Tuesday, August 30, 2005
You know, it's as I always wanted to tell the average Frenchman: "We don't hate you, it's your stupid government that needs a stiff bludgeoning! Once you get rid of Chirac (and that de-Villain-pain guy), we can be great friends again!" Vive La France! ---OR NOT!
I just want to reciprocate the sentiments I hear reported from that country. Maybe I shouldn't listen to the BBC.
Enjoy this shocking graphic!
There is a rich debate going on about intelligent design. Here's my two cents:
The secular left should love this. In fact, I think some of them are loving it. A new idea to demonize; something to fight against. I pity them, especially on this issue. Ideas are the easiest thing to spread when banned. That's why they're going to lose on this one.
...OK, so they're not loving it. They're fighting against it, tooth and lawsuit (hello, ACLU-see link). It seems that some ideas arrived that fell "outside of doctrine." You know what "doctrine" I'm talking about? Why, Evolution! Everyone knows about evolution, and accepts it. That sounds great, except for the fact that everyone doesn't.
Professors of the theory of evolution are missing critical data to prove it. If we are talking about pure science, then it takes a leap of faith to believe in, and teach evolution. Why should this faith in flawed and incomplete human knowledge be the only theory allowed to be taught in schools? The answer is simple: It shouldn't!
Imagine if educators just taught the facts, and let the student's come up with their own ideas on how and why life "happened" (now there's an ass-backwards liberal formula, if you remove the "facts" part!-LOL!). My point is that the I. D. theory is experiencing the same reception that secular theories have experienced in the past, by both the religious and secular scientific establishments. If this new theory is proposed by serious scientists, in serious forums (which it is), then it needs to be heard.
Intelligent design may become a fully accepted theory by all the people who believe in God. It may also convert some to believe in God. This may end up including a majority of scientists, though academics will wait until the court forces them to accept it, and teach it as a theory. Maybe not even then, judging by past reports of school administrators having to read a statement about it (I.D.), when teachers refused to mention it in the classroom.
Another problem is that this new theory insists on life being created by an intelligent being (or beings-thinking about this in a totally atheistic way), which only a few fringe secular lefties will admit to believing, and they're the ones who think we were created by aliens. (LOL!) -But seriously, this is the line that the left will not cross. No-one in the Democrat party will defend this idea; not even religious Dems will step up, which is a shame. They see this as a covert action by the "religious right" to get religion back into the classroom.
This goes further than the classroom. Dr. Richard Sternberg (click on link for his personal take on the story), the editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, published an article on intelligent design. I'd compare his treatment to Galileo's defense of Copernicus at the hands of the Inquisition, but I'll let three of his quotes from his Bill O'reilly interview suffice:
RICHARD STERNBERG, FEDERAL SCIENTIST AND EDITOR: Well, it took a number of forms, Bill. First of all, immediately after the article was published, there was a very tepid reaction with a museum.
However, a number of outside groups and individuals began writing e- mails, letters of protests, phoning the museum, phoning my employer, demanding my ouster for this. Apparently, there was an unstated rule that you do not accept a manuscript for peer review that counters Darwinism, or seriously counters Darwinism.
And furthermore, I was a gatekeeper. I allowed the paper to be peer reviewed and furthermore, I committed the terrible sin of allowing it to be published.
STERNBERG: "It was a concerted - it was - the retaliation occurred in concert. It was between the officials of the Smithsonian Institution, curators, various administrators and the National Center for Science and Education, based in Oakland, California.
They - they orchestrated, for example, at least the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) orchestrated a repudiation of the article, actually helped the repudiation to be drafted. That is a statement of retraction. And then turned around and cited it on their web site as evidence, not so much evidence, but allowed them to strongly insinuate editorial malfeasance on my part.
They aided in drafting, for example, a statement by the council that oversees publication of the journal to suggest that somehow I had broken the rules."
STERNBERG: "There - there is a - I think it's religiously and politically motivated. It's a form of projection. You have groups like the NCSE and others who argue that the intelligent design advocates, the creationists, etc., are trying to suppress information, trying to hinder science. And - and ironically, quite the opposite appears to have occurred in this situation.
They felt that, you know, if, for example, the pros and the cons of the issue are placed on the scientific table, then essentially the whole edifice is going to unravel, and that simply cannot be allowed."
FROM LEAV: Back to the doctrine. Evolution, as a doctrine, cannot be contravened, especially in academia. The professors of atheism will fight anything that deviates from their strict interpretation (Darwinian fundamentalism?) of evolution, especially the detested religious deviation. Not even the idea that evolution was created by God can penetrate their doctrine. You will hear talk of "turning back the clock," and perhaps historical comparissons to the same thing I cited above. What hypocracy that would be!
Especially remember that in this case, the "perceived" religious idea is the one being persecuted. The theory makes no mention of a specific God, or whether there is one God at all, yet it implies a greater power or intelligence, which forces the secularist to say, "who created God?" This is how the secular mind operates, or doesn't, depending on your point of view. Their only answer to this debate is to sue to stop it. They must not succeed.
The idea of intelligent design is a fascinating theory, if developed. The only way for it to be fully supported or countered is by investigation. The secular scientific and academic establishment should know this already. They have had their ideas protested throughout history. The irony is that the secular scientists are repressing the "religious" ones, instead of opening their ideas up to debate, as they once pleaded for secular ideas to be. Now that they are the establishment, they do the typical thing, attempting to discredit any idea that might upset the established order of doctrine.
Again, a rich debate is going on over this issue. Those are my two cents, but I'm willing to raise the bet, if anyone wants to match my ante. Calling all atheists! Come and get it! Especially that one particular atheist who has commented over at the Knickerbocker News blog! I invite you, sir, to debate this one!
Friday, August 26, 2005
**A Lady's Ruminations
**A Rose By Any Other Name
A Tic In The Mind's Eye
American Patriot 9/12
**And Rightly So
**Angry Republican Mom
Bad Hair Blog
Big Dog Weblog
**California Conservatives 4 Truth
Crosses aCross America
Daily Intel Briefing
Elephant In My Coffee
Evil Conservative Blog
Freedom Of Thought
**In My Right Mind
Info 4 Beer
Is It Just Me?
**Is This Life?
It Is What It Is
K9 Army Brat
**Knowledge Is Power
Lady Madonna- Headlines
Lost in Lima Ohio
M. Sheldon Show
Making Tomorrow's Military Today
**Mean Ol' Meany
Middle America's Worldview
**Mike Huckabee President 2008
More Sense Than Money
Mr. Right Opinion
**Museum Of Leftwing Lunacy
My Truth Machine
Neo Con Blogger
Nix Hillary 2008
North American Patriot
Obiter Dictum Blog
**Oderint dum metuant
Oh How I Love Jesus
Our Stars and Stripes
Part Time Pundit
Patriots For Bush
Protest The Left
RAGE 4 Truth
Red State Rant
**Release The Hounds
Right On! A Conservative Opinion
**Right Wing Nation
**Right Wing Right Minded
**Shooting The Messenger
Stop The ACLU
Stop The ACLU Montana
Stuck on Stupid
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia
The American Patriots
**The Conservative UAW Guy
The Gray Tie
**The Kevin Show
The Lesser of Two Evils
**The Life And Times
The Nose On Your Face
**The Original Gobbleblog
**The Uncooperative Blogger
The View From Firehouse
The Wide Awakes
**third world county
This Space For Rent
Time Hath Found Us
**TMH's Bacon Bits
Twenty First Century Paladin
Vista On Current Events
What Attitude Problem?
**White Lightning Axiom: Redux
Xtreme Right Wing
The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grieveances."
The far-left have some other constitution they call a "living document." It's first amendment says, "There is an inseperable wall between Church and State. Religion shall be supressed to only being expressed in private...."
Or something like that.
Through constant judicial activism, the ACLU has been one of the primary founders of this "living document", as well as many activist judges who have written it from the bench.
For example, the ACLU has constantly tried to redefine the First Amendment's protections of press and speech to include all kinds of filth and perverse things including child porn.
The Establishment Clause is one of the most abused sections in the Constitution, completely twisted out of context from its original meaning. For example the ACLU's claim that a voluntary prayer made by a high school valedictorian, selected on completely neutral grounds, or the posting of Ten Commandments by organizations with private funds on a public Courthouse lawn, somehow violates the Establisment Clause. Neither of these acts are done by Congress, nor are they "laws" that establish religion.
Many local governments across Georgia and other states begin their meetings with a prayer and reference the Christian deity during the invocation. However, the ACLU says doing so is unconstitutional, and last year federal courts in South Carolina agreed with them.
"The courts have said that if they are going to have these prayers, they have to be inclusive," said Maggie Garrett, a staff attorney for ACLU of Georgia who filed earlier this month against the Cobb County government for the practice.Source
What the majority thinks doesn't matter anymore. Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser made that clear when he said in an ACLU press release after Alaska voted for a constitutional amendment to preserve the traditional definition of marraige, "Today's results prove that certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority vote."
See, the ACLU believes they know what is best for America, not the people. And this type of elitism defines them. Somtimes it is very obvious such as comparing religion to terrorism. And this guy was serious.
I'm gonna go ahead and start promoting a book that will be coming out very soon, which I highly suggest you all go out and buy when it does. I was sent an advance copy, and to illustrate my point...I'm gonna quote from The ACLU Vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten.
"Dennis Prager, a well known columnist and radio host, perhaps best expressed the ACLU's worldview (and that of its allies) and its antagonism toward American values, when he wrote the following:"
To understand the worldwide ideological battle - especially the one between America itself - one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightest worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.
One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship law. They put their faith in law-both national and international. For most of the Left, "Is it legal?" is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong....
To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subserviant to morality...
And why is the Left so enamored by law?
First, the Left, which is largely secular, regards morality no as absolute, but as relative. This inevitability leads to moral confusion, and no one likes to be morally confused. So instead of moral absolutes, the left holds legal absolutes. "Legal" for the Left is what "moral" is for the Right. The religious have a belief in a God-based moral law, and the Left believes in man-made law as the moral law.
Second, whereas they cannot change God's laws, those on the Left can and do make many of society's laws. In fact the Left is intoxicated with law-making. It gives them the power to mold society just as Judeo-Christian values did in the past. Unless one understands that the leftist ideals function as a religion, one cannot understand the Left.
Laws are the Left's vehicles to earthly salvation. Virtually all human problems have a legal solution. Some men harass women? Pass laws banning virtually every flirtatious action a man might engage in vis-a-vis a woman. Flood legislatures with laws preventing the creation of a "hostile work environment." Whereas the religious world has always worked to teach men how to act toward women, the secular world, lacking these religious values, passes laws to control men.
In fact, since it lacks the self-control apparatus that is a major part of religion, the Left passes more and more laws to control people. That is why there is a direct link between the decline in Judeo-Christian religion and the increase in governmental laws controlling human behavior.
Of course, the more laws that are passed, the less liberty society enjoys. But to the Left, which elevates any number of values above liberty-e.g. compassion, equality, fairness- this presents little problem.
All this helps to explain the Left's preoccupation with controlling courts; passing laws; producing, enriching and empowering lawyers; filing lawsuits; and naming judges. Laws and the makers of laws will produce heaven on earth. And that is why the Left hates the America....(that) says morality is higher than man-made law.
A very well written piece there that very accurately describes the situation. It isn't just the ACLU's fault that America is losing its moral values, a big part is also played by the judges who rule in their favor. Relativive moralism, and Political Correctness are eating America alive.
This type of thinking leads to totalitarian societies that the ACLU and its leftist allies say they oppose but Roger Baldwin admired during their "struggle in a transition period to Socialism." When society exalts individual rights over collective responsibility, then speech or actions seen as interfering with the right of the individual must be silenced. When law, instead of God, is seen as the salvation of mankind, more and more restrictive laws are passed to ultimately limit freedom rather than expand it.ACLU Vs. America
That is exactly what is happening. The ACLU is shaping America in its ugly socialist image. It is restricting liberty rather than protecting it. They censor speech rather than protect it. Public school teachers are scared to say "Merry Christmas", and County Commisions are afraid to pray in the name of Jesus.
If they continue their agenda unchallenged, they will create an America far from what our founding fathers fled in order to find freedom, and instead, we will become more like the countries the fled from.
But hope is not lost. ADF and other grassroots groups like Stop The ACLU, and other legal groups are here to fight. We can't do it without you. We want to expand our reach by getting an ad in the Washington Post. Go Here to see how you can help.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. Almost 100 blogs already on board. If you want to join us go to our portal and register. Its very simple. We will add you to the mailing list and send you the rest of the info at that point.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
There are many other aspects of the ACLU that are harmful to this nation, and every individual's civil liberties.
Please go to STOP the ACLU, and see what I mean. This is a grassroots effort, against an institution that has changed the course of history signifigantly over the last century, for better and worse.
If you really want to "fight the power" these days, it's not the Bush administration that you want to fight, it's the ACLU. (Wow, man, who knew?)
Support a fledgeling organization that will not only STOP the ACLU, but change the Republican party, as well as giving the "paleolithic" liberals a kick in the ass! Maybe that will wake them up, if 9/11 didn't. Not likely, but worth trying.
Let me commend Nedd and Jay of STOP the ACLU. They have earned my support, with an honest message and straightforward writing, from all of the contributors. For personal reasons (working overtime), I have been posting alot of material from STOP the ACLU these past few weeks on this blog, and I couldn't wish for a better resource. Thank you both, sirs (as well as Gribbitt, Kathy, Kender, BobG, Amy, and all of the great people over there!)
I suppose I'm gushing a little much, but that's what it feels like when I support something so fervently. If I can squeeze 20 bucks out of my tight wallet, I'm not ashamed to ask you to, as well.
STOP the ACLU, and please donate at the link in the title of this post!
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
This is what all of you sickos on the left have been waiting for…..new pictures from Abu Ghraib, courtesy of the ACLU!!!
There are, by all accounts, even more pictures of GrabAnArab prison (Abu Ghraib for you PC sensitive folks out there) that the Pentagon, by some accounts, is trying to block from being released.
Really, I ask, do you NEED to see more images like this? Do you people out there clamoring for pictures of supposed bloodied bodies and alleged debauchery have to feed your sick addictions at the expense of our country? Can’t you just go buy a Penthouse and a National Enquirer and cut and paste like a six year old making a special “Ten Reasons I love My Mom” poster?
Here is a bit from the article that I took issue with:
The NewsHour’s Ray Suarez said the images reportedly depict “assault, coerced sexual activity, rape, even dead bodies.” Some may have originated outside of Abu Ghraib. Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) said she saw videos of a prisoner banging his head against a wall and a group of men masturbating.
Yeah, let’s take a few of these points one at a time here.
Assualt; Would that be like smacking someone upside their head assualt? Or perhaps giving them 100 lashes for having sex outside of marriage assualt?
Coerced Sexual Activity; I wonder if that “coerced sexual activity” is the same kind that NAMBLA engages in before the ACLU defends them for their sick ways? Was this alleged “sexual activity” with children? Probably not.
Rape; See above, or would this be the kind of rape that is reported in Islamic tribes as punishment for crimes that the women didn’t even commit?
Dead Bodies; Were these dead bodies dead because someone sawed off their heads while they were bound and held down? I don’t think so!!!
As for someone banging their head into a wall? That goes on in mental institutions all the time…that guy simply needed some Prozac….and several men masturbating?
That video would sell like hotcakes in West Hollywood.
One of the arguments against releasing these pictures is that it would cause riots in the Muslim world.
That gives me pause to wonder….when they hear of a Koran that may have been flushed they riot and kill people…..when we see a video of one of our countrymen being held down and having his head sawed off while he is alive we cry out for Justice but we don’t run through the streets burning mosques and killing muslims…..perhaps now you folks out there will see who is civilized and who still lives as though this is 844 A.D.
An investigation should be done of course, but the question remains…..why do you need to see them?
PS: SPAM COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED.
Ten Commandments Monument Wins in Nebraska
Congress Considers "Border Protection Corps Act"
Police Crime Watch Program Criticized by ACLU
CAIR and ACLU fight for Swearing on Koran
Hat tips to, and commentary at Crosses aCross America, Gribbit's Word, and STOP the ACLU.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Friday, August 19, 2005
From World Net Daily:
Prisoners advised of 'right' not to answer interrogators
U.S. military sources tell Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin that American Civil Liberties Union attorneys have been permitted to advise Guantanamo Bay prisoners, including Taliban and al-Qaida operatives, that they have the right not to answer the questions of interrogators.
In addition, the Pentagon has brought in a veteran staff attorney from the ACLU to serve as chief defense counsel in future military tribunals.
That story is breaking now at the premium, online, intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND.
from WBAL 11
ACLU Defending Woman Accused Of Using Drugs While Pregnant
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are appealing the conviction of an Easton woman who was accused of endangering a child by using cocaine while she was pregnant.
Kelly Cruz, 30, was found guilty of a reckless endangerment charge Aug. 5 after waiving her right to a jury trial. She was ordered to serve 2 1/2 years in prison.
Cruz was charged in February, about a month after giving birth to a premature baby boy who tested positive for cocaine.
Defense attorneys had sought an acquittal, arguing there was never a risk of harm to another person – because a fetus doesn’t meet the definition of a person under state law. But a Talbot County judge ruled that the person who suffered the risk was the baby after it was born.
ACLU attorneys said prosecuting women for their actions during pregnancy is unprecedented elsewhere in Maryland and claim it is an attempt to create a new crime by charging pregnant women for harming their fetuses.
this is an AP wire report
ACLU sues over prayers at Cobb commission meetings
ATLANTA - Five Cobb County residents and the ACLU are suing Cobb County for overly sectarian prayers at county commission meetings.
The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday in federal court in Atlanta, claims the prayers before commission meetings are too Christian. One prayer ended, "in the name of Jesus our savior," and dozens more since 2003 mentioned Jesus, according to the lawsuit.
The ACLU does not challenge the commission's right to pray before meetings, just that the prayers are overly Christian, offending the five plaintiffs.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified "nominal damages" and a court order for Cobb to stop the prayers.
"Citizens of all religions and non-religion should be welcome at government meetings," ACLU spokeswoman Maggie Garrett said in a statement.
A spokesman for Cobb County, Robert Quigley, said the commission prayers were in legal bounds because they're voluntary, they occur before meetings begin and because they're not always Christian.
"We ask a variety of different faiths from around our community to participate," Quigley said.
This abbreviated version is just a test. Any feedback is appreciated. I want to thank all of the great folks at STOP the ACLU, and hope to spread the word.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
"The ACLU, along with seven national organizations, participates in Right to Vote, a national coalition to end felony disfranchisement policies. The ACLU is also conducting an ex-felon public education and mobilization campaign with affiliates in Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Southern California to educate ex-felons about their voting rights and to encourage them to vote." Per ACLU.
First, let me ask you a question. Is voting a right or a privilege? If you look at the numerous rights listed in the Declaration of Independence, and the constitution itself, there is no mention of voting rights. I prefer to look at it as a duty, but…For those who believe they have a “right to vote,” here’s a little history lesson.
The founders were well versed in the miseries of majority rule and of the historical failures of democracies.
So, they went about forming a government which would protect the rights of everyone, especially the minority, from the tyranny of mob rule (democracy).We often forget in our time that those who created the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government itself had been a distinct political minority for many years. They knew first hand how dangerous majority rule and democracies can be. They knew instinctively that when the mob gets rolling, the rights of individuals are of no consequence.
“Trial, we don’t need no stinkin’ trial! He’s guilty, string him up!” They knew that in a democracy, no one’s rights are secure and that sooner or later the majority would find a way to sack the treasury and bleed it dry. That’s why they formed a representative republic. In a republic form of government, which we are guaranteed by the national and state constitutions, there must be a limited franchise to vote.
Voting in a republic is not a right, it is a privilege. The American founders then went one step further, and insisted that voting privileges be determined by each state legislature, not the national or federal government. It worked quite well for more than 100 years … then came “reconstruction” after the U.S. vs. CSA conflict in the 1860s. That’s when the socialist move for a “full democracy” began. It has flourished ever since, slowly but surely eroding the original guarantees of a republic form of government by planting ideas that every person has a “right to vote,” simply ignoring constitutional restraints against such a notion.”excerpt
Now, the subject of criminals serving time having some “right” to vote is just ludicrous to me. But when it comes to the subject of ex-prisoner felons being able to vote, it has to be approached with much more care.
Many believe that once a felon has served their time they have paid their price to society, and with their reinstated citizenship they should be given back it’s full privileges including that of voting. In many cases the person has learned their lesson, and goes back into society to contribute positively, a truly changed individual for the better. And personally, I think people like this should regain their citizenship in full with all of it’s benefits, including voting. But on the other hand, many come out of prison conditioned, and hardened, only to return to a life of crime…in many cases worse than before. In my opinion every citizen has a social contract with society, that once broken has also broken the trust of society. It really comes down to rehabilitation, and being given parole is not a true gauge to measure this by. I would have no problem giving ex-prisoner felons back their full citizen privileges after a specified period of time in which they commit no other felonies, and prove their good citizenship. (emphasis by LEAV)
I know another argument from the left which states that laws denying formerly incarcerated criminals their “right” to vote is a remnant of the “old Jim Crow laws". These people believe the laws are racially motivated. They base their argument off of the statistics showing that almost one third of convicted felons are black.
Instead of confronting the fact that a grossly disproportionate percentage of crime is committed by black men, however, they twist it around and claim it is another example of institutionalized white racism. Of course, they conveniently leave out the fact that any convicted felon, despite their race, loses the right to vote in the states that forbid it.
If you think the disproportionate amount of blacks convicted of felonies is due to a flawed judicial system, I will not argue with you. I also have qualms with our judicial system.
Despite all of the arguments, it all comes down to states’ rights. If a state has decides to make part of the punishment of a felony the loss of their voting privileges permanently, or to bear arms, this can not be infringed upon by the federal government, or the ACLU. Those who violate the rights of others have proven that they want the benefits of society without the burden of obeying its laws. They can hardly complain when a majority of their fellow citizens deny them the right to choose who make the laws. When one is convicted of a felony, they lose many rights and privileges. I definitely don’t think incarcerated felons should be able to vote, as the ACLU does. And as far as regaining those privileges once they finish their prison term….it shouldn’t be unconditional or automatic the way the ACLU thinks.
This was a Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to participate please Register At Our Portal. Pretty simple. We will add you to the blogroll, and send you the rest of the info you will need. Almost 100 sites already onboard and listed in the right hand sidebar. Join us!
Help us fight the ACLU. Buy a bumpersticker from our Bulldoze The ACLU Store.
FROM LEAV: A well-argued position. It's about time for all people to stand up to the leftist anarchy that the ACLU, among others, have wrought on our society. Change can be in any direction, and conservative ideas are the truly progressive ones at this point in history. Now is the time to fight the liberal establishment.
Read the full post at STOP the ACLU.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
In the liberal MSM's heyday (mid '60's to mid'70's), they brought an end to the Vietnam War, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson's re-election hopes and Richard. M. Nixon's presidency. Today, they are trying to do the same thing to Iraq and Pres. Bush. I cite both Ms. Sheehan and Dan Rather as instruments used to achieve this end. No one knows which person might be a key factor in the next "big story." By that, I mean that the MSM keep seeking people who can change public perception on any given issue, whether it is the war in Iraq or the fitness of the President.
Mr. Rather disgraced himself in the effort to abort George W. Bush's re-election as President. Ms. Sheehan has become the left's hope for ending the Iraq war, though the jury is still out on that, for now. This war is the one policy of the President's that the media can point out how many people died under directly, as opposed to, say, how many people will die from his stem cell funding regulations, or his supposed "raising" of arsenic levels in tap water (they are the same as under Pres. Clinton). Do you see a pattern here? Crazy-ass stories that "fit the pattern" the MSM want to project about Pres. Bush have some effect, but in reality are more like crap thrown against a wall to see what will stick.
Certainly, August was the best month to launch this campaign, with the lack of real news in Washington, and only the continued body count to report on. The media should "seasonally adjust" these poll numbers, as the government does with economic ones, to compensate for the traditional slump in Presidents' poll ratings during this month. Most Americans are either on vacation, or wishing they were. This gives them either an ambivalent attitude, or a negative one, outside of huge "world event" type situations, at least. The poll numbers are flexible, and often predictable; the media know it. This fits in with what I call their "Tet offensive" strategy. The MSM picked the time that all of their "enemies" (the Bush administration, Conservatives and average Republican politicians) thought that they would be off celebrating Summer (as the rest of us are trying to do) to launch the most tear jerking, heart-wrenching attack yet against the Bush administration, over a matter of international security, no less. I also use that term with the history of it in mind: THE U.S. WON THE TET OFFENSIVE IN VIETNAM, BUT WALTER CRONKITE REPORTED IT AS IF WE LOST. This is the legacy that today's liberal media are trying to emulate.
President George W. Bush's presidency will go down in history for many things, most of which relate to 9/11. He deposed the Taliban, giving millions of Afganis a less oppressive government; he took Osama Bin Laden out of action as the operational leader of Al Queda, as well as smashing its leadership's infrastructure. He started a true "war on terrorists" around the world, not just the lip service that his predecessor gave to that notion. Under his watch, the dictator and terrorist Saddam Hussein was brought to justice, and his brutal sons exterminated, giving 22 million Iraqis a chance for a better society (which I have no doubt they will make). He has inspired and fostered democratic movements in more countries than I can name here.
His greatest legacy may be his commitment to civil rights during this war, while being called "worse than Hitler" by some. His critics may scream this, but there is very little evidence of what they are screaming about. This administration has stayed within the letter of the law, and pursued violators of it well before the media exposed them, as in Abu Ghraib. The same goes on the domestic front. For all of the whining about invasions of civil liberties, there aren't more than a handful of actual substantiated violations, which, while not a good thing, are to be expected statistically, just as any violations at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib were.
History will show this to be the most restrained warfare ever waged, both on foreign fronts and domestically. Don't expect to hear this reported any time soon, though. One would be accused of being a "shill" for the President, at the very least.
OK, save it for the history books.
Right now, we are going through the "long, hard slough" of this battle in Iraq, and the MSM are giving oxygen to the terrorists with their focus on Ms. Sheehan's anti war sentiments, as well as their mindless anti-Bush bias. I don't know who I'd rather see stopped first, the left-wing MSM or the terrorists in Iraq. Stopping either one would greatly damage the other. Keep that in mind, when you watch, read, or listen to the news from most major news outlets. Remember, THEY JUST DON'T GET IT.
Crossposted at LOVE AMERICA FIRST!
Sunday, August 14, 2005
There is a call for Congress to launch an investigation of the ACLU, partly due to its lawsuit against the New York Police Dept to cease baggage searches on New York subways. It is long overdue, considering a report from the New York Times in June about the shredding of certain documents.
There is another reason Congress needs to hold hearings on the ACLU. Lawmakers in state legislatures across America are seeing their roles to enact state policy undermined by ACLU suits such as this one in Tennessee, this one in Wisconsin and this one in Virginia (disapproved by only one lawmaker in the entire Virginia General Assembly and also referenced later on this page).
And the 70% of Nebraskans who voted for a marriage amendment of one man and one woman have not only seen their marriage amendment struck down in court but face their tax dollars being paid to the ACLU as ordered by the judge who struck it down.
If there is a possibility of an ACLU threat of litigation each time lawmakers pass laws and voters approve ballot initiatives, this nation's freedom to enact legislation for the good of it is severely at risk. We cannot continue to let the likes of the ACLU stifle the political process this nation was founded on. It is imperative Congress rein in the ACLU. State lawmakers are being hamstrung.
If you agree with the above, please contact your Congressmen and U.S. Senators and urge them to look into the ACLU's activities. Also, contact House Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner to initiate action by clicking here.
And if you want to do more, take further action against the ACLU by demanding that Congress defund their ability to get paid by your tax dollars and mine. Scroll a little further down for more details.
This madness has to stop! Please support the Stop the ACLU Coalition's efforts today!
PS from LEAV: This group is on the right track. The ACLU has been, from it's inception, an anti-religion and anti-capitalism group. They have had too much influence on this country, especially in the judiciary (Think Ruth Bader Ginsburg). It's about time that average people saw how harmful the ACLU's agenda is to our way of life. I'll keep writing about this, as well as posting relevant stuff from my friends at STOP the ACLU.com and .org.
A Chicago man has launched a website to mobilize millions of Americans to consign the American Civil Liberties Union to the "ash heap of history."
Nedd Kareiva says his two main goals are to send 1 million letters to the ACLU's headquarters in New York and to coordinate a march of 1 million Americans at each ACLU office in the nation.
Kareiva told WorldNetDaily in an e-mail that while there are public-interest law groups such as the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defense Fund standing up to the ACLU in court, citizens can do little apart from making financial contributions.
"In this past election," he says on his website, "the ACLU and its activist allies were sent a clear message not to tamper with the institution of marriage" with the passage of 11 out of 11 amendments defending traditional marriage.
But that didn't matter to the ACLU, Kareiva says, as litigation already is challenging measures passed in Georgia and Oklahoma.
"The ACLU wants same-sex marriage imposed upon America through radical activist judges," he says.
Do you want to help stop the ACLU? It's easy to assist and little is required. To get the whole story go to Stop the ACLU and read the details. Thanks.
Tip of the hat to BOB from SWEET SPIRITS OF AMMONIA, as well as all of the great people at STOP the ACLU!
Saturday, August 13, 2005
WHY ARE BLUE STATES BLUE? COMMENTS ABOUT MS. PIRRO, AND THE TORTURE OF LIVING IN NY STATE UNDER PATAKI
Regarding Pirro's abortion position: politicians in this state are either scared to confront the libs on this, or they belive in "splitting the difference," or being pro-abortion for the first six months of a pregnancy. My greatest hope for Ms. Pirro, should she be elected, is that she would vote yes on a bill banning "partial birth abortions." This is enough for me to support her, as opposed to our current junior Senator, who supports this horrible infanticide.
Look up Fred U. Dicker, from the NY Post. This guy has all the dirt on this race, and advised Pirro to run for Attorney General this time around in his column. He says this is only a victory for Pataki's advertising and PR people, and that Pirro is being used. Judging by how well her first press conference went, it looks like they are sabotaging her campaign, as well as siphoning off her money. I'm sorry I don't have the links, but this post is going way beyond anything Dicker says anyway. Here's what I think:
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN NY STATE IS A TOTAL MESS. GOV. PATAKI CAME IN AS A CONSERVATIVE, AND LEFT WITH A REPUTATION AS BAD AS MARIO CUOMO AMONG CONSERVATIVES. HE NOT ONLY SOLD HIMSELF OUT, HE SOLD OUT THE WHOLE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THIS STATE. I AM DISGUSTED TO BE A REPUBLICAN IN NY STATE. THIS IS THE STATE OF THE NY REP. PARTY. I HOPE MS. PIRRO CAN RISE ABOVE IT, AND GET THE VOTES OF ALL NEW YORKERS.
PS: I edited the comments, to make a post out of them. Go to my comments on the last post to read them in full context. Thanks to Rosemary again, for provoking such thoughts with your comments.
PPS: I only linked to two (now three) of Rosemary's sites (out of five), one in each mention of her name. This lady is a news machine, and I would ask you to take the time to read all of her blogs, as she is a huge inspiration for me.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
For those who don't know, a NY radio station just got fined for having one of these "smackdown" contests, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a bad idea for the Senate race. (JUST KIDDING!)
Crossposted at LIBERALS SUCK.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
"The event was sponsored, (Marc Morano of) CNSNews.com reports, by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. Participants included the National Urban League, The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the NAACP, and the AFL-CIO.Several Members of Congress shared the podium, including House Democrat leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. John Conyers and Rep, Maxine Waters. Lee, in her speech, called the war in iraq "immoral" and claimed the last two presidential elections were stolen. The quotes of other Members of Congress, as quoted by Morano, were only slightly less inflammatory."
Here are selected quotes from the "celebrities"...
Belafonte: "Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value." "[If] a black is a tyrant, he is first and foremost a tyrant, then he incidentally is black. Bush is a tyrant and if he gathers around him black tyrants, they all have to be treated as they are being treated."
Dick Gregory: "They (black conservatives) have a right to exist, but why would I want to walk around with a swastika on my shirt after the way Hitler done messed it (the swastika symbol) up?" "So why would I want to call myself a conservative after the way them white racists thugs have used that word to hide behind? They call themselves new Republicans." "[the United States is] the most dishonest, ungodly, unspiritual nation that ever existed in the history of the planet. As we talk now, America is 5 percent of the world's population and consumes 96 percent of the world's hard drugs."
Judge Greg Mathis: "They all need to be locked up because they are all criminals and they are all thieves." "They shot and missed when they enslaved, segregated and oppressed our people. They shot and missed when they stole the past two presidential elections. They shot and missed when they denied our right to vote." "[The Bush administration] is the enemy of our (black America's) progress." "The enemy of democracy continues to attack voting rights here, while they try to fight for democracy in Iraq."
...and some of the elected officials' comments:
Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California: "Some changes have to be made so we don't have a repeat of 2000 and 2004 where there was intimidation and discrepancies at the polls." "In the state of Ohio, where they had fewer voting booths and long lines in minority neighborhoods and no lines and many voting booths in white neighborhoods, that the balance is not what it should have been."
U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.): "The last two elections were stolen. They were stolen and so we will not rest until we reclaim our democracy and this is what today is all about." "our nation was lied to in order to justify this invasion and occupation."
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA):"We are here to take on President Bush, [Vice President] Dick Cheney. We are here to take on [House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay. We are here to take on the new appointee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts."
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.): "[the president's] record against human rights, civil rights, economic rights, is absolutely terrible."
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.): "said America was being ruled by the 'Bush mentality,' where 'crony capitalism' was supreme," quoting Mr. Marone's story.
NOW, the icing on the hatefest cake:
Jesse Jackson: "the same old enemies of civil rights and voting rights will always keep up their ugly activities." "Race baiters and discriminators may go underground, but they never move out of town."
--WELL SAID, IF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY, REV. JACKSON!
The re-authorization of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 is what this rally was ostensibly for. I wonder why Sen Byrd (D-Va.) wasn't there? He voted against the original bill in '65. Might he, and the Democrats not have gone underground, and now politically enslave minorities more than the Bush administration could ever be accused of? Why are the Dems letting these hucksters represent the 90 percent of Black Americans that vote Democrat? Follow the money. Rainbow/Push is an anointed subsidiary of the Dem party, at least since Jackson's political forays in the '80's. That's when he got his shakedown act into the big leagues, and started getting and giving political contributions. All of the participants in this rally fit that bill (partisan Dems), and the tax-exempt or "non-partisan" organizations (that's all of them) should be kicked back on to the tax rolls for this.I don't want to settle for their actions being ignored by the media, and overlooked by the public anymore. Some harsher sanctions may be warranted, especially for Jackson's Rainbow/Push group.
Luckily, there is opposition in the Black community. Groups like CORE and Project 21, the American Civil Rights Institute are prime examples; they, and Linda Chavez' Center for Equal Opportunity all oppose the type of venomous hate that was spewed in Atlanta. These are organizations focusing on the current problems in minority communities, instead of trying to keep any political group in power. They represent the political future, so get off the plantation, all of you liberal Democrats! You are being duped by the minstrel call of a bunch of phony scam artists, who have you wound around their fingers, while they do nothing that helps the people they claim to represent! This is especially aimed at the rank-and-file Dem voters, who often don't pay enough attention to what's being said in their names.
Also see Star Parker's Town Hall piece about Social Security reform, with my take on it from a previous LEAVWORLD post titled Star Parker: Dems Want "Plantation Society."
UPDATE: Walter E. Williams has an excellent piece on the Atlanta rally at Town Hall. I defer to his greater wisdom.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Let's look at the effects of the policy. Random searches are a deterrent, to some extent. They are far from ideal, but today's PC crowd finds profiling to be some kind of dirty word, and no government agency has had the courage to do it. Here's my point. When the police do random searches, a potential bomber will be made more nervous and apprehensive. The hope is that this will give the police enough suspicion to single them out for search. Of course, they can just leave the subway, and blow themselves up in any crowded area above ground. That is not what we are trying to prevent, at least unless it starts happening. If we faced a rash of suicide bombing above ground, as Israel has, there would be a hugely different reaction, so let's throw out that last argument.
No policy can be 100 percent effective. The NYCLU is opposing a halting step towards protecting everyone's civil right to life. They seem to froget that the 4th Amendment guards "against unreasonable searches and seizures." The key word there is "unreasonable." Would they have us wait until someone actually blows up a subway before supporting this policy? They wouldn't even support it then, as evidenced by their opposition to airline search policies since 9/11. Let them sue, and hope that the courts find these searches "resonable" under the Constitution.
Bill O'reilly, America's leading and most powerful critic of the ACLU, had on one of their defenders, who actually said "you can't suggest what they're doing is wrong." He was referring to the NYCLU, not the police! This is the mindset we are dealing with. He kept saying that O'reilly was "framing the issue" wrongly, but he had it backwards. I don't know what's in the people at the NYCLU's hearts, but their actions are making us less secure against a very real terrorist threat. For more on this see the STOP the ACLU website; I've linked to their similar take on this.
As with any new policy, it will evolve as the situation demands. There is a profile of a suicide bomber, and it should be applied. The NYPD should not carry the policy on indefinitely, but the threat level may justify it for some time. It is also important to remember that much of their information and investigation regarding terrorism is necessarily classified, for obvious reasons (one would think). The NYCLU suit may jepoardize many NYers lives, while giving a false impression of "protecting our rights."
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
This is typical of the media's reporting of John Bolton's recess appointment as the US ambassador to the UN. It just never stops, does it? Let's take it from the top: In my first post about Mr. Bolton, he was accused of chewing out staffers while putting his "hands on his hips" (doing the "Time Warp," no doubt). I wrote more about this when he was accused of "banging doors and throwing things." My third post about him was after the local ABC affiliate showed a "hidden cam" expose about employee abuse, and framed the whole story as a reference to Ambassador Bolton. I went as far as writing to Sens. Schumer and Clinton: "Why are you supporting the fillibuster of John Bolton, the man credited with getting the U.N. to reverse the 'Zionism equals racism' resolution, and keeping him from being our next U.N. ambassador?"...to no avail.
While the mainstream media's attitude has been less than hospitable, I think that the real smear-mongers should be exposed. Read this excerpt from the Center for American Progress:
"He has been called a 'treaty-killer' and a 'guided missile.' He is known as ... the 'anti-diplomat.' Recently he called concerns over how many nuclear weapons North Korea possesses 'quibbling.' ...And, if President Bush has his way, John Bolton will now answer to the title of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations."
YES, HE WILL. GOD BLESS AMERICA,
AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON.