Democrat Senator Kerry has offered an official yet weak apology for his comments to a student body in California. He "personally" apologizes to "… to any service member, family member, or American who was offended."

Kerry weakly claimed he forgot a word (TV) or words (wire services) for a "joke" intended as a rebuke to President Bush. This is weak because if it was true, the apology and truth would have come immediately. Contrarily, Kerry gave a blustery retort saying he would never apologize for President Bush’s broken policy. Then Democrats began to desert Kerry. Then Shazzam! Here comes the weak apology.

For the Anti-McCain Right, Romney in 2008?

Mitt Romney is a very enticing figure for the Christian Right and moral Conservatives. He has all the credentials that could make them happy on most stands.

I am one of those Christian dinosaurs that wish to err on the side of Christ.

Mitt Romney may be a great moral guy, however he is a Mormon. Although Mormons have fooled many Christians that they are Christian, they have not in the slightest in common. Mormons do not believe Jesus is the Son of God as part of the Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit (three persons in ONE God). Mormons believe that Jesus is a created son of God. They believe Satan is Jesus’ brother. In contradiction to the Revelation to John, old Joseph Smith wrote another gospel.

The Charlie Brown Democrats

Typically the Democratic Party is attempting to spin North Korea’s nuclear testing and threats as a Bush and Republican failure in foreign policy. The Democrats are attempting tag North Korea’s roguishness to President Bush being distracted by an Iraq war the Democrats believe should not be happening.


The Democratic Party should in fact reflect in a little self-examination. North Korea having a nuclear program in itself was due to the help of President Carter and critically President Clinton. Hmm… Both are Democrats.


Examine this analysis by Jeffrey Lord:




The Charlie Brown Democrats
By Jeffrey Lord Published
10/10/2006 12:08:43 AM

They never learn, do they? Return with me now to those days of yesteryear, the days when Bill Clinton was in the White House and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.

The date: October 22, 1994.

The headline in the liberal bible, the New York Times, read as follows: "U.S. and North Korea Sign Pact to End Nuclear Dispute: Many Details are Kept Secret." Said the story confidently: "Under the broad agreement concluded here late Monday, North Korea will freeze its nuclear activities, [and] renounce any ambition to become a nuclear power…" In addition, the Times trumpeted what the North Koreans would get in return for these two concessions. "In exchange, an international consortium will replace North Korea’s current graphite nuclear reactors, which are considered less dangerous because they produce little weapons grade plutonium.

"Said the North Korean chief negotiator of the deal: It is "a very important milestone document of historic significance" that would resolve his country’s nuclear dispute with the United States "once and for all." Kang Sok Ju went on some more about this new agreement he had negotiated with the Clinton Administration, and it’s worth reprinting in full. Reports the Times:

"He said the agreement, once put into effect, would resolve "all questions of the so-called nuclear weapons development by North Korea" that have raised "such unfounded concerns and suspicions. We have neither the intention nor the plan to develop nuclear weapons," Mr. Kang said.

And Bill Clinton believed him. The Times reported it this way: "At a news conference in Washington, President Clinton said the treaty ‘was a good deal for the United States.’"

There was one other player in all of this as well. The Times took care to say that "former President Jimmy Carter held talks in Pyongyang with North Korea’s dictator Kim Il Sung, that defused the crisis and led to new negotiations with the United States." For his part, Carter went on record earlier in the year in meetings with the North Koreans to say that "I personally believe the crisis is over." What did the North Korean leader (the current dictator’s father, Kim Il Sung) think of Carter’s efforts? "He told me," said Carter, that "he was very grateful I had gone [to North Korea], and thought it [Carter’s effort to make peace and help give the North Koreans light-water reactors] was a very fine accomplishment."

The Times concluded that "Bill Clinton will be the biggest winner, a master negotiator on a critical security issue." Five days later, when the North Koreans expressed skepticism the United States would really give them what they wanted, the Times headlined this story: "Clinton, in Letter, Assures North Koreans on Nuclear Reactors." Said the President in a letter to Kim Jung Il: "I will use the full powers of my office" to assure that the dictator got what he wanted.

Clinton, the "master negotiator" of "a good deal" did just that. And on October 8, 2006, the world learns that in spite of everything that Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and their respective Democratic national security teams believed, the North Koreans have just exploded their first nuclear weapon.

IN SHORT, WITH A WIDE-EYED, the best and the brightest the Democratic Party had to offer went down the road of appeasement with North Korea. Like Charlie Brown always believing Lucy will hold the football, Clinton and Carter raced to the kick-off of peace with a murderous dictator — only to find out that they had (surprise!) been lied to.

The Clinton legacy, already shredding because of his inability to deal with al Qaeda and terrorism, has just been dealt yet another — perhaps mortal — blow by Clinton and Carter’s foolish trust in the North Korean father and son dictators. But more importantly, the problem now is that Democrats are running for House and Senate seats all over the nation supporting some version of this very same appeasement policy towards Iraq, the War on Terror, and critically, Iran.

>From one end of this country to the other this fall, Democrats are campaigning on pledges to trust them on national security issues. These are Democrats in Senate races with names like Bob Casey, Jr. in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, James Webb in Virginia, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, and Jon Tester in Montana. In House races they are people like Pennsylvania’s Jack Murtha (who wants to get out of Iraq and redeploy in Okinawa), Illinois’ Tammy Duckworth (who pledges to leave Iraq "sooner rather than later"), Indiana’s Brad Ellsworth (who is so tight-lipped about Iraq his website simply doesn’t list the issue at all) and, again in Pennsylvania, Patrick Murphy ("we need to start bringing our men and women home now"). All of this before we get to Connecticut’s famously pacifist Senate candidate, Ned Lamont.

Page scandal or no page scandal, the reason not to entrust Democrats with a majority in Congress again has just been vividly illustrated with an underground nuclear explosion by a North Korean dictator who was trusted by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for his fervent promise never to do what he has now just done.

The question Americans who are understandably furious over the page scandal must now ask is a simple one.

Should America’s national security be turned over to a Congress full of Charlie Browns?

Jeffrey Lord is the author of The Borking Rebellion. A former political director in the Reagan White House, he is now a writer in Pennsylvania.

Hat tip to Don Moore.

Hamas Ascendant

Anti-Chomski Blog

I agree with Benjamin of the Anti-Chomski Blog. It is irrelevant who won the Palestinian Authority election. As long as Palestinians only reason to exist is to destroy Israel, those paritcular Arabs are irrelevant.


The only relevance for the West is how to respond Islamofascism. It is time to dip into reality and end the violence of the terrorists. It is time for the West to respond to Jihad with a 21st Century Crusade. It is time to force an open society by terminating Mohammedan Islamofascists once and for all.


If there truly are any so-called moderate Mohammedans, let us replace the Islamofascists with the moderates. I hear all the time that moderate Mohammedanism is the rule not the exception. I personally doubt it, so let us put political correctness to the test. Terminate appeasement, devastate Islamofascism and prop up the Moderate Mohammedan.



Anti-Chomski Blog



Hamas Ascendant

Several people have written to me asking my opinion of the Palestinian elections.  I hate to be the odd man out of the general hysteria, but I don’t think they make much difference whatsoever.  I have always held to the same position regarding the possibilities of peace between us and the Palestinians.  In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I believe peace is impossible between us at the moment.  What is not impossible is a status quo in which two states live side by side in mutual hate and enmity with a minimum of violence on both sides of the divide.  With the passing of a generation or two, this may or may not lead to a rapprochement of sorts.  I frankly don’t know.  I also don’t think it particularly matters.  Israel has spent far too long hinging its future on the possibility of Arab acceptance.  It is time for us to return to ourselves and to concentrate on the future of Israel and Zionism.   Peace is not the fulfillment of Zionism.  A living, prosperous, culturally creative and nationally proud Jewish state is the fulfillment of Zionism.  Neither peace nor acceptance is a requirement for this.  What is a requirement is our disengagement from the Palestinians and our setting of permanent borders.  This can only be done, at the moment, if ever, by unilateral Israeli action.  Who rules the Palestinians is, frankly, no concern of mine except to the extent that it threatens Israel and Israelis.  From this point of view, the difference between Hamas and Fatah is minimal to non-existent.  The only possible distinction I can see is that Hamas actually comes out and says what Fatah clouds in diplomatic doublespeak.  We now have an enemy who looks us in the face and says what he means.  So be it.

Bishop Lauds New Prime Minister’s Use of “God Bless Canada”

The liberals in Canada must squirming somewhat like they did in 2000 in America. I wonder if (neoconservative) Prime Minister Stephen Harper will receive the same MSM hatred that President Bush has received. My guess is that will happen. I hope Harper’s PR guys have examined President Bush to learn how to deal with liberals and the leftist MSM.
January 25, 2006
By Gudrun Schultz
The Name of God is Back in Canadian Politics

CALGARY, Alberta, January 25, 2006 ( – The name of God was heard on the lips of a Canadian political leader Monday night, in an unheard-of departure from the recent status quo in Canada. Conservative leader Stephen Harper ended his election victory speech with the words "God Bless Canada."

The use of that phrase indicates a significant departure from the policies of the Liberal government, which has ruthlessly expunged any mention of God from the public sphere during the 12 years they have been in power.

Bishop Frederick Henry of the Calgary Diocese told LifeSiteNews today that he was "greatly encouraged by [Stephen Harper’s] brief statement of prayer."

"Too many of our politicians and public figures have been inclined to be almost apologetic for professing their religious belief in God and their values," said Bishop Henry, who has been an outspoken defender of religious freedom in Canada. "Mr. Harper’s comment dove-tails perfectly with his call for government accountability and integrity, as ultimate accountability will be to God."

Under the Liberal government, mention of Christ and Christian prayer has been forbidden at official government-sponsored ceremonies. At the massive memorial service for victims of September 2001’s terrorist attack on New York City, held on Parliament Hill, no prayer was permitted. Religious leaders, although present from many different faiths and denominations, were not acknowledged nor asked to participate in the ceremony.

The same was true for the memorial service held for the victims of Swissair flight 111, which crashed off Peggy’s Cove in 1998. Church leaders were prevented from mentioning Jesus Christ or offering Christian prayers in the official service held for the victims’ families.

Bishop Henry said Mr. Harper’s reference to God reflected Canada’s history as a nation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (Constitution Act, 1982), which begins "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…"

The first fundamental freedom listed under the Charter is the freedom of conscience and religion. The second is freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression.
Here is an interesting link demonstrating the power of secular humanism attacking Canada: Canada’s Governor-General Designate Refuses to Swear on Bible.

(c) Copyright: is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use