And what he has to report, you won't read in the Mainstream Media. "Morale is up--way up!" He should know: he's on USO tour, and has personally met with 10,000 soldiers. He also has been to Iraq before the surge, so when he says that the surge is working, he knows what he's talking about.

Pay attention, the next time your Senator or Representative deliberately tries to make you war-weary, and then waves a bunch of push-poll results on the floor of his/her respective House saying that you're war-weary. And remember this along with the Democrats' incredible argumentum ad hominem against General David Petraeus.

The President made his speech tonight, and it was short and sweet. General Petraeus was able to recommend drawing down US forces in Iraq to where they were before the great "surge," and the President accepted that. The President also asked Congress--meaning the Democrats--to be reasonable, and as I might have predicted, the Democrats are having none of it.

Senator Jack Reed's (D-RI) statement that US policies only make our security worse remains, like virtually everything else the Democrats have said, more asserted than proved. And his accusation that we will "always" have 130,000 troops in-theater is a total straw man. The President never said that. He implied that we might establish a garrison in Iraq, but 130,000 troops are far more than a garrison, and the Democrats know it--or they should.

He cannot deny it. First he said that Arianna Huffington ought to have allowed the "Aw, missed" comments to remain on her blog. And then--he himself actually made a statement--twice--the gist of which is, "Aw, missed." Read about it here.

..and several British scientists are all set to expose it this Thursday. Read about it here.

The most prominent finding surely is where the CO2 comes from, and goes to. Turns out that the world's oceans dissolve CO2--and therefore one must describe an equilibrium between oceanic and atmospheric CO2. In a warm world, the equilibrium tilts toward the atmosphere--but that is because the oceans cannot hold the CO2 in. What's more, the CO2 in the atmosphere rises after the world heats up, not before. Thus, atmospheric CO2 is an effect and not a cause.

Reversal of causality is one of the oldest logical flaws in the book. It is a thing that they test for in the Graduate Management Admission Test!

But of course, as the documentary also reveals, there's money--large amounts of grant money--to be made by promulgating the global-warming theory. Prove that this theory is bunk, and that grant money will dry up. It's that simple.

For ten years these producers labored to get this film in the can and on the air. The timing couldn't be better.

This film needs to be shown in the USA. Let's teach the Oscar Academy just how irrelevant they have now become.

It had to happen sooner or later. And now it has. The Democrats in the House, true to their socialistic form, passed the Workplace Bully Empowerment Act of 2007--excuse me--the Card-check Act.

Kim Strassel marks this down to the Democratic leadership losing their ability to control their nutcase base. But I say: Democrats were never to be trusted. They played bait-and-switch to win the 2006 elections. And now we conservatives must never let the American people forget it.

And the silence of the media is deafening.

Here is the story.

At issue: a former head of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU stands accused of downloading several child-porn videos. Only the images aren't of exactly consenting Lolitas. We're talking BDSM--and whether the child actresses involved were nonconsenting participants or merely playing a role is an open question. And, let me remind you, sportsfans, an irrelevant question. That's why they call it "statutory rape."

And as I said, the silence of the media is deafening. Why do I have to hear about it only from WorldNetDaily? In contrast, when Ted Haggard committed certain indiscretions with one or more consenting adults, it was all the rage.

The alleged difference seems to be that those who preach against an activity, deserve exposure for engaging therein, while those who advocate for the right to such activity, deserve respect for their privacy. But if that is the case, then why does Al Gore get a pass for consuming 20 times the national average of electricity, while piously declaiming against "large carbon footprints," while the rest of us suffer insult for every kilowatt-hour that ticks off on our electric meters?

And in any case, what Charles Rust-Tierney did was worse: he is trafficking in images involving the kidnap and rape of children.

If this is the sort of behavior that the mainstream media now wish to wink and nod at, then why does anyone patronize them anymore?

Here are all the gory details, and the insight on the current workings of the grandiosely named Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

And now here are my observations. Sportsfans, I am almost at a loss to discuss movies these days. I have nothing to talk about. The only movie I went to see at all was The Nativity Story, and that bore no mention at all, and I knew it wouldn't. I have not watched an Academy Awards show since I was a kid, and I can't even remember the year.

Once upon a time, even being nominated for an Oscar meant something. You'll never guess when that was. So I'll give you a name, sportsfans: William Hays. That's right, William Hays, he of the Office that bore his name and of which he was the head. When he ran that Office, movies had to have plot and character development, because Hays simply did not permit them to sell sex, or the notion of crime as a legitimate expression of rebellion.

Then Alfred Hitchcock had to ruin everything with his film frankly exploiting adultery, embezzlement, voyeurism--and murder. When that film got through, the Hays Office was doomed. Thanks a lot, Sir Alfred.

In the 1970s, not a single Academy Award contender was worth a place in anyone's library, except for Patton and maybe Marooned. Things looked up a little in the 80's--the Reagan years. But ever since then, except for such gems as The Patriot and Apollo 13 and Saving Private Ryan, Oscar-winning and -nominated films have been the sort that no producer would have touched with the proverbial ten-footer back in the 1930's. Can you imagine any of the recent Oscar winners winning anything in 1939, still regarded as The Best Year for Films Ever?

Add to it that the Academy has given itself over to cheap limousine liberal political polemic, which Hollywood produces for the two coasts. Flyover country gets passed over completely. But such has been the history of theater in the Western world--it always thrives in the cities, and it always thrives on rebellion against God and man.

Maybe--just maybe--toward the end of the Seven Years' Bad Luck, aka the Great Tribulation, you'll see an Oscar show in which those statuettes of Crusader knights suddenly animate themselves, whip up their broadswords to combat stance, and start chasing all those overdressed hacks off the stage. Now that should be quite a sign.

Read all about it here. Didn't Jesus Himself predict this very thing? And Hollywood wonders why Christians don't go to the movies anymore.

UPDATE: Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira were positively fawning all over James Cameron this morning on the Today show. Wouldn't you like to throw up? Add to it that Brian Williams was trumpeting the triumph of anti-Christian secularism all over NBC Nightly News.

Signs of the times, everyone.

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) lays it on the line.

See the video here. Imagine a world with less freedom, a world with more backward medicine, a poorer world, and a world where warlords would regularly strut.

Yes, that is exactly what the judge said. Read the story here, the background here, and excerpts from the judge's ruling here.

I quote:


So quoth the judge.

Now the judge said something else of which all the legal eagles, and even the worthies at WorldNetDaily, missed the significance, namely that a Christian's options are to:

1. Send your kids to private school.
2. Educate them at home.
3. Elect a majority of school-board members who agree with you.

Here is the exact quote:


The plaintiffs' lawyers find that odious. But I say that if the judge actually said that, then that must mean that private school and home school are still legal, and furthermore, that the government may not interfere with either of these institutions.

So my advice to the plaintiffs is to do exactly what the judge says: pull their children out of school and educate them at home. And if the state interferes with that, point to the judge's ruling.

And to my fellow Christians who object to the last two sentences, I cite I Samuel 8:10-24. As a latter-day Samuel, I warn you: if you send your kids to the king's school, then the king, not you, gets to decide what he shall teach your children. It's that simple.

I do find the above paragraphs contradictory, in this wise: if a public school is positively obliged to push a political agenda (of whatever type), then a private school would have that same duty. But the judge did not say that. He seems to be saying that a public school is not a public school if it does not push such agendae, but a private school need not push it. Fine. If a liberal judge wants to commit such a stupid, careless fumble, then pick it up and dash to the endzone as fast as your legs can carry you.

This just in from the London Times.

And in the s-t-r-a-n-g-e b-e-d-f-e-l-l-o-w-s department: how long would the Democrat Party and its whacky base continue to play footsie with Muslims, after a "good Muslim" struck such a blow over here?

Oh, wait--they have, haven't they?

Let them be consistent--and foolish--enough to try to kill Hllary Clinton for not even pretending to cover up, and for being involved in politics, and then perhaps you will see the Democrats change their tune.

That's right. Read the story here, and also see the basis for the mistrial here and here. The grounds for mistrial are these:

1. The prosecutors had a documented prior statement of a witness, and under the Jencks Act, the defense needed to have a copy before they cross-examined that witness.
2. The document itself is exculpatory of the defendant, and for that reason the defense ought to have had it according to the Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland.

First prize, of course, is that those agents be set free and that drug smuggler be captured next time.

Stanley Kurtz continues his series here, with a further discussion of parallel-cousin marriage in the Muslim world and how this practice tends to isolate it and produce every kind of extremism that we have seen.

...and the local police refuse to investigate, though someone clearly broke at least one of two laws.

Jill Stanek gives the details of the initial incident. Bob Unruh follows up with the police deliberately looking the other way.

As you can plainly see, the police won't help. The only thing that will is continued publicity, and getting out the information that the abortion lobby and industry do not want you to have.