, punishable by a three-year prison term, to deny the atrocities of Communism. This piquant item seems to answer a question implied by Conquest: what distinction may be made between a denier of the Nazi Holocaust and a denier of the Soviet Holocaust? (The immediate difference is that the latter will get a university teaching job without hiding his or her views.)

Dana Milbank is an Ass

Paul Wolfowitz is the President of the World Bank and a former assistant defense secretary. He gave a speech to the National Press Club (to quote Paul Mirengoff of Powerline) “on the role of trade in reducing poverty in Africa and other underdeveloped regions. Today, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has an account of the speech, or rather its atmospherics -- the substance Wolfowitz's remarks about trade and poverty is of no interest to Milbank. In fact, Milbank seems to consider it evasive of the World Bank President to deliver a speech about issues relating to the Bank's mission, when he could have been, in Milbank's phrase, saying he was sorry for the war in Iraq.”

Now Dana Milbank would probably resent it if he were described as the best friend of Islamofascists and the Saddams of this world. But how else can we describe the political positions of a man who is sorry that Saddam is gone and that we are meeting the Islamofascists in Iraq rather than hunkered down waiting for the next planeload of suicide bombers? Because that is necessarily the inevitable conclusion we can draw from this cretin when he obviously thinks that “Wolfie” (as he calls him) should be saying he’s sorry for supporting this war.

It should be remembered that even World War 2 had its opponents in both America and Europe. It should not surprise us that the Dana Milbanks, sitting safe and secure in their offices in Washington, should have so little regard for the freedom and the lives of the people in the Middle East, that they are perfectly happy to consign them to torture and mass death in the service of cheap political points on the home front.

But They Support the Troops?

Iraq Elections Handicapped

Excerpt from Pajamas Media:

In spite of the wide variety of political bodies competing in the December elections, making speculations and estimations is not difficult at all when one realizes that most Iraqis will follow their emotions, rather than minds, when they vote.

There will be little serious interest in exploring the platforms and programs of candidates and parties. Although we see more people and local media interviewing politicians and asking questions about programs and platforms, this increase in political awareness still cannot be considered the definitive method Iraqis will use to choose representatives.

Sectarian or ethnic loyalties will still have a greater role in deciding the winning parties.

This is not unexpected, in a country that lived under a totalitarian regime for so many years, where the State wasn’t the protector as much as were the tribe or family. Based on this fact, and by analyzing the nature of each electoral district, we can reach reasonably close estimations to what’s going to happen.But more important than all of this is the fact that in these few years, we have witnessed the birth of a sensibility that was buried for decades -- Iraqi patriotism.

This sense is currently represented in three political alliances/parties that ignore the ethnic and sectarian issues in their platforms. Relatively speaking, they are looking at Iraq as a whole.

One of these groups won a good deal of votes in the January elections because of its patriotic -- or more accurately, nationalist -- program. This group, which we call a "list," led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, won 1.5 million votes. That's a high number considering the state of political awareness and sense of patriotism.Allawi's list is expected to grow even bigger and stronger, although it is coming under harsh criticism from political opponents.

Two other lists are also attracting nationalist -- not sectarian -- interest and passion: one led by Ahmed Chalabi and another by Mithal al-Alusi. The problem facing these lists is that growing voter interest will probably not translate into votes. However, I expect the 3 lists -- Allawi's, Chalabi's and al-Alusi's -- to bring some small surprises. They will become a core for patriotic lists that view an Iraqi as an Iraqi, regardless of religion, sect or race.

The new and interesting thing in this election is the large-scale participation of Sunni parties for the first time. These parties think they have a good chance to win many seats in the parliament. However, the departure of Salih al-Mutlaq from the National Accord Front to form his own movement leaves the remaining components of this list -- made up of the Islamic Party and the Ahl al-Iraq conference -- in a weaker position.

Click on the link to read the rest.

Welcome to John Murtha's Wonderland

Comment by Cassanda in Scrappleface

Sung got the tune of
Walking in a Winter Wonderland

Army’s broke!-
(Zarqawi listening?)
Hand to mouth!
(That’s how they’re living!)
A pitiful sight
Yep - we’re defeated all right -
Welcome to John Murtha’s Wonderland

Gone away are those mean guys
Now we see them through *new* eyes
We’ll chatter and prance
With nations like France
Waltzing in John Murtha’s Wonderland

From the rear lines, we can smoke a peace pipe
Then we’ll all join hands and sing along.
If them freedom fighters come a-knockin’
We’ll just redeploy again
And pass the bong….

Later on
we’ll reach consensus…
Cause too much thinking
Just makes for tenseness.
Convene the Court at the Hague
Those durned Joooooooos are a Plague
They’re ruining our Peaceful UberLand

In the desert we can build a Straw Man
and pretend that he’s Father Saddam
He’ll bring back the good old days of rape rooms
And prove us right: Iraq is Vietnam

Next time the House
Gets mailed some anthrax
And monkeys round with the Patriot Act
We’ll just heave a big sigh
Kiss our fannies goodbye
‘Cos we’re living in John Murtha’s Wonderland

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG, a German publishing company and the largest newspaper publisher in Germany:

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag,"Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements. Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally theAmericans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East,European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzyword "equidistance,"now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany? I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed byAdolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in ourtime". What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it?

There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.

Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass. For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar,huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy- because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything. While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour work week or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who,with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Oh, THAT Liberal Media

From Power Line:

Coincidentally, earlier this week, reader Michael Valois asked Columbia Journalism Review editor Steve Lovelady "what he thoughtabout the MSM ignoring Joe Lieberman's positive report from Iraq." Valois wrote:

Steve, Sen. Lieberman just returned from his FOURTH post-invasion trip to Iraq and writes in the Wall Street Journal: "I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn...It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern."

Why can't we read about Sen. Leiberman's views in the NY Times or in the Washington Post? Why is it that President Bush and Sen. Lieberman can give facts to readers from BOTH sides of the aisle, but Mr. [Calvin] Woodward can't manage to do so in an AP wire dispatch?

Lovelady responded:

You think the New York Times and Washington Post should write a story every time a neocon hawk pens an essay for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page?
Somehow, I don't see that happening...

And there, ladies and gentelemen, you have it.

Removing Methodist Bishops

Over half the bishops in the United Methodist Church have signed a “Resolution on the War in Iraq” which, in essence, calls for an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. That this resolution is based on a deliberately false premise is evident by the following preamble:

"Whereas, the premises advanced by the United States government for engaging in this war, namely, the presumption of weapons of mass destruction and alleged connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq have not been verified; and,

Whereas, the cycle of violence in which the United States is engaged has created a context for the denigration of human dignity and gross violations of human rights of prisoners of war; ...

Note here that the bishops are engaged in a deliberate deception. They state that the two reasons for going to war were WMDs and Al Qaeda connection. This is false. There were numerous reasons for going into Iraq; reasons which were enumerated in the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.


The Congressional resolution mentions the following reasons for the invasion:

- The fear that Iraq had WMDs and would either use them or supply them to terrorist organizations.

- The fact that Iraq had stores of WMDs after the first Gulf War and had not provided adequate evidence of their destruction.

- Its demonstrated willingness to use WMDs.

- The fact that Iraq has not cooperated with international efforts to discover its weapons programs

- The brutal repression of its civilian population, its refusal to account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained after the Gulf War 1 and failure to return property wrongfully seized during its invasion of Kuwait.

- Its continued hostility toward the United States including an attempt to assassinate President Bush and by firing “thousands of times” on coalition forces engaged in enforcing UN resolutions.

- Aiding and harboring Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.

- The attacks on 9/11 underscored the dangers associated with terrorist organizations.

- The numerous UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the “use of all necessary means...” to remove Saddam's threat

- The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 stated that it would be US policy to remove Saddam from power and support a democratic regime,

- The United States is determined to pursue the war on terror and Iraq under Saddam was providing support for international terrorist groups.

The bishops also refer to a “cycle of violence” but refers to the United States as the only actor in that “cycle.” This is not merely false equivalency, so often used during the Cold War to equate the United States to the Soviet Union, but worse. Here we have the bishops identifying the United States as the sole agent of violence. This statement is morally repugnant and intellectually corrupt.

We therefore conclude that the bishops who signed this petition are being either deliberately misleading or so poorly informed as to be a threat to their followers and to the United Methodist Church.

We, therefore, the members of the United Methodist Church, hereby withdraw our support for the bishops who signed this resolution and vote “no confidence” in their leadership.

We request a hearing by members of the jurisdictional conference to determine if the bishops who signed this resolution should be removed for cause.

Feel free to leave comments and identify your church affiliation and location.

Bush Speaking Out ... but...

Powerline makes a good point about Bush speaking out. He has been pummelled by the Left and the MSM (same thing). But he has been speaking out.

Follow the link to the Powerline post.

Target Boycotted over "Christmas"

Do you care about Christmas? I don’t mean the national holiday that falls on December 25th. I mean, do you care about the fact that those, like the ACLU, who have tried to remove Christian symbols from the national consciousness, have forced the word “Christmas” into a ghetto?

Going out to buy Christmas cards? There are many more “holiday” cards, or “season’s greetings” cards. Have you, yourself, become sensitive to the way you greet people around this time of year; wondering if you should say “Merry Christmas” or Happy Holidays?”

At some point, people who are feeling oppressed start to fight back. Even the Jews had their Warsaw Ghetto uprising. And when that oppressed group represents over 80% of a country’s population, the reaction can be dramatic.

The American Family Association headed by Don Wildmon has announced that they will encourage people to avoid shopping at Target stores because of their policy regarding Christmas. Click HERE for the full story.

The issue is whether retailers who make a very, very significant portion of their annual profits during the Christmas season, have increasingly removed “Christmas” from their greetings, their advertisements and their in-store displays. Instead, there is a generic reference to the “season” or an (unspecified) “holiday.”

As a result of complaints from Christians, some companies have changed their minds. Dr. James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, …said in each of the instances where companies have changed their minds, it was due in large part to customers who spoke up about the issue. “You can have an influence on this policy," he said, "but not if you just 'take it' — not if you just sit around."

I can understand that some of you may not care. And some would rather not raise the issue. Jonah Goldberg has a good article about it in RN Online.

But as for me, even though this is the season when the Prince of Peace’s birth is celebrated, the concept of Christmas is one that I will fight for … but in a peaceful way.

Merry Christmas.

Senator Feingold Questions Legitimacy of the Iraqi Government

From Truth Laid Bear:

Here's an appalling little exchange I heard on NPR this morning, where Senator Russ Feingold, everybody's favorite defender of free speech, exercises his own to question the legitimacy of the elected Iraqi government.

Feingold was thrillled to point out that Iraqi leaders meeting in Egypt at an Arab League summit called for a timetable for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. Steve Inskeep of NPR, to his credit, pointed out that the position of the elected government of Iraq differs from that expressed at the summit, but Feingold would have none of it (RealAudio):

Inskeep: "We heard earlier this hour from the national security advisor in Iraq, who said Iraqi politicians said [that they wanted a timetable for withdrawal] but the government of Iraq essentially agrees with the Bush administration."

Feingold: That's right: the government of Iraq that was produced basically as a result of an American occupation as opposed to a general consensus from the country is not the test. The test is what the major interests in the country said. The major interests in the country, the political parties, hey, these are the people that are going to decide the future of the country. If you got the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds all agreeing that we need a timetable, who do you listen do? Do you listen to them, or do you listen to these folks that have a very shaky government that frankly was a result --- of course, of an election --- but also of an American invasion of the country... that is a very bad way to ignore the wishes of the Iraqi people."

Absolutely charming.

Another way of describing, as Feingold put it in disapproving tones, "a very shaky government that frankly was a result... of an American invasion of the country," would be "One of the first democratic governments in the history of the Middle East which over two thousand American soldiers have given their lives to establish, and which many more stand in harm's way every day to protect."

Russ Feingold likes some “leaders” and does not have much use for the Iraqi government. On PBS he said “the government of Iraq that was produced basically as a result of an American occupation as opposed to a general consensus from the country”

In this opinion he pretty much agrees with the decapitators and car bombers, the Islamofascists who dream of Saddam’s restoration. Nice company you keep … Slimeball.

Hit ‘Em Again, Harder

Peter Mulhern in RealClearPolitics is not interested in the kindler, gentler Bush. He calls for tougher words.

When he took the nation’s highest office, George W. Bush famously called himself a uniter, not a divider, signaling a kinder, gentler approach to Washington politics. Fat lot of good it did him. He faces opponents who offer no quarter, even when the national interest is at stake. It is well past time to take off the gloves and return fire.

The President’s speech at the United States Naval Academy this week was powerful. It said most of the things that need saying about our war in Iraq and it left the Democrats backpedaling as they gasped for breath. At the heart of the President’s argument, however, was a contradiction which undercuts his case for the war in Iraq.

The President castigated those who demand an “artificial timetable” for an American withdrawal, but only after making this remarkable disclaimer:
“Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere, but I believe they’re sincerely wrong.”
...

How is it possible that purportedly patriotic American public officials can be sincere when they conspire to cut and run from our deadly enemies, to portray America as a weak and unreliable ally and to invite new attacks on our homeland? The President can’t have it both ways. If he is right about the dire consequences of preemptive withdrawal, he must be wrong about his opponents’ sincerity. When he concedes their sincerity he calls his own into question. The average listener hears him say that the Democrats are sincere and concludes that their policy prescriptions can’t be as outrageous as he says they are.

As it happens, the Democrats aren’t sincere....
...
President Bush has been extraordinarily fortunate in his political enemies. They, in turn, have been fortunate in him. He has no appetite for rhetorical hardball. Now and then he will state an unpleasant truth about the Democrats in Congress, but he never follows his own insights to their logical conclusions. The rest of us are left wondering whether he believes what he says.

A war leader can’t afford to raise that kind of doubt....

...

We can’t lose in Iraq; the balance of forces favors us overwhelmingly. We can, however, lose the political battle at home. Everything depends on the President’s ability to fight that battle. If he is going to do that effectively he has to start treating the Democrat Party as the domestic enemy that it is.

Continuing to pretend that the Democrats are a loyal, if misguided, opposition will only introduce more confusion where we most need clarity.

...

Attack until they stop twitching and then attack some more. If this seems unpresidential, the Vice President can do it. But one way or another, it’s past time for a serious offensive on the home front.

Fortune favors the bold.

AMEN (read the whole thing)

Murtha Spouts Crap

From Major John:

With all the eagerness of a dog returning to something it has vomited up, the conventional media has latched onto Rep. Murtha's rambling discourse about the Army being "broken" and "has done all they can."

Unmitigated crap.

READ THE WHOLE THING HERE

From a commenter: Sadly, for almost everyone in my New York town, John Murtha's record seems only as relevant as last week's media reports which set in stone this military giant's faked change of heart. Two weeks into the story and I still haven't encountered a single discussion where anyone was aware Murtha declared the Iraq War "unwinnable" more than a year and a half ago. Too sad! but it's also a real conversation stopper (try it, it's fun!).