Wednesday, July 27, 2005


Charlie Rose, on PBS, presented the admitted document thief now known as Samuel Berger on his show as a commentator about the war in Iraq. This is the beginning of Berger's media rehabilitation. I was stunned to see him in public for the first time since his media disappearance after the document scandal, with no mention of his disgrace. Mr. Rose gave him quite a bit of time, along with Gen. Brent Scowcroft, debating the strategy in Iraq. All the while, I'm thinking "why doesn't he ask Berger about the documents he stole?" Rose must have promised not to "ambush" him, but he should have, especially after 9/11 was mentioned. This just shows how Democrats who violate national security are given a free pass by the liberal media, at the same time they relentlessly pursue any possibility that a Republican may be involved in exposing a CIA agent who abused her power for political purposes, calling that a violation of national security. If Karl Rove comes on the Charlie Rose show 2 years from now, does anyone doubt that he would be asked about "the leak," regardless of the outcome of the investigation?


Monday, July 25, 2005


A great post over at the BLOG ALLIANCE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM (thanks, guys, I still support the cause) alerted me to a Washington Times op-ed piece about the Dems' hypocrisy on this issue. Some excerpts from the Times:

"Plain and simple, through the voluntary personal retirement accounts in the president's plan, low-wage workers will benefit greatly. In addition to their Social Security benefits upon retirement, because of the PRA's, they will have an additional nest egg of well over $100,000. Something that is impossible under the current, failing system."

"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid knows this, as does House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. They, along with the rest of the Democratic leadership know that low-wage earners living from paycheck to paycheck will realize a dramatic increase in their savings with personal retirement accounts."

"The system is failing, the Democrats know it and, yet, they have been basically ordered by Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi, not to offer any solutions. This, in spite of the fact that by an overwhelming 70-22 margin, Americans think that those who oppose the president's plan have an obligation to put their own on the table. "

"To prove the obstructionist charge against Mr. Reid, the media need look no further back than 1999, when he said, 'Most of us have no problem taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting them into the private sector.'"

Well said!


Republican Vet posts at Crosses aCross America for people to lobby Sen. Schumer (D-NY) to give Judge Roberts the same consideration given to Justice Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing. In support of this effort, and being a constituent of Sen. Schumer, I emailed the following:

Dear Sen. Schumer:
Please remember "the Ginsburg standard" during the upcoming confirmation hearings of Judge Roberts. If you confront him over questions he cannot possibly answer, you will be seen as divisive, not to mention obstructionist. These are the very arguments you make against the Bush administration in general. Don't come off as a hypocrite; ask sensible questions, and then vote your concience. That's all I ask of you.

Short, and to the point. Sen. Schumer doesn't even send automated form responses to his constituents, though Sen. Clinton does. Still, it's important to express this point of view to my elected representatives, especially when they lead the opposition to it.

UPDATE: Sen. Schumer auto-responds (sort of) in the comments section.

Sunday, July 24, 2005


Look at this AP headline: "Moderate Muslims Split on Suicide Bombings." Here are some excerpts:

"Three days earlier at the London Central Mosque, 22 imams and scholars also condemned the July 7 attacks and said the four British Muslim suspects should not be considered martyrs because innocent civilians were killed. But the Muslim leaders stopped short of condemning all suicide bombings.
'There should be a clear distinction between the suicide bombing of those who are trying to defend themselves from occupiers, which is something different from those who kill civilians, which is a big crime,' said Sayed Mohammed Musawi, the head of the World Islamic League in London.
Underlining the sensitivity of the issue, Musawi's contention that attacks are justified against 'occupiers' came only after a spokesman for the leaders read a carefully worded statement condemning the London attacks. Even so, none of the other scholars and imams at the event expressed disagreement with his stance.
Debates rage over whether the suicide bombings that target Westerners in Afghanistan, Russians because of Chechnya and Israelis in response to the occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank are permitted by the Quran.
And what about attacks such as those in Iraq that kill civilians and relief workers in an effort to force U.S., British and other foreign forces to withdraw?"

The story does quote some Imams that made a blanket condemnation of suicide bombings. These are the true moderates. However, the AP gets it wrong with the title of the piece. The split is not among Muslim moderates, it is between Muslim moderates and radicals.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005


I'm posting to announce a new blog that I will be co-authoring with Magua from LIBERALS SUCK. The blog is the "local chapter" of STOP THE ACLU.COM. This is not like the loose affiliation I have with the BLOG ALLIANCE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM, where I can't even post (though I support them fully). It's also more responsibility than I have in my open contribution relationship with the LOVE AMERICA FIRST blog. This is a chance to do something I've wanted to do for some time, which is get into the issues that bother me on a national and international level, and write about them on a more local level. The NYCLU is an outrage, infecting our State government so thoroughly that NY has some of the weakest laws against child molesters. New York's recently reinstated death penalty has effectively been thrown out by a court system corrupted by years of NYCLU influence. I intend to find out just how that influence is peddled, which is a huge job, here in the "Corruption Capital" of the liberal interest groups.

This group of blogs is just starting up, and many states have an "under construction" tag on them. Nonetheless, LEAV and MAGUA will be representin' against the NYCLU, and their twisted vision of "civil rights." I must also add that I will not comment on instances that I agree with the A or NYCLU. I believe that the overwhelming percentage of their efforts serve to harm life and liberty in our society, their defense of Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding. I can still give 'em an "attaboy" over here at LEAVWORLD, on the rare occasion that it may be justified (perish the thought!).

So check out my new endeavor over at STOP THE ACLU NEW YORK, and I want to again refer you to FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY, my first post at LOVE AMERICA FIRST. It gives an overview of where I'm coming from, though it kind of rambles, when I reread it now...LOL!

Some things never change!

Tuesday, July 12, 2005


I've got some thoughts for the emerging crowd of pundits and politicians blaming the Liberation of Iraq for the terrorist bombings in London. -You know, many of the same ones who are saying that Pres. Bush is imposing a Taliban-like Christianity on our country. Instead of seeing the London bombings as a reaction to an unprovoked crusade against the Muslim world, let's take a deeper look at what the Islamofascists hate about the West.

First, there's Madonna, Britney, and all the other "whores" (as they're called) that we allow to prance around half-naked in our media, which is increasingly available in Muslim countries throughout the world on satellite broadcasts. Second, all of the homosexuality that we allow, and show off in our media. (The big secret is that there are actually gay Muslims, though "in the closet" doesn't quite do justice to how they must live in areas ruled by radical Islamists.) Third, that we tolerate all religious beliefs, as well as the lack of any. This especially applies to the Jews, but Christians and Hindus are also favorite targets of Islamofacist violence. The fourth reason ties in with the third somewhat: that we have secular laws that supersede religious laws. It is illegal to kill or maim someone in western society for not believing in God, or violating any religious law. In the U.S, one can't just order a fatwa (religious legal decree) calling for someone's death; that's actually a crime in this country, and not protected as freedom of religion.

There are many more reasons, but those were the first four that came to mind. What motivates the terrorists is not our military invasions, but our cultural invasion of the minds of Muslims the world over. One could as easily blame the bombings on western support of Israel, or our continued business presence in Saudi Arabia, as on the Iraq war. Heck, Al Queda cited the expulsion of Muslims from Spain (years 1212-1492) as a factor in the Madrid bombings, which is commonly thought to be "because of Iraq." Who knows what truly motivates the terrorists to commit these acts? What we do know is what their sympathizers rail against in our society, and have since long before the Iraq war.

The irony of this is that if Pres. Bush truly did impose a fascist Christian agenda domestically, we probably wouldn't have a problem with Osama and Al Queda. We would be making women dress like nuns, ban all other religions, ban atheism and agnosticism, secular humanism, homosexuality, and everything else condemned in the Bible as a sin. Imagine a modern Inquisition, mixed with Nazi-style tactics. Line up all the opposition (left wing lawyers/judges, journalists, and especially celebrities), and shoot 'em down. The Islamofascists would simultaneously love, hate, and fear us, but dare not tempt our wrath..

"That" reality is aburd in the context of "our" reality, of course. Pres. Bush is doing no such thing to our country, so we will continue to assault their culture with ours as long as our culture sells in their markets. Just don't confuse the Liberation of Iraq with the underlying reason for all of these Al Queda attacks: KILL ALL WHO OPPOSE SHARIA AS THE SUPREME LAW ON EARTH. Most Muslims disagree with this, and many in Al Queda's leadership don't observe Sharia anyway, making them the ultimate hypocrites. Either way, there is no place for intolerant Islamofascism in the modern global society.

Further, the Liberation of Iraq is creating more support in the Muslim world for the U.S. than support for the terrorists by far. Pres. Bush has started a swelling of freedom throughout the Muslim world, and the media are "less than diligent" in their reporting about it, to be kind. Sweeping changes in world history are often missed by the media of their day, and this is no different. It's been too late to stop this change for longer than the media have ignored it, because it is the evolution of mankind into a collection of free societies. It will take many more wars to get there, but this is the current battle for freedom of individuals. The terrorists have no way to attack us other than by exploiting the freedom of our societies.

I would advise anyone who seeks to put the blame on the U.S. coalition's liberation of Iraq to see the bigger picture. Note the hypocrisy of defending the terrorist enemies of everything that western culture stands for, while demonizing those who made the tough choice to send our sons and daughters out to defend us from those same enemies. If you don't see it this way, you are living in some fantasy alternate reality, probably like the one I described above.