Sunday, January 29, 2006

More from the freedom-hating Code Pinkos

They apparently think that someone taking photos of them is a protest and violates their permit:
I had gone down alone, with my camera and tripod to document their little public protest.

I had less than a minute's peace to take photos before Allison Yorra and Ann Wilcox of Code Pink came across and told me that I would have to leave the empty sidewalk, across the street from their protest, because they had a permit for where I was standing.

I told them I wasn't disrupting their protest across the street, and that I was holding no signs but simply taking photos. They told me that I was not allowed to be there, and that the police would remove me. I encouraged them to call the police, because I wasn't demonstrating in their protest area, just taking photos, in their protest area where they weren't protesting. They initially declined to call the police, preferring to "handle it themselves."

By now, "Princess", Weasel and some guy with a black beret had joined Allison and Ann around me. They began to block my camera, which was focused on their public protest across the street. No matter which way I turned, there was Allison and her bully-boys.

So I stepped off the sidewalk and into the curb lane of the street, where MPDC does not issue permits unless the road is closed. Allison and the bullies quickly followed. I'd move. They'd move in front of me. I'd move again. They'd again block my view.

More on the now 4-corner pro-troops rally outside of Walter Reed here.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

20 years ago today

I was in 8th grade. For some reason, the fact that NASA was sending a civilian teacher into space wasn't a big deal to our school system. I suppose since they didn't have the ability to have all the students watch the shuttle launch back then, they just let it go.

Anyway, I don't remember what class I had just entered, but I distinctly remember one of the students asking the teacher, "Is it true that the shuttle blew up?"

The teacher answered with a very somber, "Yes." That was all the acknowledgement I remember anyone at our school making.

I, like probably every other American with access to a TV, watched the explosion on the news that night and for several nights after.

To this day, Challenger flight commander Dick Scobee's "Roger, go with throttle up" thrusts a lump in my throat and causes tears to flow from my eyes.

Every time I hear the words.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Lefist "Today Show" agrees Democrats took money from Abramoff

Today Show: Dean Dinged on Dem Dollars from Abramoff Associates
On yesterday's Today show, Howard Dean did his best angry imitation of Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex" and/or Rafael Palmeiro's "I have never used steroids" performances. His voice rising, Dean insisted over Katie Couric's attempts to claim otherwise that:

"Katie, not one dime of Jack Abramoff money ever went to any Democrat. Not one dime."

Confronted by such intransigence, Katie politely observed that "we'll have to look into that and clarify that for our viewers." That's apparently just what the Today researchers did overnight, and Matt Lauer, with Tim Russert in tow, informed viewers this morning of their findings.

Said Lauer: "We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and technically Howard Dean may be correct but while 66% of the money in this situation went to Republicans, 34% of the money not from Abramoff but from associates and clients went to Democrats."

Lauer asked Russert whether Dems can turn this into strictly a Republican scandal and "wash their hands of this?"

Russert's response was unequivocal, and not good news for the DNC: "No. The issue is broad and wide."

Howard Dean: chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome sufferer.

Shannon comments on "the Book of Daniel's" cancellation

From the comments here:
Okay, I'll ask here instead: First off, I'm curious if you've actually bothered to watch the show or if you're just parroting what other fundamentalists are saying about it?

First, I apologize for not responding to your email, Shannon. I was going to respond, then put it on the back burner with the intention of replying to it here.

As to your question, no, I have not seen the show. I don't have to. Consider pornographic magazines. Do I have to view each and every new one that comes out to know they're pornographic and to denounce them? Of course not! Certainly, pornographic magazines aren't as subtle as, say, a TV show, but the principle is the same. And no, I'm not "parroting what other fundamentalists are saying about it." Trusting someone else's word on something does not equate to "parroting." Non-fundamentalist Christians and non-Christians do the same thing. In fact, I've known a lot of Bible critics who have never picked up a Bible in their life, yet they feel that because they read stuff on Internet Infidels or the Skeptic's Annotated Bible they're somehow expert critics. (And they actually do parrot the things they've read.)

The issues the Webster family dealt with are no different than what any other families do. EVERY family discusses, and sometimes is faced with drug addiction (like Father Webster's addiction to painkillers), or homosexuality. Sometimes even ministers and other clergy experience those issues within their own families. Is it your belief that being a minister or other type of clergy exempts a person from dealing with things the rest of the world does?

That was not at all the issue of criticisms of the show. Consider the following statements:

"While we certainly recognize that Christians do have problems, and they have problems in their families, it seems that Hollywood consistently wants to focus on those types of Christians and those types of ministers -- when the reality is that many, many more are hard-working," Vitagliano says. "They work hard to have good family lives -- just like a lot of people do -- and are faithful to scripture."

"The show is written by a non-Christian, but it's written about Christians that people are not going to recognize," says Vitagliano. "I don't know anybody this dysfunctional in my over 20 years of ministry."

In addition, says the researcher, viewers are going to be watching a show with a "Jesus" character in it that they are not going to recognize from scripture. "So we're kind of befuddled that NBC has decided to air a program about Christians and Christianity -- and they didn't even care enough to have a Christian write it," he says.

In an interview with the LA Times, Vitagliano acknowledged that while Christians -- "even ministers" -- do indeed have difficulties in life, The Book of Daniel is "not a realistic portrayal of a minister's life. This was so far beyond the pale, it was almost a comic strip version."

It's always been acknowledged that Christians deal with problems like everyone else, and sometimes they are problems like the ones depicted in the show, but the show fails to address handling those problems in a Biblical manner as Christians are taught do.

The show (as I pointed out here: is more about demonstrating how a family can come together in spite of their issues and love one another unconditionally. Why is that a negative message?

The negative message is in the absence of Jesus as Savior. Coming together and loving each other is a great message, but it is meaningless without Christ.

The appearance of Jesus was not at all offensive, as he spoke to the minister in exactly the way christians are told he will if you just have faith.

That character is not at all like the real Jesus. It is yet another offensive Hollywoodized perversion of Jesus. Again, consider this statement:

From his sermon advocating that temptation can be good -- his use of the Lord's name in vain -- his addiction to pain killers -- his embracing of his son's homosexuality -- his drug-dealing daughter -- his brother-in-law who stole $3.5 million dollars of the church's funds -- his sister-in-law who had a ménage a trios to spice up her marriage -- to his complicit attitude and support for premarital sex -- Daniel, the Episcopal priest of NBC's new television show, The Book of Daniel, depicts clergy, the Church, and Christianity in an incredibly disappointing fashion.

Wrapped in the garb of professed good intentions -- picturing people of faith having the same problems as everyone else and that religion can help with these issues -- the program is really a slight on genuine faith in Christ. It highlights and emphasizes "a form of godliness," but denies the power of the Gospel to transform a life. "From such," the apostle Paul warned, "turn away." (2 Tim. 3:5) In this case, the apostle would have said, "Turn the channel."

The worst sin of this new broadcast is that it fails to acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Instead, Christ is portrayed as a "buddy" or "pal" who is available to everyone, but offers no solution to life's problems based on absolute principles of right and wrong and only gives advice if one wants it. Christ is presented as many want to see Him and not as He really is -- the Lord of life.

Jesus is not simply "a great teacher of morality," as Joseph Klausner contended. Neither is He, as Ernest Renan said, just an "inexhaustible principle of moral regeneration." Instead, Jesus is God! It is this fact that gives His teachings their authority, makes obedience to His commandments imperative, and faith in Him mandatory for salvation.

Hollywood doesn't want Jesus portrayed as God, though. That's what they find offensive, and that's no surprise.

Jeremiah 6:10 "To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of the LORD is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it."

It's actually a pretty sad thing that the show was taken off the air, but eventually it will be available on DVD, so at least those of us who appreciated it will be able to enjoy it.

Well, find solace wherever you can find it, I guess.

As for your glee that it has been's also pretty sad that you celebrate censorship,

You obviously don't understand the word "censorship."

especially when the target audience is consenting adults.

I'll remember that the next time the liberals get up in arms over a show that they say is offensive to, say, homosexuals. "The target audience is consenting adults, so why are you complaining?"

The show did have an 'M' rating.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Would a show offensive to pagans like yourself be okay as long as it had an 'M' rating?

Bottom line: this show was offensive to Christians and their response was no different than what liberal groups would do if faced with a show they found offensive.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Peaceful "Walk for Life West Coast" assaulted by the liberal hate-machine

Zombie's got the telling pics and video here. They prove once again that the people who caterwaul the most for "tolerance" are the ones who are the least likely to actually display it. Some choice quotes from signs:

"Why not outlaw heterosexuality instead! Strike at the source!"
"Fight the fascist right"
"Keep your laws off my body and I'll keep my hands off your throat!"
"F*** your agenda"
"No to women-hating Christian-fascist theocracy"
"We're under attack by religious terrorists who hate our freedom"
"Stop breedins"
"Just say no to sex with pro-lifers"
"Abort more Christians"
"Kill your kids motherf***er"
"Hear yee all Christian Catholic Taliban"

Yep. Add to that the attempts to block the pro-life marchers (with some hilarious results), attempts to stifle pro-lifers' freedom of speech, pelting pro-lifers with condoms and an attempt to douse them with "water balloons filled with viscous red liquid and unidentified globs," and it's pretty clear who the real haters are.

Haleigh Poutre continues to improve; Michelle asks where Tookie's supporters are

As Haleigh continues to fight for her life, doctors - who once said she was in a "persistent vegetative state" and wanted to end her life - have changed their tune:
Haleigh Poutre, the brain-damaged girl whose fate has been debated in the highest levels of state government, will receive emergency life-saving measures from hospital staff if her heart or lungs stop working.

A spokeswoman for the state Department of Social Services, which has custody of Haleigh, said yesterday that among its revised requests to the courts last week was that the agency no longer sought to enforce a ''do not resuscitate" order.

That order told doctors not to begin emergency measures to save the 11-year-old Westfield girl's life if she went into cardiac or respiratory failure. DSS spokeswoman Denise Monteiro said the agency no longer seeks to have that order go into effect and has suspended plans to withdraw life support, including her feeding tube.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin asks the supporters of "Tookie" Williams, "Where are you now?" I would ask the same question. These people fought tooth and nail to save a convicted murderer from being condemned to death by the state, yet they are silent when an innocent girl is condemned to death by the state. Why is the left so eager to save the guilty but ignore (or, in the case of abortion, condemn) the innocent? Some on the left say that the death penalty is wrong in part because people who might be innocent might be condemned to death. So what about state-sanctioned euthanasia? As in Haleigh's case, people whose diagnoses might be wrong might be condemned to death. They don't argue that, though. Why is that?

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

All comment bans are off, but moderation is on

The comments from a couple people in the last couple weeks were getting gratuitously insulting towards me, so I banned them. I've since unbanned everyone I've ever banned and turned on comment moderation.

VICTORY!!! NBC cancels "Book of Daniel!!!"

NBC pulls the plug on 'Book of Daniel'
NBC's "The Book of Daniel" may have launched to great controversy and hoopla.

But, today, the show ended with a whimper – pulled unceremoniously from NBC's Friday night schedule, effective immediately, with no more of an announcement than an entry on an NBC blog by creator Jack Kenny.

"Unfortunately, due to many reasons, 'The Book of Daniel' will no longer be aired on NBC on Friday nights," he wrote to fans. "I just wanted to say 'thank you' to all of you who supported the show. There were many wonderful, talented people who contributed to its success – and I do mean success. Whatever the outcome, I feel that I accomplished what I set out to do: A solid family drama, with lots of humor, that honestly explored the lives of the Webster family. Good, flawed people, who loved each other no matter what ... and there was always a lot of 'what'! I remain proud of our product, proud of my association with Sony, NBC Universal, and NBC, who all took a chance on a project that spoke to them, and proud to have made an impact on so many of your lives."

As WorldNetDaily first reported, "The Book of Daniel," written by a homosexual, was promoted as the only show on television in which Jesus appeared as a recurring character and the only network prime-time drama series with a regular male "gay" character, a 23-year-old Republican son. The main character, Daniel Webster, was a troubled, pill-popping Episcopal priest.

Touted as the riskiest show of the year, it included a wife who relied on midday martinis, a 16-year-old daughter who was a drug dealer and a 16-year-old adopted son who was having sex with the bishop's daughter. At the office, the priest's lesbian secretary was sleeping with his sister-in-law.

One NBC affiliate after another dropped the show. Advertisers ran from it. And, apparently, despite all the controversy it generated, so did viewers.

Nashville's WSMV-TV General Manager Elden Hale, Jr. said: "Based on a review of the first three episodes and the clearly voiced concerns from our viewers, we have determined that the program 'The Book of Daniel' is not appropriate for broadcast television in this community."

After the first three episodes, only Burlington Coat Factory was left as a national sponsor.

Good! And good riddance!

Monday, January 23, 2006

Canadian elections today

Prepare to see liberals' heads exploding when a conservative government takes over. (I'll be particularly amused to see CanadianCynic's response to crushing defeat.)

Go to Captain's Quarters for "live-blogging" of the results.

The sanctity of Haleigh's life

Haleigh Poutre's story is saddening and maddening tragic. The 11-year-old Massachussetts girl was abused for years before she was finally beaten into a coma by her stepfather and now deceased mother. The state - supposedly looking out for Haleigh's best interests - fought and won to have her life support removed. Doctors claimed she was in a permanent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The only problem? They were wrong. Haleigh started breating on her own and may come out of the coma. (Would you want those doctors treating you?) Now Gov. Romney has launched an investigation into how the case has been handled by the state. (Quite poorly, I would say.)

Additionally, "See B.S." News inexplicably has turned Haleigh's plight into a "right-to-die" case. What. The. Foosball??? As Michael Graham quite rightly states:
Right to die? Where did that come from? Nobody has even suggested that Haleigh wants DSS to pull her feeding tube. And because Haley's condition has improved, DSS has for the moment announced they aren't going to. And even if someone testified Haleigh had expressed an opinion on life-saving medical care, what difference would that make? She's ELEVEN.

Exactly. Flipping. RIGHT! "See B.S." News - America's main source for "fake, but accurate" reporting - has absolutely no business calling this a "right-to-die" case. This is a right-to-life case. Haleigh is breathing on her own now after months of being on a ventilator and she eventually may come out of her supposedly irreversible coma. "Right-to-die," indeed! The mind boggles at "See B.S." News' deplorable, death-loving mentality.

Code Pinko snoozes, loses permit to protest across from Walter Reed

The short version is that a radical pro-Castro group called Code Pink Women for Peace holds an anti-war rally outside of the hospital every Friday night between 7 and 9pm. Code Pink is perhaps most notorious for having given $600,000 to the terrorists in Fallujah in December of 2004. They have been holding these protests at Walter Reed for almost 10 months now.

Word got out quickly that the Pinkos were outside the hospital, and the folks at Free Republic started holding counter-demonstrations/pro-troop rallies at opposite corners to where the Pinkos stood.


I arrived shortly before 7pm, and as I drove up, I saw quite a few people on what are normally the Pinko's two corners. Odd, I thought, as they usually didn't arrive in numbers until 7:30 or 8. After I parked and walked to one of our corners, I noticed to my great surprise that those were our people across the street.


I asked one of our members standing nearby and that's when I learned that one of our number, "Concrete Bob", had secured permits this week for the Pinkos two corners. They had been laggard in renewing their permits and Bob seized the opportunity.

You know, I just do not understand why these Code Pinko jerks think they need to protest the war outside an army hospital. The soldiers and doctors have no control over anything. The soldiers are receiving medical attention. Protesting outside the hospital serves no purpose other than to insult them, which is very likely Code Pinko's purpose.

Yeah, if the left really did support the troops, they'd make sure Code Pinko was sent packing.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

January 22, 2006: National Sanctity of Human Life Day
National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2006
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

Our Nation was founded on the belief that every human being has rights, dignity, and value. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we underscore our commitment to building a culture of life where all individuals are welcomed in life and protected in law.

America is making great strides in our efforts to protect human life. One of my first actions as President was to sign an order banning the use of taxpayer money on programs that promote abortion overseas. Over the past 5 years, I also have been proud to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and a ban on partial-birth abortion. In addition, my Administration continues to fund abstinence and adoption programs and numerous faith-based and community initiatives that support these efforts.

When we seek to advance science and improve our lives, we must always preserve human dignity and remember that human life is a gift from our Creator. We must not sanction the creation of life only to destroy it. America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of medicine and research and at the same time remain an ethical and compassionate society.

National Sanctity of Human Life Day is an opportunity to strengthen our resolve in creating a society where every life has meaning and our most vulnerable members are protected and defended including unborn children, the sick and dying, and persons with disabilities and birth defects. This is an ideal that appeals to the noblest and most generous instincts within us, and this is the America we will achieve by working together.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 22, 2006, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to reaffirm our commitment to respecting and defending the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.


Friday, January 20, 2006

Code Pinkos caught photoshopping Iranian freedom protesters as antiwar activists



UPDATE: If you have any troubles clicking through the link or seeing the picture, don't blame me. The website seems to be having problems. Even other sites carrying the story are finding it problematic.

Actually, no. I really don't want to shove my religion down your throat

In fact, it's against my religion to do such a thing. However, having the right to share my religion with you is not shoving it down your throat. You are free to either accept or reject what I have to say and I would never, ever take that freedom away from you.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Here's what the liberals are basing the "Bush stole the election" garbage on

The Gun is Smoking - 2004 Ohio Precinct-Level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount

So what's their "virtually irrefutable evidence?"
Exit Polls were conducted in 49 of Ohio’s 11,360 precincts. At least 40% of Ohio's polled precincts show statistically significant differences between Kerry’s exit poll percent and official vote count percent. 35% of these exit polls overestimated the Kerry official vote share. This is five times the number expected.

Do the math.

49 of 11,360 precincts is 0.43%. Not even half a percent.

Now, of those 49, 40% supposedly showed "statistically significant differences." 40% of 49 is 19.6, so let's be nice and round up to 20 (though it was probably only 19). 20 of 11,360 precincts is 0.18%.

And of those 20, 35% supposedly showed Kerry's votes were "underestimated." 35% of 20 is 7. 7 of 11,360 is 0.06%. 0.06% of all of Ohio!!!! THAT'S what they're basing their "Bush stole the election" crap on.

"Reality-based community" my foot!

Gay activists plan to crash White House Easter egg roll

A Gay Easter?
FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS children have gathered on the South Lawn of the White House on the Monday after Easter to roll Easter eggs across the yard and meet the Easter Bunny. Seemingly few (if any) Washingtonians have ever tried to exploit the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for political purposes. Until now. A church-based homosexual rights group is planning to crash the event with a "family visibility action" to spotlight their non-traditional families.

"On April 17, 2006, when the White House lawn is opened to families for the Annual Easter Egg Roll, imagine if the first 1,000 families onto the lawn were LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families," enthused a January 4 email alert from Soulforce. Once America sees the White House lawn awash in LGBT families, "there will be no going back," Soulforce promised.

Soulforce is the political organizing tool of self-described "militant gay activist" Mel White, the former Jerry Falwell speech writer who discovered his gayness and became a clergyman in the predominantly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches.

White and his supporters routinely show up at church conventions and other events to protest, perform acts of civil disobedience and demand that denominations change their teachings about homosexuality. They apply the "soul force" of principles from Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi to the "struggle for justice for sexual minorities."

According to Soulforce, "LGBT" participants are being urged to gather at the White House gate the night before so as to be the first to enter the next morning. Volunteers will stand in line for "LGBT" parents who cannot do it themselves.

Although Soulforce insists this will not be a political protest, only a gathering for families, its supporters will arrive with special "non-political" t-shirts to identify themselves as "LGBT."

Yep. Why bother letting the kids have fun? There's more important things like political protests to do!


Monday, January 16, 2006

Risawn's back home

Go here and welcome her back to the good ol' U.S. of A.!

UPDATE: Hrm... She apparently took her blog down.

New York Times caught lying... AGAIN

From the American Thinker:
The picture shows a sad little boy, with a turbaned man next to him, a little bit further from the camera, amid the ruins of a house. Other men and boys peer in from the background. The photo is captioned

“Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border.”

The story it accompanies is about the apparently failed attempt to take out al Qaeda’s #2 man al Zawahiri, with a missile attack from a Predator drone.

“How sad!” readers are encouraged to think. “These poor people are on the receiving end of awful weapons used by the clumsy minions of Bush. And all to no avail. Isn’t it terrible? Why must America do such horrible misdeeds? Bush must go!”

The only problem is that the long cylindrical item with a conical tip pictured with the boy and the man is not a missile at all. It is an old artillery shell. Not something that would have been fired from a Predator. Indeed, something that must have been found elsewhere and posed with the ruins and the little boy as a means at pulling of the heartstrings of the gullible readers of the New York Times.

More "fake, but accurate" reporting, I suppose.

Friday, January 13, 2006

The world's "newest" worst polluter: plants!

New source of global warming gas found: plants
German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.


Keppler and his colleagues discovered that living plants emit 10 to 100 times more methane than dead plants.

I love that. It's a "new source." Apparently plants have never existed or emitted methane before.

Now, I wonder how long it will take for the rabid environmentalists to sweep this under the nearest rug.

Howie does it again!

I've never seen someone so prone to putting their foot in their [oversized] mouth. From the Patriot Post:
"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true." —DNC Chairman Howard Dean

Normally, we'd suggest that Dr. Dean think before he speaks, but that would spoil all the fun. His statement certainly rings true if one doesn't count the 40 Democrat senators who have in fact taken money from Jack Abramoff. Among the Abramoff beneficiaries are Demos Joseph Biden, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Byron Dorgan (at least $79,000), John Kerry (at least $98,000), Pat Leahy, Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer, who already has what may well be the largest campaign war chest in Washington.

The racist, sexist organization that wasn't

No surprises here. More lies from the left.
Kudos to ABC reporter Jake Tapper, whose "Down and Dirty" blog carries an interview with Dinesh D'Souza, an editor for the magazine of Concerned Alumni of Princeton from 1983 to 1985, the time frame in which Sam Alito claimed membership in CAP when applying for a job in the Reagan Justice Department. As Brent Bozell noted, the network coverage of CAP has skipped over the responsible step of checking with the accused. Maybe the story was just too good to check. D'Souza said humorless Ted Kennedy actually made a boo-boo: one quoted article in the CAP magazine was a satire, not a serious argument

The fact that the Democrats have to dig so far into the past to find something - anything - to smear Judge Alito with just shows how desperate and pathetic they are. And to either knowingly or unknowingly misrepresent it is simply beyond the pale. If you are going to try to defame someone's character, you'd better be darn sure the information you have is 100% true and ironclad.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Congratulate me

I've finally joined the rest of the civilized world. We have high speed internet now. Yay!

The left's hypocrisy about domestic spying

When Clinton spied on Americans indiscriminately, the left yawned and said it was "necessary."

Ah, but when President Bush targets terror suspects only in spying operations, the left couldn't be more outraged. "That's illegal! Impeach him! Impeach! Impeach! IMPEACH!!!!!!!!"

Friday, January 06, 2006

Nice to see Dawn's back, too

No, not her back back. She started blogging again when I was out of the picture. As usual, she's got a lot of good stuff about Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other pro-abortion goons:

Planned Parenthood Boasts It Covered Up an 11-Year-Old's Rape

Planned Parenthood Tells 13-Year-Olds One Swallow Does Not a Bummer Make (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT ABOUT ORAL SEX)

Planned Parenthood: No Live Babies Allowed

Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret Sanger

NARAL's Emergency Misconception

Gosh, I missed her. Welcome back, Dawn!

Well, I'm back

It's been an interesting month. Had some computer issues to deal with. Then I had a car accident with my Blazer which smashed up the front end, but thankfully no one was hurt. Got that all fixed right before Christmas, but then I found that the 4-wheel drive wasn't coming on, so I had to schedule a day for that to be fixed. Then the day before I was to bring it in, we were driving home from a New Year's get-together with my wife's family when we hit a bad patch of snow on the highway and ended up spinning around 180 degrees and tipping over in the snow-filled ditch. Again, we are thankful that no one was hurt and we were blessed to have a wrecker arrive quickly and pull the undamaged (the snow helped a lot) truck out. Then there was the guy on the bike who decided that speeding through a stop sign on a side street onto an often-used street would be a good idea. I was driving my mom's car at the time as the 4-wheel drive on my Blazer was getting fixed. He braked and swerved. I swerved. He wiped out and ended thumping into the back end of the car. He didn't cause any damage, said he wasn't hurt and refused any assistance from me.

Like I said... interesting.

Web Pages referring to this page
Link to this page and get a link back!