Monday, July 25, 2005

New Quotes

"What would happen if all these neutral nations...were with one spontaneous impulse to do their duty...and were to stand together...against aggression and wrong? At present their plight is lamentable; and it will become much worse. They bow humbly and in fear to...threats of violence. ... Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear...the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar, ever more loudly, ever more widely. It will spread to the South; it will spread to the North. There is no chance of a speedy end except through united action."
--Sir Winston Churchill

"In this era of hyper-sensitivity and political-correctness, words no longer have meaning. Those who are good are too often portrayed as evil; indefensibly wicked acts are made less so by the way they are described. Words like 'hero' and 'hatred' have lost definition. In the midst of a struggle for survival, the inability to discern attackers from allies, friends from foes and heroes from cowards is potentially catastrophic. ... The word 'hero' no longer means one who has willingly put himself in grave physical jeopardy for the benefit of another. Heroes are people who overcome evil by doing good at great personal risk. Through self-sacrifice, fortitude and action -- whether they succeed or fail -- heroes provide a moral and ethical framework -- and inspiration -- for the rest of us. Unfortunately, our modern definition of 'hero' has been corrupted to include all manner of people who do not warrant the title. The athlete who just set a new sports record isn't a hero. Nor is the 'daring' movie star or even the adventurer out to be the first solo climber to scale Mt. Everest. They may be brave -- but they don't meet the definition of a hero, for whatever they achieve benefits only 'self.' Real heroes are selfless."
--Oliver North

"A generation ago, liberals figured out something that most conservatives couldn't have dreamed of in their worst nightmare. A few well-positioned autocrats can do what most Americans thought, and the Constitution says, takes two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures to do: namely, change the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean. The plan was simple. Put justices on the Supreme Court, backed up by lower court judges, to 'modernize' our Constitution by fiat, with the claim that Supreme Court decisions, whether based on the words of the Constitution or not, have the same status as the Constitution itself. How often do we hear that our founding compact needs to be a living, breathing document whose meaning changes with the times? Never mind what the words of our Constitution actually say; never mind the clear intent of the Constitution's writers and signers; never mind two hundred years of judicial interpretation; never mind the centuries-old wisdom of the common law: We are much wiser today than our predecessors. Or so goes the liberal boast. In fact, it is said, we are now able to see just what they were 'getting at' even better than they could -- as if the U.S. Constitution were only a 'nice try' at a plan of government."
--Sen. Rick Santorum

"[Terrorists are] all in it together, these killers, whatever their particular branch of the same, murderous fanaticism. There will always be those who dare not risk offending by calling a terrorist a terrorist, who would much prefer to overlook the gore and just go about their business, maybe even muttering something about how those people have been killing each other for thousands of years, and it's certainly no business of ours to interfere.... [But] our greatest weapon in this struggle is something beyond arms and armor, television monitors and metal detectors. It is solidarity. And the kind of moral clarity that can still call terror by its right name -- not insurgency or militancy but what it is: terror."
--Paul Greenberg

"Sure, the invasion of Iraq was supposed to -- and will -- make us safer. But few said it would make us safer right away, and those who suggested otherwise were foolish for doing so. But why anybody should be shocked or outraged that terrorists are striking back even as they lose the war is beyond me. The only shock and outrage should be over their willingness to murder innocent civilians indiscriminately. And, perhaps, a little shock and outrage is called for in response to those who think such terrorism is justified at all."
--Jonah Goldberg

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Liberal Media

Many people (Liberals, of course) have informed me that the current media is NOT biased toward leftist views. These same people rant against Fox because they ARE fair and balanced!
Here is another example of left-wing bias....this time from Google. Here is an email I received from a Republican group.

Google says NO to Conservative Ads!
Do you think we have a hard time fighting against the left-wing bias of the liberal mainstream media?

Well you're right -- but it's worse than you thought.

Now, it turns out the people running the big search engines are liberally biased, too -- and they're CENSORING conservative search ad results!

Specifically, we're talking about the biggest search engine: GOOGLE. Everyone uses Google. It's even a verb now -- "I'll Google that to find out."

But it's also an advertising vehicle -- you can pay Google money, and they'll put your short ad on the right-hand side of the page of search results, based on what people are searching for.

Well, we saw that if you typed in "Tom DeLay", all of the ads were ANTI-DeLay ads. So, we took the time and spent the money so that our PRO-DeLay ad would show up too -- first.

But then we wanted to also put up an ad that exposed the hypocrisy of the Democrats -- basically, showing how the Democrats are going after Congressman DeLay for things that they've done MUCH WORSE in. So, we copied one of the ads posted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee almost WORD FOR WORD, but changed "Tom DeLay" (the GOP leader) to "Nancy Pelosi" (the Democrat leader, who violated ethics rules much worse than what DeLay is accused of - Click Here to learn more about the Democrats hypocrisy, and Click Here to learn more about Nancy Pelosi).

That's all we did -- we took the LIBERAL ad, and changed the words to make it a CONSERVATIVE ad.

And Google CENSORED our ad.

They pulled the ad, and the reason they gave was, "Google policy does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group or organization."

But the LIBERAL ad is still up. Click Here to take a look at the liberal ad; then look at our ad (and Google's rejection) by clicking here.

OUTRIGHT DISCRIMINATION! So now we need YOUR help to expose this blatant anti-conservative bias at the largest search engine on the planet!

We're launching a major media blitz TODAY, with press releases to every media outlet in the country, plus broadcast interviews and an expose' on our weekly radio show this week. We're also placing this Action Alert across a network of major news websites, and dozens of blogs are already picking up this story. Google may think they have a "right" to apply their rules differently to different people -- but WE have a right to SPEAK UP when we see them exhibiting BLATANT liberal bias!

We need YOUR help. We've set up our site so that you can send messages to YOUR local media -- newspapers, television, radio, etc. -- DEMANDING that they report on the LIBERAL BIAS of the largest search engine in the world.

You can only send to five local media sources at a time on our system, but feel free to use our pre-written form repeatedly to FORCE the media to DO THEIR JOBS and report on this bias. Click here NOW to send your message!

Monday, July 11, 2005


"The ongoing collapse of courtesy is no surprise in a nation with so many people who are as self-absorbed as black holes. Consider this T-shirt I've spotted: 'It's all about me -- deal with it.' ... Push in your seat when leaving tables in restaurants, libraries, and conference rooms. Abandoning your chair or barstool in the middle of a path obstructs those who walk by after you depart. ... It remains civilized to hold open the door for someone who is walking a few steps behind you. Letting the door slam in his face is rude. When someone opens a door for you, say 'thank you.' Muttering 'Excuse me' makes a gracious person feel his thoughtfulness is abusive. Walking by and saying nothing, as if that lady or gentleman were your servant or simply invisible, is vulgar. ... 'Please' and 'thank you' are not vulgarities. Use them generously, especially around children. They need to learn two of the language's finest words, even if adults say them less than they should. ... Trash cans are there for a reason. Use them. ... A major airline's East Coast shuttle lounge in Washington, DC's Reagan National Airport -- gateway for learned attorneys, lobbyists, journalists, and members of Congress -- recently almost suffocated beneath whole sections and loose pages of various newspapers. They were strewn across the floor and on many seats. These literate adults apparently did not have their mommies on hand to locate the ubiquitous, neglected garbage bins. The point of all this is not necessarily to turn every American man and woman, respectively, into Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, though we could do worse. The idea is to encourage each of us -- every day, in tiny ways -- to subtract from, rather than add to, the worries of an impolite world."
--Deroy Murdock

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Funny T-Shirts and Bumper Stickers


Thursday, June 30, 2005

Liberal media and Denzel Washington

Brooks Army Medical Center

Don't know whether you heard about this, but Denzel Washington and his family visited the troops at Brook Army Medical Center, in San Antonio, Texas (BAMC) the other day. This is where soldiers that have been evacuated from Germany come to be hospitalized in the States, especially burn victims. They have buildings there called Fisher Houses. The Fisher House is a hotel where soldiers' families can stay, for little or no charge, while their soldier is staying in the hospital. BAMC has quite a few of these houses on base but as you can imagine, they are almost completely filled most of the time.

While Denzel Washington was visiting BAMC, they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He asked how much one of them would cost to build. He took his check book out and wrote a check for the full amount right there on the spot. The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public.

Why does Alec Baldwin, Madonna, Sean Penn and other Hollywood types make front page news with their anti-everything America crap and this doesn't even make page 3 in the Metro section of any newspaper except the base newspaper in San Antonio?







Saturday, June 18, 2005

Guantanamo Bay and the War on Terror

It's important what the rest of the world thinks of the United States.
But it's more important that we defend ourselves against terrorists who
seek our annihilation. Much of the criticism of our efforts, both
international and domestic, is factually wrong and appears to be driven
by a partisan hostility to President Bush.

Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Guantanamo
Bay, the U.S. military base where a $150 million facility has been built
to house detainees in the war on terrorism, individuals who might better
be described as "people who will kill Americans if given half a chance."

At the hearing, Democrats criticized the Bush Administration, alleging
that the 520 prisoners are in "legal limbo," that "there is no plan
exactly how they're going to be handled," that their "rights under the
Geneva Conventions have been violated," and that they deserve some sort
of a "trial" or they should be released. A big problem if true, but none
of it is.

The detainees at Guantanamo are not in a legal limbo any more than any
other prisoners in any other war were in limbo when they were captured.
International law allows any nation the right to detain enemy combatants
for the duration of a conflict. The primary reason is to prevent them
from killing more Americans, and, secondarily, to gather useful
intelligence. That's why we are holding these men - they are enemy
combatants who were shooting at our troops or otherwise involved in
terrorism, and many have information that could help prevent further
attacks. We certainly never "tried" captured Nazis or Japanese POWs in
World War II (with the exception of a few leaders charged with war
crimes) although many were held for years.

The Supreme Court has since ruled that because Guantanamo is under U.S.
control, some traditional American legal procedures apply, including the
right of each detainee to have his status reviewed. After that ruling, a
special commission was established to determine whether, in fact, all of
the detainees were enemy combatants, and a number of them were released.
We know that at least a dozen went right back to fighting us, because
they were subsequently captured again on the battlefield.

Those who remain in detention - a tiny fraction of the 10,000 enemy
combatants we have picked up over the past few years - are terrorist
trainers, bomb makers, extremist recruiters and financers, bodyguards of
Osama bin Laden, would-be suicide bombers, and so forth. Because they
indiscriminately target civilians and are not fighting for another
particular country, among other reasons, these individuals do not
qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Nonetheless,
official U.S. policy is to apply Geneva standards, including access to
lawyers, Red Cross visits, and so forth. Every single detainee receives
a new review every year to determine whether he still poses a risk. That
would seem to be a reasonable standard for a country at war, and surely
a credible "plan" for "handling" their cases.

The recent flurry of partisan and international criticism of the
handling of Islamic sensibilities at Guantanamo, sparked by a
discredited Newsweek report that a copy of the Koran was flushed down a
toilet, must have Osama bin Laden rolling with laughter. None of the
critics had previously displayed much concern over the abuse of Muslims
by other Muslims, as occurs every day in Iraq. The reality is that
virtually all prisoners are better fed and cared for at Guantanamo than
they have ever been in their lives. They are certainly treated well in
comparison to those Westerners taken captive by terrorists in Iraq, who
are typically beheaded.

A handful of politicians have even raised the idea of shutting down
Guantanamo, because of its "negative symbolism." But as even vociferous
critic Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) has conceded, "The question isn't
Guantanamo by itself. Obviously, if we're holding people, we're going to
hold them somewhere."

Exactly. Attacking the United States should bring serious consequences,
including imprisonment, if we can catch you.
--Sen. Jon Kyl

Monday, June 13, 2005

Photos You Will Not See On Most Liberal Networks

Soldiers at Prayer

Thank you, Mr. Bush

Soldier and Child

Iraqi Children



Saturday, June 04, 2005

Catholic or Puritan

By Ana Rodriguez-Soto
Catholic News Service

ORLANDO, Fla. (CNS) -- When speaking of firsts in U.S. history, the place should be Florida's St. Augustine, not Plymouth, Mass; the first settlers should be Spanish, not British; and the religion should be Catholicism, not Puritanism.

"It's about time that we corrected our brethren in the northern climes," Michael Gannon told an audience of Catholic journalists during a May 27 workshop at the Catholic Press Association's annual convention in Orlando. "By the time the pilgrims came to Plymouth, St. Augustine was up for urban renewal."

A professor emeritus at the University of Florida, Gannon has done extensive research on the history of the state and written the landmark book on the subject, "The Cross in the Sand," published in 1965.

He also wrote the first chapter of "Florida's Catholic Heritage Trail," a book to be published this year which encompasses the history of all seven of Florida's Catholic dioceses, beginning with the events in 1565 in St. Augustine.

Known as "the Grinch who stole Thanksgiving" by some New Englanders, Gannon said, "we have to tell the story" of Florida's early history and, by extension, the Catholic contribution to the history of the United States.

It was Juan Ponce de Leon in 1521 who first explored the territory he christened Florida, after the Spanish name for Easter, Pascua Florida. That was 86 years before the British arrived in Jamestown, Va., in 1607 and nearly a century before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620.

"There is a place called St. Augustine. It's critically important to Florida history. It's critically important to Catholic history. It's critically important to our country's history," said Eric Johnson, director of the Mission Nombre de Dios (Name of God) in St. Augustine, the first Catholic parish in the United States.

Johnson and Susan Parker, of the Division of Historical Resources for Florida's Department of State, joined Gannon as co-presenters of the workshop.

According to Gannon and evidence uncovered by state archeologists, Ponce de Leon and subsequent Spanish explorers had landed in what are now Tampa Bay and Pensacola Bay, and explored as far north as the Chesapeake Bay, by 1526.

They brought with them not just soldiers but farmers, families and Spanish priests -- Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits -- who set up 38 mission outposts in Florida by 1655. In fact, the name San Francisco was given to a mission in Potano, near present-day Gainesville, about 170 years prior to the use of the name in California.

"These were selfless men of God who wrote one of the great stories in the history of the faith in North America," Gannon said. "Here were the first people who carried the lamp of Christianity into the darkened interior of North America."

Contrary to popular belief and what is taught in some history books, "the natives were not in any way used or abused by the friars, nor would they let them be abused by others," Gannon said.

He described the priests as living among the Indians as Peace Corps volunteers do today, teaching them European ways without imposing their beliefs. By 1655, the Franciscans counted 26,000 native converts in Florida.

Gannon called the Spanish priests "the first great defenders of human, civil and religious rights in what is now the United States." He stressed that "no Indian was ever converted by force."

Johnson noted that when Pedro Menendez de Aviles landed in 1565 in present-day St. Augustine, just south of Jacksonville, he claimed the land for Spain with both a flag and a cross. Seeing him and the rest of the Spaniards reverence the cross, the Timucuan Indians who had gathered at the site followed suit.

"The very beginning of the teaching of the Gospel in the United States was by example rather than by word," said Johnson.

That gesture was followed by the first Mass on U.S. soil. It was celebrated by the priest who accompanied the expedition, Father Francisco Lopez de Mendoza Grajales, on Sept. 8, 1565, on the site known to this day as Mission Nombre de Dios (Name of God).

After the Mass, Menendez de Aviles invited the Timucuans to join him for "the first communal meal of Europeans and natives together," Gannon said. "This was the first communal act of thanksgiving in the first permanent European settlement of what is now the United States."

Nombre de Dios also is the site of the first Marian shrine in the United States, the Shrine of Our Lady of La Leche y Buen Parto (The Milk and Happy Delivery), a devotion carried over from Spain by couples seeking to conceive or bear healthy children.

"People come from all over the United States and other countries to pray to Our Lady of La Leche," Johnson said. "What started with Father Lopez as the first parish priest has continued to this day."

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Interesting Quotes

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." --G. K. Chesterton

Monday, May 16, 2005

Revisionist History

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of The Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.
It is the same congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation. Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death." But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he said: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.
Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."
"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
--George Washington

Was George Washington a Christian? Consider these words from his personal prayer book: "Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thy son, Jesus Christ."

Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society.

In an address to military leaders he said, "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President.

He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation."

Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first.

Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures:

"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3)."
For over 100 years, more than 50% of all Harvard graduates were pastors!

It is clear from history that the Bible and the Christian faith, were foundational in our educational and judicial system. However in 1947, there was a radical change of direction in the Supreme Court.
It required ignoring every precedent of Supreme Court ruling for the past 160 years. The Supreme Court ruled in a limited way to affirm a wall of separation between church and state in the public classroom. In the coming years, this led to removing prayer from public schools in 1962.
Here is the prayer that was banished:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country.
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was outlawed as unconstitutional in the public school system. The court offered this justification: "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children."

Bible reading was now unconstitutional , though the Bible was quoted 94 percent of the time by those who wrote our constitution and shaped our Nation and its system of education and justice and government.

In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the rights of a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food.
In 1980, Stone vs. Graham outlawed the Ten Commandments in our public schools.

The Supreme Court said this: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective."
Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."
Today we are asking God to bless America. But how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him?

--Mary Jones