Science Told: Hands Off Gay Sheep

by Isabel Oakeshott and Chris Gourlay - December 31st, 2006 - London Times

Experiments that claim to ‘cure’ homosexual rams spark anger

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay.

What? Sheep have a "right" to be gay? There are times when I wish that liberals could see their hypocrisy from our side. I assume this is the first step in assuring that gay humans also have a right to be gay.

A mother has the right to kill her child right up until it is 90% born. At that late point in a pregnancy, partial birth abortion is still the right of the mother, according to liberals. However though the mother has the right to end the life of the child at that point, at no point can the mother do anything that causes the child to be straight. Not even something as simple as taking a hormone treatment. Now THAT must be stopped, according to liberals.

There are times when you just have to shake your head in disgust at the liberals. How can anyone argue that a mother can kill a child through abortion but she may not prefer it be straight? Are liberals actually claiming that a mother should be required to not interfere with a gay fetus but can kill a straight fetus? Does that mean they support legislation that requires the mother to be forced to bear the child if there are signs it is gay? I can see the next court order now:

The constitutional right to abortion does not apply to gay children. Gay children have both a right to be gay and a right to live so they can be gay.

Are the politically correct not able to see how stupid this seems to those who reject their partisan agenda?

'Old Media' And Its Power To Sap The Nation's Resolve

By John Reiniers - December 27th, 2006 - Hernando Florida Today

Neville Chamberlain, after cutting a deal with Adolph Hitler and selling out the Sudetenland, returned home to England and pronounced "peace in our time" Of course, Hitler lied and the result was World War II.

Bill Clinton did likewise and announced an end to nuclear proliferation. We all now know better.

The question arises why the Democrats are insisting the Bush administration talk to Kim Jong directly when it failed before.

Do Democrats just want talking points?

The world cannot afford to make the same mistakes today that it made in the runnup to World War II. This time nuclear war will be the result. The "cold war" was won because the Soviet was ruled by sane leaders with self interest, not idealogues. Neither the conservatives in America or the Communists in Russia were idealogues, even though the democrats constantly insisted that the "conservatives" were such idiots.

However there is little chance that either North Korea or Iran's leaders are sane. The old nuclear clock of the cold war needs to be reactivated. We are closer than we have ever been to seeing nuclear bombs exploding in America. The one thing that is true though is that standard Democrat appeasement is not the answer. That only increases the risk.

The "Eagle" arrives

Reposted as history. Originally posted in December of 2004.



Snow greets the newly created blog, our launch day is blessed by a huge snowfall of over 1 foot of snow.

Americans Cheated By 'Virtual' Laws

by Phyllis Schlafly - December 25th, 2006

Within hours of the news that 261 illegal immigrants had been removed from the Swift plant in Greeley, Colo., U.S. citizens lined up to fill the vacated jobs. The county employment agency received 230 job applications, of which 157 were specifically for Swift.

That blows the argument for the need of a guest-worker program to fill unpleasant jobs that Americans allegedly don't want to perform. Let's also take the example of Wal-Mart, the store that the liberals love to hate, because it pays lower wages and benefits.

In January 2006, a new Wal-Mart store in suburban Chicago announced the availability of 325 positions for which the average pay would be $10.99 an hour. Wal-Mart received an astonishing 25,000 applications.

Phyllis Schlafly is once again pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberals who hate our nation. They are the major element in the "open borders" movement of the democrat and libertarian parties.

There are many Americans who are being denied jobs. It is claimed they are "not willing" to take the jobs. This is not true but they are being cheated of these jobs by illegal aliens. And they are not the only people who are damaged by these illegal visitors to our country. As Phyllis also notes, "Many of those arrested were working under Social Security numbers that had been stolen from real U.S. citizens and, in some cases, this caused significant credit damage to the legitimate owners of the stolen numbers."

In the same article, Phyllis reports on a GAO report that says the government is abandoning trying to implement an "entry-exit" control program critical to the Bush concept of guest workers. Read this article if you care about our nation. It is critical that more people understand the guest worker program (in fact any attempt to "control" our borders by granting amensty) is as Phyllis calls it . . . "a sham". The "cheap worker" faction in the Republican party along with socialists in the democrat party are ganging up to open our borders even more.

Obituary: James Brown

Such was James Brown's influence that when Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968, the order went out to broadcast Brown's show in Boston live across the United States.

Punctuated by his pleas for calm, the show helped to stem the tide of anger and Brown earned the personal thanks of President Lyndon Johnson.

James Brown was a great human being and he wanted to be known as great. He was both aware of his own greatnes and still a down to earth man. He hung around with Presidents and powerful people and yet I knew him as very human. I did not know him nearly so much as know about him. However my exeperiences confirmed the stories I heard. Let me explain.

My first brush with James Brown came in 1962. I was in a church group that was quite active in music, and a couple of the group leaders insisted we had to go see this new "performer" James Brown. I listened to one of his records and was blown away with its power. The place that we went on Saturday night was the skating rink in downtown Atlanta near the Atlanta University comlex. It is a part of town I had never been to. It was in those highly segregated days called the "black" part of town.

There we were. Eight white teenagers in a crowd that was otherwise totally black. While we were waiting for the show to start, a couple of the people sitting near us asked why we were there. Buddy, one of our group, said in a completely earnest way, we were there to hear the "great James Brown". It broke the ice. People started asking us about which James Brown songs we liked and why. We were offered a "spike" of bourbon for our cokes. We were accepted that night as fellow fans. We met another Christian music group in front of us and started talking with them about their music. We got their numbers before the night was over and later exchanged visits with them at their church and our church. For that night, color did not matter.

That was over fourty years ago and at least one thing that is sad is that we still have mostly segregated churches in America. My second brush with James Brown came nearly 3 decades later.

In 1987 I was in Nice on a business trip. The following week I was to stay in Germany but I spent the weekend in Nice to do some site-seeing. After a day trip to Cannes, I got back to my hotel in the middle of the afternoon not having had any lunch. It was a beautiful spring day and I planned to walk along the Mediteranean shore, the Cote d'Azur , after lunch. Sitting in the totally empty restaurant waiting for my food who should walk in but James Brown and his wife. I could not resist saying hello. James Brown walked over and said it was great to run into another American.

We chatted for a few moments. Spontaneously he asked if he and his wife could join me. He was as enthusiastic and energetic in person as I had expected him to be. He and his wife were very smart and we talked about travel in Europe, places to stay, music, French dislike for Americans and even politics. It was a relly enjoyable time.

When lunch was over he and his wife had to leave for another appointment. I realized I had completely forgotten about my walk. I also realized that the visit was such an improbable event. One of those crazy things that happen in life. I was just a fan and yet he had gone way out of his way to make me feel comfortable. He could just as easily have eaten on the other side of the restaurant and it would have been justified. I was alone. No one would have known.

The obituary above (click on the title to this posting) will tell you more about some of his accomplishments and even some of his problems.

This second obituary tells another great story I love about the way James Brown ended his shows. It was classic and unique and a part of the myth of the man.

Leave it to the London Times to title their obituary "The man who wrote the Kama Sutra of soul". It is the most enthusiastice of the articles I have found, and matches my feelings about the man and the myth.

Whatever the myths, James Brown was a decent, patriotic and down to earth human being. From my experiences all this is true. May God bless him . . . especially his family.

Our Most Destructive Kind Of Racism

by Star Parker - December 18, 2006 - Townhall.com

Paula Zahn devoted two of her hour-long CNN shows this week to the topic "Skin Deep: Racism in America."

After taking the time to watch, the question I walked away with was: "What was the point?"

[snip]

It ignored the most destructive and widely prevailing racist attitude in our society today, one of which both blacks and whites are guilty. This is the attitude that blacks cannot be held to the same standards as whites.

Expectations. The lack of expectations is insidious. The most intelligent writer in America is a black man, Thomas Sowell. Why is he not well known in the black community? I am amazed at the number of black leaders in my community that don't know who he is. I am amazed at the number of black leaders in the Inner Banks who have never read anything by this man. That is a part of the expectations game. Thomas Sowell is a conservative and thus cannot be allowed to influence other blacks. We cannot admit that a black man can write better than white men (and get rich doing it) and still retain affirmative action. It makes affirmative action a joke.

If I wrote this article, I would be denounced as a racist. Star Parker writes this article, and she is called an "Uncle Tom" by many in the black community, just as Bill Cosby was when he asked a similar question. Why is it that there are so many democrats who will not allow this issue to be discussed, much less admit to its truth.

Truth is truth. As long as "political correctness" trumps acknowleding the truth, the political dialog in America is corrupted. As long as the political dialog is corrupted we are in serious trouble. Democracy cannot survive when demagogues win, and right now the demogogues are winning.

As Thomas Jefferson once said, ". . .I fear for my country . . . "

Losing Our Grip On Reality

by Tony Blankley - December 20th, 2006 - Townhall.com

In fast succession mass and long-distance communication was advanced by the general availability of telephones (1870s), linotype-fast newspapers (1880s), radios (1920s), televisions (1950s), computers (1970s), the Internet (1990s) and cellular text, audio and now video devices (2000s).

Over those centuries we have gone from ignorance of the events of the world due to the absence of information to today's condition of confusion and ignorance due to an unending glut of information.

We are living out the truth of Sherlock Holmes' insight that to hide something, surround it in plain sight with many similar items. In his fictional case, a criminal hid an incriminating broken piece of porcelain in a room filled with broken porcelain. Which was the piece that mattered?

Today, as snippets of news flash past our consciousness at a rate and volume greater than our capacity to absorb, we don't know what to know and what to ignore. And of the information we decide to notice and absorb, there are so many versions of it that we don't know what is true and what is false or distorted.

An important article. This is in fact one of the biggest issues we face today. Most people do not have time to stay up with all of the important issues of the day, and until recently we got our news from sources that allowed us to turn over to them the choice of what information was important. We trusted them.

Then a really bad thing happened. Our news sources became corrupted by political correctness. These people allowed the democrat party to declare certain issues could not be challenged. About the same time the democrat party ran out of its members a large group of people that came to be called neo-conservatives.

Around this time talk radio started up, and suddenly the Main Stream Media (MSM) no longer had a monopoly. Liberals screeched as if this was the end of the world. They ignored that 90% of the media was still under the control of liberals. However they could not stand even one small voice challenging their "political correctness" mantra. . . . especially when it was clear that talk radio was pointing out the idiocy of their positions. They came to the conclusion that the only solution was to screech their views louder.

Then came the Internet, shortly the World Wide Web and then a simple web editor concept called Web Logs. That permitted "blogs", a simple method for millions to comment on current events . . . . and today even the facts of such issues as Dan Rather's attempt to frame George Bush can be successfully challenged given enough time.

This has become a part of the current problem with communication. Because we don't have a lot of time it has created a situation where a constant drumbeat of lies has the ability to steer public perceptions. Since the democrat decision that they had to screech their view to get them heard there has been a concerted pattern of constant lies in the MSM. In the last election, the MSM unquestionably drummed the democrat theme that we were losing the war in Iraq. It became an accepted fact even though it is not true because George Bush failed to effectively rebut it. Our soldiers are not losing.

However recently even George Bush, the President, with his huge information resources, has claimed we are losing. He believes the MSM! It is truly sad when our leaders do not know how to use their own power to communicate effectively.

Tony Blankley described the problem with George Bush's Presidency when he said "the leader must by force of mind, word, image and personality define for the public some semblance of objective reality. As never before, the leader who fails in that mission will fail in his office."

George Bush is failing. He has lost sight of objective reality. Our soldiers are not losing. However Bush is the leader and he is taking our country down with him.

Power To The Swift Boaters!

by Bradley A. Smith - December 20, 2006 - Los Angeles Times

BRADLEY A. SMITH, who served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission in 2004, is a professor of law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio.

LAST WEEK, the Federal Election Commission fined MoveOn.org, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and two other groups a total of $629,500 for violating campaign finance laws during the 2004 election. According to the FEC, these "527" organizations (so named for the tax code provision governing their activities) ought to have registered as political action committees, which would have limited their ability to receive large donations and, in the case of MoveOn and the Swifties, would probably have shut both groups out of the 2004 election altogether.

This is THE END OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA.

You think this statement too strong? Then you are living in a dream world. John McCain and his MSM syncophants have touted this nonsense until it is being bought by the average public.

The McCain theory? That some people should not be allowed free speech. They should instead be denied the ability to participate in democracy because they have "money". The only poroblem is that these two groups were neither funded by the rich or by business (the liberal equivalent of being the evil rich). They were instead funded by a lot of middle class people. To McCain though, it is okay for people he doesn't control (the way he controls the MSM) to be stripped of free speech.

The end of free speech is THE END OF DEMOCRACY and this insanity is ending free speech.

It is important to understand what these two groups did.

What did the groups really do wrong? Did they bribe or corrupt politicians? Well, no. You won't find "Duke" Cunningham, William Jefferson or Bob Ney connected to MoveOn or the Swift Boat Veterans. Did they make illegal contributions to campaigns? Well, no again. Did they seek out special favors or illegally coordinate their efforts with candidates? No. The FEC admitted that, after a "thorough" investigation, it found no evidence that any of the groups operated in concert with candidates or sought legislative favors.

The elitist cognoscenti in Washington, who support anything they think will take money out of politics, are pleased, huffing only that the fines are too small. The FEC admitted to going easy on the groups, given the "uncertainty" in the law. In my view, there is no uncertainty — the groups did not violate the law at all.

What these groups did was express political opinions that our government masters found unsettling. They did not contribute to John McCain and let him spend their money. They had the audacity to think that they could express their opinions directly to the people. You know, free speech. That is all they did wrong. They failed to "bribe" McCain, Christopher Shays and Martin T. Meehan and others who don't see themselves as representing us but see their jobs as telling us what to think.

This is an important article. Please read by clicking on the title above. If free speech ends, DEMOCRACY ENDS. John McCain and Chris Shays are working hard to end free speech.

Americans Say U.S. Is Losing War

by Peter Baker and Jon Cohen - December 13, 2006 - Washington Post

Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor changing the U.S. mission in Iraq from direct combat to training Iraqi troops, the Washington Post-ABC News survey found. Sizeable majorities agree with the goal of pulling out nearly all U.S. combat forces by early 2008, engaging in direct talks with Iran and Syria and reducing U.S. financial support if Iraq fails to make enough progress.

Yet neither President Bush nor Democratic leaders who will take over Congress in three weeks have embraced the panel's report since it was released last week.

[snip]

The dichotomy between the public's support for the plan and the Washington establishment's ambivalence illustrates the complex political environment as Bush searches for a new strategy in a war that has outlasted U.S. involvement in World War II. A war-weary public appears hungry for ideas that would represent a major change, but political leaders remain uncertain whether the plan's proposals would improve the situation.

A war-weary public? I think that is an honest summing up of the American public's reaction to this war. Ask anyone on the street and you get an opinion we are taking "unacceptable" casualties. The American public wants out of the war. Ask anyone who started this war and the majority say we started it. They have accepted that it was an optional war.

The American public does not believe that there is truly a threat from islamofascism. The American public is convinced that we are torturing prisoners at Quantanamo. The American public is convinced there is no difference between "water-boarding" a known terrorist leader to find out their plans to kill us and the islamofascists sawing off the head of an innocent civilian who has no knowledge of any plans we have about anything. Yep. Absolutely no difference to the average American. They are appalled and want us to stop defending ourselves unless we can be "nice" to the islamofacists.

Lets get back to that war-weary public. At least part of the problem is that the average American thinks that we are evil for using atomic bombs to end World War II. I conducted a small poll this week. With outrageous ignorance of the death toll on Iwo Jima, and complete indifference to the probable death toll of one half million to one million American lives if we invaded Japan, the democrats and independents I talked to for my poll still think we should not have used the atomic bombs to end World War II.

These are the same people who think that the current death toll in the war on islamofascism is excessive. That FIVE YEAR death toll by the way is still 1,000 lives less than the ONE WEEK death toll on Iwo Jima. If the current American public had been the public of World War II, Amercans would now be speaking German or Japanese. Their rejection of reality is nearly complete. Wishful thinking is accepted as completely okay.

Our nation has lost its way. Our political parties are insanely partisan and are completely indifferent to the consequences of losing the current war against the islamofascists. Our political parties are focused on elections. The medium term expectation by those who understand the islamofascist threat is that Israel is going to experience nuclear bombs destroying Tel Aviv. Shortly thereafter we will see nuclear bombs in Washington and New York. No one will even talk about why that is so. We have become the most short sighted and narcicistic nation on earth. The threat is simply ignored.

The price we will pay for that ignorance is awful, and not one of the people who are bringing it about will ever believe it is their fault.

To The President: Lead!

by Bill Murchison - December 12th, 2006 - Townhall.com

Wasn't it plain enough going in? You don't need a blue-ribbon commission stuffed and dressed with Beltway eminences to tell you how to win a war.

The one thing that is clear is that George W. Bush does not have a clear plan for how to win this war. "Stay the course" for a plan that others suggested to him is not a substitute for leadership. Does anyone remember Ronald Reagan and Reykjavik, Iceland? Reagan disavowed every single one of his advisers and made his own decision about how to win the cold war. Reykjavik was the proof he knew what he was doing. Reagan won the cold war.

Bush has no clue how to win this war. He is looking for a consensus among his advisers. Based on this, he would have lost the cold war . . . . . . and he is losing the war in Iraq.

It is not the role of a President to have his advisers tell him what to do. It is not the role of a President to wait until there is a consensus. It is the role of a President to lead. Talking with people is fine. But at some point you have to make a decision. Sometimes you need to change course. But you cannot manage by consensus. We don't need a President for that. Our form of government was designed to recognize that in times of crisis we need one person to lead. That is why one man, the President, is given as much power as the entire legislative body. One man George. You.

This President, George W. Bush, is as clueless as his daddy. Our nation is paying the price.

The Sacred College Of Historians

by Emmett Tyrrell - December 7th, 2006 - Townhall.com

WASHINGTON -- There are certain questions frequently asked of eminent minds in public that must be avoided lest that eminence reveal himself to be a moron or at least moronic in certain areas of intellectual endeavor. Recently the Washington Post addressed one of these questions to Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University. Naif that he is, Foner exuberantly rushed forward to prove my point. The question asked was one variation or another of "rank the present president of the United States on the historians' scale of 'great' to 'failure.'" Foner, though the author of distinguished historical studies of 19th century America, bemanured his scholarly credentials by ranking George W. Bush as "the worst president in U.S. history." Now I like a good joke, but nowhere in his tortured exposition was there a hint of humor.

I am sure that Emmett Tyrrell is correct that George Bush does not belong as the worst President in history. However I do think that Tyrrell's listing of George Bush's accomplishments (a minor but still obvious part of the article), ignores Bush's shortcomings. I also think it ironic that if you asked the professor, Eric Foner, he would not list any of Bush's real shortcomings in his evaluation. My list includes the following:

1. Bush has refused to enforce our immigration laws and continues, as do many Republicans, to prefer open borders for the cheap labor it permits. There is no doubt that this cheap labor helps to reduce the outflow of manufacturing jobs to other countries. However, ignoring the laws passed and allowing 12 million illegal aliens to reside here contributes mightily to the attitude around the world that our laws mean nothing since we don't even care about them ourselves. The rule of law is a joke because of this attitude.

2. We are at war, and the number one job of a war President, as shown by Lincoln and Roosevelt, is to keep the citizens focused on the war. Bush has tried to manage it as a minor issue, and focus on his domestic agenda, growing the education department, expanding welfare entitlements for the elderly and involving more religious groups in sucking at the public trough of government handouts. None of these are consistent with any form of conservative thought. They are in fact more classicly liberal than conservative. The Republican Party is in disarray because of convulsive attempts to support the President while rationalizing this program with conservatism.

George Bush has had very good economic policies, and our job and business markets reflect those policies. Only a moron like this professor can ignore what he has done good. However I suspect that George W. Bush has, like his father before him, alienated much of the conservative base in his party. He will be despised by many in the Republican Party for this even more than he is despised by the socialist elements in the democrat party for his economic success.

Tyrrell is right in one thing though. Being despised by partisan elements in your own time does not equate to being a bad President historically. I despise Bush, but I do not think that equates to being the "worst President in history".

ISG Must Stand For, Uh, Inane Strategy Guesswork

by Mark Steyn - December 10th, 2006 - Chicago Sun-Times

Well, the ISG -- the Illustrious Seniors' Group -- has released its 79-point plan. How unprecedented is it? Well, it seems Iraq is to come under something called the "Iraq International Support Group." If only Neville Chamberlain had thought to propose a "support group" for Czechoslovakia, he might still be in office. Or guest-hosting for Oprah.

But, alas, such flashes of originality are few and far between in what's otherwise a testament to conventional wisdom. How conventional is the ISG's conventional wisdom?

Read the article. I really can't think of any comment that will equal this masterful deconstrucion of the imbeciles who wrote the ISG report. Steyn at his best.

Jeane Kirkpatrick

by Staff - December 9th, 2006 - Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal)

Jeane Kirkpatrick, who died yesterday at 80, was that rare thing--a public intellectual and a public figure. She excelled at both.

Ms. Kirkpatrick is known to the public at large because Ronald Reagan, after defeating Jimmy Carter for the Presidency in 1980, appointed her U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. It is worth mentioning in this context that earlier this week Senate Democrats succeeded finally in driving John Bolton from the U.N. ambassadorship. The mind's eye recalls the televised image in the early 1980s of Ambassador Kirkpatrick, a Democrat then, seated at the U.N. Security Council table and publicly defending U.S. interests against the Soviet Union with an articulate, no-nonsense bluntness that makes Mr. Bolton sound like Little Bo-Peep by comparison. That style--American interests made perfectly clear--will be missed.

She knew how to use words as weapons. Her most famous turn of phrase, at the 1984 GOP convention, was "San Francisco Democrats." Ms. Kirkpatrick's "Blame America First" speech marked her most public departure from the Democratic Party.

Explaining in an interview years later why she and other Democratic intellectuals--yes, they were neoconservatives--formed the anti-Soviet Committee for the Present Danger and aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick said: "We were concerned about the weakening of Western will." Incidentally, the antipathy to "the neoconservatives" that one hears so often these days flows back directly to those years and the neocon battles with American liberals.

Jeane Kirkpatrick was a giant. I first learned about her when Ronald Reagan appointed her as Ambassador to United Nations. Like John Bolton, she stood up for America without equivocation. It was through her that I learned about "neo-conservative" philosophy and started to adopt that philosophy as a major part of my thinking on what we should be doing as a nation.

Like most neo-conservatives, I left the democratic party over their rejection of the principles of free enterprise and adoption of the evils of socialism as their economic world view. I also rejected the democratic party's embracing of the "blame America first" knee jerk reaction to any international issue.

Jeane Kirkpatrick (AP Photo)

You cannot truly be a liberal (as defined by the democrat party) and a patriot. Jeane Kirkpatrick taught me that. Many people love her for the fact that she was smart and strong and loved America. Many democrats hate her for the same reasons.

God bless her. We will miss her greatly.

Iranian Leader Ahmadinejad Warns America

In a chilling deconstruction of Ahmadinejad's letter in the Washington Times, author Kenneth R. Timmerman writes that Ahmadinejad's message to America is the following: "Impeach George W. Bush, allow the Muslims to destroy Israel, and adopt Islam -- or else you will be destroyed."

Democrats are ready to do all three. Just so long as the Iranians agree that we will be the last country that has to convert.

The signal Iranians are implementing their plan? A nuclear bomb going off in Tel Aviv.

Bloomberg Blasts Bolton Opposition

by Staff - December 6th, 2006 - NewsMax.com

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the move to block the Senate confirmation of John Bolton as America’s ambassador to the U.N. a "cheap political stunt on the part of a handful of people."

Bloomberg also declared that the holdup of Bolton's confirmation, which led him to resign Monday, was a "disgrace" and "an outrage," and said "countries like America and Israel will suffer because they won't have John Bolton there."

This is what democracy in America has become. A small group of partisan bigots use the Senate to block a man who has proven he is the right man to represent our interests in the United Nations. It is not our goal to let the United Nations tell America what to do. The goal is for us to get the United Nations to support actions in our interest. Kofi Annan is typical of that element in the UN that opposes everything America stands for. Kofi Annan is jubilant today. Kofi Annan hates America. He is clearly our enemy.

How can anyone who claims he is an American not get tired of seeing the democrats align themselves with our nations enemies? At some point the fact that democrats support anyone who hates and opposes us has got to convince a few patriots that the national democrat party has become an enemy of our nation.

Another article on the same subject notes how totally subservient George Bush has become to our nation's enemies. He invited Kofi Annan to a dinner at the White House, and allowed him to insult John Bolton face to face. You can read about this idiocy here:

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner at the White House?

by Benny Avni - December 7th, 2006 - The New York Sun

Mr. Annan yesterday told a visitor — a former Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom — that during the dinner he talked mostly about ways to improve America's relations with the United Nations, Mr. Shalom told the Sun.

Yep. George Bush is now being lectured on how to improve his ralations with the United Nations by a man who has made a career at the United Nations of opposing our interests and working to undermine our country at every possible opportunity. George Bush of course is "reaching out" to Mr. Annan, just like he is "reaching out" to Nancy Pelosi.

Thanks George. I cannot imagine anything less productive than to help our enemies teach us lessons.

Errors, Omissions, Inventions And Falsehoods

posting by Scott Johnson - December 5th, 2006 - Power-Line Blog

A reader writes that he received the email message below sent by Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University and the Carter Center.

[snip]

From the email by Porfessor Stein, "President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook."

It is clear that the MSM does not care about truth. Though they are being careful not to tout this false history of the middle east as accurate, the MSM has also not condemned it.

It is, in fact, this pack of lies on which the current democrat party position on the middle east is based. Carter repeats the lies, but he did not invent them. The lies are a version of anti-semitism focused just at Israel, which is current democrat party background for their defense and tolerance of the islamofascists.

Our nation is at a crossroads. Many people are gloating over the recent democrat party victories in elections. These are people who do not understand the lies on which their feelings of joy are based. Lies are not facts.

The truth is that islamofascism is a cancer eating at the world. It is still possible for it to create the destruction of the west which is its dream. Those who think that any form of socialism is superior to any form of free enterprise are simply deluded. Those who think they can "work with" islamofascism are deluded. The idea that you can negotiate with people who want you dead is a pernicious idea that has failed whenever and wherever it is tried.

What are you going to settle for? They want you dead. Will it be okay if they simply make you cut off a leg? What if all they will settle for is your head? What is your counter offer?

Power-Line is a good blog to keep in your favorites. These people have better contacts than many people in government, and certainly better contacts than the MSM. If you care about truth, it is time to stop reading the major newspapers and start getting your news from the blogs. Read a couple of blogs on both sides of an issue and you may have enough facts and differing views to get to the truth. You will not get truth reading any newspaper.

I have been told that my repeated prediction that we are headed for nuclear bombs going off in a number of cities, in Israel and America, is "exageration" and "paranoia". I actually hope so. I fear it is not.

State Republican Party Elects New Chairman

by Mark Johnson (The Charlotte Observer) - December 3rd, 2006 - The News & Observer

GREENSBORO - Republican Party leaders elected former Charlotte teacher and longtime party officer Linda Daves as their state chairman Saturday, rebuffing calls for an overhaul of the party's top ranks after election defeats last month.
Daves' victory was also a rejection of a proposal by several Republican officials, including the state's U.S. senators, to postpone the election in hopes of recruiting another candidate.

There was a very strong feeling among the grassroots of the Republican Party that delaying the election was not supported or appreciated. Various motives were imputed to the desire of the Senators which annoyed the party faithful. The heart and sole of the party is still the local elected officials and there was little desire among those people and their supporters to let the national party control the state.

Executive Committee Was Well Attended By Grassroots To
Stop Burr And Dole From Delaying Election

When the most important election was held, for party chairman, Linda Daves managed to get a slight majority on the first ballot. There was appreciation by many that Linda has paid her dues, having served for over 8 years as the Vice-Chairman of the party and done well in that role. It was also felt by some that she was not a part of the recent infighting that so damaged the party.

Linda Daves (In Center) Talks With Some Of GOP Staff

The closeness of the election though reflected a desire by many to start with a clean slate. It was a concern that Daves may not have done enough to try and help kill the internal wars that were occuring before Ferrell Blount's recent departure. The question still hangs over Daves, whether she is stong enough and persuasive enough to stop the various factions from continuing their bickering.

At this point it looks like she will be given a chance to perform. Her victory shows she has enough support to get her shot at turning the party around. I wish her good luck. We need her to do well.

Check out the Chairman's bio page on the North Carolina Republican Party web site for more details of Linda's background:
http://www.ncgop.org/leadership/ncgop.asp#1