Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton

Made with NoteTab

August 30, 2005


Dennis Prager
Just one question for opponents of the war

All those who support the American war in Iraq should make a deal with anyone opposed to the war. Offer to answer any 20 questions the opponents wish to ask if they will answer just one:

Do you believe we are fighting evil people in Iraq?...

Regarding the issue of judging anyone evil, the best response is a question: Can we judge anyone to be good (not perfect, just good)? Of course we can. But if we can't call anyone evil, we can't call anyone good, and we certainly know that there are good people. If there are good people, there have to be not good, evil people....

As for the Bush administration being equally evil, this, too, reveals the responder's values. It is one thing to believe the war was a mistake; it is quite another to regard it as a function of the administration's desire to enrich Halliburton or expand the "American empire," or because Jewish neo-conservatives pushed docile Gentiles — Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld — into waging it "for Israel." Such views are held by people who are so angry and so brainwashed about conservatives that they have lost the elementary ability to identify real evil, which is what Islamic and Baathist terrorists and "insurgents" are.

Finally, the people fighting us in Iraq hate freedom, hate women's rights, hate non-Muslims, and do all they can to murder innocent Iraqis and others in order to undermine the march toward freedom in Iraq. They are not fighting foreign invaders; they are fighting foreign liberators and domestic democrats.

Joseph Farah
Banning guns in workplace

Now, for starters, when we think of people going ballistic in the workplace, who do we instinctively think about? Answer: The U.S. Postal Service. Rightly or wrongly, we've even come up with a new phrase in the English language to describe this phenomenon – "going postal."

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't these acts of homicide in the workplace generally involve people walking into an office or business with guns concealed and shooting them up? Or, do we have a nightmarish problem with people pulling guns out of their desk drawers and shooting it out with co-workers?

If my premise is correct – and it is – then what good would it do to ban guns in the workplace? Wouldn't it only make employees less safe – rendering them defenseless against the armed intruder?

David Limbaugh
Iraq: let’s quit confusing

It's easy to blame President Bush for failing sufficiently to articulate his case for the war against Iraq, but he does have a nation to lead and a war to fight. Plus, he already made the case for attacking Iraq at the time it mattered -- before we attacked.

He convinced Congress -- overwhelmingly -- and the American people. Instead of our insisting that he spend all his time responding to the Left's distractions over this, more of us should do a better job coming to his aid on the issue.

The antiwar Left has finally succeeded in turning public opinion against the war in Iraq with their endless assaults and distortions. The war's supporters, in our defensiveness, have unintentionally taken on a greater burden of proof than, by rights, we should bear.

The truth is that we were morally and strategically justified in attacking Iraq, based on the information we had available at the time of the attack. Conversely, the wisdom and propriety of our decision to remain until our mission is complete -- which we must -- and the president's conduct of the war, depend on facts now in existence. But by all means, let's keep the issues separate.

Mychal Massie
Fleas come with the dog

My grandmother used to say: "The fleas come with the dog." Seldom have I seen her adage more graphically proven accurate than within the membership associations of groups opposing John Roberts' appointment to the Supreme Court....

...Groups like PFAW oppose restrictions on simulated child pornography, despite the spiraling number of children raped and murdered this year alone. Yet PFAW supports the redefining of marriage, deleting "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, forcing Boy Scouts to permit openly homosexual scoutmasters, partial-birth abortion, judicially imposed tax hikes and racial quotas in college admissions.

Rebecca Hagelin
The proper role of judges

What actually frightens the radical left is the fact that John Roberts is an originalist – someone who applies the Constitution as it is written, not as he or any other unelected official wishes it were written.

It was refreshing to read what Judge Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited," he wrote in his official questionnaire. "They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law."

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 30, 2005 06:12 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


I think John Roberts is just what we need.

Posted by: Jay at August 30, 2005 06:47 AM

PFAW, Americans United, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, all wings on the same monster.

Posted by: Jay at August 30, 2005 06:49 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.