Friday, September 28, 2007

Baby Left Bound While Parent Party

People like Mitch Laputka and Rachel Anderson are the reason why social services exist in America. Anyone would be horrified and appalled after reading the story of what they did to their baby out of pure selfishness. What did they do? According to Wisconsin's WISN 12 News,
A Glendale couple said they couldn't afford a baby sitter, so they strapped their 14-month-old son in his stroller at home while the couple went out, police alleged.

Rachel Anderson and her live-in boyfriend, Mitch Laputka, were ordered to stand trial Thursday on charges they neglected baby Gabriel so badly that his body was covered with diaper rash, his body temperature was 12 degrees below normal and he stopped breathing, requiring 21 minutes of CPR to revive him. Police said the couple admitted to leaving the boy home alone because they wanted to party.

These people should be sterilized, in my opinion. They have proven that they are not worthy of the responsibility that parenthood brings. I have a just-barely-two year old son. While his presence brings with it a definite curtailment in my social life, he is worth ever second I spend with him. I cannot understand how someone would willingly treat a human being this way for simple selfish pleasure, yet that is precisely what baby Gabriel's parents did.

Fortunately, these idiots were caught and will stand trial for their criminal mistreatment of their helpless baby. I hope and trust that little Gabriel find a loving foster or adoptive family who will cure his injuries and give him a loving atmosphere. But remember- this is government. The odds are that Gabriel will be returned to his birth parents, no matter how badly they have already injured this poor little boy.

Edwards Bloviates- Media Silent

On the MTV/MySpace Forum yesterday, Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards stated that ,
“Pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

Edwards also said, according to the MTV/MySpace site that building prison won't deter crime.

This proves two things- one that we have sunk low indeed if a serious Presidential candidate can utter fallacies like this and two, that our media have completely abrogated any claim to both objectivity and professionalism if they are willing to let him get away with such comments.

There is much wrong with both of these statements. Firstly, building prisons does indeed deter at least some folks from committing cirmes- especially if we as a society were more willing to hold these folks up to the ridicule they richly deserve. Sheriff Joe Arpaiao has the right idea in making his inmates wear pink.

Secondly, and more importantly, Edwards' comments show both a complete lack of respect for young black Americans and a willingness to engage in racial hyperbole without any real knowledge of the facts. Much like his 'Two Americas' rhetoric, this simply exposes Edwards as the limousine liberal he is- an empty suit that has made his money on the back of ordinary Americans.

However, the deeper question is why the media is so willing to let people like Edwards get away with this kind of dissgusting garbage. If a Republican opened his or her mouth to utter this kind of derogatory speech, the media would hbe all over him or her, and deservedly so. This statement shows a startling lack of respect for blacks, both as inidividuals and aas a group. yet not a single media source has ciriticized Edwards thus far that I can see. Hat tip to NRO Online

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Media Silent on Military Good Samaritanship

Reuters is busy smearing the troops by claiming they opened fire on civilians. But while accusations of misconduct are always good for several months worth of front-page stories, somehow the media never has time to comment on the many good deeds that the United States Armed Forces perform all over the world. And unfortunately, the US military does not do as well as we would wish at getting the word out. A case in point is the story posted on the United States Navy's site today, as USS Stout (DDG 55), came to the assistance of a Tanzanian passenger ferry off the coast of Somalia. As the Navy reported,
Spice Island, which was carrying no passengers, hailed for engineering assistance when it ran out of fuel while transiting to Tanzania. Stout provided the crew with food, water and fuel and helped to get the vessel operational under its own power. Coalition forces have a long-standing tradition of helping mariners in distress by providing medical assistance, engineering assistance and search and rescue efforts.

This is worthy of being reported, and once upon a time, maybe the media might have done so, instead of spending their time bashing the forces that allow them to propagate their poisonous penmanship. But at the present time, the media is too busy tearing down to think of actually reporting something that would reflect some credit on the many men and women who take seriously the idea of actually doing something to help their fellow Americans. Most journalists, unfortunately, do not qualify for that role.

Reuters Reporter Quotes Himself

Did Reuters reporter Noor Mohammed Sherzai ever take a class in journalistic ethics? If so, perhaps he slept through it, as his article today uses himself as a quote.

Sherzai writes today that US troops fired towards a crowd in Afghanistan. However, the only quote that he is able to produce to substantiate his accusations is from himself. He writes,
"I saw the fire brigade vehicle rushing to the area at top speed. Somehow its brakes failed and hit one police vehicle and coalition vehicles, then the Americans started firing," said Reuters correspondent Noor Mohammad Sherzai.

Sherzai does allow an American officer, Major Joe Klopple to state that the shots were fired in the air as warnings to disperse the crowd and avoid injury to anyone present, but he then goes right back to his meme that U.S. troops were attempting to injure these innocent civilians. And to support his argument, he uses his favorite source- himself! He writes,
Sherzai and other reporters at the scene said many shots were fired and Afghan police were among those fleeing the scene.

"I was running away as fast as I could, but some of the police overtook me," Sherzai said. The police, he said, "were very angry because the Americans were shooting and wanted to shoot back but others stopped them".

Only after extensively quoting himself does Sherzai allow another witness to interject his own recollections.

Somehow I cannot think that this is acceptable behavior in professional journalism. However, since Reuters has loing since thrown any pretensions of objectivity or professionalism out the window when it comes to covering American troops, I am sadly unsurprised by this latest manifestation of same. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader Jammie Wearing Fool. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Victimology 101

Lawyers have done much to ruin our society, from driving doctors out of business to forcing ridiculous warning signs. However, their most pernicious contribution might be in promoting the vicitm society- the idea that anyone can become a victom. The laste manifestation of this can be seen in former National Basketball Asoociation (NBA) player Roy Tarpley, who is suing the NBA under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that his cocaine and alcohol habit constitutes a disability.

First, a little background. Tarpley was a multi-talented 7-foot forward, who came into the NBA in 1986. He played five years with the Dallas Mavericks franchise, and was instrumental in the Mavericks' run to the 1988 Western Conference Finals, where they fell to the Los Angeles Lakers in seven games. Hwoiever, he was thrown out of the league in 1991 for using cocaine, which violated the laegues drug policy. Tarpley was reinstated in 1994, but was banned for life in 1995 for drinking alcohol and also for violating the terms of a court-ordered aftgercare program. The events would seem fairly straightforward- a player violates league policy, league eventually pernmanently bans player for multiple violations. Tarpley, however, seems to think that he is a victim here. His suit claims,
Tarpley, who was permanently banned from the NBA in 1995, claimed in his lawsuit that the league and the Mavericks discriminated against him on the basis of his disability as a recovering drug and alcohol abuser.
"Tarpley is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA, in that he has a disability in the form of past drug and alcohol abuse, which substantially limits at least one of his major life activities," as documented in the the 46-page lawsuit, which was filed in Houston federal court.

Since when is coacine and alcohol use a disability? using these products is a choice that Tarpley made, and thus he ought to be willing to bear the consequences as well. No one forced him to partake of alcohol or cocaine, and his initial suspension ought to have warned him that a second violation would bring harsher discipline. Unfortunately, the victim soceity that the trial lawyers are pushing seems to agree with Tarpley. According to the story on Fox Sports, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has agreed with Tarpley that using alcohol and cocaine is a disability.

To me this is a disgrace. Tarpley made his own choices and now does not have the moral strength to accept that his banning from the league was directly due to his own actions. And the EEOC has encouraged this nonsense. Physical limitations should be covered, but choosing to indulge in alcohol or drugs is not a disability in my estimation and I am appalled that the legal profession seems determined to make it so. This is merely one more reason why we need to rein in the lawyers and their enablers in the judiciary. Would that our elected representative had the intestinal fortitude to do that, instead of wasting their time in attempts to curry favor with the green lobby and empty-headed Hollywood celebrities.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Time Gushes Over Ahmadinejad

Does the media have any understanding at all of how important they are to terrorists and other enemies of the United States with their determined moral equivalency? When it comes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the answer appears to be a resounding no. Time Magazine's Richard Stengel provides a glowing puff piece on the Iranian leader, entirely abrogating his responsibility as a reporter to provide any context whatsoever.

Stengel writes of Ahmadinejad,
The invitation was on creamy stationery with fancy calligraphy: The Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran "requests the pleasure" of my company to dine with H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The dinner is at the Intercontinental Hotel — with names carefully written out at all the place settings around a rectangular table. There are about 50 of us, academics and journalists mostly. There's Brian Williams across the room, and Christiane Amanpour a few seats down. And at a little after 8pm, on a day when he has already addressed the U.N., the evening after his confrontation at Columbia, a bowing and smiling Mahmoud Admadinejad glides into the room.

This is now an annual ritual for the President of Iran. Every year, during the U.N. General Assembly in New York, he plots out a media campaign that — in its shrewdness, relentlessness, and quest for attention — would rival Angelina Jolie on a movie junket. And like any international figure, Mr. Ahmadinejad hones his performance for multiple audiences: in this case, the journalists and academics who can filter his speech and ideas for a wider American audience.

This is appalling on a number of fronts. Stengel admits right at the beginning of his puff piece that this entire event is a media opportunity for one of America's greatest enemies to use the American press to get his message out to the American public. He understands exactly what Ahmadinejad is trying to do and enables it anyway! This is the same press that continues to preface United States military announcements of progress with the word 'claim', yet they have no compunctions whatsoever about swallowing Ahmadinejad's propaganda whole. During the event, Stengel writes of Ahmadinejad,

When it comes time for him to address the comments, he does so by citing each speaker by name — 23 in all, he notes. In contrast with what he calls the lack of respect and dignity accorded to him at Columbia — where, he says, he found it odd that an academic institution which prizes tolerance would treat him without any — he addresses each person carefully and patiently. Some highlights
- The US and Iran can play a positive role together in Iraq. "If the US withdraws from Iraq, good things will happen," he says. "I believe that the Iraqi people can rule themselves."
- In the Middle East, Ahmadinejad says the world must allow the Palestinians to decide their future for themselves: "That is the human solution to sixty years of instability." He refers to Israel only as "the Zionist regime" and does not mention the Holocaust.
- Ahmadinejad claims there are thirty newspapers published in Iran that are opposed to his government, citing that as evidence of press freedom in Iran.
- In answer to a question about how he viewed Hitler's legacy, he says, "I view Hitler's role as extremely negative, a despicably dark face."
- He notes that Americans don't understand Iranian history, saying that the movie 300 — with which he seems intimately familiar — was a "complete distortion of Iranian history." Iran, he says, has never invaded anyone in its history.

Stengel allows Ahmadinejad to state each of these ridiculous propositions, and does not question a single one, though his profession is one that seems to demand confrontation, especially in the case of U.S. Republican office-holders. Can anyone imagine an allied foreign leader receiving a similarly approving reaction from the press? Of course not. In fact, as reported by NewsBuster Geoffrey Dickens, Afghani President Hamid Karzai certainly did not receive a friendly welcome from the U.S. press corps, as Meredith Veiera asked repeatedly what was won in Afghanstan. Yet many of the press' major figures allowed Ahmadinejad to make his statements with not so much as a single challenge.

For example, if Stengel and his colleagues were honest reporters, they could have challenged Ahmadinejad on his statement that Iran has never invaded anyone by asking about the ten-year war with Iraq, when both nations did indeed invade the other at times. And the fact that Persia (the ancient name for Iran) did indeed invade a number of other countries (including Greece) is a matter of historical fact. In addition, since Islam's conquering of Persia, Iran has been involved in a number of Islamic invasions of the West, including 1683 at Vienna. And Islam has the most comprehensive record of invasion and destruction of other cultures in history. Yet no reporter asked Ahmadinejad about that.

In addition, Stengel or one of his counterparts (perhaps Christiane Amanpour of CNN, who is so concerned about God's Warriors) could have asked for clarification on Ahmadinejad's comments about allowing Palestinians to decide their future for themselves. Isn't that precisely what Israel is doing? And allowing the Palestinians to decide their own future does not allow them to decide Israel's as well, which has been the sticking point- both Hamas and Fatah call for Israel's destruction as a prerequisite for a Palestinian state. Yet not a single reporter asked Ahmadinejad about that small problem- which the Iranian did not address.

Finally, why did not a single media member at the event ask Ahmadinejad about his comment that if the U.S withdraws from Iraq "good things can happen". What good things, Mr. Ahmadinehad? Good things for whom? Why did not a single reporter try to get clarification?

Stengel ended his piece by writing of Ahmadinejad,
Finally, in response to a question about whether war with Iran was growing more likely, he says, "Mr. Bush is interested in harming Iran. But I believe there are wise politicians in America who will prevent such a war. We hate war. We would not welcome it. But we are prepared for every scenario. Yet I don't think war will happen."
With that, Ahmadinejad says he has an early morning appointment the next day, and that he welcomes greater dialogue like this evening. And then, still composed, and with the same slightly mysterious smile that never leaves his face all evening, he bows deeply and heads upstairs.

I can well imagine he smiled. He had just succeeded in presenting his version of events to a group of American media sheep, and knew that he would receive valuable media time for his propaganda. The American media should be ashamed of themselves. Once, this kind of thing would have been unthinkable. Would the U.S. press have interviewed Adolf Hitler in 1943? Or Tojo Hideki in 1942? Of course not. Why then are the U.S. media so willingly compliant in allowing a man who espouses the destruction of a free Jewish State, whose government is actively engaged in killing American soldiers in Iraq and whose government is attempting to gain nuclear weapons to use them to advance his horrific goals? The only answers I can think of are either political partisanship or simple naivete. Neither bodes well for the future of American journalism. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Propaganda Then & Now

The following is a classic World War II Disney short entitled 'Reason & Emotion'. It represents a time when the United States knew how to produce effective (and largely accurate) propaganda to counter that of our enemies. And it does a much better job of explaining how dictators such as Hitler and would-be dictators like bin Laden gain influence than our so-called intelligentsia today ever could. Pity that our entertainment industry is more concerned about global warming than actually helping the United States win this war against Islamic imperialism.

Hat tip to little green footballs.

Publicist: I Want Osama bin Laden As a Client

Publicists exist to help their clients get their message out to the larger public. As I understand their role, they shape, spin and aotherwise massage their client's actions and words to create a most positive public presence. However, one would expect publicists to be able to differentiate between spoiled actors and other 'celebrities' and murderous terrorists who espouse a global empire based on a particularly barbaric code. In the case of publicist Prada Jones, one would be severely mistaken. Jones' wrote an article at on why she wants to be Osama bin Laden's publicist, and based on her comments, seems to lack both common sense and moral clarity.

Jones fatuously wrote,
He seems like he would be a typical client... always wanting the world to hear what he's got to say. And, he would always be coming up with some new idea or theory for me to publicize. Just like most celebrity clients, he would be somewhat hard to get on the phone.

A typical client? Jones apparently doesn't understand the difference between an actor or fake celebrity such as Paris Hilton, and a man who has masterminded attacks against the United States and Western Europe that have killed thousands of people and injured many more. In addition,why she is so gushing over a mass murderer who doesd not respect women as individuals and who if successful would launch a global empire in which non-Muslims, including women, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and certainly Christians would be relegated to second-class citizenship at best. bin Laden promotes and fights for a State in which all decision would be made by an unelected council of self-appointed imams, just as is the case in Iran and in most other Islamic states.

The amount of ignorance coupled with naivete in Jones gushing nonsense is shocking. One would expect a graduate of high school to have some understanding of the difference between an Islamic terrorist and a narcissistic celebrity such as Hilton or most other Hollywood celebrites. But in this day and age, where moral equivalency is taught as a matter of course, one would be sadly mistaken. This kind of nonsense is hailed as the new tolerance, as its adherents never realize that they are enabling a form of tyranny that compares to that perpetrated by Hitler's Germany. We can only hope they awake before they find themsleves trapped within its grasp. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader GoldenEagle.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Would-be Dhimmis Beware

Many of the liberal left and their media enablers seem to be in a sort of unholy alliance with the Muslim fundamentalists who are actively trying to destroy our culture and make us into dhimmis under a worldwide Islamic caliphate. A word of warning to these useful idiots and sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome: be careful what you wish for.

An article from 2002 in the BBC displays what sort of regime would be our lot if the Islamists should happen to win this war in which we are engaged. According to the BBC, the Saudi religious police allowed fifteen schoolsgirls to die in a fire simply because they were not wearing the headscarves and black robes required for Saudi Arabia's second-class women citizens. As the BBC reported at the time,
Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.


One witness said he saw three policemen "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya".

The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses as saying that the police - known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice - had stopped men who tried to help the girls and warned "it is a sinful to approach them".

But the story gets worse, as it opens a window on the practices of the Muslim police, whose role would be even more invasive in a majority Christian country such as ours if their barbaric and bloody religion shouild happen to win this war of cultures we are waging. The BBC writes,
The religious police are widely feared in Saudi Arabia. They roam the streets enforcing dress codes and sex segregation, and ensuring prayers are performed on time.

Those who refuse to obey their orders are often beaten and sometimes put in jail.

is this what the Democrats are working with to defeat American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is this the ally that the Left is so pleased to welcome to Columbia Uiversity and other once-prestigious unviersities? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was only too happy to wear a submissive headscarf in Syria, though she is outspoken here about allowing Muslims to do as they wish in our country. Does she not see the contrast in how Muslims expect her to bend to their wishes, though they are actively trying to impose their vision of society on us? If Islam will not compromise, why should we be expected to bend over backward to Islamic dreams of empire?

This idiocy must end. We have our own culture, and our own laws. We can boast of a proud tradition of espiousing hhuman rights and we can point to many acheivements both techniocal and philosophical. Islam had a brief time in the sun, but it is by far more renowned for its inhumaity, its misogyny, its bloodthirsty imperialism than for its arts and science. We on the other hand have soared since our small beginnings from a global backwater in Europe. We can point to many achievements in Western Civilization, from the Magna Carta to the abolition of slavery (Saudi Arabia officially abolished slavery in 1956 and Arabs have beeen for centuries the primary slaver societies- remember why we fought the Barbary Wars against Muslim pirate states in the early nineteenth century). We have pioneered the ideals of freedom- something Islam cannot boast of. And no Muslim society has ever come up with anything analogous to our Constitution, with its insistence on rights granted by God, and guranateed by wise governance.

If we would continue to live by those laws, we must be prepared to defend them. Byzantium fell in large part becasue the people as a whole no longer were able to defend themselves. They were more concerned with arguing over the nature of the Trinity than working with other Chrisitans to defend their city from the rapcious hordes of Ottoman emperor Mehmet II. And we ourselves are in danger. We have terrorst-enablers such as the Council on Muslim American Relations working hand-in-hand with anti-American groups like and George Soros' anti-capitalist Open Society. But I remind these useful idiots that should their friends win, they will find them selves at the forefront of the execution queue, for their ideas are complete anathema to the Muslims who are so happy to receive their support now. beware of what you wishe for- especially if you continue to work so hard to make sure it happens.

Flat Tax Succeeds, Media Silent

In the United States, the flat tax has long been an object of complete derision by the media and the Democratic Party. However, as the Investors' Business Daily (IBD) reported in an editorial on Spetember 24, Eastern Europe is rushing to embrace flat taxes and it has already caused massive improvements. Yet the American press has been completely silent. Accident or deisgn? I fear the latter, as it does not fit the media's preferred mold.

However, their silence is becoming increasingly unsustainable. According to the IBD,
In America, cutting tax rates is an ideological issue. In the former Soviet satellites of Europe, it is increasingly not an issue at all — so obvious is it that it gives people better lives.

It began with Estonia in 1994, when Mart Laar as prime minister, thinking he was just emulating the capitalist West, made it the world's first nation in modern times to enact a flat tax. A major fiscal crisis resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union was soon fixed, Estonia was growing at 7% a year and the "Baltic Tiger" was born.


Nearby nations soon began getting their feet wet. First, Latvia and Lithuania, both at rates of about 25%. Then Russia in 2001 enacted a flat tax on personal income at 13%; revenues doubled there in less than three years.

Serbia followed in 2003 with a 14% flat rate. Ukraine set its flat tax at 13% in 2004.

Slovakia activated its 19% flat rate the same year. Romania's flat tax was pegged at 16% in 2005.

Georgia outdid them all, passing a 12% flat tax into law on an overwhelming parliamentary vote just before Christmas 2004. Macedonia's flat tax rate, inaugurated this year, is also 12%.

And the flat tax has improved conditions in every single state that has adopted it. Yet the media and the Democrats continue to claim that our progressive tax code is necessary. Maybe necessary to the reams of tax lawyers, IRS flunkies and people like most Congressmen who can afford to pay others to find the loopholes, but certainly not necessary to ordinary people like me. The flat tax has been proven in Eastern Europe. How much could we increase our economy if only the cowardly politicians in Washington and their socialistic flunkies in the media would actually report honestly on the European experience with the flat tax. They would prefer to sugarcoat the ravages of socialism than tell the truth about a capitalist success, it would seem.

Columbia's Silent Shame

Yesterday, Columbia University invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak as part of their Heads of State series. Leaving aside the impropriety of Ahmadinejad- a Holocaust-denier, supporter of Adolf Hitler's 'final solution' and a member of the force that kidnapped and held American diplomats hostage in 1979- speaking at an American university, the larger shame belongs to the students and faculty of Columbia University.

After Ahmadinejad entered, Columbia President Lee Bollinger addressed the Iranian theocrat in no uncertain terms. During a ten-minute address, Bollinger said,
Mr President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger told Ahmadinejad, accusing him of brutal crackdowns on the country's academics and homosexuals.

"Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?" he asked, challenging the leader of the Islamic republic to explain his comments downplaying the Holocaust.

"Frankly, in all candor Mr President, I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions," he added.

"When you come to a place like this, this makes you quite simply ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," he said.

I happened to hear this address on radio while on my way home and I was struck by the fact that while Bollinger spoke these truths to Ahmadinejad, there was absolute silence in the auditorium. Not one person expressed support for Bollinger's strong statements. Not a single voice was raised in support, though according to some news reports, Ahmadinejad received applause during his address, despite neglecting to answer Bollinger's questions.

So Ahmadinejad received support from the audience. Yet not one member of the audience could show support for Bollinger's strong questioning of the Iranian theocrat, who holds his position only through the threat of force- he has never been honestly elected. Columbia should be ashamed of itself for its poor showing, if there is any shame left in the hearts and minds of these useful idiots of the academy.

Media: Clinton Censorship OK

Is the media hypocritical on censorship when conducted by Democrats versus Republicans? It would seem that this may indeed be the case. The media likes to claim that President George Bush's Administration is clamping down on civil rights, although they have a difficult time citing any actual examples of such. However, when the Clinton campaign really does exercise press censorship, the media is largely silent.

According to the Politico online magazine, GQ magazine was poised to run a story that would have been critical of the Hillary Clinton campaign. This in itself is a relative rarity in the current media. However, by threatening to withold access to former President Bill Clinton, the campaign managed to force GQ to pull the planned story. Editor Jim Nelson then tried to claim that this was normal procedure,
“I don’t really get into the inner workings of the magazine, but I can tell you that yes, we did kill a Hillary piece. We kill pieces all the time for a variety of reasons,” Nelson said in an e-mail to Politico.

He did not respond to follow-up questions. A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment.

This is normal procedure? I can believe that magazines kill stories all the time, but the fact is that no media source would have been willing to kill a story critical of a Republican in return for access to a former president. The Politico claims that Bill Clinton's star status gives his wife's campaign unprecedented power over the press, but I find this rationnale suspicious. The Poliltico also tries to make equivalency by writing,
The 2004 Bush campaign banned a New York Times reporter from Vice President Dick Cheney’s jet, and Sen. Barack Obama threatened to bar Fox News reporters from campaign travel.

Somehow, I cannnot see the equivalence between the 2004 Bush campaign banning a writer who was known to be hostile to the campaign and forcing a media organ to print what a campaign wants to be printed. The one simply denies personal access to the candidate but does not try to influence what is written, whilst the other is actually practicing censorship- something the press claims to be very much opposed to. Even the Politico admits that "But a retreat of the sort GQ is alleged to have made is unusual, particularly as part of what sources described as a barely veiled transaction of editorial leverage for access."

One would think that a press which genuinely wants to defend their editorial freedom would be up in arms over this blatant attempt to shape how events are reported, especially since the spiked story was apparently news, not opinion. However, the majorioty of the media have beeen completely silent on the affair. And unfortunately this is entirely unsurprising.

Let President Bush try to listen to foreign communications and the press screams about First Amendment rights. Let there be discussion of prosecution for publishing illegally leaked national security secrets in the New York Times and the press screams about their freedom to report whatever they see fit. But if Hillary really does exercise censorship, the press emits a collective yawn. Apparenlty Democratic censorship is OK to the Press. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Tokugawas Still Xenophobic

Japan's Tokugawa (徳川) family is descended from Tokugawa Ieyasu (徳川家康), the victor of the Battle of Sekigahara (関ヶ原の戦い) in the year 1600 that finally unified Japan. As such they are one of Japan's most noble families. Aside from Ieyasu's success in finally unifying the country afterthe previous efforts of Oda Nobunaga (織田 信長) and Toyotomi Hideyoshi (豊臣 秀吉), the Tokugawa family is most famous for closing Japan to outside elements for almost three hundred years, until the appearance of Comodore Matthew Perry's 'Black Fleet' in Tokyo Bay in 1852. It appears that almost 150 years of foreign relations has not beeen able to enlighten the family as to the value of others' cultures, as they are opposing their oldest son's marriage to a Vietnamese woman.

According to the Shukan Shincho (週刊新潮),
"He met the Vietnamese woman about 10 years ago," a close pal of Tokugawa's tells Shukan Shincho. "He was working at the FAO's Vietnam office at the time and met her through his work. She comes from a good family. She's petite and pretty. She's a complete contrast to Iehiro, who is only 174 centimeters tall but weighs 105 kilograms. She's 11 years younger than him, too. And she looks even younger still. Iehiro said he fell in love with her charms." Iehiro apparently set his mind on marriage not long after he started dating, and he soon let his parents know of his intentions.
"Iehiro knows that he is a member of the Tokugawa clan and fully realizes exactly what that status entails. He told his parents he spent three years in elementary school in the United States and that he has very liberal ideas about marriage. On top of that, she is the woman he chose," the buddy says. "But Tsunenari, important as head of the clan, and his mother were bitterly opposed. They said they didn't mind if their son dated a foreigner, but there was no way they were going to let him marry one."

So I gather it is OK to toy with foreigners' affections, but never ever think of making a permanent relationship, as they simply aren't good enough for a Japanese family? This is so ridiculous, I hardly know where to begin. Firstly, it is amazing that any family should be so arrogant as to discount the feelings of the objects of their scions affections. And I would say that if this is what they believe, then I would hope that their daughters and sons would suffer heartbreak at the hands of their romantic playthings. After all, all is fair in love or wwar, and this family is due for a fall.

However, the main point seems to me that some families simply cannot accept that foreign families might be as good (or in many cases better) than native. This is true no matter what race or culture one is discussing. However, it is true that many cultures and/or races do tend to prefer their own. And no one culture or race is automatically better than another. One can always find areas to criticise, and it is apparent that some cultures seem to be better at certain things than other cultures. But when one is dealing with individuals, one must learn that any single individual can be as good or as bad as one wishes.

One's nationality, race or color should be secondary to the personality and talents of the individual in question. This is especially true in cases of romantic involvement. Most mature races have learned that lesson. It is a pity that the Tokugawas, for all their historic achievements, apparently have not progressed to that point.

Reuters Can't Research

Journalists like to tell us about their professionalism and the many layers of editors that ensure their accuracy. However, somewhere in those layers of editors, have reporters lost the ability to perform basic research? In the case of Reuters reporter Jeff Mason, it would seem to be so. Mason wrote an article on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Monday speech on global warming, in which he wrote,
President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto accord, saying it unfairly burdened rich countries while exempting developing countries like China and India.

This is a startling revision of history. Apparently Mason forgot, if he ever knew, that although then-President Bill Clinton signed Kyoto, he never submitted the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for ratification. And according to Wikipedia's entry for Kyoto,
The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified.

Mason also neglects to mention the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution against ratifying Kyoto. The Reolution passsed the Senate 95-0 in 1997, and stated that,
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

So to recap, the United States has never 'pulled out' of Kyoto, since we were never in Kyoto. And the treaty, though signed by President Clinton was never submitted to the Senate for ratification since the Senate made clear that they wouldd not ratify Kyoto or any other similar agreement.

All of this information is easily researchable on the Internet, yet Mason neglected to mention it in his rush to accuse President Bush of being anti-environment. Perhaps Mason should tend to his own failings- including learning objectivity and reseach skills before rushing to judgement on easily disprovable accusations such as this. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader Anthony Grafton. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Student Journalists: F*** Bush Editorial Is About Free Speech

Do student journalists understand the difference between free speech and common sense? If they are at Colorado State University, the answer appears to be a resounding no.

According to the Associated Press, the editorial staff of the student-run Colorado State University newspaper The Rocky Mountain Collegian published an editorial which in its entirety read 'Taser This... F*** Bush'. Then the student staff claimed that it was all about free speech,
Collegian Editor David McSwane said a group of seven student editors discussed the statement for several hours before agreeing to publish it.
"We felt it illustrated our point about freedom of speech," McSwane told 7NEWS. "I think we could write 250 words and ramble on and I don't think anyone would pay attention."

So what exactly was their point? Writing 'F*** Bush' makes no point about free speech that I can see- it rather shows the lack of erudition in the Colorado State University Journalism Department, since the students apparently could not create an actual reasoned argument. It shows no courage since it seems to the be the majority viewpoint among reporters and college faculty. Instead, it simply shows the appalling level to which so many so called journalists and journalists in training have sunk. They appear to believe that by running this 'editorial' it somehow makes a statement about free speech. And it also shows the lack of maturity in most journalism departments that apparently no faculty advisor stepped in to talk to these oh-so-brave students about consequences of speech that is designed to offend.

And speech does have consequences- something that apparently these students have never learned. Apparently after they ran the editorial, advertisers responded by pulling advertisements. The AP article states that the Rocky Mountain Collegian lost approximately $30,000 dollars in advertising on the heels of the editorial board's decision to attack a sitting President with foul language. The students were apparently 'extremely disheartened' by the reaction. Perhaps if the students had learned a little about speech and consequences, they would have understood that their viewpoint might not be popular outside their little cocoon and that others might not aggree with their decision- others might see their 'free speech' as a tasteless and pointless attack on an elected President, especially since the students were unable to make a reasoned argument and apparently missed that Bush has not Tasered anyone- it was a Kerry event at which the Tasering occurred.

What the students apparently do not understand is that yes, they have the right to say what they wish, as long as it is protected speech, which their appalling editorial was. However, others also have the right to respond as they see fit, and those who disagreed with the students have every right to refuse to be associated with them or with their newspaper. I am sure that the students think the loss of advertising constitutes censorship, but to me it shows that common sense in Colorado is not entirely missing. The advertisers have every right to react to the newspaper by pulling their ads if the newspaper does not reflect their views.

This event reflects the entire media world. Newspapers and news organizations have bad ratings, are losing their subscribers, and do not enjoy much public confidence. Yet they seem oblivious to the possibility that their skewed and biased coverage, coupled with their significant slant leftward- a slant not shared by the public, might actually have something to do with their dropping revenues. If I were to recommend a remedy, it would be to spend less time genuflecting in front of dictators and more time studying basic economics- starting with how to supply a quality product.

Friday, September 21, 2007

AP: La Raza Is Civil Rights; Minutemen Are Extremist

Can the Associated Press distinguish between racial supremacy groups and civil rights groups? Apparently not. AP writer Maria Sudekum Fisher covers the appointment of 73 year old Frances Semler to Kansas City's parks board, which Fisher opposes because Semler is a member of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. As Fisher writes,
But Frances B. Semler's appointment could now cost the city millions of dollars because she is a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a group that advocates vigilante patrolling of the Mexican border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities. Her membership has drawn sharp criticism from the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group, and the NAACP. Both groups are threatening to show their displeasure by canceling conventions scheduled to be held in Kansas City. "We see the Minutemen as an extremist group that espouses hate and vigilanteism and some violence," said Janet Murguia, president of NCLR. "A member of such a group, no matter how upstanding in other ways, should have no place representing Kansas City."

Although Fisher herself admits that the Minutemen are merely trying to assist in enforcing the United States laws, no counter argument is provided from anyone associated with the Minutemen except Semler, who is allowed merely to respond that
Semler, who said she will not resign, calls the threats from the civil rights groups "the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." She said she joined the Minutemen because of the government's failure to enforce immigration laws. Minutemen members "sit on lawn chairs with binoculars and a can of Coke or something and watch to see if anyone is coming across" the border, Semler said. "I'm not even sure if they're armed, but there might be cases if a person has a legal right to carry a gun."

So Fisher refers to La Raza- an organization analogous to the Ku Klux Klan in that it promotes the advancement of one race over another- as a civil rights group, but allows La Raza to frame the Minutemen as an 'extremist group'. Since Fisher apparently cannot be bothered to perform any real research, I shall assist her.

La Raza is a Spanish word meaning 'The Race'. The National Council of La Raza is a racially-based organization designed to assist and promote Latino interests. It is opposed to all efforts by the United States to enforce it's own immigration laws, and often files legal challenges when communities attempt to evict the illegal aliens in their midst. As the NCLR says on its web site,
NCLR supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes the following principles: 1) a path to citizenship for the current undocumented population; 2) the creation of new legal channels for future immigrant workers; 3) a reduction of family immigration backlogs; and 4) the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. By legalizing immigrants who live, work, and contribute to life in the U.S., the U.S. could deal fairly with hardworking people who have responded to an economic reality ignored by the law. At the same time, the U.S. can become more secure by enforcing the new law and by allowing undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and participate fully in their communities.

NCLR also espouses drivers licenses for illegal immigrats and in general is an organization designed to assist illegals in any way possible.

By contrast the Minutemen are an organization set up to assist in enforcing U.S. law. As their website mission statement says,
To see the borders and coastal boundaries of the United States secured against the unlawful and unauthorized entry of all individuals, contraband, and foreign military. We will employ all means of civil protest, demonstration, and political lobbying to accomplish this goal.
Minutemen often patrol the border to keep watch for illegal crossings, but as they state on their website,
"Supported by a new and expanded national support team, The Minuteman Corps will observe and report suspected illegal border crossings to the proper authorities. As always, they will maintain a "no contact" policy with the humanitarian exception of providing emergency water to those illegal aliens found in distress in the wilderness.

So let's recap- an organization that promotes enforcing existing law and tries to secure our borders using civil protest, lobbying and demonstration and which works closely with law enforcement versus an organization that wants all current illegals to be made citizens, opposes border enforcement, opposes allowing cities and towns to determine if illegals are good for them. Yet Fisher allows La Raza to call the Minutement extreme, while not allowing any response, save a vague comment from Semler. Either Fisher is completely naive, or she is pushing an agenda. Based on her article, I would have to say the latter. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader Rick Sander. Cross-posted on StoneHeads.

UPDATE: Using the Ku Klux Klan as an analogy to La Raza was inappropriate, for which I apologize. As I was reminded by Tim Graham, the KKK's record of violence is not something that La Raza has emulated. However, as I was considering that, it occurred to me that I cannot think of a truly analogous group that advocates Caucasian racial preference as the NAACP does for blacks and La Raza and MeCHA do for Hispanics. If anyone can come up with a similar organization to La Raza on the Caucasian side of the aisle, please let me know.

Still Rather Complaining

Dan Rather apparently cannot tell when he crosses from simple hilarity to the realms of ridicule. Apparently not content with suing CBS, claiming that the network scapegoated him after he presented a false story that sought to impugn President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era Texas Air National Guard service, Rather made the astonishing claim today that government and large corporations were the primary reasons that he was removed as anchor of CBS Evening News. As reported by the Associated PRess, Rather told CNN's Larry King that government and large corporations have influence in newsrooms. According to the AP story,
Dan Rather said Thursday that the undue influence of the government and large corporations over newsrooms spurred his decision to file a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and its former parent company.
"Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news," he said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

So government has influence in newsrooms? Government was unable to prevent the New York Times from spilling national security secrets on at least two separate occasions last year, despite requests from elected officials on both sides of the aisle. And government certainly has not been able to influence the remorseless and uncalled for attacks on this Administration, nor has government managed to halt the relentless one-sided reporting engaged in by all the major networks on the campaign in Iraq. Nor has government been able to make the media wake up and cover events that actually deserve coverage, such as the Holy Land Foundation trial ongoing in Dallas, nor the case of the Flying Imams, nor the close ties of an elected official, Keith Ellison, to the Nation of Islam and the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR)- the latter of which is an organization that has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case.

Big corporations? Of course news outlets are corporations that exist, in the infamous words of the Harry Potter journalist Rita Skeeter, 'to sell themselves". And there is no questions that they are always trying to better their sales. But the ideological content of the newsrooms- proven time and again to be far to the left of the general public has also caused these organizations' sales to fall, and not one of the news organizations in questions has tried to determine why their sales are constantly falling, though it has been posited in many places that the lack of balance in most if not all the so-called mainstream media. Certainly business decisions can affect coverage, but the wrioters seem oblivious to how their out-of-touch opinionating has causede their employers' stock to suffer. So we can discount this as well.

In short, Rather seems to have finally slipped over the edge into true paranoia. Regarding the panel that investigated his work on the fake Guard story, he told Larry King,
"This was in many ways a fraud. It was a setup," he told King.

It was Rather's own attempted setup of a sitting President and the blind ideological focus of his team, especially his producer Mary Mapes, who had been apparently chasing this non-story for five years, that caused Rather's fall. Yet he cannot even admit that he was wrong- all he can do is cast paranoid theories to his sympathizers. Nor can he take responsibility for his own actions. Rather and Mapes tried to take down a President and ended up ending their own careers. That is no one's fault but their ownm, and their sad attempts to blame other simply reveal their lack of maturity and ability to take responsibility for their own actions. This lawsuit and the wild claims accompnaying it are just the latest attempt to shift the blame for something that was entirely of Rather's own making.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Remember Sergeant Jeffers

Sergeant Eddie Jeffers was killed in Iraq yesterday. Most of my readers probably don't know who Sergeant Eddie Jeffers was. Maybe they don't care- they never met him, and now they never will. But Sergeant Jeffers was a man who counted, a man who fouhgt even while he recognized that many of his countrymen could not or would not participate in the fight with him.

Let me tell you about Sergeant Jeffers. I never met him either, but I wish I had. He was a man who understood what counts, and a man of honor I would gladly stand beside. And though he was only 23 when he was killed, he had a more mature and responsible outlook on life and the war in which we are engaged than many of his countrymen, no matter their age or their supposed intelligence. Bloviating fools like Senator Edward Kennedy, or Representative Nancy Pelosi, or media hacks like Chris Matthews lack Sgt. Jeffers' comprehension. But maybe it is not too late even for such as they.

Back in February, Sergeant Jeffers penned a piece for the New Media Journal entitled Hope Rides Alone, wherein he introduced his readers to his life and how he views those who for political or partisan gain, or though ignorance are helping the enemies of this country. Regarding his ignorant countrymen and women back home, Sgt. Jeffers wrote,
People like Cindy Sheehan are ignorant. Not just to this war, but to the results of their idiotic ramblings, or at least I hope they are. They don't realize its effects on this war. In this war, there are no Geneva Conventions, no cease fires. Medics and Chaplains are not spared from the enemy's brutality because it's against the rules. I can only imagine the horrors a military Chaplain would experience at the hands of the enemy. The enemy slinks in the shadows and fights a coward’s war against us. It is effective though, as many men and women have died since the start of this war. And the memory of their service to America is tainted by the inconsiderate remarks on our nation's news outlets. And every day, the enemy changes...only now, the enemy is becoming something new. The enemy is transitioning from the Muslim extremists to Americans. The enemy is becoming the very people whom we defend with our lives. And they do not realize it. But in denouncing our actions, denouncing our leaders, denouncing the war we live and fight, they are isolating the military from society...and they are becoming our enemy.

Democrats and peace activists like to toss the word "quagmire" around and compare this war to Vietnam. In a way they are right, this war is becoming like Vietnam. Not the actual war, but in the isolation of country and military. America is not a nation at war; they are a nation with its military at war. Like it or not, we are here, some of us for our second, or third times; some even for their fourth and so on. Americans are so concerned now with politics, that it is interfering with our war.

But Sgt. Jeffers has room for hope, despite the sickening cowardice or partisanship of so many in this country. He concluded his piece by saying,
We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. Not a place where their children will be abducted, raped and murdered if they do not comply with the terrorists demands. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them the opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor...we cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand up and fight, whether in uniform or not. And supporting us is more than sticking yellow ribbon stickers on your cars. It's supporting our President, our troops and our cause.

Right now, the burden is all on the American soldiers. Right now, hope rides alone. But it can change, it must change. Because there is only failure and darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn't.

Let's stop all the political nonsense, let's stop all the bickering, let's stop all the bad news and let's stand and fight!

Isn't that what America is about anyway?

Isn't it? When did we cease being a nation that understood the darkness that is Muslim, or any totalitarian aggression? During World War II, we understood the stakes, and although we might have differed on strictly domestic issues, as certainly the Republicans did at that time, we stood together- no one made Roosevelt's handling of the war an issue during the campaigns of that time. When did it become acceptable to call a sitting President a Fascist, or call a commanding general a traitor?

We need more like Sergeant Eddie Jeffers, more men and women who understand the stakes and are willing to stand up against that darkness that threatent to overwhelm the world, as it has tried so many times before. But Sergeant Jeffer is right. Let's take his advice and stop the bickering. Give the troops what they need to win. Imperialist Islam is like a Hydra- cut off one head and many more appear, but it is cowardly at its heart- it will not attack those it perceives as stronger. We can only be defeated by ourselves. That is what the enemy hopes for- they know that they can never defeat us on a battlefield. So let us stand together and deny them that victory. And let us honor men and women like Sergeant Jeffers, for they stand between us and a barbarism like none the world has known for many a long year. May God rest your soul, Segeant Jeffers, and thank you, thank you for everything.

Rather Whiny

Dan Rather stepped down as anchor of CBS Evening News due to his complicity in a report thatused forged and falsified documents to accuse George W. Bush of neglecting his duties as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Although Rather was not fired, he was forced to step down as anchor by the public fallout, and his career came to a fairly ignoble end.

One would think that Rather might have understood that one does not make provably false claims against a sitting U.S. President in the heat of an election and hope to come out looking good. One would be incorrect. The New York Times is reporting today that Rather has filed suit against CBS for 70 million dollars. According to the Times,
Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on “60 Minutes” after forcing him to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005. He also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, “seriously damaged his reputation.”

The suit, which seeks $70 million in damages, names as defendants CBS and its chief executive, Leslie Moonves; Viacom and its executive chairman, Sumner Redstone; and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News

So Dan Rather, after trying to use the power of the media to falsely accuse a President of something that he did not do, and using shoddy an biased source material, which even CBS had to admit was not authenticated, he has the gall to accuse his network of using bias against him! This, while he stands as one of the most, if the the most, biased reporters in the sad history of the portwar American media. Only the false stories filed by Walter Duranty in Ukraine and Walter Cronkite on the Tet can surpass Rather's years of biased reporting.

Carter Says Iran No threat To Israel- Too Far Away

Proving once again that common sense is no prerequisite for occupying any government office, let alone the White House, former President Jimmy Carter said today that Iran was no threat to Israel. According to Breitbart News,
Former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday that it was almost inconceivable that Iran would "commit suicide" by launching missiles at Israel.
Speaking at Emory University, Carter, who brokered the 1979 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt, said Israel's superior military power and distance from Iran likely are enough to discourage an actual attack.

"Iran is quite distant from Israel," said Carter, 83. "I think it would be almost inconceivable that Iran would commit suicide by launching one or two missiles of any kind against the nation of Israel."

This displays a level of ignorance and naivete that I find almost unbelievable. Of course, Carter is not known for his political understanding. Iran's physical distance from Israel is irrelevant, when one considers that the commander of Iran's air force said yesterday that Israel is within range of Iranian medium-range missiles. In addition, Iran's president has said on a number of occasions that Israel should be destroyed. The belligernat statements emanating from Tehran seem to indicate that Iran thinks it can indeed destroy Israel without suffering serious damage to itself.

Israel is at risk, in part due to Carters' own feckless foreign policy, and his failure to act when Iran committed an act of war agsint the United States by seizing its embassy in 1979. the ramifications of that act are still unfolding and ultimately it is my belief that we are going to have to fight Iran, unless the population removes the mullahs before we have to go in with our own forces, which I find unlikely. The only thing that Carter's outburst does at this stage is reinforce his image as America's worst ex-President, and confirms us in our wisdom that Jimmy Carter is not to be trusted where his own country's intersts are concerned. He is more likely to give them away as he did the Panama Canal than to actually stand up and fight for his fellow countrymen.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

New Journalists Missing Moral Clarity

Journalists are responsible for presenting the news of the day to ordinary citizens. Their requirements include objectivity and analysis. However, they are also expected to understand the difference between a mass-murderer who espouses a form of global slavery and an elected leader of the freest country on Earth. Unfortunately, it appears that Ryan Yeoman, of the Central Connecticut State University does not have that understanding. Writing today in the opinion pages of The Recorder, Central Connecticut State's college newspaper, Yeomans states,
As of late, if you were to bring up the president in a discussion you would find that many Americans disapprove of the decisions he has made. At the same time, Osama bin Laden presents many good arguments against the president and many of his reasons for disapproving of Bush are similar to those of anti-Bush Americans. Would it be wrong to assume that there is some kind of connection between feelings of the American people and those of Osama bin Laden? As I would love to make this connection, I ultimately cannot because of the actions of our president. If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed.

In finding myself in this predicament, I questioned myself as to who the lesser evil actually is. I ask, “Who has done more damage to the lives of the American people?” Personally, I worry more about the next bad decision Bush is going to make than I worry about a potential Osama bin Laden organized terrorist attack.

One thing I have realized from these videos is that while Osama bin Laden remains free, Americans are slowly becoming bound by the decisions of the president to remove and restrict the rights given to us by our knowledgeable forefathers, without whom we would not be here. I can only hope that Americans will open their eyes and see what is in front of them, in order to prevent things from getting out of hand any further.

This writer displays such a lack of common sense that it is difficult to know where to start deconstructing. Let's take his statement that "Americans are slowly becoming bound by the decisions of the president to remove and restrict the rights given us by our knowledgeable forefathers". Mr. Yeomans, precisely what rights has the president removed from American citizens? I cannot think of a single right enumerated in the Constitution that Mr. Bush has either removed or restricted. In fact, the courts have created new rights for our enemies that have never existed previously, such as access to the US court system.

Yeomans also complains that although he agrees with bin Laden, "If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed." Well, actually no. Free speech is protected, though advocating the assassination or other violence against the president is a federal crime and has been since long before the Bush Administration. I have not noticed any anti-war/pro-Islamic protestors being placed in prison for speaking their minds, and certainly the folks who masterminded the 'Bush-as-Hitler' campaign are still free. If Mr. Yeomans were communicating with foreign nationals connected to terror via international phone calls, then yes, those calls could be and probably should be tapped. But tapping domestic calls (those are calls with both ends within the United States, as opposed to international calls, which have at least one end in a foreign country) require a warrant- no matter how many Democratic talking points bin Laden parrots.

However, the most startling aspect of this opinion piece is the complete lack of understanding betrayed by the writer. This is someone who will be entering the journalistic world and will be responsible for portraying the news to his fellow Americans. Yet, he displays the most astonishing lack of ability to differentiate between an elected leader who is bound (and who has followed) the law, and who has two other branches of the government overseeing him as well, and an unelected terrorist who wants a global Islamic caliphate, containing no rights whatsoever for non-Muslims. A leader who masterminded the attacks on September 11, 2001 that killed over three thousand American citizens. And Yeomans appears to be ignorant of how bin Laden's videos have increasingly adopted Democratic Party talking points, as he tries to elect a party that would be much easier to defeat than the current Adminstration.

It used to be that college students were taught the difference between murderous barbarians such as bin Laden and elective republics such as we. There is a difference between forces that refuse to wear uniforms, who hide amongst civilians and who behead and torture their enemies (the Muslims) as opposed to a society that adheres to a rule of law, wears uniforms, fights under a flag, and who actually provides their captives with food, Korans and exercise (the United States)- none of which privileges are granted to those unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of the Islamists. Mr. Yeomans has an understanding neither of history, which provides the context for bin Laden and his allies, nor for the proper use of force, which is often the only resort against aggression such as that espoused by bin Laden and his allies. Proper use of force saved Europe from Islamic aggression many times, beginning in 732 at the battle of Tours, and most recently in 1683 in the siege of Vienna.

If Mr Yeomans is the future of American journalism, then American journalism has fallen a long way since the days of Ernie Pyle. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Newsweek Shills For Smart Cars

The Smart car, a tiny two-seater produced by Mercedes-Benz, is being released in the United States, and Newsweek decided to celebrate by shilling for the supposedly socially-conscious vehicle. Newsweek allowed Smart's U.S. president David Schembri essentially free space to advertise in what is being represented as a news column.

Reporter Tara Weingarten served up softballs such as "With just two seats, it’s the perfect car for the friendless. And you don’t have to be nice and offer people rides." Weingarten also allowed Schembri to get away with such marketing-speak as,
You can help out other drivers by taking up a smaller parallel parking space, consume less fuel, thereby helping the environment, and feel great about it. Why is that bad?

Weingarten did not challenge Schembri by pointing out that parking spaces are unlikely to be resized for a car such as Smart, and thus a smaller car does not really help out any other drivers- it is more equivalent to a motorcycle taking up a single normal-sized parking space. She also failed to follow up on what was potentially her toughest question- asking Schembri about the Smart's safety features if involved in a collision with a large vehicle such as an SUV. Schembri replied that,
But the Smart will work hard to protect you. The safety management system of the Smart is a safety cell, a reinforced steel cage that acts very much like a NASCAR roll cage. You’ll notice that you sit up high, eye-to-eye with other drivers, so this also allows crash energy to be absorbed underneath the car. And there are standard safety features that are usually found only in luxury automobiles, like the electronic stability program, four front airbags, including head and thorax protection, ABS brakes and something called electronic brake-force distribution that helps the car stop fast. This is a tough car. It’s David vs. Goliath.

Weingarten allowed him a pass on that statement, instead of comparing the Smart's safety features with those of other environmentally popular vehicles such as Toyota's Prius or Honda's Civic hybrid, both of which are more standard-sized cars than the Smart. Another feature Weingarten did not discuss was the Smart's complete lack of storage space. As a musician myself, I would rather drive a car with some storage space (and maybe room for some extra band members to reduce parking) than something like the Smart that has room neither for other passengers nor for any luggage of any real consequence. But I found Weingarten's shameless enabling to be the worst part of the article. Can anyone imagine a similar scenario if the interviewee were a member of one of the US automobile companies?

Overall, it seems Newsweek's motives were more to push yet another elite-supported 'green' product than to make an attempt to provide honest and objective reporting. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Barry Manilow: Conservatives 'Dangerous'

Barry Manilow epitomizes the liberal reaction to being forced to share a stage with someone with whom he disagrees- instant flight! Manilow is apparently cancelling his scheduled appearance on the mostly-liberal gabfest show 'The View' because new host Elizabeth Hasselbeck is a conservative. According to TMZ, Manilow said of Hasselbeck,
In an exclusive statement to TMZ, Barry says, "I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her."

So it seems that is is perfectly acceptable for liberals and/or Democrats to only go where their views will not be challenged, isn't it, Barry? I seem to recall the major Democratic candidates for President refusing to appear in a Fox-sponsored debate because they consider Fox 'right-wing'. I suspect that the real reason was that they might actually have to answeer questions that are not softballs about how terrible George W. Bush is and how unfeeling/corrupt/warmongering/[insert your preferred criticism here] the Republicans are. It seems to be a liberal failing to be unable to handle a frank exchange of disagreeing viewpoints. Maybe it is because they are so used to having a liberal echo chamber in the mainstream media?

However, if a Republican were to refuse to go on, say CNN due to the left-wing viewpoints espoused by so many of CNN's reporters and talking heads, the liberal media would scream. It seems that liberals and the media want completely free speech for what ever they emote, no matter how offensive or untrue, but cannot grant that privielege to anyone with whom they disagree. Remind me again about liberlas' support of 'free speech'? It seems that only they are entitled to free speech- anyone who might be *gasp* a conservative is not granted that right. I'm wondering when the media will denigrate Manilow's cowardice as he surely deserves. I won't hold my breath. Cross-posted at NewsBusters.

Rediscovering Faith In the Face of Evil

Islam has always yearned to own and control the ancient lands of Europe. They have tried many, many times to conquer the West, beginning in 715 with the invasion of Spain and most recently in front of Vienna in 1683. With nuclear weapons, a vast population and a new generation of leaders who see the West as weak, sonner or later they may well succeed. The question is, what should the West, principally the United States, do about these barbarians?

Writing in the American Conservative, James Pinkerton has an audacious answer- revive Christendom and make a Council of the West to defend Christians around the world from the rapacious and bloody grasp of Islam. Channleing JRR Tolkien, Pinkerton suggests that the West take a page from the Council of Elrond, which brought together the races and groups- Men, Elves, Hobbitts- who opposed the evil of Sauron. Pinkerton proposes that the West do something similar to forge a grand council to oppose Islam and secure the West, while leaving the East to do what it will. Pinkerton writes,
Two years ago, the Eurocrats in Brussels drafted a 300-page EU constitution that consciously omitted reference to Europe’s specifically Christian heritage. The voters of France, as well as Holland, rejected that secular document.

Maybe there’s a lesson here. The people of Europe might not be so eager, after all, to declare that they are “united in diversity.” What does that phrase mean, anyway? How about trying to find something that unites Europeans in unity? How about a revival of Christendom as a concept—as a political concept? A revival, or at least a remembrance, of Europe’s cultural heritage could be the healing force that Europe needs.

After all, it worked in the past. In the words of the 19th-century French historian Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, the victory of Christianity marked “the end of ancient society”—and all the petty divisions that went with it. Fustel de Coulanges continues, “Man felt that he had other obligations besides that of living and dying for the city. Christianity distinguished the private from the public virtues. By giving less honor to the latter, it elevated the former; it placed God, the family, the human individual above country, the neighbor above the city.”

As history proves, a larger communion can be built on such sentiments. In the 9th century, Alcuin of York declared that the crowning of Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor would bring forth a new Imperium Christianum. Ten centuries later, Hilaire Belloc asserted, “The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith.” Indeed, during those many centuries, Europe enjoyed a pretty good run. Only in the last century—the century of atheists, psychiatrists, and National Socialists—has Europe’s survivability come into question. Today, the Christian author Os Guiness puts the issue plainly: “A Europe cut off from its spiritual roots cannot survive.”

Some will smile at the thought that Christianity might be part of the solution to the problems of the Third Millennium. Admittedly, there’s an element of faith in the idea of trying to revive the idea of Christian unity. But Christendom is the Shire Strategy, applied.

But what about the groups who are neither Christian nor Mulsim? What about the Buddhist Chinese, Japanese and Korean? What about the Hindi Indians? These groups also are threatened by resurgent Islam. As the Indians know, Islam has no preferences- India was under the Muslim Mughal emperors for centuries. Pinkerton suggests that as long as Christians do not seek to expand their own lands by conquest, then Christians, Buddhists and Hindus can work together to surround Islam and force it to stay within it's own boundaries. As he says,
No matter what we say or do, the blocs of Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese are all going their separate cultural ways, rediscovering their own unique heritages. And Islam, of course, is at odds with all of its neighbors. In his book a decade ago, Huntington, mindful of the indirect danger posed by American universalism, was even more mindful of the direct danger posed by Muslims: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards,” he writes. “Muslim bellicosity and violence are late-twentieth century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny.” That’s bad news, but there’s a silver lining: if Westerners, Russians, Africans, Hindus, and Chinese all feel threatened by Islam—and they all do—there’s plenty of opportunity for a larger encircling alliance, with an eye toward feasible strategies of containment, even quarantine. But not conquest, not occupation, not “liberation.”

Not everyone will agree with Pinkerton- for example, I suspect that the West is less reliable than the Anglosphere, but his suggestions are certainly a possibility, if only Europe will raise its collective head from the sands and realize the danger in which it stands. The Hagia Sophia, one of Christendom's greatest church, was turned into a mosque on the Muslim capture of Christian Constantinople in 1453. Today, it is a museum, but Chirstians are not permitted to worship within its hallowed walls. Could we face Muslims worshipping in the halls of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome? Diversity and multiculturalism are a recipe for cultural suicide in the face of an Islam that thinks it is finally in position to destroy the one region that has always resisted it and has surpassed it so badly in ther last few centuries. If the West does nto awake, there won't be a West. Freedom of press, dress, behavior and the ability to worship as one chooses are integral to the West. They are anathem to Islam.

Read the whole thing and make your own decision. One way or another, we will be faced with a murderous and religiously inspired Islamic world against us sooner or alter. How we deal with it will determine whether we survive or not. Hat tip to Jerry Pournelle.

Friday, September 14, 2007

Media Not Interested In American Islamists

Is the mainstream media uninterested in radical Islamists in America? Recent events would seem to indicate that that may indeed be the case.

Today, according to the Dearborn, Michigan Press & Guide, a Muslim medical student named Houssein Zorkot was arrested while wearing full combat gear and carrying an AK-47 rifle. His website contained a plethora of anti-American imagery and included shots of him posing with a picture of Hezbollah leader Sheik Nasrallah. Of course, the local media neglected to mention the Islamic connection when reporting Zorkot's arrest. He was identified only as a 'third-year medical student'. The Press & Guide appears to think that ostrich-like behavior is the best course of action when confronted by murderous barbarians like Zorkot and his Muslim allies. So far not a single national news organ has picked up this story. This is all too similar to the story of North Carolina terrorist Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, whose clear motivation for his act of terror was his religion. Despite Taheri claiming that 'Allah is my lawyer' and similar phrases, the local ABC affiliate did not post a single reference to his religion in their story on the attack.

Simultaneously, it appears that the case of the US government against the Holy Land Foundation- a Muslim organization strongly linked with the fundamentalist Muslim organization the Muslim Brotherhood- has managed to fly beneath the mainstream press' mention. Fortunately, despite the disinterest of the major media ogans, Rod Dreher has been attending this trial. As reported by Dreher in the Dallas Morning News,
"Our strategy is this," President Bush said last month. "We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America."

He was talking about jihadists, of course. And Mr. Bush is behind the curve. The president apparently missed the smoking-gun 1991 document his own Justice Department introduced into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas. The FBI captured it in a raid on a Muslim suspect's home in Virginia.

This "explanatory memorandum," as it's titled, outlines the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Here's the key paragraph:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

Although virtually ever single American Muslim organization- the Council on Muslim American Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim American Society (MSA) are intricately involved in the Muslim Borhterhood's attempt to destroy the United States and all other Western nations from within, not a single majro media outlet has managed to report on this amazing trial as yet.

As Dreher concludes in his article,
As long as they commit no crimes, CAIR, ISNA and the other Brotherhood-related groups have the right to advocate for their beliefs. But they don't have the right to escape critical scrutiny, and they deserve informed opposition. Courageous Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are sounding the alarm about radical Islam's stealth takeover of U.S. Muslim institutions. Why are the news media ignoring this? Fear of being called Islamophobic?

This has got to stop. Six years after 9/11, we're still asleep. Islamic radicals have declared war on us – and some are fighting here in what looks like a fifth column. Read their strategy document. It's there in black and white, for those with eyes to see.

I agree. The media has too long ignored these groups who claim victimhood. Muslims claimed that the Spetember 11 attacks created a backlash, and the media appears to have bought this argument hook, line and sinker. Since then, they have bent over backwards to avoid exposing the unseemly and downright dangerous motives that underlie many, if not all of these groups. Is it because exposing these groups' ideology would actually buttress the President's claim that the war on Islamic terror really is global? DOes partisanship take precedence over protecting our own country and way of life? Or is it because the media are frightened? What ever the cause, the media must remove their blinders regarding the terrorists in ouir midst, and the organizations that try to manipulate Americans' freedoms to destroy us from within. Cross-posted at NewsBusters.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Marshall Prof: Media Not Liberal

Marshall University psychology professor W. Joseph Wyatt should probably stick to psychology as opposed to attempting media analysis. However, he has decided to write an op-ed in the West Viriginia Herald Dispatch claiming that media bias is a myth.

Professor Wyatt begins by claiming that,
However, a 2002 Gallup poll showed that slightly more than a third of journalists describe themselves as Democrats, meaning that the vast majority are something else, and unlikely to be liberal.

Unfortunately for the good professor, a 2007 Gallup poll as reported in the American Journalist actually found that,
When it came to the subject of party affiliation, 36% of the journalists said they were Democrats in 2002 compared with 44% in 1992. (That’s the lowest percentage of self-proclaimed Democrats since 1971.) The percentage of Independents dropped slightly from 1992 to 2002 and the ranks of Republicans grew incrementally from 16% to 18%.

So we have 36 percent Democrat, 18 percent Republican and 40 percent 'independent'. Since reporters tend to think that 'independent' usually means 'progressive', we can safely asssume that most ofd these self-described 'independents' actually vote mostly or entirely Democratic. And there is no doubt, as the poll concludes, that journalist are much more liberal than the general population. The same poll reported that, "If newsrooms have moved slightly rightward, the research shows, however, that journalists are still more liberal than their audiences. According to 2002 Gallup data in “The American Journalist,” only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward, and 41% identified themselves as tilting to the right. In other words, journalists are still more than twice as likely to lean leftward than the population overall."

Professor Wyatt continues by claiming that the media gave an equal amount of time and space to Bill Clinton's well-documented lie about having sex with intern Monica Lewinsky annd what he characterizes as Bush's "lie about wiretapping. Wyatt writes,
Over the next 66 days, his lie was replayed on the major news networks (CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC) five times as often as was Bush's lie about wiretapping ("Any time you hear the United States government talking about a wiretap, it requires ... a court order.") in the 66 days after it had been revealed.

This would be interesting, but the facts are that President Clinton did indeed lie. However, to characterize President Bush's wiretap comment as a lie is to betray a misunderstanding of truth and falsehood. Bush's statement was made in the context of discussing roving wiretaps- he was also specifically discussing domestic comunications. What he actually said was,
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

I remind the good professor that the widely misunderstood NSA program (which he does not directly mention but to which he is clearly alluding) focused on calls one end of which was in a foreign country. By definiteion, those are not domestic calls, not matter how hysterical the media wants to get. So Bush's statement, taken in context, was not a lie, whereas Clinton's clearly was. In that context, to state that the media gave as much attention to Bush's statement as Clinton's actually reinforces the fact that the media focused more on Bush's comments, which were not lies, than Clinton's which clearly were. And I don't see Professor Wyatt even discussing the furor over the famous 'sixteen words' which were by no stretch of the imagination a lie. And those sixtenn words received far more attention than Clinton's provable falsehoods.

Professor Wyaatt then proceeds into the realms of hysteria, claiming that,
Last October, President Bush signed the controversial Military Commissions Act. That new law allowed the president, free of oversight, to order any American citizen to be snatched off the street, imprisoned without being charged, held without notice to his family, without hearing evidence against him, without access to a lawyer -- forever. The law was a shot across the bow of Americans' rights like no other in memory.

The good professor completely mis-states what the Act does. It does not apply to American citizens, who remain unaffected by the provisions of the act. It specifically applies only to aliens who are unlawful combatants. The summary of the Act itself clearly states that,
Amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to codify and establish procedures governing the use of commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants (combatants) engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses specifically made triable by commissions under this Act. Defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as a person who has: (1) engaged in or supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant; or (2) been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or other tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense (Secretary). Defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as a person who is a member of: (1) the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States; (2) a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or (3) a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

Not content with mis-stating the purpose of the Military Commissions Act, Professor Wyatt then descends into the fever swamps, claiming,
DeLay, under indictment for money laundering, recently told the NBC "Today" show audience that the media frenzy relative to Sen. Larry Craig's public bathroom activities are never cast on Democrats. Really? Maybe DeLay somehow missed the media feast on the Clinton-Lewinski matter.

The Clinton-Lewinsky matter, if the good professor recalls, was broken by Matt Drudge, at which point the mainstream media could no longer ignore it. They did do their best to avoid reporting on it. And can anyone claim that Democrats receive the same treatment as Republicans? Senator Craig's party identification was blazoned from every headline. Does the professor remember how the Swift boat vets, who had legitimate questions about John kerry's fitness to be Commander-in-Chief, and all of whom were willing to be identified, received far less favorable media attention than an anonymous source with forged docuemnts puporting to prove that George Bush did not fulfill the conditions of his National Guard service? And I am still waiting for most of the mainstream media to include Representative William Jeffferson's (Democrat) in most stories. I also don't recall Rhode Island Democratic Representative Patrick Kennedy's DUI getting anywhere near the Craig-level coverage from the mainstream media.

Wyatt's op-ed is merely the childish complaints of the neighborhood bully who no longer has his uway uninhibited by countering forces. Hat tip to NewsBuster reader Michael Fidanza. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Common Sense Lacking in North Carolina Schools

Apparently the school administration in North Carolina has completely forsaken any attempt at using common sense. According to North Carolina's NBC17 news channel, school administrators banned students from wearing clothing displaying the American flag. Apparently this is a new rule, and thought the news story does not say, it appears to have beeen placed into efect just before the Sepatember 11 anniversary, as a student who wished to wear an American flag to school was dissuaded by her mother. In attempting to justify this monumental idiocy,
The superintendent of schools in Sampson County calls the situation unfortunate, but says educators didn’t want to be forced to pick and choose which flags should be permissible.

"Having to pick and choose"???? Where have these people been? Do we not live in the United States? Are not our students citizens of this great country? If this is true, then why should they be banned from wearing their own country's flag? Allowing students to wear clothing displaying the American flag should not even be a question. How low have we fallen when our own flag is treated on the same basis as a foreign country's flag. Students shouldd be allowed to wear American flags whenever they wish- after all, if burning the flag is apparently constitutionally protected, then how can wearing clothing displaying the flag not be permissible?

the root problem, of course, is not really that adminstratorss actually equate the U.S. flag on the swame level as other countries' banners (though I suspect that for many of these so-called educators, they would prefer to see the US flag placed less prominently than say, the flag of Russia), but that they fear lawsuits from such anti-American organizations as the ACLU or La Raza if they dared to actually allow students to wear the US flag while not allowing them to wear the Mexican flag.

Until we bring some common sense back into the judicial system and stop allowing groups whose agendas are clearly against the mainstream of American thought to threaten lawsuits, I fear we will continue to see situationss like this.