For Your Information...

Check here for some fun quotes from our American media...

...and click here for a roundup of America's favorite liberal "news" paper...

Ignored story of the week

ACLU not representative of "reasonable" people

The 6th circuit court of appeals ruled in favor of a historical documents display that included the 10 Commandments. The court ruled against the ACLU, and went further by mocking the group and it's intentions.

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich's ruling said the ACLU brought "tiresome" arguments about the "wall of separation" between church and state, and it said the organization does not represent a "reasonable person."

...

He criticized the organization for arguing that the First Amendment mandates a "wall of separation between church and state."

"Our nation's history is full of governmental acknowledgment and in some cases accommodation of religion," the judge wrote.

Excellent ruling. Along with a great loss to the ACLU it's good to see that some judges are able to understand the lack of the "separation of church and state" in the establishment clause.

Of course, don't plan on reading or hearing about this... anywhere.

Good Idea, Right Action

I'm glad that contributors to this site agree that Washington's recent spending binge is totally inappropriate. Reductions in spending are the *only* way to bring outlays in line with revenue and principled leader have to step up to the plate. Furthermore, it's not okay to use emergency spending as an excuse to not account for budget items. There will always be emergencies that Congress feels pressured to address; funding for these adventures should be clearly represented in public reports, not excluded from calculations about the deficit and the public debt. Republicans have been too afraid to stand up to Democrats on spending and they'll pay for it at midterm elections if things aren't reversed next year.

However, I want to make it clear that the bills that were passed, while not even coming close to making a differnece, started in the right direction. As the graphs off to the right exhibit, defense spending is not what we need to worry about at all.

Lyndon "BJ" Johnson certainly blew it when he came up with the Great Soceity programs. Federal spending for entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare is automatic, increased by a formula that has been growing an order of magnitude faster than inflation and outpacing even our robust economic growth. Each year, more and more of federal government revenues are used to fund these massive programs; Social Security, Medicare and Mediciad accounted for *half* of all federal spending this year, to the tune of over $1 trillion. The scary thing is, the burden is growing and Democrats have blocked any and every attempt to deal with it.

I'm honestly not sure if liberals simply don't understand the basic concepts of economics and fiscal policy or if they deliberately want to make the country less competitive. Higher taxes are an option, but it is clear that the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 set us on a path to receive higher tax revenue. Eastern European countries that have adopted a flat tax, reducing their highest marginal rates by over 50% in some cases, have ended up collecting *more* revenue. Republicans insistance on no new tax hikes is not a gift to poitical contributors, they simply listen to economists when there is such broad agreement that heavy (35% as proposed by Democrats) taxes on capital are destructive.

Spending does need to be brought into line with revenues, however. So what do economists say should be cut? Surprise, surprise...the items that cost the most money!

The puny deficit-reduction package passed by Congress will not putus into black ink. It will not cut any programs. It will simply limit the anticipated growth of entitlement programs. The cuts are one qaurter of 1% of the expected expenses form these prgrams over the next five years; democrats were unwilling to negotiate at all and this is the best package Republicans could come up with. The cuts to Medicare will extend the period that people have to shed assets, preventing rich beneficiaries from simply ceding their estates to family before they have th state pick up all their medical costs. Student loans are a joke: if you want to know why tuition is rising, it corresponds amazingly with increases in gov't aid. Just like most farm aid goes to inflate the price of farm real estate, more generous student loans simply drive up the price of college education.

There were plenty of chances to help choose which programs to cut, and the bill was revised in committees and conference several times. The democrats never issued a single suggestion because they fundamentally believe the federal gov't should always pay more, but it's ludicrous to say that Medicare is fine just the way it is when the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that 10-20% of funding is wasted on fraudulaent payments. Hmmm.....that kinda makes a quater-percent over five year cut look insignificant, doesn't it?

Defense spending isn't the problem, and Dod cuts won;t bring us into fiscal sanity. Republicans need to get serious about the budget in '06 and voters need to show that they care for Congress to take action on bringing spending in line with revenue. If this were a provate company, the leades would be in jail. But alas, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid think they;re above the law.

Check it out yourself with the Congressional Budget Office.

The Confused Peaceniks

It seems that many on the left are confused about the implications of the Iraq war, but I do want to clear up one major misconception some protestors have.

It's very clear that if you believe we were wrong to go into Iraq, you are arguing that it would be better to have Saddam Hussein in power. If we assume that the *only* way to depose Saddam Hussein was a military intervention, the logical formula goes: event B (removal of Saddam) occurs if and only if event A (foreign invasion) occurs. The contrapositive is: with no invasion, there is no regime change.

The logic could not be more clear. Now, not wanting the war is certainly a legitimate view to have. Saying that we should not have sent our forces does not mean that you enjoy Saddam Hussein. He was unquestionably in control of a sovereign nation and it is fine to hold the view that we should not interfere with the government of a sovereign nation. I certainly agree that pro-war people have the burden of proving that this action was justified, but no matter how mentally impaired the anti-war crowd is, they did support the continued rule of a tyrant over the democratic process taking place now. And they will certainly be on the wrong side of history.

Oops... It looks like it meant nothing after all...

Europeans missing their Kyoto targets

10 out of the 15 countries that signed Kyoto aren't going to make their targets. That really about says it all...

ID - Scientific Theory?

While I was a bit suprised by the wording of his ruling, I would question that Judge Jones is an activist judge. He was appointed by President Bush, and he received praise from both sides of the aisle. I'd say that someone who is supported by Rick Santorum and Tom Ridge is probably not a radical leftie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/national/18judge.html

To the more important matter: Does intelligent design have a place in the science classroom? I have no problem with ID being taught under the heading of science as long as there is a sufficient amount of scientific study to back it up. As of right now, ID is not a valid scientific theory since it does not have a testable hypothesis. Without a testable hypothesis, you can't follow through on the steps of the scientific method. Ergo, no hypothesis, no theory, not science.

The War on Christmas

I hate to use the phrase, but there isn't any other way to say it. Well, maybe...

CBS News Hits a New Low
The War on Contemporary Christianity

...would also be titles that could work. 48 Hours tonight slipped to a new low of biased and poor reporting. Without going into excessive detail on the ridiculously one-sided mockery of Christianity and the birth of Jesus presented all I need to point out is how CBS referred to its "experts."

One on side of the coin the 48 Hours special quoted and interviewed "John Dominic Crossan, a former Roman Catholic monk and a professor emeritus at DePaul University" and "Michael White, a New Testament scholar at the University of Texas." White is pretty much a nobody, as a quick Google search yields absolutely nothing by way of his religious and scholarly exploits. As far as Mr. Crossan - he has written a variety of books on the life of Jesus, and is a well known Biblical skeptic. These two "experts" went on to ridicule and at times mock the traditional story of Jesus' birth.

On the other hand (for fairness, I'm sure) the 48 Hours reporter interviewed "Ben Witherington, a conservative Bible scholar and an evangelical minister."

So we have a former monk and professor emeritus versus a "conservative evangelical minister?" What CBS failed to mention was that Ben Witherington is also a Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He has written a number of Biblicaly skeptical books as well, as you would expect from a professor of "New Testament Interpretation." Why would CBS omit this important item from Dr. Witherington's description (including the fact that he is a professor)? Can't you guess?

I almost didn't write about this tonight because it is so ridiculous. However, it is representative of both modern media reporting and the current mainstream offensive against Christianity. All I ask for is a fair shake for all sides. I mean, they didn't even list the guy's credentials...

The unelected ones make the rules

It's official. School District Boards no longer have control over the curriculum in their schools. Although the Dover intelligent design debate was solved as it should have been (all of the pro-ID board members were promptly and overwhelmingly removed from their seats during the next election) the district court still ruled that the teaching of ID in a science class violates the Establishment Clause. That's right, the Establishment Clause.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

What? Teaching that there may be a "supernatural designer" to plug up a few of the many holes in evolution establishes religion? What about the "Congress" line? This is a state (city) institution - not a Congressional creation. The judge that wrote the opinion claimed that he is not an activist judge. I would beg to differ (without omitting the fact that the former board members were obviously activist, too).

How a district court can claim that a 15-second statement about an intelligent entity helping to shape the evolution of life can violate the Establishment Clause is well beyond me. Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer. And maybe it's because I'm not an idiot.

Time to Clean House

So, the doubters can be silenced. The United States intelligence agencies are doing all they can to discredit this President's administration. First the CIA and now the NSA, with the help of the New York Times, have been tossing out anonymous tips with the intent of destroying George Bush's presidency while ignoring the enormous damage these leaks are doing to our country's abilities to fight this war on terror.

Once again I'll say it: never has there been such a concerted effort to destroy a presidency in US history. With the press along for the ride for years the new leaks by the intelligence agencies are just what Bush says they are: shameful. I only hope that no one loses their life due to these criminal anonymous leaks.

It's time for someone to go through and clean up these agencies.

Republican of the Week: Ted Stevens

Way to go, Senator Stevens.

Republicans are finally moving on some of their priorities and responding to the dems win-at-all-costs strategy. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska is a national park the size of South Carolina. Republicans want to issue leases to energy companies to open up an area the size of Dulles International Airport for development to extract crude oil form the potentially largest oil field in North America. The leases would provide an estimated $10 billion to both the state of Alaska and the federal government and provide approximately 5% of domestic supply for the next twenty years. An ANWR drilling provision has not been able to pass the senate on its own accord although an overwhelming majority of Alaskans favor drilling, there is no credible environmental or ecological threat from drilling and it would provide a substantial boost to domestic energy production; but...surprise! Democrats oppose it because Republicans want it.

ANWR drilling can't pass because the minority party is unified in opposition and has successfully used a filibuster to block any form of drilling authorization. Earlier this year, Republicans stuck a provision in the budget reconciliation bill that cannot be filibustered. However, there were enough other controversial cuts in the bill that adding ANWR drilling threatened to bring too many House Republicans to a 'no' vote.

Now, Ted Stevens, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, inserted an ANWR drilling provision into the conference report on the DoD spending bill for FY2006. He had to bend a few rules to do it, and it wasn’t pretty. It’s not good governance, but it echoes the democratic strategy of win-at-all-costs (i.e. threatening a Supreme Court nomination filibuster, half of the caucus voting ‘no’ to one of the highest qualified Supreme Court candidates ever, ludicrous and unfounded statements about the war in Iraq). The House passed the DoD spending bill over the weekend and the Senate will pass it this week.

The democrats are right that the inclusion of the ANWR provision isn't an ideal parliamentary move. However, no matter how much the dems want America to lose in Iraq, they won't be filibustering a defense bill that provides salaries to military personnel during a war.

Steven’s explanation for including it in DoD that ANWR is a national security concern is almost as flimsy as calling a troop withdrawal from Iraq a 'redeployment'. I think it's better to come out and say what everyone knows: this is good for the country, but obstructionists across the aisle prevent it from passing in any other form. So it's in the bill.

At the same time, the dems opposition to this provision has an equally unprincipled defense. They claim extra provisions shouldn’t be added to the DoD spending bill. But are they objecting to the extra Katrina relief and extra LIHEAP (Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program) in the bill? If dems are really that incensed about a funding bill for troops being used as a vehicle for extraneous proposals, they'd oppose that. Alas, they're simply unprincipled sheeple that only unite in opposition.

Side note: I’ll send a bottle of wine to anyone who can tell me a single novel policy recommendation from their unified caucus. As much talk as there is about a '94 revolution, they don't have agreement on a single issue, much less a ten-reform platform such as the Contract with America. Regardless of whether the Contract won the elections for republicans, the sole apt comparison between 1994 and 2006 is the self-defeat of the incumbent majority party, which Ted Stevens is acting to reverse.

That’s why he is the Republican of the week.

The addition of the ANWR drilling provision isn’t pretty, but it will get the job done. It’s time to take off the gloves and break their blind obstructionism. Dems backed themselves into this corner and it's about time the Republican Party responded to the ever more hysterical tactics of the opposition. Merry Christmas, big oil.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to remind these unhinged dems that it is perfectly legal to voluntarily pay the filling station more for gas or to donate a few dollars from every tank you buy to the governments of Iran and Syria. I’ll provide you with a postal addresses if you send me an email.

Bush Doctrine Succeeds, Media Yawns

The new most under reported story in recent history? The success of the Bush doctrine and the elections in Iraq. These elections were, by the way, a smashing success bringing the country together in ways some (many democrats) thought impossible. Don't plan on reading about this in any major US newspaper, though. Even the British have managed to ignore it.

Plan on tuning in on Sunday night, however, as Bush addresses the nation about the stunning success of the democratization of Iraq and the spread of freedom in the middle east.

However, if you wish to keep your head stuck in the sand, check out the Times today as they spread another illegal intelligence leak that was leaked only to damage the administration and will only be prosecuted if it is somehow linked to Dick Cheney. Seriously people...

And these people *teach* law?

You know leftists have a truly losing argument if they can't even summon Ruth Bader Ginsburg's help in a Supreme Court case. The absolutely astounding thing is, the losers in the case, oblivious to Constitutional principles, are Ivy-league law professors. You can't make this stuff up.

Last week, it pleased the court to hear Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR). Since Vietnam, the federal government has told campuses that they must allow military recruiters all the privileges of other campus recruiters if it wants federal funding for research. Recently, law schools have tested this rule and eventually backed down after the hundreds of millions of dollars campuses received were threatened. So they brought suit, and a confused lower court ruled in their (FAIR's) favor.

Audio of the proceedings was recently released to the public, and it is a good listen if you've got a spare hour.

What it boils down to is this: following the reasoning of the law schools on this case (that schools should be able to bar whoover they want but keep federal funds), all Title 9, affirmative action and discrimination-fighting measures applicable to schools would be thrown out the window. If the court would treat this as a free-speech issue for campuses (forcing the federal government to let universities compete for grants by striking the Solomon amendment under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine), schools that wanted to discriminate based on race, gender, or any other matter would have free reign.

There is no law against having the view that races should not mix. There is a law that says if you enforce those policies on a campus, you are not eligible for funding from taxpayers. And law schools want to undo this principle.

The other crazy paradox: Congress has an expressed Constitutional interest in providing for an army, right there is article I, section 8. Nobody has yet found the clause requiring federal funding for education.

The Weekly Standard puts it best:
Therefore--the law schools' mindbogglingly illogical argument proceeds--the government is constitutionally required to let universities actively obstruct the Pentagon's on-campus volunteer-force recruitment campaign, free from the "crisis of conscience" that a threatened financial penalty might inspire. This, even though no one disputes the fact that the government could, if it wanted to, forcibly conscript every law student in the land without ever having spent a single dime on higher education.

The scary thing is, this case wasn't hatched by a crackpot like Cindy Sheehan or Howard Dean. This was instigated and guided by law professors. At Ivy league schools. These people are supposedly training "the best and brightest" and their own phony ideas will likely be utterly rejected by an 8-1 or 9-0 decision.

Keep your eye on this case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, because it was big news last fall but will hardly be mentioned in papers when decided next spring because it is such an open-and-shut rebuke of liberal shitheadedness.

UPDATE:

The absurdity continues.

Harvard University and Georgetown University object to military recruiters at their law schools because the military supposedly discriminated against gays with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. What would you think would be their response to an organization that wants them to set up a new center excusing regimes that has an "ask and behead" policy?

That's right, liberals would gladly take the $20 an run. When Saudis want these universities to legitimize their oppression in the name of cultural diversity, universities jump at the chance. Again from the National Review: "While Harvard professors may backslap themselves for protecting homosexuals and their peers from a full choice of careers, it is unfortunate that they welcome cash from a family which denies visas solely on the basis of religion. Jews need not apply."

No better than the rest

If any of you care, and you happened to see my post on Bill O'Reilly's "holiday" logo on his web site (when he is currently fighting against such things) you might want to go back and see that he soundlessly changed the "holidaylogohome" to "christmaslogohome."

So, in other words, Bill is just like every other mainstream media outlet. When he makes big mistakes he quietly fixes them without a retraction. Annoying...

What is the purpose of the U.N.?

Word has leaked that Israel is planning on taking out Iran's nuclear capabilities if the UN fails. I suppose this scenario begs the question, what is the purpose of the UN? Is it not to stop this kind of thing from happening?

While the fool head of the International Atomic Energy Agency receives his Nobel Prize for failure and seeks to wait and see a "smoking gun" from Iran (a.k.a. a smoking crater in Israel) Israel is a bit less than content to wait and see whether Iran is successful in its nuclear ambitions.

Lets review: Iran is a terrorist tyrannical dictatorship with desires for world domination and is almost finished creating its own nuclear weapons. While the US has given up, Europe has slapped their wrist, and Russia has tried to buy them off, the UN has done a whole lot of nothing, and it might just lead to World War III.

A number of years ago when the world was sleeping, Israel single-handedly blew up Iraq's nuclear weapons-production facility in 1981 (sold to them by France and their now-president Chirac when he was a foreign minister). Since that worked so well and the international community is again worthless, why won't they try it again? Who do you think Iran's first nuke will go to? France?

So beyond the sinister desires of the men who leaked and reported this story we should all truly evaluate what this means. The UN has reached epic proportions of worthlessness (more so than the League of Nations ever did), there is a tyrannical homicidal dictator who is bent on world domination and close to getting his own nukes, and the UN agency responsible for stopping him gets a medal for nothing.

I'm more than concerned.

Military's Information War Is Vast and Often Secretive; New York Times' Information is Vast and Quite Obvious

While the New York Times shrills about the US military's information machine, they themselves are far more corrupt and one-sided than the US military will ever be.

While I make no apologies for the more-than-shady activities of US soldiers writing uncredited articles to Iraqi newspapers, lets put this into perspective. Bush believes that freedom and democracy is the cure for the tyrannical dictatorships of the middle east (and I agree). Then why shouldn't we be spreading our message?

The Times, on the other hand, is interested in one thing - money. While the US government is trying to spread freedom and democracy, the Times is trying to save it's plummeting circulation numbers and hopes to not have to fire 3,000 people again this year. The Times is quite obvious about their bias, and college professors, Democrats, and followers of Cindy Sheehan are happy to meet the paper's desire for income.

The Nobel Prize for Failure

Congratulations to Mohamed ElBaradei for receiving the Nobel Prize for failure today in Oslo. ElBaradei is the head of the UN's toothless watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and has been known for such wisdom as demanding the US dismantle its nuclear arsenal, not acting against the terrorist regime of Iran but rather waiting for a "smoking gun" (a.k.a. radioactive crater), and has allowed both Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

Today as he received his medal for failure he claimed that nuclear weapons everywhere should be as taboo as slavery or genocide.

It's too bad that the UN disagrees with its toothless watchdog. Only Colin Powell made a public statement that the mass murders in Darfur were "genocide" and the UN refused and still refuses to act to stop it. Interesting.

I suppose to the UN genocide is just as "taboo" as the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There's a whole lot of it, and the UN is completely powerless to stop it.

Iraq is not Vietnam

...and here's why:

Citizens Turn Over 'Butcher of Ramadi' to Iraqi, U.S. Troops

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9, 2005 – The terrorist known as "the Butcher of Ramadi" was detained today, turned in by local citizens in the provincial capital of Iraq's Anbar province, U.S. military officials in Iraq reported.

Iraqi citizens captured a top terrorist leader in Iraq and brought him to a US military base. Did this ever happen in Vietnam?

So he was crazy...

Remember the guy that jumped the White House fence and was arrested? This pretty much sums up his mental status:

Report: Alleged White House Jumper Wanted Chelsea Clinton

A clearly troubled young man...

The Economist and "Global Warming"

The Economist has an excellent roundup on the climate change debate today. If you are not sure what to think of "global warming," read this article.

However, I do have a few comments to make about its content. The Economist uses six reasons to conclude that "global warming" is caused by human activities. All of these issues are important, but none of them point to global climate change as anything but natural.

The first, and most basic, is the continuation of the warming trend at the Earth’s surface that has been happening since the early 20th century. The first chart below, assembled by Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia, shows that the ten years to 2004 were the warmest decade since reliable measurements began in the early 19th century. Estimates of earlier temperatures made from data such as ice cores and tree rings, though not as reliable as thermometers, suggest the decade may have been the warmest in the past millennium.

All of these statements are true, but so short-term they hardly are conclusive evidence. Going back 100 or even 1,000 years to base climate predictions on is like basing your opinion of a movie on only the last 25 seconds. We do not have long-term enough climate information to conclude that the current trend of warming is anything other than natural.

The second result is that the Arctic, a place where any warming trend would be amplified by changes in local absorption of heat as the ice melts, does, indeed, show signs of rapid warming.

This, too, is not evidence of human-caused climate change. There is no evidence that climate change by carbon dioxide or climate change by solar radiation change would affect the poles differently.

The third finding is the resolution of an inconsistency that called into question whether the atmosphere was really warming. This was a disagreement between the temperature trend on the ground, which appeared to be rising, and that further up in the atmosphere, which did not. Now, both are known to be rising in parallel.

This, too, is not evidence that the temperature change is caused by human activities any more than caused by solar radiation.

The fourth is a study by researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in California, into changes in the way the world’s oceans have warmed up at different depths over the past 65 years. These match climate models’ predictions of what happens when warming is induced by greenhouse gases better than it matches predictions of the result of changes in the sun’s activity, the main alternative hypothesis for what might be causing the climate to change.

This one is the weakest explanation yet. It says that these researchers made estimates for what the ocean temperatures would like due to changes in greenhouse gasses and solar activity each - and the current trend of ocean temperatures more closely matches the prediction they made for ocean temperature changes caused by greenhouse gases. Not exactly conclusive evidence.

The fifth is the observation in reality of a predicted link between increased sea-surface temperatures and the frequency of the most intense categories of hurricane, typhoon and tropical storm.

This comment has been thoroughly debunked by the NOAA. Read about it here - the strength and number of hurricanes is a natural pattern.

And the sixth, as reported in last week’s Economist, is an observation that ocean currents in the North Atlantic are faltering in ways that computer models of the climate previously suggested would happen in response to increased temperatures.

This, too, is an attempt for researchers to claim the causes of ocean changes based on predictions of how they think the oceans may change. Again, it draws no distinction between natural warming and human-caused warming.

This article by the Economist is excellent, though, and I encourage you all read it. However, it does nothing to prove "global warming" is nothing more than a natural pattern in Earth's temperatures that has been ongoing for literally millions and millions of years.

In case you were wondering...

...how biased CNN can be? Here's an example:

Here is a poll from their front page today. I've ranted on CNN enough over the past few months, put I think this poll takes the cake. A bit biased? I think so.

Oh, and in case you were wondering about the results: 63% say Ann, 37% the UConn students. From nearly 93,000 votes (so we know who reads the CNN site).

Now I will be the first to admit that Ann Coulter can be a bit off her rocker sometimes, but she is no more stupid than John Kerry or certainly Howard Dean. The odds of seeing a poll on their stupidity? Not likely...\

Stolen from RWN.

The UN is a mockery of an institution

Ah, yes. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse it does. November 29 marked the UN's "Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People." There's nothing really wrong with this, except that at the reception the UN displayed the non-existent Palestinian state's flag and a map showing the region and omitting the existence of the UN member state of Israel.

The good news is that there's this guy name John Bolton, and he's the ambassador to the UN from the US. He is doing, well... exactly what we hoped he would do.

Here the UN security council passed a condemnation on a Hezbollah attack on Israel after initially refusing to do so (and they have never condemned Hezbollah for murders before).

When asked what changed from Monday to Wednesday, one diplomatic official replied: “John Bolton,” a reference to the US ambassador to the UN. Bolton lobbied vigorously for the passage of the statement.

Here the UN passed six resolutions condemning Israel and (non-bindingly) demanding Israel withdrawal from the West Bank.

“These resolutions are purely symbolic,” Bolton told reporters at the UN. “It is one reason why many people say the UN is not really useful in solving actual problems. We have been making enormous progress toward solutions in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that progress has benefited from UN participation, but it does not benefit from needless repetition of meaningless resolutions in the General Assembly.”

Bolton, who has pressed UN member governments to reduce the number of General Assembly resolutions, said it was up to them to “decide they want to do things that are relevant.”

And yesterday Bolton struck again, compounding those who advocate for the (worthless) status quo at the UN. The UN refused to condemn a suicide bombing in Israel that blew up five civilians outside a mall. The motion that was introduced by Bolton was blocked by Algeria.

[Bolton] said “you have to speak up in response to these terrorist attacks. It’s a great shame that the Security Council couldn’t speak to this terrorist attack in Netanya, but if the Council won’t speak, the United States will.”

Indeed. I like this guy. Alot.

Update on the rumble of the protected classes

I wrote back in August about an interesting event at William Patterson University. A student employee responded to an email from a professor about attending a movie and following discussion about a "lesbian relationship story." The student responded that homosexuality is a "perversion" and that he wished to no longer receive these emails. The student was accused of harassment and a letter was placed in his file. The problem? The student was Muslim.

Today the school ruled that the Muslim student's claim of homosexuality to be a "perversion" is free speech and the letter was removed from his file.

I originally thought that this story was so interesting because it represents the up and coming problem of universities unilaterally supporting minority or "underrepresented" students. Sooner or later two groups of "protected" student were going to clash, and here it was.

I really don't care either way how the case was ruled. What I do know is that if I, as a Christian, had wrote the same email back to the same professor there is no way my "Christian" opinion would have been free speech. Most universities will soon no longer be able to hide by "supporting" all minority student groups when they begin to clash on ideology, especially when any criticism of the group can be ruled "harassment."

Academic Discourse Silenced

In another example of speakers silenced at universities Ann Coulter has heckeled at UConn to the point where she had to cancel her speech.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter gave up trying to finish a speech at the University of Connecticut on Wednesday night when boos and jeers from the audience became overwhelming. Coulter cut off the talk after 15 minutes and instead held a half-hour question-and-answer session.

...

Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major at UConn, didn't attend the speech.

"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Knudsen, head of Students Against Hate.

I'm sure he knows it's hate speech, considering he skipped the event. However, with the trend on college campuses to silence critical debate it's no wonder this student skipped Coulter's speech. Even if he would have gone he wouldn't have heard it anyway.

This is disgraceful. Why no reaction from the university? Is this not the silencing of free speech?

To harass UConn would be unfair, though, as professors at institutions like Iowa State University have also made attempts to limit academic debate. It's not good.

The Economy Lie

215,000 jobs created in November. 4.3 % increase in GDP. What do these things have in common? None of them are reported by the mainstream media. Actually, none of them are reported outside of claiming that Bush is trying to "take advantage of them."

A quick search of CNN.com for "economy" yields the only two articles that even remotely describe our current economic boom. The first, titled "Bush out to dispel economic pessimism" paints Bush as an opportunist trying to dissuade the public from their bleak outlook. Well, if you think the economy is bad then you do have a bleak outlook and you should... oh never mind. The US media refuses to cover it.

The other article, "Bush hopes for lift from upbeat reports" explains the President's speeches on the economy as simply publicity stunts in order to increase public opinion of himself.

These articles are from the AP and Reuters, and both of them toss in references to GM cutting jobs and Bush's "failed" initiative to advance Social Security reform. Is it any wonder the American people think the economy is bad?

The media full-court press against the Bush administration is reaching proportions of hilarity. The quote in the first article, "Bush said nearly 4.5 million new jobs have been added since May 2003, including 215,000 in November" makes it sound like these number aren't even facts. Why is it that the media does this? Why is it that no one seems to notice or care?

If the economy was bad (which, by the way, it isn't) wouldn't it be blamed on Bush? Why can't he take credit for his tax cuts?

P.S. - The Washington Times is now running a series of articles about good news from Iraq. Their story today? The massive positive strides the Iraqi economy has made since 2003. Why is it that the media refuses to cover this story? From Powerline:

Of course, mainstream news sources don't report the good news about America's economy, either.

Teach your kids

I debated whether or not to post on this, but I've decided to. On the Fox Report last night (go to FoxNews and click on the video link on the right-hand of the page. It's under the "Only on Fox" category) they had the story of a third grade teacher making 8 year olds write letters to government officials advocating for "an end to the war in Iraq" under the guise that it would teach "civic responsibility" and handwriting skills. They interviewed one grandparent who is against the assignment (which was cancelled by the school superintendent the next day) and another parent who appreciated the assignment for her child. They interviewed the child and her parent who said it would have been an opportunity for third graders to find out "what's going on with the war."

"We need the war to stop because, like, almost every week we have something about the war coming up." The child quickly looked to her mother to see if her answer was right.

"Is that good or bad that we hear?"

The 8 year-old knew this one. "Bad!"

I don't have any problem for parents to teach their children about the world and news events. I know my parents always carried with them a deep fear that any future war would be another Vietnam and I would be a casualty (especially during Desert Storm and 9/11). But indoctrinating your kids about something at an age when they have no clue what they're saying is ridiculous, seriously. This kid definitely knew the right answer, but had no idea what it meant. A brainwashed political ideologist in the making. I know lots of people who still haven't progressed from where this child is now. Sad

Now that's funny...

From the faithful posters at the Democratic Underground:

Thanks to a very alert DU reader who just emailed this information to me... If you go to Bill O'Reilly's home page right now (hold your nose) you'll see that he's got a nice, tasteful, flashing wreath stuck on top of his website logo. As the person who sent this to me wrote: "Apparently, that's his idea of 'traditional' Christmas. What a moron."

But there's more: this alert reader happened to right-click on the wreath and check its image properties, and wouldn't you know it - the filename is "holidaylogohome.gif"

Just so you know, I would put a tree or something at the top of this site, but I, uh... don't know how...

The Party of Opposition

While the media covered little-known representative Murtha and his publicity stunt calling for the removal of all US troops from Iraq ASAP, the same media completely ignored Joe Lieberman when he, after four trips to Iraq in 17 months, stated that progress was being made and the US should stay to see the job done. Now this straight from the DailyKos:

Former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. on Monday criticized Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's continued support of the war in Iraq and said that if no candidate challenged the senator on the issue in the 2006 election, he would consider running.

"When you've become the president's best friend on the war in Iraq, you should not be in office, especially if you're in the opposing party," Mr. Weicker, 74, said in a phone interview from his home in Essex, Conn. "I'm going to do everything I can to see that Joe Lieberman does not get a free pass."

Is this what the Democratic party has become - literally the party of opposition? The only reason to oppose Lieberman is because he agrees with the President and dang it - he should know better because he is in the opposing party?

[Insanely] Biased story of the day

The AP throws a bone to Saddam supporters and makes no bones about flashing their open lack of an attempt to remain unbiased.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Watching the Saddam Hussein trial at home on television, Jinan Mushrif said she got chills of pride Monday when she saw the ousted leader and a co-defendant chant, "Long live Iraq, long live the Arab state."

"These are the real men of Iraq, not those who hide behind their bodyguards," the 49-year-old Baghdad housewife said with a laugh.

Saddam's repeated outbursts at the third session of his trial on charges of mass murder found a receptive audience among some Sunni Arabs, tapping into Sunni resentment of the new order in Iraq, in which their once-ruling minority community is now dominated by the Shiite Muslim majority and the Kurds.

"Majority rule" anyone? How can they print this trash? Since when does "majority rule" mean "dominated?"

"Maybe Saddam did oppress those who opposed him," Omar said. "But for every Iraqi, deep inside, he looks like the strongman we need."

The AP must have turned over a rock to find these people. Considering the vast majority of Iraqi's just want Saddam shot in the street and dumped into a mass grave like those who are now "dominating" Iraq once were (hence the Saddam defense assassinations). This article is so ridiculous that I refuse to go on.

This is the failure of modern journalism. The AP is not covering news, but rather the stories that "need" to be heard.

Someone should shut this guy up...

Howard Dean is out of control... again.

Memorable quotes:

"The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

"This is the same situation we had in Vietnam."

I would agree with these statements if half of the country was out of our control and supported by another superpower; if the Iraqis didn't care about governing themselves; and if we had lost tens of thousands of troops without any progress. The upcoming elections and the previous two are enough to prove these statements wrong.

"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway."

Eh? Did I miss something? National Guard and reservists don't belong in combat? What are they Howard, only sandbaggers? These men and women receive the same training as everyone else in our military. What is Howard thinking?

"President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been done in a very different way."

Suggestions?

"What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate."

It's too bad that no one like yourself has come before you, Howard. But don't worry - you will soon be the nutjob standard that all nutjobs are compared to.

UPDATE from Powerline:

It will be interesting to see whether other Democrats try to distance themselves from Dean. Frankly, I doubt that most will bother. The truth is that most antiwar Democrats not only believe we can't win in Iraq, they hope we don't win. They care more about scoring political points against the Bush administration than they do about the freedom of the Iraqi people or about America's national security. So my guess is that they will see little to criticize in Dean's latest outrage.

anything to use against Bush...

Big Brother

Look out all ye who blog here or anywhere... big brother is watching you.

Oh, not all at once, but slowly and over time. Big brother also only cares when you write things that: "in any way discriminate against or favor any group or are harassing in nature."

Marquette University stuck a dental student on probation and is trying to make him repeat a $14,000 semester for "inappropriate" language he posted about his classmates and professors on a blog.

Indeed, the administration threatened expulsion for anyone who continued to write on "any blog sites that contain crude, demeaning and unprofessional remarks."

The article claims that since Marquette is a private institution it has more ability to regulate speech than a public university does. I hope that all of you who write editorials and publish websites while in school are OK with that comment.

The student called his classmates and teachers "idiots" and claimed that they had the "intellectual/maturity of a 3-year-old." Is that harassment? Is it still if it's true, considering the kid is getting kicked out of school for saying it?

So yes, FBI, CIA, and my current and former University administrators - I apologize for what I said about you, Tom Cruise and Sean Penn. Please don't expel me!

A Little Fun...

...from another of my humor sites.

See the Democrat's response to Bush's speech.

Actually, any of Bush's speeches. Ever.

The Hidden Costs of Socialism

Read this - it'll blow your mind. It's an article by two UC Berkeley professors explaining the "hidden costs" of Wal-Mart.

They claim that because Wal-Mart pays "less than average" wages, in turn Wal-Mart employees are reliant upon the government and programs "such as food stamps, Medi-Cal, and subsidized housing - to make ends meet." Indeed - you'll never hear a nuttier claim by liberals that in fact reliance upon government entitlement programs is "bad."

Actually, if Wal-Mart raised their average wage $5/hour and removed the strain of "$410 million" from the state of California's treasury, then could California reduce it's spending on food stamps and subsidized housing as a result? I doubt either of these UC Berkeley profs would argue for that.

So what is the point here? (Besides, of course, the shrill of "Wal-Mart is evil!") I for one would be the first to point out that many of Wal-Mart's corporate practices are not what I would call "ethical" by any stretch of the imagination. However, claiming it's existence places a drain on government resources while still claiming that such government programs are indispensable is quite stupid and hypocritical at best.

Move On and the Dishonesty of the Left

Here we go again.

For those of you who don't know, a number of blogs have gotten together and formed a thing called Pajamas Media, after the early reports when Dan Rather was destroyed that bloggers "sit at home in pajamas." Anyway, a number of blogs have joined forces to bring you all this composite-blog-thing.

Anyway, a site like this has excellent abilities to link to a number of blogs at the same time, so I'll just send you there for the story.

It seems that everybody's favorite billionaire-financed lefty website put out a TV ad over Thanksgiving that showed sad troops eating a meager Thanksgiving meal in Iraq, and explained in the voice-over that these troops were sad they weren't home and it was all George Bush's fault. Pretty typical Move On ad. Well, the only problem is that the ad showed British soldiers eating a sad and meager meal. While this alone isn't too big of a deal (besides Move On lying about who was in their ad) Move On went on to photoshop away on their website one of the British soldier's shorts in order to cover up a common aspect of British uniforms. They lied about it and tried to fake it. Move on has since pulled the ad. Classy.

Hurricanes and "Global Warming" - the Final Say

With another record-breaking hurricane forming in the Atlantic the cries of "environmentalists" are no doubt beginning to call "global warming" as the cause of this year's very active season. However, in the event someone drops the "global warming" explanation, you can counter with this enormous paper put out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association that explains:

1) There are trends in hurricane numbers and strength
2) We are in an active 20 - 30 year trend starting in 1995
3) Ocean temperatures and wind shear levels that dictate these trends are naturally occurring climate changes (this one might be the hardest to swallow for "global warming" lovers - that global climate change can be "natural")
4) The coastal population boom during the period of lesser hurricane activity (1970-1994) will make the damage caused by the current active period much more devastating and costly
5) That the number and strength of hurricanes is not influenced by "global warming" even if "global warming" is caused by man-made factors.

Period.

The Anti-Bush AP

Read one of the most biased anti-Bush articles the AP has ever written, with excellent commentary on its ridiculous slant here.

It's no longer any secret that the AP can no longer be a trusted news source.


Well, maybe it was no longer a secret when an AP author invented the crowd booing at a pre-election Bush rally when it was announced Bill Clinton's surgery had gone well.