Monday, January 30, 2006

"Wouldn't it be Better if She'd Never Existed?"

The Shepherd University Republicans are finally up and going. It has been a long time (maybe never?) since Shepherd had a strong Republican organization on campus, but the current group seems to be on its way up.
One of the founders of this group, a lovely young woman, was some how engaged in a conversation with the president of the Shepherd University Liberal Women's Association (LWA) (yes the same group which I criticized for allowing their speaker to say "freedom doesn't matter without abortion" back in October) which led to her coming to speak at our meeting about her group, why she identifies herself as a liberal and how the republican party makes her feel "as a woman." She explained that she'd be bringing a friend for support and that she wouldn't take much time. However, upon arrival (with her 8-10 other liberal friends) we found out that she would not, indeed, limit herself to only discussing the organization; she was going to explain to us why any logical person must be pro-choice. To me, this was not surprising as I have said before that abortion is the only issue liberal women's groups advocate.
The LWA leader explained that there are three reasons for which she "must" support free choice. I shall quote her as accurately as possible (though it will look like I made her statements up as they are so shocking). Pretend she is speaking...

Three Reasons to Be Pro-Choice
  1. "Abortion isn't just about women's rights, it's about children's rights, too." I worked with a 5 year old girl, whom we shall call Lexa. Lexa was abandoned by her mother at her grandmother's trailer when she was 3 or 4. She was forced to eat nothing but hot dogs, because her grandmother was poor and had little money. She also had to walk for nearly 1 mile to and from school through the holler and in front of other trailers, run down houses and filth. Isn't it sad that her mommy didn't have an abortion? Wouldn't Lexa have been better of to just not exist?
  2. "There are no women making these decisions." I want to know that there are going to be women involved. The thought of men making these decisions for women through America is hard to accept--we need women to be involved in these decisions.
  3. "Abortion needs to be legal because if its outlawed it's going to happen anyway." It would be better for an abortion to be committed in a clean, sterile, safe environment like a hospital than in a dark ally with a rusty coat hanger. The thought that a fellow woman would have to jam a rusted coat hanger into her vagina and possibly injure herself is a violation of basic human rights.

These are the worst arguments in favor of abortion that I have ever seen. Her presentation lasted a grand total of possibly 15 minutes. The response (and then the response to the response, and then the response to the response of the response and so on) lasted an hour and 20 minutes. My fellow republicans did a heck of a job responding to her. They (we) explained that she was absurd in her...(as I write this I'm listening to Sean Hannity interview Anne Coulter. She says that the only thing the democrats care about is abortion)...

I don't think I need to explain why these comments are so absurd... but I will address them briefly.

In regards to statement number 1 ("abortion is about children's rights") I have to say a few things. In our 'debate,' the question came up of where Lexa is now. LWA Rep. did not know. The child had moved away to get out of the holler. Next, somebody asked LWA if she had asked Lexa if she'd rather live or cease to exist--her answer? "No, of course not." At this point, I had to interject pointing out that, "That is the point of a pro-life stance. You, miss, do not ask--you just assume you know. You didn't ask Lexa if she'd like to be wiped of the planet. Doctors and mothers-to-be don't ask children if they'd like to live and be allowed to develop and be born, you just jab them in the head and kill them. You never ask." Her response? "Well, that goes to the question of what is a human. To me, life starts when the cord is cut. Until then, the fetus is part of the mother's body, not a separate entity which we might call human." Well there you have it. The little person is just a fetus, so it's ok to murder 'it.'

Questions two and three are beyond the realm of human logic. No women making these decisions? I guess there may have been if the National Organization of Women (NOW) hadn't so viciously opposed Harriet Miers. What about the 13 female senators in the United States Senate? I guess Olympia Snowe, the so called republican, doesn't count. What about Barbara Mikulski, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, Blanche Lincoln, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Deborah Stabenow, Maria E. Cantwell, Lisa Murkowski, or Elizabeth Dole? How about the 46 female representatives in the House? Or our very own Shelly Moore-Capito? I guess they don't count. In regards to the coat hanger, "it's going to happen anyway" is one of those arguments that kills me. "Illegal drugs happen, so why not just legalize it." Because its harmful, immoral and decays the fiber of our society, that's why. We do not give legitimacy or legalality to something just because it would be more convenient. That's just sad.

The bottom line is that abortion is murder. That's a fact. It's not an opinion. It's not a political stance. It's a fact. People like the President of sues LWA are scary and dangerous to our society. We have to stand up to ignorant people like her.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

'O'Reily Sucks'

Saturday night I parked my big Ford SUV on the side of the street that divides the east side of campus because, thanks to Senator Byrd's 10 million dollar pork-barreling to get Shepherd a new nursing building, there is no parking this side of campus (I plan to put some images up later of the mess that once was Shepherd's East Campus Resident Parking Lot. I had an uneasy feeling leaving my car here, but short of parking across campus and walking 20 minutes back at 11pm in the rain, I didn't have many options, so I left it in a lighted area hoping all would be well.

On my way to the gym this after noon, I noticed that my bumper sticker looked a little odd. Upon further inspection I found that somebody had written "O'Reily Sucks" and "F$%* Off." In addition to spelling O'Reilly wrong, the perpetrator he (or she) just proves my point that the left is far from tolerating towards others.

...and the "understanding" and "accepting" leftists just continue to amaze me. Posted by Picasa

I emailed a letter to Bill O'Reilly and also sent him a copy of the picture. If I hear anything back from him or his people I'll post it.

God Bless the Open Minded Left!!!

Here's a closer shot of the immaturity. Posted by Picasa

Friday, January 27, 2006

Fat Man Returns

Yea, that's an attempted play on the movie "Batman Returns." I'm not sure how successful it was...

Anyway, it's been a long time since I partook in the ever enjoyable "cat blogging" or "Friday Mix-up" as i call it.

We got new furniture over the Christmas season. As you can see below, the sole reason for purchasing the large sofa was so that Sebastian (FatMan) could have a place to nap. He seems to really enjoy it, so I suppose we can consider the purchase a success.

The FatMan Napeth Posted by Picasa
That's all for the 'mix-up.' I may stop back by sometime to talk about an interesting meeting I attended last night. More on that later today or sometime next weekend.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

BB&T--Watching Out for the Little Guy

I wonder if BB&T bank will be accused of being "vigilantes" like the minuteman in Arizona. They, like the minuteman, saw something our government was doing as a problem and have taken steps to do what they can to help prevent the problem from expanding.
According to the Washington Times, the second-largest bank in the Washington DC area has decided to refuse loans to any developer seeking monies to develop land acquired via eminent domain. Read more...

BB&T Corp., the second-biggest bank in the Washington area, said yesterday that it will not lend money to developers who plan to build commercial projects on land taken from private citizens through the power of eminent domain.

"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided; in fact, it's just plain wrong," said John Allison, the bank's chairman and chief executive officer.

BB&T Chief Credit Officer Ken Chalk said the North Carolina bank expects to lose only a tiny amount of business, but thinks it is obligated to take a stand on the issue.

"It's not even a fraction of a percent," he said. "The dollar amount is insignificant." But, he added, "We do business with a large number of consumers and small businesses in our footprint. We are hearing from clients that this is an important philosophical issue."

Mr. Chalk said he knows of no other large U.S. bank with a similar policy. If other banks were to follow suit, it likely would stop developers from asking cities to obtain property through eminent domain, said Scott Bullock, a lawyer with the Institute of Justice in Arlington, a nonprofit group that advocates for property rights through legal action.

"This tells cities and developers that they need to choose other methods for development projects," Mr. Bullock said. "There are ample methods that do not involve taking property against [residents'] will. They should be pursued and can be fully funded by banks and other financial institutions."

Maybe other banks should follow suit--everything BB&T has done seems to be within the parameters of the law, and yet their actions are able to make a difference. Congratulations to BB&T for standing up for something they believe is right.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Shut Up France, Gosh...

...with the 'gosh' said just like Napoleon Dynamite...

French President Jacques Chirac announced over the weekend that he will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons on any nation sponsoring terrorist activity against France. Crazy? Read on...

PARIS, Jan. 19 -- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism.

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and fitting response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in Brittany. "This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."
The French president said his country had reduced the number of nuclear warheads on some missiles deployed on France's four nuclear submarines in order to target specific points rather than risk wide-scale destruction.

"Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction," Chirac said, according to the text of his speech posted on the presidential Web site. "The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power. . . . All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit."

At the same time, he condemned "the temptation by certain countries to obtain nuclear capabilities in contravention of treaties."

So let me get this straight. The United States--with the biggest, best, most well equipped, most superiorly trained military and intelligence force in the world--can't find UBL (as a side note, when did it become Usama and not Osama?), but France is going to find all the terrorists gathered in one place and nuke them? Gosh, Chirac, if it were that easy, don't you think we'd have done it by now.

Now I don't blame our good friends the French for their aspirations, or even for their threats, but they seem to be quite empty. I suppose that, on the one hand, it's good to remind evil-doers that 'civilized' nations (IE France, the United States) have nuclear weapons in our arsenals and that they have, in face, been used before. However, to spout off about blowing up states who "sponsor" terrorism with nuclear weapons is irresponsible and only further perpetuates nations such as Iran in their quest for the WMDs.

France, just shut the hell up. We've been doing the grunt work since 9/11. If it were a problem easily solved by launching a few "tactical nuclear weapons" we'd have already done this. But the problem is much more sensitive and requires a much more delicate approach--not simply refusing to go to war, then dropping a few nukes, then throwing up a white flag. Just Shut Up.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Thank you, George

This is a "read it before you can get it" version of my column in this week's Picket, which doesn't come out for SU Students until Wednesday. It's not the best thing I've ever written, but it's not too bad. Enjoy...

It was recently revealed by The New York Times that the National Security Agency has been using ‘eavesdropping’ programs authorized by President Bush to ‘listen in’ to persons thought to be associated with terrorist organizations. The Times report brings to the surface the itching question of “How much Presidential power is too much?” while also putting delicate intelligence gathering tools in the spotlight, a spotlight not hidden from the very terrorist groups it is meant to help quash.

While some may applaud this so called “journalistic reporting” as cutting edge and needed, I call it a sad attempt to gather scorn against President Bush and undermine the war on terror. These actions are not only unacceptable, but they border on treason—indeed one might see “exposing” the tools used by the NSA to stop terrorists as helping the enemy.

The Bush Administration has been consistently criticized for inaccurate intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and has even been accused of knowingly allowing 9/11 to happen. Critics such as 2000 democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore call the program, “a truly breathtaking expansion of power” which could undermine “the very structure of our government.” Republican National Committee spokesperson Tracey Schmidt fired back at Gore pointing out that, “Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America.” This assessment of Gore’s intentions and spectrum of understanding seems to be true of most democrats.

Bush has not sat quietly, though. In a recent radio address, the President defended the NSA eavesdropping program as valued tools in the war on terror, explaining that, “[The] 9/11 Commission pointed out…that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad... The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem.”

The biggest criticism of the NSA program has been in regards to the effect it does or does not have on the civil liberties of Americans. West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd asserted that, “[Bush] has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war." Byrd’s assertion echoes that of many Bush opponents and incorrectly assesses the situations on multiple levels. The NSA program is not, in fact, “domestic civilian surveillance.” As described in White House Press Release, the program is “solely for intercepting international calls.” Attorney General Gonzales explains further, “ party to the communication has to be outside the United States.” In other words, either the recipient or the sender must be outside of American borders. Gonzales further defended the program as one which only targets persons known to be associated with al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.

Byrd’s second mistake lies in his explanation of Bush’s reasoning. Byrd’s reasoning centers on the fact that we are at war. That is not, in fact, the rationale. Bush’s program is a legitimate program because his foremost responsibility to the people of the United States is to protect and defend them. In case it has been forgotten, we were attacked on 9/11 by a group of vicious murderers. Thanks to the policies of George Bush no terrorist has been able to carry out a successful attack inside our borders.

This program makes sense and is undeniably necessary. Our government must be able to gather the needed intelligence in order to prevent the “9’11’s of the future.” Aside from the fact that my mind is still trying to comprehend how a classified program is now common public knowledge, I cannot fathom why there is such debate on this issue. If it protects Americans, deters the terrorists and does not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens, I have no problem with it. Rather than consistently harassing the president about his faults and his ‘evil doings,’ perhaps we could thank him for protecting this nation for the past 5 years. While highly unlikely, I think it’s a good suggestion…
Back with more sometime this week...

Friday, January 20, 2006

Double Dipping

My political science class this semester requires that we type a "memo" on a foreign policy concern every Tuesday. I'll post them as soon as they're graded and returned to's the first one, a short blurb on Laura Bush's comments concerning the African AIDS issue and US support for it...

The Washington Times
“Laura Fires Back”
By: Bill Sammon
January 16, 2006
In this article, First Lady Laura Bush addresses several issues. Firstly, she responds to criticism of President Bush’s AIDS/HIV initiative in Africa, a program designed to help prevent the deadly disease by encouraging abstinence as the best possible way to prevent STD’s. Mrs. Bush address concerns that pushing abstinence promotes ‘Christian morality’ stating, “I'm always a little bit irritated when I hear the criticism of abstinence, because abstinence is absolutely 100 percent effective in eradicating a sexually transmitted disease.”
In addition to HIV/AIDS, Bush commented on Vice President Dick Cheney’s health, saying he would not, as has been speculated by some in the press, step down from his job due to health reasons. She also discussed the eavesdropping program revealed by The New York Times.
HIV/AIDS prevention is an important international issue. The United States must be the champion in the fight against the spread of this horrid disease. However, the grief that the US gets for how they lead this fight is simply unacceptable (and probably based exclusively on the fact the George W. Bush is president and can, in the eyes of many, do nothing right). Frankly I find Mrs. Bush’s response to the ‘AIDS question’ to be correct and well over due. It seems that more often than not Bush’s African AIDS aid package receives unneeded criticism from the press simply on the basis that it pushes abstinence as the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and/or STD’s. This is just ludicrous.
While some argue that pushing abstinence is pushing “Christian morality,” I would say it is pushing common sense. To not pass on Sexually Transmitted Diseases, people should simply don’t have sex. Considering that Bush’s plan stipulates 15 Billion dollars to be sent to Africa over three years, I do not see it as being out of the question for the giving nation to ask that the money be spent on a program that has 100% efficiency. That’s not ‘Christian Morality,” it’s just common sense
That's all for today. I'll be back on Monday.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Well It's About Time

This title is appropriate for two reasons. First of all, but probably less important, it is about time that I resume my 'writing duties.' I haven't updated since Thanksgiving and for that, I am sorry. December was a semi-busy month and it was good to take time off from thinking about politics and writing about aggravations and simply being restful and peaceful.

Secondly, and more importantly and of more interest, it is about damn time that Senator Spector did something that republicans can cheer. I've been following the Alito confirmation hearings closely. I watched as many of the opening remarks as I could. I have read the AP reports in the Martinsburg Journal. I watched a few of yestarday's happenings, and I am, indeed, currently listening to Brit Hume on FOX as he analyzes the morning happenings. I am beyond thrilled to have seen the clip of Ted "Jabba-the-Hutt" Kennedy being put in his place by the chairman. Congratulations, Arlen, I am proud of you putting your foot down and exerting a little authority over rogue senators who think they can brow-beat Alito as well as republican senators.

I, for one, did not know exactly where I stood on Alito. However, having now heard him speak gracefully, intellectually, and seeminglyh quite honestly, I am quite solid in my belief that he should (and must) be given a straight up-or-down vote and, moreover, he must be confirmed.

Again, congratulations, Mr. Spector, and keep up the good work of keeping Ted under control.

More later in the week...