New site:

www.Ra^thergate.com

Speaking of oil...

as I was in the last post, many people continue to believe that the US invaded Iraq last year for its oil, and that opposition to the war from France was motivated by peace-loving intentions.

Guess again. (Shorter summary here.)

Oil did play a role in the diplomatic war leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, but not in the way a lot of people think.

Human Rights

Last week, Tacitus of Redstate wrote a post entitled A Lonely Beacon, detailing how the US government has declared that the violence in Sudan constitutes genocide.

While Europe dithers (refusing to call it genocide, because, as Instapundit notes, "Because if it were, you know, we [the EU] would have to do something about it"), the Arab League refused to get involved (rejecting sanctions and international intervention), and the UN does little, it is the US and its President, George W. Bush, that calls a spade a spade (again) and seek action against this ongoing, current genocide.

How will our allies in Europe (that's more than France & Germany, Senator Kerry) and elsewhere respond? Will they refuse to get involved? In the case of France, I wonder why (do a Find for oil).

Update: there was a rally for the genocide today in Washington; check out some pictures of the event here, including the one of the sign headlined, "Thank You President Bush For Your Leadership".

New MS Office program

Jeff Miller discusses the latest offering in the Microsoft Office line of software: MS Forger.

As he says, "if you are a Kerry campaign operative or a CBS intern then this is the program for you."

Ra^thergate

By now, most of you have probably heard about Rathergate.

The other night, Dan Rather broke a story on 60 Minutes II, revealing newly-discovered military records indicating that certain aspects of President Bush's Air National Guard service weren't as he claimed. In other words, he lied.

Thanks to the blogosphere, however, (especially the guys at Powerline) serious questions have been raised regarding the authenticity of these records, with many people claiming that they are clearly forgeries (see this post for a summary). The story was picked up last night by the mainstream media, and there have been a number of articles on this today, including the AP, Washington Post, and ABC. Apparently, the conventional wisdom among the major media outlets at this point is that these documents are, in fact, forgeries.

Dan Rather, however, is sticking by the story. Hence, the name being bandied about by some regarding this... Rathergate.

Interestingly, Rather will not be anchoring CBS News tonight... you can see his sub here. (Update: fixed the link to the pic of Dan's sub.)

Confrontation

From the AP the other day: Ministers confront lawmakers on gay marriage: Black clegy have heated exchange with member of the Black Caucus.

See also the Worldnet Daily story, "Black caucus ignores black clergy".

And Focus on the Family also discussed it: "African-American Pastors Stand Up to Lawmakers on Marriage".

Un amico di Roma

Early this morning, I got a comment from a friend I got to know in Rome. It turns out he has his own blog.

Go check out Chateau du Meau!

Global poll

As many of you have heard, a recent poll indicated that were all the people of the world able to vote in this falls US presidential election, Senator John Kerry would win in a landslide.

Since things aren't looking good for Mr. Kerry at the present, I have an idea that might make everyone happy: the American people, the people of the world, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Bush:

President Bush can be re-elected, and Senator Kerry can run for Secretary-General of the United Nations.

What do you think?

Who Should President Bush thank? Warren Burger

Why? Because if it weren't for the infamous decision of Mr. Burger's court handed down in 1973 -- Roe v. Wade -- it overwhelming likelihood is that Al Gore would have won Florida and hence the Presidency in 2000. And the same realities are bound to impact this November's election, although events right now (which, it must of course be said, hardly guarantee what they will be in early November0 indicate that things won't be 2000-close.

Nonetheless, it remains true that from a purely realpolitik perspective, abortion has been harder on Democrats than Republicans (NB: abortion is, of course, hardest on its victims: the child that is killed and the woman that is victimized, even if the victimization is consensual). What's my evidence for that claim? Exhibit A has to be an article which many of you readers are already familiar: Larry Eastland's article, "The Empty Cradle Will Rock," which appeared at OpinionJournal in June. Mr. Eastland crunches the numbers, and concludes that were abortion illegal, Al Gore probably would have won Florida by some 45,000 votes.

A number of Mr. Eastland's conclusions are worth citing directly:

Abortion has caused missing Democrats--and missing liberals. For advocates so fundamentally committed to changing the face of conservative America, liberals have been remarkably blind to the fact that every day the abortions they advocate dramatically decrease their power to do so. Imagine the number of followers that their abortion policies eliminate who, over the next several decades, would have emerged as the new liberal thinkers, voters, adherents, fund-raisers and workers for their cause.

• Six out of 10 Americans call themselves conservatives. Only a quarter of them are having abortions.

• A little more than one-third of Americans call themselves liberals. More than four in 10 are having abortions.

• This means that liberals are having one third more abortions than conservatives.

As liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and supporters through events, fund-raisers, direct mail and every other form of communication available, they achieve results minuscule in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from their own abortion policies. It is a grim irony lost on them, for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.

A similar argument is advanced by scholar Phillip Longman, author of the recently-released book, "The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It." In an article for the Washington Post, Longman argues that conservatives (i.e. Bush supporters) are having considerably more kids than Gore/Kerry supporters, and considering that the majority of people tend to follow the political persuasions of their parents, this clearly does not bode well for Democrats. Longman concludes his article,

If Gore's America (and presumably John Kerry's) is reproducing at a slower pace than Bush's America, what does this imply for the future? Well, as the comedian Dick Cavett remarked, "If your parents never had children, chances are you won't either." When secular-minded Americans decide to have few if any children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide. Sure, some children who grow up in fundamentalist families will become secularists, and vice versa. But most people, particularly if they have children, wind up with pretty much the same religious and political orientations as their parents. If "Metros" don't start having more children, America's future is "Retro."

Ouch.

I strongly believe that we need two viable political parties in our country. Perhaps after the Democrats finish aborting themselves out of existence (unless Democrats for Life can make some headway in their party), a new party -- also pro-life -- can be formed out of the debris, which would balance those elements of the GOP which are less than palatable to the Catholic worldview.

It would be easier if Democrats woke up and remembered that they champion themselves as the party that stands up for the oppressed and defends the defenseless and started advocating the respect of all humans' rights, including both mothers and their children. Unfortunately, the odds of that happening are currently slim to none.

Too bad.

A couple anecdotal letters...

from The Corner.

First:

I am a northeast Pennsylvania resident who also happens to work up the road from the stadium where Bush made his first post-convention appearance.

As expected, security was tight, traffic was a nightmare, and those of us who had to work had to find ways to get around it. To make it possible I left for work at 5 am this morning. Since we're a bank operations center, I just didn't have the option of saying "another day, time to play hooky."

Groggy and tired, I arrived at the location at 5:45 and was amazed to see the traffic already backing up. The poor officers who arrived at 4:30 am to handle a Presidential appearance at 9:15 were smiling and waving us on. The organization as they tried to route those of us who had to get to work and at the same time direct those who were determined to get to the stadium was difficult, impossible at times, but well-done and determined.

And I found I was astonished. The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area is a renowned Democratic stronghold, run by a political machine that's been in place for decades. Where did all these Republicans come from? How did they fill every one of the 18,000 seats they could? Why would 18,000 people (and more if they could have) come out in the pre-dawn darkness to hear a speech? Why did students from the University of Scranton arrive at the airport at 12:30 this morning to greet the President and First Lady and show their support? Why did even more crowds see him off at the airport this morning - unable to get to the stadium but needing to cheer him on?

Why did the total number of protestors at the stadium, in this Democratic town, number 3 whole people? Even the newspapers seem incredulous.

And then it occurred to me. There's a base of support that's farther and wider then realized. That people are quietly supporting Bush, keeping to themselves because they're unwilling to find themselves a part of the vitriolic smear and attack debates launched by those who hate him. That they walk away from political argument because you can't talk to someone who rants, but their silence doesn't mean agreement.

Second

I'm writing for the first time to the Corner because this post gave me the chills. I'm a student at NYU, one of the most liberal strongholds in one of the most liberal cities in the country. I have experienced several similar occurrances over the past year, and am continually amazed at the level of quiet support for Bush. Although nearly every single political gathering at NYU has a drastically liberal slant, there are more members of the College Republicans than College Democrats. Although our students lead protests and participate in die-ins, there are invariably twice as many people quietly disgusted with their actions than vocally supporting them. Volunteering at the convention, I spoke with numerous police officers, one of whom spelled it out for me very succinctly. "I'm 16 hours deep in a 20 hour shift, and I spent the first half of it being harassed, cursed at, and attacked by protesters over on Eighth Ave. One of them bit me on my hand, so I got sent back here to wat ch over the delegates for the second half of my shift. Since I showed up, I've gotten nothing but smiles, thank yous, and salutes from these delegates. One of my friends just offered to relieve me, but I told him I didn't mind staying around for a while longer. I voted for Gore last time, and Clinton before him, but I'm voting for Bush this time, without a doubt." Hearing that made up for all of the vitriol I've had to deal with being a Conservative at NYU.

Not polls. Just interesting.

Template update

As you can see, I've updated the color scheme of my blog. I'd wanted to do so for some time, but don't possess the html know-how for the changes I want.

Fortunately, Jeff Miller, The Curt Jester, does.

Thanks again, Jeff!

Oops

The Kerry campaign should have vetted the city they made as their latest Ohio stop a bit more. I'm referring to Steubenville, on the banks of the Ohio river across from West Virginia. Steubenville is a steel town, and that and other reasons make it seem to be a good Kerry stronghold.

But that's not the case.

Thanks to Franciscan University of Steubenville (someone's alma mater ;-) and to a fairly strong diocese, the Catholic population of the area (which makes up a good chunk of the entire populace) is pretty solid, being especially pro-life on the abortion issue.

I don't think the Kerry campaign realized this, because they had kn0wn, they probably wouldn't have come.

Here's an email sent to Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online explaining how things went:

John Kerry came to Steubenville yesterday and quickly realized he was in the wrong city. Steubenville is a city where there are 6 Democrats for every 1 Republican, and the Steelworkers unions are alive and active. You would think this was solid John Kerry territory. The mob used to control Steubenville and now the unions think they do. Well, they are wrong.

The Kerry campaign first scheduled a visit to Steubenville two weeks ago but "scheduling conflicts" came up at the last minute. Oh, and did I mention that Kerry wanted to use a local gun range as a campaign stop, but the owner turned him down? And that the Fire Department Union President told the Kerry campaign that not only would he not organize the union to support Kerry at the rally, but that he was supporting President Bush! The Kerry campaign took for granted that this area was sown up. Mistake number one. So they rescheduled the campaign trip when Franciscan University was back in session. Mistake number two.

Before Kerry arrived there was a huge pro-life march led by Franciscan University students, 500 strong. "You can't be Catholic and pro-abortion", read some of their signs. Students and members of local Catholic parishes were full of energy and FoxNews reported that this was the largest protest against Kerry outside of the Democratic Convention. Just picture 500 pro-lifers marching from their college campus to meet Kerry. Where else but in Steubenville, Ohio! Though the Franciscan University did not organize the event, it is well known for its orthodox Catholic education which encourages students to put their faith into action. These students simply cherish their Catholic faith and could not stand to let Kerry use their faith as a political prop. I am proud of my alma mater.

….The Kerry campaign not only made a mistake in their timing, but they also chose to hold the rally in a public park which should be open to all the public. Mistake number three. The police chief, sheriff, and mayor all agreed with me that protesters and their signs would be allowed inside the Kerry rally site. Freedom of speech is alive and well here in Ohio. The Kerry campaign flipped out!

So, now add another 500 local Bush supporters to the Kerry rally. They tried to turn up the music but they could not drown us out. According to the Herald Star (local press), "The crowd, estimated by officials as 3,500 strong, was almost split in half with people for and against the Massachusetts senator." John Kerry must know he has a problem when over 15% of his audience was booing him. We were respectful and did not heckle him - but upon arrival and when he sought our applause he got something he didn't expect. As the press arrived a feisty nine year old little girl began shouting, "We want Bush!", and we all chanted along. The campaign staff was beside themselves. This is history in the making! Even places like Steubenville are not supporting John Kerry. He is in serious trouble.

My friends, John Kerry will not be coming back to Steubenville. Kerry was visibly shaken when he received boos from the audience.....

I'm not surprised.

Update: more on Kerry's Steubenville reception at Redstate here.

Bush's speech

I suppose I ought to say a word or two about last night's speech.

Like many others, I thought the first half was a bit too laundry list-ish, but that the second half was outstanding. I think he clearly laid out his rationale for going to war, and even though you might disagree, I don't see how anyone could accuse him of rushing into the war.

Relatedly, I think any honest observer who watched him speak about meeting wounded soldiers and the families of soldiers who gave their lives in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can possibly say that he acted in anything but good faith. Look at the man! He's a decent man! Don't tell me that he's a cold-hearted liar who just wants to line the pockets of his oil buddies... he did what he had to because he believed it was necessary for the security of our nation. You can think he was wrong, but there's no way you can honestly tell me that he acted dishonestly.

Among the many reactions, I'd like to note that of the Vodkapundit, Stephen Green, a libertarian blogger with whom I don't share a lot in common, in terms of worldview. But I think he's reaction is spot on in many ways, and I want to quote part of it:

There was no overriding theme to President Bush’s speech, except for the unspoken one: “This is who I am.” No, wait -- let me amend that. The unspoken theme was, “This is who we are.” As Americans.

For all its faults, for all its overtly- and overly-religious tones, this small-l libertarian prefers George Bush’s America to John Kerry’s. I don’t care for NASCAR. I’m not much for country music, Sundays at church, blue-eyed soul, or faith-based initiatives.

But Bush made me feel welcome all the same. No, wait – let me amend that statement, too. Bush made me feel like his place is somewhere I’d like to spend some time and get to know the locals. You know -- down a few beers, chat up the natives and learn their quaint customs.

I don’t feel as welcome, as at home, in the America Kerry painted for us tonight.

I’ll repeat something I said earlier.

Forget the war. Forget policy. Forget everything but two men who want something from me. Kerry could never have joked about the way he walks – or made any other joke at his own expense. Bush can, and did. That's a guy comfortable in his own skin, and that's a guy I'd give something to, before the other guy. I'm pretty sure a lot of people recognize that, even if only instinctively. In other words, my gut tells me to vote for Bush.

My brain does, too.

Bush was apparently clueless and driftless for much of his adult life, until he was 40. I think that when he woke up, he wanted to make up for his time and serve, and I think that's a big part of what led him to seek the presidency, including his second term.

He's got my vote, now more than ever.

This tops the cake

President Bush made a stop in West Allis, Wisconsin today, and when speaking at a rally, he informed the crowd that he'd just heard that former President Clinton was in the hospital for heart surgery. He said that Clinton was in their thoughts and prayers, and according to an AP story on the event, "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them."

Okay, I'm not Clinton fan, but that's a pretty cold-hearted, callous reaction.

There just one thing...

It didn't happen.

The audience didn't boo. Bush didn't fail to stop them from doing so.

In fact, their audible reaction was one of surprise and dismay.

Don't believe me? You can hear a soundbite of Bush's words and the crowd's reaction here.

So, how are we to interpret the quote I offered above? Is there any explanation, other than that it was a bald-faced lie? How could the reporter who penned the report possibly explain the reaction in that manner in good faith?

This is unbelievable.

For all of you who don't think there is a liberal bias in the media, here's your example.

You know what makes this all the more interesting? The AP corrected the story and removed the quote above. Later, they offered another version of the story, telling us that "the crowd reacted with applause and with some "ooohs," apparently surprised by the news that Clinton was ill."

You don't say?

Yet the AP failed to give an account for the first version and its lie, let alone apologize.

There needs to be an accounting for this. Someone's butt has to be fired. (Any liberals who read this... don't bother trying to compare this to Bush's WMD "lies". We both know that there is a difference between a mistake and a lie, so don't even think about it.)

For more on this, go here, here, and/or here.

I almost caved

I came this close to commenting again at The Village Gate today... I had a subject and first sentence typed before I stopped myself.

What prompted my almost-off-the-wagon episode? This line by another commenter:

the Christian Right is pursuing a fear-based and extremist socio-political agenda that they're attempting to put a veneer of respectability on by cloaking it in religion.

Questions:

Who exactly constitutes "the Christian Right"?

What exactly is a fear-based agenda?

What exactly is an extremist agenda?

Whatever those things are, they must be very, very bad; how does cloaking them in religion make them respectable?

Do words mean anything anymore?

Good points

Jonah Goldberg makes some good points about Kerry, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War, points that he (and I) think Bush et al should be making.

For instance...

Kerry opposed the Iraq War because the right nations (i.e. France & Germany) weren't in our coalition. But both of them and everyone else Kerry loves supported the Gulf War.

Kerry voted against it anyway.

Kerry opposed the Iraq War because the UN didn't give final approval. Bush 41 got that approval from the UN for the Gulf War.

Kerry voted against it anyway.

As Zell put it tonight:

Against,

Against,

Against.

Cheney & Halliburton

VP Dick Cheney, of course, has become the veritable lightning-rod for controversy over the past couple of years. Michael Moore and his fellow unhinged liberals (no, the last two words are not redundant... cf. Zell Miller, for instance ;-) believe that the whole Iraq war was fought to line the pockets of Bush, Cheney, and all their fat cat friends (remember, Kerry is a poor rich guy), Cheney's former company, Halliburton, being Public Enemy Number One.

There's a little problem, though. It appears that the perception of Moore et al and reality don't quite match up (surprised?), which is another way of saying that their perception is not true. Why do I say that? Because between late 2000 and November of 2003 (several months after the cessation of major combat ops in Iraq), Halliburton's share value dropped by more than a third. (See Niall Ferguson's Colossus.)

As C+C Music Factory might have said, this is one those "things that make you go hmmm."

(Hat tip: John Hillen.)

RNC tonight

Wow! Zell Miller! He didn't hold back, did he? (Well, actually he did, thanks to some of the "bigwigs" running the convention... see here.)

And Cheney was solid, as always.

But I think I loved the crowd most of all... how about the "flip-flop!" chants during Cheney's speech! Amazing!

In the post-speech surf to see what the Web is saying, I came across some excerpts of the big liberal bloggers' responses. It occurred to me... whoever wins this race, there is going to be a lot of ink handy for that guy's bloggers to rub in the face of the loser's bloggers. Kos, for instance, who apparently sees no way for Miller's speech to bring votes to Bush. I strongly disagree, and either way, our words will always be available. (Unless, of course, Kos decides to try to wipe his words out of the internet, which he's done before.)

Ciao.

It's up and ready!

As promised, the audio of Bishop Carlson's presentation is now available online.

Go to the website of the Diocese of Sioux Falls and click on "Theology on Tap", right underneath the image of the Church. It will open a new window, with all of the presentations currently available. Click on "Bishop Carlson: 'Faith & Politics'", and enjoy!

Protesters' chants and signs

I love these.

"Billions for the war, still nothing for the poor."

"Racist, sexists, anti-gay R-N-C, go away."

(Found here.)

"Five, six, seven, eight, we don't want your police state!"

(Found here.)

Let me try...

Two, four, six, eight... why don't you try and use your brain and drop the unhinged rhetoric before you make yourself look even more foolish (if that's possible).

Yeah, it doesn't rhyme, but hey! it makes my point.