Search This Blog

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Bob Squires was a Great American

Robert Allen Squires. Born March 11, 1923. Died October 20, 2006.

You see from the picture that his grandson Robert bears some resemblance to him. Oddly enough, at that age I looked much like that as well.

My father-in-law, and my friend, he is dead, a sudden and painlesss end. He was part of the greatest generation. Bob was a young man when automobiles were still rare and there was no television. He lived through the depression, his family scraping by like most. He decided to enlist in the Army Air Corps not long after the United States went to war.

Reluctant Hero

It was hard to get Bob to talk about himself but sometimes he'd reminisce about the war and I took mental notes. He joined the Army Air Corps, hoping to be a pilot but instead being pegged as a gunner. He was so good at the job they kept him stateside for a few months teaching other recruits the ins-and-outs of being a bomber machine gunner, but finally assigned him to the European theater as the Allies began to push towards taking the Italian peninsula, and then having taken it, to use it as a staging site from which to bomb the European factories and oil fields of Der Fuehrer.

Bob was a waist gunner in a B-24. He told me he had 1 & 1/2 confirmed kills during his flights but when he would relate the old stories it was hard to imagine, with all the flack and all the fighters and all the bombers how anyone kept track of such things. The biggest battle he faced was the flight to bomb Ploesti, in which 178 B-24 airplanes took off and only 89 made it back to the home field. 58 of those were damaged beyond repair. Bob made it through that, although his plane was one of those 58.

He survived several more operations before his plane was shot down. Bob freed two of his fellow crewmen from the plane and got them out along with him to parachute to safety but one was dead before he even could be shoved from the plane. Bob evaded capture on the ground for awhile, but after a fight was taken by German troops and, although wounded, was marched to stalag with the occasional plunge of a bayonet into his backside for emphasis. He told me after awhile he couldn't even feel the pain. It was move and live or stop and die (the Germans shot all who fell by the wayside) and Bob would not give up and fall.

Prison camp was a bleak existence. The prison guards divided up most of the Red Cross packages for themselves and offered the prisoners thin vegetable soups and maggot-filled loaves of bread. Bob and his cohorts, those who survived, were being slowly starved to death. Then one day the prison guards began to run around and shout and they abandoned their posts. Confused, the prisoners formed up and began to march to the West and almost immediately were met by advancing allied forces, who cared for them and had them shipped to the rear for a journey home. The War was coming to an end!

Bob never showed off his medals, never obtained one of those Purple Heart license plates or any of that. He did keep in touch and meet with some of his surviving service compatriots. He told me he often thought of his friend and fellow gunner, gutshot, who he brought out of the falling plane with him and yet was dead before a chute could be opened. He saw his friend die, in the same circumstance, yet he would go on to live another sixty-some years. He wondered why he had lived and the other had died, and he appreciated that chance to carry on.

The WWII generation is dying off now. Another decade and they will be nearly gone, those men and women who defeated the Depression and the triumverate of evil Axis powers who were bent upon enslaving the world. I owed them my eternal gratitude before I had ever taken a breath! Once again, Bob, and all of you other Bob's who are still living, thank you! Your sacrifices have made my life as an American possible.

Now there are sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters and even great-grandsons who have come down from you, Bob. My first-born son was named after you and like a chip off the old block he volunteered for duty in the Army and fought overseas. Your first great-granddaughter is to be born next month. That you fought for them long before they were born was admirable. Those of us who remember you remember even more.

Humility and service

Bob loved practical jokes and had a great sense of humor. He loved playing chess with you, or risk, things like that. But he especially loved Pinochle and I cannot imagine how many hours I played that game with him and other family members - three handed, four handed, double decked, no matter to him! He loved Notre Dame football and basketball, Cubs baseball, and the Bulls. He listened to old, old country records sometimes when he was alone. But he was rarely alone, because...

I remember Bob as the most giving man I've ever known. He worked hard and lived modestly and always looked forward to sharing what was his with others. The welcome mat at his front door meant business. He was always glad you came by and he was always glad to put you up in a spare bedroom or on the couch or wherever and he'd go sleep on the porch if necessary to accomodate his guests.

Picking up strays

There was no child who had a falling out with parents and no adult temporarily without shelter who couldn't find lodging at Bob's house. Even sometimes friends and relatives of friends were taken in. Bob just couldn't say no to needy people. Did he get taken sometimes? Yes, and although he had been a diligent worker and a careful saver I bet you at the time of his will we will find there was nothing left for anyone else. He probably used it all up to the very end, providing a home to family members who had lost their way.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Democrats Have a Plan to Impeach Bush and Cheney if They Take Back the House

Democrats Have a Plan to Impeach Bush and Cheney if They Take Back the House

Yes, impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The plan is already in place should the Democrats take over the House:

A plan is in place to censure and impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Orchestrated and organized by the radical Left and Congressman John Conyers, Jr., this plan is ready to go should the Democratic Party take control of the House of Representatives in November.

The plan is the ultimate manifestation of left-wing hatred for George W. Bush rooted in the contentious election of 2000. Since failing to defeat Bush in 2004, the Left has focused its efforts on destroying his presidency by assembling a list of charges aimed at impeaching him.

Impeachment plans began seriously coalescing in 2005, after the NY Times published classified aspects of the NSA surveillance program. In mid- December of that year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, asked a group of presidential scholars whether President George W. Bush had committed an impeachable offense when he authorized the NSA foreign surveillance program. John Dean, the long-time Bush critic of Watergate fame provided Boxer with the answer she and most other Democrats were looking for: "Bush is the first president to admit an impeachable offense," he said.

Around the same time, Senator John Kerry, D-MA, told a gathering of 100 Democrats that, should they capture the House in 2006, there would be a "solid case" for impeachment based on President Bush's "misleading" the American public over prewar intelligence. Kerry was picking up where another prominent Democrat had, on November 1, 2005, left off. On that day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a rare closed Senate session with other Democrats to look into the "misinformation and disinformation" used by the Bush administration to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If the Dems take over the House, successfully impeach and convict President Bush and Vice President Cheney, guess what would happen as a result. President Nancy Pelosi.

It sounds far fetched, but that appears to be the
Democrats' plan:

Mary Katherine Ham discusses the impeachment plans and considers the pitfalls of a Pelosi Presidency...

"She is rated 100 percent by NARAL, the pro-abortion group. She gets an F from the National Rifle Association.

She gets a 100 percent rating from the National Education Association. She gets a 0 percent rating from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which wants to crack down on illegal immigration.

Then she turns around and calls Republicans extremists.

I do not want to portray her as a caricature of a San Francisco liberal, but that is how she votes.

A TV sitcom would reject as cliched a script that gave a San Francisco congresswoman such a voting record."

Elzabeth Holzman reveals part of the game plan on the Huffington Post.

Bottom line to what she asserts: "Every day brings a new justification for impeachment."

This is in the mind of the Democrats, even as they pretend and backtrack publically. This is the plan. Like I said, make my day!


Here is a link from October 19th: Impeach Bush Now! Says Democrats dot com!!!

October 19th:

10/24/06 - Santa Barbara Impeachment Coalition is going to ask their City Council for an Impeachment Resolution.

Then there's the and and many others. Liberals will try to pretend, some of them, that there are no plans to go forward with this while they are in the planning stages of doing just that - gathering petitions, looking for resolutions in state and local legislating bodies, in their rhetoric during liberal fundraisers. There is absolutely no doubt what the intention of the Pelosi/Reid mob - to impeach a sitting President because he disagrees with them.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

I finally understand Democrats

I suppose it would qualify as an epiphany or perhaps better said, a revelation. I was watching TV and discussing politics with my wife and suddenly it all hit home. I understand the Democrats this year!

Hmmm, perhaps I should take two aspirin and go lie down? To understand such a crowd could lead to brain hemorrhaging and the onset of dementia!!! But, no, in this case to understand is a good thing. Sun Tzu would be proud of me, right? Right.

Some of you are scratching your heads and wondering what in the heck I am talking about. So I'll lay it out for you. It's all about revenge. Get-back is an inappropriate phrase. What goes around comes around.

You see, the gap between Republicans and Democrats had certainly existed, but the rhetoric that passed between the two sides was not nearly so vitriolic as it is now. The escalation of nastiness began after the 1992 elections in which Bill Clinton was victorious. From that point to now the ugliness has grown, like The Blob having taken on a life of its own and growing with every political life it consumes.

Republicans were surprised that Clinton was able to defeat their sitting President despite a successful Desert Storm campaign and a series of victories over communism that had begun during the Reagan years and carried over during the term of President Bush #41. "It's the economy, stupid" was the battle cry, yet the economy wasn't all that bad. In fact, Bill Clinton was a marvelous campaigner and brilliant politician and the Republicans were no match for him, didn't really see him coming. But more than that was the candidacy of Ross Perot, who won 19% of the votes and was generally considered Clinton's best ally in the fight for the highest office in the land.

Republicans were stung, then amazed as the new Clinton administration came into Washington and wreaked havoc. The White House staff found themselves being offended and alienated by a tide of Clintonistas capable of being hicksville and arrogant at the same time. The new administration brought in a wave of staff that was half Hollywood, half Arkansas and not nearly as polished and genteel as previous administrations. There were odd happenings concerning surprise firings, a mysterious suicide that was not suicide, the crash of the Ron Brown plane, clashes within the State Department and the FBI and the CIA...much of this was transparent to the general public and much of it would little matter to them in any event.

Then came Monica. Out came multiple allegations of Clinton the womanizer, Clinton the rapist, Clinton the horndog. It was a new day, for Presidents like JFK and Eisenhower had female skeletons in their closets, but journalists who knew such things kept their mouths shut. Perhaps it was a natural fallout from the days of Deep Throat and Nixon, but suddenly President Clinton having sex with an intern became big news.

But then came the lies. President Clinton denied "having sex with that woman" and then denied it under oath and the wheels came off. Millions of dollars spent on investigations, an impeachment, and the Democrats and Republicans left snarling across the aisles at each other like crazed Dobermans.

That was then, this is now. Once it was commonplace for Democrats to declare that President Bush #43 was invading Iraq because he was either "finishing his father's business" or "getting Saddam because he sought to assassinate the first President Bush." Those theories didn't have much traction because they had no proof behind them and were quite illogical. Those accusations died a natural death. But I see now the Democrats were projecting! Here is the answer:


Bill Clinton was impeached. Democrats like to say he was impeached for a sex act, but the official reason was that he perjured himself. This is not the time to get into all of that, but it explains what is behind the Democrats in this election. The goal is to:

1) Win the House
2) Win the Senate
3) Impeach President Bush to make up for the impeachment of President Clinton!

Bizarre and ridiculous, you say? You haven't visited the Democratic Underground or the Huffington Post these days, have you? Democrats like to say that Bush lied to take us to war. They pretend that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton weren't all saying the same things about Iraq and Saddam Hussein: That he had WMDs, he was developing more, he was dangerous and something needed to be done. But facts won't stand in the way of the plan to impeach President Bush because it isn't about right and wrong, it's about REVENGE! Democrats want to pillory President Bush to make up for what happened to Bill Clinton. Impeachment is high on the list of several congressmen who will push for that as soon as (make that if) Congress features a Democratic majority.

NOW I UNDERSTAND!!!! Does the voting public? I do truly wonder. The Sheehan crowd can't wait to try to push for impeachment on phony and trumped-up grounds. No, they won't say much about it during the runup to the elections. But it will be a steady liberal drumbeat if the Democrats get into power. But I'm not angry nor am I afraid.

Why? Because I believe in the American people. When they are informed and understand what is going on, I trust their judgment. I believe most Americans would be horrified and angered at a plan to impeach a sitting President for acting on the same information that everyone had and doing just as many of the Democrats had said, which was to acknowledge Hussein as a threat and do something about it. The United Nations crapped out and we later learned why (It's the bribe money and oil-for-food money, stupid) but George Bush had the cojones to get a coalition of nation-states together to do the job and oust Saddam from power.

Americans are unsure that we should remain in Iraq. I hope they will be able to see why we must stay, but that is another post. But I believe what they will see when Democrats try to impeach the President that such an endeavor would be a bitter, partisan and hypocritical act and would castigate those spearheading the effort. Should the Democrats win in 2006 and go for impeachment, it will guarantee their defeat in 2008.

So maybe I shouldn't have revealed this to the world? Eh, couldn't help it! They might as well know that I am on to them. Nothing will stand in the way of their attempt to take revenge on the Republicans in the realm of their minds. It is when this begins to play out in the real world that they'll find that, rather than walking in with an attack dog on a leash to take out President Bush, they have a tiger by the tail. That tiger will be public opinion...and it will bite them oh, so very hard!

Dennis Miller solves the North Korean problem

See it right here!

Thanks, Angel!

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Let's get to know Hillary, boys and girls!!!

Hillary comes clean about Sir Edmund
Finally admits she was not named for famous mountain climber

Years after alternative media pointed out the virtual impossibility, Sen. Hillary Clinton finally has admitted she was not named for the famous conqueror of Mount Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary.

The New York Times, which repeated the claim as fact in a story just one week ago, reported Sen. Clinton's campaign issued a correction yesterday.

"It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add," said spokeswoman Jennifer Hanley.

For more than a decade, Sen. Clinton's informal biography repeated the story, and it was recounted in former President Bill Clinton's 2004 autobiography, "My Life."

The problem with the tale, however, is one of timing. Sir Edmund and his Sherpa guide, Tenzing Norgay, became known to the world only in 1953, after becoming the first men to reach Everest's summit. Sen. Clinton was born in 1947.

Nevertheless, Clinton recounted to the press her meeting with Sir Edmund in 1995, during an Asian tour, in which she told the mountain climber how her mother had named her.

"It had two l's, which is how she thought she was supposed to spell Hillary," she said. "So when I was born, she called me Hillary, and she always told me it's because of Sir Edmund Hillary."

In 1947, Sir Edmund was an unknown beekeeper, but Clinton had explained her mother read about him in a publication while pregnant and liked the name.

The Oct. 10 Times story – about Sen. Clinton's mother moving in to the family's house in Washington – stated "her mother named her for the mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary."

The above is from the Rodham Watch section of a website I have been to maybe a half-dozen times or so. I had no idea people were gathering so much information on the woman! It really is interesting how she rankles conservative ire so easily and yet in trying to position herself in the middle politically she is losing her far-left base. Go to the site, check a couple of links and see if you think the stories are valid or not. But beware, some of the links are an attempt to get you to buy a book!

Is Hillary the devil wearing high-heel pumps, or is she just a determined politician who continually checks the direction of the wind before opining on anything? Do you hate her, love her, or just look on in a bemused fashion?

Monday, October 16, 2006

Jessica Alba and Christianity and being born again

I saw this on the internet yesterday:

Sin City' actress Jessica Alba has revealed she quit the Christian church after being told she was too sexy.

(BANG) - Jessica Alba has turned her back on the church after religious leaders condemned her for being too sexy.

The 'Sin City' actress found solace in the Christian church after feeling rejected by the Latin community.

However, after four years of being a born-again Christian she quit the faith, because she was accused of deliberately trying to attract men.

She told Elle magazine: "Older men would hit on me and my youth pastor said it was because I was wearing provocative clothing, when I wasn't.

"It just made me feel, like, if I was in anyway desirable to the opposite sex, that it was my fault, and it made me ashamed of my body and of being a woman."

The 25-year-old actress also says she could not accept the church's attitude towards premarital sex and homosexuality.

Speaking about the Bible, she added: "I thought it was a nice guide, but it certainly wasn't how I was going to live my life."
(emphasis added)

I am a youth leader in my church, teaching High School kids and occasionally helping to teach the Junior High kids. These statements seemed pretty significant to me and I will tell you why. But first, this article is deliberately falsified/spun.

Falsehood/Spin number one: The syntax ("...has turned her back on the church") makes it sound as if this has just happened. However, if Miss Alba is 25 years old, she had to have left the church youth group at least 7 years earlier, if not before. Once the teens have graduated college, we point them towards the college & career class or another small group. You graduate youth group when you graduate High School! So, in the life of Jessica Alba, this revelation is ancient history, not anything new.

Falsehood/Spin number two: "...she quit the Christian church after being told she was too sexy." No one tells you to leave church because you are too sexy! (After all, no one ever told me that...*clears throat*).

Seriously, there are lots of sexy people in churches around the country. Here is what she said, "Older men would hit on me and my youth pastor said it was because I was wearing provocative clothing, when I wasn't..." From my observation, Jessica Alba does wear provocative clothing now, and it is quite likely she was doing so as a teen as well. So if she asked her youth pastor why this was happening and he told her the truth, why did it then offend her? The answer is probably contained in the rest of what she had to say:

"It just made me feel, like, if I was in anyway desirable to the opposite sex, that it was my fault, and it made me ashamed of my body and of being a woman."

Baloney! Being attractive to the opposite sex is a good thing. God made men and women to find each other desirable. There is no shame in being attractive or being attracted to someone else. It doesn't mean you should act out in inappropriate ways. A godly woman doesn't flaunt her sexuality. She wears ordinary, modest clothing in which she is attractive but doesn't go for the skank effect. Dressing like a slut will have the effect of encouraging the more aggressive side of men because it sends a message that, hey, you might be easy! Duh!

I am not defending men who acted out in approaching her incorrectly. Just because a woman dresses like she wants to be taken off and ravaged doesn't give a man the right to do it, or even to act inappropriately towards her. I believe in men treating women as if they are nice (young, in this case) ladies, whether they appear to be or not. A man should be a gentleman at all times unless provoked beyond measure. Someone threatening your family or the well-being of your nose with their fist, that is provocation beyond measure. Some girl letting her bod hang out all over, that is enticement, not provocation. If it is your wife, in the bedroom, it's party time! Otherwise a Christian guy should run away like the wind before falling for the trap of coming on to a woman who is enticing him.

The 25-year-old actress also says she could not accept the church's attitude towards premarital sex and homosexuality.

Speaking about the Bible, she added: "I thought it was a nice guide, but it certainly wasn't how I was going to live my life."

So, the infinite wisdom of 25-year-old Jessica Alba is far superior to that of God. God is responsible for the attitude of the church towards premarital sex and homosexuality...and getting drunk...and robbing banks...and murdering someone...and gossiping about them...and punching them in the nose...and all sorts of other things. Such a mean spirited God!

So now let's examine the key statement within the body of the text:

However, after four years of being a born-again Christian she quit the faith, because she was accused of deliberately trying to attract men.

Hmmm. I mean, doesn't she make a living deliberately trying to attract men? Besides, being attractive to men isn't wrong. Most, if not all, teenaged girls spend hours primping in front of mirrors in hopes of being attractive to the opposite sex. Dressing like a tramp is an issue, but dressing to look good to men without being immodest is normal.

Being Born Again

Being born again isn't a document you sign, or a club you join, or like a party membership. She may have joined a church, or just become a regular attender. However, being born again is far more than that. That is why the phrase is unique: Born again.

John 3:3-8: In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Yes, being born again is a change that happens within the believer, a change that is permanent. No one can be unborn and this is why Jesus used these words.

II Corinthians 5:17: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

If Jessica Alba never accepted that God is God and that the Bible is authoritative and she never came to really know Jesus and believe, of course she was never born again! She was never made a new creation, she remained as she had always been. So rather than accept the youth pastor's words as wisdom, she took them as an accusation. Rather than receive God's worldview, she has accepted the common humanistic worldview instead. So she was never born again. She was just going to church. Massive difference!!!

This article was intended to make Christians seem mean and judgmental. If you look between the lines, it is all about a young woman who didn't want to be "confined" by the precepts of the Bible and wanted to do things her own way. The church wasn't mean to her but rather told her the truth and she didn't want to hear it. So she quit going. It is a story of a self-willed young woman who prefers fame and fortune to God. Nothing new there, happens all the time. But since it is a woman who has more fame and fortune than most it becomes a bigger story and an opportunity for God haters to poke the church.

Yes, Jessica Alba is a beautiful woman. Yet that Bible that she prefers to ignore and that God she has rejected tells us another story:

Proverbs 11:22: Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Foley update - what if Foley had been a Democrat?

Gerry Studds is dead. He is the guy who did have sex with a 17-year-old male page. Mark Foley may have exchanged inappropriate chats and emails with ex-pages under the age of 21 but so far there is no proof he had sexual contact or conversations with underage persons or pages who were still in service. Which deserves the greatest condemnation? Well, the Democrats are calling for the ouster of Republican Speaker Hastert, who was informed of what was going on well after Democratic leadership. Is this hypocrisy? If you don't think so, let us see what they say about Studds now that he has passed away:

Reaction to the death of former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds

By The Associated Press

Reaction to the death of former Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass.:

"Gerry's leadership changed Massachusetts forever and we'll never forget him. His work on behalf of our fishing industry and the protection of our waters has guided the fishing industry into the future and ensured that generations to come will have the opportunity to love and learn from the sea. He was a steward of the oceans."

- U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.


"No one fought harder for human rights, particularly in Latin America; for our environment; and for the fishermen of New England and the entire nation. He was a true pioneer."

- U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., whose wife, Lisa, once worked as an aide to Studds.


"Gerry often said that it was the fight for gay and lesbian equality that was the last great civil rights chapter in modern American history. He did not live to see its final sentences written, but all of us will forever be indebted to him for leading the way with compassion and wisdom. He gave people of his generation, of my generation, and of future generations the courage to be who they are."

- Dean Hara, who married Studds in 2004.


"Gerry was a stalwart champion of New England's fishing families as well as a committed environmentalist who worked hard to demonstrate that the cause of working people and the cause of the environment go hand in hand with the right leadership. When he retired from Congress, he did not retire from the cause, continuing to fight for the fishing industry and New England's environmental causes.

- U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.


"I am very saddened by the death of Gerry Studds. From his days in the early 1970s as an articulate and effective opponent of the Vietnam war, through his consistent leadership on environmental issues, to his insistence that the U.S. government stop ignoring the AIDS crisis, Gerry was a forceful advocate for causes that were not always popular and that were consequently shunned by many politicians."

- U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

Sure, I get it. Studds is a hero and Foley is a villain because Studds is a Democrat and Foley is a Republican! It all makes perfect sense...

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Iraq: Dialogue reveals inconquerable biased ignorance

It is time for a rant, a rant against nay-saying ignorant liberals who make sure that facts don't stand in the way of their assertions.

"The Point of my first comment was that to make the backhanded case, as Radar has attempted again and again, to say that if you don't support the administration's policies, you don't support the troops is total, dangerous and obvious B.S."

B.S? I'll tell you what the B.S. is here. This last post was composed largely of a first-hand account of a soldier just returned from Iraq and also the testimonies of other soldiers from overseas. It is the troops who are saying that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. It is the troops who are saying that they are distressed when people blast the administration policies and it is the troops who say that the media coverage is incredibly biased and are missing the real story. When you read my story and say something like that, you are saying it to Rob, to Cecil, to Tom, to Chuck, to Greg, to young men that I know well who have been overseas and know the real story. You are telling the troops that they are full of B.S.

"Is it best to simply bury our heads in the sand while civilian idiots continue to ignore reality, and keep the boys and girls in a meat grinder?

We owe them MORE than that. I think so. Do you?

As a soldier once said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”"

You liberal idiots have strained my patience to the breaking point. I make a plea to put politics aside and pull together and I get responses like this. You people have your heads up the seventh planet from the Sun! If excrement is all you know, that is all you have to dish out. There are hundreds of blogs authored by soldiers who are either in the Sandbox, or were there, or are related to someone there and so on. They are telling us like it is and you refuse to listen. You don't have enough respect for the actual troops to hear them or believe them or give them the slightest credit. Every one of them volunteered to serve and how many of them wish to die? Few, probably none of them joined to die. But they joined knowing it could happen. Most of you whiners have never strapped on a helmet and a gun and a few of you were probably too cowardly to consider serving. Shame on you for having the temerity to argue with those who risk their lives to save your lazy butt!

"In my opinion, it's a little disingenuous of Radar to ask us to come together and support a policy that has clearly failed.

I've often been intrigued by the claim that calling the President an idiot demoralizes the troops. How does keeping them in a horrible situation not sap their morale?"

I knew, when I was in the service, that the time might come that I might face death. I decided my love of my country was more important than other factors and I served. I am one of millions of men and women who have made the same choice. These troops are proud of the fact that they do the job and that they serve their country. They expect to live but accept the threat of death because liberty isn't free, it comes with a price and the price isn't cheap. They may be called upon to strap on that helmet and grab that rifle and face an enemy that wishes to kill them. It is a bit harder to do when you read of some fruitbat that is saying that what you are doing is useless or wrong and that your Commander-In-Chief is an idiot. You want your countrymen back home living in comfort to at least appreciate what you are doing and the sacrifices you are making.

Combat is always a horrible situation. You don't think Iwo Jima was a horrible situation? The Battle of the Bulge? D-Day? Corregidor? Should we have avoided the wars of the past? If so, we would all be speaking German or Russian or what have you right now. We wouldn't have the freedom to post blogs or comment on them.

Liberal Lie: We cannot win in Iraq.
-Let's get down to it. Iraq is the front line in the War on Terror. Many liberals literally want to just cut and run and say all sorts of unsupportable and stupid things about what is happening there. They tell lies and I'll tell truth. Al-Queda in Iraq, for instance. The terrorists are there in full force and are dying there instead of living to come here and kill us. Why? Because we won in Afghanistan and we won in Iraq. Yes, we won in Iraq. The war is over there in terms of deposing Hussein. Now it is a war against terrorism and totalitarianism. It isn't so much about Iraq as it is about a concept, the concept of freedom versus totalitarianism. It is also about Islamofascism against Western Civilizaton. If we leave Iraq, it will be terrible for Iraq but the forces aligned against us will just attack us elsewhere. They won't go away. They'll see it as a huge victory over the USA and will look for an opportunity to take us on again.

Liberal Lie: The Iraqis want us out!
- That statement is along the lines of, "You're going to die!" Okay, someday but not now. The same is true of Iraqis. Other than some of the old Saddam gang and some extreme Islamics who want Sharia Law to prevail, the people of Iraq are glad we came, are grateful to us, and will be glad when they can protect themselves so we can leave. We are providing opportunities to women and children and the common people that they didn't have under Saddam and wouldn't have under a Bani Sadr type of government. Terrorists have poured across the borders from Syria and Iran, trying to stop the process. There is also sectarian struggling and violence to be dealt with. The post-war Iraq is a mess. We represent the hope of resolution of that mess.

Every single soldier I have talked to who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan always tells me that the people are grateful. They say the people come and thank them, even now long after Saddam or the Taliban have been deposed. Every single one without fail! How in the world do you explain that?

Liberal Lie: The Iraq War is a recruiting tool for terrorism: Oh, so that Marine Embassy being blown up, that was an accident? The USS Cole, that was a strange quirk? The first attempt on the World Trade Center? How about 9/11? There was no military action in Iraq when terrorists came to our country and wrought great destruction. No, terrorists hated us already and they hate us now. Iraq has proven to be a place where the fight has been brought to them and they are dying faster than we are.

Liberal Lie: We should have tried to get Osama instead:
So why did Clinton let him go? We keep trying every day to get the guy, who is being protected by Pakistani officials and border warloards and, by the way, spends a life on the run, hiding, no longer bigger than life. I suspect his life is a miserable one and it will be miserable until the day he is caught or is dead. But his organization has been decimated and is largely reduced to IED attacks in Baghdad these days.

Here is the TRUTH: If liberals take over in Congress it will be harder for the US to do the job in Iraq and help the people win there like they are winning in Afghanistan. If a liberal wins the Presidency in 2008, then the terrorists will be dancing and shooting off their rifles into the air in celebration. They need us to run away scared like we did in Somalia in 1993. They need us to hide within our borders and let them go about their business of trying to take over the world. They can sneak in and blow a few thousand of us up now and again and we'll go running to the United Nations about it. Ya-freaking-hoo!

I'll never again try to appeal to the liberal sector to do the patriotic thing, the right thing. They cannot understand or conceive of it! Anything that is in some way going to be favorable to George W Bush must be attacked no matter what, resisted at every hand, whether it is what is best for the country or not. You guys want us to be isolationists, you see the United Nations as a good thing, you see war as always bad and that is why, were you in charge, 9/11 would have been just the first in a series of attacks on us here on our shores. Osama was enboldened when Clinton cut and ran from Somalia and decided that we were weak and afraid of a fight. The enemy watches and waits, hopefully, for the Murthas and Kerrys to carry the day and for us to turn tail and flee from the struggle.

You guys are wrong, out of ignorance perhaps, but you are wrong. Go ahead and read some military blogs. Find out what the troops actually think. Then, if you still want to diss the President and the war effort and so on, go right ahead, but keep the military out of it. They don't agree with you and they are sick of hearing it from you. Be brave enough to find out what they say and then just maybe you will be brave enough to admit the error of your ways.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Iraq - from the horse's mouth

He had a big audience and he was nervous. His wife was standing with him but he would be doing most of the talking. We all clapped hard when he was introduced, his wife grabbed his hat off of his head, he smiled, and began to talk.

He was a young married man with a brand new baby girl. He had joined the Reserves to augment his pay, provide education benefits and because he loved his country and was willing to serve. But it was a shock when, right after the birth of the baby, he got short notice to get deploy.

They couldn't tell him where he was going, except that it was overseas, it would be hot and somebody might be shooting at him. He had just a couple of weeks to get ready to leave everyone behind. We were all at a couple's retreat together and the rest of us surrounded him and his bride and prayed. A few days later he was gone.

Winter was full on in the Indiana hinterlands, but he was in California training. Before the spring arrived he was in Iraq. It was a shock to his system.

"It was cold when we got there, didn't usually get above 100 degrees. But summer came and it got hotter...120 or maybe even 140. And I was wearing a helmet that weighed about 20 pounds, bulletproof, and then I had my protective jacket with inserts that weighed about 70 pounds. I had to wear a full uniform and carry my weapon at all times when I was outside. That is how we worked..."

So they worked. His unit was working on building up an airfield and the buildings that would be associated with a major airfield. They worked at night, 12 hours at a time, six days a week and six hours on Sundays. It sometimes dipped below 100 degrees in the evenings and " week it got down to about 80. It was a cold wave. I told my wife and she said, 'that's not cold' and I said, 'Oh, yes it is!' That was a great week."

He encountered the Camel Spiders, relatively huge creatures so named because they would crawl up under a camel and eat through its belly until it died. They were several inches around including their legs. Camel Spiders loved shadows and so to avoid the heat they would sometimes follow a soldier step-by-step, remaining in his shadow so as to avoid the heat of the day. They could bite and were a possible source of nasty infection but he never heard of anyone being bit and they weren't poisonous. He wondered at the Iraqis who, if they saw one, would scoop it up and carry it away. Did they eat them?

He explained how no one touched another person with their left hands and never ate with the left hand, since that was supposed to be the "hand that you wipe with, so they don't use it." You would never show another person the sole of your foot, that was another insult. There were adjustments to be made, living in "The Sandbox" as the troops call it. Iraq.

He learned so many things in Iraq. From the other troops, he learned that in combat areas there is no rivalry between Marines and Navy and Army and Air Force - they are all American troops, in it together. He learned that the Iraqi soldiers and police respected the Americans but in his area they rarely interacted. He learned to live in a semi-trailer, sleep in crowded bunk areas while explosions resounded in the distance, and to treasure those moments when he could enjoy air conditioning. He learned to find a new level of communion with his wife within the precious phone calls they shared every week (unless the base was under any kind of threat and all commo was shut down). With no tv and with a life of 24/7 spent with the men of his crew, he learned how to really know someone and understand their thinking, be truly close to other human beings. Best of all, he didn't learn what it meant to be wounded or killed. Only twice did his area come under direct attacks and in both cases he and his men weren't even there.

The attacks were usually a mortar or rocket launcher strike. There was little or no organized fighting anywhere nearby, just a few terrorists here and there hoping to get lucky by lobbing in explosives. Being about fifty miles from downtown Baghdad, he didn't see the suicide attacks that happen there, attacks that are timed for news coverage and to spread fear and unrest. On a clear day he could see Baghdad in the distance, just as you can see Chicago from the sand dunes of the Indiana shoreline of Lake Michigan.

He did learn a lot about the people. They were reticent at first, but soon became friendly with him and his buddies. Often they would express their gratitude towards them. He was surprised at how many had a rudimentary ability to communicate in English, way out here in the countryside away from the city.

He and his wife had given their talk to our group of high school students and now it was time for questions. The kids wanted to know, why did the Iraqis thank him and for what?

Now he sank his teeth into that one. He told us how the Iraqis explained things. Under Saddam, the dictator and his cronies had the money and power and luxuries. The vast majority of people were lucky to be given electricity two days out of the week. Schools were few and small and no one was taught beyond the sixth grade unless they had connections. Most of the people grew up scrabbling to make money and with no modern skillsets due to the lack of education. This is why Iraqi nationals sought to escape the country and come to the USA; for the education. There were soldiers and contractors building more schools and building up the infrastructure of the country and working to provide full-time water and electricity to all. There was hope for education and jobs.

What was the biggest adjustment for him? He admitted that he found he sometimes missed the guys he had been with all of the time and he missed the young boy who did their laundry, a kid of junior high school age who longed for more schools to be built so he could go back to learning rather than run around hauling laundry. He would wake up at night afraid because he couldn't locate his weapon, or he would wake up certain that he was still in his bunk and able to see the interior of the trailer as if he were really there.

They asked him why we didn't hear good things about Iraq, only the bad. He said he figured it was politics. He saw a country where two of the three religious sects were thankful for us, plus the Kurds, and that only one sect worked against us because they didn't want a free country, they wanted a theocratic dictatorship. But the people were thankful, good work was being done and the attacks were sporadic and primarily centered in major cities where news media might record them.

All in all, he was proud to have served, grateful to have been deployed for less than a year and very, very glad to be back home with his wife and baby. We gathered around them and prayed for them, thanking God for their return. He gave me a big hug and I sure gave it back. He was truly back home.


Greg and Debbie, the couple of whom I wrote, are now back together. My son Rob is back from Afghanistan in one piece. My godson Chuck is back from Iraq. My friend Tom is there right now, and so is my other godson, Cecil. Everywhere lives are being disrupted by our young people having to leave home and deploy overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, facing personal dangers for the sake of those left at home.

Some don't make it back. In an all-volunteer military, that possibility is known from the get-go. The vast majority of our troops are highly professional and dedicated to do the job and do it right. I was impressed with what I saw at both the training bases and home bases of the young men I know in the service today.

Today it snowed for the first time this year. It snowed hard, two or three times, but the ground and air were still too warm to sustain it and the snow melted almost immediately. In a month or two it will snow and it will stay and the whole area will be covered with white. It'll be cold, but it'll be beautiful.

In Iraq and Afghanistan today our troops are serving and are often in danger. Afghans are learning to live in a free society of their own crafting and the Iraqis are just beginning that process. Right now, were we to leave, it would all fall apart and freedom would melt away just as snow in Indiana melts in October. But if we stay the course that investment will pay off. Afghans and Iraqis will be self-governing and able to secure themselves as well and we will begin withdrawing troops. It'll be different from the government we know, but it will be beautiful, too.

Every single serviceman and woman I've encountered from those zones tell me the same thing. The people appreciate us and are glad we came. The conditions are getting better, improvements are being made, and the news media have everything slanted so things appear bleak and nearly hopeless.

I went with my wife and son-in-law and daughter to see a Toby Keith concert, for her birthday. I had posted a bit about that, but I remember something that Toby said. You know he got into a slam session against the Dixie Chicks after they began saying un-american things on stage and Toby defended his country and his President because, well, it is his country and President! But he is a musician and a patriot and not a politician. He said, "Screw politics, and God Bless America!" I understood what he meant. I say this to you, my friends. Screw politics! Let's pull together, all parties, to support our troops overseas and make it easier for them as they work to do the job they were sent to do. It's not a Bush thing or a Clinton thing, it is an American thing. Defeating Islamofascism is key to our very survival. I also say this. Go ahead and go out of your way to thank the troops who make it back home for their sacrifice and dedication. God knows they've seen enough negative junk in the press. It would mean a lot to them and I think they deserve it.

Others are saying the same things! Like Amy, whose husband has been to Iraq and might know a little bit about it.

You should really read this one, too! Pillars of Government Week, Part I :The Military. Cassandra posts an intelligent and worthwhile mini-essay on the military and the US Government and as it relates to the Iraq situation.

(PS - BTW my daughter's name is Michelle, it was her birthday and in a Freudian moment of some kind I gave Greg's wife the wrong name. It's fixed now!!!)

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

No Child Left Behind

This is one of my favorite posts on the subject of NCLB:

Democrats claim the President’s No Child Left Behind act is not working, and that in fact is hurting children. In fact, the DNC website claims that the “ most well-known policy failures” is “the No Child Left Behind Act.”

Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton said:

“The broken promises of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act are disgraceful. No matter how hard the Bush Administration tries to spin today’s events, they cannot hide the fact that President Bush’s repeated under-funding of his own No Child Left Behind legislation has denied millions of American schoolchildren the opportunity to succeed. Democrats will keep our promises to our schoolchildren with a new direction that makes sure every child in America has the opportunity to succeed in the classroom.”

Not to worry, this is more liberal rhetoric devoid of reality. If it was created by a Republican, it must be demonized. Democrats claim that:

Test Scores Raising Slower Than Before NCLB. From 2000 to 2003, before NCLB took full effect, the percentage of fourth graders scoring proficient in math rose eight percentage points, compared with four points this year. The percentage of eighth graders proficient in math rose three points before the law, compared with one point this year.

Click to read more ...

If you do read the rest of the post, the facts speak loudly for themselves. The No Child Left Behind act is doing the following:

1) Improving reading scores in schoolchildren
2) Improving their math scores
3) Raising the scores of minority kids
4) Raising the scores even in inner-city schools

It is also making teachers work hard at their craft and rewarding the schools that excel while denying extra funding to the schools that consistently fail. Who does this hurt? Not the kids who are learning more or the parents who are glad they are learning more. Just the incompetent teachers.

Hey, I believe more teachers are caring and hard-working individuals who give a lot of themselves to helping kids learn and grow and fewer just want to "mail it in." But it is the teacher's unions and the Democratic Party who are angry, largely because said teacher's unions contribute heavily to the Dems and many of the union rank-and-file are the lazy and incompetent among the teachers who are damaged by being made accountable for their work. The unions and the Dems want to put an end to NCLB, even though it works, for selfish ends. Shame on them!!!

Bill Clinton Poll - How did you rate his Presidency?

I keep trying to start my condensed review of the Clinton won't be easy. Obviously, being so close to the Clinton years means we haven't had much time to see the long range results of Clinton policies and actions.

Before I go on, I must say that there is one great problem that arose as a result of the Clinton Presidency - partisanship. Yes, Republicans and Democrats disagreed before then, but things just seemed to get uglier once President Clinton was elected. Both sides seemed to withdraw from the other and throw stones. Entire organizations were formed around whether he did or didn't "have sex with that woman."

I would like to open this up to readership before I continue. Those of you who have read my comments know that I am capable of praising Democrats and scolding Republicans so although I am a Republican (technically an independent and I will vote for non-Republicans from time to time) I've tried to be non-partisan in my reviews. Hopefully you will believe that whatever I say concerning the Clinton Presidency it won't be negative because I am not a Democrat or positive in order to mollify readership. Anyway...

I would appreciate your comments with a letter grade for the Clinton Presidency and hopefully a comment to explain your grade. This opens up the forum to you guys...I'd like to give you a couple of days to chime in before I go on. Tell us what you really think!!!

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Now for something completely different!

For those of you who weary of political and scientific and even philosophical exchanges, my alternate blog might be for you...


On this blog, the subject is sports like Baseball, Basketball and Football and often from the viewpoint of one who dabbles in managing fantasy sports teams. No politics. No evolution versus creation stuff. No rants against the ACLU. Sports 24x7. Check it out if you are a sports fan at all, tell me what you think!

Foleygate = Son of Rathergate

The Foley email-and-IM scandal has now focused more on the scandalous behavior of ABC News and the Democrats. First, a quick review:

The person involved in the initial chat revealed by ABC was not a minor nor a page. He was an ex-page who was apparently 18 years old at the time. Furthermore, the relationship never went beyond the chat stage. In fact, the ex-page, Jordan Edmund now claims that the whole thing was a hoax, a joke, a stunt that never went past a nasty chat or two.

Emails are, in most systems, saved until deleted. You can put them in folders or archive them but it isn't unusual to keep a copy of an email.

Instant Messages, however, are a different matter. You have to cut-and-paste the contents of the chat at the time and put it into perhaps a Word document in order to keep a record of the chat.

*Thanks to Lobo in OK for pointing out a key link that I followed to add to this post!*

The key pieces of evidence in the Foley case are emails that have been shown to be altered and chats that were kept out of sight for three years! So why, if you had such evidence against Congressman Foley, would you keep it hidden? If the behavior was so bad, who was withholding the evidence? It appears that Democrats held on to the information and waited to find a time to release the information at a time most beneficial to their election campaigns, and to hell with any kids who might in any way be endangered. It now appears, though, that Foley didn't ever have any relations with underaged pages at all but rather sent and received inappropriate messages back and forth with former pages. Let's peruse some links:

Little Green Footballs, the first to break the news that Dan Rather's National Guard documents were fakes, has noticed that there are faked/altered emails being passed around in this case.

Passionate America gets down to brass tacks on this issue:

"Foleygate : Mark Foley emails altered
***Updates at the bottom***

Who altered the Mark Foley emails?

The Congressman Mark Foley child sex scandal keeps getting stranger by the minute. I am starting to think it should be called Foleygate. Someone has altered the emails that Mark Foley is accused of sending to a congressional page. Look for yourself:

This is a picture of the email that was originally posted at Stop Sex Predators.

(I have marked the differences with red arrows. Click to enlarge)..."
Read the rest right here.

Flopping Aces has all sorts of additional information that reveals the workings of a dirty tricks machine. Here is are two excerpts:

"The fact that emails were altered is small fry compared to the fact that a known lefty operative appears to have had these emails and IM’s for quite some time and didn’t release them until now….putting how many kids at risk? For what?

A October Surprise."

Aces posts factual evidence to back up that statement here.

"Now this is how to summarize this story:

What R leadership knew: “How was your vacation, send me a pic”

What D leadership knew: “I’d drive a thousand miles for a hot young stud like you”

So who was allowing “abuse” ???

That scandal train is slowly squeaking backwards…."

Update! Flopping Aces has more details about the faked aspects of this case and the Democratic operatives behind it!

Hypocrites! Maybe in the case of the Democrats, that isn't a strong enough term. There is something inherently evil about knowingly placing young people at risk (if that is indeed what was happening) in order to pick up a few votes in November. Yes, Evil. As evil as a Congressman seeking to use his experience and power to seduce younger people. Foley, ABC News and the Democratic leadership all make me sick.

Friday, October 06, 2006

ABC's faked-but-accurate Foley story unraveling

Now that we know the primary page involved in the Foley scandal was an ex-page who was 18 at the time of the IM messages.

Now that we know that the messages were kept for three years before suddenly being revealed to ABC news, who incorrectly identified the recipient as a page who was "16" years old...released to ABC shortly before an important election.

Now that we know that the primary messages were part of a prank!!!

Now that we have suspicions about a dirty tricks machine run by the Democrats being behind

Finally, since we know that politicians on both sides of the aisle have gone astray sexually, it is time to call the Democrats and the Liberal Mainstream Media on the carpet for their extreme hypocrisy!!!!

Democrats, the party that gave Gerry Studds a committee chairmanship after admitting he had sex with a 17-year-old page and gave him three standing ovations on the House floor after admitting he had sex with a 17-year-old page, have no business trying to make political hay over Foley, who resigned immediately after the nasty IM messages were brought to light. Tell you what, you hypocrites, after Nancy Pelosi resigns over Studds, then we'll think about Hastert resigning over Foley.

For every Republican congressman involved in a sex scandal I can find at least one Democrat and maybe more. The truth is, as I said, this is a big deal because Democrats don't have anything positive to offer.

The economy is booming.

The country has been safe from terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Afghanistan and Iraq have held free elections during the Bush term of office.

Meanwhile, Democrats support abortion on demand, same-sex marriage and a cut-and-run policy in Iraq. Therefore, the Democrats want to talk about Mark Foley to take the focus off of what they don't have to offer.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Democrats Versus Mark Foley = Hypocrites 'R' Us!

I am amazed at the outcry from Democrats demanding the resignation of Speaker Dennis Hastert now that this Foley scandal has been revealed! I am half expecting violent mobs of Democrats to hit the streets, rending their clothes while burning down buildings and shouting "Clinton Akbar!" Ridiculous! That Foley immediately resigned is correct. That he has "problems" is obvious. That this should be an issue by which the Democrats seize control of congress reminds one of another era.

Question: Do the Democrats have their own set of "plumbers", dirty-tricksters trying to muck up the 2006 election like the Nixon campaign had in 1972?

Question: Since the Democrats were in uproar that anyone would care about President Clinton having sex with an intern, is this hypocritical of them?

Question: Since Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds actually had sex with an underage male intern (see near the bottom of the post) but continued to serve in Congress with the blessings of the Democratic Party for six terms after being censured (but certainly not forced to resign) how dare they demand further repercussions from this incident? Is it okay for Democrats to have sex with underage interns while Republicans cannot even send nasty text messages? I am not the only one who cannot fathom the "logic" here.

Question: Since these IM messages were sent three years ago, who held onto them and waited to release them right before a key election? Perhaps a faked blog with faked comments is a clue?

Question: Where are all these interns being mentioned by the Dems and the press? Is this post below a clue to the "16-year-old" male intern? Is he actually that young? See below...

Meet Jordan Edmund One Mark Foley Instant Messenger

Jordan Edmund 21 years old

Jordan Edmund is 21 years old

Mark Foley is a scumbag! Mark Foley is a scumbag! Mark Foley is a scumbag!

Now that that is out of the way I will reveal how I (and a few others) discovered Jordan Edmund was one of the former house pages that participated in sexually explicit instant messages with Rep. Mark Foley. Also I will explain to you why I believe it necessary to reveal Jordan Edmund's identity. You may not agree with my decision, but I hope to explain my reasoning by the end of this story.

On the evening of September 30th I did what many people did and I read the instant messages released by Brian Ross at ABC NEWS. Here is the link to the pdf of the instant messages. When I had finished reading the messages I felt disgust toward what Foley did. Below is a picture of the last 3 lines of that instant message.

Instant message with screen name Xxxxxxx out (clickable jpg on site)

I was so upset about what Foley said to an 17 year old boy that I started searching the ABC NEWS website to find out if there were more instant messages. This is what I found.

Instant message with screen name revealed (clickable jpg on site)

Same instant message with one big difference. The teen's AOL screen name is clearly visible. I could only come up with 2 conclusions; either someone at ABC NEWS screwed up big time or they meant for someone to find the unedited instant message.

Read the entire post from Passionate America here!


Time for some ancient history!

Top Ten (Recent) Democratic Sex Scandals in Congress

10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

Does anyone remember that Studds turned his back on Congress as he was being censured?

Finally, as nasty as this all is, the age of consent in the District of Columbia is age 16, so even had Foley had sex with an underage intern it might not be illegal conduct. Reprehensible? Obviously. Illegal? Probably not.

As usual, this is all playing out because the Democrats have no real issues.

Bottom Line Up Front with more information

"Perverts And Pages

I’ve been waiting for our gal Ann Coulter to weight in on the Foley Affair and I’m happy to say she finally lets fly. The target is Democrats and the double standard we are all used to seeing by now. Mark Foley is a certified creep but at least he had the dignity to fall on his sword and resign from Congress - something Democrats Gerry Studds, Barney Frank and Mel Reynolds refused to do when they were exposed for doing much worse. Follow the links if you have a short memory or just don’t believe it.

My personal opinion is that Congress and government in general just need to do away with the whole concept of Pages and Interns. The jobs are an anachronism and have become nothing more than a bordello for perverted Congressmen and creepy Presidents from Arkansas. For the time being though, read what Ann has to say about the whole mess ... "

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Darwin is Dead Carnival, Autumn posting

The Rules: All postings to the Carnival are accepted as long as they are on the subject in some way and as long as they are not patently offensive in nature. I may or may not agree with the submission but will post them all anyway.

Here are the submissions to the latest Carnival:



Neither the scientific method nor statistics requires formally unknowable events. Random error is the result of physical realities and follows logically via mathematical rigor. In no case does the concept of randomness demand or allow for uncaused effects.

The Scientific Method

The scientific method is a systematic search for regularity confined to subject matter that is observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. This much seems uncontroversial among scientists of various stripes. However, the reason for this normative view differs dramatically among theists and non-theists. Theists believe that that an all-wise, all-powerful, and rational Creator – in a word, God – formed the heavens and the earth. Modern theists therefore expect that God’s works unmistakably bear the mark of their Author. Since God is rational, so is the universe. God knows His work certainly and intimately, and the consequence of every event that may or may not transpire is completely determined and foreknown in His mind. This is the theistic scientist’s raison d’etre for science, substantiated by God’s word. Historians generally credit the origin of the scientific method to Francis Bacon and Christianity.

Non-theists (e.g., materialists) admit to...(continue reading)


Dinosaurs vs. Birds: The Fossils Don't Lie

(#399)by Timothy L. Clarey, Ph.D.


One of the biggest stumbling blocks to the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds continues to be the lack of fossil support.

The term "Dinosauria" was first used in 1841 by Sir Richard Owen in an address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, subsequently publishing the term in 1842. He was the first to recognize that dinosaurs ("fearfully great reptiles") were a distinct group of reptiles, much different from today's lizards. Owen defined dinosaurs as reptiles that walked erect, having a posture similar to elephants and rhinos. Dinosaurs did not have wings, flippers, or fins. Owen was the best known and most authoritative comparative anatomist in the nineteenth century. He argued extensively against Darwin's theory of evolution later in his life.

Thomas Huxley, the famous supporter of Darwin's theory, was the first person to suggest the dinosaurian origin for birds in publications between 1868 and 1870. Huxley found that some dinosaurs had a bird-like ankle joint, a short torso, massively braced hips, a long and mobile neck, and long hind limbs so typical of bird anatomy. He also found that some dinosaurs had holes in the bones for air sacs as in modern birds, and that some dinosaurs possessed the backward pubic bone typical of birds. Later, the presence of what is interpreted as a "wishbone" in some dinosaurs was added to this list.

Archaeopteryx to Archaeoraptor: Bird to Hoax ...(continue reading)



The American Statistical Association's Statement on Intelligent Design

Post Script (from the executive director):

In addition to having endorsed the AAAS resolution regarding science curricula (see my Board Highlights, Amstat News, May 2006), the Board of Directors recently adopted the following statement and resolution: It is the mission of the American Statistical Association to promote excellence in statistical practice and to work for the improvement of statistical education at all levels. Statistics, as the science of data, is embedded within the broader scientific enterprise, and as statisticians, we have a responsibility to help safeguard its integrity and that of science education generally. ASA takes no position on whether intelligent design is right or wrong. Nevertheless, it is clear that intelligent design is not a scientific theory subject to empirical testing, and thus has no place in science education. Therefore, the Board of Directors of ASA adopts the following resolution:

Intelligent design should not be taught as part of any science curriculum. Further, the Association urges its members to continue to support vigorously those principles of inquiry and verification that characterize sound scientific practice.


To the editor,

ASA has erred in its resolution regarding intelligent design. In its preface, ASA stated that “intelligent design … is not subject to empirical testing and thus has no place in science education.” In fact, intelligent design is critical to well established sciences such as forensic science and archeology...(continue reading)


Spirituality is Integral to Humanity

After my reintroduction to existentialism by the kind folks at Landmark, I have been in a tailspin. Existentialism asserts that the universe is absurd and meaningless and it is us humans that gives it meaning. This did not sit well with my first-hand spiritual experiences or my love for my spiritual practices. I've been in a hurricane of confusion, self-doubt and depression trying to make sense of them both, as living in a world without spiritual sustenance seems unlivable to me. Lately, thanks to help from Sir Maslow, I have been able to conjoin the meaninglessness and apparent insignificance of my life (as compared to the vastness of the universe) with my own spiritual experiences and inclination to lead a spiritual life.

So, how do Maslow, existentialism and spirituality correlate? Let's use Maslow's hierarchy of needs, one of the most commonly accepted models for human development, as our reference point. Per Mr. Maslow, we have needs that cascade upwards from physiological to safety/security to belongingness/love to esteem to self-actualization...(continue reading)


Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution

(#214)by David F. Coppedge

Critics of recent creation ridicule the belief that a universe so vast, composed of so many diverse phenomena and processes running at diverse rates, could be fit into a few thousand years. They are less likely to acknowledge the many and severe problems with an old, evolutionary universe. Some of these problems have become accentuated in recent months. Any cosmological system is going to have its share of challenging phenomena to explain. Before casting stones, a little humility is in order.

A strange cartoon graced the cover of Science News last fall (10/08/2005) that serves as a symbol for a whole class of problems for evolutionary astronomers. It showed a star-shaped old man in a stellar maternity ward. With its title, "Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation theory is in peril," the article exposed a running theme in astronomy: as far back as we look, stars and galaxies appear mature.

"Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men," Ron Cowen quipped. "That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos."

Other recent findings echo this theme of "mature at birth." Consider three examples from March of this year:

* The Spitzer Space Telescope found clusters of galaxies a third of the assumed age of the universe.
* UV and infrared surveys found "ubiquitous" galaxies at redshift 6.7, corresponding to 5% the assumed age.
* The Swift satellite detected a gamma-ray burst 12.8 billion years old in the assumed time scale. "This means," said Nature (3/9/2006, p. 164) "that not only did stars form in this short period of time after the Big Bang, but also that enough time had elapsed for them to evolve and collapse into black holes."

More examples could be cited. These findings corroborate a January 8, 2002, NASA press release that was considered astonishing at the time...(continue reading)



For sometime now, evolutionists have charged that complex outcomes (including biological life) may be generated from simple instructions. This was asserted by Dawkins long ago (1986) when he was amazed to find that simple instructions led to complex looking “biomorphs.” And what were biomorphs? They were sets of branching lines that superficially resembled insects. The instructions to create them were written on an Apple computer in a relatively simple BASIC computer program. Small “mutations” in the rules would lead to complex line drawings that delightfully surprised Dawkins. When he self-selected certain rules (thereby simulating a micro-evolutionary selective breeding pressure) he could produce relatively complicated looking “bugs” [my description]. Of course, if one looked carefully, one could see they were merely branching lines – ink on paper. Yet as a whole, the biomorphs did bear a gross resemblance to insect life due to rules coding for bilateral symmetry, the numbers and kinds of branching allowed, and rules for stopping the branching. Dawkins’ argument was that such rules were analogous to genes – the biological instructions that code for hereditary traits like hair and eye color, or more fundamentally, body plan. More recently (2002), Wolfram published his magnum opus “A New Kind of Science,” which asserted the same. Woven throughout this interesting book was the tale of “cellular automata” – simple computer rules that generated fancy looking fractal pictures. The claim being reiterated was that simple rules can lead to the expression of complicated outcomes.

Now, on its face, the claim is irrefutable. That is, in general, simple rules or instructions do code for complex outcomes. Otherwise, why have the rules? That is, the blueprint is simple compared to the house, the electrical schematic is simple compared to the radio. But such an argument overlooks two things. First, there are the ancillary structures needed to express such rules, and second, intelligence underlies the rules themselves...(continue reading)

Radaractive does not necessarily agree or disagree with the postings above, which represent (hopefully substantiated) opinions of others. I will be happy to discuss the articles with one and all, however.

The Bible: Source for the writing of the Constitution discussion

Hope you read the original post here...

"Three fourths of the Biblical citations in Lutz's 1760 to 1805 sample come, not from secular sources, but from reprinted sermons (one of the most popular types of political writing during these years)"

Terribly slanted anti-Bible posting found here

Lutz: "The Bible's prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of government, but the Federalist's inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant....The debate surrounding the adoption of the Constitution was fought out mainly in the context of Montesquieu, Blackstone, the English Whigs, and major writers of the Enlightenment (Relative Influence, pp. 194-195)"

Let's see, the political writings of the day included 75% sermons and yet the Bible wasn't relevant to the writing of the Constitution??!! Are you unable to see the forest for the trees? The Bible was an integral part of political life and thought during that time period. Half the framers of the Constitution were regular church members and probably all but two or three of them were at the very least Deists. The Ten Commandments was more central to the formation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than was any document produced by a "writer of the Enlightenment".

Let's take a look at the Declaration of Independence, which begins:

"WHEN in the Course of human Events,

it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Our founding fathers acknowledged a Creator God and used the Bible as a basis for the writing of the Constitution. They continually referenced God and the Bible in their personal writings. Both God and the Bible were integral to political discourse in the 1700's no matter what kind of spin modern observers wish to place upon history today.

"This post has a whiff of defensiveness about it. Sure the Bible reflects literary, historical, metaphorical and mythological merit - but not evenly throughout. It is an anthology, and does not evenly reflect all these things throughout. Because, say, it can be verified that some lake where Jesus supposedly preached actually exists does not serve as proof of some of the more miraculous sections of the Bible, which are far more in line with other existing creation myths and hagiologies.

The Bible is an impressive literary work on many levels, but that holds true whether God exists or not, and it holds true whether the Bible was created by God or by man. Nothing wrong with that either way."

The post was not defensive since it was not in reply to any kind of attack. That the facts in the Bible are verifiable may not prove it is true but it certainly starts us down that road.

"It can be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

Or not. How about Jericho? At the earliest, the Exodus was said to have happened in the 15th century BC (most accepted dates are later than this). However, almost all archaeologists agree that at this time Jericho was nothing more than a pile of rubble and had been that way for at least a hundred years."

Nelson Glueck said it, not me. Nelson Glueck was accomplished enough as an archaelogist and expert on ancient literature to have not only the acclaim of colleagues but to have made the cover of Time Magazine.

Brief Encyclopedia reference: Glueck, Nelson (glook, glik) [key], 1900–1971, American archaeologist and educator, b. Cincinnati, grad. Univ. of Cincinnati, 1920, Ph.D. Univ. of Jena, Germany, 1926. Among the more than 1,000 sites in the Middle East that Glueck uncovered were the copper mines of King Solomon and the ancient Red Sea port of Ezion Geber. In 1947 he became president of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati; from 1950 he served as president of the merged Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion. He wrote several books on archaeology, including Explorations in Eastern Palestine (4 vol., 1934–51), The Other Side of the Jordan (1940), The River Jordan (1946), Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (1959), Deities and Dolphins (1965), and Hesed in the Bible (1968).

Commenter, you are just offering up an argument modern anti-Bible scholars will use, advancing the dates on events of the past until they don't fit in with the archaelogical findings. Let's see some kind of verification of your dates for the Exodus and the destruction of Jericho before even considering what you have posted.


I do not claim that the Constitution is a religious document. I don't say that the framers of the Constitution wanted a theocracy because they didn't. The framers of our Constitution considered a belief in God to be fundamental to the point of going without being said. They didn't wish to eliminate God from government, but rather to incorporate Godly principles into a document establishing a secular form of government that would be friendly to all stated belief systems. Look at the very first amendment to the Constitution, the beginning of what we call the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One of the great shames of the secularists of this century, the left-wing liberals and the ACLU is that they have found a way to frustrate and break this amendment on the grounds of "separation of church and state" which is not found in the Constitution anywhere. The writers of this amendment put religion first, being concerned about conditions in the continent that they had fled might occur here. They wanted to guarantee that no state religion would be established and no religious expression would be banned. Every time a Christmas creche is taken down by order of a cowardly court, every time a school changes the words to "Silent Night" for fear of the ACLU, every time Hannukah candles are banned from a courthouse lawn the founding fathers might well roll over in their graves. For there is a state religion being established: Humanism. Christianity and Judaism in particular are under attack, with the document meant to protect them being (falsely) used as the weapon against them.