The Face of Evil

Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

Christian extermination

PARIS - French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Friday that Christian minorities in the Middle East are victims of "religious cleansing," following deadly attacks on churches in the region. "We cannot accept and thereby facilitate what looks more and more like a particularly wicked programme of cleansing in the Middle East, religious cleansing," he said in an annual New Year's address to religious leaders.

An attack on a Coptic church in the Egyptian city of Alexandria on January 1 killed 21 people. No one has yet claimed responsibility for that attack, which came after threats published online against Egypt's Copts from an Al-Qaeda-linked group in Iraq which had said it was behind a deadly assault on a church in Baghdad in October. (reported on the Middle East Online, 1/7/11)


Anyone who does not believe that Muslims are systematically driving Christians out of "their lands" should read The Body and the Blood by Boston Globe reporter Charles Sennott. Even NPR reported on this the other day. So much for religious tolerance and "Islam, the religion of peace."

The Great Ronald Reagan, in Perspective

I think the advent of Obama has helped us to understand even more clearly that Ronald Reagan was fighting for good against evil, and on more fronts than just the battle against Soviet communism. The Gipper stood up for good, true American values; and by so doing, he smoked out all the leftists. They complained about everything he did and said, and tried vainly to paint him as a cruel racist. Sadly, many of these communist creeps are now in charge of the United States government. But nothing has changed. Reagan's principles were right for the 80s and they are right for all time. They don't change, just as God's law doesn't change.

I think that with decades of hindsight we can see that the "kinder, gentler nation" was just a more liberal nation, involving capitulation to the leftists on many fronts. The man who saw the "thousand points of light" barely put up a fight against the disgraceful satyr and liar Clinton in 1992. Clinton disgraced the presidency; however, Bush the Second couldn't even bring himself to condemn the looting of the White House by the outgoing Clintonoid barbarians. W Bush then scandalously betrayed the people who (barely) elected him twice, then committed the crowning insult of setting the table for the malevolent communist Obama. Now, we must deal with the rubble left in the wake of Obama and the last Congress.

Few politicians have had the principled courage that Ronald Reagan had to champion conservative values. They've always had to have qualifications and provisos and wrinkles. They've always had to have an excuse for standing on conservative principles. Precious few have had the courage, when it might have mattered, to stand up and say that our principles are right, and liberal-socialist principles are wrong and inimical to American society. The result is that the damage cannot be repaired without great dislocation. I don't believe that many people have the taste for that sort of thing. I think what we are looking at is accelerating decline and ultimately, domination by peoples who have no hesitation about becoming strong and dominant.

When I worked as a volunteer in the Reagan-Bush '84 campaign, the campaign handed out buttons to us that read, "We can make a difference." I believed that slogan and felt that it actually meant something. I don't believe that it is true anymore. I recognize that the "Tea Party" has accomplished a great deal; but I see it as a wrestler who has achieved a "reversal" in a long, grueling match that will be resolved in accordance with the Book of Revelation. Praise God.

No Hillary in 2012

I retract my prediction that Hillary will run against Obama in 2012. This photo kills, once and for all, any chance she may have had.

No Christ in Red Cross

UK Red Cross Bans Christmas in Shops
Friday, December 17, 2010 08:26 AM

Christmas has been banned by the Red Cross from its 430 fund-raising shops in the United Kingdom, according to a MailOnline report. After staff members were directed to remove any other signs of the Christian holiday, there followed criticism from both Christians and Moslems.Christine Banks, a volunteer at a Red Cross shop in Kent, said: 'We put up a nativity scene in the window and were told to take it out. It seems we can't have anything that means Christmas. We're allowed to have some tinsel but that's it. When we send cards they have to say season's greetings or best wishes. They must not be linked directly to Christmas.'

When we asked we were told it is because we must not upset Moslems.'Banks added: ' We have been instructed that we can't say anything about Christmas and we certainly can't have a Christmas tree."

My Question: Will the Red Cross soon have to change their name so as not to upset the Moslems?

Taxpayer outcry success

Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2010, concerning the demise of the omnibus spending bill:

Anti-spending Republicans credited the tea party and the rising power of the conservative grass roots. "This bill never would have been defeated if not for the outcry from taxpayers across America," Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) said.

Power to the people, right on!

This is brilliant!

Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at airports. All we need to do is develop a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have hidden on or in your body. The explosion will be contained within the sealed booth.

This would be a win-win for everyone. There would be none of this stuff about racial profiling and the device would eliminate long and expensive trials. This is so simple that it's brilliant. I can see it now: you're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system, "Attention, standby passengers! We now have a seat available on flight number...." The booth will have a self-clean feature.

T.J. is smiling!

In its next session beginning in January, the legislature of Virginia will consider proposing a constitutional "Repeal Amendment." The Repeal Amendment would give two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation. Its text is simple: "Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."

At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution. A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.

The Repeal Amendment should not be confused with the power to "nullify" unconstitutional laws possessed by federal courts. Unlike nullification, a repeal power allows two-thirds of the states to reject a federal law for policy reasons that are irrelevant to constitutional concerns. In this sense, a state repeal power is more like the president's veto power.

This amendment reflects confidence in the collective wisdom of the men and women from diverse backgrounds, and elected by diverse constituencies, who comprise the modern legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Put another way, it allows thousands of democratically elected representatives outside the Beltway to check the will of 535 elected representatives in Washington, D.C. (full article at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12144).

A moment of Algore honesty

On November 23, while speaking in Greece, Al Gore admitted: "First-generation ethanol, I think, was a mistake." And whose mistake was it, Mr. Gore? In 1994, it was Gore himself who ended a 50-50 tie in the Senate by voting in favor of an ethanol tax credit that added almost $5 billion to the federal deficit last year. And that number doesn't include the many ways in which corn-based ethanol mandates drive up the price of food and livestock feed. Whether Gore meant well or not can be debated, but according to Reuters, Gore also said, "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president." Why should we believe anything this man has to say? He is a joke.

Shaking the world

Pat Buchanan writes: At the G20 gathering in Seoul, South Korea, Barack Obama got an earful from China about the Fed sinking the dollar and learned that Beijing would not be revaluing its currency to help with our chronic trade deficits. As China holds a huge share of U.S. debt, Obama is not about to get sassy with our banker, who might just cut off the credit America, running a budget deficit of 10 percent of gross domestic product, desperately needs.

So the question arises: Who put us in this predicament? Who awakened, fed and nurtured this tiger to where she is growling at all Asia and baring her teeth at the United States? Answer: the free trade uber alles Republicans. Richard Nixon opened China. His 1972 Shanghai communique pointed inexorably to what Jimmy Carter did in 1979: break relations and abrogate our security pact with Taiwan, and recognize the People's Republic as the sole legitimate government of China. In 1982, the Ronald Reagan White House signed on to a communique with Deng Xiaoping's China by which we agreed to reduce and eventually end all arms sales to Taiwan as tensions in the strait diminished. Under George H.W. Bush, Beijing's crushing of the Tiananmen Square protest with tanks was not allowed to interfere with business.

Repeatedly, Republicans voted to extend most-favored-nation status to China. Dissenters were castigated as "isolationists and protectionists." Under Bush II, the GOP made MFN permanent and sponsored Beijing's entry into the World Trade Organization, despite China's downing of a U.S. surveillance plane and incarceration of its American crew on Hainan Island. Colin Powell was forced to apologize.

For decades, corporate America championed investing in China and trade with China, though the massive transfer of U.S. factories, technologies and jobs was clearly empowering China and weakening America.

Now, with U.S. political, military, industrial and strategic decline vis a vis China manifest to the world, we hear the wails of American businessmen that they are not being treated fairly by the Chinese. And the politicians responsible for building up China are now talking tough about confronting and containing China. Sorry, but that cat cannot be walked back.

Review commission chair Dan Slane says his members have concluded that "China is adopting a highly discriminatory policy of favoring domestic producers over foreign manufacturers. Under the guise of fostering 'indigenous innovation' ... the government of China appears determined to exclude foreigners from bidding on government contracts at the central, provincial and local levels."

Imagine that! The Chinese are ignoring WTO rules and putting China first. Don't they understand how the Global Economy works? You're not supposed to tilt the field in favor of the home team.

The policy the Chinese are pursuing, economic nationalism, was virtually invented by the Republican Party. Protectionism was the declared policy of the GOP from the day its first president took office in 1861 to the day Calvin Coolidge left in 1929. Free trade was the policy of a Great Britain whose clocks those generations of Americans cleaned, even as the Chinese are cleaning ours.

Napoleon said of the Middle Kingdom, "Let (China) sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world." The shaking has begun.

My comment: Is it the "shaking" or the "shake down"? Pat may be more right about all this than I've given him credit for in the past.