I’m sorry, but even if you believe that Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were the one and only source of Iranian paranoia, or increased attacks on Israel, or whatever ills you want to attribute to it, this is simply pure paranoia.

President Vladimir Putin has announced plans to build a new generation of nuclear weapons after accusing the United States of harbouring an “erotic” desire to invade Russia and steal its natural resources.

Delivering one of his most belligerent anti-Western tirades, Mr Putin also suggested that America and its allies had concocted a fake assassination plot to prevent him from visiting Iran this week.

Casting himself as a pugnacious but benign defender of national sovereignty, the president told his people during a live television phone-in that only Russia’s military prowess had prevented the country from suffering Iraq’s fate.

Puh-lease. This is simply over the top. Putin would have come up with any reason to bolster his military, whether or not the US was in Iraq. As evidence, he’s bipartisan in his paranoia.

The subject of Western plots was first raised by Alexander, a mechanic in the Siberian city of Novosibirsk. Was it right, Alexander wanted to know, that certain American politicians considered Russia’s refusal to share its natural resources “unfair” – claims he bizarrely attributed to Madeleine Albright, the former US secretary of state.

“I know that such ideas are brewing in the heads of some politicians,” Mr Putin replied. “I think it is a sort of political eroticism which maybe gives some pleasure but will hardly lead anywhere.

Of course, this was all carefully planned political theater. Nothing like a US Presidential press conference.

Not once was an unsettling or controversial question asked – a fact that drew scorn from the Kremlin’s dwindling band of critics. “It was unbearably boring and openly narcissistic,” said Yevgeny Kiselyov, a political commentator.

“It was all staged from beginning to end. If he is a president and not the Tsar, why don’t we hear the opinion of those who don’t vote for him?”

Russia’s already rapid rearmament would be stepped up even further, Mr Putin promised. Ambitious plans to bolster the country’s nuclear arsenal – as well as its conventional military hardware – were well underway.

They include new missile systems, modernised nuclear bombers and submarines. “We have plans that are not only great, but grandiose,” he boasted.

To drive home this message, the broadcast was interrupted to show a test launch of Russia’s newest intercontinental ballistic missile.

“The anti-western rhetoric is aimed at voters, philistines who like to believe that Russia is surrounded by enemies intent on keeping the country on its knees,” Mr Kiselyov said.

“For them, Putin is the only man who can defend us from these vicious enemies.”

Indeed, enemies that exist only in his own mind.

Technorati Tags: Vladimir Putin, Russia, Madeleine Albright, Yevgeny Kiselyov, military, missiles, nuclear bombs

Erick, a fellow Georgian at Redstate, runs the numbers.

In May of 2005, Georgia’s “Woman’s Right to Know Act” went into effect. As Senate President Pro Tempore Eric Johnson explains, “The law required that doctors explain to women the medical risks of abortion and the status of life in their womb. They then had to wait 24 hours before proceeding with this critical decision.”

Two years have now passed since the Act went into effect. Again, from Senator Johnson

According to the Senate Majority Leader, Tommie Williams, we have already seen significant results in passing this critical pro-life legislation. Since it went into effect in May of 2005, the DHR reports that between 32,500 and 40,500 women have talked to their doctors about an abortion. After that conversation and the information provided to them by this law, approximately 10,000 chose to carry their babies to term. In addition, 2,300 minors considered terminating their pregnancy and only 500 did so. So we saved about 11,800 babies so far. Pretty neat, huh?

Much, much more than just “neat”, in my estimation. Erick credits the election of pro-life legislators with turning the tide, and I’d agree. Your vote counts, and your vote matters.

Technorati Tags: abortion, pro-life, State Senator Eric Johnson, Georgia, State Senator Tommie Williams, Woman’s Right to Know Act

…for a strained definition of “peace”.

Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their work to raise awareness about global warming.
…
During its announcement, the Nobel committee cited the winners “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”
…
“Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming,” Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of the Nobel committee, said in making the announcement.

“Thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming.”

The Nobel committee praised Gore as being “one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians.”

He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted,” said Mjoes

What this has to do with peace is not even hinted at by the CNN report. For that we have to go to the official Nobel Prize site press release. In the 5 paragraph statement, there is but one line about how this has anything to do with advancing peace.

Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

The bold part is the one line of strained connection to peace, while the italicized “may”s chart the path the Nobel folks take to get there. “A just might happen, and then perhaps B could take place, and that means that people might fight about it.”

To top it all off, Gore hasn’t actually done much to stop global warming (certainly not in his own home); he got the award, in the Nobel committee’s words, for his efforts “to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” In other words, he’s been zipping around in private jets telling the rest of the world to slow down.

Well, if simply calling attention to something that might, given a certain set of circumstances, lead to fighting, may I start the nomination process for 2008?

The Voice of the Martyrs is a non-profit, interdenominational organization with a vision for aiding Christians around the world who are being persecuted for their faith in Christ, fulfilling the Great Commission, and educating the world about the ongoing persecution of Christians.

VOM is doing something about violence that is going on now, not simply raising awareness of something that might happen. For all their talk of hating torture, I’m sure the Left in this country could rally around this as much as for Gore. The Nobel folks already have the precedent of sending a political message with their choices, as they did with Jimmy Carter’s prize, and this would send an anti-torture message. How about it?

Yeah, well, hold not thy breath. The Nobel “Peace” Prize has become just another Leftist accolade. They’d give it to the late Yassar Arafat before VOM.

Oh yeah. They did.

Technorati Tags: Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore, United Nations, IPCC, The Voice of the Martyrs, torture, global warming, environment, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, Christianity, persecution

The Democrats won’t put themselves in front of Fox News for a debate, but Republicans willingly subject themselves to blatant bias an unprofessionalism in debates hosted by the liberal media.

Chris Matthews has been fairly sedate and even-handed throughout the afternoon, but he just gave conservatives some ammunition by offering an editorial comment about an extended answer Fred Thompson gave on whether the feds should step in on a labor dispute.

Thompson initially just responded “no,” but then explained why he would not support a government intervention.

“You should’ve stopped at no,” Matthews told Thompson.

“Well, that’s your opinion, Chris,” Thompson shot back.

Ammunition, indeed. I’d say a bold admission of bias. As “sedate and even-handed” as he may have been at other times, this sort of pot-shot should never have happened.

But what’s really telling is what he said to Joe Scarborough that morning.

However, I do have one sensitive point and that is, I don’t mind being wrong — I try to be right. I don’t mind somebody saying I’m not fair — I try to be fair. … If someone says I’m not independent, it’s going to be very hard for me to bite my tongue. …
For twenty years I’ve paid the price of indepdendence. I’ve taken it from everybody … every night of my life for the past twenty years. …

If they accuse of me of being partisan, I’ll go rip! …

Sounds like he “ripped” before they accused  him of anything.  But that’s the liberal media for you; they don’t see their own bias as bias.

Technorati Tags: Chris Matthews, liberal media, Fred Thompson

James Taranto, in his “Best of the Web Today” today, notes that the accusations of “anger” against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas seem to be unfounded. But building on that is the idea that, since the travesty that was his confirmation hearing didn’t manage to keep him off the bench, he shouldn’t be upset about those accusations. “Hey, you made the highest court in the land. So what about the politics of personal destruction?”

Taranto has a great rundown of all the shenanigans that took place back then, including the observation that

“…Thomas’s political foes managed to violate the integrity of the FBI, the Senate and the D.C. Circuit–that is, of all three branches of government. This behavior was unethical, unconscionable and possibly criminal, and no one has ever been held to account for it.”

Thomas was treated unfairly, as well as illegally, but that didn’t matter to the Democrats that opposed him.

Thomas’s opponents believed that the end justified the means, as a former foe tells the justice’s wife on page 232:

Years later a young woman who had worked for one of the many groups opposed to my nomination approached Virginia. “We didn’t think of your husband as human, and I’m sorry,” she said, tears streaming down her face. “We thought that anything was justified because our access to abortions and sex was at risk.” The woman went on to explain that she had subsequently had a religious conversion and now felt that it was her duty to apologize to us.

Now, those who remain unrepentant are reduced to arguing, pathetically, that Justice Thomas–and the rest of us–should countenance the means because they failed to realize the end.

Taranto’s analysis is why “BotWT” is a daily e-mail I never miss.

Technorati Tags: James Taranto, Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court

Rudy Giuliani is not my first pick for Republican presidential nominee. He’s got some troubling stands on some issues that are important to me. But whatever those disconnects, he’d be far better than anything the Democrats have to offer.

Except that’s not what a number of conservative Christians are saying.

Some of the nation’s most politically influential conservative Christians, alarmed by the prospect of a Republican presidential nominee who supports abortion rights, are considering backing a third-party candidate.

More than 40 Christian conservatives attended a meeting Saturday in Salt Lake City to discuss the possibility, and planned more gatherings on how they should move forward, according to Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail expert and longtime conservative activist.

Rudy Giuliani, who supports abortion rights and gay rights, leads in national polls of the Republican presidential candidates. Campaigning in New Jersey on Monday, Giuliani brushed aside talk of an upstart effort by religious conservatives.

“I’m working on one party right now _ the Republican Party,” Giuliani said. “I believe we are reaching out very, very well to Republicans. The emphasis is on fiscal conservatism, which brings Republicans together.”

Other participants in the meeting included James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family evangelical ministry in Colorado Springs, Colo., and, according to Viguerie, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, a conservative policy group in Washington.

The problem with this approach is that if they act on this threat, they ensure the election of someone even further from their beliefs than Rudy. And they have to know this, which means they’d rather have someone in Planned Parenthood’s back pocket, never mind all the other nanny-state, anti-growth policies that would get introduced and implemented, than someone with whom they could at least agree on most of the time. If you have a Republican in the White House, you at least have someone who’ll give conservative Christians a fair hearing rather than just lip service.

Betsy Newmark has a better suggestion.

There is a candidate in the race right now who fits all the needs of these cultural conservatives – Mike Huckabee. They could be mobilizing behind him. If Huckabee started moving in the polls and surpassing expectations in the early states, these conservatives might be able to convince Giuliani (if he were to win the nomination) to put Huckabee on the ticket to alleviate some of this cultural conservative angst.

How much influence a VP would have is a matter of debate, as Betsy notes, but rather than bailing out, engage.

Technorati Tags: Rudy Giuliani, Republican, Christian conservatives, Christian Right, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Richard A. Viguerie

I’m not one to post campaign material for one candidate or another here, especially since I’ve really not made up my mind. But this post by Mitt Romney at Redstate really hits the nail on the head with me. Key paragraph:

The blame for Washington’s failures lies not just with the Democrats but with Republicans as well. We have to put our own house in order. We can no longer be a party of big spenders with ethical standards more fitting of a Jay Leno punch line. We can no longer pretend our borders are secure. When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. It’s time for change in Washington and change begins with us.

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, Republicans, government, Jay Leno

It’s always interesting to me to see what some computer program figures would be the best presidential candidate for me. While it’s a fun little diversion, I think folks ought to at least give them a try. I think they might be surprised.

An acquaintance of mine, who is a political conservative and white, when talking with African-American co-workers, would often see that, while they held conservative principles, would vote Democrat anyway. When she asked one of them to take one of these kinds of surveys, her co-worker was shocked that the Republican candidate lined up much more closely with her beliefs than the Democrat, so I think it’s worth giving it a shot.

I took this survey, and here are my results:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Chuck Hagel (not running) (78%)
3. Mitt Romney (77%)
4. Sam Brownback (73%)
5. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (73%)
6. Tom Tancredo (71%)
7. Duncan Hunter (70%)
8. John McCain (66%)
9. Fred Thompson (62%)
10. Newt Gingrich (not announced) (62%)
11. Mike Huckabee (57%)
12. Rudolph Giuliani (57%)
13. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (56%)
14. Ron Paul (51%)
15. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (50%)
16. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (30%)
17. Al Gore (not announced) (26%)
18. Bill Richardson (25%)
19. Joseph Biden (24%)
20. Hillary Clinton (22%)
21. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (21%)
22. John Edwards (18%)
23. Christopher Dodd (15%)
24. Barack Obama (14%)
25. Mike Gravel (14%)
26. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (12%)
27. Dennis Kucinich (9%)
28. Elaine Brown (0%)

Update:  Welcome, NY Observer readers.

Technorati Tags: United States, presidential campaign, presidential candidate selector

A Ten Commandments display in Kentucky will remain, beating back an assault by the ACLU.

A federal court in Lexington, Ky., has ruled that the Ten Commandments can remain on display in the Mercer County courthouse, rejecting an attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union to have them removed.

“This is a major victory for the people of Mercer County and for all Americans who don’t buy into the ACLU’s extreme misrepresentation of our Constitution,” said Francis J. Manion, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which argued the case for the county.

“The First Amendment was never intended to remove all mention of God or religion from the public square,” said Manion. “The Supreme Court and many other courts have long recognized the foundational role of the Ten Commandments in the development of our legal system.”

Hat tip to Stop the ACLU, where Nathan Bradfield, after making his case for why the ACLU has been wrong in this and other efforts, states:

Those who would argue that our Founders intended to begin a secular nation with secular documents are living a pipe dream. A. H. Everett, said in the Legislature of Massachusetts, “In almost all of the distinguished states, the principal care of the community has been to provide for the support of religion.” Whether out of ignorance or lack of exposure, a minority of Americans neglect every Founder not named Paine, Jefferson, or Madison. And the latter two must be quoted out of context in order fit their secular, separation mold.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say the tide is turning against the ACLU in cases like this, because it matters so much whether the judge takes the Constitution at its word or not. But it is good to see.

Technorati Tags: Ten Commandments, Kentucky, Mercer County, ACLU, Francis J. Manion, ACLJ, First Amendment, church and state

The Fox News Channel is somehow too biased, supposedly, for a fair presidential debate, but the Huffington Post and Slate aren’t?

Democratic 2008 presidential hopefuls parried unusual questions about flatulent cows and “spoiled brat” voters, as well as Iraq and health care, in the first exclusively online campaign “debate.”

The “mashup” forum hosted by Yahoo! in partnership with the blog Huffington Post and online magazine Slate, allowed voters to compare responses to similiar questions on burning issues, posed by talk-show host Charlie Rose.

Democrats are simply not interested in fairness and balance. Republicans are going to participate in their own debate hosted by left-wing political web sites. But for Democrats to complain about Fox’s bias while embracing a host that is even more biased to the left than about any MSM outlet you can name is the height of hypocracy. Their concern about “bias” is all talk, and completely disingenuous. It is their problem that this highlights, not Fox’s.

Technorati Tags: Yahoo, Huffington Post, Slate.com, presidential debate, media bias, Fox News