Merry Christmas!
It is time we all remember the real reason for this special time of year. We do not celebrate this season to give or receive or to decorate a tree or as an excuse to spend more money. Nor do we celebrate this holiday for any other secular reason.
We celebrate because more than 2,000 years ago a baby was born. This person brought hope and the bright light of goodness to the world.
Jesus Christ - the light of the world.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
Debates
We had another debate this week. This one was the work of CNN to cover the Republicans running for their party's spot in the 2008 election.
It was no surprise to me to learn that CNN planted Democratic operatives in the audience and selected YouTube questions based upon the hostility level of the questions.
CNN stated before the debate that it was a chance for Republican voters to ask the candidates any question they wanted. Only thing is CNN selected Edwards supporters, Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, all clearly not Republican voters, to ask hostile questions in direct contrast to the Democratic debate a few weeks ago. Do you think CNN would EVER select Republicans to ask questions of Clinton and the other Ds?
CNN even selected a retired Army general to ask a question about homosexuals in the military. CNN did not inform the audience that the retired general was a homsexual and a member of Clinton's steering committee. After the YouTube question was answered Anderson Cooper, the moderator, asked the general who was in the audience (remember it was suppose to be a Republican audience) if he got the answer he wanted.
No, of course not.
How did the general get into the audience? Did CNN fly the general from California to Florida just to ask hostile questions.
This is another case study of why the American people cannot trust CNN and most of the liberal mainstream media.
It was no surprise to me to learn that CNN planted Democratic operatives in the audience and selected YouTube questions based upon the hostility level of the questions.
CNN stated before the debate that it was a chance for Republican voters to ask the candidates any question they wanted. Only thing is CNN selected Edwards supporters, Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, all clearly not Republican voters, to ask hostile questions in direct contrast to the Democratic debate a few weeks ago. Do you think CNN would EVER select Republicans to ask questions of Clinton and the other Ds?
CNN even selected a retired Army general to ask a question about homosexuals in the military. CNN did not inform the audience that the retired general was a homsexual and a member of Clinton's steering committee. After the YouTube question was answered Anderson Cooper, the moderator, asked the general who was in the audience (remember it was suppose to be a Republican audience) if he got the answer he wanted.
No, of course not.
How did the general get into the audience? Did CNN fly the general from California to Florida just to ask hostile questions.
This is another case study of why the American people cannot trust CNN and most of the liberal mainstream media.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Constitutional Amendment
One of the biggest political problems I see in the United States is the presence of career politicians in Washington, DC. Many politicians in the House and Senate have spent their entire adult lives in DC. This problem manifest itself in special interest groups and nefarious iron triangles controlling career politicians. The Founders did not intend for political offices to be held by lifelong politicians, but wanted a wide range of people to perform public service - a break from their careers as farmers, physicians, businessmen, lawyers, etc - and return to their communities and careers.
We have limited the terms a president can serve with good reason. A proposal to limit the terms of Representatives and Senators is required.
A Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of terms and or the number of years members of the US House and US Senate may serve.
CONSTUTITIONAL AMENDMENT
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of United States Representative more than Six Terms or to the office of United States Senator more than Two Terms, and no person holding such office more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected Representative or Senator shall be elected to the office of Representative more than Five Terms or to the office of Senator more than One Term. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office in the House or the Senate when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Representative or Senator, or acting as Representative or Senator, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of Representative or Senator or acting as Representative or Senator during the reminder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress
We have limited the terms a president can serve with good reason. A proposal to limit the terms of Representatives and Senators is required.
A Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of terms and or the number of years members of the US House and US Senate may serve.
CONSTUTITIONAL AMENDMENT
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of United States Representative more than Six Terms or to the office of United States Senator more than Two Terms, and no person holding such office more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected Representative or Senator shall be elected to the office of Representative more than Five Terms or to the office of Senator more than One Term. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office in the House or the Senate when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Representative or Senator, or acting as Representative or Senator, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of Representative or Senator or acting as Representative or Senator during the reminder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress
A Proposed Constutitional Amendment
One of the biggest problems I see in American politics is the presence of lifelong politicians on the national stage. Congress is the best illustration of the problem. There are members of the House and Senate who have spent their entire adult lives in Washington, DC. I think the career politicians are a bad influence in our national affairs- servants of special interest groups, members of nefarious iron triangles, and dedicated to spending the people's money in careless and non-essential growth of the federal government rather than exercising their power to control and restrain the growth of the federal government and ration and return the people's money to the real owners - the people. Remember, government has no money. It only has at its disposal the money it confiscates from the people.
Hence, a proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States. To wit:
Constitutional Amendment
Monday, November 19, 2007
Thanksgiving
I don't have room or time to list all the things for which I am thankful.
To my wife, my family, my extended family, and ancestors I owe a lot.
I am thankful for being an American.
I am thankful to God for providing the Founders for us. Our Founders gave us a wonderful gift and to paraphrase Ben Franklin, if we can keep it, it will bless us and our descendants for ages. I only hope we can resist the urge to take the easy course in our political journey -socialism - and remain true to the path that provides the most individual rights and requires the most individual responsibilities.
Happy Thanksgiving.
And God Bless America!
To my wife, my family, my extended family, and ancestors I owe a lot.
I am thankful for being an American.
I am thankful to God for providing the Founders for us. Our Founders gave us a wonderful gift and to paraphrase Ben Franklin, if we can keep it, it will bless us and our descendants for ages. I only hope we can resist the urge to take the easy course in our political journey -socialism - and remain true to the path that provides the most individual rights and requires the most individual responsibilities.
Happy Thanksgiving.
And God Bless America!
Politics
I hear complaints - almost daily- about negative political campaigning. One candidate accuses another candidate of being a sissy and the accuser is forced to apologize - not once, but several times over a period of days and weeks. The accused sheds tears and garners huge amount of sympathy.
This reveals several things. One, the accused was really a sissy and two, the American people -especially journalists- have no clue about negative campaigning and three, we have become a nation of wimps. If people knew American political history - journalists claim to be educated, but have no useful knowledge of political history- then they would realize that negative political campaigning today is mild in the extreme compared to the old time elections. The political fights in 1800, 1824, 1828, 1864, and other "no holds barred" elections made men faint and forced women to their day beds. Duels were fought over political campaigns and Andrew Jackson called men out over accusations about his/his wife's honor.
I say bring back the tough days where the people learn the truth about the people seeking the highest office in the nation. If they can't stand the political spotlight, they can step aside!
This reveals several things. One, the accused was really a sissy and two, the American people -especially journalists- have no clue about negative campaigning and three, we have become a nation of wimps. If people knew American political history - journalists claim to be educated, but have no useful knowledge of political history- then they would realize that negative political campaigning today is mild in the extreme compared to the old time elections. The political fights in 1800, 1824, 1828, 1864, and other "no holds barred" elections made men faint and forced women to their day beds. Duels were fought over political campaigns and Andrew Jackson called men out over accusations about his/his wife's honor.
I say bring back the tough days where the people learn the truth about the people seeking the highest office in the nation. If they can't stand the political spotlight, they can step aside!
Saturday, November 17, 2007
BONDS
Bonds.
Barry Bonds.
What does it mean that the home run king of baseball has been indicted for lying to a federal grand jury about his activities RE: steroids.
What is going on in sports with all the cheating?
Marion Jones, a champion track athlete cheated.
Floyd Landis was found guilty of cheating (he denies it) in the 2006 Tour de France.
Some PGA golfers (unnamed) have been accused of cheating with steroids/other drugs.
The 2007 Tour de France had several episodes of cyclists cheating.
What is happening and why?
I don't know and I don't know what we -fans- should do about it.
HELP!
Barry Bonds.
What does it mean that the home run king of baseball has been indicted for lying to a federal grand jury about his activities RE: steroids.
What is going on in sports with all the cheating?
Marion Jones, a champion track athlete cheated.
Floyd Landis was found guilty of cheating (he denies it) in the 2006 Tour de France.
Some PGA golfers (unnamed) have been accused of cheating with steroids/other drugs.
The 2007 Tour de France had several episodes of cyclists cheating.
What is happening and why?
I don't know and I don't know what we -fans- should do about it.
HELP!
NEWS-2
NEWS-2
Have you noticed a decline in media coverage of the War on Terrorism in Iraq.
I have. And I think I know why there is less coverage of events in Iraq now than there was a few months ago.
There is less violence in Iraq now. The Iraqis in many areas of the country decided that al Queda was bad and took action to rid their neighborhoods and districts of the killers from Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Iran, and other countries who were one of the major causes of the violence. Many Sunni and Shia Iraqis decided to work together to make Iraq a safer country.
Hence, there is less violence in many areas of Iraq. The surge is working!
As we all know from long experience the American media prefers to cover bloody action to positive and constructive action. And good results in Iraq means Bush was right, General Petraeus was right, and the media and their running dogs on the left side of the political aisle were WRONG.
So don't expect the mainstream media to report the many facets of Iraqi life that have greatly improved since the Surge started. Just like the Democrats who invested heavily in defeat in Iraq the media also invested in a negative outcome and will continue to refuse to see the positive results in Iraq.
They can't permit President Bush to receive any credit for his vision, his determination, his patience, and his faith in the flicker of democracy in the Middle East.
Have you noticed a decline in media coverage of the War on Terrorism in Iraq.
I have. And I think I know why there is less coverage of events in Iraq now than there was a few months ago.
There is less violence in Iraq now. The Iraqis in many areas of the country decided that al Queda was bad and took action to rid their neighborhoods and districts of the killers from Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Iran, and other countries who were one of the major causes of the violence. Many Sunni and Shia Iraqis decided to work together to make Iraq a safer country.
Hence, there is less violence in many areas of Iraq. The surge is working!
As we all know from long experience the American media prefers to cover bloody action to positive and constructive action. And good results in Iraq means Bush was right, General Petraeus was right, and the media and their running dogs on the left side of the political aisle were WRONG.
So don't expect the mainstream media to report the many facets of Iraqi life that have greatly improved since the Surge started. Just like the Democrats who invested heavily in defeat in Iraq the media also invested in a negative outcome and will continue to refuse to see the positive results in Iraq.
They can't permit President Bush to receive any credit for his vision, his determination, his patience, and his faith in the flicker of democracy in the Middle East.
NEWS
NEWS
Why can't news people - journalists - allow folks at the political "debates" to ask their own questions?
The lastest example of the mainstream media's dishonesty was revealed in the Democrat "debate" in Las Vegas. A young woman from the audience was allowed to ask the last question. Her question was directed to Senator Clinton. The question was "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"
That's right.
"Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?" was the question posed to the main contender for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
Later we learned CNN forced the young woman to ask that question. The woman said she had two serious questions to ask, but CNN chose the question for her.
Is this another case of planted questions for Clinton? Only in this case the media is the one planting the super softball questions to the media's favorite candidate. On an earlier occasion we learned that the Clinton campaign had planted people in the audiences to ask Clinton easy questions.
I stopped watching CNN years ago because of dishonest practices like this one. ABC, CBS, NBC, and NPR are no better to say nothing about the NY Times and other largre city newspapers. No wonder they are losing viewers and readers by the millions. (See three part post on the Mainstream Media in older posts on this Blog.)
No wonder few Americans watch these shows they call "debates" when the real issues are ignored and candidates refuse to talk in plain English. Perhaps there are too many lawyers in politics today.
Of course, Senator Clinton did not answer the question, but weaseled out with a typical reply.
I have little hope the media will improve its performance.
Why can't news people - journalists - allow folks at the political "debates" to ask their own questions?
The lastest example of the mainstream media's dishonesty was revealed in the Democrat "debate" in Las Vegas. A young woman from the audience was allowed to ask the last question. Her question was directed to Senator Clinton. The question was "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"
That's right.
"Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?" was the question posed to the main contender for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
Later we learned CNN forced the young woman to ask that question. The woman said she had two serious questions to ask, but CNN chose the question for her.
Is this another case of planted questions for Clinton? Only in this case the media is the one planting the super softball questions to the media's favorite candidate. On an earlier occasion we learned that the Clinton campaign had planted people in the audiences to ask Clinton easy questions.
I stopped watching CNN years ago because of dishonest practices like this one. ABC, CBS, NBC, and NPR are no better to say nothing about the NY Times and other largre city newspapers. No wonder they are losing viewers and readers by the millions. (See three part post on the Mainstream Media in older posts on this Blog.)
No wonder few Americans watch these shows they call "debates" when the real issues are ignored and candidates refuse to talk in plain English. Perhaps there are too many lawyers in politics today.
Of course, Senator Clinton did not answer the question, but weaseled out with a typical reply.
I have little hope the media will improve its performance.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Fall
Fall has arrived.
Finally. After a long and extremely dry summer the leaves have done their magic at last. The trees held onto their green leaves longer than usual this year probably because of the abundance of sunlight. While the falls colors are not as sharp as in past years there are hundreds of tones in the colors I see. The range of colors amazes me every year.
Fall brings a slowdown in my cycling activity. I will ride during Fall and Winter taking advantage of Indian Summer, if it comes, and other warm days to do maintenance rides. After almost 6,500 miles this year I do not want to lose all the gains made in 2007.
My 20 or so rides on Skyline Drive were fantastic! It is a great place to bike and I look forward to 2008 and more challenging and exciting Skyline bike rides. Hopefully, the black bears will continue to move out of my way (I saw 8 this year).
Best rides of 2007 were: Numerous Skyline Drive rides, the Reston Century Double Metric, a 130 mile ride on 26 August, and the local short ride when I clicked over 110,000 miles since 1991.
Keep Spinning!
Finally. After a long and extremely dry summer the leaves have done their magic at last. The trees held onto their green leaves longer than usual this year probably because of the abundance of sunlight. While the falls colors are not as sharp as in past years there are hundreds of tones in the colors I see. The range of colors amazes me every year.
Fall brings a slowdown in my cycling activity. I will ride during Fall and Winter taking advantage of Indian Summer, if it comes, and other warm days to do maintenance rides. After almost 6,500 miles this year I do not want to lose all the gains made in 2007.
My 20 or so rides on Skyline Drive were fantastic! It is a great place to bike and I look forward to 2008 and more challenging and exciting Skyline bike rides. Hopefully, the black bears will continue to move out of my way (I saw 8 this year).
Best rides of 2007 were: Numerous Skyline Drive rides, the Reston Century Double Metric, a 130 mile ride on 26 August, and the local short ride when I clicked over 110,000 miles since 1991.
Keep Spinning!
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
General Sanchez
General Ricardo Sanchez gave a speech recently in which he blasted the Bush Administration and the media. We heard media reports on Sanchez's criticism of the Iraq War policy - a policy he was a major figure in developing and implementing - but we heard nothing from the mainstream media about Sanchez's scathing attack on the media elites.
Sanchez - a three star general - was a major player in Iraq. Did he express the same policy concerns during his tenure in Baghdad that he expresses now? Is Sanchez angry because he was passed over for promotion? Is it sour grapes and hypocritcal now for him to blast the policy that he helped to formulate? There were major mistakes made in the planning, the leadup, and the execution of the war in Iraq. But show me a war - any war - that does not include major mistakes.
Sanchez is dead on right about the media. For many years I have been saying the mainstream media is not only biased, but dishonest. Sanchez's blast of the Bush Administration received major media attention. Sanchez's blast - a major event- of the media coverage of the war received little or NO attention in the mainstream media.
Why is that?
Sanchez - a three star general - was a major player in Iraq. Did he express the same policy concerns during his tenure in Baghdad that he expresses now? Is Sanchez angry because he was passed over for promotion? Is it sour grapes and hypocritcal now for him to blast the policy that he helped to formulate? There were major mistakes made in the planning, the leadup, and the execution of the war in Iraq. But show me a war - any war - that does not include major mistakes.
Sanchez is dead on right about the media. For many years I have been saying the mainstream media is not only biased, but dishonest. Sanchez's blast of the Bush Administration received major media attention. Sanchez's blast - a major event- of the media coverage of the war received little or NO attention in the mainstream media.
Why is that?
NASCAR and Democrats
Democrats in Washington, DC sent staffers from the Homeland Security Agency committee to NASCAR races to check out the risk of a terrorist attack during one of the large races.
Nothing wrong with that.
However, the staffers were told to get their shots before attending the NASCAR races. Yeah, you never know what diseases those redneck race fans may be carrying around! NASCAR and its fans took umbrage at the insult.
Trips to the large cities of America are much more dangerous than a few hours spent at a NASCAR event. We all know how rampant crime is in the big Northern cities; Baltimore, Washington, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, and many others. We can only guess at the exotic diseases that inhabit these cold and impersonal cities. There are no shots to prevent one from catching the large city viruses.
I think the Democrats just shot themselves in the mouth and in the process lost what political hope they had in NASCARland.
Nothing wrong with that.
However, the staffers were told to get their shots before attending the NASCAR races. Yeah, you never know what diseases those redneck race fans may be carrying around! NASCAR and its fans took umbrage at the insult.
Trips to the large cities of America are much more dangerous than a few hours spent at a NASCAR event. We all know how rampant crime is in the big Northern cities; Baltimore, Washington, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, and many others. We can only guess at the exotic diseases that inhabit these cold and impersonal cities. There are no shots to prevent one from catching the large city viruses.
I think the Democrats just shot themselves in the mouth and in the process lost what political hope they had in NASCARland.
Monday, October 8, 2007
They're Back!
The Democrats flew into Washington like an agitated swarm of Killer Bees.
Yes, indeed, the Democrats are back in control of Congress. Like the Africanized bees the Democrats send out daily raids to attack those who the Democrats perceive as threats to their power. President Bush, VP Cheney, career military leaders, Rush Limbaugh and others who dare question the wisdom of Democratic ideas and policies receive severe stings.
Led by the California Queen, Nancy Pelosi, and the Nevada undertaker, Harry Reid, the Democrats are determined to raise taxes, to undermine the War on Terror, and to further sink the American people into soft socialism.
The Ds have been in control since January 2007 and as of today not one spending bill has been approved by Congress. One of the main functions of Congress is to approve an annual budget BEFORE the new fiscal year starts. Fiscal year 2008 started on 1 October 2007. Yet the Ds fail to act on what should be their priorities. Sure they have time to pass silly and meaningless measures and to pass inflated health care legislation that President Bush vowed to veto long before it was passed.
The Ds are looking as usual for partisan isssues to justify more Killer Bee stinging raids.
Keep the Raid spray can handy as there will be angry Democrats flying about this fall.
They're back!
Yes, indeed, the Democrats are back in control of Congress. Like the Africanized bees the Democrats send out daily raids to attack those who the Democrats perceive as threats to their power. President Bush, VP Cheney, career military leaders, Rush Limbaugh and others who dare question the wisdom of Democratic ideas and policies receive severe stings.
Led by the California Queen, Nancy Pelosi, and the Nevada undertaker, Harry Reid, the Democrats are determined to raise taxes, to undermine the War on Terror, and to further sink the American people into soft socialism.
The Ds have been in control since January 2007 and as of today not one spending bill has been approved by Congress. One of the main functions of Congress is to approve an annual budget BEFORE the new fiscal year starts. Fiscal year 2008 started on 1 October 2007. Yet the Ds fail to act on what should be their priorities. Sure they have time to pass silly and meaningless measures and to pass inflated health care legislation that President Bush vowed to veto long before it was passed.
The Ds are looking as usual for partisan isssues to justify more Killer Bee stinging raids.
Keep the Raid spray can handy as there will be angry Democrats flying about this fall.
They're back!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Dan Rather
Poor Dan Rather.
Dan is sueing CBS for $70 million for pulling his plug. Dan is upset with CBS for the way CBS handled his phony news story about President Bush's National Guard service in the late 1960s. After the ruckus over Dan's use of forged documents in the story - a blatant attempt to sway the 2004 election - CBS finally terminated old Dan's reign as the third place news anchor among the three major networks.
The networks have declining ratings for their news shows for good reasons. No longer are Americans limited to hearing the usual suspects report the news as they want. Today instead of depending on nightly news programs run by the standard liberals, consumers have talk radio, 24 hour cable news, the internet, and millions of blogs as sources of news. Thankfully, the old days are gone.
It must be tough on old Dan's ego. Hence, the $70 million lawsuit in an attempt to regain a little attention.
Dan is sueing CBS for $70 million for pulling his plug. Dan is upset with CBS for the way CBS handled his phony news story about President Bush's National Guard service in the late 1960s. After the ruckus over Dan's use of forged documents in the story - a blatant attempt to sway the 2004 election - CBS finally terminated old Dan's reign as the third place news anchor among the three major networks.
The networks have declining ratings for their news shows for good reasons. No longer are Americans limited to hearing the usual suspects report the news as they want. Today instead of depending on nightly news programs run by the standard liberals, consumers have talk radio, 24 hour cable news, the internet, and millions of blogs as sources of news. Thankfully, the old days are gone.
It must be tough on old Dan's ego. Hence, the $70 million lawsuit in an attempt to regain a little attention.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Columbia University
Columbia University answered my question.
In my post on Ahmadinejad I asked if Columbia U. would invite Hitler to speak. This morning FOXNEWS reported that Columbia said it would indeed ask Hitler to speak on its campus.
This is the same university that forbids United States military recruiters on campus. It is the same university that forbids the ROTC on campus! All in the name of free speech of course.
The people who operate Columbia U. do not understand free speech. The free speech Columbia U. claims to cherish (despite evidence to the contrary) is made possible, not by professors, nor by administrators, nor by journalists, but by the military service branches that Columbia U. prohibits from its campus.
Ironic.
Columbia University is a metaphor for the state of modern liberalism. Modern liberalism is a far cry from the open and tolerant views of classical liberalism. There is little tolerance in modern liberalism. We have daily case studies of the intolerance of "educated" folks who run the elite universities and colleges across the country. Short-sighted, uninformed, under-educated, and politically correct people appear bent on the destruction of higher education in the United States.
Yet the parents of students at Columbia University (and many others) pay through the nose to "educate" their kids at these "great" institutions of higher learning.
Is it money well spent?
In my post on Ahmadinejad I asked if Columbia U. would invite Hitler to speak. This morning FOXNEWS reported that Columbia said it would indeed ask Hitler to speak on its campus.
This is the same university that forbids United States military recruiters on campus. It is the same university that forbids the ROTC on campus! All in the name of free speech of course.
The people who operate Columbia U. do not understand free speech. The free speech Columbia U. claims to cherish (despite evidence to the contrary) is made possible, not by professors, nor by administrators, nor by journalists, but by the military service branches that Columbia U. prohibits from its campus.
Ironic.
Columbia University is a metaphor for the state of modern liberalism. Modern liberalism is a far cry from the open and tolerant views of classical liberalism. There is little tolerance in modern liberalism. We have daily case studies of the intolerance of "educated" folks who run the elite universities and colleges across the country. Short-sighted, uninformed, under-educated, and politically correct people appear bent on the destruction of higher education in the United States.
Yet the parents of students at Columbia University (and many others) pay through the nose to "educate" their kids at these "great" institutions of higher learning.
Is it money well spent?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Ahmadinejad
He's in New York City.
Ahmadinejad.
The "leader" of Iran is in the Big Apple for the annual UN confab. This "leader" of Iran wants to demolish the country of Israel. He supports terrorists across the Middle East. Many believe he was a ringleader in the 1979 attack on the American Embassy in Tehran. The Iranians violated international law by breaching the US embassy and further violated the sacred rights of diplomats by holding Americans hostage for 444 days. That score is still unsettled, in my opinion. Iran ignores UN resolutions and continues to develop nuclear weapons.
Now the American taxpayers are paying for security for this Iranian "leader"!!
Columbia University invited the "leader" of Iran to speak. Free speech is great as we all know. But do Iranians have free speech?
If it were 1940 would Columbia University invite Hitler to speak?
Ahmadinejad wanted to lay a wreath at the WTC site.
That would be like Hitler laying a wreath at one of his death camps.
What is happening to the world?
Have "educated" people lost their sense of right and wrong?
Ahmadinejad.
The "leader" of Iran is in the Big Apple for the annual UN confab. This "leader" of Iran wants to demolish the country of Israel. He supports terrorists across the Middle East. Many believe he was a ringleader in the 1979 attack on the American Embassy in Tehran. The Iranians violated international law by breaching the US embassy and further violated the sacred rights of diplomats by holding Americans hostage for 444 days. That score is still unsettled, in my opinion. Iran ignores UN resolutions and continues to develop nuclear weapons.
Now the American taxpayers are paying for security for this Iranian "leader"!!
Columbia University invited the "leader" of Iran to speak. Free speech is great as we all know. But do Iranians have free speech?
If it were 1940 would Columbia University invite Hitler to speak?
Ahmadinejad wanted to lay a wreath at the WTC site.
That would be like Hitler laying a wreath at one of his death camps.
What is happening to the world?
Have "educated" people lost their sense of right and wrong?
Norman Hsu
Do you know Norman Hsu (pronounced Shoo)?
Not personally, of course, but do you know who he is? He has been in the news recently.
Hsu's claim to fame is his political fundraising for Democrats. As far as I know Hsu does not donate money to the elephant people. Hsu donated almost a million bucks to H. Clinton's campaign. Once it became publicly known Hsu was a fugitive from justice - running Ponzi schemes and making illegal donations to Democrat politicians- the H. Clinton gang decided they really did not know who Hsu was.
Huh?
Hsu gave H. Clinton almost a million $$ (and other Democrats lots of money also) yet the H. Clinton people expect us to believe they do not know who he is! I was born at night, but it was not last night!
It is like deja vu all over again. It reminds us of the Clintons's actions in the 1996 campaign where they took contributions from foreign sources and others in violation of campaign laws. The Clintons were fined and slapped on the wrists while some of the fund raisers went to jail.
And again -just as in 1996 -the mainstream media permits the Clintons to get away with these illegal actions.
Compare the media's handling of the Norman Hsu scandal to their handling of the Jack Abramoff scandal if you want to see the liberal double standard at work.
No surprise there!
Not personally, of course, but do you know who he is? He has been in the news recently.
Hsu's claim to fame is his political fundraising for Democrats. As far as I know Hsu does not donate money to the elephant people. Hsu donated almost a million bucks to H. Clinton's campaign. Once it became publicly known Hsu was a fugitive from justice - running Ponzi schemes and making illegal donations to Democrat politicians- the H. Clinton gang decided they really did not know who Hsu was.
Huh?
Hsu gave H. Clinton almost a million $$ (and other Democrats lots of money also) yet the H. Clinton people expect us to believe they do not know who he is! I was born at night, but it was not last night!
It is like deja vu all over again. It reminds us of the Clintons's actions in the 1996 campaign where they took contributions from foreign sources and others in violation of campaign laws. The Clintons were fined and slapped on the wrists while some of the fund raisers went to jail.
And again -just as in 1996 -the mainstream media permits the Clintons to get away with these illegal actions.
Compare the media's handling of the Norman Hsu scandal to their handling of the Jack Abramoff scandal if you want to see the liberal double standard at work.
No surprise there!
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
General Petraeus
Well, the Democrats tried to make General Petraeus look bad as they normally do with members of the military. My observations of the hearings -both House and Senate - revealed a cool, calm, and controlled Petraeus. Heavens know the general must have wanted to smack many of the silly liberal politicians up-side their heads. H. Clinton all but called the general a liar.
Can anyone imagine a US Senator during World War II calling Gen Ike a liar? There were many many dreadful mistakes made durinng WWII but the politicians were of a better quality than those of today.
Many liberals and most Democrat politicians do not understand the War on Terror (Wot). Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Schumer, and others either do not understand what is at stake in the WoT or they do not care. Expediency appears to be their main concern as they cannot see past the next TV interview.
I was hoping the Dems would blast General Petraeus (a sure loser for the Dems) - we all know they wanted to blast him - but their collective memory of the beating they received at the hands of Lt. Col North restricted their tongues. It is clear to me the Democrat plan was to have their surrogates - the nuts at Moveon.org and the other nuts at the other Loony Left asylums do their dirty work.
The NY (Bad) Times (sic) ran a full page ad by the Moveon gang which assassinated the character of General Petraeus. The general has devoted his life to serving the nation with honor whereas the nuts at Moveon.org or George Soros has done WHAT? for the nation.
Just what has Soros and the gang at Moveon done to make the United States or the world a better place?
Hmmmmmmmmmm?
The bottom line is the Democrats would be 100 percent behind the WoT (of which Iraq is one part) if a Democrat, any Democrat, were in the White House. It is simple as that.
Partisan politics rules in Washington, DC.
Can anyone imagine a US Senator during World War II calling Gen Ike a liar? There were many many dreadful mistakes made durinng WWII but the politicians were of a better quality than those of today.
Many liberals and most Democrat politicians do not understand the War on Terror (Wot). Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Schumer, and others either do not understand what is at stake in the WoT or they do not care. Expediency appears to be their main concern as they cannot see past the next TV interview.
I was hoping the Dems would blast General Petraeus (a sure loser for the Dems) - we all know they wanted to blast him - but their collective memory of the beating they received at the hands of Lt. Col North restricted their tongues. It is clear to me the Democrat plan was to have their surrogates - the nuts at Moveon.org and the other nuts at the other Loony Left asylums do their dirty work.
The NY (Bad) Times (sic) ran a full page ad by the Moveon gang which assassinated the character of General Petraeus. The general has devoted his life to serving the nation with honor whereas the nuts at Moveon.org or George Soros has done WHAT? for the nation.
Just what has Soros and the gang at Moveon done to make the United States or the world a better place?
Hmmmmmmmmmm?
The bottom line is the Democrats would be 100 percent behind the WoT (of which Iraq is one part) if a Democrat, any Democrat, were in the White House. It is simple as that.
Partisan politics rules in Washington, DC.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Invested in Defeat
Have we ever seen a political party invest so much political capital in defeat in Iraq as the Democrats have done? Never in American history with the exception of the Democrats during the Civil War has a party been so committed to a negative outcome in a military confrontation.
What will the Democrats say to General Petraeus? Will they accuse him of wearing rose colored glasses? Will the Democrats grill the general over the political failures -to date- of the Iraqi government? Will the Democrats ignore the clear signs of positive changes in Iraq?
Why has the Democrat Party adopted the "Lose at all costs" approach to the conflict in Iraq? Sure, there are still many problems to solve in Iraq. Sure, the country is divided along tribal, religious, and regional lines. And it is an open question whether the Iraqi government, the current government and future governments, can unite all the factions into a coherent functioning national government. But why have the Democrats taken the negative road in this struggle? Do they think the American people want defeat in Iraq. A portion of the Democrat base surely wants the United States defeated in Iraq just as the same portion invested heavily in the US defeat in Vietnam. That explains a lot about the Democrat Party. Many of the current leaders in the Democrat Party cut their political teeth on the American defeat in Vietnam. Just ask John Kerry. The Iraqi situation reminds them of their fixation on Vietnam.
But the main reason the Democrats invest in defeat in Iraq is because of George Bush. Success in Iraq means Bush gets credit for vision, for military actions. for courage, for diplomacy, and for doing the right thing. Democrats cannot allow that to happen.
What will the Democrats say to General Petraeus? Will they accuse him of wearing rose colored glasses? Will the Democrats grill the general over the political failures -to date- of the Iraqi government? Will the Democrats ignore the clear signs of positive changes in Iraq?
Why has the Democrat Party adopted the "Lose at all costs" approach to the conflict in Iraq? Sure, there are still many problems to solve in Iraq. Sure, the country is divided along tribal, religious, and regional lines. And it is an open question whether the Iraqi government, the current government and future governments, can unite all the factions into a coherent functioning national government. But why have the Democrats taken the negative road in this struggle? Do they think the American people want defeat in Iraq. A portion of the Democrat base surely wants the United States defeated in Iraq just as the same portion invested heavily in the US defeat in Vietnam. That explains a lot about the Democrat Party. Many of the current leaders in the Democrat Party cut their political teeth on the American defeat in Vietnam. Just ask John Kerry. The Iraqi situation reminds them of their fixation on Vietnam.
But the main reason the Democrats invest in defeat in Iraq is because of George Bush. Success in Iraq means Bush gets credit for vision, for military actions. for courage, for diplomacy, and for doing the right thing. Democrats cannot allow that to happen.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Who is the Real Environmentalist?
Read this and decide who is the "real" green person concerned about the environment.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on an arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee.
It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment?
Yet another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it’s truly “an inconvenient truth.”
If true, indeed, inconveient for Algore.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on an arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee.
It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment?
Yet another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it’s truly “an inconvenient truth.”
If true, indeed, inconveient for Algore.
Summer Recess
Aaaahhhh!
Congress is out of town for the month of August so I can breath easier for a few weeks. No threats to raise taxes, no political high jinks, no publicity stunts, no mad rush to the TV cameras, and praise be even if it is only for a short month.
I wish Congress would take more time away from Washington. Why do we, the American people, need Congress in town for months and months? If Congress fulfilled its basic duties and stopped the silly partisan games, the American people might think more highly of it. Last report I heard Congress's approval rating was 18. President Bush's rating was 31. Thirty one is higher than 18, at least using old math.
So Congress, do us a favor and stay away.
Congress is out of town for the month of August so I can breath easier for a few weeks. No threats to raise taxes, no political high jinks, no publicity stunts, no mad rush to the TV cameras, and praise be even if it is only for a short month.
I wish Congress would take more time away from Washington. Why do we, the American people, need Congress in town for months and months? If Congress fulfilled its basic duties and stopped the silly partisan games, the American people might think more highly of it. Last report I heard Congress's approval rating was 18. President Bush's rating was 31. Thirty one is higher than 18, at least using old math.
So Congress, do us a favor and stay away.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Predictions
Want to make a weather prediction?
Go ahead. Do it.
When it comes to predicting hurricanes, your guess (why not just write numbers 1 -20 on paper, put them into a pot, and select one) is as good as the experts. And perhaps more accurate.
Last year some expert "predicted" a total of 17 or 18 hurricanes based on his scientific knowledge of weather patterns and his feel for political correctness. Last year not a single hurricane touched the United States if my old memory serves me correctly.
This year the "expert" predicted 17 hurricanes with a likely five being severe storms.
As of today -7 August 2007- not a single hurricane has been sighted in the western hemisphere.
Where did they go?
Maybe the hurricanes did not get the memo from Algore saying global warming causes more hurricanes and more "severe" hurricanes.
I predict the sun will rise tomorrow.
Go ahead. Do it.
When it comes to predicting hurricanes, your guess (why not just write numbers 1 -20 on paper, put them into a pot, and select one) is as good as the experts. And perhaps more accurate.
Last year some expert "predicted" a total of 17 or 18 hurricanes based on his scientific knowledge of weather patterns and his feel for political correctness. Last year not a single hurricane touched the United States if my old memory serves me correctly.
This year the "expert" predicted 17 hurricanes with a likely five being severe storms.
As of today -7 August 2007- not a single hurricane has been sighted in the western hemisphere.
Where did they go?
Maybe the hurricanes did not get the memo from Algore saying global warming causes more hurricanes and more "severe" hurricanes.
I predict the sun will rise tomorrow.
Monday, July 23, 2007
The Majority Leader
The United States Senate is led today by Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada. Senator Reid reminds me of a small town undertaker. He speaks in soft terms and impresses me with his insincerity. Reid complains about the tactics used by the minority to block his legislative agenda. Funny thing that. The minority is using the same tactics Reid used when he was minority leader. I guess it really does depend upon whose ox is being algored.
I wish the Congress would pass the necessary spending bills and go on vacation. In fact, the Congress can stay on vacation if they want. It will save the American people loads of money and will be much cheaper to pay the Congress their salaries while they are on vacation than to have them in Washington. While in Washington Congress wastes our money, engages in silly publicity stunts, makes fools of themsleves, and adds nothing positive to the national discourse.
Afterall, why do we need hundreds of new laws when thousands of old laws are not enforced anyway?
Senator Reid is the face of the current US Senate. It is not a pretty sight. And Reid deserves all the criticism I can muster for his ill mannered behavior and petty partisan approach to every issue.
I wish the Congress would pass the necessary spending bills and go on vacation. In fact, the Congress can stay on vacation if they want. It will save the American people loads of money and will be much cheaper to pay the Congress their salaries while they are on vacation than to have them in Washington. While in Washington Congress wastes our money, engages in silly publicity stunts, makes fools of themsleves, and adds nothing positive to the national discourse.
Afterall, why do we need hundreds of new laws when thousands of old laws are not enforced anyway?
Senator Reid is the face of the current US Senate. It is not a pretty sight. And Reid deserves all the criticism I can muster for his ill mannered behavior and petty partisan approach to every issue.
Friday, June 8, 2007
They Don't Get It!
Politicians in Washington still do not understand the illegal immigration issue. It is about controlling our borders, hence, our security. If we refuse to police our border, how can we expect to protect the nation from terrorists, criminals, drug dealers, and others who wish us harm? And what do the people who enter illegally think of a nation that cannot or will not control its border? I suspect these folks have a low opinion of Americans.
The much talked about "immigration reform" bill contained 1,000 pages of details. For more than two centuries we have governed ourselves (sometimes not very well) and lived by a small document called the United States Constitution. How in the world does it take a 1,000 page document to fix the illegal immigration problem?
I know Teddy Kennedy had a hand in negotiating and drafting this monster of a bill. That explains the verbose nature of the bill. But really, we can fix our borders - the solution is simple, just enforce existing laws, and take care of the illegals in our country by requiring employers to turn over data on illegals to federal authorities. We then can require illegals to register, pay taxes, obtain proper IDs, and apply to work in the United States.
I do not assume that illegals want to become Americans. They want jobs and some want free benefits, but I question the assumption made by most politicians that they want to assimilate and become Americans.
Mexico has no tolerance for illegals coming into Mexico to work. You get jail time if you are caught working in Mexico. Try it if you do not believe me.
It is time for the politicians to wake up on this issue.
The much talked about "immigration reform" bill contained 1,000 pages of details. For more than two centuries we have governed ourselves (sometimes not very well) and lived by a small document called the United States Constitution. How in the world does it take a 1,000 page document to fix the illegal immigration problem?
I know Teddy Kennedy had a hand in negotiating and drafting this monster of a bill. That explains the verbose nature of the bill. But really, we can fix our borders - the solution is simple, just enforce existing laws, and take care of the illegals in our country by requiring employers to turn over data on illegals to federal authorities. We then can require illegals to register, pay taxes, obtain proper IDs, and apply to work in the United States.
I do not assume that illegals want to become Americans. They want jobs and some want free benefits, but I question the assumption made by most politicians that they want to assimilate and become Americans.
Mexico has no tolerance for illegals coming into Mexico to work. You get jail time if you are caught working in Mexico. Try it if you do not believe me.
It is time for the politicians to wake up on this issue.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Freezer Money
Got extra cash you want to stash someplace?
Your freezer is a cool place to keep the cash.
Ask William Jefferson, DEMOCRAT, LA., a sitting US Congressman where he keeps his extra cash. Jefferson, Democrat of LA., put $90,000 in his freezer just in case he needed a quick buck to spend.
What about freezer burn, you ask.
Nah, cold hard cash is immune to freezer burn.
Today I placed my extra cash in my freezer. Let's see. I put four $2 bills, those rarely used throwbacks, in a baggie and stuck them in my freezer just in case there is a run on two dollar bills.
I hope the FBI doesn't raid my freezer and find my extra cash!
Your freezer is a cool place to keep the cash.
Ask William Jefferson, DEMOCRAT, LA., a sitting US Congressman where he keeps his extra cash. Jefferson, Democrat of LA., put $90,000 in his freezer just in case he needed a quick buck to spend.
What about freezer burn, you ask.
Nah, cold hard cash is immune to freezer burn.
Today I placed my extra cash in my freezer. Let's see. I put four $2 bills, those rarely used throwbacks, in a baggie and stuck them in my freezer just in case there is a run on two dollar bills.
I hope the FBI doesn't raid my freezer and find my extra cash!
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
John Edwards and Poverty
John Edwards says he is concerned about "Two Americas". John Edwards says he is concerned about poverty in America. John Edwards "studied" poverty at a hedge fund company which paid him several hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn about poverty.
Poverty is big business.
So if we take John Edwards at his oft repeated word, that is, he is extremely concerned about poverty in the United States several questions come to mind.
1. If Edwards is so concerned about poverty, why is he building a 28,000 square foot new Saddam-styled mansion? Is a 25,000 foot mansion too small? Or what about a 26,000 square foot home? Still too small?
2. If Edwards is really concerned about poverty, why did he join a hedge fund and earn big bucks "studying" poverty instead of driving nails for the cameras like Jimmy Carter does?
3. Does Edwards thinks there are only two Americas? John Edwards lives at the top level of American life. Below his standard of living there are 99.99 percent of Americans, just us little folks, trying to make ends meet. If Edwards really cared for "little" Americans, he would stop talking about poverty and create jobs for people using HIS money. Edwards would also learn about the real America he never sees; the America that takes care of itself, the victimless America that does not require or want another poverty program for government bureaucrats to mess up.
Edwards should put his money where his mouth is and leave us alone.
And please, stop tormenting us with those cheap fake shows of concern. Even a fool can detect Edwards's phony show of concern.
Poverty is big business.
So if we take John Edwards at his oft repeated word, that is, he is extremely concerned about poverty in the United States several questions come to mind.
1. If Edwards is so concerned about poverty, why is he building a 28,000 square foot new Saddam-styled mansion? Is a 25,000 foot mansion too small? Or what about a 26,000 square foot home? Still too small?
2. If Edwards is really concerned about poverty, why did he join a hedge fund and earn big bucks "studying" poverty instead of driving nails for the cameras like Jimmy Carter does?
3. Does Edwards thinks there are only two Americas? John Edwards lives at the top level of American life. Below his standard of living there are 99.99 percent of Americans, just us little folks, trying to make ends meet. If Edwards really cared for "little" Americans, he would stop talking about poverty and create jobs for people using HIS money. Edwards would also learn about the real America he never sees; the America that takes care of itself, the victimless America that does not require or want another poverty program for government bureaucrats to mess up.
Edwards should put his money where his mouth is and leave us alone.
And please, stop tormenting us with those cheap fake shows of concern. Even a fool can detect Edwards's phony show of concern.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Surrender
The Democrats in Congress insist the United States surrender its fight in Iraq to al Qaeda and its allies against the effort to plant democracy in the Middle East. The terrorist group is allied with the former Saddamites, extreme Sunnis, and others who wish to prevent success in Iraq. Why do the Democrats wave the flag of surrender? Don't they realize their partisan political position plays into the hands of the above named groups?
Yes, of course they know this. Yet they demand a surrender schedule. They do so for political reasons. The main reason is their hatred of President Bush. This hate blinds them to what is at stake in Iraq. If we follow the Democrats and surrender and leave Iraq, what do the Democrats think will happen? When al Queda builds another base in Iraq as it did in Afghanistan years ago and use the Iraqi base to attack Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and other countries opposed to the extreme views of bin Laden and others, it will be too late for the US and other western democracies to respond.
The short-sighted views of the Democrats will lead to many more serious problems for the United States. It is a shame Democrats place partisan gains ahead of national security and of the opportunity to grow a democracy in the turbulent Middle East.
Yes, of course they know this. Yet they demand a surrender schedule. They do so for political reasons. The main reason is their hatred of President Bush. This hate blinds them to what is at stake in Iraq. If we follow the Democrats and surrender and leave Iraq, what do the Democrats think will happen? When al Queda builds another base in Iraq as it did in Afghanistan years ago and use the Iraqi base to attack Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and other countries opposed to the extreme views of bin Laden and others, it will be too late for the US and other western democracies to respond.
The short-sighted views of the Democrats will lead to many more serious problems for the United States. It is a shame Democrats place partisan gains ahead of national security and of the opportunity to grow a democracy in the turbulent Middle East.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Feeding Frenzy and Partisan Politics
During my 35+ years in the Washington DC area I have seen lots of things: Hijacked airliners, airplane crashes, huge snowstorms, resignation of a president, an incompetent president, corruption in Congress, political bright periods, Frat Boy politics in the White House, media dishonesty on a vast scale, and one way partisan politics.
The media frenzy over the Bush Administration's firing of eight DAa is just the latest evidence of partisan politics by the Democrats and the feeding frenzy of the mainstream media. Bush's handling of this issue has only added to the frenzy. All the DAs in the nation work in theory for the president and at his pleasure. He can fire anyone of them at any time for any reason JUST AS Clinton fired all 93 DAs when he took offfice in 1993. Instead of saying this when the issue was first raised Bush and Gonzales converted a simple task into a media generated "scandal".
It takes a lot of talent to mess up this badly. Perhaps for this reason alone Bush should fire his friend and the AG - Gonzales.
The Democrats never miss an opportunity to play partisan politics. They are good at it because they do it so often. Democrats view every issue in terms of what they can gain politically. The War on Terror, the War in Iraq, education, jobs, health care, every issue is seen through a partisan lens. Yet the media never present the views of Democrats as partisan.
Next time you watch the news see how often Democrats are portrayed as partisan -when they are clearly making partisan statements and looking for an advantage for their party instead of improving the quality of life for Americans- and compare that to how Republicians are presented by the same media.
There is no doubt in my mind there is an unwritten alliance between the mainstream media and the Democrat Party.
The media frenzy over the Bush Administration's firing of eight DAa is just the latest evidence of partisan politics by the Democrats and the feeding frenzy of the mainstream media. Bush's handling of this issue has only added to the frenzy. All the DAs in the nation work in theory for the president and at his pleasure. He can fire anyone of them at any time for any reason JUST AS Clinton fired all 93 DAs when he took offfice in 1993. Instead of saying this when the issue was first raised Bush and Gonzales converted a simple task into a media generated "scandal".
It takes a lot of talent to mess up this badly. Perhaps for this reason alone Bush should fire his friend and the AG - Gonzales.
The Democrats never miss an opportunity to play partisan politics. They are good at it because they do it so often. Democrats view every issue in terms of what they can gain politically. The War on Terror, the War in Iraq, education, jobs, health care, every issue is seen through a partisan lens. Yet the media never present the views of Democrats as partisan.
Next time you watch the news see how often Democrats are portrayed as partisan -when they are clearly making partisan statements and looking for an advantage for their party instead of improving the quality of life for Americans- and compare that to how Republicians are presented by the same media.
There is no doubt in my mind there is an unwritten alliance between the mainstream media and the Democrat Party.
"The Planet has a Fever"
So says Algore.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Algore appeared before House and Senate committees yesterday and was treated like the celebrity he has become since his political demise in 2000. Algore is on a religious crusade - the religion being the New Age's favorite topic: the theory of global warming. And Al is the high priest of the religion as he travels far and wide spreading the gospel according to the Green Movement. Mind you there is no conclusive evidence that the earth is warming since various measurements report different readings (ground based, sea bouys, weather balloons, and satellites). Even if the earth were warming we do not understand why and how it is happening despite the spin the Greens and their allies in the media tell us. Since almost all of the radiation (heat) reaching the earth comes from our Sun, is it logical to first look at the sun as the most likely source of the assumed warming? But no, the sun cannot possibly be the cause since that relieves man of the responsibility. And without man's guilt in this farce how could the Greens and Algore raise taxes, plan, control, and organize our activities for the next 500 years?
Recent reports have indicated temperature increases on the surfaces of Mars and Jupiter. Will Algore and his sidekicks blame that increase on man's activity?
Hmmmmmmmmmm?
Global Warming: Five percent science and 95 percent politics.
Global warming is a fantastic cash cow for Algore. I understand he is making millions of $$$ from the Great Scam of the 21st Century.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Algore appeared before House and Senate committees yesterday and was treated like the celebrity he has become since his political demise in 2000. Algore is on a religious crusade - the religion being the New Age's favorite topic: the theory of global warming. And Al is the high priest of the religion as he travels far and wide spreading the gospel according to the Green Movement. Mind you there is no conclusive evidence that the earth is warming since various measurements report different readings (ground based, sea bouys, weather balloons, and satellites). Even if the earth were warming we do not understand why and how it is happening despite the spin the Greens and their allies in the media tell us. Since almost all of the radiation (heat) reaching the earth comes from our Sun, is it logical to first look at the sun as the most likely source of the assumed warming? But no, the sun cannot possibly be the cause since that relieves man of the responsibility. And without man's guilt in this farce how could the Greens and Algore raise taxes, plan, control, and organize our activities for the next 500 years?
Recent reports have indicated temperature increases on the surfaces of Mars and Jupiter. Will Algore and his sidekicks blame that increase on man's activity?
Hmmmmmmmmmm?
Global Warming: Five percent science and 95 percent politics.
Global warming is a fantastic cash cow for Algore. I understand he is making millions of $$$ from the Great Scam of the 21st Century.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Sandy Berger, Lewis Libby, and Justice
On 1 April 2005 Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor, visited the National Archives. Berger went to the federal government's custodian of federal records to review documents from the Clinton era on terrorism. Berger took national security documents, we do not know what documents which raises other questions, and stuffed them down his pants, into his socks, and up his sleeves.
Why?
Was it cold that day and did Berger need the extra insulation?
Or was Berger's skin itchy and required scratching?
Or perhaps Berger thought he could make a buck or two selling the documents on Ebay.
What was the deal with Berger hiding documents under a construction trailer near the Archives building? Was it a drop for someone? For whom?
Maybe Berger wanted the documents to start a scrapbook. Who knows?
Since Sandy "The Burglar" Berger's Archives stealing coincided with the 9-11 Commission investigation, it is more likely that someone sent Berger to the Archives to retrieve certain documents concerning the Clinton's admin handling (or the lack thereof) of international terrorism. Why would Berger risk stealing national security documents on his own?
Berger was caught by the staff at the Archives and reported to the DOJ. He was slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again.
Compare Berger's treatment to that meted out to Libby. Berger was caught in the act of stealing national security documents and paid a small fine. Libby was accused and convicted of having a faulty memory, albeit in a legal proceeding. A part of Berger's deal with DOJ required him to take a lie detector test. He has yet to take the test and DOJ appears reluctant to enforce the deal THEY made with Berger.
Why?
Libby will appeal his conviction and has, IMO, a good chance of success.
Such is justice these days.
Why?
Was it cold that day and did Berger need the extra insulation?
Or was Berger's skin itchy and required scratching?
Or perhaps Berger thought he could make a buck or two selling the documents on Ebay.
What was the deal with Berger hiding documents under a construction trailer near the Archives building? Was it a drop for someone? For whom?
Maybe Berger wanted the documents to start a scrapbook. Who knows?
Since Sandy "The Burglar" Berger's Archives stealing coincided with the 9-11 Commission investigation, it is more likely that someone sent Berger to the Archives to retrieve certain documents concerning the Clinton's admin handling (or the lack thereof) of international terrorism. Why would Berger risk stealing national security documents on his own?
Berger was caught by the staff at the Archives and reported to the DOJ. He was slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again.
Compare Berger's treatment to that meted out to Libby. Berger was caught in the act of stealing national security documents and paid a small fine. Libby was accused and convicted of having a faulty memory, albeit in a legal proceeding. A part of Berger's deal with DOJ required him to take a lie detector test. He has yet to take the test and DOJ appears reluctant to enforce the deal THEY made with Berger.
Why?
Libby will appeal his conviction and has, IMO, a good chance of success.
Such is justice these days.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The Libby Verdict
As expected the jury in the trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby returned a guilty verdict against the former chief of staff to VP Cheney. The 11 person jury (one jurist was kicked off by the judge) found Libby guilty on four of the five counts. The Special Prosecutor can now claim victory and notch his six shooter. The world is much safer today because Libby was found guilty of prejury, lying to FBI agents, and two other counts. Yet the person who leaked the name of the CIA employee to the media has not been charged and will not be charged.
The whole affair smells to high heaven. There was no crime committed - even by Armitage who first leaked the name of Plame- because Plame was not undercover, not a secret agent, nor had been one in the past 5 years. The appointment of the SP was a mistake in the first place because there was no crime.
What a waste of money and time.
I think on appeal the verdict will be overturned because the trial judge made a mess of the case - such as it was.
The case illustrates the dishonesty of the mainstream media. The media reported on the case for years and rarely if ever told the American people there was no underlying crime in the case. As to perjury and obstruction of justice we all know what Bill Clinton did before, during and after the Paula Jones case. It's all about whose ox is gored!
As to the Libby jury, DC is 95 percent Democrat and we who pay attention know how many Democrats feel about Bush and Cheney (I hear them on C-SPAN's call-in programs all the time full of bitterness and hatred for Bush and Cheney). Many of these folks will go to any lengths to damage the Bush Admin. IMO.
The whole affair smells to high heaven. There was no crime committed - even by Armitage who first leaked the name of Plame- because Plame was not undercover, not a secret agent, nor had been one in the past 5 years. The appointment of the SP was a mistake in the first place because there was no crime.
What a waste of money and time.
I think on appeal the verdict will be overturned because the trial judge made a mess of the case - such as it was.
The case illustrates the dishonesty of the mainstream media. The media reported on the case for years and rarely if ever told the American people there was no underlying crime in the case. As to perjury and obstruction of justice we all know what Bill Clinton did before, during and after the Paula Jones case. It's all about whose ox is gored!
As to the Libby jury, DC is 95 percent Democrat and we who pay attention know how many Democrats feel about Bush and Cheney (I hear them on C-SPAN's call-in programs all the time full of bitterness and hatred for Bush and Cheney). Many of these folks will go to any lengths to damage the Bush Admin. IMO.
Suggestions
Make topic suggestions here by posting comments.
If I like the suggestions, I'll post opinions and we can start a discussion.
Go ahead, try it.
If I like the suggestions, I'll post opinions and we can start a discussion.
Go ahead, try it.
Global Warming II and Al Gore
Algore is the leading exponent of the theory of global warming. For years Algore has warned us to cut back on our energy use, to change our lifestyles, and to get ready for the gloom and doom of the coming crisis. If Algore were serious about his fears, he would follow his own advice.
Recent news stories revealed that Algore at his Nashville mansion uses 20 times (TWENTY TIMES) the energy that the average American home uses. Algore uses more than 200,000 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy a year. And Algore and his lovely wife have several homes around the country.
What gives?
Algore is a hypocrite. That is not unusual these days for people on the Left who say one thing and do the opposite. You know how it goes. The gloom and doom is for the "little people" and the elites like Algore and his friends do not need to follow the same rules - even if Algore goes around the world preaching how we all must change. Algore is special and is not subject to the rules he wants the rest of us to follow.
In other news, Special Report with Brit Hume reported that Channel Four in the UK will air a special on global warming this week. The theory is called a "warming swindle" and a "sham".
I wonder if the Drive By Media in the US will mention this report in their news. Probably not since it conflicts with the liberal conventional wisdom.
It was really windy yesterday. Before global warming the wind hardly ever blew!
Right?
Recent news stories revealed that Algore at his Nashville mansion uses 20 times (TWENTY TIMES) the energy that the average American home uses. Algore uses more than 200,000 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy a year. And Algore and his lovely wife have several homes around the country.
What gives?
Algore is a hypocrite. That is not unusual these days for people on the Left who say one thing and do the opposite. You know how it goes. The gloom and doom is for the "little people" and the elites like Algore and his friends do not need to follow the same rules - even if Algore goes around the world preaching how we all must change. Algore is special and is not subject to the rules he wants the rest of us to follow.
In other news, Special Report with Brit Hume reported that Channel Four in the UK will air a special on global warming this week. The theory is called a "warming swindle" and a "sham".
I wonder if the Drive By Media in the US will mention this report in their news. Probably not since it conflicts with the liberal conventional wisdom.
It was really windy yesterday. Before global warming the wind hardly ever blew!
Right?
Monday, March 5, 2007
Pop Culture
Are you as sick of hearing about Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears as I? Why do the media bombard us with the sordid details in these folks lives? I do not want to hear about Smith, Paris Hilton, or any other celebrity. Period. Their lives do not interest me at all.
Whereas I believe in personal freedom -the freedom to do stupid things and to live a useless life- I think we should return to better times and better people by shunning undesirable behavior. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we -regular Americans- are like the images Hollywood creates when there is non-stop coverage of people like Smith and Spears.
Just what have Spears, Smith, Hilton done to deserve the media's attention.
Nothing positive in my view.
It is the dumbing down of the media. Instead of covering the millions of ordinary Americans who do great things every day the media is fascinated with celebrity. Perhaps this is because most journalists today are more interested in becoming a celebrity than in doing the hard work necessary to report the real news from real Americans. The media is following the path of least resistance created by the radicalism of the 1960s - no limits on behavior, no rules, no right or wrong, just modern hedonism at work.
The Smith, Hilton, and Spears (numerous others also) cases are the logical outcome of the
degeneration of American pop culture.
Shame on the media.
Whereas I believe in personal freedom -the freedom to do stupid things and to live a useless life- I think we should return to better times and better people by shunning undesirable behavior. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we -regular Americans- are like the images Hollywood creates when there is non-stop coverage of people like Smith and Spears.
Just what have Spears, Smith, Hilton done to deserve the media's attention.
Nothing positive in my view.
It is the dumbing down of the media. Instead of covering the millions of ordinary Americans who do great things every day the media is fascinated with celebrity. Perhaps this is because most journalists today are more interested in becoming a celebrity than in doing the hard work necessary to report the real news from real Americans. The media is following the path of least resistance created by the radicalism of the 1960s - no limits on behavior, no rules, no right or wrong, just modern hedonism at work.
The Smith, Hilton, and Spears (numerous others also) cases are the logical outcome of the
degeneration of American pop culture.
Shame on the media.
March Madness
I watch college basketball. I do not watch the NBA, but if someone offered to pay me I would consider watching the pros. I think the college game is better, more fun, and reflects more of the good qualities of sports. In 2006 I faced a crucial test. My Tarheels played the Patriots of George Mason University.
I grew up in North Carolina and attended UNC-Chapel Hill. I recall watching the 1957 Tarheels beat the Kansas Jayhawks and Wilt Chamerlain for the national championship. I remember Dean Smith losing the 1977 championship game by over coaching his players. And in 1981 Indiana and Bobby Knight ripped the Tarheels for the championship. UNC won again in 1982, in 1993, and in 2005.
I graduated from George Mason and attended GMU Graduate School. So when the Patriots met the Tarheels in the second round of the 2006 tournament I was torn between the two schools. GMU won and became the media darlings by making it to the Final Four.
In 2007 the ACC tournament is wide open. Any one of 10 teams could win and get the automatic bid to the NCAA 65 team field. Since the ACC is the best conference in the country (the ACC won 8 of 11 games against the Big 10 this season), at least 8 ACC teams should recieve bids to the tournament.
Play ball!
I grew up in North Carolina and attended UNC-Chapel Hill. I recall watching the 1957 Tarheels beat the Kansas Jayhawks and Wilt Chamerlain for the national championship. I remember Dean Smith losing the 1977 championship game by over coaching his players. And in 1981 Indiana and Bobby Knight ripped the Tarheels for the championship. UNC won again in 1982, in 1993, and in 2005.
I graduated from George Mason and attended GMU Graduate School. So when the Patriots met the Tarheels in the second round of the 2006 tournament I was torn between the two schools. GMU won and became the media darlings by making it to the Final Four.
In 2007 the ACC tournament is wide open. Any one of 10 teams could win and get the automatic bid to the NCAA 65 team field. Since the ACC is the best conference in the country (the ACC won 8 of 11 games against the Big 10 this season), at least 8 ACC teams should recieve bids to the tournament.
Play ball!
Getting Older
Two Caps And The State of Short Term Memory L...
I placed the old cap on my head and grabbed my bags. I was leaving Amy and Lou’s (daughter and son-in-law) to go work at their other house. I had spent the night after working the previous day at the house. At the door I saw my other cap- a newer cleaner version-on the shelf. Oh, I thought, I want to take this to wear after I finish working. What to do? I freed a hand and not having anywhere to conveniently place the second cap I stuck it on top of the cap already on my head intending to remove it after I loaded the car.
I drove into Leesburg via Dry Mill Road to avoid the delays on Route 7. Traffic at Loudoun High School was normal for a school day and I drove carefully watching for kids, traffic, and deer. It was rut season for the deer and we all know how high school students are in the Fall. At the elementary school on Catoctin Circle the speed limit was 15 MPH so I crepe through there. My routine- during the time I was helping with the house renovation- was to stop at MacDonalds for a small coffee and a sausage biscuit.
I walked into Macs and got in line for service. A young man gave me a passing glance as I moved forward in the line. An older woman sent me a longer look. When I got to the counter, the Hispanic lady stared at my head briefly then took my order. She backed away from me to the place where the food was kept, her eyes not leaving me, got the biscuit and the coffee cup, and leaned to put the order on the counter. What the heck is her problem, I wondered. I grabbed my order, filled the coffee cup with the correct mixture of sugar, cream, and coffee, put a lid on it and left.
It was good coffee. I drove to the house and unloaded my things. As I returned to the car for a second load the bill of my cap hit the top of the raised rear door. I reached up to adjust my cap and guess what I found
There were two caps on my head. Then I remembered.
Well, no wonder I received the stares and curious looks at MacDonalds and in traffic. I can only imagine what those folks thought of the man wearing two caps. Was he so busy he needed two hats? Had he just escaped from an institution? What was his problem? Was his head cold? Was he too good for one cap, oh, yes, he had to wear two caps!
Where was I….?
I placed the old cap on my head and grabbed my bags. I was leaving Amy and Lou’s (daughter and son-in-law) to go work at their other house. I had spent the night after working the previous day at the house. At the door I saw my other cap- a newer cleaner version-on the shelf. Oh, I thought, I want to take this to wear after I finish working. What to do? I freed a hand and not having anywhere to conveniently place the second cap I stuck it on top of the cap already on my head intending to remove it after I loaded the car.
I drove into Leesburg via Dry Mill Road to avoid the delays on Route 7. Traffic at Loudoun High School was normal for a school day and I drove carefully watching for kids, traffic, and deer. It was rut season for the deer and we all know how high school students are in the Fall. At the elementary school on Catoctin Circle the speed limit was 15 MPH so I crepe through there. My routine- during the time I was helping with the house renovation- was to stop at MacDonalds for a small coffee and a sausage biscuit.
I walked into Macs and got in line for service. A young man gave me a passing glance as I moved forward in the line. An older woman sent me a longer look. When I got to the counter, the Hispanic lady stared at my head briefly then took my order. She backed away from me to the place where the food was kept, her eyes not leaving me, got the biscuit and the coffee cup, and leaned to put the order on the counter. What the heck is her problem, I wondered. I grabbed my order, filled the coffee cup with the correct mixture of sugar, cream, and coffee, put a lid on it and left.
It was good coffee. I drove to the house and unloaded my things. As I returned to the car for a second load the bill of my cap hit the top of the raised rear door. I reached up to adjust my cap and guess what I found
There were two caps on my head. Then I remembered.
Well, no wonder I received the stares and curious looks at MacDonalds and in traffic. I can only imagine what those folks thought of the man wearing two caps. Was he so busy he needed two hats? Had he just escaped from an institution? What was his problem? Was his head cold? Was he too good for one cap, oh, yes, he had to wear two caps!
Where was I….?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Eminent Domain
A man's home is his castle................................................unless government covets the property.
Cities around the country are using the eminent domain (ED) provision of our law to take private property for questionable (in my view) public use. The latest example comes from Olympia, Washington. The city wants to force owners to sell their property so the city can create another public park. Public parks are great but should cities use ED and their coercive government powers against owners who do not want to sell?
So far the courts -all the way to SCOTUS - have ruled in favor of the governments. A recent ruling by the highest court in the land supported a Connecticut taking where a city condemned private property in order to take it so the city could in turn hand the property over to a private developer. It was not taken for a public highway, nor for a hospital, nor for a school, but so a developer who coveted the property could build a private commercial business. The city's rationale was that the new development would raise lots more tax revenue. Therefore, the public good was enhanced.
The Connecticut case led to a group filing ED papers in New Hampshire against Justice Souter's home. Souter wrote the SCOTUS opinion that agreed with the taking. It seems fair to me that if one person's property is subjected to ED, then why not subject Justice Souter's property to the same standard. After all, justice is for ALL of us, right?
A man's home is his castle...................................is meaningless these days!
Cities around the country are using the eminent domain (ED) provision of our law to take private property for questionable (in my view) public use. The latest example comes from Olympia, Washington. The city wants to force owners to sell their property so the city can create another public park. Public parks are great but should cities use ED and their coercive government powers against owners who do not want to sell?
So far the courts -all the way to SCOTUS - have ruled in favor of the governments. A recent ruling by the highest court in the land supported a Connecticut taking where a city condemned private property in order to take it so the city could in turn hand the property over to a private developer. It was not taken for a public highway, nor for a hospital, nor for a school, but so a developer who coveted the property could build a private commercial business. The city's rationale was that the new development would raise lots more tax revenue. Therefore, the public good was enhanced.
The Connecticut case led to a group filing ED papers in New Hampshire against Justice Souter's home. Souter wrote the SCOTUS opinion that agreed with the taking. It seems fair to me that if one person's property is subjected to ED, then why not subject Justice Souter's property to the same standard. After all, justice is for ALL of us, right?
A man's home is his castle...................................is meaningless these days!
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Mainstream Media - Part Three
The declining standards of the mainstream media were significant in the loss of consumers and the loss of prestige by large liberal news organizations. Readership fell at most large city newspapers. The viewing audiences at the three major television network news shows shrunk. More and more news consumers were finding and preferring alternative news sources. Journalists were ranked in some polls below used car salesmen for credibility and honesty.
In comparison FOXNEWS, a young cable news network, saw tremendous growth in viewers while CNN and MSNBC lost viewers or saw much slower growth. Internet news sites grow at a rapid pace as does the Blogoshere, world-wide-web sites where anyone could start a Blog to offer opinion, commentary, news analysis, and review and critique news presented by other sources. Bloggers were instrumental in debunking the CBS News story about President Bush’s Texas ANG service. Within hours after the story ran bloggers had determined the documents used in the story were forged because the type and font used in the documents were not available when the documents were allegedly created in the 1970s.
One obvious problem with modern liberal journalism was the need by liberal journalists to interject themselves into the story. No longer were journalists content to report the news, but now insisted on making themselves part of the story for personal or political reasons to massage their egos, to push a political agenda, or to become a celebrity or pundit.
Anyone who wanted could track the state of modern journalism at several internet sites. The
Media Research Center has been tracking the liberal mainstream media for years at www.mediaresearchcenter.org. Other sites also provided case studies and analysis of the performance of the mainstream media.
Bernard Goldberg’s book, Bias, presented a compelling case for what many conservatives had said for years. Goldberg, a long time CBS News reporter, a liberal who said he had never voted for a Republican, had warned his peers about the unfair and biased journalism he saw first hand. Despite his concern expressed over the years to his peers, to news executives, to producers, and to others in the business, no one listened so he decided to write an editorial on the subject. It ran in the Wall Street Journal in 1996 and created a firestorm within the news business. Goldberg was vilified and considered a traitor for revealing the truth about the liberal mainstream media (CBS). The liberals in the media could investigate anyone in the nation, business leaders, politicians, schools, athletes and publish and broadcast whatever they wanted. Yet if anyone dared to question how THEY did their work, then, baby, it was war!
Goldberg’s book became a best seller and remained on that list for many weeks – proof of the power of his message about bias in the mainstream media. Conservatives were correct about the liberal media bias years before honest Bernard Goldberg told the truth. [1]
Frequently, the media engaged in media feeding frenzys. These occurred as journalists rushed to out-perform their competitors in covering news stories. There was a feeding frenzy in 2004 over President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service despite nothing new to report. The “story” had been covered when Bush ran for governor of Texas, when he ran for re-election as governor, and in 2000 when Bush ran for president. Despite the past coverage the liberal media tried to find a new angle to the old story not unlike an old dog digging up a favorite bone to chew. CBS News even went so far as to use faked and forged documents in an attempt to derail Bush’s re-election chances. Thanks to the new media, bloggers and talk radio, CBS failed in its blatant partisan effort to shape the election of 2004.
In February of 2006 the mainstream media performed another feeding frenzy for all to see. While hunting quail in south Texas Vice President Chaney accidentally shot one of his hunting companions. Fortunately, the wounds were not serious and the man was out of the hospital in a few days. A local media outlet in Corpus Cristi was notified the next day. The accident had occurred late in the day on a Saturday. The White House press corps (David Gregory of NBC, to be exact) went beserk at the next daily briefing; not that Cheney had shot a companion, but because the White House press corps had not been notified first. Members of the press corps railed and ranted at the briefing, yelling and making wild accusations against the White House. The frenzy continued for days with little or no coverage of important news. During this period the leader of Iran made wild and crazy charges against the United States, railed against Israel, and vowed to continue nuclear research despite a United Nations warning to stop.
Again, the liberal mainstream media performed badly in covering the Katrina hurricane story of August 2005. The media predicted thousands of deaths when the levees broke in New Orleans. The local and state officials in Louisiana failed their people. The city of New Orleans was not evacuated when warned. The mayor and the governor of the state (both Democrats) failed to follow their own emergency plans. When the levees breached thousands of people were stranded and had to be rescued- all because local and state officials failed in their duties. And the media blamed President Bush for all of it. Months later the media was still insisting it was all Bush’s fault despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It was a great disservice to the American people to distort news for cheap partisan gain. The media’s performance in the Katrina hurricane coverage would make a great case study in media bias, laziness, dishonesty, misinformation, and other tricks the media used to spin the story.
The mainstream media is too liberal, too biased, too lazy, too partisan, and too intolerant. It is devoid of diversity, devoted to protecting itself, too much “Inside the Beltway” with a clannish attitude about the rest of the country. It is as if the Red States do not exist and liberals who dominate the media know nothing about Red States and know few people from Red States. Most liberal journalists know very little about most of America. Anything not on the extreme West Coast or not in New York City, Washington, or Boston is considered foreign to the folks who make up the mainstream media. They are out of touch with working America, isolated and insulated in large cities on the east and west coast and only associate with like-minded liberals. Yet they pretend to represent working Americans.
[1] I suggest anyone interested in Goldberg’s experiences with the pervasive bias at CBS NEWS read this wook.
In comparison FOXNEWS, a young cable news network, saw tremendous growth in viewers while CNN and MSNBC lost viewers or saw much slower growth. Internet news sites grow at a rapid pace as does the Blogoshere, world-wide-web sites where anyone could start a Blog to offer opinion, commentary, news analysis, and review and critique news presented by other sources. Bloggers were instrumental in debunking the CBS News story about President Bush’s Texas ANG service. Within hours after the story ran bloggers had determined the documents used in the story were forged because the type and font used in the documents were not available when the documents were allegedly created in the 1970s.
One obvious problem with modern liberal journalism was the need by liberal journalists to interject themselves into the story. No longer were journalists content to report the news, but now insisted on making themselves part of the story for personal or political reasons to massage their egos, to push a political agenda, or to become a celebrity or pundit.
Anyone who wanted could track the state of modern journalism at several internet sites. The
Media Research Center has been tracking the liberal mainstream media for years at www.mediaresearchcenter.org. Other sites also provided case studies and analysis of the performance of the mainstream media.
Bernard Goldberg’s book, Bias, presented a compelling case for what many conservatives had said for years. Goldberg, a long time CBS News reporter, a liberal who said he had never voted for a Republican, had warned his peers about the unfair and biased journalism he saw first hand. Despite his concern expressed over the years to his peers, to news executives, to producers, and to others in the business, no one listened so he decided to write an editorial on the subject. It ran in the Wall Street Journal in 1996 and created a firestorm within the news business. Goldberg was vilified and considered a traitor for revealing the truth about the liberal mainstream media (CBS). The liberals in the media could investigate anyone in the nation, business leaders, politicians, schools, athletes and publish and broadcast whatever they wanted. Yet if anyone dared to question how THEY did their work, then, baby, it was war!
Goldberg’s book became a best seller and remained on that list for many weeks – proof of the power of his message about bias in the mainstream media. Conservatives were correct about the liberal media bias years before honest Bernard Goldberg told the truth. [1]
Frequently, the media engaged in media feeding frenzys. These occurred as journalists rushed to out-perform their competitors in covering news stories. There was a feeding frenzy in 2004 over President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service despite nothing new to report. The “story” had been covered when Bush ran for governor of Texas, when he ran for re-election as governor, and in 2000 when Bush ran for president. Despite the past coverage the liberal media tried to find a new angle to the old story not unlike an old dog digging up a favorite bone to chew. CBS News even went so far as to use faked and forged documents in an attempt to derail Bush’s re-election chances. Thanks to the new media, bloggers and talk radio, CBS failed in its blatant partisan effort to shape the election of 2004.
In February of 2006 the mainstream media performed another feeding frenzy for all to see. While hunting quail in south Texas Vice President Chaney accidentally shot one of his hunting companions. Fortunately, the wounds were not serious and the man was out of the hospital in a few days. A local media outlet in Corpus Cristi was notified the next day. The accident had occurred late in the day on a Saturday. The White House press corps (David Gregory of NBC, to be exact) went beserk at the next daily briefing; not that Cheney had shot a companion, but because the White House press corps had not been notified first. Members of the press corps railed and ranted at the briefing, yelling and making wild accusations against the White House. The frenzy continued for days with little or no coverage of important news. During this period the leader of Iran made wild and crazy charges against the United States, railed against Israel, and vowed to continue nuclear research despite a United Nations warning to stop.
Again, the liberal mainstream media performed badly in covering the Katrina hurricane story of August 2005. The media predicted thousands of deaths when the levees broke in New Orleans. The local and state officials in Louisiana failed their people. The city of New Orleans was not evacuated when warned. The mayor and the governor of the state (both Democrats) failed to follow their own emergency plans. When the levees breached thousands of people were stranded and had to be rescued- all because local and state officials failed in their duties. And the media blamed President Bush for all of it. Months later the media was still insisting it was all Bush’s fault despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It was a great disservice to the American people to distort news for cheap partisan gain. The media’s performance in the Katrina hurricane coverage would make a great case study in media bias, laziness, dishonesty, misinformation, and other tricks the media used to spin the story.
The mainstream media is too liberal, too biased, too lazy, too partisan, and too intolerant. It is devoid of diversity, devoted to protecting itself, too much “Inside the Beltway” with a clannish attitude about the rest of the country. It is as if the Red States do not exist and liberals who dominate the media know nothing about Red States and know few people from Red States. Most liberal journalists know very little about most of America. Anything not on the extreme West Coast or not in New York City, Washington, or Boston is considered foreign to the folks who make up the mainstream media. They are out of touch with working America, isolated and insulated in large cities on the east and west coast and only associate with like-minded liberals. Yet they pretend to represent working Americans.
[1] I suggest anyone interested in Goldberg’s experiences with the pervasive bias at CBS NEWS read this wook.
The Mainstream Media - Part Two
It was as if journalists were no longer happy to report the news. That was not good enough for the post-Vietnam War journalists. In the new world of celebrity journalism the elites who made up the media wanted to be the story or at least wanted to shape their stories with a political bias.
In January 2006 a lobbying scandal broke in Washington. Jack Abramoff, a powerful lobbyist and Washington insider pleaded guilty to violations of lobbying laws. The mainstream media presented the story as a “Republican” scandal despite facts that revealed both major political parties deeply involved. Abramoff and his clients, some of whom were Indian tribes seeking gaming advantages from Congress, donated money to members of Congress from both political parties. But the media reports rarely mentioned the contributions given to Democrats. The Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, was one Democrat implicated in the scandal. According to the Washington Times[1] Reid and his staff had numerous contacts with the Abramoff firm. One of Reid’s legislative aides resigned and joined the Abramoff lobbying business. There were Republicans involved and their names were splashed all over the news.
Other scandals involving Democrats rarely made the news. Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, was under federal investigation for corruption. One of Jefferson’s staffers pleaded guilty to corruption charges. But the mainstream media downplayed this scandal and refused to give it equal air time. Democrat John Conyers of Michigan was charged with using his staff for personal business including driving his kids to and from school, tutoring, and performing other personal services. Yet there were no splashy headlines or evening news stories about Conyers’s actions. Since the Abramoff scandal was considered big news, an objective news consumer would think a sitting US Congressman under investigation would also be newsworthy and would appear on the front pages of the Times and Post. In late 2006 Senator Harry Reid, the Senate’s Democrat Minority Leader, (and now the Majority Leader of the Senate) was in trouble for not reporting a one million dollar profit he made on a real estate sale in Nevada. Reid made his huge profit three years AFTER he sold the property. But this story was downplayed or ignored by the liberal media in comparison to the headline coverage given to the Republicans who made the news.
Did you sale a piece of property in the past three years? Perhaps you can convince the buyers to give you an additional, say, $500,000, as a token of friendship. Hmmmmmmm?
The suppression of positive news by the liberal media was apparent. The unwritten code was to downplay any news that reflected well upon Bush and to accent news that cast Bush in a negative light. Economic news was especially suppressed for political reasons. Bush’s economy in 2005 produced more than 2 million new jobs. Inflation was low, interest rates were at historic lows, unemployment rates were very low, home ownership was at historic highs and the stock market neared a historic high at 12,000. Yet the mainstream media boycotted this wonderful economic news. Under the previous administration such great news was splashed in bold headlines and presented as the lead stories in the evening news rooms with great praise given to the President Clinton for his skill in handling the economy. But that was during a Democrat administration. In February 2006 the Bush economy created 243,000 new jobs. The news, which would have been touted by the media for days during the Clinton era, got a passing mention – end of story.
Many Americans wondered about the mainstream media’s constant emphasis of negative news. There were countless stories about the homeless (all of which started on January 20, 2001 if one believed the liberal media). The Times[2] ran a story on the homeless just hours after Bush was sworn into office in 2001. It was as if the homeless had not existed during the eight years of Clinton and as soon as Bush took office, the homeless somehow multiplied overnight. Foreign news was doom and gloom. The liberation of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan was rarely mentioned by the liberal media. Instead the news consisted of a body count and reports of how the wounded Americans now had to survive with disabilities whereas in previous wars they would have died on the battlefield. Battle field medicine was so good that it was saving thousands of lives, yet the media presented the story as one of survivors having to live the rest of their lives with handicaps.
Bush’s tax cuts which spurred super economic growth was presented as the cause of rising deficits. Most of the mainstream media had opposed the tax cuts from the start and had reported in dark terms the dire consequences of cutting taxes. Rarely did the media report the rising spending habits of Congress. But when the tax cuts worked to stimulate the economy and dramatically increased the revenues flowing into federal and state coffers, the media ignored or downplayed the positive news. Most journalists wrote that the American people should pay more in taxes.
[1] www.WashingtonTimes.com, Associated Press story published 10 February 2006.
[2] For more information on “reporting” by The New York Times, see www.mediaresearchcenter.org)
In January 2006 a lobbying scandal broke in Washington. Jack Abramoff, a powerful lobbyist and Washington insider pleaded guilty to violations of lobbying laws. The mainstream media presented the story as a “Republican” scandal despite facts that revealed both major political parties deeply involved. Abramoff and his clients, some of whom were Indian tribes seeking gaming advantages from Congress, donated money to members of Congress from both political parties. But the media reports rarely mentioned the contributions given to Democrats. The Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, was one Democrat implicated in the scandal. According to the Washington Times[1] Reid and his staff had numerous contacts with the Abramoff firm. One of Reid’s legislative aides resigned and joined the Abramoff lobbying business. There were Republicans involved and their names were splashed all over the news.
Other scandals involving Democrats rarely made the news. Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, was under federal investigation for corruption. One of Jefferson’s staffers pleaded guilty to corruption charges. But the mainstream media downplayed this scandal and refused to give it equal air time. Democrat John Conyers of Michigan was charged with using his staff for personal business including driving his kids to and from school, tutoring, and performing other personal services. Yet there were no splashy headlines or evening news stories about Conyers’s actions. Since the Abramoff scandal was considered big news, an objective news consumer would think a sitting US Congressman under investigation would also be newsworthy and would appear on the front pages of the Times and Post. In late 2006 Senator Harry Reid, the Senate’s Democrat Minority Leader, (and now the Majority Leader of the Senate) was in trouble for not reporting a one million dollar profit he made on a real estate sale in Nevada. Reid made his huge profit three years AFTER he sold the property. But this story was downplayed or ignored by the liberal media in comparison to the headline coverage given to the Republicans who made the news.
Did you sale a piece of property in the past three years? Perhaps you can convince the buyers to give you an additional, say, $500,000, as a token of friendship. Hmmmmmmm?
The suppression of positive news by the liberal media was apparent. The unwritten code was to downplay any news that reflected well upon Bush and to accent news that cast Bush in a negative light. Economic news was especially suppressed for political reasons. Bush’s economy in 2005 produced more than 2 million new jobs. Inflation was low, interest rates were at historic lows, unemployment rates were very low, home ownership was at historic highs and the stock market neared a historic high at 12,000. Yet the mainstream media boycotted this wonderful economic news. Under the previous administration such great news was splashed in bold headlines and presented as the lead stories in the evening news rooms with great praise given to the President Clinton for his skill in handling the economy. But that was during a Democrat administration. In February 2006 the Bush economy created 243,000 new jobs. The news, which would have been touted by the media for days during the Clinton era, got a passing mention – end of story.
Many Americans wondered about the mainstream media’s constant emphasis of negative news. There were countless stories about the homeless (all of which started on January 20, 2001 if one believed the liberal media). The Times[2] ran a story on the homeless just hours after Bush was sworn into office in 2001. It was as if the homeless had not existed during the eight years of Clinton and as soon as Bush took office, the homeless somehow multiplied overnight. Foreign news was doom and gloom. The liberation of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan was rarely mentioned by the liberal media. Instead the news consisted of a body count and reports of how the wounded Americans now had to survive with disabilities whereas in previous wars they would have died on the battlefield. Battle field medicine was so good that it was saving thousands of lives, yet the media presented the story as one of survivors having to live the rest of their lives with handicaps.
Bush’s tax cuts which spurred super economic growth was presented as the cause of rising deficits. Most of the mainstream media had opposed the tax cuts from the start and had reported in dark terms the dire consequences of cutting taxes. Rarely did the media report the rising spending habits of Congress. But when the tax cuts worked to stimulate the economy and dramatically increased the revenues flowing into federal and state coffers, the media ignored or downplayed the positive news. Most journalists wrote that the American people should pay more in taxes.
[1] www.WashingtonTimes.com, Associated Press story published 10 February 2006.
[2] For more information on “reporting” by The New York Times, see www.mediaresearchcenter.org)
The Mainstream Media -Part One
Beginning with the Vietnam War the mainstream media in the United States began a new role in American life. No longer was the media content to impartially inform the American people about “the news” (the who, the what, the when, the why and the where” of events, especially political events). The elites who made up the mainstream media pretended to be neutral observers. They pretended to divorce their political views from their journalism. They acted out the role of observers even though their hearts were not in the roles. There were numerous causes for this new behavior. And there were implications and consequences far beyond the assumed objectives of journalism. Some Americans called the mainstream media the “Drive By” media for reasons clear to many Americans. Journalists loved to cover a story for a day, report, inaccurately far too often, leave incorrect impressions to say nothing of facts, and move on to the next headline gathering story with little or no regard for their public responsibility to inform the public.
The mainstream media is comprised of many parts in 2007. The establishment print media, "The New York Times", "The Washington Post", and other large city daily newspapers and the national "USA TODAY" make up one segment. Another part is the television broadcast networks; ABC, CBS, NBC, and The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) including National Public Radio (NPR) - both partially funded by federal taxes. A third segment is the weekly news magazines, "TIME", "US News and World Report", and "NEWSWEEK". Additionally, the wire services Associated Press, Reuters, and others served as another layer of elites in the field. A final segment consisted of cable television networks. The Cable News Network (CNN), MSNBC, a joint venture by NBC and Microsoft, FOXNEWS, and several other lesser known cable channels comprised this new segment of the media. Of these cable news networks only FOXNEWS was considered conservative and it was known to present both liberal and conservative views on political issues.
Many news consumers complained for years about the biased reporting of news by the elite media. As long as the establishment media controlled the news consumers had little choice in what they read or heard. With the coming of the Internet, talk radio, 24 hour cable news programming, bloggers, C-SPAN, and other news sources consumers had other options. Americans now have virtually instant access to numerous sources on a story. They waited no longer for the evening television news at 7:00 PM or for the morning paper to learn about events in the world. This was a huge change in the way news was presented and a rapid increase in the speed with which news spread around the globe.
The establishment media outlets began to lose readers and viewers at alarming rates (alarming to the Establishment) for various reasons. With more options available to news consumers and the widespread use of personal computers and the growth of Internet based news services, the news business underwent a transformation. The advance of technology and the growing distrust of the mainstream media by many Americans accounted for much of the change. Instead of providing news consumers with what they wanted, that is, accurate, unbiased, and relevant news, the liberal dominated media moved not toward the political center, but to the political left. This in turn exacerbated their predicament and drove away more consumers.
Liberal media scandals did little to assure news consumers. The New York Times, the self-proclaimed paper of record, was forced to fire one of its star journalists, Jason Blair, when it was discovered his stories were false, totally made up. The story forced some consumers to inquire about the accuracy and credibility of other Times stories. The Washington Post had a similar circumstance with journalist Janet Cooke who won celebrated journalism prizes. Only later did readers learn her stories were at best creative writing and journalism at its worst. NBC News, once a widely respected news source with reporters like Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, was caught faking a truck fuel tank explosion. NBC rigged a truck with explosives to show how the fuel tanks were unsafe. CBS News, the former home of Edward R. Morrow, had Dan Rather, CBS’s Evening News Anchor. Rather and his news crew faked a story on the Texas Air National Guard service of President Bush 43. Despite fatal flaws in the premise of their story CBS and Rather ran the story just before the 2004 national election using forged documents in a blatant attempt to damage the election chances of President Bush. And there were numerous other cases of modern liberal journalism (the Great Alar Apple Scare, the Audi 5000 Report, to name two) performing its job with an agenda to shape and control national politics (to say nothing of the Times’s Walter Duranty in the 1930s serving as a mouthpiece for Stalin).
End of Part One.
The mainstream media is comprised of many parts in 2007. The establishment print media, "The New York Times", "The Washington Post", and other large city daily newspapers and the national "USA TODAY" make up one segment. Another part is the television broadcast networks; ABC, CBS, NBC, and The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) including National Public Radio (NPR) - both partially funded by federal taxes. A third segment is the weekly news magazines, "TIME", "US News and World Report", and "NEWSWEEK". Additionally, the wire services Associated Press, Reuters, and others served as another layer of elites in the field. A final segment consisted of cable television networks. The Cable News Network (CNN), MSNBC, a joint venture by NBC and Microsoft, FOXNEWS, and several other lesser known cable channels comprised this new segment of the media. Of these cable news networks only FOXNEWS was considered conservative and it was known to present both liberal and conservative views on political issues.
Many news consumers complained for years about the biased reporting of news by the elite media. As long as the establishment media controlled the news consumers had little choice in what they read or heard. With the coming of the Internet, talk radio, 24 hour cable news programming, bloggers, C-SPAN, and other news sources consumers had other options. Americans now have virtually instant access to numerous sources on a story. They waited no longer for the evening television news at 7:00 PM or for the morning paper to learn about events in the world. This was a huge change in the way news was presented and a rapid increase in the speed with which news spread around the globe.
The establishment media outlets began to lose readers and viewers at alarming rates (alarming to the Establishment) for various reasons. With more options available to news consumers and the widespread use of personal computers and the growth of Internet based news services, the news business underwent a transformation. The advance of technology and the growing distrust of the mainstream media by many Americans accounted for much of the change. Instead of providing news consumers with what they wanted, that is, accurate, unbiased, and relevant news, the liberal dominated media moved not toward the political center, but to the political left. This in turn exacerbated their predicament and drove away more consumers.
Liberal media scandals did little to assure news consumers. The New York Times, the self-proclaimed paper of record, was forced to fire one of its star journalists, Jason Blair, when it was discovered his stories were false, totally made up. The story forced some consumers to inquire about the accuracy and credibility of other Times stories. The Washington Post had a similar circumstance with journalist Janet Cooke who won celebrated journalism prizes. Only later did readers learn her stories were at best creative writing and journalism at its worst. NBC News, once a widely respected news source with reporters like Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, was caught faking a truck fuel tank explosion. NBC rigged a truck with explosives to show how the fuel tanks were unsafe. CBS News, the former home of Edward R. Morrow, had Dan Rather, CBS’s Evening News Anchor. Rather and his news crew faked a story on the Texas Air National Guard service of President Bush 43. Despite fatal flaws in the premise of their story CBS and Rather ran the story just before the 2004 national election using forged documents in a blatant attempt to damage the election chances of President Bush. And there were numerous other cases of modern liberal journalism (the Great Alar Apple Scare, the Audi 5000 Report, to name two) performing its job with an agenda to shape and control national politics (to say nothing of the Times’s Walter Duranty in the 1930s serving as a mouthpiece for Stalin).
End of Part One.
Global Warming I
Is the theory of global warming about hot air? If we listen to Al Gore preach the new religion of the Left, then it is all about hot air. As I said before global warming is 5 percent science and 95 percent politics (the real hot air). The Left wants to shut off debate about the theory. We are told repeatedly that the debate is closed, the evidence is in, and that man is responsible for the slight rise (if it is happening at all) of temps around the world. Why do the Greens and their fellow travelers in the media fear a healthy debate about global warming? And why is a slight increase in surface temperatures a bad thing?
Recently, the IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change) released a political document on global warming. The report was developed by political appointees to an international body, a part of the United Nations. It blamed man for the slight increase in temps and called for international action to curb man's emissions of certain pollutants such as Co2 and methane. The scientific report will be released later this year and, this is crucial, will be "adjusted" to fit the political report just released by the IPCC. Does that smell like political correctness run amok? A scientific report will be massaged to fit a political agenda! Wow. And the people of the world are suppose to trust the UN?
If the earth is warming slightly, the causes may be numerous and natural. Solar activity can and does effect temps on earth. During the last 2000 years we have seen warm periods, followed by cold periods, one so cold it is called the Little Ice Age and lasted from 1350 -1850 AD. The year 1816 was called the year without a summer in the United States and it snowed on July 4th in New Hampshire. The Little Ice Age was preceded by a period called the Medieval Warm Period which ran from 800-1300 AD.
Another potential cause of warming (assuming it is happening) could be the nutation of the earth's axis as it spins like a top through space. A top does not spin in the same spot but moves in a wobbly motion. A slight variation in this spin could effect climate and weather.
Assume the earth is warming slightly. Why is that bad?
The warmer it is means generally the more plant life the earth can support. The more green the planet is, the more CO2 the plants can convert to oxygen. Warmer temps mean higher food production, healthier lives for humans and animals, and more beach time for vacations. All benefits, in my opinion.
Much more on this topic to come.
Recently, the IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change) released a political document on global warming. The report was developed by political appointees to an international body, a part of the United Nations. It blamed man for the slight increase in temps and called for international action to curb man's emissions of certain pollutants such as Co2 and methane. The scientific report will be released later this year and, this is crucial, will be "adjusted" to fit the political report just released by the IPCC. Does that smell like political correctness run amok? A scientific report will be massaged to fit a political agenda! Wow. And the people of the world are suppose to trust the UN?
If the earth is warming slightly, the causes may be numerous and natural. Solar activity can and does effect temps on earth. During the last 2000 years we have seen warm periods, followed by cold periods, one so cold it is called the Little Ice Age and lasted from 1350 -1850 AD. The year 1816 was called the year without a summer in the United States and it snowed on July 4th in New Hampshire. The Little Ice Age was preceded by a period called the Medieval Warm Period which ran from 800-1300 AD.
Another potential cause of warming (assuming it is happening) could be the nutation of the earth's axis as it spins like a top through space. A top does not spin in the same spot but moves in a wobbly motion. A slight variation in this spin could effect climate and weather.
Assume the earth is warming slightly. Why is that bad?
The warmer it is means generally the more plant life the earth can support. The more green the planet is, the more CO2 the plants can convert to oxygen. Warmer temps mean higher food production, healthier lives for humans and animals, and more beach time for vacations. All benefits, in my opinion.
Much more on this topic to come.
Political Season
Wow!
2008 came a year early. Who would have "thunk" it that the 2008 political season - a political dog and pony show- would start 2 years before the next president takes office?
Can we tolerate politicians and pundits for that length of time? Our news shows, our newspapers (if you still read them), our blogosphere will be vibrating with the promises of numerous politicians trying to convince us to vote for them.
Should the political season start this early?
Should the voters tune out the pols for at least another year before paying attention to them?
I prefer shorter political seasons. But there is no law, nor should there be, against anyone running for political office whenever he/she wants. However, that doesn't mean I like it.
On the positive side if several condidates are from the US Senate/US House and are Absent with Leave from their jobs, it is less likely that Congress will screw more things up.
2008 came a year early. Who would have "thunk" it that the 2008 political season - a political dog and pony show- would start 2 years before the next president takes office?
Can we tolerate politicians and pundits for that length of time? Our news shows, our newspapers (if you still read them), our blogosphere will be vibrating with the promises of numerous politicians trying to convince us to vote for them.
Should the political season start this early?
Should the voters tune out the pols for at least another year before paying attention to them?
I prefer shorter political seasons. But there is no law, nor should there be, against anyone running for political office whenever he/she wants. However, that doesn't mean I like it.
On the positive side if several condidates are from the US Senate/US House and are Absent with Leave from their jobs, it is less likely that Congress will screw more things up.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Show Trial of "Scooter" Libby
On July 23, 2004 you had 16 conversation with 12 different people.
I want you in a legal proceesing to tell us everything you said to those 12 people, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Can you do it?
Can you remember to whom you talked and what you said 3 years ago?
Probably not.
The jury is still out (as far as I know) in the trial of Libby, VP Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby is accused of a couple of things: not telling the FBI the truth about conversations he had with media types; and, some other charge I cannot remember at this time.
Libby claims he did not remember the events and what he said to certain journalists about the so-called Valerie Plame Affair. What baffles me is there was no crime committed in this sordid affair since Plame was not undercover, not a secret agent, but a simple desk jockey at the CIA. Besides, we know, and the Special Prosecutor (SP) knew in advance of bringing charges, that Richard Armitage at the State Dept was the person to "leak" Plame's name to the media first.
So why did the SP bring the charges against Libby.
Well, he spent a lot of money and needed at least one scalp to display on his legal belt. Besides, VP Cheney was the favorite whipping boy for every journalist and talking head in the Boston-New York-Washington corridor. The SP was urged and urged to get someone; someone close to Cheney, if not Cheney, and Bush (hopefully Rove) for this heinous crime.
Such is justice in Washington, DC.
I want you in a legal proceesing to tell us everything you said to those 12 people, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Can you do it?
Can you remember to whom you talked and what you said 3 years ago?
Probably not.
The jury is still out (as far as I know) in the trial of Libby, VP Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby is accused of a couple of things: not telling the FBI the truth about conversations he had with media types; and, some other charge I cannot remember at this time.
Libby claims he did not remember the events and what he said to certain journalists about the so-called Valerie Plame Affair. What baffles me is there was no crime committed in this sordid affair since Plame was not undercover, not a secret agent, but a simple desk jockey at the CIA. Besides, we know, and the Special Prosecutor (SP) knew in advance of bringing charges, that Richard Armitage at the State Dept was the person to "leak" Plame's name to the media first.
So why did the SP bring the charges against Libby.
Well, he spent a lot of money and needed at least one scalp to display on his legal belt. Besides, VP Cheney was the favorite whipping boy for every journalist and talking head in the Boston-New York-Washington corridor. The SP was urged and urged to get someone; someone close to Cheney, if not Cheney, and Bush (hopefully Rove) for this heinous crime.
Such is justice in Washington, DC.
Iraq
I view Iraq as the main battleground between the US and international terrorists. If we do what many liberals and Democrats want, that is, wave the white flag of surrender (following the French model of never fight when there is an expresso to sip) and leave Iraq prematurely, there will be grave consequences in the Middle East and elsewhere. The fight in Iraq has attracted terrorists from around the world. They come to Iraq to kill American soldiers. I much prefer having our highly trained military fight the terrorists in Iraq than have the terrorists plotting and planning new attacks on civilian target in the US.
The critics of the liberation of Iraq have no plan to offer us. How would they handle international terrorism and fill the vacuum left by the departure of the US military from Iraq. Do these critics think democracy impossible in Iraq? Or in any Arab/Moslem country? Do these critics think Saddam was a better option than a chance at freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people? Iraq may not make it to a Iraqi-styled democracy. Iraq may descend into civil war (not there yet, IMO), but they deserve a chance at democracy as do other suppressed people around the world. Democracy (not necessarily a copy of our systen) is the best option yet devised by man for governance if it includes individual rights, free speech, a free and honest press, economic freedom, the rule of law, and religious freedom.
There were numerous reasons Bush elected to go to war to depose Saddam. Even the Clinton admin wanted regime change, but lacked the resolve to accomplish it. Contrary to the simplistic and inaccurate reports of WMD being THE reason Bush decided to remove Saddam, several other reasons were important. Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions. Saddam violated the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire, which by itself alone justified military action. Saddam used WMD against Iraqis and against his neighbors. Saddam was funding homicide bombers against Israel. Saddam attempted to kill a former US president. Saddam had violated the No Fly Zones in Iraq. And there were more reasons.
Partisan politics is the root cause of much of the criticism of President Bush. If a Democrat president were in office and doing the same thing as Bush, then the same Bush hating critics would be 100 percent behind the Iraq policy. Simple as that.
If the nation had this crop of Democrats in WWII, then we would have lost that war. What would today's Democrats say about Operation Tiger in England before D-Day? This training exercise resulted in the deaths of 749 men. Today's Democrats would have called for the removal of the SecDod, the VP and several high ranking military officers. And what about the military debacles in North Africa, Italy, and the 000s killed on the FIRST day of D-Day. Did you know the Allies lost 12,000 on the first day. And there were 20,000 French civilians killed and injured on the first day! Imagine the screams and cries from today's war critics if they had been around in those days.
Senator Durbin (D, IL, second in charge in today's Senate) compared American soldiers to Nazis, to Stalin's killers, and to Pol Pot's deranged army. He gave a half hearted apology so it was easy to see that he really believed what he said. I now refer to him as Senator Dick, "The Turban" Durban.
The cut and run policy of the Democrats will lead to even more problems for us. Despite voting to autorize Bush to take whatever military action he saw fit, the Democrats now want to retract that vote - not sure that is possible - but they will try anything to subvert Bush. Terrorists around the world must marvel at the stupidity of American politicians.
More to come.
The critics of the liberation of Iraq have no plan to offer us. How would they handle international terrorism and fill the vacuum left by the departure of the US military from Iraq. Do these critics think democracy impossible in Iraq? Or in any Arab/Moslem country? Do these critics think Saddam was a better option than a chance at freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people? Iraq may not make it to a Iraqi-styled democracy. Iraq may descend into civil war (not there yet, IMO), but they deserve a chance at democracy as do other suppressed people around the world. Democracy (not necessarily a copy of our systen) is the best option yet devised by man for governance if it includes individual rights, free speech, a free and honest press, economic freedom, the rule of law, and religious freedom.
There were numerous reasons Bush elected to go to war to depose Saddam. Even the Clinton admin wanted regime change, but lacked the resolve to accomplish it. Contrary to the simplistic and inaccurate reports of WMD being THE reason Bush decided to remove Saddam, several other reasons were important. Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions. Saddam violated the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire, which by itself alone justified military action. Saddam used WMD against Iraqis and against his neighbors. Saddam was funding homicide bombers against Israel. Saddam attempted to kill a former US president. Saddam had violated the No Fly Zones in Iraq. And there were more reasons.
Partisan politics is the root cause of much of the criticism of President Bush. If a Democrat president were in office and doing the same thing as Bush, then the same Bush hating critics would be 100 percent behind the Iraq policy. Simple as that.
If the nation had this crop of Democrats in WWII, then we would have lost that war. What would today's Democrats say about Operation Tiger in England before D-Day? This training exercise resulted in the deaths of 749 men. Today's Democrats would have called for the removal of the SecDod, the VP and several high ranking military officers. And what about the military debacles in North Africa, Italy, and the 000s killed on the FIRST day of D-Day. Did you know the Allies lost 12,000 on the first day. And there were 20,000 French civilians killed and injured on the first day! Imagine the screams and cries from today's war critics if they had been around in those days.
Senator Durbin (D, IL, second in charge in today's Senate) compared American soldiers to Nazis, to Stalin's killers, and to Pol Pot's deranged army. He gave a half hearted apology so it was easy to see that he really believed what he said. I now refer to him as Senator Dick, "The Turban" Durban.
The cut and run policy of the Democrats will lead to even more problems for us. Despite voting to autorize Bush to take whatever military action he saw fit, the Democrats now want to retract that vote - not sure that is possible - but they will try anything to subvert Bush. Terrorists around the world must marvel at the stupidity of American politicians.
More to come.
Senator Lieberman
Will Senator Lieberman jump the Democrat ship?
The question of the month. Will Joe Lieberman pull a Jumping Jim Jeffords and switch (does he want to switch rather than fight with the Democrats) to the Republicans? Recall that Jeffords just after being re-elected jumped from the R column to the D column and threw the control of the US Senate to the likes of Tom Daschle. It is reported that Lieberman is so disgusted with his fellow Democrats on Iraq policy that he has left open the issue of changing parties. If Lieberman does a "Jeffords", then formal control of the US Senate would return to the R column.
As you know, I hope, the minority in the Senate can control most of the action especially when the margin is close as it is now. Mitch McConnell (R, KY) is minority leader and he may have more power than Nevada's undertaker, Harry Reid. (Old Harry reminds me so much of a small town undertaker with his phony smile and cold clammy hands.)
Personally, I hope Lieberman jumps if for no other reason than to see and hear the screams of indignation from the mainstream media.
The question of the month. Will Joe Lieberman pull a Jumping Jim Jeffords and switch (does he want to switch rather than fight with the Democrats) to the Republicans? Recall that Jeffords just after being re-elected jumped from the R column to the D column and threw the control of the US Senate to the likes of Tom Daschle. It is reported that Lieberman is so disgusted with his fellow Democrats on Iraq policy that he has left open the issue of changing parties. If Lieberman does a "Jeffords", then formal control of the US Senate would return to the R column.
As you know, I hope, the minority in the Senate can control most of the action especially when the margin is close as it is now. Mitch McConnell (R, KY) is minority leader and he may have more power than Nevada's undertaker, Harry Reid. (Old Harry reminds me so much of a small town undertaker with his phony smile and cold clammy hands.)
Personally, I hope Lieberman jumps if for no other reason than to see and hear the screams of indignation from the mainstream media.
Illegal Immigration
One of my problems with President Bush is his apparent inability to distinguish the difference between immigration and illegal immigration. What is it about "illegal" that Bush and many other Americans cannot understand? The mainstream media normally portrays those opposed to illegal immigration as opposed to all immigration when nothing is further from the truth. Most Americans favor immigration when it is controlled, regulated, desirable, and benefits the nation. After all, as we are told repeatedly, we all are immigrants.
I am not sure why our political leaders, not just Bush, but most Democrats who seem more interested in growing their dependent voter base than in controlling the borders, have this blind spot on illegal immigration. Did NAFTA (signed into law by Clinton) include a hidden provision that forced the US to accept illegals? Was there a secret deal between the US and Mexico? Or do American companies that hire illegals have enough influence in Washington to mute the protests of millions of Americans?
Twenty years ago the problem was solved by Congress and President Reagn when legislation was passed to "fix" the illegal immigration problem. At that time there were 2-3 million illegals in the country and some were given amesty. Don't the bureaucrats in Washington do a wonderful job of "fixing" our national problems? Today it is estimated that there are upwards of 12 million illegals in the country and Congress and Bush are again talking of "fixing" the problem.
Can I laugh before I cry?
What if the Congress were proactive and addressed the problem at the source: at the border. Does that make too much sense for it to resonate in Washington? Probably. With uncontrolled borders we have no idea who is entering the country. Or for what purpose. For all we know there are thousands and thousands of terrorists waiting their time in jihadist cells, waiting to act as a fifth column when the time comes.
If we need extra non-American workers in the country we should and must set up a program whereas folks from Mexico and Latin America can enter the country to work for a limited time. Perhaps the feds should farm this program out to private industry for the best results. After all, Blockbusters will track you down for late movies and Fed Ex can move millions of packages across country in a matter of hours and deliver them on time. There is no doubt in my mind that private enterprise can handle such a guest worker program more efficiently than the feds.
What do you think? Is illegal immigration a serious problem? What should we do about it? Should illegals be entitled to the same benefits as Americans: free medical care, social security benefits, food stamps, welfare benefits, bank accounts, credit cards, state driver licenses, etc, etc.
How did we get into this mess and what do we do about it?
I am not sure why our political leaders, not just Bush, but most Democrats who seem more interested in growing their dependent voter base than in controlling the borders, have this blind spot on illegal immigration. Did NAFTA (signed into law by Clinton) include a hidden provision that forced the US to accept illegals? Was there a secret deal between the US and Mexico? Or do American companies that hire illegals have enough influence in Washington to mute the protests of millions of Americans?
Twenty years ago the problem was solved by Congress and President Reagn when legislation was passed to "fix" the illegal immigration problem. At that time there were 2-3 million illegals in the country and some were given amesty. Don't the bureaucrats in Washington do a wonderful job of "fixing" our national problems? Today it is estimated that there are upwards of 12 million illegals in the country and Congress and Bush are again talking of "fixing" the problem.
Can I laugh before I cry?
What if the Congress were proactive and addressed the problem at the source: at the border. Does that make too much sense for it to resonate in Washington? Probably. With uncontrolled borders we have no idea who is entering the country. Or for what purpose. For all we know there are thousands and thousands of terrorists waiting their time in jihadist cells, waiting to act as a fifth column when the time comes.
If we need extra non-American workers in the country we should and must set up a program whereas folks from Mexico and Latin America can enter the country to work for a limited time. Perhaps the feds should farm this program out to private industry for the best results. After all, Blockbusters will track you down for late movies and Fed Ex can move millions of packages across country in a matter of hours and deliver them on time. There is no doubt in my mind that private enterprise can handle such a guest worker program more efficiently than the feds.
What do you think? Is illegal immigration a serious problem? What should we do about it? Should illegals be entitled to the same benefits as Americans: free medical care, social security benefits, food stamps, welfare benefits, bank accounts, credit cards, state driver licenses, etc, etc.
How did we get into this mess and what do we do about it?
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Food Fight
The recent flare up between the forces of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton foreshadow what lies ahead in the lead up to the general election. How will Obama react to the coming criticism and we all know it is coming not only from Clinton, but from other Democratic wannabes. Republicans can sit back, relax, and watch as the Democrats continue the food fight. As Mitt Romney said, it's "great."
Is Obama in the race for the Number two position? He is lean in experience. He is young. And his middle name is Hussein. Is America ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein? Or a vice president? Time will tell.
Most of the people in the race -on both sides- have little or no chance at the nominations. Biden, Dodd, Brownback, Richardson, etc., are in the race for attention and their 15 minutes of fame. Or perhaps they also wish for the number two spot on a ticket.
McCain is up to his old cranky self. Plus, it appears he has been sipping the global warming kool-aid. As I have been saying for years global warming is 5 percent science and 95 percent politics. The same old Chicken Littles who told us of the coming ice age a few years ago now swear to us that the earth is doomed unless we all move back into caves and stop raping Mother Earth. What a crock! More on this later.
Please comment and post so I can test this new Blog gadget thing.
One Man's Vigil
Is Obama in the race for the Number two position? He is lean in experience. He is young. And his middle name is Hussein. Is America ready for a president whose middle name is Hussein? Or a vice president? Time will tell.
Most of the people in the race -on both sides- have little or no chance at the nominations. Biden, Dodd, Brownback, Richardson, etc., are in the race for attention and their 15 minutes of fame. Or perhaps they also wish for the number two spot on a ticket.
McCain is up to his old cranky self. Plus, it appears he has been sipping the global warming kool-aid. As I have been saying for years global warming is 5 percent science and 95 percent politics. The same old Chicken Littles who told us of the coming ice age a few years ago now swear to us that the earth is doomed unless we all move back into caves and stop raping Mother Earth. What a crock! More on this later.
Please comment and post so I can test this new Blog gadget thing.
One Man's Vigil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
