Why? Because she wanted to reduce to legal abortion term from 24 weeks (6 months!) to 21 weeks.

From LifeSite News:

A British Member of Parliament needed to call upon security after abortion activists sent her death threats for proposing to reduce the legal age for abortion from 24 to 21 weeks according to the Bedford News.

“My staff have been told they will burn in hell, my home has been besieged by anonymous telephone calls, extremist groups have sent out inflammatory messages to their members,” said Conservative MP Nadine Dorries of Mid Bedfordshire. “It got so bad that we had to alert House of Commons security and my constituency police.”

You have to fight for your right to kill, it seems. Ironic that you cannot legally own a gun in the UK, but aborting a 6month old pregnancy seems to be something people will kill to uphold. At least she didn’t have to worry about getting shot at.

This lady has guts, more than her attackers.

However, the threats have only served to harden Nadine Dorries’ conviction to push for changes in the United Kingdom’s abortion law.

“Why such extremists think this kind of behaviour will deter me I have no idea. If anything it reinforces my conviction to carry on,” said Mrs. Dorries. “We were not intimidated by the extremists and continue to move forward with the campaign which I have called ‘Abortion Rights and Wrongs - the case for reform of abortion law’.”

Nadine Dorries’s Bill - entitled ‘Termination of Abortion’ – would have reduced the legal limit of abortion from 24 weeks to 21, and would have required a 10 day “cooling off” period for a woman to know what her risks concerning both abortion and carrying her pregnancy to term “as a condition of informed consent”. Mrs. Dorries argued for the bill on the basis that the latest scientific research had placed fetal sentience at approximately 21 weeks; however the measure lost with 108 votes for the Bill and 187 votes against.

Lets hope Mrs. Dorries continues the fight to reduce or eliminate abortion in the UK.

Also Reporting:
Hot Air

Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, one the warden at Abu Ghraib, spoke out against Rumsfield in a recent interview for a Spanish Newspaper.

From Reuters:

Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the prison’s former U.S. commander said in an interview on Saturday.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski told Spain’s El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.

Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods.

“The handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: “Make sure this is accomplished”,” she told Saturday’s El Pais.

A disgraced officer who was unable to maintain control of her command is now lashing out where she can in order to try and redirect some of the blame which rightly falls on her shoulders. I hope she kept a copy of this “memorandum” for her records as without it she only looks worse that ever.

I also have to wonder why she opted to tell this story to a Spanish newspaper, and not a US one. She was born and raised in New Jersey, and is a US Citizen. If the US Media would not publish the story it must be sketchy at best.

She does try to tone it down a bit latter on:

“The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation … playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably … Rumsfeld authorized these specific techniques.”

Standing? Loud Music? Uncomfortable Chairs? I cannot see how any of these are illegal. I do not agree the Geneva Convention applied in this case, nor are they the issue which got her suspended and demoted. This sounds like a smoke screen, and nothing more.

A Different View:
Daily Kos
Daily Kos

The following Reuters article show the Democrats can stay on tune, but provides no details or substance to the claims.

Democrats on Saturday promised to help “forge a new direction” in the Iraq war when they take control of the U.S. Congress in January from President George W. Bush’s Republicans.

Other than Cut and Run, what do the democrats propose to do? I see no military expertise in the Democratic congress waiting to fill in the blanks of this very basic question.

They also vowed to clean up the scandal-rocked Congress, raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade and address such concerns as the rising cost of education, health care and energy.

Clean Up the scanal-rocked Congress? I guess this is where Democrats like Alcee Hastings and John Murtha, as experts in corruption, come in. Its good the Dems have this experience.

I pray our congress shows wisdom, restraint, and good sense in the new year. If the actions so far are any indication, then all our prayers will be needed.

More that that main-stream Media prefers not to mention:

From Iraq CPIC:

Coalition Forces killed 12 terrorists during a mission Saturday morning North of Baghdad.

Coalition Forces were en route to capture a suspected terrorist associated with the manufacturing of vehicle borne improvised explosive devices and facilitating foreign fighters into the Northern Baghdad area. The terrorist and his associates were traveling in three vehicles.

As Coalition Forces approached the vehicles, twelve armed terrorists ignored warning shots and attempted to maneuver on the ground force. Coalition Forces engaged the vehicles with precision fires killing the twelve terrorists.

No Coalition Forces or civilians were injured during the mission. Coalition operations continue to disrupt the terrorists’ ability to attack innocent civilians as well as Iraqi and Coalition Forces.

I found a very interesting Associated Press Article about serving US military who are trying for Honorable Discharge based upon there “moral objections” to the war.

Agustin Aguayo, who enlisted in 2002 during the lead-up to the Iraq war, is asking the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to release him from a military prison. It is believed to be the first federal appeal in a conscientious-objector case during the Iraq war.

Aguayo, who is being held in a U.S. prison in Germany after going absent without leave, said he enlisted as a way to earn money for his education. Though military operations in Afghanistan were under way and discussions about Iraq were ongoing, he said he never considered that he’d have to fight.

This guy must not be the brightest candle in the sconce. He enlists, after the war on Terror was declared and reserve troops where being called up, and then decides he is against the war only after he was deployed to Iraq. Finding one’s self in an all volunteer army when you have such deep seated objection to war is, frankly, your own dumb fault.

Fortunately the court agrees.

Judge A. Raymond Randolph, one of three judges on the case, said during the hearing yesterday that he’d been reading up on the Vietnam appeals and asked how the case differs from those filed decades ago by people who realized their opposition to war only after receiving a draft card.

[…]

In a statement submitted to the court and released on a Web site dedicated to his cause, Aguayo said he is being guided by his principles.

“My beliefs and morals come from a transformation as a direct result of my combined religious/family upbringing, military experience, and new experiences I’ve created and sought,” he said.

The government argued — and a federal judge in August agreed — that Aguayo’s religious beliefs existed when he enlisted. A soldier may not hide his beliefs to obtain military benefits, then use them as a way to get out of service, the court said.

[…]

Attorneys also noted that Aguayo applied as a conscientious objector only after receiving his orders to Iraq and did so at the same time as his best friend.

I have little or no sympathy to those who volunteer for honorable military service and later decide it was more than they bargained for. The military has long been a stepping stone to a solid trade or collage education, however those incentives are there to draw the needed manpower to defend this great country. It is not, and should never be considered, an entitlement program. It is a job with a clearly defined job description - if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

While the French Lead UN force is concerning itself with the very important question about whether or not they should shoot down Israeli reconnaissance flights, it seems Iran is happily resupplying Hizballah. Those French / UN boys are really on their toes, you can’t slip anything past them.

The following from Time:

Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv say that Hizballah replenished nearly half of its pre-war stockpiles of short-range missiles and small arms. But western diplomats in Beirut say these calculations under-estimate the weapons flow and that Hizballah has now filled its war chest with over 20,000 short-range missiles—a similar amount to what they had at the start of the conflict, during which the group is believed to have fired over 3,000 rockets at Israel. “The Iranian pipeline through Syria was already working during the war,” despite constant Israeli bombing raids on the roads into Lebanon from Syria, this Beirut source said. Officially, Syria and Iran deny that they’re supplying weapons to Hizballah. As for the Shi’ite group itself, when asked about receiving a new shipment of arms from Syria and Iran, a spokesman told TIME, without elaborating, “We have more than enough weapons if Israel tries to attack us again.”

I would like to remind the UN in general, and UNIFL in specific of the content of the UN Security Council Resolution 1701, passed in August 2006 which called for, amount other things, the complete disbarment of Hizballah and the blocking of any and all arms transports into the country that do not have the fully support of the Lebanese Government.

Perhaps I am missing the plot here. Could it be that UNIFIL is actually working with Hizballah, Iran, and Syria towards the destruction of Israel?

Really, there are only two posabilities here.
1. UNIFIL is working with Hizballah, Iran, and Syria against Israel
2. The Generals and Leaders running UNIFIL are manifestly and completely incompetent.

Take your pick, either way they need to be shut down and shipped out. They are doing nothing at all the improve the situation, and there only actions to date have amounted to harassing and threatening Israel, who are the victims here.

Also Reporting:
Hot Air
OTB

From YnetNews:

A Qassam rocket fired from the northern Gaza Strip landed in a house in Sderot on Saturday, police say.

Ofer Abutbul, a 42 year-old Sderot resident, who was visiting a friend on the street where the Qassam landed, told Ynet: “We were at the house, three adults and two children. We heard the Qassam whistle and all fell to the floor. The rocket struck a house adjacent to my friend’s house, and all the windows shattered. Fortunately no one was hurt.”

What the main stream media and the UN seem far to willing to ignore is these attacks on Israel to which they are responding. There is no evidence of Israel ever staging an offensive which was not a reply of attacks made to Israel itself. Yet the UN is much more interested in trying to sanction Israel with UN resolutions that to address the core problem.

And the Palestinians call for peace from a conflict they started? The following from the Baltimore Sun:

Palestinian prime minister said yesterday that militants were prepared to stop firing rockets at Israel if it would halt all military action in Palestinian territories.

When you stick you hand in a hornets nest, it is a bit late to say “Oh, never mind”. Palestine has shown itself in posession of, and a willingness to use, weapons against Israeli civilians - the Israeli military should indeed push on until they have drastically reduced the ability,if not the desire. If they want a full truce, then they need to stay that. Calling a temporary halt why you reload is not acceptable.

Israel rejected the offer, saying that it would respond positively only to a total truce. Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said the offer to trade a partial cease-fire for a suspension of all Israeli military operations in Palestinian territories was “ludicrous” and “a media stunt.”

Israel has a right to defend itself. The corporate hate of Israel which has permeated the liberal media is disgusting. We have a mdeia who has become adept at slanting the news and reporting half truths. The ability they have to shape the minds of the “sheeple” should cause them to be held to a higher standard.