Yes, There Is a Difference

Yes, Hillary said she couldn't remember over and over and over. Yes, she hid the billing records for her law firm. Yes, Bill lied again and again and again, and even his friends admit that he was a very good liar. Yes, his friends attacked Ken Starr shamefully and without let up.

So what?

We know what we are dealing with when we are dealing with these people and their supporters. They admit no standard of morality. Consistent humanism will not admit the immorality of idolatry, or abortion, of fornication, of sodomy, of lying, of false witness and abrogation of vows. They said that character doesn't matter. They do not want any system of morality "imposed" upon them. They are certain of the morality of their own desires and ambitions and nothing else matters. Opposition must be squashed like bugs.

So why should we be surprized if they lie, cheat, corrupt justice, and sell their country to China and North Korea? They are not being hypocrites, because they do not believe in the Ten Commandments or the God who gave them. Civil agosticism and amorality is what they believe in.

But Christians confess that there is morality and that an oath is sacred. It is wrong to commit fornication and adultery. Sodomy is wicked. Idolatry brings the wrath of God.

Therefore, if Scooter Libby committed perjury, he should go to jail. Nixon had a great disadvange when it came to his enemies, because Nixon's supporters believed that it was wrong to spy on your political enemies and lie under oath. Liberals had been doing ti for years. But we hold our people to a higher standard.

Scooter Libby should get a fair trial and if he has been falsely accused, then those who lied about him should pay the penalty. But it is not unreasonable for American citizens to insist on morality from their leaders. But it is also not unreasonable to refuse to vote for those who do not believe in morality and make fun of those who do.

Dennis Prager has an article on the difficulty of engaging in sensible dialog with these people. Click on this link.

Christian girls beheaded in grisly Indonesian attack - World - smh.com.au

Three teenage Christian girls were beheaded and a fourth was seriously wounded in a savage attack on Saturday by unidentified assailants in the Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi.
=============
Is there any question that there is an anti-Christian mentality loose in the world? Did you know that more Christians have died for their faith in the last 100 years than in the first 1900 years of Christianity? This is the age of the martyrs, and there may very well be more to come, but when the church is weak, then the Lord shows Himself strong.

Coyote in Rocky Mountain National Park. October, 2005. Not all coyotes are in Washington, D. C. 

Coming up? Rocky Mountain National Park, October 2005 

Foul, Foul, Most Foul.

Aspen in Early Spring, 2002 

The Miers nomination is another evidence that Roe must be overturned. The horrible legal arguments which found the appearance of a likeness of the right of privacy in the U. S. Constitution have politicized the Court to the point that it may no longer be possible to have a sane discussion over the merits of a nominee.

This is what liberalism does. When feeling replaces rationality, discussion is over, because emotion cannot distinguish between words. The best case in point are the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice." They are emotional slogans, not descriptions of real categories.

The brutal, tyrannical Roe vs Wade decision imposed an emotional solution on a nation that desperately needed a discussion on morals, the beginning of life, and the nature of human life. Instead, the discussion was ended by a preemptive strike and the slamming down of THE LAW, at least the version of THE LAW that the majority of a few robed justices deemed to be the best for us, making law up out of whole cloth.

The result of an emotion decision was predictible: from Ted Kennedy's irrational and emotional "borking" of Robert Bork to the "miersing" of Harriet Miers. Will we ever get another non-judicial nomination to the Supreme Court? Isn't it a bit ironic that a candidate who might just as well have voted to overturn Roe vs Wade is rejected because she was perceived as lacking the necessary judicial intelligence and articulation to argue intelligently against the irrational decision of Roe vs Wade? Does it take nuanced argument to see through irrationalism? or is that simply answering a fool according to his folly, becoming like the fool.

This reveals the perniciousness of the Roe vs Wade decision. Apart from the immorality of the slaughter of babies, it has so corrupted the Court itself that irrationalism has become well-nigh impervious to attack. Robert Bork's arguments against her nomination were and are compelling to me, but it is a awful thing that we had to oppose a lady who might very well had been a very fine justice in another time and place. Roe vs Wade has so poisoned the political arena that discussion cannot take place. If you dump a load of excrement on my head, I am not likely to want to sit down to a rational and urbane discussion of anything. How in the name of anything sane did the Roe vs Wade justices ever expect sanity to come from a fundamentally insane decision? Only if they believed that the definition of truth was up for grabs, a basically insane mindset.

Isaiah said it many centuries ago: "Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." When men pretend that truth can be decided by fiat, she falls in the street under her wounds and blocks the way to fairness and integrity.

Miers had to be opposed because of the world created by Roe vs Wade. That is sad. Sane discussion can only be restored by the national purgation and repentance that could come from having a real national and Senatorial debate on the nature of constitutional truth--is constitutional law derived from the Constitution or from the socialogical or legal theories and moral relativism wandering through the minds of the justices?

A stealth candidate will not do that, Mr. President. We need the debate over the nature of constitutionalism, not a new tone that would pretend that Ted Kennedys excrement is not excrement or that pretends that Howard Dean is a sane man. Pretending that Roe Vs. Wade has intellectual, moral, or legal legitimacy is what brought us to this place, not the opponents of Harriet Miers.

There must be no cloud or penumbra or the appearance of a likeness in law. In the days of King Charles I Anglican Archbishop Laud sought to require an oath of allegiance to "government of this church by archbishops, bishops, deans and archdeacons, etc". The devil was in the "etc."

If robed justices can find rights and laws in the "penumbra" of the constitution, then we have rule by men, not by law, particularly rule by those men who have elastic minds who can stretch words to mean whatever they want them to mean, a most dangerous class of liars.

President Bush has an opportunity to open the debate. America is crying for it.

Pray for him.

A bouquet for a nice lady.

Some of my fall, 2003, flowers in my front yard. 

Harriet Miers seems to be a nice lady, and I wish her well, but Robert Bork convinced me [see article below].

We do not need a kinder, gentler America. We need one that has the intestinal fortitude to enforce our own laws and our own constitution, not the decadent philosophies of the French and German or the emotional paroxisms of the morally challenged.

The laws are not the enemy of our liberty but the safeguard of them. I pray now that President Bush bring someone like Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens or any of a dozen others who have a clearly defined and well articulated respect and loyalty to the words of our Constitution. Let's have the war. Let's bring one after another to the Senate until they must approve them.

The liberals have no intelligent basis for their "ideas," and conservatives can win in the arena of ideas. We always do.

Pray for the president.

Trinidad, California, Summer 2005 

In my front yard in the Spring, 2005 

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Bush on the Edge by Tony Blankley: "President Bush is a lucky man. Seldom has a president found himself in more political trouble that he substantially has the power in his own hands to fix than does President Bush currently. "
========
A very sensible article on what Bush can do to recover and serve the people who elected him. He must swallow his pride and and not repeat the mistakes of the elder Bush. If he does he might well be considered one of America's best presidents. Otherwise, he risks sinking into mediocrity, with the exception of his brilliant and courageous war on terror.

Harriet Miers, a time bomb for conservative progress:from the Arizona Republic: "But I can blame the White House for playing the fool's game that says results count for all. As though a Supreme Court justice's vote counts for everything, and her arguments count for nothing. How perfectly Bushian.

What an insult that is to William F. Buckley, founder of National Review, William Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard, and the late, great Robert L. Bartley of The Wall Street Journal.

The timing is so perfectly destructive it is difficult to call it a mistake.

For 50 years, the conservative movement has been arguing its case, making powerful arguments for placing legitimate, positive-minded limits on government.

For 30 years, the most important venue for making those arguments hasn't been Congress or the White House. It has been the Supreme Court.

And now, to carry that almighty water, Bush gives us Harriet Miers.

God help us is right."

Spanish Judge Issues Warrant for Three GIs - Yahoo! News: "Jose Couso, who worked for the Spanish television network Telecinco, died April 8, 2003, after a U.S. army tank crew fired a shell on Hotel Palestine in Baghdad where several journalists were staying to cover the war."
=================

Something is going to have to be done about out of control judges. Maybe we should indict the entire Spanish "army" for cowardice in combat after their yellow retreat from the war. Oh, that we had such judges!

OpinionJournal - Featured Article: "Finally, this nomination has split the fragile conservative coalition on social issues into those appalled by the administration's cynicism and those still anxious, for a variety of reasons, to support or at least placate the president. Anger is growing between the two groups. The supporters should rethink. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality). This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values. He appears embittered by conservative opposition to his nomination, which raises the possibility that if Ms. Miers is not confirmed, the next nominee will be even less acceptable to those asking for a restrained court. That, ironically, is the best argument for her confirmation. But it is not good enough."
===============

Judge Bork has convinced me. I do not support the nomination of Harriet Miers. This Bush has done for us what the last Bush did. The elite look after themselves, whether they are "conservative" or "liberal."

California Poppies; Have a nice day. 

You Dare Not Speak Its Name

Media utters nonsense, won't call enemy out: "From Thursday's New York Times: ''Nalchik, Russia -- Insurgents launched a series of raids today in this southern Russian city, striking the area's main airport and several police and security buildings in large-scale, daytime attacks that left at least 85 people dead.''"
------------------

The world's liberal media is aiding and abetting it own destruction. When the Islam "insurgency" is finally successful, do you think that the liberal media will get love and kindness from the insurgents, the rebels, the militants, and other assorted dissidents whose name is revealed only very reluctantly by that same media? Will they get a pardon and thanks for their politically correct silence when they are herded out on the soccer field for Koranic justice? Will they enjoy freedom of the press in an Islamic world?

Those who refuse to be guided by a moral compass will be crushed like rotten ice between opposing moral viewpoints and will be forgotten. Even Jesus said it plainly, "Because thou are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm, I will spew thee out of my mouth." If such people make Jesus sick to his stomach, may we be forgiven a retch or two?

Can This Nomination Be Justified?: George Will writes, "It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks."
===========

Of course, George Will. What we need are talented people who can "make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Consitution." Just like some brilliant people found privacy in the "penumbra" of the constitution. Like the "appearance of a likeness" that Ezekiel saw.

It is an academic exercise afterall, and a game that lawyers play, hardly ever affecting the everyday life of Americans, you know. Ever learning but not coming to the knowledge of the truth. But what can you expect from a "conservative" writer who cannot see anything intelligent in the design of a penguin. He has to keep his own "credentials" in order so that he can keep appearing on Sunday morning television.

Democrats See Dream of '06 Victory Taking Form - New York Times: "Suddenly, Democrats see a possibility in 2006 they have long dreamed of: a sweeping midterm election framed around what they describe as the simple choice of change with the Democrats or more of an unpopular status quo with the Republican majority.

=========

Poor New York Times. They and their shills just can't get it. Just because conservatives are squabbling over the Miers nomination doesn't mean they will vote for Howard Dean's buddies.

Liberals cannot get it because they think with their feelings. Hence, someone makes you mad and you get revenge. You have a "hissy fit." They still think that is what happened in 1994, conveniently forgetting that the Contract with America was about principles that the people of this country still hold--it wasn't about having a anti-incumbant fit. Until liberals can come up with some values [impossible, giving the definition of liberal--one who is "free," ,meaning from any principle], then they will continue to misread one election after another.

I do not believe that Americans simply vote against--they vote their values.

The flap over Harriet Miers is about values, specifically about abortion. The conservatives who doubt her are troubled that they cannot be sure that she will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Liberals who voted against Roberts were troubled that he might vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Underneath the argument over Roe vs. Wade is an even deeper conflict over values. Liberals value no restrictions on any kind of sex and want to get rid of any inconvenience that might come from sleeping around, any disease, any reproach, any little brat that comes along because of it. Abortion is not murder; it is just like cleaning the wax out of your ears. Evangelicals value morals that they derive somehow from an higher order--though they could have a good debate on this, whether this order is revealed by nature or by revelation. But they would generally agree that morals are not up for individual choice. When Liberals speak of choice, they are only speaking in a sidelong fashion about abortion: the choice they are really speaking of is the choice to do sex anywhere, anytime to anybody or thing.

That real debate will return. It only went underground in the Sixties under a flood of pornographic musc, publications, entertainment, and birthcontol pills. But it hasn't gone away. Even more basic is this debate: "Does God care about what we do in our bodies?" People better find out for sure.

But one thing is sure. Conservatives may feel confident enought to have spats with each other, but that sure doesn't mean we will vote for the likes of Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean. But let them think so. That way they will keep losing elections.

Read This One

James Solis has some good thoughts on the nomination of Harriet Miers. Click here
After all, this justice does not need to do anything but vote what the constitution says or doesn't say, and everything will be all right. We don't need brilliance, just a reliable original intent vote.

USNews.com: Washington Whispers (10/17/05): "Is Al Gore coming back? If allies we talked to have their way, the former veep will be the next president. 'It's Gore Time,' says a political strategist and fundraiser who is opening a bid to get Gore into the race. "
===============
What wonderful news. I am tempted to send a donation [a small one]. What a wonderful idea, which if it become reality will secure Republican domination for many years.

Townhall.com :: Columns :: President Bush must veer right, embrace conflict by David Limbaugh: "Conversely, the surest way he can end his presidency with a whimper is to abandon conservative principles and veer to the mushy, lukewarm middle -- the perennial prescription of so-called centrists and 'well-meaning' liberals. To the extent he's suffered in the polls lately, it's largely because he has veered left in certain areas, especially domestic spending."
=================
One of the secret fears that I have had over the entire GWB presidency is that ultimately he would cave on the conservative domestic agenda. I still believe that the most deadly mistake that Reagan made was the choosing of GHB as vice president, and propelled him into the presidency with disastrous results for conservatism, giving us eight years of Bill Clinton.

The Bushes are elite New Englanders even if they live in Texas. The senior Bush infuriated Reaganites by simpering over a "kinder, gentler" America. I had hoped that Dubya would be tougher, and he is on the Iragi War. But if we surrender on abortion, gay marriage, and budget-busting deficits and the welfare state. If Bush stabs his base in the back as his father did, there will be no conservative agenda for another 100 years, if America lasts that long.

Yes, I am gloomy today, and the David Limbaugh letter is a warning to Bush and to his base. I have tried to be a good sport about this Miers nomination. The most damning thing about it is the message that is sent to some very qualified, honest, and original intent judges who have paid the price for their convictions that the President of the United States does not care to fight for them.

The message to federal judges is this: You have a better chance of getting to the Supreme Court if you are a wuss than if you stand for what you believe, no matter how brilliant you are.

Is this another betrayal by the New England elite, who take care of each other first, no matter what the cost to the country, that party names just mean the same as choosing up sides for the next polo match.

I hope that Dubya is not really one of them in spirit, but we will see.

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005�: "``The fair journalistic question is why they didn't call and get comments for their story from people who were in the room, such as Sandy Berger, and why they took until Friday afternoon to get that done,'' said Lanny Davis, a former White House lawyer, who tried to persuade ''60 Minutes'' producer Jeff Fager to allow him or another Clinton spokesman to appear on Sunday night's segment."
=====
Oh, there's an easy one. Even I know the answer.
Why take statements from paid liars?