Category: Current Affairs

Okay, this is really sick.

EXCERPTS:

Fox plans to broadcast an interview with O.J. Simpson in which the former football star discusses "how he would have committed" the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend, for which he was acquitted, the network said.

"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," the network said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."

The interview will air days before Simpson’s new book, "If I Did It," goes on sale Nov. 30. The book, published by Regan, "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed."

So O.J. Simpson has a book coming out in which he talks about how he would have killed his wife and her friend "If I did it." Note the tense: "If I did it," suggesting that he might have, not "If I had done it," suggesting that he didn’t.

This is simply unimaginable.

What kind of man whose wife was brutally murdered and who didn’t kill her writes a book to cash-in on her death by describing how he would have killed her–if he was the one who committed the crime?

No faithful husband who wants to honor the memory of his late wife does anything remotely like that. You couldn’t pay a husband who loved his wife enough money to do that kind of monstrous thing. A genuinely bereaved husband–no matter how much time had passed–would throw a publisher’s money back in his face and then denounce the publisher in public for even making the offer.

Even someone who was not a loving husband wouldn’t do that. Only a monster would do that kind of thing.

This is sick and disgusting.

A fair-minded observe would look at this and say that it smells like O.J. Simpson is taunting the public with how he got away with murder.

Which makes my mind wonder if there is a legal way he could be criminally prosecuted again, double-jeopardy laws notwithstanding.

GET THE STORY.

Let’s take a look at the president of Iran, Mahmood Ahmadinejad:

That’s Mr. Ahmadinejad on the right. The question is: Is it also him on the left?

The man on the left is reported to be one of the Iranian hostage takers from 1979-1981, and it has long been rumored that Mr. Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers.

He has denied this. Understandably.  It would severely inflame the U.S. public against him if it were confirmed that we were dealing with one of the people who took our diplomats hostage twenty-eight years ago. It would significantly strengthen the national will to go knock over his regime.

Now the Russian press has unearthed the photo on the left, which bears a striking resemblance to Ahmadinejad.

DANIEL PIPES HAS THE STORY (CHT: Powerline).

As curious as I am to know whether Ahmadinejad is one of the hostage takers, I have questions about the picture. Specifically:

1) What is its provenance? How did the press get it? Was it published at the time it was taken? Can we look at hardcopies of it that date from that era? How do we know it’s not a fake? Apropos of that . . .

2) What can Photoshoppers determine about this? Has Ahmadinejad’s face been pasted onto the body of a hostage-taker? Does the angle of his face match up with the angle of his head? Ahmadinejad would have been 23 in 1979. Does the gun-toter on the left look 23? If he did have bags around his eyes like that back then, why doesn’t he look a whole lot worse today?

3) If the picture isn’t fake, what can be determined by biometrics about whether he’s the same guy as Ahmadinejad?

4) If the picture is fake, who faked it, and what game are they playing?

For any who would care to use it.

Bear in mind Rule 1, though.

Over at TruthLaidBear, N.Z. Bear has developed an election tracker that nicely consolidates the info that most folks will be concerned with nationally in the election results: Which parties will control which houses.

I’d much rather check this thing periodically than wait for the behemoth MSM networks to get the chattering nabobs of nothingism to shut up long enough to give us actual data.

USE THE TOOL.
(CHT: Instapundit.)

And there was this story out of Kentucky about a poll worker choking a voter.

Turns out it wasn’t over a Dem/Repub thing, though. The guy didn’t want to fill in his ballot on the judicial races since he didn’t know enough about the judges and the poll worker told him he had to or he couldn’t vote. Things got worse from there.

It raises a question, though, that I wondered about myself: Do you actually have to fill in those things? You shouldn’t have to, but . . .

I voted early by absentee ballot, and I found myself not wanting to leave those blank since I had no idea what the judicial philosophy was of the judges. On the other hand, I thought California might have a crazy rule that would disqualify my ballot if I didn’t vote one way or the other, so–figuring California judges will be a bunch of kooks as a rule–I voted against all of them.

I’d still like to know about the mandatoriness of whether you have to vote in each race, though.

Catholic Answers produces the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics (and the Voters Guide for Serious Christians), both of which focus on the moral principles that need to be brought to bear in voting.

There is another kind of voters guide, though: One that documents the positions or voting records of candidates.

I’ve had some requests for where folks can find guides of that kind, but I haven’t had good resources to point them to.

This morning, though, I got an e-mailing from Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, and I thought folks might be interested in what he had to say, so here goes:

    I have communicated with you and many others regarding tomorrow’s elections. You may also be among those who have been working hard to mobilize voters. Now, the moment has come for the voters to do their job.

    If your state has early voting, and allows you to vote today, please do so. For information, please visit www.priestsforlife.org/states/early-voting.htm. Take advantage of the opportunity to cast your vote today rather than tomorrow, so that unforeseen obstacles don’t prevent you.

    The big question, of course, is “How do I find information about the candidates?” We have set up a web page, www.priestsforlife.org/candidates, to assist you.

    You can find candidate information in several places, such as newspapers, television news, voter guides, and on the internet. You may also run into people on the street handing out candidate literature. Don’t refuse them, but take and read what is being offered to you.

    If these sources fail, you can always contact the candidate’s campaign to make an inquiry about his or her position.

    Frequently politicians make statements like, "I have always been personally pro-life," or, "I would never encourage a woman to have an abortion." Rather than offering comfort to pro-life voters, statements like these should raise red flags, as they are typically followed by, "but I would never impose my personal beliefs on anybody else," or some similar statement.

    Even in cases in which these words do not follow, they are often implied. In such cases, be sure to look for a clearer statement of the candidate’s position, again, in writing if possible. Moreover, don’t only ask what the candidate believes. Ask what he or she intends to do to protect the unborn.

    You should also look at a candidate’s voting record. This is extremely easy with members of Congress as you can simply contact any one of a number of national organizations, like National Right to Life, that track votes as part of their regular activity. They will be able to inform you how your Congressman and Senator voted on the bills that have come before them. You can often obtain similar information about state candidates from pro-life organizations within your state.

    Finally, remember that elections not only put candidates into power, but they put parties into power, too. In voting for a candidate, you should know the positions of the candidate and also the positions of the party to which he/she belongs.

    Some organizations have provided specific voter guides, and we have placed links to many of those at www.priestsforlife.org/candidates.

    If you have further questions about how you should evaluate candidates, please contact our office at (888) 735-3448.

    Along with candidates, there are also important measures on the ballots in various states.

    Detailed information is at www.priestsforlife.org/elections/state-initiatives-referenda.htm. Even if you don’t live in these states, you can influence the vote by urging people you know in that state to vote the right way.

    California – Proposition 85 – Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative – Vote YES. See www.priestsforlife.org/legislation/proposition85.htm for more information.

    Oregon – Measure 43 – Parental Involvement and Support Act – Vote YES. See
    www.priestsforlife.org/legislation/oregon-measure-43.htm for more information.

    South Dakota – Referred Law 6 – Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act – Vote YES. See www.priestsforlife.org/legislation/south-dakota-referendum.htm for more information.

    Missouri – Amendment 2 – Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative – Vote NO.  See www.priestsforlife.org/legislation/missouri-amendment-2.htm for more information.

    Additional reminders: Join today and tomorrow in the final days of the Election Novena; prayers are found at www.PrayerCampaign.org and my booklet “Voting with a Clear Conscience” is found at http://www.priestsforlife.org/vote/voting-clear-conscience.pdf

    OK – that’s all I have to say. Let’s go make November 7 a day of progress for the pro-life cause!

    God bless you!

    Fr. Frank Pavone
    National Director, Priests for Life

A reader writes:

I know that you reach a huge number of people through your blog.  Could you remind your readers to do all that they can for the cause of life in Tuesday’s election by remembering to: 

1)  Pray (a lot!)   

2)  Fast (from something, anything, as much as possible)   

3)  Remind family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers to vote pro-life   

4)  Vote (as difficult as it may be in this world of negative campaigning)! 

I believe that this is the most crucial election ever for pro-life issues; let’s keep the pendulum swinging in the correct direction.

Done.

GET THE STORY.

Michael J. Fox, who really rocked as Marty McFly of the Back to the Future films (as creepy as some elements of them were–particularly the first) has recently issued an advertisement supporting chopping up embryonic humans to harvest their stem-cells so that a cure might possibly be found for debilitating diseases such as Parkinson’s Disease, from which Mr. Fox suffers (as the stalwart defender-of-life John Paul II did).

HERE’S MR. FOX’S AD.

But Mr. Fox is not the only individual weighing in on this question.

The following is a web ad produced by Scott Ott of Scrappleface.

It rocks.

(CHT: Southern Appeal.)

MORE.

Al-Qa’eda’s having more problems!

Yes, despite current talk of the Global War on Terror being a breeding ground for new bin Ladens, the organization’s leadership sees it as weak and beset by problems. A document recently released by CENTCOM explores some of the problems. The document was discovered in a safe house in Iraq used by ex-terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Like the letter to him from Ayman al-Zawahiri that was discovered a while back (you know, the one begging Zarqawi to send a donation since the senior leadership of the organization was short on cash), the newly-released document passes on advice from senior management to Zarqawi in the form of politely phrased criticism.

Now that he’s been shuffled off this mortal coil with extreme prejudice, Zarqawi is no longer able to heed that advice, of course, but what makes the letter fascinating is what it reveals about the weakened, damanged state of al-Qa’eda.

It also seems to indicate that the senior leadership of the organization is, or at least was, in Waziristan, just as many have suspected.

The document reveals a view of American and coalition forces that is quite heartening: "the enemy isn’t easy, for he is great and numerous and he can take quite a bit of punishment as well." And it indicates that the boys in Waziristan are themselves " occupied with  vicious enemies" and that "all the mujahidin are still weak" and that they "have not yet reached a level of stability" after our attacks.

YEE-HAW!

Hit ’em again! Harder! Harder!

GET THE STORY.
 
A special thanks to all our men and women in uniform, without whom this would not have been possible.

One of them is me. Another is Rudy Giuliani. A third is Mitt Romney.

The reasons for this vary.

In my case, I (a) have no interest in being president and (b) I don’t have the background for it and (c) I’m simply unelectable to that office.

(N.B., though I have no interest in being president, I would like to be king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat.)

Being unelectable is something I share with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, although the reasons we are unelectable are also varied.

I would be perceived by too large a number of voters as a hardcore Catholic theocrat who is dangerously unqualified for the position. And all of that except the theocrat part would be true.

In Rudy’s and Mitt’s cases, though, the reasons for unelectability are different.

Rudy is pro-abort and pro-homosexual and anti-gun, so he’s got this whole tripple whammy thing going. He got points for his performance on 9/11, but that’s not a pass with social conservatives in this country on the issues they care about. With the nation as evenly divided as it is today, all it takes are a few of them to be not motivated enough to go to the polls and Rudy loses. With the Giuliani triple whammy, more than enough social conservatives would stay home.

Same thing applies to Mitt. First, there is his Mormonism. Like it or not, too large a slice of Christian voters–both Evangelicals and Catholics–will simply not be motivated to show up at the polls to vote for a Mormon, no matter how much they’d otherwise like him. That may not be fair, but that’s the way it is.

But how much cause do Christians have to like Romney? Although in the last few years he’s taken to calling himself a pro-life politician, there are lingering questions about the extent to which he can be trusted.

Don’t get me wrong. I’d love to see all pro-aborts switch sides and become opposed to babykilling. Such moral conversion should be welcomed.

But there also have to be adequate signs that a person is sincere in his conversion, and a iffy/maybe switch to the pro-life side that is articulated in mild, cautious, carefully-parsed terms won’t cut it, especially after years of supporting legalized abortion in which one supported "a woman’s right to choose" while still resisting the "pro-choice" label. That history of playing word games means that any current claim to be pro-life will receive strict scrutiny.

The presidency and its ability to influence the abortion issue through Supreme Court nominations and executive policy decisions is simply too great to entrust to a recent convert who does not forcefully articulate the case for making it illegal to kill babies.

Someone with a history of being pro-life could be allowed to phrase himself on this subject in a mild way that will not frighten uncommitted voters, but a person who has historically been on the other side and played word games about it and then says "I’m pro-life now; vote for me" doesn’t have that luxury.

HERE’S SOME OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE FROM ROMNEY’S PREVIOUS RECORD AND HIS CURRENT POSITION.
(CHT: Southern Appeal.)

MORE.