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.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
