Congressional Leadership - Out Of Touch On Gas Prices

Need Votes From Older Male Voters? Offer Free Viagra

In this political silly season we have seen promise after promise being made by politicians in efforts to woo votes from all segments of voters. A Chilean Mayor has come across a new technique. Promise older men free viagra!

Gonzalo Navarrete, a physician and mayor of a dirt-poor village south of Santiago, Chile, Lo Prado, said he got the idea from hearing older men in his town complain about not getting enough sex.

He told Las Ultimas Noticias daily,

“This has to do with quality of life and it’s done responsibly. It’s not just like handing out candy at the corner. We'll give out four, 50 milligram pills, in other words, for four sexual relationships per month.”

The offer is for men 60 and older who pass a rigorous medical examination.

Mayor Navarrete estimates start up cost of about $20,000

With all the freebies American politicians have been promising, perhaps the Mayor in Chile has hit upon a sure fire perk for reelection. Look for Hillary and Obama both to add this to their multitude of promises made.

It is hoped the older males in Lo Prado have better success with the product than this writer did, who tried it only once, getting it stuck in his throat leaving him with a stiff neck.

Man Made Global Hunger, The Real Crisis

As more and more of our food stocks are converted to bio-fuels, the latest craze to fight the fallacy of man-made Global Warming, hunger and starvation worldwide is being reported along with riots over short supplies of staples needed to survive.

The New York Sun recently published an article, “Food Crisis Starts Eclipsing Climate Change Worries,” telling us “An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.”

While the switch to bio-fuels is not 100% accountable for the current high price in foods or the growing shortage, it does account for a good portion of the responsibility. Al Gore, Democrat guru of the man-made Global Warming charge, has been unavailable for comment on this aspect of his efforts. However, Rajendra Pachauri of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change and who shared the Nobel Prize with Mr. Gore warns it is “unwise to promote bio-fuels in a way that risks food supplies.”

Mr. Pachauri said,

“We should be very, very careful about coming up with bio-fuel solutions that have major impact on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security. Questions do arise about what is being done in North America, for instance, to convert corn into sugar then into bio-fuels, into ethanol.”

In an interview last year, Gore expressed his support for ethanol fuel made from corn but added he favors moving to the “third generation” of so-called cellulosic ethanol production, which is still in laboratory research.

Michael McElroy, professor of environmental studies at Harvard, warned in a 2006 article, The Ethanol Illusion,

“We must recognize also that the production of ethanol from either corn or sugar cane presents a new dilemma: whether the feedstock should be devoted to food or fuel. With increasing use of corn and sugar cane for fuel, a rise in related food prices would seem inevitable.”

In contrast, Matthew Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association claims,

“The people who seek to solely blame ethanol for the food crisis and the rising price of food that we see across the globe are taking a terribly simplistic look at this very complex issue. There is a concerted misinformation campaign being put out there by those people who are threatened by ethanol’s growing prominence in the marketplace,” as he sought to draw the picture that oil companies and food manufacturers are attempting to undercut ethanol.

Deroy Murdock, contributing Editor for National Review Online, lists many disadvantages to converting food into fuel in his article, Global Food Riots. He cites,

According to the Hoover Institution’s Henry Miller and University of California Davis professor Colin Carter, “ethanol yields about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline, so miles per gallon in internal combustion engines drops significantly.”

It takes three to six gallons of water to grow the corn for one gallon of ethanol, thus draining rivers and reservoirs.

As farmers turn forests into corn fields, they expend energy uprooting trees that produce oxygen, absorb CO2, and store carbon. Princeton University researchers calculate that this ethanol-driven arboricide has spawned a “carbon debt” that already will take 167 years to reverse.

As Princeton’s Tim Searchinger said in the February 8 Washington Post, “We can’t get to a result, no matter how heroically we make assumptions on behalf of corn ethanol, where it will actually generate greenhouse-gas benefits.”

Meanwhile, tree killing consumes wildlife habitat. Orangutans now are in jeopardy as their surroundings fall to new, ethanol-inspired palm-oil plantations.

Nitrogen fertilizer, common in corn cultivation, yields nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, which is no laughing matter. As Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen and his scientific team concluded in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics last August 1, “the relatively large emission of N2O exacerbates the already huge challenge of getting global warming under control.”

Unless superior substitutes emerge, obeying Congress’ 2022 diktat will require a corn crop equal to 115 percent of 2007’s U.S. output, with every kernel going to ethanol, none for food. The consequences would be calamitous — from movies without popcorn, to over-farmed and under-rotated fields, to growing global starvation.

More and more, people are realizing that Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny. Even the Arctic Sea Ice Is Re-Freezing at A Record Pace, indicating Polar bears are not threatened.

While alarmists show excessive concern for animal species that are not even threatened, potential health hazards to humans remain ignored in the headlong rush towards bio-fuels.

As stated above, it takes three to six gallons of water to grow the corn for one gallon of ethanol. Warnings of a looming water shortage worldwide are ignored as land is deforested to make room for more and more crops of food stocks to be converted to fuel, removing an important source of oxygen producing trees.

Pope Benedict XVI added his voice as he suggested that “fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.”

In the cries to combat world hunger, it cannot be ignored that food production is being diverted to fuel production while scores of untapped oil reserves remain idle.

Scientists that refute global warming claims are ridiculed or marginalized as we are told by the alarmists, “the Debate is OVER!”

Yet, Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse The Man-Made Global Warming Theory.

In the meantime, world hunger grows, food prices skyrocket and congressional Democrats call for yet another wasteful investigation into gasoline prices.

This writer feels the Pope said it best when he said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

The quest for alternative fuel sources is worthy and necessary. In the meantime, as they are being perfected and made affordable, oil remains the most efficient and cost effective energy source available. It should be used and food stocks returned to feeding humans, not feeding cars.

Cindy Sheehan, The Mouse That Whispered

Cindy Sheehan, anti-war mother, known for Camp Casey, a protest outside of President Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch, has filed to have her name placed on the upcoming ballot in an attempt to unseat Democrat Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Ms. Sheehan, who burst onto the scene in the 2004 elections, demanding President Bush speak to her personally, after he had already met with her personally, took out the necessary papers Friday, at the San Francisco Court House, to begin the process to have her name placed on the ballot in opposition to the wealthy and popular Democrat Congresswoman from the District, Nancy Pelosi, who was elected as the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives after the Democrat takeover in the 2006 elections.

To be placed on the ballot, Sheehan will have to gather 10,198 signatures or her efforts to have her name placed on the ballot will fail. Sheehan says,

“It’s an uphill battle, but I'm excited about the signature-gathering process. It’s going to be an opportunity to talk to people about our campaign.”

Sheehan, who became disillusioned with the current Democrat party leadership because they failed to meet her July 23, 2007 deadline to introduce articles of impeachment against President Bush, announced last year her intent to run against Pelosi in 2008.

Sheehan announced then,

“I’m going to hold Nancy Pelosi accountable. I’m going to run in her district. And not only am I going to run, I’m going to win!”

Noting at the time that only 15 House members had signed a similar bill to impeach Vice President Cheney, Sheehan blurted,

“That tells me there’s 420 enablers of the Bush regime in Congress. We want to be represented finally, dammit! We want a say! The people are speaking, and the people want the criminals out of the White House,”

shortly before she and the 45 protestors with her were arrested for refusing to leave the office of Democrat Congressman, John Conyers.

The corresponding secretary for the Robert F. Kennedy Democratic Club, J. Paton Marshall penned an open letter to Sheehan at the time saying,

“If you continue with this threat to embarrass the speaker, it is very possible that the voters will turn against the Democratic leadership in Congress and return the Republicans to the majority. If that happens, all investigations will cease and justice for Bush and Cheney will be impossible.”

Club president, John Smith in endorsing the published letter added,

“We can’t sit here and shoot at ourselves. We are not the obstruction. Even though (Sheehan) wants impeachment, it’s not going to happen. It takes two-thirds of the Senate.”

Sheehan has had harsh words for other Democrats who failed to follow her whims on stopping the War on Terror, including candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Nancy Pelosi, the 10 term Representative from San Francisco, who traditionally garners upwards of 80% of the votes from the district, is no stranger to token challenges in elections, usually from a Republican. Sheehan does have name recognition and San Francisco is far left and filled with anti-war people, but Pelosi has experience, wealth and incumbency behind her, relegating Sheehan’s challenge to futile in many minds.

Sheehan, on the other hand, will have to gather the needed signatures to be on the ballot and faces a steep uphill battle in collecting funds through donations to base her challenge on. In many people’s minds, Sheehan disgraced herself, tarnished her Heroic sons sacrifice, alienated her family and many Veterans when she labeled a group of Viet Nam Veterans as “Rightest America Haters.”

Sheehan’s husband Pat, who divorced her during the early days of her protests outside the Crawford, Texas ranch of President Bush, takes a different track in grieving the loss of their son, Casey, who volunteered for a hazardous mission he didn’t have to go on and which cost him his life.

In opposing Pelosi, Sheehan claims, “she's out of touch with San Francisco's progressive roots.”

Sheehan is considered to be amongst the “longest of long shots” opposing Pelosi, not even giving her a moment's worry on Election Day. Democrats outnumber Republicans 56 percent to 10 percent in Pelosi’s district and incumbents rarely lose, leaving Pelosi every right to be making plans for her next term in office.

Sheehan, on the other hand and despite her wide popularity among the leftists during the 2004 campaign that failed to unseat Bush, leaves her looking much like comedian Peter Sellers did in the 1959 comedy, The Mouse That Roared, but more like a Mouse That Whispered.

Trip Back In Time

For a change, nothing political, just a trip with Bucky Beaver, star of the Ipana Toothpaste Commercials from the early days of television.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Senator Obama

With today’s loss to Hillary Clinton in the Pennsylvania primaries, perhaps Barack Obama is seeing the bitterness he spoke of on April 6 as small town not only clung to their guns and faith, but voted against his presidency as well.

It was at a fundraiser in San Francisco on April 6 that he told us,

“…it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

He later tried to clarify his comment with,

“I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter,” adding, “Now, I didn’t say it as well as I should have. If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”

Some things he seems not to regret though, has been his anti-gun stance over the years, opposing letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes and voting against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone in gang related crimes.

The junior Senator must not realize that people of faith have always clung to their faith in times of need. It has carried many through troubled times. Americans generally hold no antipathy towards immigrants; it is Illegal Immigrants who drain our economy more than they sustain it. And, no gun owner this writer knows of “clings” to a gun.

Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School reinforces that with an article published in the April 19, 2008 Wall Street Journal, Trigger Happy.

Professor Brooks tells us that anybody who would find Obama’s portrayal of small town bitterness realistic shows just how little some know their neighbors. And “nothing reveals the truth better than the data on guns,” he says.

Drawing from the 2006 General Social Survey, he tells us that 34% of American homes have guns in them. In addition, gun owners have the same level of formal education as non-gun owners, on average and they earn 32% more per year than non-gun owners.

The bitterness is also shown to be a canard as he informs us that 36% of gun owners say they are very happy while 9% say they are not too happy, compared to only 30% of non-gun owners saying they were very happy with 16% saying they were not too happy. In all, approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns, regardless of political affiliation.

He tells us that one plausible reason for this happiness is that gun owners feel more “self –reliant” than non-gun owners, feeling they are able to defend themselves, should the need arise and even hunt their own food, if necessary.

Not feeling dependent on others has always elevated ones feelings of self worth and independence, something Socialists wish to tether to government programs.

The General Social Survey asked about agreement with the statement, “Those in need have to take care of themselves.” Gun owners agreed 10% more than non-gun owners, 60% to 50%.

Countering any call of selfishness amongst gun-owners, the same survey also shows gun owners more likely to give money to charity (83% to 75%), more likely to give of themselves, as in donating blood and more likely to strongly agree they would "endure all things" for someone they loved (45% to 37%).

Guns have a long and respected history in America. Article 9, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 says, “That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defense of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.”

Perhaps the “bitterness” Pennsylvania voters felt was the junior Senator’s questioning their right to bear arms.

If Barack Obama learns that Happiness is a warm gun, don’t be too surprised to see him walking a field in an oversized brand new hunting jacket or reminiscing of hunting ducks with his father as well.

Jimmy Carter: Peacemaker or Useful Fool?

Jimmy Carter, 39th President of America, seems to have completed his much-opposed meeting with the terrorist organization Hamas, returning with the message, “Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace.”

In a normal world, such a message would be welcomed and readily accepted. But, we don’t live in a normal world and Israel lives in even less of a normal world, with Hamas’ daily rocket attacks raining down. Messages as this from Hamas must receive a critical look before Israeli’s jump and accept what could be a Palestinian Trojan Horse.

Carter tells us that Hamas promised it wouldn’t undermine Palestinian President Abbas’ efforts to negotiate peace with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum.

Carter, a 2002 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, urges Israel to engage in direct negotiations with Hamas, whose charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. Carter calls the refusal of America and Israel to discuss with Hamas a “problem.” Says Carter,

“The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria. The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved.”

He continued,

“There’s no doubt that both the Arab world and Hamas will accept Israel’s right to exist in peace within 1967 borders.”

Hamas followed up with notice that the Palestinian militant group would offer Israel a 10-year truce as implicit proof of recognition of Israel, if it withdrew from all lands it seized after the 1967 Six Day War. Khaled Mashaal, who met with Carter this past Saturday said,

“We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition.”

Within hours, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri claimed, “Carter’s comments do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.” Shortly after, a 4-year-old Israeli boy was wounded as seven rockets were fired on Israel from Gaza, under Hamas control.

Tom Casey, deputy spokesman for the State Department there was no indication Hamas wanted peace with Israel.

“What is clear to us is that there certainly is no change in Hamas’ position. It does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, it has not eschewed or walked away from terrorism and violence, nor has it said it will honor any of the previous agreements that have been made with the Israeli government,” Casey said.

Abu Jandal, another Hamas leader said that Saturdays suicide bombing of an Israeli position on the Gaza border on Saturday was just a warm-up. That attack wounded 13 Israeli Soldiers. “The previous attacks were just a walk in the park,” Jandal told Al Risala, a Hamas linked newspaper.

Carter, credited for brokering a peace between Egypt and Israel, said that the indirect talks between Hamas and Israel through Egypt, for the release of Israeli Soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit, captured nearly two years ago and in exchange for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, were making only very slow progress and could drag on for years.

Independent analyst, Mouin Rabbani said Hamas is using Carter to convey the message that, under certain conditions, it is willing to accept a two-state solution.

“Where he demanded specific actions, they didn’t respond because he isn’t in a position to deliver anything in return,” Rabbani said.

Arye Mekel, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman said,

“It was sad to see how Hamas is using former president Carter to try to get legitimization it does not deserve.”

Israeli political and security analyst, Yossi Alpher says that while Carter had not achieved any dramatic breakthroughs, his meetings were “symptomatic of a slow erosion in the boycott of Hamas at the international level.”

Carter says said that furthering that erosion was his goal and he believed Hamas was no longer determined to destroy the Jewish state saying,

“It may be something they wish, but they know it’s a fruitless concept.” He continued, “[Hamas’] ultimate goal is to see Israel living in their allocated borders, the 1967 borders, and a contiguous, vital Palestinian state alongside.”

Reading from an English version of an agreement worked out this weekend, Carter read,

“If President Abbas succeeds in negotiating a final status agreement with Israel, Hamas will accept the decision made by the Palestinian people and their will in a referendum monitored by international observers . . . even if Hamas is opposed to the agreement.”

Leaving themselves room to back out of the agreement, something Hamas has done time and time again, Hamas officials, say that “any referendum must include Palestinians living in exile worldwide,” which could make the vote logistically impossible.

Khaled Meshal, an exiled Hamas leader who met with Carter says,

“[Hamas] would not formally recognize Israel even if it accepts a peace deal that implicitly acknowledges Israel's existence.” Meshal told reporters, “We accept a state on the June 4 line with Jerusalem as capital, real sovereignty and full right of return for refugees but without recognizing Israel.”

Hamas foreign affairs adviser Ahmed Yousef, part of the Hamas group that met with former president said Carter was brave for meeting with Hamas.

“He represents the real conscience of the American people, not like George Bush and his one-sided vision for peace,” Yousef said.

Of the talks President Bush has been encouraging between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Carter said he believed that those talks have gone nowhere, and that the prospects for peace have actually “regressed.”

Hamas also rejected a 30-day cease-fire, disappointing Carter.

Is Hamas extending an Olive Branch? Or are they extending their usual thorned branch? Is former President Jimmy Carter a Peacemaker or just a useful fool, giving a terrorist group legitimacy they don’t have coming?

Carter also said, “If you don’t give people hope that their plight will be alleviated, then violence is almost inevitable.”

What hope does Carter give the Israeli’s in their plight as Hamas rockets rain down day after day?

UPDATE: Hamas says, "Carters Trip Accomplished nothing!"

Chicago’s “Bloody Weekend,” In Spite of Strict Gun Control

Chicago, Illinois, a city that boasts of some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, has suffered 32 Shot, 2 Stabbed and 6 Dead in a short period this weekend in gang related shootings and Police gun battles.

Chicago was so fed up with gun violence years ago that they even passed laws against the discharge of toy guns within the city. City Code 8-24-040 says,

“No person shall at any time discharge or set off anywhere within the city, or have in his possession for such purpose any toy firearm, air rifle, toy cannon, or any gun that discharges projectiles either by air, spring, explosive, substance, or any other force.”

With such restrictions against even toys, one can imagine the restrictions placed upon the sale or possession of real guns within the city, mostly restricting them to personal use for self-defense, provided you have obtained the required Firearms Owner Identification Card to have behind your drivers license and provided the Police acknowledge the legality of it, if you are forced to use your gun or are transporting it to or from a legal shooting range.

In spite of being such a restrictive zone on guns, Chicago has suffered what they are referring to as a "Bloody Weekend" this week.

Police are blaming warmer temperatures, where high’s have been approaching 70 degrees, for the spike in violence.

It is no secret that Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley advocates a complete ban on legal guns within the city, issuing what even reporters call his annual push for new gun-control legislation and joining in with others who are trying to sue gun manufacturers, blaming them for the gun violence that Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama calls epidemic.

Victims and students have held marches and lobbied for even stricter gun control, but the violence in near “gun free” Chicago continues.

While it is uncertain if legal possession of guns by law-abiding citizens might have curbed some of the violence this past weekend, condemning and demonizing guns themselves and passing ever restrictive laws doesn’t seem to be working in Chicago.

Democrats ran and won elections in 2006 on a theme of a “New Direction for America.” Chicago has long been a Democrat stronghold.

Maybe it is time Chicago’s Politicians tried a “New Direction” for their selves and got tough on gangbangers and other criminals instead of legal law-abiding citizens who keep legal firearms for personal use.

Fan Brags: I Grabbed Chelsea’s, umm, err, bottom

After a night of Gay Bar Crawling through Philadelphia’s streets, with governor Ed Rendell, Chelsea Clinton won rave reviews from local gays and lesbians, one bragging to friends, “I grabbed her ass.”

Chelsea and the governor “stopped traffic” as they “crawled” the gay bars located throughout Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Gays and lesbians sporting Obama stickers even came out to great the former First Daughter and have their photos taken with her.

One fan yelled out, “Chelsea, the gays love you,” receiving the reply of, “Oh, gosh, I don’t know if everybody loves me,” from Chelsea.

At times she seemed overwhelmed by the mobs that definitely invaded her personal space, complimenting her hair and trying to grab photos with their cell phones, as they followed her down the street.

She was joined by left wing actors Robert Reiner and Robert Grant as well.

Governor Rendell has made the gay bar crawl since the 1970’s, making a similar trek for John Kerry in 2004, who lost his presidential bid to incumbant, George W. Bush.

Chit chat was mostly mild, no questions about gays in the Military or same sex marriage.

Stopping at a bar with an open terrace, Chelsea was asked if she were going inside. She replied, “I don’t know. I’m mostly just following directions.”

One wonders now if Chelsea’s mother will be as upset over someone bragging about “grabbing Chelsea’s ass” as she was when MSNBC’s David Shuster suggested she was “pimping out” Chelsea?

Religious Freedoms Tested In America

America, the freest nation on earth when it comes to religion, is facing a test of religious freedom in two spectacular cases, One in Texas, where underage girls are married off and one in Oregon, where a small child died from lack of medical treatment.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in part,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Respective States have similar words in their State Constitutions, establishing free practice of religion. That free practice is currently being tested where it appears that freedom of worship has run afoul of states laws.

Earlier in April, Texas Police raided a ranch outside of El Dorado owned and inhabited by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a spin off of the Mormon Church. The FDS believes in and practices polygamy, allegedly marrying off young girls below the legal age in Texas to older men.

The raid culminated in over 400 women and children being taken away from the sect, all remaining in state custody as the legal battles begin. It is alleged that a girl as young as 13 may have given birth at the ranch.

In Oregon, a 15 month-old girl died due to her parents, members of the Followers of Christ religion, a spin off of the Pentecostal movement, prayed over their daughter instead of seeking medical attention for the child. Their Church believes only in faith healing and avoids medical help.

In both cases, “Freedom of Religion” is being brought up in defense of the charges.

From Texas, one supporter wrote, “He is only trying to live . . . his religion,” regarding another members union with a below legal age girl. Another asks,

“Why should a man be thrown into prison for living his religion while society will forgive the former president of the United States of immoral acts while in the office of President?”

An accused from the Texas sect says,

“Maybe our legislators have cunningly laid a snare to catch the innocent just because they believe in an unpopular religion. So it was on the days of Jesus Christ. So it was in the days of Joseph Smith. So it was in the Days of Warren Jeffs,”

convicted last year of being an accomplice to rape for arranging a marriage between an unwilling 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old first cousin.

From Oregon, Raylene and Carl Worthington pled not guilty in the death of their 15 month-old daughter and are fighting back through their attorneys. John Neidig, defense attorney for Raylene challenged the basis for the criminal charges against his client. Neidig said,

“Ava Worthington's medical condition might have been treatable, but not necessarily curable in conventional medical terms.”

Ava died of untreated bacterial pneumonia and a blood infection.

Neidig added,

“the Worthington’s had used several faith-healing methods, ‘prayer and anointment and the laying on of hands,’ to treat their daughter.”

His defense is slated to include exhaustive research into the legal history of religious protections and a team of experts, investigators, and other professionals.

A web site has been set up for the defense of the couple and where attorneys have listed Oregon’s Constitutional Protections for free exercise of religion as well as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A state child welfare worker says that the Worthington’s have cooperated with state authorities regarding their 4-year-old daughter and have complied with her directive to get a medical check-up for the girl, who was found in good health and remains in the custody of the couple.

In both cases the respective states have laws against the conduct of the religious groups, Texas having a minimum age of 16 for a girl to marry and Oregon’s 1999 law specifically designed to remove the defense of religion when a child dies due to lack of basic medical attention.

In both cases, members knowingly violated those laws, falling back on their religious beliefs, one costing a baby it’s life.

Both cases allege the abuse of children.

Both cases seem destined for spectacular court drama as the limits of religious freedom will be tested, even though in different states.

Yet, reading news accounts, the Oregon case seems to draw much more sympathy for the parents who allowed their child to die than for the older men in Texas who impregnate under-age girls, who they claim as their wives.

Attorney Neidig says of his clients, “They’ve been called upon by God to face this challenge.” Claiming the case to have “monumental consequences,” Neidig also said, “We’re on a slippery slope here if we start eroding away the free expression of religion.”

To this writer, the “slippery slope” seems to be continuing to allow harm to others and hiding behind freedom of religion to justify it. With all of the various religious beliefs in the United States, could acquittal in these cases under the guise of freedom of religious beliefs, lead to tolerance of Islamic Sharia Law, where, under more radical interpretations, a young girl may be stoned to death if raped, because it embarrasses her family?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: An excellent article addressing faith and legal issues by Shawn Francis Peters for the Wausau Daily Herald. Law ill-equipped for faith healing cases

Hillary: No One Left To Lie To

Andrew Sullivan: The Daily Dish

Circumventing "Prickly Second Amendment Concerns"

Unable to effectively remove our constitutional right to own guns in America, gun grabbers have come up with a back door scheme to disarm law-abiding citizens that is currently being proposed in several states, serial coding ammunition.

As the Supreme Court contemplates the constitutionality of Washington D.C.’s gun ban, a group identifying themselves as Ammunition Accountability is fostering a movement advocating laser etching an alphanumeric serial number on the base and inside of every single round of ammunition manufactured in America.

Advocates boast of

“Law enforcement testing has already shown a 99% success rate in identifying the ammunition code after bullet recovery,” while readily admitting, “This system will not necessarily prove who pulled the trigger.”

Also stated,

“Each ammunition producer would be required to purchase at least one, if not more, laser engraving machines and ammunition material handlers to produce ACS coded ammunition,” at an estimated $300,000 to $500,000. Additionally, “A licensing fee for each single bullet sold would also be required.”

Legislation is currently pending in Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington on this system.

States are seeking to redefine the gun control battle more as a “law enforcement” over an issue of broad based gun ownership, “to sidestep prickly Second Amendment concerns.”

Supporters naively tell us,

“when a potential criminal purchases a box of 9mm cartridges, the box of ammunition and the bullets’ coding numbers would be connected to the purchaser in a statewide database. When a bullet is found at a crime scene, the code on the bullet can be read with a simple magnifying glass and then be run through a statewide database to determine who purchased the ammunition and where, providing a valuable investigative lead.”

Opponents inform us it would mean,

“Forfeiture of Currently-Owned Ammunition, A Separate Registration for Every Box of New Ammunition, Outrageously Expensive Ammunition Costs for Police & Private Citizens Alike and A Waste of Taxpayer Money, Better Spent on Traditional Police Programs.”

It goes without saying that criminals could easily beat the system by stealing or smuggling in their ammunition, defeating the stated purpose of the legislation or by using another favorite tool of theirs, a shotgun, whose ammunition contains pellets much too small to be engraved as well as their plastic shell would be near impossible to engrave.

If enacted, gun-owning citizens would be required to separately register every box of "encoded ammunition," with the information supplied to the police. Many states currently do not require registration of guns. Each box of ammunition would have a unique serial number, thus a separate registration.

Here again, most criminals don’t purchase ammunition legally, they just steal it or smuggle it in. The cost of purchasing ammo for your gun will skyrocket, as it will for the Police and Military as well.

Microstamping is another back door gun control approach that is being considered in some states and was signed into law in California by Governor Schwarzenegger last October, in spite of the technology veiled in controversy.

With microstamping, the weapons firing pin is laser engraved to leave a distinct mark on the ejected brass casing. Law Enforcement and Military Weaponry are currently exempted, under the new law, but gun manufacturers still assemble their products by hand after purchasing components like firing pins in large quantities. They do not have separate assembly lines for Police, Military, Sports Shooters, Private Gun Owners or even solely for California.

In time this would have to raise the cost of weapons for Police and Military considerably as well, being borne by an already over taxed citizenry.

Opponents foresee an increase in the cost of guns sold in California of an estimated $200.00 apiece, provided manufacturers will still import their product to California. The National Shooting Sports Foundation concluded,

“It can be easily defeated in mere seconds using common household tools or criminals could simply switch the engraved firing pin for readily available unmarked spare parts, thereby circumventing the technology.”

Not addressed is that revolvers do not eject casings that could be left behind or that, as before, criminals could easily smuggle unmarked weapons into the state to conduct their criminal activity.

The last ten years have seen many aspects of our Second Amendment Rights gradually restored across the nation. Gun grabbers had lobbied to restrict those rights in their never-ending quest to disarm the American Citizen.

When they propose these restrictive laws, they never take into account that criminals just do not follow or abide by the laws and they leave decent law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals.

Groups like the NRA, NSSF and Gun Owners of America have successfully blocked and lobbied for repeal of restrictive legislation that infringed upon our rights to own guns under the constitution. Gun grabbers have now devised a way to circumvent “prickly Second Amendment concerns” by attacking the ammunition, leaving us with empty guns, useless in self-defense.

It is up to those of us who are legal and law-abiding gun owners to pressure our legislatures at the state level to vote against this back door approach to disarming America, while leaving criminals laughing.

You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

Hamas Cleric: ‘Rome Will Be Conquered by Islam’

In a sermon delivered last Friday by a prominent Muslim cleric, Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas member of the Palestinian parliament, predicted,

"Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our prophet Muhammad,"

His fiery sermon continued,

"Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam."

Also stated was,

"Rome would become an advanced post for the Islamic conquests which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe."

Video Clip

Jerusalem Post

Fox News

Any one have a copy of Kumbaya in Palestinian?

Democrat Politics vs General Petraeus

Dems Urge Bush to Boycott Olympics, Give Carter a Pass On Hamas Meet

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have spoken out urging President Bush to boycott the coming Olympic opening ceremonies in Beijing. Neither will condemn former President Carter’s planned trip to meet with Palestinian’s Hamas.

Barack Obama recently said,

“If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the president should boycott the opening ceremonies.”

Hillary Clinton had already said,

“At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.”

Yet, when pressed about news of former President Jimmy Carter’s announced plans to meet with the Palestinian group, Hamas, a known and declared terrorist group, both could only muster a softened "disagreed" or did "not agree" with Carter's planned trip to meet with Hamas, stopping short of calling on Carter to not make the trip.

The Olympic games, held every fourth year, were designed to be an athletic competition between nations and a time to put politics aside. 1980 in Moscow and 1984 in Los Angeles saw nations refuse to attend over political issues, America in 1980 and the Soviet Union in 1984.

In the 1972 Olympics, held in Munich, Germany, Palestinian terrorists disrupted the games by kidnapping the Israeli athletes, resulting in the deaths of the entire Israeli Olympic Team of 11 athletes.

Surely, if the Democrat candidates can see a need to urge President Bush to boycott the coming Olympic opening ceremonies, they should be consistent and urge former President Carter to forgo his meeting with Palestinian terrorists, whose history of attacks against the Israeli’s is just as well known as the Chinese mistreatment of Tibetans.

Gangsta Rap, A Government Ploy?

Since race has been injected into the 2008 campaign and insinuations of deteriorating relations between the races in America have come forward, should it surprise us to hear that Gangsta Rap was a Government Ploy to encourage Blacks to kill each other?

Just such a statement has been made by talented and lovely singer/songwriter, Alicia Keys in an interview appearing in the March 2008 issue of Blender magazine.

The 27 year-old Grammy Award Winning artist was discussing her liking of rapper Notorious B.I.G. saying,

“My favorite Biggie song is ‘Me & My Bitch. That title doesn’t make you think he’s speaking about the love of his life, but he is. She throws his shit out the window, she flushes his drugs down the toilet, she’s crazy! But if you grew up like that, then you understood, that was love in that world.”

Asked what other Gangsta Rappers she liked, she threw the interviewer for a loop with the reply, “Gangsta rap was a ploy to convince black people to kill each other. Gangsta rap didn’t exist.”

Asked just who created Gangsta Rap and the ploy, she incredulously answered, “The Government!”

She additionally says that Tupac and Biggie were essentially assassinated, “by the government and the media, to stop another great black leader from existing.”

Surprising even her mother was that she now sports a gold AK-47 pendant around her neck “to symbolize strength, power and killing 'em dead.” “Them” is not described.

For some time now, Government, more specifically White America, has received the blame for much of the trouble found in large city ghettoes. From rampant drug use, to AID’s, extreme poverty to high theft, down to the ever escalating gang activity and Black on Black crime, Government has gotten the blame, warranted or not.

Gangsta Rap in particular, with its lyrics of rape, demeaning women, killings, sodomizing and other such nefarious actions has been receiving condemnations from several sources, Right and Left, White and Black, Government and Civilian.

Defense of the genre has repeatedly come from the very ones Ms. Keys claims it was created to encourage to kill each other.

Black luminary Bill Cosby recently said,

“disadvantaged Blacks should start by purging their own culture of noxious elements like gangsta rap,” citing a Pew study reporting, “71 percent of Blacks feel that rap is a bad influence.”

Gangsta Rap, with its lyrics of violence and heavy beats came on the scene in the early 1980’s, growing out of the popular Hip-Hop culture. Supposedly it reflected the “violent lifestyles of inner-city youth.”

This begs the question, who makes inner cities violent? Many a person has come out of these inner cities with an education to become successful, even if they had to work a little harder than someone else.

Alicia herself, born in Harlem and raised in Manhattans Hells Kitchen, had to work to be the success she is. Being biracial, if anyone knows of the prejudices of others on both sides, it should be her.

Raised by her White mother after her Jamaican father left, Ms Keys says,

“I never had to go through that in regards to, 'You're not black enough, you're not white enough,' the whole kind of white/black-mixture thing. I never had to go through that. I went through prejudices and all, surely. But I never had to battle with those two parts of me."

What changed for Alicia? Possibly, could it be “I’ve read Huey Newton’s, Assata Shakur’s and David Hilliard’s [autobiographies],” all 3 founders of the Blank Panthers in their more militant days?

Perhaps Alicia Keys would have served herself better had she read Juan Williams’ book, “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America -- and What We Can Do About It.”

Even he sees where the problems have been coming from. Like Bill Cosby has said, “We cannot blame the white people any longer.”

Although Alicia isn’t known as the brightest bulb in the chandelier, this type of thinking and rhetoric will not fulfill the dreams once stated as

“I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

It just further divides an already divided people, Alicia.

UPDATE: Alicia Keys says comments to magazine were misrepresented.

"My comments about `gangsta rap' were in no way trying to suggest that the government is responsible for creating this genre of rap music. The point that I was trying to make was that the term was oversloganized by some of the media causing reactions that were not always positive."

Pope Expected to Assail ‘Might Is Right’ at U.N.

German born Pope Benedict XVI is scheduled to visit New York to address the United Nations next week, where it is expected that he will assail “might is right,” in a peace message, according to a Papal envoy.

With sections of the sky, water and streets sealed off next week, Pope Benedict XVI will arrive to address the United Nations General Assembly, April 18.

Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican's permanent observer at the U.N. said the Pontiff, “won't necessarily touch upon specific crises in the world… but will assail the notion that ‘might is right.’”

Speaking before an audience comprised of journalists and nongovernmental organization, the Archbishop added,

“we cannot build our future on a simple balance of power…, our future must be based on respect for universal truths and our common humanity.”

Noting that 2008 is the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that Pope Benedict has “often spoken of the need for respect for rights, including religious freedom,” Migliore added he anticipated the Pontiff to continue “highlighting and insisting on essential values and fundamental rights,” as he has often since attaining the Papal Throne.

While the Holy See isn’t expected to discuss specific world trouble spots, his speech will undoubtedly come under much scrutiny from all sides for any references to current hot spots.

It was just last April, in his annual Easter Message that the Pope said, “nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.”

By June, he and President Bush met at the Vatican where the Pontiff raised “the worrisome situation in Iraq,” concerning Christians inside Iraq being mistreated by the Muslim majority. Papal opposition to the Iraq invasion preceded Pope Benedict ascension.

After the senseless kidnap and death of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, Pope Benedict issued his strongest condemnation to date with, “Enough with the slaughters. Enough with the violence. Enough with the hatred in Iraq!” He added that Rahho's “dedication to the Church and his death compelled him to raise a strong and sorrowful cry to denounce the violence in Iraq spawned by the war that he said had destroyed civilian life.”

Well before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi Christians were expressing concern over the rise of radical Islam in both the Shia and Sunni communities. Archbishop Rahho expressed unease in 2006 at the inclusion of “some aspects of sharia law in the new Iraqi constitution.”

It was in September 2006 that Pope Benedict came under extreme condemnation from Muslims when he included a quote from Manuel II Paleologus, a Byzantine emperor uttered six centuries ago, in a speech he made in Germany.

Within days and after attacks upon churches in Muslim countries, threats of suicide attacks against the Vatican itself and even a fatwa against the Pope, Benedict issued his “regrets” for the quote to Muslims, shortly followed by his stressing respect for Islam.

His regret stopped short of an apology, being met with mixed reaction from Islamic leaders.

The Pope now comes before the United Nations World Body to speak for peace and against “might is right.” Much can be expected to be made of the speech against the U.S. involvement in Iraq and fighting radical Jihadists around the globe, by anti-war groups.

To this writer, it is a shame that the Holy See fails to realize that the very ones exercising “might is right” by suicide bombings, terrorist plots, enslavement of people and denial of even the most basic of human rights to inhabitants, aren’t even members of the United nations, but rather a growing group of radical Jihadists.

Surely this is a “just war” if ever there was one. John 15:13 Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Two Fronts For General Petraeus

As if facing a determined enemy in the Middle East with goals of global domination isn’t difficult enough for the General, he also must face disputatious politicians in Washington D.C. who desire his leadership and efforts to fail.

Facing anti-war hecklers and contentious Democrats, General David Petraeus returned to the capital to give the second congressionally mandated report on the progress of the fighting in Iraq. Particularly touchy for the General was the fact that he was facing his next boss, whichever Senator wins the 2008 Presidential election.

Prior to the beginning of his testimony, it became obvious that several Democrats had decided days before that his efforts have failed, regardless of previous admissions from fellow Democrats of remarkable success in the “surge” just months ago.

Republican presumptive nominee, John McCain led of the questioning by reminding all that they owed both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker a “debt of gratitude for their selfless service.” Pointing out the many successes in the past year, McCain concluded his statement with, “the Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We should choose instead to succeed.”

Democrat Senator Clinton also opened her statements with, “Thank you… for your long and distinguished service to our nation,” followed immediately by, “I just want to respond to some of the statements… that it is irresponsible or demonstrates a lack of leadership to advocate withdrawing troops from Iraq in a responsible and carefully planned withdrawal. I fundamentally disagree.”

Unlike the September 2007 hearings with the General, she did not this time claim his testimony took a “willing suspension of disbelief” to accept, in spite of her critical assessment.

She continued, “… it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again,” adding shortly, “Our troops are the best in the world, and they have performed admirably and heroically in Iraq,” before going on to claim the purpose of the “surge” was for the Iraqi’s to reach political reconciliation and they have not solved all the political problems in the country.

Senator Clinton claimed that even General Petraeus himself said, “… the Iraqi government has not made sufficient political progress,” drawing a correction from the General of, “What I said {in the article} was that no one was satisfied with the progress that had been made, either Iraqis or Americans, but I then went on and actually ticked off a number of the different areas in which there had been progress…”

Rich Lowry, of National Review Online also seems to have easily found the success Senator Clinton failed to see in his article, Beyond ‘Benchmarks.'

Senator Barack Obama opened his questioning also with, “I want to thank both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for their dedication and sacrifice. And obviously our troops are bearing the largest burden for this enterprise.”

Sounding somewhat less contentious than other Democrats, Senator Obama after making the point that “Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we went there,” asked the General, “Our goal is not to hunt down and eliminate every single trace, but rather to create a manageable situation where they're not posing a threat to Iraq or using it as a base to launch attacks outside of Iraq. Is that accurate?”

General Petraeus replied, “That is exactly right.”

Turning his attention to Ambassador Crocker, Senator Obama sought more information on Iran and their support of insurgent forces and even the visit of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s visit to Iraq, eliciting the comment from the Ambassador, “Iran and Iraq are neighbors. A visit like that should be in the category of a normal relationship,” after making the point that Iraqi President Maliki is making efforts at securing the border with Iran to stem the flow of Iranian Quds Force support.

Throughout the questioning by other Senators, anti-war critics interrupted testimony, some being ejected and others just being told to “cool it.”

Both General Petraeus’s and Ambassador Crocker’s testimony was interrupted several times by Democrat Senators, most notably by Senator Ted Kennedy who took some two minutes to ask a question about bilateral agreements between the US and Iraq and then tells Ambassador Crocker to hurry up and answer before he had a chance to. He then asked a question of General Petraeus about Basra but cut him off as he tried to answer.

Senator Obama also raised the point, “We still don’t have a good answer to the question posed by Sen. Warner the last time Gen. Petraeus appeared: How has this effort in Iraq made us safer and how do we expect it will make us safer in the long run?”

Perhaps Senator Obama hasn’t noticed there has been no terrorist attacks upon American soil since that horrific attack of September 11, 2001 or fails to see that if radical Jihadism can be confronted strong enough to reduce their number and democracy takes hold in the Middle East, they won’t be able to launch significant attacks upon America and elsewhere again.

Perhaps the Democrats should pay close attention to Senator McCain’s words, “Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We should choose instead to succeed.”

History has shown the high cost of abandoning struggling allies.

UPDATE 1: Amy Proctor, of Bottom Line Up Front, has video of a protester interrupting General Petraeus's testimony and of Senator Levin badgering the General.

UPDATE 2: 5 Reasons America Must Win In Iraq

UPDATE 3: US Senator John Cornyn, What I Heard at the Petraeus-Crocker Hearings

The McCain Girls Again

Some think they are an Operation Chaos in Reverse.



Are they serious? Here is one's answer to criticism on You Tube (WARNING) Strong language

Washington Governors Poll

KIROTV has a poll up on who we prefer for the next governor of Washington.

Washington residents, stop by and vote, if you like.

KIRO POLL

As of 12:30 AM April 8 2008;

Which candidate for Washington governor do you support in 2008?
Choice Votes Percentage of 2671 Votes
Gregoire 610 23%
Rossi 2039 76%
Not sure 22 1%

Recession, Depression, Bankruptcy, Foreclosure, Unemployment: Let’s Raise Taxes

Democrats have long cried of how dire the economy is, everything failing, nothing good happening, the country being in deep trouble and Global Warming going to destroy it all. Their answer? Raise taxes!

It was in August of 1966 that the British Singing group, the Beatles, released their album, Revolver, with the opening song, “Taxman.” The lyrics were more prophetic than we ever thought.

“Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
if you drive a car, I’ll tax the street;
if you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat;
if you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat;
if you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.”

The lyrics above from the song describes fairly close to where we have devolved in proposed taxation since Democrats seized control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections.

All of the gloom and doom they have brayed about for years seem to be coming to fruition this year as we read of airlines going out of business, more people on food stamps and unemployment rising. Cries of Global Warming fit in too as that is blamed for much they perceive as wrong with the world today.

Democrats were barely seated in Congress before they started proposing resolutions calling for a $400 Billion tax increase over the next 5 years.

California has proposed a Gas Guzzler Tax increase supposedly to combat Global Warming. Michigan’s Congressman Dingell floated a 50-cent increase per gallon on gasoline, on top of the already outrageous price consumers pay, which may include over 50 cents tax already per gallon, depending on the state.

One Chicago Democrat even tried to levy a tax on bottled water, leading to cries of “Let them tax cigarettes, not water,” which already has outrageous local, state and federal taxes attached to purchases of that product, and bans on the use of it.

Although proposed in Australia, if the idea of a Baby Tax to combat Global Warming catches on, it is unlikely our tax happy politicians would just ignore that golden opportunity.

To garner support we are told by the Democrats that the tax increase would only effect the “wealthy,” hiding that it hits Middle Class America and has often times hurt those it is supposed to help.

In spite of evidence that the Bush Tax Cuts increased revenues and helped the economy, Democrats desire nothing more than to repeal those same tax cuts while increasing spending, leading Sen. John Cornyn of Texas to recently say,

“Everything I hear coming from my friends on the other side of the aisle is, ‘Let’s have the federal government spend more money.’ And that money comes from your pocket and mine. And I think we ought to be careful.”

To ensure easy passage of a recent $70 Billion through a reluctant Senate, Democrats, fearing a Republican filibuster, wanted a parliamentary maneuver to “fast track” it through, requiring only a simple majority to pass.

On the campaign trail, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton play the class warfare card in calling for increasing taxes on the rich, ignoring that tax increases on the rich filter down to be paid by the middle class in higher cost of goods or even job losses.

As example, even something as simple as the tobacco tax against tobacco companies is paid for by the lower income people in higher tobacco costs and taxes added per pack, hurting the very ones anti-smokers claim they want to help. An American Heart Association study claims,

“smoking prevalence is higher among those who had earned a GED diploma (43.2 percent) and among those with 9–11 years of education (32.6 percent) compared with those with more than 16 years of education (7.1 percent). It's highest among persons living below the poverty level (29.9 percent).”

Every time government decides to tax tobacco products, who are they really hurting?

The above is just a representation of how tax increases hurt the lower incomes that are supposed to be benefiting from the increased taxes, not a defense of tobacco products.

With all the cries of recession, foreclosures, bankruptcies, increased unemployment and such, the last thing America needs is to further hurt the economy and tax payers by strapping even more tax burdens on people already feeling the crunch.

A Nation Forgetting Its Quality of Courage

In 1961, we heard from the Democrats, “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Today it is the exact opposite in their quest for political power.

America once could count on Democrats to support spreading freedom, liberty and democracy, defeating despotic regimes and elevating our Brave Troops before the public eye. Since they voted to give President Bush authorization to invade Iraq, Democrat Party members have lined up to denigrate the effort, the President and victimize those same Brave Troops.

In what appears to be a total disregard for the words of President John F. Kennedy, quoted above, today’s Democrats continue their own “surge” to bring about defeat in Iraq, much as they did three decades ago to another struggling Democracy, Viet Nam.

From Presidential candidates to Party leaders, to lesser members, the party seems lined up to deny the Iraqi’s freedoms promised long ago by painting every effort in the ongoing battle successes as failures. Just as the Tet of ’68 Offensive was portrayed as a failure for American Forces, when it was a distinct victory in battle, President Bush’s Troop Reinforcement, known as the “surge” is being portrayed as a failure, when all indications are it too is a distinct victory for America’s Troops, the Iraqi Forces and citizens of Iraq.

It was just August of 2007, as news of the initial success of the Troop Surge was coming out, that top Democrats were caught strategizing on how to cast it as a failure, even though you wouldn’t know from the lack of coverage by the media. Even Senator Ted Kennedy, last living brother of President Kennedy, labeled the effort as an 'immense new mistake' just as it was getting underway.

By all reports and accounts, the surge has been working, violence is down and political progress is made, although not as President had hoped for. Casualties are down, even though Iraq is still a “hotspot” and Iraqi Forces are stepping up more.

Instead of being elated at any progress at all, Democrats seem prepared to repeat their maneuvers of the past, implementing the cries of “failure” and demands for “withdraw the Troops.”

Just this week, several Democrats sent President Bush another letter calling for yet another “New Iraq Strategy.”

As we have come to expect, Democrats label the effort as “a failure” now because “political reconciliation” has not been completed. America hasn’t achieved it in 230 years, yet we demand the Iraqi people accomplish it in less than two years?

In the letter we read,

“We are deeply concerned that you and the congressional Republican leadership are intent on staying the current course throughout your Administration and then handing the Iraq war off to future presidents.”

Can you imagine President Truman being handed a similar letter in 1945 as the Allies were gearing up to help rebuild and transition Germany and Japan from dictatorships defeated into thriving democracies? 63 years after the cessation of hostilities in that war, America still has over 50,000 Troops in Japan and over 85,000 in Europe.

That effort was “handed off” to 10 other “future president’s” without a care from the Democrat Party and is still ongoing.

Also this week, we have former candidate Senator Joe Biden, long a critic of Republicans and the Battle in Iraq saying,

“The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically. Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together,” adding, as expected, “I believe the president has no strategy for success in Iraq. His plan is to muddle through, and hand the problem off to his successor.”

This would be the same Senator Biden who last year, as general David Petraeus was preparing to give the congressionally mandated progress report called the Surge a failure then saying,

“The surge has not worked and will not work because its basic premise, to give time for a strong central government to take hold, is fatally flawed,” and adding, “After misleading the American people that the troop surge would be temporary, limited in number and limited in duration, the administration is finally acknowledging the truth, the ‘surge’ is really an escalation with no end in sight.”

This, just as the “surge” was just reaching its full implementation.

In speech after speech, interview after interview, Democrat Party members line up to call for an “end” to our involvement in Iraq, which would most likely lead to defeat and failure in Afghanistan and the overall War on Terror, allowing radical Jihadists free reign of terror over that part of the world and eventually, the West as well. I have yet to hear of any of them calling for a “win” in this war, completely unlike Democrats in the 1940’s.

“Win” seems to have been removed from their lexicons, except in regards to elections.

Imagine the dismay President Kennedy would feel today if he knew, when he wrote on page one of his book “Profiles In Courage,”

“A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or reward that quality in its chosen leaders today,”

he was describing not only his own brother, but his party as well.

Faith Healing Parents Enter 'Not Guilty' Plea In Court

Carl & Raylene Worthington - Clackamas County Sheriffs Department

Carl and Raylene Worthington, the Oregon parents that prayed over their 15-month-old daughter instead of seeking medical care for her in March, pled ‘Not Guilty’ in court today, the first to be tried under a 9 year old law against faith healing.

Carl Worthington, 28 and his 24 year old wife, Raylene were both indicted in the death of their daughter on March 2, from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection, easily treated by antibiotics. Flanked by their attorneys, and holding hands, they both pled “Not Guilty” before Clackamas County Circuit Court Judge Kathie Steele.

If convicted, they could spend more than six years in prison.

The Worthington’s allowed their 15 month old daughter, Ava, to pass away instead of seeking medical help because they belong to a fringe church group, the Followers of Christ, a group that grew out of the 19th-century Pentecostal movement.

Due to several preventable deaths of children of parents belonging to the group, the Oregon legislature cracked down on ‘Faith Healing’ in 1999. The death of the Worthington’s 15-month-old daughter is the first reported preventable death of a child in the 9 years since passage of the law. This will be the first test of the law in court.

Shawn Peters, who wrote the book “When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law,” noted that faith healing deaths are still happening in the country, citing the death of an 11-year-old Wisconsin girl who died from treatable diabetes just 2 weeks after young Ava and whose parents also opted for prayer over medical treatment. The Wisconsin parents have not yet been charged.

Peters adds that it is difficult to say whether faith healing deaths are increasing or decreasing in America.

The Worthington’s have another young daughter as was confirmed by the Department of Human Services who claims, “an open case with the family.” DHS spokesman, Greg Parker said,

“as is normal when we have an open case, we pay attention to other children in the family. The family is working with us.”

After entering their pleas, the Worthington’s ducked television cameras as they left the courthouse. A pair of defense attorney’s representing the Worthington’s said they were waiting see reports and the evidence before commenting on the case.

“They’re presumed innocent at this time, and we ask that no one prejudge them. They have not had the time to breathe properly since this tremendous tragedy, and we hope to provide them with a little privacy and respect,” said Raylene’s attorney, John Neidig.

One question, which enters this writers mind is, since their faith in prayer was strong enough to allow an innocent 15-month-old child to die, where is their faith now when appearing in court? Surely their faith should be as strong that they would rely on prayer to defend them in court instead of hiring attorneys!