Where is Our Holy War?

This is a short essay, because I have only a question.... and I do not have a answer.

Here's the background. There is a news report in today's World Net Daily LINK: CLICK HERE that Muslim leaders have dispatched twelve terrorists to Denmark whose only task is to kill the twelve Danish cartoonists who drew the very controversial cartoons depicting Muhammad.

We all witnessed the massive demonstrations that paralyzed much of the Middle East and parts of Europe as Muslims protested the portrayal of Muhammad. Hundreds of thousands demonstrated and many died. Many leaders, most notably Osama bin Ladan, have declared a Holy War against the west and against Denmark in particular.

While most nations in Europe (and many newspapers) re-ran the cartoons in solidarity with the Danes, the U.S. has largely been silent. Either out of fear for their safety, or out of an effort to achieve political correctness, many universities have refused a traveling exhibit of the cartoons and a discussion of the issues involved.

Only a few U.S. newspapers have reprinted the cartoons. You can see all twelve cartoons here, courtesy of Michelle Malkin who has been a real leader in the Free Speech movement. LINK: CLICK HERE. On this same page you'll find links to Michelle's extensive coverage of this issue.

There is no doubt that true Muslims feel very strongly about this issue. To be certain most moderates stop well short of advocating murder of the cartoonists. But all feel very strongly about the portrayal of Muhammad. All images of Muhammad are forbidden by Mulim Holy Law as written in the Koran.

How will we feel if even on of the terrorists succeed and kill just one cartoonist? What will we say?

"He knew the risk."

He invited trouble."

"He deserved to die."

"He shouldn't have rocked the boat."

"He should have been sensitive to the Muslim religion."

Or will we feel this issue is much bigger? Will we feel that such an attack on our civilization DEMANDS justice?

Is this even important? What's one cartoonist, more or less? Where do we draw our line in the sand?

When do we say "This is our Holy War?"

Work Less = Worthless

Is it remotely possible that our very own US Congress could accomplish less?

"Congressional schedule-keepers had planned for a two-week sprint between vacations to produce weighty reforms on immigration, pensions and tax policy. But Friday, at the finish line, all of those measures were missing."

"As for those who wonder why Congress is taking a two-week vacation with such major legislation unfinished, 'They've got a point,' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz."

"Lawmakers stumbled in the final stretch on big ticket items like tax cuts and whether to spend more or less on health and education programs."

"Legislation assuring millions of baby boomers that the pensions they were promised by employers will be there when they retire was supposed to have been on its way to President Bush. Lawmakers are not even close on that."

" 'Major things just don't get through here,' Durbin said. 'It does reflect the election year. It also reflects that we don't do things as often as we should in a bipartisan fashion.' " Associated Press CLICK HERE

We certainly pay our Senators and Congressmen more than enough. Not only are their salaries reaching stratospheric levels, benefits actually pay virtually every living expense.

And let's not even bring up the meals, trips and goodies they get from lobbyists. It's a huge scandal. And if you don't believe me, just ask the Senators and Congress members themselves.

But did any meaningful lobbying reform pass our congress yet? Don't make me laugh.

I think we are actually paying for pontificating. We get loads of pontificating. And defecating.

But, the purpose of my column today is to once again decry the pure political maneuvering by our very worst Senator, Harry Reid. Harry has now climbed to the very top of my "least respected politician" list.

Earlier this week, the senate almost did the impossible. They almost accomplished the people's work. Two of the Senators I most respect, Edward Kennedy and John McCain cobbled together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to pass an intelligent Immigration Reform Bill.

"Hailed as a bipartisan breakthrough earlier in the week, the immigration measure would have provided for stronger border security, regulated the future entry of foreign workers and created a complex new set of regulations for the estimated 11 million immigrants in the country illegally." Associated Press CLICK HERE

The bill could have made it through the senate. Bill Frist is incompetent as majority leader and would have never stopped the bill. Alas, Harry Reid is not incompetent. He's just a classic pond scum politician.

So, through deft maneuvering through the arcane Senate rules, Reid stopped the bill in it's tracks.

Why did Reid stop the bill that he, in theory should have supported? He wanted to keep the issue alive as a fall campaign advantage for Democrats. Immigration Reform is a club he wanted to use to hammer Republican opponents.

"In private as well as public, Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who heads the party's campaign effort, said they did not want to expose rank-and-file Democrats to votes that would force them to choose between border security and immigrant rights."

" 'Politics got ahead of policy on this,' Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lamented."

" 'It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill,' asserted Senator Arlen Specter." Associated Press CLICK HERE

It's just so good to know we are paying for all this. And we are paying very well.

The Anti-Abortion Abortion

The current rates for abortion in the United States is an absolute crisis. We're killing babies (or fetuses, or embryos) at an alarming rate. And it's primarily knowledgeable 20 somethings who are riding the abortion express at an exploding rates, not the teens who presumably lack contraceptive knowledge and fear informing reactionary parents. It's likely that abstinence programs combined with birth control education are actually working.

But not for young adults. Abortion is the contraceptive of choice for hundreds of thousands nation wide. And right to life people are rightfully alarmed and saddened by the new life abortion itself has taken within the U.S.A.

Under the deft leadership of Karl Rove, George Bush has proven to be the most politically incompetent president in the entire history of the United States. One of the very few bright spots in the Bush presidency has been the appointment of two very intelligent, conservative Supreme Court Judges. Judges who, at least, actually stay awake during Supreme Court hearings.

So, is the right to life leadership moving forward to drastically reduce the numbers of abortions in the United States? Well, no.

In fact, the supposed leadership in the right to life movement is following a path that is absolutely guaranteed to enshrine Roe v. Wade forever without even the most remote possibility of repeal. The current strategy is designed to make certain that abortion will become more common, more frequent, easier to obtain and legally secure than it is even today.

We have today, with Bush's more conservative Supreme Court, the opportunity to place real and meaningful restrictions and limitations on abortion. Parental notification, bans on late term abortion, eliminating partial birth abortion, enforcing waiting periods before abortion and more are all within easy reach. We could reduce abortion in half with the full support of this court and with good public support, too.

But no. Instead the right to life leadership is attempting to power through an anti-abortion bill in South Dakota that couldn't possibly pass Supreme Court muster if Scalia and Thomas were the only two Supreme Court Justices.

The South Dakota bill contains no exceptions for rape or incest; it allows abortion only when it is deemed necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. The health of a mother is never considered. Worse yet, the South Dakota bill would put doctors who perform abortions in jail for up to five years with a fine of five thousand dollars.

In recent years the court has consistently overturned bills that don't carve out adequate protections for the mother's health. And the vast majority of American's will not support or even tolerate this type of criminalization of abortion.

"The only thing that asking for too much, too soon, produces is a further reaffirmation of Casey and Roe," says legal historian David Garrow, referring to a 1992 high-court case that reinforced the core holding of Roe. "As we heard countless times from Alito and Roberts at their [confirmation] hearings, every time a precedent is reendorsed, it is further strengthened." LINK: The Christian Science Monitor article by Linda Feldmann 3/2/2006

So what will happen if the South Dakota bill becomes law? The Supreme Court will strike it down with power and force that will, in effect, provide strong, nearly insurmountable support for Roe v. Wade. Yet again Roe v. Wade will be enshrined in precedent.

Our one shining opportunity for abortion to be regulated in a way that actually made abortion rare, reasonable, fair and safe will be lost. Killed in the womb by the anti-abortion fanatics.

Celebrating Failure and Betrayal

A few early thoughts on the State of the Union address tonight.

Overall, I thought this was one of George Bush's better speeches. His delivery was smooth and assured. He no longer stumbles over words and phrases. The speech was well written and well delivered. By and large, it was well received.

The low point tonight was delivered by the loyal opposition, the Democrats, who burst into great applause and cheers and laughter at the President's mention of the failure of the Congress to enact Social Security Reform.

It was an embarrassing moment on two levels. First, it was rude and disrespectful. Certainly it was inappropriate in this setting, during this speech. I'm guessing that most Americans were appalled by this display. I don't think it helped the Democrats in any way. At the very best, it was childish.

But there is a much deeper issue here. The Democrats were actually signaling their approval in their own total betrayal of the American people.

Not once last year did one Democrat offer a single idea, plan, concept or program to mitigate the coming collapse of our entitlement system. All any Democrat did was to ridicule and condemn the President's proposed set-aside of a small portion of Social Security tax into individual funds that could (at the taxpayer’s sole option) be invested in the stock market.

Perhaps the President's plan was bad. But no Democrat ever offered any alternative.

Tonight were heard Democrats cheer "We did nothing! We helped Social Security fail! Hurray! We condemned the seniors of tomorrow to poverty! We helped the system collapse!!"

If that's the only accomplishment the Democrats could cheer, they don't deserve to hold office. I think it's time for a new opposition party.

The Democrats have lost the right to hold that honorable position.

The Truth About Christmas Trees

It's rather funny that Christians should be rallying around the Christmas Tree. Today it seems that the Christmas Tree itself is at the very center of the fight between church and state. Many Christians fear that Christianity and Christmas itself are under assault from the ACLU and the "politically correct" liberal movement in America.

But it is ironic that the Christmas Tree is the focal point of the argument. Indeed, many government officials (and businesses, too) are attempting to rename the Christmas Tree a 'Holiday Tree.' But it was only a very few years ago that conservative Christians themselves condemned Christmas trees as pagan symbols, the work of the devil.

The History Channel (link here) has a wonderful, short history of the Christmas Tree. I've reprinted a little bit here:

To the New England Puritans, Christmas was sacred. The pilgrims's second governor, William Bradford, wrote that he tried hard to stamp out "pagan mockery" of the observance, penalizing any frivolity.

The influential Oliver Cromwell preached against "the heathen traditions" of Christmas carols, decorated trees, and any joyful expression that desecrated "that sacred event." In 1659, the General Court of Massachusetts enacted a law making any observance of December 25 (other than a church service) a penal offense; people were fined for hanging decorations.

To be certain, the display of greenery, trees and decorations are all pagan in origin, not Christian at all.

Again, quoting from the above link from The History Channel:

The shortest day and longest night of the year falls on December 21 or December 22 and is called the Winter Solstice. Many ancient people believed that the sun was a god and that winter came every year because the sun god had become sick and weak. They celebrated the solstice because it meant that at last the sun god would begin to get well. Evergreen boughs reminded them of all the green plants that would grow again when the sun god was strong and summer would return.

The ancient Egyptians worshipped a god called Ra, who had the head of a hawk and wore the sun as a blazing disk in his crown. At the solstice, when Ra began to recover from the illness, the Egyptians filled their homes with green palm rushes which symbolized for them the triumph of life over death.

Early Romans marked the solstice with a feast called the Saturnalia in honor of Saturn, the god of agriculture. The Romans knew that the solstice meant that soon farms and orchards would be green and fruitful. To mark the occasion, they decorated their homes and temples with evergreen boughs.

Separation of Church and State was much stronger when our country was founded than it is today. Christmas itself WAS NOT a government holiday. In fact, stores and businesses themselves did not close on Christmas until just a little over 100 years ago. Congress held sessions on Christmas Day.

Scrooge was not unusual in expecting his employees to work on Christmas. It was not a "holiday." In fact it was Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" than began a movement toward making Christmas a Holiday. Dickens was considered a radical and a socialist and a general trouble maker.

Calvin and protestant leaders rejected both the celebration of Christmas and Easter as pagan trivializations of sacred events.

The White House NEVER had a Christmas tree until President Franklin Pierce, our 14th President set up a tree in 1856. And he was nearly impeached for adopting the German pagan tradition. It was a huge controversy.

Christmas DID NOT become a National Holiday until 1870!!! Alabama was the first state to make Christmas an official holiday in 1836. Believe it or not, this was one of "official" and one of the real reasons for the Civil War!!! Southern States celebrated Christmas (Arkansas and Louisiana joined in passing Christmas Holiday laws), but Northern states strict forbid any such celebration!! At one time you would be fined in Boston for openly celebrating Christmas!!

In the early 20th century Teddy Roosevelt again banned the Christmas Tree from the White House, but this time on the grounds of conservation. As an ardent conservationist, he led a battle against cutting down trees for decoration. The White House must set an example.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Festive Kwanza, and a Blessed Winter Solstice.

the Wizard............

Winning the Battle... Surrendering the War

Recent polls show that President Bush's support among the American people for the war in Iraq is at an all time low. Most people neither trust nor support the President's actions in Iraq.

And most feel the progress of the war is disastrous. Many have an image of near chaos in Iraq. The picture we have of Iraq is fueled by the strategic suicide bombings by the Iraqi wing of al-Qaeda. Bombings occur nearly every day, sometimes only wounding a few, sometimes killing dozens. Americans are occasionally killed, by mostly the deaths are those of Iraqi civilians.

The constant drone of bombings, combined with a coordinated and relentless attack on the President by the Democrats have driven his poll numbers to the ground.

Even the Republican controlled Senate OVERWHELMINGLY called on the President to deliver an exit strategy and demanded he provide regular updates on the progress of the withdrawal. It was all a weakened and demoralized Republican majority could do to prevent the attachment of a specific timetable to the bill.

The Democrats have clearly won the battle. They have won the "hearts and minds" of the public. The "Bush Lied" mantra has most believing the Bush did lie about pre-war intelligence and that he cannot be trusted.

Meanwhile, the actual situation in Iraq is quite good. In fact it is remarkable. Iraq IS A DEMOCRACY. The first truly free, democratically elected parliament will be elected 30 days from today.

Returning troops here in my home town (our National Guard returned after 15 months duty with no serious casualties, praise Allah), speak of the bravery of the Iraqi people and the amazing improvements in the country. This was their second tour and the results are very encouraging.

Not only are the people's lives improving, the infrastructure improving and freedom taking root (every home has a television, every town 50 newspapers, every village has restaurants and schools and stores, shops and markets. Food is plentiful. Hospitals have doctors, nurses and medicine.

But, the troops lived with respectful fear of al-Zarqawi and the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda. These "terrorists" represent no more that the tiniest handful of Iraqi citizens But the brutality and the total lack of respect for human life (their own or their victims) has the people of Iraq living under a cloud.

There is no doubt, in the minds of our troops, that if the US abandons the Iraqi people, hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die brutal and horrific deaths. And the spark of freedom and the hope of democracy will die with them. The Kurds will fight and civil war is certainty.

Clearly the Democrats have won the political battle. The demand by the Democrats and increasingly by the American people is to negotiate a peace and set a date certain for withdrawal.

My only question is "With whom are we to negotiate this peace?" Or do we just "call it a day" and sneak out the back door and hope no notices our betrayal of millions of innocent, freedom seeking people?

Lies, Damn Lies & Videotape

"When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
President George Bush, November 11, 2005

Lying is very tricky business. Or at least I always thought it was. Like many people I thought you could always get tripped up in a lie. Ultimately the lie would come unraveled.

Mom always told me she could tell when I was lying. And I think she always did. I had good, strong parents and grew up walking the straight and narrow.

But now I'm having to learn the rules about lying all over again. It turns out that Mom may have only told me half of the story. But now Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their friends are teaching me the whole truth. The truth about lying.

The secret to a successful lie is that it has to be really big. It needs to be bold faced. It's got to be blatant. It doesn't matter if it's easy to disprove. And it doesn't matter if most people know it's a lie. You just need to yell louder, be more physical, repeat it often, fail to ever answer a direct question, and enlist your friends in repeating the lie.

If a lie is big enough, the story tall enough and if it's repeated often enough, pretty soon most folks will just ignor it and the rest will believe it. And, after a while, it becomes something like the truth. At least it graduates into urban myth.

And so now we have a very successful Democrat Party, riding the wave of President Bush's falling poll numbers, telling, repeating, shouting and screaming the biggest and most easily disprovable lie I've ever seen. And they are getting away with it.

The funny thing is it's a kind of tricky lie. The are telling this lie: "The President Lied about intelligence leading up to the Iraqi invasion."

If, by some bizarre accident you didn't realize that Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and virtually every Democrat in the Congress and party were lying, here is one of hundreds of news reports from fair minded, credible sources which point out the incredible lie being perpetrated by the liberal left.

"Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" and Bush didn't claim that that there were no exceptions to this view."

Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus reporting in the Washington Post 1/11/2005

The Democrats lie is really tricky on two levels. First, in addition to the hundreds of reports like the one above, there and tens of thousands of hours of videotape disproving the Democrats lie beyond the shadow of a doubt. A little of it is being played by the news media. This causes a small amount of trouble for the Dems, hence the failure to answer direct questions.

But second, it's really tricky because each Senator, Congressman and party leader is on record supporting the war and agreeing with the exact same "intelligence" the President also agreed with. Those videotapes also exist. And a few do get replayed.

So how can you indict and convict the President of a lie he obviously didn't commit? You turn him into the most powerful, compelling, persuasive, Machiavellian politician in the entire history of mankind.

The biggest problem for the Dems is that for five years they've consistently accused Bush of being the most stupid, bumbling, incompetent, ill spoken and poor mannered president in history. I mean the jokes about his lack of verbal skills have carried Letterman and Leno for six years.

Ahhh, but now, in the skilled hands of Kennedy and Reid and company, Bush is a genius that managed to single handedly pull the wool over the entire Democrat Party's eyes, the entire U.S. Congress, the United Nations, the leaders of virtually every country on earth, and, oh, my mother.

Bush not only had to falsify virtually all CIA, FBI and foreign intelligence, including the British Intelligence and the Russian Intelligence, but he then had to sell it to 7/8ths of the people on earth who, generally speaking, didn't think much of Bush.

So Bush, with a little help from Colin Powell and Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby made up the entire story. I guess they even made up the seventeen U.N resolutions against Saddam. Then they sold it to the entire Congress, where not one member, Republican or Democrat, ever asked a single independent question.

And the suave, silver tongued devil Bush clouded the minds of all congresspersons, just like the Phantom in the old radio programs, and forced them to vote in favor of the resolution to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Well now the Democrats have finally come out of their dream-like state and want to set the record straight. They were hopelessly hoodwinked by President Machiavelli, they were too drugged to ever object or question anything Bush uttered. They never actually voted for the war, they were duped into submission.

It turns out that Bush was the genius, and the Dems were the stupid, bumbling and incompetent leaders who filed to take any precautions to protect the American people.

My question is "why is the American public buying this load of crap?" And, frankly, "when will the American public realize the Dems are telling the only lie in this whole mess.

Perhaps it's really unfortunate. Maybe we'd be better off if Bush were a modern day Machiavelli. And maybe we'd be better off if the Democrats were the stupid, bumbling, incompetent opposition.

One thing I'm certain won't happen. The Democrats will never actually admit they did their job, reviewed the available intelligence independently and, using their best and most honest judgement, they actually voted for the war. To learn that, the American public will simply have to turn to the videotapes.

The Harriet Miers Delimma

I've developed a "surfing habit" each time I sign on to the Internet. First I go to The Drudge Report and follow all interesting links. Then I go to The Huffington Post and read the most interesting commentaries (blogs) and follow any other news links. I find this pattern is actually more informative and better balanced than my old habit of reading MSNBC or Yahoo News.

But, over the last few weeks, Drudge and Huffington almost mirror each other. Both conservatives and liberals are bashing Harriet Miers.

But it seems to me that the liberals ought to be very cautious. As the old saying goes: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

For five years I've been writing here that Bush is no conservative. If you like BIG GOVERNMENT, HUGE DEFICITS, and new SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS, Bush is your man.

Now you can add MODERATE, PRAGMATIC SUPREME COURT JUSTICES to the Bush legacy.

The LA Times wrote:
In Dallas, Miers supported a move to create City Council districts so black and Latino candidates would have a better chance of winning seats.

"She came to believe it was important to achieve more black and Hispanic representation," Hasen said.

"She could have a profound impact as a justice if she brought that view to the court. So from the perspective of the voting rights community, they could do a lot worse than her."

It's frankly very clear that Miers will be a thoughtful judge who brings world experience rather than Ivy League Scholarship to the bench.

Of course Conservatives like Ann Coulter are going ballistic!

Ann Coulter wrote:
We're told she has terrific "common sense." Common sense is the last thing you want in a judge! The maxim "Hard cases make bad law" could be expanded to "Hard cases being decided by judges with 'common sense' make unfathomably bad law."

Miers also told Sen. Patrick Leahy — in front of witnesses — that her favorite justice was "Warren," leaving people wondering whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, memorialized in "Impeach Warren" billboards across America, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, another mediocrity praised for his "common sense" who voted for Roe v. Wade and was laughed at by Rehnquist clerks like John Roberts for his lack of ability

Now here's the dilemma. Democrats hate Bush with a destructive passion I've never witnessed in thinking human beings before. The columnists at Huffington spew poison in every sentence and every word. After reading Huffington one would have to believe Hitler was a misunderstood choir boy when compared to the corrupt, evil, dangerous and stupid Bush.

So, naturally, they giggle with glee as the Conservatives turn on George Bush and pick apart Miers like vultures on an road kill armadillo.

And they throw their spears, not to scare off the vultures, but to be certain the poor Miers armadillo is really dead.

Yet Democrats "claim" they want another justice like Sandra Day O'Connor. And in Miers they actually have one. Harriet Miers is absolutely, positively the best nominee Dems can possibly hope for!! If she goes down, we will get a true constructionist nominee in the mold of Scilia and Thomas. And that nominee will get confirmed. You might even get the "nuclear option" as part of the bargain.

So the question is, can any Democrats hold off their left flank and stand up to the Huffington hate mongering wing of the movement and actually support Miers, a thinking moderate?

Or do they win the "Beat Bush Battle" and lose the "Supreme Court War" when Priscilla Owen or her clone actually becomes the next Supreme Court Justice and does alter the balance of the court?

National Call In Day for Darfur

Between the twin hurricanes Katrina and Rita and now the earthquake in Pakistan it's easy to forget about the horrific genocide in Darfur.

Unlike Katrina, Rita and the earthquake, the tragedy in Darfur is entirely man made. It is nothing less than people murdering people.

I apologize that I've let this National Call-In Day for Darfur sneak up on me without giving it the publicity it so strongly deserves. Please take a few minutes to understand the issue and make a telephone call to your Congressperson, Senator and others you think might help raise awareness.

Here is a letter from Brian Komar, American Progress Action Fund, for the entire Be A Witness team.

Today, October 18 , please join thousands around the country in a National Call-In Day for Darfur coordinated by the Genocide Intervention Fund , the Save Darfur coalition, and the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

Last year, Congress and the Bush administration declared that genocide was underway in the western Darfur region of Sudan. Today, even amidst reports of spiraling violence, Congress has failed to take action to address the ongoing crisis. In recent weeks, attacks against civilians in camps, humanitarian workers, and most recently, African Union (AU) peacekeepers, have prompted the AU Peace and Security Council to call on the UN Security Council to address the deteriorating security situation in Darfur.

Members of Congress need to hear from constituents that there is strong public support for promoting peace and accountability in Darfur. Please take a moment tomorrow to call your senators and representative and ask them to support the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act– an important piece of legislation that outlines necessary next steps toward ending the violence in Darfur. Information on contacting your members of Congress and a sample script to help you make the calls is included below.

Please pass this message on to others to multiply our message. Thank you for your willingness to take action and for your continued commitment to saving lives in Darfur.

Here are Calling Instructions and Script Ideas:

Thank you for joining the National Call-In Day for Darfur! To call your senators and representative:

Contact the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and provide your zip code or ask for your member of Congress by name. You'll be transferred to the member's office.

Useful Links:

Look up your members of Congress
Check if your members of Congress are cosponsors of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act

What to say when you call:

Below are two basic scripts to use on the phone. Version 1 is a bit more complex but is likely to be a bit more effective. If you don't have the time or feel uncomfortable with version 1, feel free to use version 2. Whether you use one of these or just talk to the offices in your own words, the important thing is letting your elected representatives know that you care about Darfur and that you expect them to do something about it.

Version 1

Hi, this is ___ calling from ___. I'd like to know if Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator ___ is a cosponsor of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act (H.R. 3127 in the House of Representatives; S. 1462 in the Senate).

If yes: That's great. I would appreciate a written response on what he/she is doing to make sure that this bill gets a vote before Congress adjourns this year. This is just too important to leave undone. And thank you for your time.

If no or not sure: I've heard that this is the only bill with a real chance of passing this year, and that it has bipartisan support. As a constituent, I urge Cngressman/Congresswoman/Senator ___ to cosponsor the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. Can you send me a letter letting me know if he/she will become a cosponsor? This bill is just too important to leave undone. Thank you for your time.

Version 2

Hi, this is ___ calling from ___. I would like to let the Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator know that I support the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act (H.R. 3127 in the House of Representatives; S. 1462 in the Senate) and hope that he/she will too. If possible, I'd like a written response letting me know his/her position. Thanks.

The Ultimate Oxymoron: Elitist Conservative?

Friends and long time readers know that I think Ann Coulter is easily the brightest and one of the funniest columnists writing today. That she is ever attacked by anyone speaks either to the attacker's lack of intelligence or lack of a sense of humor. She is brilliant, witty and devastatingly funny.

But that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with her, not all the time, not even part of the time. You can and should be able to recognize her talent without agreeing with her philosophy. But you simply have to admit she is funny.

Here's an excerpt from her column last week, entitled "THIS IS WHAT 'ADVICE AND CONSENT' MEANS," in which she explains her utter disdain for the newest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers.

"Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues - loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ..."

As you might guess, I do disagree with Ann and a legion of conservative commentators over their chosen method to attack Harriet Miers. But, for the record, Ann's comment above is both totally correct and amazingly funny. You can link to Ann's columns every week here: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi There are archives of past columns here, too.

To explain my disappointment for the conservative's method of attack we, sadly, must now relive the Clarence Thomas hearings for his Supreme Court nomination.

In those wondrouss days of yore it was never possible for Democrats (or Republicans) to attack a nominee over their judicial philosophy. We were all much too civil back then. Hearings were limited to the "qualifications" of the nominee. Since Thomas was well qualified, Democrats were faced with the possibility of a true constructionist sitting on the bench. One thing was for certain, if possible, Thomas would be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

So out came a secret weapon: Anita Hill. Hill was able to attack Thomas on purely personal grounds: sexual harassment. Philosophy would never have to be mentioned. In reality she was there, as she herself would later admit, as part of the fight for abortion rights.

It was a comic and tragic hearing. And it did have a profound effect the American workplace. Every company held sexual harassment seminars and workshops. But, in the end, it didn't keep Thomas off the bench.

Democrats quickly realized the error of their ways. From that moment on, a nominee's judicial philosophy was not only fair game, it was the only game!

Conservatives, however, were true to their conservative nature. Judicial philosophy was still a topic never to be discussed. So conservatives not only let Ruth Bader Ginsberg sail through the Senate 'Advice and Consent' hearings, they actually voted for her nearly unanimously. And you must remember that Ginsberg is so liberal it should have been shock to have her considered for the Supreme Court of Denmark, let alone the United States.

Meanwhile, the President has to live in this bizarre world of double standards. Democrats will attack any candidate with the slightest paper trail indicating a conservative or constructionist philosophy. So we enter the era of the stealth candidate. Nominate only persons with no provable philosophy. Now confirmed Chief Justice Roberts was a perfect choice. A well qualified blank slate.

Now fast forward to the nomination of Harriet Miers. The conservatives, still living in 1979, don't ever attack based on philosophy. "We have no litmus test," cry the conservatives.

Meanwhile, President Bush, forced to live in 2005, chooses another stealth candidate, one with even less of a paper trail than Roberts, Harriet Miers. Only this time even conservatives are frightened they don't know her philosophy. The slate is so blank, they're actually afraid there might not even be a philosophy there.

So what's to do? Boxed into a corner, they can't attack the lack of a philosophy they claim they don't require. So conservatives pull out their version of Anita Hill. No, not sexual harrassment . Instead they attack her educational background!

To quote once more from the wonderful Ann Coulter:

"Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery."

"Second, even if you take seriously William F. Buckley's line about preferring to be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty, the Supreme Court is not supposed to govern us. Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job."

Perhaps the most ironic fact in reviewing Conservative's misplaced attack on Miers is that conservative's first choice for the Supreme Court is 5th Circuit Court Justice Priscilla Owen, a fellow Texan and graduate of Baylor University. Let me assure you that Baylor is no SMU. Hence, the primary argument against Miers falls flat on its face!

Tragically, conservatives have fallen into the Anita Hill trap. And they look and sound petty, childish and, well, elitist. Instead of making up a false and silly new litmus test for Supreme Court Nominees, like an Ivy League Law Degree, they need to actually be willing to embrace their own philosophies.

This Conservative Elitism is not only an oxymoron, it's actually moronic.

Postscript: Here's perhaps the best statement I've read concerning the Miers' debate; it comes from Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver:

"First, the President had a number of highly qualified candidates with proven track records and well-developed judicial philosophies. He passed over them and chose an invisible nominee. Second, selecting a nominee who has held her views in silence for 60 years sends a wrong message to conservatives - if you want to be appointed to the federal bench, you should keep your views to yourself. That's a terrible message to send to our future leaders."

The Three Blind Men and the Elephant

Before I even start today's essay may I digress and mention just how wonderful and powerful the Internet has become. We literally are combining the resources of the entire world. Each person and each institution contributes his or her interests and knowledge. And it's all here, in one easy to use format, to benefit all humankind. At least the portion of humankind that can afford access or lives in a country or region where the leaders do not fear knowledge. But I digress.

By searching the Internet I located dozens of links to different versions of the ancient story of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Perhaps the best known is John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the Indian version of the legend. Here is the link I used to a page created by Duen Hsi Yen. It's a wonderful resource. The Blind Men and the Elephant. It is believed the original parable originated in China sometime during the Han dynasty (202 BC-220 AD). There are also African versions and, of course, Saxe's retelling of the Indian version.

The Three Blind Men and the Elephant

It was three men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, "Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me `tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:"
I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

Today, the wake of Hurricane Katrina we have many members of the leadership of the Democrat Party who are demanding an immediate investigation of the failures of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Federal Government in general in their response to the hurricane and its horrific aftermath.

Many are calling for the firing or resignation of Michael Brown, FEMA's Director and some are calling for the termination of Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security as well.

And, as would be expected, many are putting the entire blame for the aftermath on the doorstep of George Bush himself. Into the mix are cries of racism or prejudice against the poor and disadvantaged.

There is no doubt the each of these people deserve a lot of the blame for what happened.

Leading the increasingly partisan attack are Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Leader in the House of Representatives, Harry Reid, the Democrat Leader of the Senate and, of course, Howard Dean, the head of the Democrat Party. Each are demanding an immediate investigation. They want to examine the elephant!

Nevermind that the elephant is still raging, still running at full speed. Nevermind that such an investigation at this time would sap resources needed to save lives, find and identify the dead and restore the homes of the living.

And certainly nevermind that many facts will not even be known for weeks. Let's examine the elephant!

But, in a blatant and very dangerous partisan move, the Democrats are demanding that such an investigation be limited to FEMA and the Federal Government's role in the disaster. Such a move will insure that any investigation will be blind to the totality of factors that led to the tragedy.

Here is a summary of recently revealed facts concerning the most visible tragedy in New Orleans. The following is from an analysis by Audrey Hudson and James G. Lakely in the Washington Times.

FEMA has been harshly criticized by Democrats in Congress, who have demanded that Director Michael D. Brown resign. But FEMA was in place as the storm approached and the Louisiana National Guard delivered seven trailers with food and water Aug. 29 and another seven truckloads on Aug. 30 to the Superdome to help feed the 25,000 people inside.

Confusion reigned in Katrina's aftermath. A state-of-the-art mobile hospital developed with Homeland Security grants to respond to disasters and staffed by 100 doctors and paramedics was left stranded in Mississippi because Louisiana officials would not let it deploy to New Orleans.

Red Cross officials say the organization was well positioned to provide food, water and hygiene products to the thousands stranded in New Orleans. But the state refused to let them deliver the aid.

"Access to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities, and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders," the Red Cross said last week on its Web site.

It's terribly tragic that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Howard Dean are working to stop any inquiry that includes examination of local or state response to Hurricane Katrina.

God Forbid we take steps that would actually identify and fix the response problems before the next disaster. Nope, we don't want anything fixed.

You see our three blind men (persons) don't really want to examine the elephant. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean want to pin the blame on the Elephant.

And so John Saxe completes his parable of The Blind Men and the Elephant:

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Blind Loyalty

The horrific aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will be dissected in thousands of commentaries on thousands of blogs, websites, newspapers and magazines. In the months and years to come we’ll be able to read insightful books and, of course, the investigations of numerous government committees, panels and commissions.

Some of these might even be helpful and insightful.

Right now we’re mostly getting gut reactions, heartfelt stories and a wealth of utter nonsense. The "hate Bush for everything" crowd is setting new standards for fiction parading as fact.

So here's my gut reaction.

For reasons the liberal ultra left cannot possibly imagine, President Bush does deserve a lot of the blame for what’s happening. Not for the Hurricane, of course, but for the botched efforts in the last 72 hours.

I'm not part of the "Hate Bush" crowd. In fact I'm a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and the overall war against terrorism. I think Bush not only has the best plan, he has the only plan.

I think most of Bush's policies have been excellent. His tax cuts and overall economic policies have given us one of the strongest economy in out history.

Attacks on his brilliant "Leave No Child Behind" education program are totally unwarranted. In fact Bush has spent more Federal Funds on education than any Democrat President ever even proposed in their wildest dreams.

And even some of his Environment Policies are overwhelming successes.

But blind loyalty is just as totally wrong as blind hatred. Bush's management style, nearly identical to Ronald Reagan's, depends on having excellent people in charge. Bush delegates authority to his people, but here his people are simply incompetent.

In addition, it's my opinion that the new gigantic Federal Bureaucracy called Homeland Security created after 9/11 is one of the greatest mistakes in the entire history of government. Of course I strongly opposed it's creation at the time, as did a pretty large number of Bush cabinet officials. But public pressure and the bizarre lobbying by the 9/11 commission and 9/11 mothers caused it to pass.

So now we have a large, incompetent, unfeeling monster of a department filled with little baby bureaucrats whose sole mission in life is to cover their asses.

It's interesting to hear people compare Nixon's fast, efficient management of Hurricane Camille with Bush's nowhere to be seen mismanagement of Katrina. Nixon had FEDERAL troops on the ground in massive numbers in 24 hours.

Bush can't get troops to Geraldo Rivera and Shepard Smith who are broadcasting one block away from a military checkpoint whose entire purpose seems to be to cause people to suffer and die.

You have to be a complete idiot to allow the press to cover the torture of 10,000 people on live television and not pick up the phone and tell a General his career is on the line if food and water don't arrive within one hour.

Now, if you don't want to put the blame on Bush, blame his managers. But if Bush won't make the call, heads below him had better roll.