Resolutions for the New Year haven't worked for me in several years.  Not sure why.  Let's just call them what they are -- wishes, hopes, goals, strategies, pie-in-the-sky dreams, declarations, aspirations, shoulda-oughtas, wants .....  Sometimes it's easier to declare what I don't want.

Like ...
I don't want to continue carrying these extra pounds.  Much less gain more.
I don't want Dawg to be pained by arthritis.  This is top of the list, btw.
I don't want my work to pile up on my desk.
I don't want to leave laundry undone.
I don't want to ignore the vacuum cleaner, Pledge or filled-to-the-top garbage cans.
I don't want S.O. (significant other) to have to drive soooooo far to visit.  His foot is a tad too heavy and his vision is much worse than mine!
I don't want to continue working full-time ....
I don't want Hillary Clinton as my President.  Or John McCain, either.
I don't want President Bush to intervene militarily in Iraq's sectarian wars -- or do anything that detracts from the war against terrorism.
I don't want to see any more hollywood baby pix.
I don't want to see celebrity life-styles headlined as news.
I don't want to see T.O. catch any more passes.  Especially for Dallas.
I don't want North Carolina to win the National BB Championship.
I don't want my cable connection to go out again.
I don't want to have to replace my '93 Jeep Grande Cherokee.
I don't want to ask for too much. 

Dang it.  Guess I'll just hafta (except for the want for Dawg, of course) conjure up a few resolutions about these don't-wants.

Four days and counting ....

Subtitled:  Keith Ellison is gonna be in deep doodoo with Islamic tenets if he signs that Oath of Office.  Unless he subscribes to the tenet that it's OK to lie to your avowed enemies.

Powerline blog continues to ask why MSM gave newly-elected Keith Ellison (D-MN) a "pass" on clarifying how his Muslim faith would (and now will) influence his position(s) on such topics as

"abortion rights, homosexual rights, the rights of women and the like. Perhaps some bigfoot journalist might then ask a question or two about how Ellison's branch of Islam views the legal equality of Muslims and infidels and the supremacy of the United States Constitution over Sharia law. Until that time, we will have pay attention to the friends of Keith Ellison for the light they may shed on his views on these subjects."

Who are these "friends?"  You guessed it -- groups affiliated with radical Islamic causes.   Read more here and here for starters ....

My view is that once again -- we find ourselves sitting in a cart in front of the horse.  If Ellison's religious convictions are NOT at issue, then why the effort to make inquiries about them a non-issue? 

MSM certainly gives no "passes" to conservative candidates -- especially  religious fundies from the "far" right.   Why did Ellison get a pass?

IMO -- therein lies the bigotry.

Before Ellison is appointed to a legislative committee that has access to issues of national security, someone (duhhhh) best learn more about his true allegiance ..... No disrespect intended to the voters of MN or to basic Muslim tenets, BUT --- Ellison's past and current affiliation with radical Islamic groups should have been investigated and revealed BEFORE his election.

Of course, the left (including MSM) would prefer to focus on the alleged  bigotry implied by one hapless legislator who questioned how Ellison can take the oath to uphold the Constitution (which, scholars debate, is based on Biblical references incorporated by its writers) while literally embracing a Koran.

Personally -- I don't care if Ellison holds a copy of Mad Magazine during the Oath ceremony. 

At issue should be the Oath of Office -- and especially the oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies ....

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Is there actual conflict between the Bible and the Koran.  Yes.  On several issues.

1)  The Bible offers no design on government (except where some scholars suggest that a "design" may be derived from Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our King; he will save us.")  The Constitution, however, refers to an elected executive, not a King, and to separate judicial AND legislative branches). 

2)  The Koran, however, is different.  Islam makes no distinction between religion and the State.  Instead, it envisions the state as something akin to a giant congregation, entirely controlled by religious law, with no room for external law, legislation or morality.  As a Wikipedia article on the subject neatly summarizes: The Caliphate (Arabic Khilafah) is an Islamic federal government which represents political leadership and unity of the Muslim world (Ummah) applying Islamic law (Shariah). The Caliph is the term for the head of state and it is the only form of government sanctioned in traditional Islamic theology.

3)  Nor is there any relationship between the Constitution and the 10 Commandments. The Constitution fairly repudiates the first two commandments (i.e., it leaves us free to worship other Gods than the LORD, and to make graven images), and is silent on commandments three through ten. Laws against blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, dishonoring parents, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and coveting are left entirely to the states.

4)  Further comparisons between the Consitution and Christian-Judeo tenets are extremely personal and relatively academic.  Comparisons between Christian-Judeo AND Islamic tenants are still best epitomized by centuries of religious and/or sectarian wars .....

The baseline (for me, at least) is that --- other than through analysis of what individual Founding Fathers SAID influenced them -- there is only one literal  reference to religion in the Constitution: 

"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." 

So, at this point, the only person who is likely to be in deep doodoo if he takes the Oath of Office is Keith Ellison.  To take that oath will be a dire violation of the tenets of his religion.

Happy New Year, Madame Speaker of the House. 

Unless and until Ellison answers a few questions directly, the onus may fall  on you to sort this out before it becomes a(nother) albatross for the Democrat party. 

 -- in my life, at least ....

I'm home, not exactly alone.  Yesterday morning, Dawg and I went for a short walk.  We played a bit (a game I call "catch tail" that she initiates by running toward me and I grab for her tail as she zips and zags away).  When she's "played out," she slides to the grass, rolls over to scratch her back, grunts and sighs, sprawls her legs and studies the clouds for a while.   When she tried to roll over, however, something either "pulled" in her back left leg or the arthritis I've been suspecting may have "locked" the leg.  I had to help her get to her feet. 

I held back the tears as kids came running to see what was wrong .... miracle Dawg and I hobbled home.  She has yet to whine, yet I see pain and discomfort in those beautiful brown eyes.  For approximately 24 hours, she has been my total focus.  No vet was available, so I stepped up the daily "quarter of an 81 aspirin" treatment and began gently massaging her leg and back, alternating heat and cold treatments and generally pampering her.   She ate well, hobbling to her food bowl and was able to do her business outside without too much difficulty.  Last night I lifted her to the love seat and slept on the sofa next to her.  She slept better than I did.  This morning she is walking some better ... and now is sleeping soundly beside my desk.  Tomorrow we'll see her favorite vet. 

Obviously, I didn't attend the family gathering.  We'll visit in person later -- calling it our Christmas-birthday gathering, as we are each "winter babies."  Neighbors dropped by to check on Dawg (and to bring gifts, cards, etc.) for both of us!  I had already canceled the community drop-in due to the weather -- rain, high winds.  It has been rescheduled for the New Year.  Fortunately gifts to my adopted family had been delivered and four bikes for other kids were already in Santa's sleigh for delivery ....

*  One of the most precious miracles in my life has been Dawg.  Twice she has saved my life from grizzlies and once held armed burglars at bay.  Not bad for a gentle therapy dog who visits the elderly and plays with terminally-ill children, eh?  She is brilliant (I've mentioned that before) and sings, does special tricks and is "attuned" to emergency alarms such as on ventilators, wheelchairs, etc.  She has been my constant companion as we've criss-crossed the nation multiple times.  She is loved as no other creature can be.  And she knows it.  Hence, she's a bit of a spoiled 50-pound wuss.  Which is ok by me.  Needless to say -- the nest has not been empty in the 12 years she's been in my life.  She was a significant part of my foundation during a nasty three-year legal battle .... Had I heeded her instincts, I would have never allowed an online stalker to enter our personal lives or permitted an on-again off-again relationship to extend waaay too many years .... She's my best friend.  As silly as it may sound, if I could assume her pain and discomfort now -- I would do so without hesitation.  I reminded God of that fact a few times last night, too.

*  There were also good feelings to be shared last night .... I offered shelter (not in my personal home) to a homeless guy who wandered into the neighborhood.  Little did I know, but several neighbors (including their bratty kids) had been watching him as well.  Without sharing details, they also watched as I talked with/assisted the man .... Afterward, there is a knock at my door.  There stood bratty kids (pure hellions destined for life behind bars -- and without their parents) who "just" wanted  to tell me how "sweet and thoughtful" I was to the man.  Bah-humbug.  My first reaction was to ask the little bastards if this meant I'd not be egged or rolled next Halloween -- but softened my response to "thank you" .... Merry Christmas" [you little heathens from hell].  I left off the parenthetical, of course.  Two clients who are on suicide-watch (as in being watched) also dropped by.  Fortunately they did not stay long -- but wanted to check on me because I had not checked on them today .... Dawg kept trying to maneuver between me and them.  Toldja she was smart.  Two food deliveries .... home-made candy for me (yummy) and a hot-outta-the-oven pumpkin pie which Dawg and I [sorta] shared [she got crust only],  Later a few of the bratty kids returned -- with parents .... a snuggly holiday throw (perfect for Dawg), shower gel for me, three Santa's to add to my collection, a burlap bag of peanuts, tins of cookies and scrabble, several cards (one singing Wish You a Merry Christmas), small unidentified plant in a Santa pot, one glittery ornament (which I placed on the tree), two pairs of footies, a small ceramic elephant with trunk pointed up (for good luck, I was told), a candle and a bag of oranges!  Dawg didn't do badly ... in addition to her stocking of goodies, she received two bags of Beneful and four chew-bars  .... I am blessed. 

* More Holiday Greetings and Gazings .... If you haven't been to MissCellania's site yet, go visit.  She's got bunches of holiday links for kids of all ages.  Plus she sends an email that is bound to bring a smile and song to every face!  Here's the link: and if the music doesn't resonate in your head for at least 12 hours, you're a real Scrooge, yanno?

*  If you've traveled to be with family and friends this holiday -- return home safely.  If you're at home with the same, savor every moment .... Thanks for all the well wishes, warm thoughts and personal regards for a Merry Christmas and a wondrous New Year.  Each is returned in spirit, ten-fold.

POST-DATE:  AHHHH -- there are few blessings more cherished than to spend the (post-Christmas holiday and New Year's Day) with family who share a devotion to pets ..... Dawg is almost back to normal and life is -- beyond all those sentimental seasonal reasons -- good!

Before joining Sunday morning traffic to pick up Dawg's stockin' stuffers (if I fill it early, she gets all sniffy), I opened  Garrison Keiller's email to set the tone (and spruce up on holiday lore) ....

Today is Christmas Eve, the subject of the beloved holiday poem that begins:

"'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;
The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of sugarplums danced in their heads."

The poem, now known as "The Night Before Christmas," was first published anonymously in a small newspaper in upstate New York in 1823, and its original title was "Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas." It was thought for many years to have been written by Clement Clarke Moore. But today some scholars believe that a Revolutionary War major named Henry Livingston Jr. may have been the actual author of "The Night Before Christmas." His family has letters describing his recitation of the poem before it was originally published, and literary scholars have found many similarities between his work and "The Night Before Christmas." He was also three-quarters Dutch, and many of the details in the poem, including names of the reindeer, have Dutch origins.

But whoever wrote the poem, "The Night Before Christmas" changed the way Americans celebrate the holiday of Christmas by reinventing the character of Santa Claus, and by combining St. Nicholas Day with Christmas.

*********************

The image of Santa went through many variations, until the political cartoonist Thomas H. Nast drew a picture of the fat, jolly man with a white beard that became the standard version. Santa started wearing red and white clothing after an ad campaign for Coca Cola in the 1930s.

*********************

In Holland, children are now visited by St. Nicholas on December 5th, and on Christmas Eve they are visited by Santa Claus, whom they call, "American Christmas Man."

*********************

Somewhere out there, someone will be keeping score -- watching Hillary wheel and deal on the Hill. 

Can the would-be Queen separate herself from the jokers?  Pelosi holds the wild cards ....  It's gonna be all-in, baby. 

Check.

The Editor of National Review Online states Romney's option succinctly.  It will promote his cause if he heeds her advice early and often -- until libs and MSM get beyond the reality of his religious convictions.

During the 1960 presidential campaign, John F. Kennedy downplayed his religion. Another Massachusetts pol, Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, is now contemplating a run. And Romney, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is being encouraged to follow in JFK's footsteps.

Kennedy's September 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association is credited with having destigmatized his Catholicism as a campaign issue. No doubt the Romney camp would like to do something similar -- make it so that questions about Mormon temple garments are beyond the bounds of respectable journalism. But Romney, a man of faith, has another concern: at what cost?

In his celebrated speech, Kennedy said, "I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair." A later Bay State JFK, Sen. John F. Kerry, took refuge behind this concept to eviscerate his own Catholic faith of its public consequences. During the 2004 presidential cycle, Kerry told one reporter, "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president.

My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our Constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that." Translation (putting aside the fact that he confused popes ... and that no Catholic says "THE Vatican II"): I'll vote against bans on partial-birth abortion -- and have done so -- and church teaching be damned.

The original JFK said a lot of right and important things, too, mind you. He said in that same speech that he would not "disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election. ... If this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people." Drawing on the valuable elements in Kennedy's speech, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has said that Romney is running for "commander in chief," not "theologian in chief." Land's advice is the right advice; as he told the "Boston Globe," "I just encouraged (Romney) to do it forthrightly and honestly and say, 'Look, this is my faith, and we don't have a religious test for office, and here's how my faith informs my values system.'"

This seems to be the direction Romney is headed. When asked about "the Mormon problem," Romney says he is "a person of faith," and talks about "common values" among Mormons and other denominations: "The great majority of people -- Christian, non-Christian, and of different faiths -- look for values, character, integrity and vision and don't disqualify people on a religious test."

There is, of course, a worry that too much "common values" talk can water down one's religion, and thus weaken the overall role religion plays in public life. "Downplaying temple garments? What else do we want to demystify and de-weird for the sake of gains in popular opinion?" one LDS blogger recently wrote. "I'm all in favor of clarifying misconceptions, but eventually I am worried that we lose something vital."

This is a challenge that people of faith face in all walks of life --integrating what their faith teaches into their secular lives. Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., says that Romney "needs to spell out clearly his understanding of the separation of church and state" -- and to stress that this does not mean the separation of religious values from public-policy disputes.

In other words, Romney should go back earlier than JFK, and emulate George Washington. In his farewell address, the original George W. said: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them."

Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, writes a weekly column of conservative political and social commentary for Newspaper Enterprise Association.

Here's to his heeding this advise. 

Whatever Romney's decision, it will be one of conviction, I believe.  And what we need now are leaders with conviction, savvy, poise and the strength to literally place their lives on the line.

MSM and the libs will attempt to destroy him.  They will attack his religion, his family, his credentials, his integrity.  If he stands as he has done in the past, we'll have a strong contender on the ballot.  In spite of MSM. 

His next greatest challenge?  Getting through the primaries ..... McCain is an obsolete and loose cannon.  Rudy's a nice guy -- but I'm not confident of his experience or his background.  One-on-one, Romney should have no difficulty in demonstrating his qualities and qualifications ....

On the national level, Hillary will be a piece of fruitcake -- and she will not be able to hold her composure or poise during one-on-one debates or with interviews invoking hardball questions/answers.  Over-all, Bill will be a liability, not an asset.

Romney should ask for many debates (she will graciously decline) to provide opportunities to showcase her weaknesses (the temper, the fluster, the hyperbole, the facade) and Mitt's poise, knowledge, confidence and competence.

Hint:  about those rally songs .... shy away from anything rhyming with Mitt .... Instead --- go strong on Romney: i.e.,

                    I'm gonna be a Romney Ranger
                   He'll keep us safe and free from danger.
                   Vote for the man of strong convictions;
                   No holly-hyped Camelot fictions.
                   Health care, terrorism -- name the issue --
                   Diplomacy works -- not mascara on a tissue!
                   Conservatives, moderates join the chorus
                   Hillary NOT -- just ask Dick Morris!

Stop me, please ....

... and let it begin with me ....

As you enjoy the holiday, remember those who are not with their loved ones this season .....