One Small Voice

The Tragedy of Men and Abortion

2009-04-13T18:46:00.000-05:00

This Lenten season I participated in a very powerful and moving 40 Days for Life prayer vigil at an Austin abortion clinic. I watched as men dropped off and picked up women at the clinic, and I reflected on what could lead a man to do this. This is a very personal issue for me, not just an academic exercise, so it hit especially close to home.

When a man participates in an abortion, especially of his own child, he violates his primordial impulse to love and protect his family. In one willful act, he destroys his family by killing his child and abandoning the woman he loves at the precise moment that she needs his love and protection the most. No doubt some men do this out of a twisted, selfish desire to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their lust, but I believe that many (perhaps most) men have been so emasculated by society that they assent to the abortion for what they very mistakenly believe are noble reasons.

Men have been brainwashed by over thirty years of abortion industry propaganda masquerading as feminism and have been made to feel that they have no say in the abortion decision. A woman has a right to do with her body what she will, after all, and no man can say otherwise. This is true enough, except for two critical facts. First, an abortion takes the life of a baby who is a wholly unique and individual person with an equal right to control his or her own body, but who also relies completely on his or her parents for protection. Second, abortion is not a real choice for most women but a tragic and emotional last resort when they feel that there is no other option.

The true tragedy of abortion from a man’s perspective is that many of them would not occur if the father of the child and lover of the woman would simply be a real man and honor his most basic male impulse. Sadly, this impulse in a man to love and protect his family has been so battered and twisted by decades of political correctness that many men feel that the impulse itself is somehow bad; a remnant of a less enlightened age. Tragically, this leads a man to believe that he is actually helping his wife or girlfriend exercise her free choice when she, more often than not, would keep their baby if she knew that the man she loves would stand by and support her.

Husbands are called to love their wives “...as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her...” (Ephesians 5:25-26). This is not just a lofty religious sentiment, nor does it apply only to Christian husbands in marriage. It is a fundamental impulse stamped into the very soul and heart of every man at the moment of his conception. It is what leads fathers and brothers to scrutinize every boy our daughters and sisters bring home and what leads men to keep a watchful eye on our female friends at a bar. Tragically, however, when this impulse to love and protect is twisted and distorted by society, it leads a man to yell obscenities from his car as he drives by a peaceful prayer vigil at an abortion clinic and leads a boyfriend to pay for his girlfriend’s abortion.

As men, we must reclaim and restore the noble impulse to love and protect the women in our lives. We need to honor and sanctify them; give our lives for them if we must. We do not honor them and we do not sanctify them by sending them into the arms of an abortionist to rip our babies from their wombs.

Abortion: More Efficient than the Klan

2009-03-12T20:30:00.002-05:00

For anyone who still thinks that abortion is a “personal choice” consider this:

Abortion kills nearly half of all African American babies and nearly 16 million since Roe v. Wade.

Not even the Klan was that efficient.

The Cost of Stimulus: A Rambling Tally

2009-02-15T14:53:00.010-06:00

“Our nation will sink into a crisis that, at some point, is going to be that much tougher to reverse. So we cannot afford to wait. We can’t wait and see and hope for the best.” (President Obama)

Thank you Mr. Happy! So much for abandoning the politics of fear for change and hope. Worse, Obama’s Chief of Staff stated publicly, ”You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” This is the clearest admission yet that Democrats are exploiting the fear of the American people to implement their liberal wish list.

Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change.

Confirming this admission, New York Senator Charles Schumer believes that Americans don’t even care that they are wasting millions of dollars on useless pork barrel spending, saying, “To all the chattering class that so much focuses on those little tiny, yes, porky amendments, the American people really don’t care.” That chattering class is you, by the way, if you have the audacity to disagree with him.

Continuing with the best and brightest of the Democrat party, Senator Harry Reid, believing, apparently, that only the government is capable of solving our problems, says “One option we do not have is to do nothing.” President Barack Obama also admitted, “I can’t tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope.” Comforting. But, alas, lest your fear subside, he warns ominously, “I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis as well as the pain felt by millions of Americans.” Wow. I hope you had your morning coffee before that bit of sunshine. Hurray for President Obama!

Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change.

Obama’s dire outlook and near apocalyptic predictions fly in the face of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s belief that it is now fear that is driving the downturn. In Congressional testimony he admitted, “The reason the banks and the credit markets are frozen is no longer the legacy sub-prime mortgages and those things. It’s more concern about where the economy’s going.”

Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change.

And when Heath Shuler, former NFL quarterback and current House Democrat from North Carolina, dared to speak out against the failure of Democrat Congressional leadership to pursue an actual bipartisan compromise, instead of the liberal bipartisanship which consists of agreeing with them, Senator Reid (through his spokesman of course) asked, “Let me get this straight,” thus forecasting the impending arrogant sarcasm, “this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?” Way to stay on message Mr. Reid.

Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change.

And how much are all these bail outs and government stimulus packages going to cost our grandchildren? As best I can figure it, America's bail out and stimulus spending since November will total at least $3 Trillion before the trough runs dry.

Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change.

Here’s the breakdown:

$2,300,000,000,000 - Original and proposed bank bail outs
(“Wall Street rescue: $2.3 trillion - the cost of US bank bailout,” Stephen Foley, The Independent, 11-Feb-2009)
(“Wall Street tumbles as U.S. stimulus package passes,” Sheldon Alberts, Canwest News, 10-Feb-2009 7:01 p.m.)
$53,900,000,000 - Auto bail out and “research incentives”
(“The Auto Bailout Keeps Growing, and Growing,” Joseph R. Szczesny, Time Online, 14-Jan-2009)
$800,000,000,000 - Current “Stimulus Package” (capitalized because it’s important) averaged between House and Senate bill amounts
(“Senate passes Obama's economic recovery plan,” Associated Press, 10-Feb-2009 6:27 p.m. ET)

That is a total of $3,153,900,000,000 total bail out and stimulus money, proposed and approved to supposedly benefit 305,824,552 Americans
(Current estimated American population, U.S. Census Bureau, 15-Feb-09, 3:04 p.m. CT).

Do the math and it averages to more than $10,300 per living human being in America, or nearly $42,000 per family of four. How much of that do you think you'll actually see?

I’m just sayin’.

Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change.

Liberals: Put Your Money Where Your Mouths Are

2009-02-01T23:10:00.008-06:00

This guy is awesome. I especially love how he slams Will Smith for saying that he's finally proud to be an American when he's been a multimillionaire in America his entire adult life. He slams other Hollywood celebrities for the same reason. They've done nothing but complain for the last eight years out of hatred for President Bush, and now, all of a sudden, they want to do something nice for the world. Well where were you eight years ago!

This is my biggest complaint about the liberal elite: someone who makes $20 million pretending to be someone else in a movie or who inherits millions by virtue of his birth has no business telling me that I'm not doing enough for the little people. Until George Clooney, Matt Damon, Will Smith, and Ted Kennedy give away enough of their money to get down to my income level, they need to shut up. Instead they tell me how much more I need to do to help others and then drive off in a car that I couldn't afford with two year's salary.

Don't get me wrong. I don't begrudge them their money, they've earned it, and more power to them. I just wish they'd start putting their money where their mouths are. If they gave to the poor $19 million of every $20 million paycheck the world would be a much better place and they'd still be richer than most Americans. Until they do that, I don't want to hear a peep out of them.

Watch this guy. He says it all.

Life: Imagine the Potential

2009-01-30T22:57:00.006-06:00

This is the commercial that NBC refused to air during the Super Bowl, a commercial that honors Barack Obama and delivers a message that every American can agree with, yet it was too "political" for the liberal media.

Decide for yourself.

Digging in the Heels on Core Principles

2009-01-27T23:57:00.065-06:00

“Dems Back Off On Family Planning Provision,” by Brian Montopoli, CBS Political Hot Sheet, 1/27/09 11:47 a.m.

It appears that Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats are backing away from their disgraceful attempt at eugenics and are removing hundreds of millions of dollars in "family planning" (read "abortion") funding from the latest economics stimulus package. This funding targeted the poor in an attempt to prevent them from breeding because, according to Rep. Pelosi, reducing the number of babies that are born "will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." Republicans stood their ground and appealed to their core constituency, creating a public outcry over this disgraceful and unnecessary spending and causing the removal of it from the legislation. A small but important victory.

This episode should be a lesson to Republicans in how a minority party in American politics regains power:

Identifying their core principles
Picking their battles
Digging in their heels

This episode demonstrates that winning an election does not mean you get to do whatever you want. Republicans in Congress must stand firmly on the side of life and liberty. When Democrats propose legislation that violates these core principles, Republicans must stand firm, even if they eventually lose a few battles. Let Republicans compromise on lesser issues if they must so as not to appear as simply obstructionists, but they should not yield on core moral principles.

If Republicans continue to pick their battles well and stand on core principles, they will position themselves to regain power in 2010 and 2012 just as it did in 1994.

Can a Woman Abort Her Baby Because the Father is Black?

2009-01-26T00:21:00.002-06:00

If you believe that a woman has an inalienable right to abortion, then you must believe all of the following:

A woman may abort her baby because the father is black.
A woman may abort her baby because she believes it will grow up to be gay.
A woman may abort her baby because it is female.

If you believe in the right to abortion then you must allow her to make those decisions. If, like me, you cringe at the thought of someone being so callous and racist, then perhaps you should rethink your position on abortion.

If, however, you are like me and believe the medical and scientific facts showing that unborn babies are human beings, then you must believe the following, as I do:

It is not OK to abort a baby because the father is black.
It is not OK to abort a baby because it might grow up to be gay.
It is not OK to abort a baby because she is female.

I ask you, President Obama, which list do you support?

Obama Acknowledges that Life Begins at Conception

2009-01-25T20:36:00.004-06:00

In a speech on Father's Day last June, then candidate Obama spoke, I will admit, rather eloquently about the responsibility of fathers in the lives of children. In reality, this is a speech that social conservatives have been giving for decades, but, to be fair, I give the President credit for saying what needs to be said: the presence of fathers aids the successful development of children.

Here is a bit of Mr. Obama's speech:

Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more afterschool programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.

But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child - it's the courage to raise one. (source: Huffington Post, June 15, 2008)

Importantly, Mr. Obama warns that "we need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception." Yes, Mr. President, fatherhood begins at conception because life begins at conception. Fathers must support their babies while they grow in their mother's wombs, and continue support them after the baby's birth.

I hope that Mr. Obama's acknowledgment that a father's responsibility begins at conception when his baby's life begins will inform his policy choices. I am not hopeful.

Welcome to Obama's America

2008-12-16T23:06:00.003-06:00

President Elect Obama declared in 2007 that he would, as his first act as president, sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This bill would eliminate every legal restriction that ever was placed or ever will be placed on abortion at every level of government. For those of you rejoicing at the freedom this would bring, consider the following statistics and consider that Obama will be America's first African American president ("The Left Practices Genocide by Abortion," Jerome R. Corsi and Kenneth Blackwell, Human Events, September 8, 2006, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16919):

The statistics on African American abortions are shocking. Even though African Americans are only about 13 percent of the U.S. population, one of every three abortions in the United States is performed on a black woman. Three of every five African American women will abort a child. Some 1,452 African American babies are killed each day in abortions. Let’s compare these statistics to the number of African Americans who have been killed by crimes of racial violence. Statistics show that between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched in the United States. That number is bypassed by the number of African American abortions every three days. Let’s project the favorable consequences had the aborted babies been allowed to live. Had the 13 million babies aborted since Roe v. Wade in 1973 been allowed to live, today’s African American population of 37 million could reasonably be projected to exceed 50 million today. In other words, today’s potential African American population has been reduced 25 percent by abortions. And the 13 million African American abortions are estimated to have enriched the U.S. abortion industry by some $4 billion since Roe v. Wade.

What's more, this genocide is promoted, not by those evil white racist Republicans and conservatives, but by the self-proclaimed "defenders of the defenseless" and the racially compassionate left:

If abortions were being supported by conservative Republicans instead of by liberal Democrats, African Americans would be loudly arguing that the true goal of abortion was to eliminate the African American race from the United States through attrition. But that is not the case. Abortion has been one of the central causes advanced by the political Left since the 1960s.

Abortion in America is the single greatest genocide the world has ever seen, dwarfing even Hitler's most grotesque heights of evil, and Obama wants to let it reign unfettered in America once again. With his signing of FOCA, Obama would make it possible for a twelve year old girl to get an abortion without her parents's knowledge or consent, from a person who is not a doctor and who is not obligated by law to inform her of the risks of the invasive medical abortion or of the development of her baby, and to receive that invasive medical abortion in a clinic that is not bound by the sanitation regulations of medical clinics. Furthermore, all of this could happen up to the moment of the baby's birth and at taxpayers's expense.

Obama is the most extreme supporter of the culture of death the presidency has ever seen.

Welcome to Obama's America.

Could Not Have Said it Better Myself...

2008-11-02T00:23:00.006-05:00

How sad is it that major American media outlets are so in the tank for The Chosen One that it takes a British journalist to set the record straight on Obama:

“You have to pinch yourself – a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.” (“Pinch Yourself,” Melanie Philips, The Spectator UK, 10/14/08)

Read the full article and be stunned at what the American media is not reporting.

The Consequences of Obama's Radical Pro-Abortion Views

2008-10-13T21:19:00.004-05:00

At a recent campaign stop in Pennsylvania, Governor Sara Palin took off the gloves, charging that Barack Obama "hopes that you won’t notice how radical, absolutely radical his idea is on [abortion], and his record is, until it’s too late... Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life."

Bravo for Governor Palin putting the issue of life back on the table!

As encouraged as I am with Governor Palin's remarks, I don't think it's enough to simply state that Obama's views are radical or extreme. Many Americans tune out such statements as mere negative political attacks, and the liberal media actively encourages this mistaken assumption. We need to take the gloves off and be very, very explicit about Obama's stated views on abortion and what the effects of those views are.

Senator Obama's voting record is clear. In Illinois he voted multiple times against a bill that would have protected babies that survive abortions and are living and breathing on their own outside their mother.

Furthermore, Obama pledges, as his first act as president, to sign the laughably titled "Freedom of Choice Act," the practical effect of which would be as astounding as it is sweeping. It would eliminate "every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after" the date of its enactment. That means no restrictions of any kind on abortion at all, now and forever.

The practical effect of Obama signing this bill into law is frightening.

13-year-old girls will again be allowed to have abortions without their parents' knowledge or consent by striking down parental notification laws.
Every tax-paying American will be forced to pay for the abortions of others with the removal of the prohibition against public funding of abortions.
Abortionists will once again be able to bring babies completely trough the birth canal except for their heads before aborting them when the ban on partial birth abortions is lifted.
Abortionists will no longer have to provide women information on the risks of abortion or other, non-abortion options to an unplanned pregnancy with the elimination of informed consent laws.

As Princeton Professor Robert George explains rather convincingly, Barack Obama is "the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress."

We cannot be shy about this! We need to speak the truth and speak it loudly. Political views and votes have consequences and America needs to know the consequences of an Obama presidency on America's unborn babies.

Do Facts Matter?

2008-10-05T22:00:00.000-05:00

Thomas Sowell wrote a customarily brilliant article over at National Review Online. In it he wonders whether facts matter in political campaigns or if it is only the perception of facts that count.

“The media are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don’t seem to know what it is to counterattack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.”

Republicans would be wise to heed his advice.

Republicans must constantly present the facts to Americans. With every breath, McCain, Palin, and the RNC should tell Americans that Obama was the second largest recipient of contributions from the two main institutions responsible for our current financial mess, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and that Obama counts among his advisers former Freddie Mac CEO Franklin Raines who made off with $90 million while steering the company to disaster.

I want to think that Americans are not dumb enough to elect Obama president. We need to give them all the facts they need to prove that they're not.

Obama's Legalistic Approach to Core Moral Values

2008-09-21T01:23:00.003-05:00

One mark of a true leader is defending moral truths regardless of the personal repercussions. Obama prefers a legalistic and "balance sheet" approach. Two examples display this tendency in stark detail.

Teaching Kindergarten Children About Sexually Transmitted Diseases

It is morally reprehensible to teach five and six year old children about sexually transmitted diseases, yet, in 2005, as an Illinois Senator, Obama supported a comprehensive sex education bill that would provide, among other things, that "each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections..." (2005 Illinois Senate Bill 99, page 1, line 13-16). Senator Obama claims that the reason he supported the bill was to protect children from sexual predators, and that is one of the bill's intentions, but the clear and unambiguous language of the bill shows that it goes far beyond that claim. Even FactCheck.org, in their convoluted evaluation of a McCain ad calling out Obama on this issue, admitted that Obama voted for this bill when they confirm that "the bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it."

The bill would teach little children about sexually transmitted diseases. Obama supported it because it also did other good things.

Protecting Children Born Alive after Failed Abortions

Witholding lifesaving medical care to infants that survive abortions and are living independently outside the womb is an abject evil, yet Obama voted four times against a bill in Illinois that would have guaranteed this medical care. His explanation? First, that it would lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Yet, the bill he voted against contained an amendment specifically preventing this outcome (Amendment 001 to SB1082).

Next, he claimed that "it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute." Obama's singular focus on defending abortion at all costs blinds him to the fact that the babies protected by this bill are living outside their mothers. This was not a bill that protects babies inside their mothers wombs. This was a bill to protect babies living independently outside their mothers.

The National Right to Life Committee (NLRC) has an excellent summary of Obama's votes on this issue in Illinois.

A Failure of Leadership

A "balance sheet" defense for teaching five year olds about STDs and a legalistic defense for failing to protect living infants. That is not leadership. That is not change. That is Obama.

A Solution to the Email Password Change Hack

2008-09-19T21:01:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the Yahoo fiasco where some loser without a life hacked Governor Palin's email accont, a forward thinking email service should take the lead in email security. The ability to create a custom question is a good start, but a better solution would be to allow users to add a verification phone number to their account.

The service will send an SMS message to the account phone number to confirm any password change. If the account holder replies to the text message with "YES" the service executes the change. If there is no reply within, say, 15 minutes, they cancel the change request and put a pleasant message on the screen telling the requester that he needs to have access to the account phone number to validate the change. This will account for users who forget where their phones are or whose phone's battery is dead. If the user replies "NO," then the service cancels the password change, starts a hacking investigation, and displays on the site an animated Grim Reaper laughing menacingly and proclaiming "Goctha you loser hacker!" (just kidding, but not really). As an added feature, the service could display the account phone number (or a masked version of it like "the phone number ending in 1234") on users's account home pages so they will remember to change it if they change their mobile phone number.

This feature would virtually guarantee that all password change requests are valid and would provide an instant mechanism for flagging fraudulent requests.

Democrats Choose Politics Over Production in Offshore Drilling

2008-09-17T22:52:00.002-05:00

Once again, Democrats showed that they value political appearance over actual accomplishment.

Politics Over Production
In a transparent attempt to proclaim to the American people that they are "doing something" to end our foreign oil dependence, Democrats in Congress passed a bill that claims to allow off-shore drilling, but which actually extends the ban on offshore drilling within fifty miles of shore. These are the areas where energy experts say 80-90% of the oil is and which, in some locations, can be brought to market much sooner than the deeper reserves further offshore, some as quickly as one year from the start of drilling. The ban on offshore drilling is costing Americans jobs, money, and, worst of all, security.

The Job Cost
Americans are currently buying millions of gallons of oil from offshore reserves. Unfortunately those reserves are off the coast of Mexico and other nations and employ foreign workers, not Americans. Allowing environmentally friendly drilling in all offshore reserves, not just the small portion of reserves the Democrats want to allow, will provide thousands of jobs for Americans and boost the economies of coastal states.

The Financial Cost
Controlling over 30% of American crude oil sources, the OPEC cartel* has a direct impact on the price we pay for gas and other crude oil products. As a recent example, on September 8, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States was $3.65. OPEC cut production targets on September 10. By September 15, the average price of gasoline in the America had risen to $3.86, an increase of 21 cents per gallon. While there were certainly other factors that impacted this price increase, including hurricane Ike in the Gulf of Mexico, American reliance on OPEC oil means that you spend more money on gas and and less on everything else.

The Security Cost
As the major source of energy for Western nations, oil is the fuel of capitalism and democracy. We put ourselves in a tenuous position when such a large portion of our energy comes from nations who are, at best, minimally friendly (Saudi Arabia) and, at worst, openly hostile to America (Iran, Venezuela, et. al.). We have enough oil off our coasts to substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil while we seek new energy sources. The Energy Information Administration estimates that American offshore oil reserves could produce 5.6 million barrels of oil per day. In July 2008 we imported 5.5 million barrels per day from OPEC nations. You do the math.

Our Choice Is Now
Regardless of your view on "alternative energy" it is naive to think that we can transition to them any time soon. We cannot fuel the American economy on the wind, the sun, and the rain. We need oil and we will need it for many years. For the foreseeable future, our choice is not between oil and alternative fuels. It is a choice between American oil and OPEC oil.

*In the referenced page on oil imports, the OPEC nations are Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Angola, Algeria, Ecuador, and Kuwait.

Major Iraq War Victories You Won't Hear from the Liberal Press

2008-09-01T11:52:00.008-05:00

[Updated: 03-Sep-08 with information on and link to Financial Times article.]

The liberal media has not reported some major victories in Iraq over the last two years. It is absolutely shameful that they completely ignored these victories and, instead, continue to report nothing but failures. Here is a news flash you won't hear from them:

Eleven of the eighteen Iraqi provinces are now under local (i.e., not U.S.) control

These are now self-governing regions. The liberal media will not tell you this, but it is a fact (i.e., news). The large majority of Iraq is now under direct local control. This transfer of control began in mid 2006, at the height of the mid-term elections that saw Democrats and the liberal media regain control of Congress on the strength of their unrelenting reporting on “the failed Iraq War.” Additionally, the Financial Times now reports that U.S. troops may leave Baghdad by next summer.

The dark green shaded regions in this map highlight the Iraqi provinces that are now under Provincial Iraqi Control (PIC).

Baghdad
Salahad Din
Diyala
Wasit
Maysan - Under PIC since April 2007
Al-Basrah - Under PIC since December 2007
DhiQar - Under PIC since September 2006
Al-Muthanna - Under PIC since July 13, 2006
Al-Qadisiyah - Under PIC since July 2008
Babil
Karbala‘ - Under PIC since October 2007
An-Najaf - Under PIC since December 2006
Al-Anbar - Now under PIC in September 2008
Ninawa
Dahuk - Under PIC since May 2007
Arbil (Erbil) - Under PIC since May 2007
At Ta’mim
As-Sulaymaniyah - Under PIC since May 2007

This is news that the liberal media and the Democrats should include with every body count, and every report of a homicide bombing and IED explosion because it is an essential truth of the story. Then again, liberals are not overly concerned with the truth.

(The map is a modified version of this map from the Wikimedia Commons, modified under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Dates and province names from the Provincial Iraqi Control web page.)

McCain's Brilliant Choice for Vice President

2008-08-31T00:18:00.001-05:00

Like most Americans, when I learned that Senator John McCain's choice for Vice President would be Sarah Palin, my initial response was, "Who?" Then I read her biography and was stunned. Stunned that I was now excited about this election again. Stunned that John McCain did not select some lukewarm, pseudo-conservative, Washington insider or Northeast Governor. He selected a true movement conservative with stellar pro-life credentials. I believe that the selection of Governor Palin will be what puts McCain over the top in November. Here's why.

Palin Energizes the Conservative Base
Like many conservatives, I was not very excited about this election. I was OK with McCain, and I would vote for him, but I had my reservations. Furthermore, I was not very excited about the reported front-runners for his vice presidential selection. I lived in the Northeast for thirty eight years. The thought of Mitt Romney as vice president was depressing. I have serious doubts about any politician who can win an election in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. While I planned to vote for McCain in November, I know that there were many conservatives who were planning to stay home or write in their favorite candidate. Their numbers may not have been huge, but the narrow margins in the last two presidential elections suggest that their numbers could have been decisive. Conservatives are now back in the mix and they're fired up. When conservatives vote. Conservatives win.

Palin Will Attract Undecided Women
Governor Palin will not bring hard core Hillary Clinton supporters to the Republican side, but there are plenty of undecided women who, when they get to know Sarah Palin, the professional, the woman, and the mom, they will like what they see. Mrs. Palin is someone many women can relate to. Yes, Hillary Clinton is also a mom, but not one that many women can relate to. She has hard edges and is the kind of feminist who wants women to be like men, where Sarah Palin is the kind of feminist who believes that femininity is not incompatible with professional success in the roles traditionally held by men. That is a subtle distinction that many women will relate to.

Palin is Not an Insider
Governor Palin is the only person in this election who is not a Washington insider. Democrats like to highlight President Bush's poor favorability ratings, but the ratings for the Democrat Congress are even worse. This was one of the most do-nothing Congresses in a generation and Americans are not pleased. Combined with McCain's maverick reputation, Palin the outsider solidifies the real ticket for change.

Energized conservatives and gains with women is a winning combination and I applaud Senator McCain for making this bold choice.

Specter's Vulgar Display of Power

2008-05-15T13:03:00.001-05:00

ESPN - Specter criticizes NFL, wants independent Spygate investigation

This sort of arrogant display of power from Mr. Specter is the result of Americans continually electing politicians who promise to solve our every problem and relieve us of our every burden. You can't ask the government to control only certain aspects of your life such as health care or the environment and not expect them to feel empowered to control the rest of it. Senator Specter saying the investigation will be about the NFL's anti-trust exemption is just a smokescreen and an excuse to exercise power.

This is an easy problem to fix with no investigation necessary: there's no legitimate reason why any sports league should be exempt from any law. This issue requires one vote with no debate. Rescind the anti-trust exemptions on all sports leagues and move on to things that actually matter.

The constitution pretty explicitly states what Congress can and cannot do. Perhaps we should start electing politicians who've actually read it.

Betraying Its Own Best Interests - New York Times

2007-09-24T21:51:00.000-05:00

“...the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.”

“The ad infuriated conservatives, dismayed many Democrats and ignited charges that the liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org with a steep discount in the price paid to publish its message, which might amount to an illegal contribution to a political action committee.”

“...the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, ‘We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.’”

(Clark Hoyt, The Public Editor, New York Times, September 23, 2007)

Can we now end this silly argument about whether or not The New York Times (and the rest of its cohorts in the mainstream press) has a clear and overwhelming liberal bias? There simply is no argument.

Clinic Bombers Are Not Pro-Life

2007-04-28T03:24:00.000-05:00

Any individual who threatens or engages in violence against abortion providers (Ex-con charged with trying to bomb clinic, Austin American-Statesman, April 28, 2007) is a disgrace to the pro-life cause, and ignorant of its purpose. Do not mistake abortion clinic bombers for pro-life activists, for they seek the same end as the abortionists they attack: death.

The culture of death that breeds these disturbed individuals sees its genesis in an abortion industry that makes millions of dollars each year shattering the lives of young women by killing the babies within their wombs. Reacting violently to this wholesale destruction of human life does not serve the higher purpose of eliminating this blight on humanity. It is life we desire, not death.

Abortion is death, but so is bombing an abortion clinic. Let us not become that which we fight against.

Byrd Now Longest Running Klansman in Senate

2006-06-12T23:04:00.000-05:00

Senator Robert C. "KKK" Byrd's Legacy:

KKK Grand Dragon in the 1940s;
Filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14+ hours;
Voted against the nomination of Thurgood Marshall, the first black appointed to the Supreme Court;
Billions in Pork barrel Spending to West Virginia the past 17,327 days.

If Byrd were a Republican the media would have scourged and crucified him decades ago and he would be a mere footnote in Senate lore. Don't insult me by even trying to deny it. Instead, we get this puff piece from the Washington Post that gives a scant two sentences to his Grand Dragon days in the 1940s, half of which is Byrd saying what a "mistake" it was, and doesn't even mention his filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights bill or his voting against Thurgood Marshall's appointment.

Still contend the national media is "objective"?

1&1 Internet, Inc. Response

2006-05-31T21:07:00.001-05:00

At least 1&1 Internet, Inc. responds to complaints about their hideous General Terms & Conditions. Unfortunately it's the usual thanks for the suggestion blah blah blah from complaints@1and1.com:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for contacting us.

I understand that some of our terms and conditions might be intimidating. I also understand where you're coming from here. But at the time, these conditions won't be changed.

However, this is not to say that it will always be this way. I have passed your concerns to the appropriate people. They can examine your findings here.

If they see a need to change this we can. Anytime we make changes it is because of concerned customers like yourself. We sincerely appreciate your feedback.

Thanks.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

--
Sincerely,

Technical Support
1&1 Internet

1&1 Internet, Inc. Web Hosting T&C

2006-05-26T23:20:00.001-05:00

Below are a few excerpts from web hosting company 1&1 Internet, Inc.'s General Terms & Conditions (T&C) at the time of this posting. I was considering them to host this site. Perhaps I should think again.

I'm sure 1&1 Internet, Inc. is far from unique in cramming these types of terms into their web hosting agreements, but these seemed especially egregious to me. They make me wonder what I'm clicking through when I sign up for web sites and install software.

Quotes from 1&1 Internet, Inc.'s General Terms & Conditions (full version available here) [with my plain English interpretation]:

"all disputes...shall be determined by binding arbitration..." (source)

[i.e. I am denied the right to pursue the normal legal options usually available to me if I am wronged by 1&1 Internet, Inc.]

"You further agree that 1&1 shall be entitled to collect its attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses in the event that 1&1 acts to enforce this arbitration and forum selection clause, regardless of whether 1&1 prevails in the underlying action..." (source)

[Pretty good for 1&1 Internet, Inc. that they can frivolously take me to court with absolutely no monetary risk whatsoever. Wish I had that right. There's some people I'd like to exercise it on.]

"The final award in any such arbitration proceeding shall be subject to entry as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction, provided that such judgment does not conflict with the terms and provisions hereof..." (source)

[i.e. Even if 1&1 Internet, Inc. loses, 1&1 Internet, Inc. wins by definition.]

"YOU HEREBY AGREE THAT AS A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THIS AGREEMENT, YOU WAIVE THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY..." (source)

[So much for the American justice system.]

"Should any legal fees, costs, or other expenses be incurred by any party with regard to enforcement of this arbitration and jury waiver provision, 1&1 shall be entitled to recover such legal fees, costs, or other expenses without regard to whether 1&1 prevails in the underlying case..." (source)

[There goes that wonderful 1&1 Internet, Inc. profit center again.]

"YOU AND 1&1 ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS SECTION 21.5 WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO PARTICIPATION AS A PLAINTIFF OR AS A CLASS MEMBER IN ANY CLASS ACTION..." (source)

[Dang. The American justice system is really taking a hit today.]

"This Agreement may be materially altered by 1&1 by posting the new version of the Agreement at www.1and1.com and if posted in this manner, shall be effective immediately upon posting such notice. In the event that 1&1 does materially change the terms of this Agreement, you accept and shall be bound by such changed terms unless you opt to terminate the Agreement within thirty days of receipt of notice of such change..." (source)

[1&1 Internet, Inc. conveniently doesn't promise to actually notify me of said change, even though they have my verified email address. Apparently I'm supposed to keep constant vigil on www.1and1.com to guard myself against a new T&C posting that now includes the dreaded "and you now owe us $1 million" provision.]

"You agree that regardless of any statute or law to the contrary, any claim or cause of action arising out of or related to use of the Service or this Agreement must be filed within one year after such claim or cause of action arose or be forever barred..." (source)

[American justice be damned!!!]

Is it any wonder why people hate lawyers and corporations?!? I, for one, do not count myself among those people, but this stuff might just scare me enough to reconsider that view.

House Leaders Question FBI Search

2006-05-23T15:09:00.000-05:00

It is quite a sport, these days, to accuse President Bush of all manner of ungodly and horrific breaches of trust, privacy, and constitutional liberty, but several references in this story about the FBI searching a Louisiana Congressman's congressional offices suggest that it is the Legislative branch and not the executive branch that is presuming too much power in this case and putting itself above the law and beyond the reach of the two other co-equal branches of government.

The case involves search warrants issued by a federal judge and executed by the FBI based on a mountain of damning evidence against Rep. William Jefferson:

"The search warrant was issued by a federal district judge, based on an affidavit from FBI investigators outlining some of the evidence that has accumulated in the case, including video tape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant, who agreed to have her conversations with the congressman taped.

Agents later found all but $10,000 of the cash — in marked bills — hidden in a freezer in one of the congressman's homes, according to the affidavit." (source)

First, Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi of California waxed constitutional, expressing her concerns over the searches:

"Congressional independence from the executive branch protects Americans from abuses of power."
"Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent."

I regret to inform Ms. Pelosi that Congress is not an independent body. There is no reference in the Constitution to congressional independence nor should there be.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert had this to say:

"It is not at all clear to me that it would even be possible to create special procedures that would overcome the Constitutional problems that the execution of this warrant has created."

He is referring to the procedures the FBI put in place for the search to protect any privileged information they might find in their search to keep that out of the case file and out of the public eye. The logical conclusion to Mr. Hastert's complaint is that congressional offices are off limits to legitimate law enforcement, providing constitutionally protected storage for all manner of smoking guns.

These statements, taken together or separately, are not only absurd on their face but remarkably ignorant of our constitutional system of government, designed as it was with multiple mechanisms for each of the three branches to check the other two.

White House spokesman Tony Snow sums up the constitutional issue quite nicely as a desire "to balance the Constitutional concerns of the House of Representatives with the law enforcement obligations of the executive branch." This balancing act takes various forms, we see many examples in the news of the day:

The president (executive branch) nominates and the Senate (legislative branch) confirms or rejects judges and cabinet officials
The FBI (executive branch) executes search warrants that a judge (judicial branch) must first issue
The House brings charges of impeachment against a president (executive branch) or judge (judicial branch) that the Senate (legislative branch) tries
Congress (legislative branch) passes laws that the president (executive branch) may sign or veto and that the courts (judicial branch) may uphold or strike down

That is the essence of our system: balance. No one branch is beyond the reach of the other two, and each branch has its own mechanisms to check the others' powers.

We are right to concern ourselves with unchecked power from any one branch of government: judicial, legislative, or executive. However, a search warrant issued by the judicial branch and executed by the executive branch against a member of the legislative branch seems to me to be constitutional checks and balances working exactly as intended.

United 93

2006-05-03T01:49:00.000-05:00

As four terrorists execute their cowardly act of slaughter, four heroic Americans band together to prevent it. Eight willing martyrs: four evil, four good. This is the story of United Flight 93, and the everyday heroes who stood up against a monstrous evil.

As if filmed with shaky, hand-held video cameras, with no major stars to distract your focus, the documentary style of United 93 gave the simple narrative an immediacy and an urgency I can scarcely describe. The story weaves the growing realization of those on the ground that something very big was happening with the very personal fears of those on the plane who, until their last precious minutes, knew nothing beyond their own pending death. It was gripping drama made all the more powerful by its clear truth.

Sure, no one knows exactly what happened on that plane, but we have the passengers' frantic phone calls to loved ones. We have the flight and cockpit voice recorders. And we have the recorded and relayed information from military and civilian aviation officials. Using all this hard, historical data, the filmmaker does an admirable job "filling in the blanks."

I'm not usually one to get all worked up about movies and other forms of "entertainment," but this was one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. It is an honest, heartfelt portrayal of four average Americans thrust into a situation not one of us can scarcely imagine and sacrificing themselves to save the lives of others.

If I am ever in the position of these great men, will I act? Will I lead? Or will I cower and falter, gripped with fear for my own earthly life? I can only imagine.