Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Lose Lips Sink Ships

The other day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid dropped a bombshell on on a local Nevada television show. He basically said that he had been informed that Osama bin Laden was killed in the giant Pakistan earthquake last month. "I heard that Osama bin Laden died in the earthquake, and if that's the case, I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm, but if that's the case, that's good for the world."

I can only assume that this report came from intelligence analysts, and if so, there are important reasons not to make it public. When a U.S. senator repeats such claims, which often prove untrue, it only serves to embolden the enemy.

Of course, this isn't the first time Reid has had problems maintaining the confidentiality of important documents.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Abortionist is actually giving life?

I don't see how anyone can read this article in the L.A. Times and be anything but disturbed by it. Just more evidence that abortion is modern day birth control. The subtitle of the article is this:

Yes, an Arkansas doctor says, he destroys life. But he believes the thousands of women who have relied on him have been 'born again.'

He calls himself an "abortionist" and says, "I am destroying life." But he also feels he's giving life: He calls his patients "born again." "When you end what the woman considers a disastrous pregnancy, she has literally been given her life back," he says. (ed. keep in mind, he's not referring to pregnancies through rape or incenst as disastous, but one's that result through a like of responsible behavior) Before giving up obstetrics in 1991, Harrison delivered 6,000 babies. Childbirth, he says, should be joyous; a woman should never consider it a punishment or an obligation. "We try to make sure she doesn't ever feel guilty," he says, "for what she feels she has to do." (ed. Oh, heaven forbid we don't want them to feel guilty for actually killing an innocent life?) . . .

Before, after and even during an abortion, Harrison lectures his patients on birth control. He urges them to get on the pill and to insist their partners use condoms. They promise. But Harrison knows many will be back. His first patient of the day, Sarah, 23, says it never occurred to her to use birth control, though she has been sexually active for six years. When she became pregnant this fall, Sarah, who works in real estate, was in the midst of planning her wedding. "I don't think my dress would have fit with a baby in there," she says. The last patient of the day, a 32-year-old college student named Stephanie, has had four abortions in the last 12 years. She keeps forgetting to take her birth control pills. Abortion "is a bummer," she says, "but no big stress." (ed. a "bummer" huh. I guess your not the one being ripped limb from limb) Harrison does not get frustrated with such patients. He has learned to focus on the facts he considers most important: This woman does not want to be pregnant. He can give her back control of her life and keep a child from coming into the world unwanted. (ed. Unwanted, are you kidding me. As if he doesn't realize the demand for adopted babies in this country) He believes in this so strongly, he waives his fees for women who can't come up with the money. Last February, Harrison injured his head in a fall. He underwent three surgeries and spent months in rehabilitation. His wife urged him to retire. "There's no one to take my place," he told her. As soon as he felt strong enough, Harrison was back in surgery. He'll keep at it as long as his stamina holds, or as long as it is legal. Three abortions before lunch and three more after: The appointment book is always full.

Friday, November 25, 2005

I voted for the plaintiff, before I voted against him.

The flip-flopping Senator from Massachusettes recently served on a civil jury, and acted as the jury foreman. The suit involved a car crash where the plaintiffs were suing the city. Guess what Senator Kerry decided, that the city was negligent, but awarded zero damages.

Does this guy ever cease from tying to have it both ways?

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Al Franken, not ready for prime time

It turns out that Justice Scalia was invited to speak at a small private gathering of the Media's who's who the other night. Somehow, former SNL writer and actor Al Franken got invited and tried to verbally spar with Scalia. As predicted, Franken got steamrolled.

When Pearlstine opened the floor for Q&A, Franken stood up in the back row and started talking about "judicial demeanor" and asking "hypothetically" about whether a judge should recuse himself if he had gone duck-hunting or flown in a private jet with a party in a case before his court.
Franken was clumsily referring to the fact that Scalia had gone hunting and flying with Dick Cheney before the 2000 election.
First, Scalia lectured Franken, "Demeanor is the wrong word. You mean ethics." Then he explained, "Ethics is governed by tradition. It has never been the case where you recuse because of friendship."
Time Warner chairman Dick Parsons later told PAGE SIX: "Al was not quite ready for prime time." Franken was a "Not Ready for Prime Time Player" on "Saturday Night Live" long before he began hosting a radio show on Air America.

If you want to read more remarks from Scalia at the private meeting, click here.

Monday, November 21, 2005

And the Pelosi goes to . . .

Well folks, I've decided to dust off the "Nancy Pelosi Award for Idiocy, Simple Mindedness and Ignorance," and bestow it to this week's rightful owner: MSNBC's Chris Matthews

Take it away Chris!

Four years after 9/11 and the "crazy zeitgeist" that permeated the United States, most Americans have still not learned to know their enemies instead of just hating them, U.S. political journalist Chris Matthews says.

In a speech to political science students at the University of Toronto yesterday, the host of the CNBC current affairs show Hardball had plenty of harsh words for U.S. President George W. Bush, as well as the political climate that has characterized his country for the past few years.

"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective." (ed.-wait, hold on. He didn't just say that the people who make a living trying to destroy and kill every American and Israeli citizen from off the face of the earth just have a different perspective?) He said Bush squandered an opportunity to unite the world against terrorism and instead made decisions that have built up worldwide animosity against his administration.

Let me guess, Chris understands and feels what the terrorists really feel, right. I mean it must be the aggressive U.S. foreign policy decisions that have fueled their outrage right? Wrong.

If you're really interested in understanding the root causes Islamic terrorism, a root that can explain virtually all terrorist attacks across the globe for the past 50 years, you must read Victor Davis Hanson's Article "And then they came after us."

Zarqawi's Family

Ever since Al Zarqawi made the boneheaded mistake of actually blowing up a couple of wedding parties in Jordan, he's been in hot water. After the initial bombing he issued a press release that tried to claim they were not targeting Jordanians, but westerners. A few days later, Zarqawi then threatened to kill the King of Jordan.

Now, Zarqawi's family in Jordan has taken out advertisements in three Jordanian newspapers, pledging allegiance to the king and renouncing al Zarqawi.

Fortunately, it seems his support is slowly slipping away. Just a few days ago, there was a massive protest against the bombings in Jordan.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Democrats, losing their memories, and their spines.

I know I know, Cheney said it a few days ago, but it's just too good to only be heard once.

Anyways, this is a little late, but the GOP has put together a nice little musical montage of quotes from the dems back in 1998 and 2002. There are probably about 20 other quotes that the GOP could have used but there's only so much time to demonstrate liberal hypocrisy on the War.

Just go to to view the commercial. Classic. We should have been exposing these contradictions months ago. We already know the MSM won't do it for us.

For a few classic dems quotes, here's a link:

Politics as Usual

In my opinion, this evening's house vote on the resolution to bring troops home immediately is brilliant. If democrats are going to cater to the "bring our troops home" crowd, then they should at least put their money where there mouth is and vote on it. I realize that it is a pure political stunt, but it gets democrats back for their own recent stunts, ie. shutting down the Senate. I still wonder why politicians still get surprised, or at least act like it when the other side pulls these maneuvers.

I commend the House republicans for this one. I don't think the Senate repubs could have pulled it off. Frist looks a little spineless as of late and is getting jerked around by Harry Reid. When the dems shut down the Senate a few weeks ago, I think it scored points in the dem's favor. While Harry Reid had help from the media to get out his phony "the white house lied us into war" message, Frist was caught like a deer in headlights, muttering something about senatorial decorum and civility. Point Dems. Now it's payback.

Murtha's Resolution (or lack thereof)

Rep. Jack Murtha of Penn. decided to call for a troop pullout of Iraq. The republicans have wisely decided to press the isssue, and see which of the democrats decide to publicly join Murtha's retreatist views, or to anger the moonbat base. I wanted to focus a little more on the media coverage of the situation. One article in particular:
House GOP Seeks Quick Vote on Iraq Pullout
Here's some interesting parts:
By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position - whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.
Why are the Dems afraid of republican "attacks," if they've got the voters on their side? Maybe because they know the American people aren't really against the efforts in Iraq? Hmm?
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha, a longtime hawk on foreign and military affairs issues, said Thursday.
I'm not sure what universe Murtha belongs to, but it sure seems to me that the "insurgency" kills alot more Iraqi civilians and police than American soldiers.
Republicans pounced, chastising Murtha for advocating what they called a strategy of surrender and abandonment, and Democrats defended Murtha as a patriot, even as they declined to back his view.
Patriot?! Who said anything about a patriot?! Yet another example of dems covering their stupider ideas (or lack of ideas) by waiving a patriotic flag. Repubs didn't attack Murtha, just his ideas. More below.
"I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha," Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, responded Friday. Also a Vietnam veteran, Kerry was dogged during the campaign by a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that challenged his war record.
What?!!! Kerry served in Vietnam! If only the voters had known this...yeah, I know, the faux surprise at the mention of Kerry and Vietnam is old, but really, does he have some sort of complex about this?
Also, the swift veterans weren't just challanging his war record. They were publicizing his anti-troop/anti-American actions after the war. The fact that someone served in a war does not excuse them from criticism of their anti-troop advocacy.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Did Bush Lie? Just Google It

Here's a little graphic I found at Michelle Malkin's site. If you are wondering if Bush lied about Iraq, all you have to perform is one simple Google search.

Just type in the following: Clinton Iraq 1998

Pass it on.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Does Jordan Still Support Suicide Bombings?

A few months ago, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll on certain nations' support for terrorism. Alot of the nations expressed disagreement with Al-queda and its tactics, however a number of countries actually supported it.

It turns out that Jordan was actually one of these countries. The poll showed that more than half of the muslim population in Jordan actually supported the targeting of westerns in Iraq through the use of suicide bombs. In fact, a whopping 65% of the muslim population in Jordan said that they could support it. On the brightside, it is down from its previous high of 88%. A also noticed that 53% of the muslim population felt that Islamic extremism posed "no threat," to them.

I'm curious what, if any this number has changed since the recent bombings in Jordan. It is troubling to note, however, that Jordan is adamant in pointing out the suicide bombers were not Jordanian, but Iraqi. This is because the leader of Al-queda in Iraq is actually, Jordanian.

Spinning Senator

Senator Jay Rockefeller had an interview with Chris Wallace the other morning and was spinning like a top. For those who don't remember, years ago, Rockefeller, after looking at the evidence came to the conclusion that Iraq was a threat and authorized the use of force--he even came to a much stronger conclusion than the President and said the threat posed was "imminent." Now, Rockefeller's new story line is the old "Bush Lied" mantra. That he has the audicity to claim Bush lied, when he, after viewing nearly identical evidence came to the same, if not stronger conclusion is troubling.

Fortunately for the American public, the President slammed the Democtrats for their rewriting of history. Since the President's speech, the media is actually starting to ask these double talkers some serious questions.

I highly recommend reading portions of the interview here. Rockefeller's inability to answer the most obvious and basic of questions is quite amusing.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Administrative Duties

Wow, comment-spam is really annoying!
I've looked around and it seems like the only method to prevent comment-spam from appearing is to manually approve each comment. While we don't get too many comments now (I think we average one real comment every 5 or 6 posts), I have high hopes for the future and don't want to have to approve all comments. So I wanted all seven of our readers to know that from now on I will be deleting comment-spam. Deleted comments look like this:

At 9:38 PM, Alexander said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

So if that Michael Moore (The Truth) guy comes back, he can comment with confidence that his opinions will be viewed and ridiculed. I'm not censoring dissent, just cleaning up the blog.

Responding to BYU's conspiracy theorist

Here's my thoughts on the problem with BYU's Steven Jones and his publication of '9-11/inside job' conspiracy theories. This is taken from an email to BYU's president. I don't address the problems with Dr. Jones's arguments (which are not my expertise), and only briefly mention the problem with conspiracy theories in general (more about that in a later post).

President Samuelson,
As an alumnus of BYU, and a member of the church, I have some serious concerns about the publications of Dr. Steven E. Jones on the causes of the WTC collapse. (,1249,635160132,00.html)

-I am unaware if this publication was produced as a hobby, or if Dr. Jones was paid by the university for the time spent writing this garbage. Tithing money is spent under your supervision. I feel that the expenditure of church funds on this subject is quite misplaced, especially after the admonitions we received as students to treat the Church's contribution as an investment. If the Church invested in Dr. Jones’s publication, they got junk bonds.
-If Dr. Jones believes that the American government is responsible for the 9-11 atrocity (his 'inside job' claims), that’s his right and should be respected. That he would publish it and post it on the BYU server ( is a black eye for a university that is trying to develop respect for its research. Respected scientists have come out saying that the buildings were brought down by the planes (and not bombs), and for a BYU professor to make claims against that is embarrassing.
-In an era of unprecedented anti-Americanism both at home and abroad, the publication of conspiracy theories implicating our government in the mass-murder of its own citizens adds fuel to the fire. Conspiracy theories take a lot of work to disprove, and even after a thorough debunking, they live on. Because of Dr. Jones's publication, even after someone goes to the trouble of once again disproving the claims of an 'inside job,' extremist websites and anti-American agitators will point to the original publication when they call our national leaders "murderers," "Hitler," and "war-criminal." BYU's name should not be involved with such deceit and hate.

I'm reminded of an anti-rumor Mormonad from the "New-Era magazine;" the warning 'Don't pass it on' is equally valid with conspiracy theories. The publication and propagation of these theories spreads filth (lies) and stains the hands of those who are complicit in their dissemination.
Please don't let our university be associated with this embarrassing publication. At the least, the University should issue a statement distancing itself from the views held by Dr. Jones. If tithing money was used to fund the production of his work, disciplinary actions should be taken against those involved.

Thank you for your attention,
Matthew Merrell, ‘05

BYU Professor Endorses 9/11 Inside Job Theory!!

Being an alumni of BYU, I found this article repulsive.

A BYU physics professor, Steven E. Jones, has published a paper claiming that the World Trade towers were not brought down by the planes, but by strategically controlled explosives. Once a theory of moonbats and fringe groups, the professor's endorsement actually adds credence to such garbage.

This professor's endorsement of such a theory suggests that 9/11 was an inside job and greatly tarnishes the school's image.

Just as neighboring University of Utah was embarrassed by a few faculty years ago, claiming they had invented "cold fusion", this professor's publication will be a black eye on the school and its legitimacy as an intellectual institution for years to come.

Voice your concern to the university president here.

For a thorough debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories, check out this article from Popular Mechanics.

Saturday, November 05, 2005


I just got done writting this long review of the movie Serenity, and it somehow deleted when I tried to spell-check. I liked the movie, but not enough to spend all that time re-writting my review. So here's my shorter review. It was good, but if you are not a fan of sci-fi, or of Joss Whedon, or both, wait for it to come to video. If you are a fan, see it quick while it's still on the big screen, but at a second run (cheap) theater.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Alito Critiques

From scrappleface:

Alito Name Too ‘Vowel-Heavy’, Schumer Says
by Scott Ott
(2005-11-01) — Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, today questioned Judge Samuel Alito’s commitment to diversity noting that the Supreme Court nominee’s last name is 60 percent vowels and only 40 percent consonants.
In perhaps the most substantive critique of President George Bush’s nominee to date, the senator also noted that the federal appeals court judge's full name contains every vowel, but a disporportionately small percentage of consonants.
"Not only is Judge Alito's name to vowel-heavy for mainstream Americans,” said Sen. Schumer. “But ‘Alito’ begins and ends with vowels, suggesting that vowels are the alpha and omega of the alphabet, and clearly denigrating the contribution of consonants to our society.”

Liberal Hypocrisy

From the Washington Times:
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican. Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log...
State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes. "Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."
Here's a black man achieving unprecedented success, and because he doesn't have the same liberal leanings as the democrats, they can be as rasist as they want against him. Just about the most blatant statement from a liberal, that racism is only bad if it's targeting liberals.

As I thought about this more, I remembered how Rush Limbaugh used to refer to the NAACP as the NAALCP (National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People). As true today as it was then.