More TSA Follies

I have long maintained that the TSA is a massive scam to get unqualified people jobs in the federal government. And the fact is that TSA has managed a complete and epic FAIL at it's core mission. Consider the following:

• TSA has not caught a single would-be terrorist such as the crotch bomber since its institution. All of the serious attempts have been stopped by passengers on the lookout for suspicious activity. TSA has not stopped a single one. But they 're sure good at strip-searching kids, women and disabled people!


• TSA screeners routinely miss at least 70 percent of bombs and weapons in tests. But they are really good at putting kids on no-fly lists. And then insulting the family of said kids on the official TSA blog.

This is pretty good evidence that TSA, at least as currently constituted, is a useless waste of everyone's time and money. The so-called screeners are inefficient, ignorant (they cannot seem to differentiate musical instruments from bombs), arrogant when questioned, arbitrary, fond of cruel jokes that would get a passenger arrested and completely inconsistent in their methodology not only between different airports but even between different screeners AT THE SAME AIRPORT!!!

However, it seems that TSA screeners also are busy engaging in pre-adolescent humor as to their colleagues private parts. Humor that resulted in violence. For our far-left Obama propagandists at MSNBC, the New York Times, CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC, that would be real, physical violence - the kind caused by leftist protests like those against Arizona's attempt to actually enforce existing immigration law - as opposed to the entirely nonexistent violence the media keeps breathlessly claiming the Tea Partiers MIGHT cause. some day. As (unexpectedly) reported by the NBCMiami.com website,

A TSA worker in Miami was arrested for aggravated battery after police say he attacked a colleague who'd made fun of his small genitalia after he walked through one of the new high-tech security scanners during a recent training session.

So, to recap. TSA employees are perfectly fine mocking, insulting and thoroughly inconveniencing travelers while managing to miss ever serious threat to this country's security. Oh, and they also apparently enjoy child porn - the TSA is pushing to electronically strip search your child (and your spouse, of course). But when their own personal body parts are mocked (with admittedly juvenile and exceedingly crude humor), they immediately think it is OK to resort to violence.

Hmmm. So, what does this tell us about the TSA? Well, for this writer it confirms that this is an agency that never should have existed in the first place and ought to be disbanded as soon as possible. Return all these incompetents to the depths from which they came (probably welfare for most of them based on their demonstrated lack of intelligence). And the bloviating members of Congress who thought this was an excellent idea should be forced to fly coach class (especially including Speaker Pelosi) without access to any VIP treatment at all domestic airports. Perhaps a dose of what the little people have to endure might cause an outbreak of common sense. Oh, wait. These are politicians we're talking about. With very rare exceptions they don't HAVE any common sense. Or much intelligence, seemingly, if their comments on CSPAN are any indication!

Free Speech Trends

Remember how the Democratic Party has referred to President Bush over the past eight years? Remember all the 'Bushitler' references, the 'Kill Bush' signs seen at many if not most left-leaning rallies and the many, many suggestions by the political Left (including a Nobel 'Peace' Laureate) to kill the President? Does anyone recall the news media actually reporting in a negative manner on any of these insults and downright threats?

But how things have changed once the Obamessiah is in office. Now that Obama has reached the Promised Land (and intends to drag the country with him into the depths of mass socialization), a mere First amendment protest can be grounds for police or Secret Service harassment, as a now-approving Press looks on complacently. I warned of this shortly after the election, when I noted Obama's long-standing aversion to any sort of criticism.

Now, the results of this aversion are beginning to show. According to a report in the NewsOK site, an Oklahoma City man was hassled by both the local Oklahoma City police and the Secret Service for carrying a sigh saying 'Abort Obama'. According to the NewsOK site,

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning.

Now I have no problem understanding the actions of the Oklahoma City police, especially as it seems the Secret Service was putting them under some pressure, although i think they went a little overboard. However, the story continues that the man was then visited by the Secret Service. This strikes me as harassment. Where were the secret Service when most of the literati and the political Left were issuing threats against President Bush? I certainly do not recall any stories about the Secret Service investigating these people. And since these people were preaching how 'brave' they were in standing up to power, one would think the media would be filled with those stories. There were certainly enough instances of Bush-hatred spilling out in signs, speech and other formats. Yet I cannot recall a single story of the Secret Service investigating.

But now, a sign that does have some potential ambiguity is cause for a citizen's First Amendment rights to be severely crimped? And even the Oklahoma news media cannot find any room to complain? The story appears to be written in a largely neutral voice, so apparently the Oklahoman newspaper is fine with government enforcing speech restrictions that were certainly not in effect during the last Administration. If the man had sported a sign proposing a violent death or even some bodily harm to the President, i would completely understand the actions of the authorities. But this is a case where it appears over-zealousness to stamp out criticism was the cause.

Liberals have liong been the party of censorship. Think back on the campaign trail and recall that not Gore, not kerry and not Obama was comfortable giving full access to reporters, and in fact the reporters mildly complained about it- even as they propagandized for their chosen candidates. Hillary Clinton was the same way- I recall a report from a reporter on her campaign about how she kept the media at arm's length. And the Democrats are the party who tries to suppress speech they disagree with via 'speech codes', the grossly misnamed 'Fariness Doctrine' and other Orwellian techniques. The Democrats, ladies and gentlemen, not the Republicans. None of these are creations of Reprublicans- they are creations of the Left.

And in government, did the Republicans shut the Democrats out of policy? When they proposed the so-called 'nuclear option' in the Senate, howls of protest arose from the media and every Democrat. But now, when the Democrats have gone even further to ensure that Republicans cannot participate in government, there is only silence from the media. Do these so-called 'professional journalists' not understand that censorship is a weapon that, once allowed, will sooner or later surely be used against them as well? I guess partisanship is more important that actually doing their job.

Obama himself is no stranger to the idea of political censorship. When a reporter on the campaign trail dared to ask hard-hitting questions, his station was banned from any further interviews. And Obama also banned the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News and the New York Post (three newspapers that endorsed John McCain for President) from his campaign plane. It is no coincidence that these three newspapers are among the very few conservative news voices in the country. They were likely to be more critical of Obama, and he does not react well to criticism.

So I believe that we will be seeing more of this type of thing as Obama gathers the reins of power ever more tightly. As reported by the intrepid Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air, he has already removed the independence of the internal Inspector Generals with a hidden provision in his monster pork bill. This essentially removes any chance of an independent investigation into the 'Most Ethical Congress In History'.

Ultimately, i think that Obama will fail to completely eradicate the First Amendment, but he will probably do such severe damage that for conservatives and other members of the loyal opposition, we will be watching our backs very carefully for the next eight years- or however long the Obamedia can run interference for him and his cronies in 'The Most Ethical Congress In history'.

I predicted that America had sold itself out in this past election. i do not back away from that prediction- I think that by the end of Oabam's term in office, we will have essentially given the right to free speech only to those favored of the liberals, and we will have created a permanent class dependent entirely on government. that is what brought Rome down and that is what may bring us down as well. I predicted after the election that the United States had at most a hundred years of life remaining. I may have been slightly pessimistic, but I doubt that our great-grandchildren will see the bastion of liberty that we once knew- I think it more likely that they will live in a state more resembling Stalin's Russia.

Media Piles on LPGA

As was to be expected, once the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) announced its new requirements that all Tour players be proficient in English, the media erupted in protest. A representative attack came from FoxSports' Mark Kriegel, who wrote,

Lawyers can debate whether the LPGA's edict is unconstitutional. But I know this much: It's un-American. It represents a potential assault on the idea of merit, and an insult, not just to golfers, but to all athletes. Eleven years after Tiger Woods won his first major, the golf establishment still reveals its exclusionary heart with alarming regularity. Somewhere, Hootie Johnson is beaming with pride.

I have news for Mr. Kriegel, if he cares to get outside of his little media cocoon. Go to Japan, Mr. Kriegel and try communicating in English on the Japan Pro Golf Tour. Or try communicating in English on the Korean pro golf tour, or the Japan Pro Baseball League. You might find that *gasp* you need to be able to speak the local language. If those leagues require members to be able to speak the local language, what is so wrong about an American league requiring its members to speak the local language?

Now we both know that superstars who are recruited by foreign leagues are provided with translators, but there is a subtle difference. When a star is recruited to go play overseas, it is usually the foreign league who recruits the player. However, the LPGA is in fact an American tour. No one if forcing the foreign players to come and play on said tour. If they do not or cannot speak English, then they can go back and play in their respective countries' tours.

However, any country has the right to enforce a local language requirement. Trying to say that the US tours are not allowed to do that because "As for that gem — the American tour bit — the fact is it's not so American, and hasn't been for a while." is simply untrue. The LPGA is an American tour. American owned, American run and American sponsored. As are the NFL, the NBA and Major League Baseball. All of these leagues are the American pro sports leagues. They are not based in France, or Korea or anywhere else. They are in the United States- ownership is in the United States and therefore it is irrelevant whether the players are or are not. If players wish to participate on the tour, then it is up to them to meet the Tour's requirements.

Mr. Kriegel and his ilk would have us believe that it is OK for Korea to force all players on the Korean golf tours to speak Korean, but it is somehow not OK for United States sports leagues to have a similar requirement. There is this little thing called national sovereignty, Mr. Kriegel. You probably do not understand the concept, but this is the United States. Not Korea. And our national language is English. Therefore, it seems entirely logical that a US sports tour would want its members to be able to communicate with the sponsors. If we were in Korea, I would expect players to be able to communicate in Korean. But we are not- we are in the United States.

If I were send a word of advice to the media, I would recommend they worry more about their own profession's lack of accountability, lack of objectivity and plummeting ratings than I would be about the LPGA's attempt to help their members communicate to the (mostly American) sponsors.

Bernie Ward Admits Child Porn Addiction- Will Media Report It?

Does the media treat hypocrites of differing political preferences similarly? The evidence would suggest not. When noted Christian televangelist Jim Bakker was found to have committed adultery and mail fraud back in 1986, the national media were beside themselves with glee, running hundreds of stories about Bakker's hypocrisy. The same pattern repeated itself with other Christian evangelists, including George W. Bush supporter Ted Haggard in 2006, a case that Wikipedia admits "may have affected voting patterns in the 2006 elections". The media made sure to feature the haggard case as a front-page story during the run-up[ to the election, probably hoping (correctly as it turned out) that it would help the Democrats take control of Congress.

However, the shoe is now on the other foot. Famed left-wing radio personality Bernie Ward of San Francisco, a former priest who had one of the loudest and most consistently anti-George W. Bush voices in the entire nation, was found guilty of possessing and distributing child pornography on Friday and will serve at least five years in prison. ward tried to argue that he was "doing research" on child pornography, but as the San Francisco Chronicle reported,

His hopes of maintaining a defense based on a constitutional right to research taboo subjects appeared to be weakened further when police in Oakdale (Stanislaus County) released transcripts in February of a series of online sex chats between Ward and a dominatrix in December 2004 and January 2005.

The transcripts quote Ward as fantasizing about naked children with no apparent reference to any subject he was researching. Police said he had sent photos to the woman that showed children engaged in sexual activity.

To their credit, the Chronicle reported the affair on Page A-1 of the Friday edition, and they have actually done a fairly good job of following the case throughout, though they did give much more time to Ward's law3yer to argue for his client's innocence than they gave to the prosecutors- Ward's lawyer is quoted or paraphrased a number of times; the prosecutors not at all.

My question is simple- Ward has been a leading anti Iraq and anti-George W. Bush voice, who has been found to be as flawed as any of the more conservative ministers who preceded him in scandal. Will the national media treat him the same? Ward has preached to an audience in the same manner, though from a different viewpoint, as did Bakker, Falwell, etc. If the media is truly objective, they will cover this fall from grace as assiduously as they did with Bakker, Haggard and the others they have gleefully observed succumb to their flaws.

Thus, I did a search for 'Bernie Ward' on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox. MSNBC< CBS and CNN had nothing on the scandal. ABC ran a single story that presented Ward as a victim who had "run afoul" of the government laws. Isn't that the same as breaking the law? ABC seems not to know the difference when it concerns liberals. Meanwhile, the supposedly conservative Fox ran a brief report of Ward's guilty plea, not siding with either party. It seems that only Fox and ABC felt this qualified as news, and ABC did their best to present Ward as a victim, not the criminal that he has admitted he is. So as much as I would like to believe that this will be front-page news in the national media, I won't hold my breath. Hat tip to my good friend Bob K. for alerting me to Ward's guilty plea. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Those Annoying Economic Facts

The Corner at National Review has posted an interesting and educational reminder of the Democratic Party's hypocrisy regarding the economy. And as a side note, it provides a reminder why the mainstream media is not to be trusted on any topic that might affect their patent desire to elect a Democrat to the White House in 2008.
According to the Corner,

A Hill staffer sends this along:
It’s the Politics, Stupid:
Comparing Labor Market Data in 1996 and 2008

Democrats on the Economy in 1996:
“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)

Democrats on the Economy in 2008:
“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)

So what is interesting about this? The fact that in 2008 virtually every major indicator of economic health surpasses those of 1996, yet the tone adopted by Democrats and their flunkies in the Press is of unmitigated gloom and doom. A useful chart of the actual numbers is also included in the Corner's posting. Read the whole thing, then ask yourself if the media and the Democrats' lines of economic disaster ring entirely true.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

More on the Media's Responsibilities

I have written of late more than once about reporters and their responsibilities under the First Amendment. I am decidedly not in favor of reporters abusing their positions to enable federal criminals (the leakers within the bureaucracy) and aiding and abetting enemies of the United States (Islamists and terrorists). However, reporters absolutely should report when elected officials also abuse their positions, and they should not be silenced by the threats of said public officials.

And that certainly appears to be the case in Duval County, Texas. It is being reported that Sheriff Santiago Barrera, Jr has threatened reporters with jail time if they wrote about his son's arrest. As reported by the Associated Press,

When the Duval County sheriff said he would lock up reporters from local newspapers if they kept "interfering" in his business, no one took the threat lightly.

For 20 years, Sheriff Santiago Barrera Jr. had done what he pleased with no challenges to his reign. He decided who sat in his jail and when they were released. Sometimes it was before a judge got involved and other times it was after.

"I brought the sheriff's department from nothing to what it is right now," said the 67-year-old Barrera.

That's why journalists are on edge about Barrera's recent threat to an Alice Echo-News Journal reporter.

Christopher Maher wrote a front-page story about the arrest of the sheriff's 42-year-old son Miguel Barrera on charges of public intoxication and resisting arrest. According to the newspaper, when Maher called the sheriff about another story, Barrera said, "If you guys keep interfering with my business, I'm going to have you arrested."

This is where the sheriff is crossing the line. His son's arrest for public drunkenness and resisting arrest absolutely should be news in the community. Is it front-page news? Since the sheriff is being challenged by one of his former subordinates, it would seem that, at least by current journalistic 'standards', it is. However, there is no question that this is something that should be reported.

Too often, public figures seem to either have the Press in their pocket (see the case of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton or virtually any other Democratic politician accused of a crime) or cowed (see the cases of CNN vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein, of Google in regards to China). However, the Press has a responsibility to report on all public figures' pratfalls, no matter what the party of the offender. The sheriff has essentially threatened the Press, and in my judgement, he should be brought to account for that threat.

The news media has a responsibility to report honestly. Too often, they seem a curious combination of sheep and bull- the former when a totalitarian regime (whether foreign or local as in this case) or a favored (invariably Democrat) politician is concerned, and bullish when the subject is either their own nation's interests or a disfavored (invariably Republican) politician. It would be nice if they could report objectively, regardless of the subject's political power or affiliation. But then, if they could do that, they would actually be worthy of respect, instead of their current, well-earned contempt.

Variety Calls Drudge Readers Anti-Semites

Apparently the Drudge Report has struck yet another nerve in the mainstream media. Today, Variety magazine reporter Brian Lowry pens a plea for civility- calling out the readers of the Drudge Report in particular. Writes Lowry,

Gee, gang, why so angry? Every time a column or article of mine gets posted on the site, I invariably wake up to a torrent of hostile emails. For awhile, it was like a perverse "Where's Waldo?" game -- "Oh, that one's rage-filled and anti-Semitic -- I must have made Drudge!"

Leaving aside that probability that most Drudge readers are not in fact anger-filled anti-Semites (that honor has to go to the deranged inhabitants of the Democratic Underground, as documented by the hilarious DUmmie FUnnies), Mr. Lowry does indeed have a point about many emailers- and not a few commentators. A lack of humor and civility does indeed seem to be present these days in political discourse. Unfortunately, the point that Lowry seems to miss is that a good portion of this lack of civility may well arise from the tendency by many on the Left to look down on and otherwise treat conservatives as something somehow inhuman. Lowry goes on to write,

So let's see if we can coexist peacefully. Disagreement is welcome, but it's possible to be civil about it. That's certainly my goal when interacting with Drudge diehards, in part because I'm betting a lot of you are armed to the teeth.

I can agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Lowry's plea for civility. What I find reprehensible are his generalizations and veiled insults. If Mr. Lowry is on the receiving end of anger-filled missives, I can sympathize with him and consider this behavior equally as monstrous as those on the Left who like to accuse President Bush of being Hitler. However, he might want to ask himself why the anger exists- it might be due to the condescending attitude and complete ignorance and appreciation for the denizens of places not named New York or San Francisco. In addition, Lowry reveals the heart of the media's problems in dealing honestly with controversial issues. Islam, to take merely one example, tends to kill people who disagree with them- Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus do not. therefore, the media as a whole tends to treat Judaism and Christianity with disdain and contempt, while affording Islam a respect that it does not deserve based on its actions. This while the media claims to be 'free'. Freedom includes daring to report honestly on people who might be dangerous to the reporters- something few media outlets will do.

Even Lowry's closing displays his own prejudices- he refuses to call the coming holiday 'Christmas' and fancies himself somehow courageous for this. No, Mr. Lowry- only if you dared to diss the Eid (a time when many inhabitants of Saudi Arabia desert the country in droves for a neighboring country where they can drink alcohol) would you be truly courageous. Perhaps if reporters like Lowry could bring themselves to recognize that their political opponents actually have a legitimate point and cease painting them in insulting terms, then maybe some of the anger would dissipate. Just a thought.... Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Virginia Store Calls Whites 'Gringos', Media Yawns

Is it acceptable for stores catering to Hispanics to use racial epithets when referring to Caucasian residents of the United States? Apparently so. According to the Washington Times online edition, a furniture store located in Alexandria, Virginia has posted a sign calling Americans 'gringos'. The Times reports that,

A sign outside the store at the intersection of North Beauregard and King streets reads, “Credito sin papeles de gringo.” In English, that could be translated to say “Credit without gringo papers.”

Blanca Granados, the store's assistant manager, translated the message to mean “just 'without white papers,' like Social Security or like that.”

'White papers'? Really? Ms. Granados is either completely ignorant or engaging in deliberate falsehoods. The word 'Gringo' as defined by Webster Online Dictionary,

grin·go [gring-goh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gos. Usually Disparaging.
(in Latin America or Spain) a foreigner, esp. one of U.S. or British descent.
[Origin: 1840–50, Americanism; < Sp: foreign language, foreigner, esp. English-speaking (pejorative); prob. alter. of griego Greek. The belief that word is from the song “Green Grow the Lilacs,” popular during U.S.-Mexican War, is without substance]

The Times story also picks up on the offensive history of the word. The story goes on to say,

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word gringo as “a disparaging term for a foreigner in Latin America, especially an American or English person.”

But the word “gringo” in the store's sign is not intended to offend anyone, Miss Granados said.

The term 'gringo' has long been a term used disparagingly towards Americans or Europeans in Latin America- something that Ms. Granados cannot possibly be ignorant of, especially if, as it seems, she is from a Latin American heritage. Therefore, for Ms. Granados to claim that the word is not intended to be offensive is roughly analogous to a white person claiming that the word 'greaser' is not intended to be offensive towards Hispanics. However, other than the Washington Times, I have not seen this story picked up by any other media outlets. When will the media begin holding minorities to the same standards they hold whites? Based on past experience, I'm not holding my breath. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Racial Epithet- Media Doesn't Include Party

It's time for another edition of Name That Party! According to New Orleans WDSU Channel 6, a candidate for state representative, one Carla Blanchard Dartez, used a racial insult when speaking with the local NAACP president. But somehow the sotry on WDSU's website completely managed to avoid mentioning Dartez's party affiliation. Hint- she's not a Republican.

According to the story posted by WDSU,

A state representative in a runoff election infuriated civil rights leaders after she ended a conversation with the mother of the NAACP's local president by saying, "Talk to you later, Buckwheat."

State Rep. Carla Blanchard Dartez, of Morgan City, acknowledged she made the remark during a Thursday night telephone conversation with Hazel Boykin to thank her for driving voters to the polls.

Buckwheat, a black child character in the "Little Rascals" comedies of the 1930s and '40s, is viewed as a racial stereotype demeaning to black people.

This would seem to be a fairly serious incident, as the media is hyper-sensitive to racial epithets when uttered by Republicans. One has only to look back to 2006 when a reference to the word 'macaca' by Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia sparked a nationwide media furor, and contributed to Senator Allen's defeat in the 2006 election. A representative story on Allen can be found at the Washington Post. As far as I recall, Senator Allen's party affiliation was prominently featured in every story on the subject, as it was in the Post's.

Calling someone 'Buckwheat', an obvious reference to a black character who s deemed to be an offensive stereotype, would seem to be a much more obvious racial epithet than the 'macaca' comment, which is defined by Webster's Dictionary as being "a genus of Old World monkeys including the rhesus monkey (M. mulatta) and other macaques."

Yet nowhere in the article on Dartez can her party affiliation be found, although her husband, one Lenny Dartez, who the story does appear to identify as a Democrat, writing,

But the "Buckwheat" remark is the latest bit of trouble for Dartez and her husband, Lenny, who is a member of the Democratic Party's State Central Committee.

I did a Google search on Mrs Dartez, and quickly discovered her official page at Louisiana's House of Representatives website. She is clearly identified as a Democrat. It took me roughly ten seconds to perform this Google search. Seems to me that WDSU could have done the same quite easily. I wonder if there could be some ideological reason why they wouldn't do that? Oh, no, not the professional media! They wouldn't do that, would they? I leave you to supply the probably answer. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader Duane Peyrot. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

NY Times: Soviet Spy is a Hero

Does the New York Times believe that anything detrimental to the well-being of the United States is to be celebrated? It would seem so. Whether the Times is betraying secret programs designed to protect America from Islamic terrorists or leading the charge for full access to American courts for alien enemies, their actions all seem intended to weaken America and strengthen America's enemies. This belief is on full display today with their loving portrayal of the life of Soviet spy George Koval, a trained Soviet agent who was responsible for the USSR's successful theft of the atomic bomb. As the Times writes,

He had all-American cover: born in Iowa, college in Manhattan, Army buddies with whom he played baseball.

George Koval also had a secret. During World War II, he was a top Soviet spy, code named Delmar and trained by Stalin’s ruthless bureau of military intelligence.

Atomic spies are old stuff. But historians say Dr. Koval, who died in his 90s last year in Moscow and whose name is just coming to light publicly, was probably one of the most important spies of the 20th century.

George Koval was a spy for the Soviet Union, and yet the Times never condemns Koval for his betrayal of the United States- a country that gave his parents refuge, and allowed him to gain a career as a highly regarded nuclear physicist. Instead, the Times writes of Koval,

Dr. Koval died on Jan. 31, 2006, according to Russian accounts. The cause was not made public. By American reckoning, he would have been 92, though the Kremlin’s statement put his age at 94 and some Russian news reports put it at 93.

Posthumously, Dr. Koval was made a Hero of the Russian Federation, the highest honorary title that can be bestowed on a Russian citizen. The Kremlin statement cited “his courage and heroism while carrying out special missions.”

Dr. Kramish surmised that he was “the biggest” of the atomic spies. “You don’t get a medal from the president of Russia for nothing,” he said.

The comment that Koval was "the biggest of the atomic spies" is as critical as the Times can allow itself to get. There is no discussion in the article of how badly Koval's betrayal hurt the United States, and the Times does not even consider the negative effects of Koval's spying. They only state that

By 1934, Dr. Koval was in Moscow, excelling in difficult studies at the Mendeleev Institute of Chemical Technology. Upon graduating with honors, he was recruited and trained by the G.R.U. and was sent back to the United States for nearly a decade of scientific espionage, from roughly 1940 to 1948.

How he communicated with his controllers is unknown, as is what specifically he gave the Soviets in terms of atomic secrets. However, it is clear that Moscow mastered the atom very quickly compared with all subsequent nuclear powers.

In addition to its failure to present Koval's spying in a negative light, the Times mainly presents Koval as the Soviet Union would have wished- a Hero. I can only surmise that, for the Times, anything that hurts America is to be celebrated.

In contrast, consider the Times' reporting of America's recent Congressional Medal of Honor winner, First Sergeant Paul Smith, who received a much less gushing story when reports of his heroism reached the Times. Smith, who is the first Medal of Honor winner since 1993 (the medal is extremely difficult to earn and most are present, like Smith's, posthumously), gave his life protecting his fellow Americans and was responsible for the defeat of a force of elite Iraqi Republican Guards in defense of the Baghdad Airport. Yet the Times's report of Smith's Medal of Honor- the highest award for gallantry an American can receive- contained fewer references to heroism than did the story on Koval. Yet Smith gave his life defending his country and his fellow Americans. Koval did his best to help an unfriendly power defeat his adopted country and lived a comfortable life in the USSR as a professor and soccer fan. Who's the real hero? To the New York Times, it is apparently Koval. I disagree. To me, it is Sergeant Smith- Koval is nothing more than one more traitor.

Hat tip to NewsBusters reader Denney Abraham. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Dems Discover Leaking Is a Crime!

The Democrats have made leaks a powerful weapon in their attempts to destroy the Bush Administration. Together with their allies in the national Press corps, the Democrats have leaked information regarding US covert operations that have certainly put many agents at risk. As long as the leaks seem to put the Bush Administration in a disfavorable position, the Democrats are all ready to protect those law-breakers. However, they have condemned leaks that put themselves or their Press corps allies in an unfavorable light. However, since the firing of a CIA agent for leaking covert operation details to the New York Times, they are now protesting that they also do not condone leaking classified information.

The Valerie Plame case versus the recent firing of Mary McCarthy is a perfect example. As reported by the Washington Post newspaper, Democrats responded to the recent firing of a senior CIA officer, Mary McCarthy by claiming that there is a "double standard" in the way the leaks are handled. According to Rep. Jane Harmon, (D-CA), "...while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies."

Well, yes, Jane, there is a double standard. But not the way you think. If you had learned anything in your hippie school-days other than pot-smoking, you would know that the President has the authority to automatically declassify any information he wishes. In the Plame case, we have an open CIA agent who managed to convince her employer to send her husband on an all-expenses-paid junket which was neither approved nor requested by the White House. Said husband came back and lied about what he found and why he was sent. The President properly used his Constitutional authority to declassify information to disseminate the truth, which did discredit the husband, Joe Wilson, who was proven later by the Senate to be a liar. Nothing illegal about that. On the other hand, Mary McCarthy did NOT have the authority to declassify information.

And one other thing, Ms. Harmon. No one was endangered by the Plame situation. She was known to be a CIA employee, and was not actively under cover. On the other hand, McCarthy's disclosures, if that is what she was fired for, may have cost good men and women their lives. If we want to win this war, covert operations are going to be an integral part of the formula for victory. Getting the covert ops people endangered, or killed just because you don't like the President is pretty close to treason. Hopefully, Ms McCarthy will serve a good long prison term together with her firing. Seems like a pretty big difference to me. But of course, I actually studiedwhen I was in school. Something Ms. Harmon apparently did not, judging by her fatuous and ignorant remarks.

Dems Discover Leaking Is a Crime!

The Democrats have made leaks a powerful weapon in their attempts to destroy the Bush Administration. Together with their allies in the national Press corps, the Democrats have leaked information regarding US covert operations that have certainly put many agents at risk. As long as the leaks seem to put the Bush Administration in a disfavorable position, the Democrats are all ready to protect those law-breakers. However, they have condemned leaks that put themselves or their Press corps allies in an unfavorable light. However, since the firing of a CIA agent for leaking covert operation details to the New York Times, they are now protesting that they also do not condone leaking classified information.

The Valerie Plame case versus the recent firing of Mary McCarthy is a perfect example. As reported by the Washington Post newspaper, Democrats responded to the recent firing of a senior CIA officer, Mary McCarthy by claiming that there is a "double standard" in the way the leaks are handled. According to Rep. Jane Harmon, (D-CA), "...while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies."

Well, yes, Jane, there is a double standard. But not the way you think. If you had learned anything in your hippie school-days other than pot-smoking, you would know that the President has the authority to automatically declassify any information he wishes. In the Plame case, we have an open CIA agent who managed to convince her employer to send her husband on an all-expenses-paid junket which was neither approved nor requested by the White House. Said husband came back and lied about what he found and why he was sent. The President properly used his Constitutional authority to declassify information to disseminate the truth, which did discredit the husband, Joe Wilson, who was proven later by the Senate to be a liar. Nothing illegal about that. On the other hand, Mary McCarthy did NOT have the authority to declassify information.

And one other thing, Ms. Harmon. No one was endangered by the Plame situation. She was known to be a CIA employee, and was not actively under cover. On the other hand, McCarthy's disclosures, if that is what she was fired for, may have cost good men and women their lives. If we want to win this war, covert operations are going to be an integral part of the formula for victory. Getting the covert ops people endangered, or killed just because you don't like the President is pretty close to treason. Hopefully, Ms McCarthy will serve a good long prison term together with her firing. Seems like a pretty big difference to me. But of course, I actually studiedwhen I was in school. Something Ms. Harmon apparently did not, judging by her fatuous and ignorant remarks.

Economy & Media

The United States economy is roaring along, by all accounts. Unemployment is hovering well below the average for the 70s, 80s or 90s (yes, that includes the vaunted 'Clinton Boom') but according to a new report, a majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the economy more than Republicans. Never mind that the Democrats have produced exactly one economic boom (Clinton's) and that had to be forced on them by the Federal Reserve chairman! Meanwhile, the Republicans produced the booms of the 1980s and the 2000s, despite the attacks of September 11, and the resulting war.

So why don't Americans recognize this? Well, the main reason is a national Press corps that is bound and determined to get the Democrats into power at the first available opportunity, and which hates the Bush White House with deep passion. This Press will not report any good economic news and will emphasize anything that is bad, thus delivering a false picture of economic growth. And this Press will lie and deceive Americans as far as they are able in order to get their lemans in the Democratic Party back in power.

So what can Republicans do about it? Well, they need to start talking very loud about their achievements. And they need to do it in local papers and news stations that are less connected to the Bush-deranged national Press corps. They need to talk about what this administration has accomplished- and its accomplishments are many, despite the haters in the Media. But unless Republicans have the guts to do this, I think their chances of success in the elections are minimal.

In one regard, a Democratic victory in the midterm elections will put the onus on the Democrats to actually do something. They will no longer be able to simply carp and complain. But as their policies are surrender, retreat and cowardice (with the exception of Joe Lieberman), I fear that we cannot afford to open Americans' eyes to the true nature of the Democratic Party. They will pull out of Iraq, cower to the Chinese and the Iranians and kowtow to the UN. All of which puts us in mortal danger.

The Dookie Scandal

Posting has been light of late while I deal with some medical issues. However, I am back in the saddle, and I must say that the Duke rape case is getting interesting, though I deplore the mindset of the media that attracts them to such spectacles. Needless to say, as a Tar Heel, I have little sympathy for the elite and obnoxious behavior that is so often associated with the rich and spoiled New Yorkers and NorthEasterners who inhabit Duke University. However, I cannot remain silent while there is a clear bias as well.

According to the Durham, North Carolina Herald-Sun, a teen-aged (probably black) murder suspect, had his bail set at $50000. However, the accused Duke lacrosse players had to post $400000 in order to secure their release. This in a case where there is serious doubt that a crime has even occurred, according to the evidence released thus far. And in a case where at least one of the indicted students apparently was already gone from the party when the supposed 'rape' occurred.

I would never argue that rape is a minor offense. However, it seems that all a woman has to do is cry 'Rape' and immediately the accused are considered guilty in the Court of the Press. The woman, as in the Kobe Bryant case, clearly has credibility issues, and her story, at least on the available evidence, does not stand up well. Yet she is a 'victim' and her name cannot even be published. While the students are dragged across the dirty pages of the nation's scandal-mongers. Is this fair? I do not think so. If the woman were the same color as the students, this would be left off the front pages. If the woman were white and the players black, would race even be mentioned? Of course not. It's open season on whitey. But if the 'victim' is black, then of COURSE he/she must be a VICTIM. Gosh, he/she COULDN'T have maybe been an agent in this mess.

The race-baiters strike again. Only when they are as willing to condemn the violence committed by blacks against whites as they are the reverse will they command my respect. And unfortunately, they are completely unwilling to do that.

Illegals and The Media

So the MSM have once again refused to meet the hordes of barbarians. In this case, that would be the intolerant racists who are the organizers of the Aztlan dreamers, otherwise known as MEChA.

These racists showed their true colors when they raised the American flag upside down under a Mexican flag in the Los Angeles area. Despite the claims of being 'American', there was little 'American' about these illegal aliens trying to force Congress into giving them carte blanche to break (and continue to insult) American sovereignty and law.

The Mexican-American War was fought over a hundred years ago, and it should have settled the question of ownership over the US southwest. If these hotheads want to try reconquering, then let them form an army and fight it out. If they do not have the courage to fight for it, then they do not deserve it. And I fear that so many of our so-called 'elites in the government and the Press (especially the Press) are too cowardly to defend their own culture and land.

Speaking off the Press, what is this mysterious desire for domination so many of them display? They call the Minutemen (a group of peaceful citizens who are attempting to rally support for actual enforcement of our laws and who desire a protected border) 'racists'. Yet I have yet to notice a single organ of the MSM calling MEChA's La Raza protests, and their mythical Aztlan dreams as racist. I have yet to hear a MSM reporter talk about the fact that most of these protestors were chanting in Spanish about how they were going to reclaim their land. What land, wetback? You are no more a native than are the descendents of the Pilgrims.

I can only hope that these protests eventually provoke a big enough backlash that we actually enforce our borders. La Raza already lost THAT war, and I'm damned if I am going to sit back and let them try to overturn the results of the Mexican-American War by street violence. Especially since the MSM is cheering them on. What makes the MSM so fervent for dhimmitude, whether it be La Raza or Islam? They won't stand up to Muslim claims of superiority, even going so far as to do their utmost to help the Islamists win against their own culture. And now they go out of their way to report on the riots as being 'peaceful' and 'patriotic'. Peaceful? Maybe. Patriotic? Only for Mexico.

I fail to understand why our leaders cannot understand that these people are here ILLEGALLY. They have no right to anything in this country, having broken the most basic law already- entering illegally. This country doesn't owe them anything- in fact it is quite the reverse. They are openly calling for the 'return' of the entire US Southwest and they show no respect for American culture, or law. We need to crack down on these illegals. Now.

On the other hand, I welcome LEGAL immigrants. These people stand in line patiently and many of them have something useful to offer to this great nation. The illegals may be convenient when you need crops picked or your lawn watered, but they offer no other useful service to the United States. But what to do about them? Well, I have a few suggestions.

I would like to see a wall along the lines of the Great Wall erected along the southern border and permanently manned with US Army members. And if an illegal is caught in the US, he/she will serve without pay for one year at whatever menial task the court assigned and he/she will then be dumped back across the border. Oh, and one other point. Once caught, that illegals' entire family is forever barred from seeking US residency or citizenship..

But what about the employers? Well, build the wall, and then crack down. Set crippling fines for being caught and make those fines per head, so that if a Mexican/Chinese/ethnic restaurant is caught with say three illegal employees, the restaurant is fined for each employee. I think a million dollar fine per illegal sounds about right.

In any event, I trust that the naked display of what the illegal immigrant lobby REALLY wants (Aztlan, Mexican ownership of the southwest US, etc) will trigger the US Congress into actually doing something about this flood of illegals. In peacetime, perhaps we could turn a tolerant eye, but this is war. And these illegals have already shown by their actions that they do not feel any allegiance to the United States.