-By Warner Todd Huston
Thomas Friedman thinks you are “stupid” if you still care about the atrocity committed against this country by Islamofascists in New York on 9/11/2001. He thinks “9/11 is over” and we all should just move on. Even worse, he has decided that we are no longer a great country, but are filled with seemingly meaningless “fear,” that we have a dilapidated infrastructure, and that while America used to be “the gold standard,” he believes “We aren’t anymore.” Friedman is falling for the typical, leftist doom-and-gloom scenario and imagines that China is better than we are, Europe is more inviting, and we have become the new Rome after the fall. His closing line is “We can’t afford to keep being this stupid!” By contrast to Friedman, my opening line to him is “We can’t afford to be this self-loathing!”
Friedman starts his piece off comparing the current state of the U.S. to a satirical piece in the Onion, which is fitting because Frideman’s own piece might be mistaken for a satire on the frivolousness and unserious nature of the left today. Unfortunately, he is serious about his self-inflicted amnesia and seems utterly unconcerned about the threats we face as a nation and a people. Like most truthers he seems to imagine that it has all been hype, a conspiracy theory made up by eeeevil Republicans who merely want to fool enough people to stay in power.
His lack of ability to understand the nature of the enemy we face is a perfect reflection of the Chamberlainesque, “peace in our times” left that would soon have us in thrall to Islamofascism by their ignorant policy prescriptions.
It seems he had an ulterior motive in writing this doggerel, though, as Friedman used his self-immolating New York Times piece as a veiled jab at Rudolph Giuliani who is, in his perception, a “candidate running on 9/11.”
We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.
He seems to be repudiating his previous writing on terrorism and, all of a sudden, imagining a world where all is honey and roses, but that the eeeevil terror-mongers are keeping us hiding under the bed in meaningless fear.
-By Warner Todd Huston
One of the most absurd things about unions is their penchant for rewarding criminal behavior. In the real world, most people would not agree to allow a convicted criminal or someone under a cloud of corruption to benefit from a big pension paid for by everyone else. But, not in union land. In union land even those convicted of crimes should be carried from the cradle to the grave by the work force.
Well, in New Haven, Connecticut lawmakers are trying to change this ridiculous union requirement by crafting a new law to deny the pensions of public employees and union members who have been convicted of a crime or those who are in the midst of being indicted for corruption.
This new initiative is fast on the tail of the story of Billy White and Justen Kasperzyk, two New Haven narcotics cops who were indicted as a result of an FBI corruption investigation, both of whom retired with large pensions — one of them at $91,000.
Sadly, if New Haven passes this new law, they will join only a tiny handful of states and cities that sensibly deny luxurious pensions for people who have violated the public trust.
Blumenthal and Bysiewicz have already been researching the legal possibilities of such legislation, in the wake of a string of corruption convictions of state officials in the past few years. At Thursday’s hearing they offered their personal expertise and access to state files on pension reduction resolutions. They also advised aldermen to sit down with union officials and other objectors in order to address their concerns. They said if New Haven were to gain the power to reduce or revoke convicted city employees’ pensions, it would become the first city in the nation to do so. Thirteen states have similar judicial or administrative processes in place. Blumenthal and Bysiewicz been involved in four so-far unsuccessful efforts to convince the legislature to make Connecticut the 14th.
No cities and only 13 states have such laws!?
It all goes to show that crime often pays if you’re a union member!
-By Marie Jon’
In the Bible, we read about the twelve disciples working tirelessly to spread the Gospel to the ancient cities and countries of their time. All twelve were sinners and were saved by God’s grace.
Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, died for us all so that we could be forgiven of our sins. “We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
A number of sects of Islam believe in a mythical twelfth Imam. It is interesting to contrast the gospel with an obvious mere imitation. The Islamic twelfth Imam almost sounds like the Second Coming of Christ.
It is rather strange to note that our visiting jihadist Ahmadinejad, promotes the belief in an Imam who will “come again” to this earth. Yes, this is same man who blasted Israel, and denied the existence of Iranian homosexuals as he spoke to applauding, cheering students at the liberal Columbia University campus.
Columbia President Lee Bollinger’s scathing speech rang extremely hollow. He was insensitive to the feelings of Americans who are serving their country and those who support them. I imagine they were most offended knowing that President Ahmadinejad is the same man responsible for many troop deaths in Iraq. A terrorist should have never been invited to speak at the university.
“I suggest that we have to take Ahmadinejad seriously. I believe that he means what he says, and if given the opportunity will try to carry out his murderous plans. I furthermore suggest that we need to look around for the moral courage (the ability to make a stand on principle) to censure and punish those who call for the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel. Have we no memory? Have we no courage?” (source) John W. Swails III, Ph.D. Chair and Associate Professor of History, Department of History, Humanities, and Government, Oral Roberts University
Sadly, President Ahmadinejad spreads another type of deceit concerning a particular “hidden Imam.” Let us look closely at the comparison of a twelfth Imam to the Second Coming of Christ, which has been part of the absolute truth since the Holy Scripture were written.
-By Michael M. Bates
Jesse Jackson is getting some richly deserved criticism for charging Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) is “acting like he’s white” when it comes to the racially charged incident in Jena, Louisiana. Since shooting his mouth off, Jackson’s backed away, claiming he either doesn’t remember saying any such thing or that his words were taken out of context, whichever excuse you’ll buy.
If you’re as old as dirt like me, the occurrence is reminiscent of Jesse calling Jews “Hymie” back in the mid-1980s. A faulty memory can be so terribly cathartic sometimes.
Jackson also asserted last week that if he were a presidential candidate, “I’d be all over Jena. Jena is a defining moment, just like Selma was a defining moment.”
The 1965 marches from Selma, Alabama were a major turning point in the civil rights movement. On what’s known as “Bloody Sunday,” several hundred marchers were attacked by police with clubs and tear gas.
Jackson’s comparing Jena to Selma would have greater impact if he didn’t have a history of equating so many other things to Selma. To be sure, Mr. Jackson was indeed present. In a 1988 piece on Jackson, Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist David Maraniss wrote: “Andrew Young remembers Jackson in Selma as a guy that nobody knew, giving orders to other marchers. (Ralph) Abernathy remembers Jackson doing errands and asking him for a job on the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) staff.”
Nonetheless, Jackson’s experiences there must have been life-changing. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. told a 1997 graduating class: “My father was so emotionally caught up in the struggle and so moved by that occasion that he almost named me Selma. But thank God for Momma’s better judgment.”
-By Warner Todd Huston
And HERE is the reason why having Iran’s president Ahmadinejad speaking at an American University was a win-win for the bad guys.
The “Kayhan,” the official Iranian news agency, had joyous headlines of Ahmadinejad’s wonderful and successful trip to America.
“Shock in New York, Iran’s Logic Glares”
Strong, scientific and accurate answers of the President of Iran to the questions raised by the academicians in Columbia University made them applause and showed that they are not affected by the propaganda of the American Media. They officially asserted in a poll that they agreed with Ahmadinejad’s statements. The American televisions, which thought tricky questions will surprise the president, showed the program live. These sources, some of which are controlled by the Zionists, were shocked after the results of the poll came out.
According to the poll, the majority of the participants agreed that Columbia’s invitation of Ahmadinejad was a good decision…. Many Americans called the network to emphasize on the importance of freedom of speech in America…
A few people, some of whom were connected to the Zionists, protested against Ahmadinejad’s speech, but the poll showed that these were only a minority in the American society.
The people of Iran are not going to see that Ahmadinejad was laughed at as if he were a fool. The people of Iran are also not going to hear the president of Columbia, Mr. Bollinger, berate him, either. They will see is these nit-wit students applauding him as if he were a great man. The people of Iran will see their nut of a president treated as if he was loved and respected here.
And not only the people in Iran. The whole of the mid east will see Ahmadinejad’s triumph.
Score one for tyrants everywhere.
Minus one for freedom… again.
Good job Columbia.
September 29, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Constitution, Democrats/Leftists, Immigration/Immigrants, Media Bias, News, Security/Safety, Selwyn Duke, Society/Culture, Uncategorized | Comments Off
-By Selwyn Duke
It’s hard to think of a battle that has been won by being defensive. You may be most skilled at blocking and slipping punches, but if that is all you do, sooner or later your opponent will land a few and enjoy victory. This occurs to me as I watch the latest amnesty battle.
As you may know, the DREAM Act — the latest Scamnesty scheme — is being debated in Congress at this moment. And it may be the Mexican dream, but it’s our nightmare. But that isn’t what I want to address today.
We may defeat this proposal as we did the last, but so what?
Are you surprised? Do I sound overly cavalier or a tad defeatist? Here is my point: Until we transform this debate and talk about the true remedy for our problem — namely, halting legal immigration — we will labor in vain.
As I have said before, illegal immigration isn’t the problem, but merely an exacerbation of the problem. As long as we perpetuate our current immigration scheme – a formula dictating that 85 percent of immigrants will hail from the Third World and Asia – the demographic revolution we have witnessed will continue, attended by descent into Third World status.
-By Warner Todd Huston
This AP report is a perfect example of how the western media hasn’t the temerity to call things like they are, a perfect example of how it soft-sells the truth for fear of violating those vaunted codes of politically correct conduct — and why we could lose this war with a radical Islam that isn’t afraid of how they are perceived by their enemies. The weakness this time is displayed in an AP report titled “Ministry: Taliban spokesman arrested”, in which the AP can’t even call the Taliban a terrorist organization and treats these murderers as if they were just another normal government entity by according them the respect of the kind of language you’d reserve for the spokesmen of any legitimate government.
First off, at the top of the story, the Taliban is described merely as an “insurgent movement” instead of a terrorist agency.
KABUL, Afghanistan – A Taliban member who acted as a leading spokesman for the insurgent movement has been arrested in southern Afghanistan, the Interior Ministry said Thursday.
Wow is that benign sounding, isn’t it? An “insurgent movement” could describe many sorts of groups, the term not necessarily denoting a terror group. It could describe pro democracy movements in China, for instance. Or nationalist separatists in Chiapas, maybe. Heck, the term “insurgent movement” could have described the Founding Fathers of our own country for that matter!
But the Taliban is no mere “insurgent movement.” They are oppressors, murderers, and terrorists, yet the AP would rather soft peddle their evil with benign sounding labels.
That isn’t the only legitimacy the AP affords the Taliban in this story. Throughout the piece the AP talks of the Taliban’s “spokesmen” with their “comment” patiently asked after by AP reporters as if the reports that these so-called spokesmen dole out are legitimate news sources and not propaganda fed to a gullible western media.
But, if read closely, this AP report makes a mistake by admitting its own failures. This AP report admits, most likely by accident, that the AP knows that these supposed Taliban spokesmen can’t be relied on to tell the truth. Worse, the AP admits that it cannot even ascertain if these “spokesmen” are legitimate representatives of whatever terror group they claim to belong to.
-By Warner Todd Huston
Are the producers and Barbra Walters over at TV’s The View already about to dump a new View Hostess over her controversial views? Rumors to that effect are beginning to leak out, anyway. While Rosie got well over a year to spout her anti-American, anti-Bush garbage before the folks at The View finally got motivated to dump her for a new hostess, it looks like the new gal isn’t as lucky. What seems to have disgusted The View’s backstage handlers this time is a perceived “conservative” doubting of evolution in favor of a religious viewpoint that Sherri Shepherd recently revealed in one of her early appearances.
So, at issue is the comment new Viewette Shepherd said about evolution. As Bill Zwecker, Chicago Sun-Times TV writer says:
A source on the show’s staff insists things ”are running quite smoothly” in this post-Rosie O’Donnell era, but there is talk Walters (plus Whoopi Goldberg and others) have been quite taken aback by some of Shepherd’s recent remarks — especially one when she questioned the validity of biological evolution.
”While Barbara was very big on [panel candidate] Kathy Griffin, she was concerned about hiring another ‘loose cannon’ after all the problems with Rosie,” the source says. “But now she reportedly has made a couple of comments that seem to indicate she’s thinking she may have made a mistake [in going with Shepherd instead].”
Naturally, the official word from The View is that everything is “running quite smoothly” but then again, they never acted as if Rosie’s mental breakdowns were upsetting anyone until the day they dumped her, now did they? Come to think of it, they never did admit she was trouble!
Still, Rosie got the benefit of many, many months to spew her verbal diarrhea, and indulge in her circus antics before they finally dumped her. But, then we all know why that is, right? Of course, it’s because she had views that emerged from the leftist extreme. And spewing out views from the left is “free speech,” right?
And now we have rumors that The View folk are ready to dump their newest member after only weeks on the show. Why?
Because her one “controversial” view might be perceived as coming from the right end of the ideological spectrum, and a religious one at that. And of course we know that any possible view that could be imagined as religious or coming from the eeeevil right are to be unmercifully quashed by those more caring and more tolerant lefties!
-By Thomas E. Brewton
Senator Clinton is in thrall to the malign influence of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.
In 1996, when Bob Woodward’s The Choice was published, the media had a brief feeding frenzy over his report that Hillary Clinton had held “conversations” with the deceased Eleanor Roosevelt – “channeling,” as the media called it – to seek inspiration for her book, It Takes a Village.
The message of It Takes a Village is that individuals and families no longer can cope with the complexities of modern life, that socialized government is the necessary agent for that purpose.
Senator Clinton’s modified revival of her earlier National Socialist Health System suggests that she remains in close communication with the Roosevelts.
In the tradition of the New Deal’s federalization of states’ Constitutional functions and its socialization of agriculture, industry, and labor relations, Senator Clinton proposes to make health insurance mandatory (you can’t hold a job if you don’t have a National Health card).
Capturing the essence of her plan for socialized medicine, Mark Steyn wrote:
Our theme for today comes from George W Bush: “Freedom is the desire of every human heart.”
_When the president uses the phrase, he’s invariably applying it to various benighted parts of the Muslim world. There would seem to be quite a bit of evidence to suggest that freedom is not the principal desire of every human heart in, say, Gaza or Waziristan. But why start there? If you look in, say, Brussels or London or New Orleans, do you come away with the overwhelming impression that “freedom is the desire of every human heart”?
A year ago, I wrote that “the story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government ‘security,’ large numbers of people vote to dump freedom – the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, seat belts and a ton of other stuff.”
_Last week freedom took another hit. Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled her new health care plan.
September 27, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, History, Islam, Islamofascism, Media Bias, Military, News, President, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Uncategorized, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
In the run up to the 2006 midterms, all the media talking heads and political pundits were talking about how the GOP was losing because the country was “sick of the war” and there was a wide spread assumption that large scale protests were proof that the anti-war lot had won the debate for American’s hearts and minds. After all, millions seemed to be marching in protest against the war the country over and the TV news frequently showed these giant bands of misfits parading the streets. The media have constantly presented these protests as mainstream Americans who had the passion to leave their homes and congregate by the millions in fellowship, linking arms against the Republicans and Bush to stop this war. The MSM also imagined that the loss by Republicans of majority control of Congress after the 2006 midterms was the end result of this great “feeling” that Americans were against the War on Terror. They proclaimed that the Democrat Party had won the debate and were sent to Congress with some sort of mandate from American voters.
In reality, neither assumption is true. The anti-war crowd has no more won the debate against the war than the Democrat Party has become the voice of the American people. In truth, using the midterm election results and the supposed mass protests in the streets appears to be a bad indication of the power the supporters of American defeat really have. For their part, the news media and leftist pundits’ wild imagination that the left won the national debate is overstated and foolhardy. The left just does not have an overwhelming majority of public opinion on their side.
In fact, the American left has seen a steady erosion of support since their highs before and during World War Two. Reviewing the split between the Democrat Party and the GOP in Congress, both long before and after the 2006 midterms, quickly reveals the proof against claims of the supremacy of the left.
Before the midterms, the GOP was in control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the House the GOP had a majority of 28 seats and in the Senate a closer 11 seats. After the elections the Dems took both Houses with a tiny Senate majority of 2 seats and a House majority of 32.
Looking at this in an historical context shows that the Democrats do not now have much of a governing mandate. During Reagan’s and H.W. Bush’s years, for instance, the Democrat Party enjoyed a far larger majority in the House for the entire 12 years of the two GOP president’s terms. The Democrats never had less than a 50-seat advantage in the House, and at times had an overwhelming 119-seat majority! In the Senate, though, they were down by as many as 7 seats for a few years — though they did have a slim majority for 6 of those 12 years.
-By Selwyn Duke
Many leftist partisans are licking their chops over the revelation that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig solicited sex from a male undercover detective in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. This scandal is reminiscent of that involving Ted Haggard, the disgraced preacher who had relations with a male prostitute. You may remember Haggard, he was the Distraction du Jour the Shill Media conjured up right before the 2006 election. (I keep my finger on the pulse of our culture and I had never heard of this Haggard fellow. But fixating on this minor story served well the purposes of demonizing the “right” and distracting people from the real issues – always useful during an election cycle.)
What is interesting about our time, though, is that these men are castigated not because they have been living an immoral lifestyle but because they have been living an immoral lifestyle without also sanctioning that immoral lifestyle.
Certainly, as far as politicians who toe the left’s line go, they can’t seem to flaunt their Liberace leanings enough to register on the radar screen. Homosexual congressman Barney Frank (D) owned a residence out of which a call-boy operation was being run, and the late Congressman Gerry Studds (D) once spirited a 17-year-old boy off to Spain for a sexual liaison. Studds won re-election until his retirement in 1997, and Frank is still in office, lisping his way to legislative success. Of course, both represent Massachusetts, and there has just got to be something in the water up there.
September 26, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Constitution, Democrats/Leftists, Education, Immigration/Immigrants, Media Bias, News, Race, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Uncategorized, Unions, Warner Todd Huston | 3 Comments
-By Warner Todd Huston
At the beginning of September, Channel 5 News revealed a shocking story in Roma, Texas. As their cameras chronicled, each morning dozens of Mexican kids are crossing the border from Mexico into the Texas border town of Roma to attend an American school, free of charge. You read that correctly. American tax money is funding the education of kids who actually live IN Mexico and who are illegally crossing the border every single day to attend U.S. schools. I have waited a suitable period of time to bring this story up, hoping that the national news sources will pick up on this absurd violation of our National sovereignty and misuse of our tax money… yet not a peep has been heard to my knowledge.
It is estimated that $4 million has been spent on Mexican kids just in Roma, Texas, alone. And no one really even knows how much has been thrown down the rat hole in other Texas border towns, not to mentions similar towns in other border states.
News Channel 5 reported on the 6th of September that these Mexican kids are getting a free education from US taxpayers because the county schools do not have very stringent residency requirements. (See video here)
Even more ridiculously, school administrators report that they aren’t even allowed to ask if a student is a U.S. citizen before admitting them to class.
The report also reveals that no one in the school system is even bothering to keep track of how many schools are giving a free education to children whose parents are not U.S. taxpayers.
-By Marie Jon’
Mr. George Soros is one contemptible man, in my personal opinion. He is not America’s friend. However, the far left Democrats running for the presidency as well as their party are beholden to him. That fact should be looked upon as upsetting and very worrisome.
“In a December 9th 2004 e-mail signed by ‘Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,’ the Soros front group stated: ‘In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn’t need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back ” ( source )
-By Warner Todd Huston
Someone at the Waterbury Republican American newspaper is a bit perturbed with a new union ad campaign against the idea of privatizing public services. The new campaign seems to imagine that privatizing public services will result in “corruption” yet the unions seem blissfully ignorant of the corruption endemic in their own operations!
At the height of the Rowland scandal, Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and a host of union locals chipped in for the “Privatization Equals Corruption” ad campaign highlighting “the pitfalls and perils of privatizing public services.”
Union officials, of course, are pure as the driven snow. Take Jorge Aponte-Figueroa, who until he was sentenced last month to five years in prison was president of the International Longshoreman’s Association Local 1740 in San Juan, P.R. His crime? He embezzled $1.9 million from the rank and file, falsified records and laundered money. And Council 4 was distressed about gutters, drywall and a hot tub?
Mr. Aponte-Figueroa is hardly alone. In August, 11 union officials were indicted and eight convicted on corruption charges, mostly for stealing retirement money from their members. As of Sept. 1, the Department of Labor has bagged 84 indictments and 108 convictions this year. One of the worst cases was a nearly $5 million embezzlement involving the Washington, D.C., teachers union. The DoL said it is “as committed as ever to protecting union members from criminal activity by those entrusted to represent them, and we will maintain efforts to uncover wrongdoing against the rank-and-file.”
-By Warner Todd Huston
A columnist from a Chicago suburban paper has equated smoking to abortion in order to explain away her support of an abortion mill struggling to open in Aurora, Illinois. Saying that since smoking is legal, and it “kills” people, why shouldn’t abortion be legal, we find her reasoning is strained and absurd. If there’s a more ridiculous comparison out there, I’d like to see it. Following her tortured logic, we should outlaw everything that might kill someone if we also outlaw abortion — which WILL kill someone.
There are so many specious arguments that this supporter of infanticide tries to use in this article to support abortion that it must spin the head of most readers. The whole thing has a feel like the author of the column, Joni Hirsch-Blackman, is throwing just about everything she can think of against a wall to see what sticks quite regardless of any logic or sense to it all.
After simple-mindedly explaining that “Tobacco kills,” which in reality is not a literal truth because often times it does not, Hirsch-Blackman explains that, while she “sneers” at smokers, she would never protest against it because it is legal.
It’s tempting, but I’d never harass the people who go in there or try to have the store shut down — even though the whole purpose for the place being there is to sell something that eventually will kill whoever is using it.
Tobacco is legal and the store has a right to be there. So instead, I, and others who feel the way I do, try to educate people about the dangers of tobacco.
Really? She and her fellows would never harass smokers and try to get their right to smoke taken away from them? Odd, since she and like-minded friends in the state have succeeded in getting the State of Illinois to pass a smoking ban in public places that starts just this year.
Why is it OK to protest and use the courts and the coercion endemic with the law to ban smoking which only might cause varied health problems yet we should leave the faux right of abortion alone merely because it is “legal?”
Talk about tortured logic. And her lack of sense gets worse as the article progresses.
-By Warner Todd Huston
Now, here we have a very interesting debate about journalism, racism, crime and the new media on the internet. The Sacramento Bee has been forced to revisit a long standing, 15-year-old policy this week. It seems that for years the Bee has, for the most part, avoided mentioning the race of a suspected criminal in their crime coverage. They claimed that they only mentioned race when the story was “accompanied by a detailed physical description or when reporting a serial crime or when using police sketches of suspects.” Critics of the paper, however, claim this policy is merely a paean to PCism and this refusal of the paper to mention the race of a suspect makes the Bee’s coverage less than informative and has made it practically useless as a tool of assistance to the police.
As the Bee states in their editorial, “the issue’s volatility has ebbed and flowed, sometimes lying dormant for months only to arise anew in the wake of a particularly heinous crime.”
I am sure that “ebbed and flowed” is an understatement.
Recently, a particularly heinous crime has occurred that brought the Bee’s policy into question once again.
It’s burning white-hot now in the aftermath of the slaying in Sacramento of a young father and his 7-month-old son and the paper’s reluctance until several days had passed to provide racial descriptions of the suspects.
Obviously the Bee was bowing to PCism, of that there can be little doubt. Still, the PC debate is an old, boring one at this point and it seems practically a prerequisite that the lefty MSM is going to hamstring themselves by this PC nonsense.
That being as it may, though, the Bee is finding itself out reported by all the other news media in Sacramento. It seems they are the only ones with this ridiculous, PC policy and their reporting is suffering for it. And people are wondering why they should bother with the SacBee if they can get better, fuller coverage of the story elsewhere. This PCism is hurting them where it counts; in profits.
September 25, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Budget, Business, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, History, Media Bias, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Taxes, The Law, Thomas Brewton, Uncategorized | 2 Comments
By Thomas E. Brewton
Central banks are not so wise or powerful as most people assume them to be.
The over expansion of credit fueled by the Federal Reserve between 1922 and 1927 has many parallels to the “irrational exuberance” of financial markets since the beginning of the Clinton administrations.
In the Wall Street Journal‘s September 21 edition, reporter Brian Blackstone writes:
Federal Reserve governor Kevin Warsh on Friday cautioned against assuming that the Fed will prop up asset prices or protect individual financial institutions…
In Economics and the Public Welfare, a book that cannot be too highly recommended, Benjamin M. Anderson described a similar situation confronting the Federal Reserve in 1926.
Mr. Anderson’s assessment is authoritative, because he was chief economist for the Chase National Bank, then one of the world’s largest, from 1920 to 1937. During that period he was in close contact with major bankers in the United States and central bankers around the world, as well as being closely involved with Chase’s large corporate clients.
-By Warner Todd Huston
This is a smart and dead-right explanation of why Dr. James Dobson is way off with his assessment on Fred Thompson.
It all comes down to the issue that I wondered a while back if Fred could make people understand? We are in a day when our national government has been hijacked by socialists with an FDR fetish who imagine that the government is the solution to all ills.
Fred wants to go back to a day when our nation had a smaller, contained Federal government as proscribed by the Founding Fathers and guided by the Constitution instead of the far, far leftist government that FDR and his ilk have forced upon us.
THIS is the reason that some of us are supporting Thompson. It is also why Dobson should. Dobson’s single issue vote is short sighted and I hope that he comes to understand why a vote for Fred Thompson is a vote for America.
Southern Baptist Leader Defends Fred Thompson
CBNNews.com – David Brody
Richard Land, the President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (which is part of the influential Southern Baptist Convention), tells The Brody File that the criticism leveled at Fred Thompson by James Dobson and others is a tad bit over the top. Recently, Dr. Dobson, Founder of Focus on the Family, said he wouldn’t support Thompson for a number of reasons including Thompson’s stance against a one size fits all marriage amendment. Read more on that here. As for Dr. Land’s comments, here’s what he told me:
“I’ve received phone calls and emails from Southern Baptists about Senator Thompson. They are all furious at Doctor Dobson. They just feel that first of all there was a mischaracterizing of his positions. Do I wish that he supported the marriage protection amendment? Of course I do. To say that he is for 50 different views of marriage in 50 different states is a gross mischaracterization of his position. Secondly, do I wish that he attended church every Sunday? As a Baptist pastor, of course I do. But does that make him a person of unbelief? That’s harsh and unwarranted.”
-By Warner Todd Huston
Here’s a few heart warming stories of union officials living large off the dues stolen from their membership.
… but remember, they are only looking out for the little guy!
Allied-Industrial Workers (PACE)
Claudia R. Thompson found guilty of embezzlement of union funds and falsifying records on August 15th.
United Auto Workers (UAW)
William Haynes pleads guilty on July 9th to falsifying records, $10,000 in dues money missing
Bakery and Tobacco Workers (BC&T)
Sharon Burt, convicted of embezzlement of $72,701 in union funds in March.
-By Michael M. Bates
“Son, just so you understand, I don’t care what The New York Times says about me. And nobody I care about cares what The New York Times says about me.”
That was Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) offering guidance to a new staffer eager to reply to newspaper criticism leveled against his boss. The episode is recounted in the former senator’s 2005 book, “Here’s Where I Stand: A Memoir.”
Reading that volume reminded me of what a national gem Jesse Helms is and was. For thirty years in the U.S. Senate, he delighted most conservatives and disgusted most liberals. Standing firm on his principles, he truly didn’t care what the mainstream media said about him.
And plenty was said. It was The Raleigh News & Observer early on that, because of his vociferous opposition to prevailing liberal nostrums, dubbed him “Senator No.” Jesse Helms accepted it as a compliment.
September 23, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Democrats/Leftists, Education, Immigration/Immigrants, Media Bias, News, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Uncategorized, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
On Sept. 13th, Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw announced in a speech to the North Texas Crime Commission that Texas authorities had apprehended terrorist suspects who were sneaking across the Mexico/U.S. border. Shouldn’t such a report be running through the MSM like wildfire? Yet, the MSM seems to be ignoring this explosive report with only local Texas news sources, a few Jihad watchers and bloggers having picked up the Director’s statements.
The AP did have a report, shockingly enough, but few other MSM services seem to have found it as of yet… even though the story is about a week old.
DALLAS – Texas’ top homeland security official said Wednesday that terrorists with ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaida have been arrested crossing the Texas border with Mexico in recent years.
“Has there ever been anyone linked to terrorism arrested?” Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw said in a speech to the North Texas Crime Commission. “Yes, there was.”
The Director went on to name at least one name and make the clam that some 300 people possibly linked to terror or from countries where terrorism is endemic have been apprehended at the Texas border.
September 23, 2007 | Filed Under 00Publius Contributor, Congress, Democrats/Leftists, Islam, Islamofascism, Lee Culpepper, Media Bias, Military, News, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Uncategorized | 1 Comment
-By Lee Culpepper
When good Americans go bad, there’s one man who is their best friend: General David Petraeus. In fact, no congressman is too much for him to handle — he rehabilitates mentally unstable liberals; he leads brave military people. He is the Congress Whisperer.
Like dog-behavior expert Caesar Milan from the hit series The Dog Whisperer – the man who dazzles viewers with his ability to establish pack leadership over mentally unbalanced dogs — Gen. Petraeus exercised calm and assertive leadership to rein in and to expose mentally unbalanced Democrats during last week’s congressional hearings.
Before Patraeus could begin rehabilitating unstable Democrats, however, the troop-supporting Democrats demonstrated exactly how deranged they are. The first week of September, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., proclaimed that American troops had nothing to do with the progress in Iraq.
-By Warner Todd Huston
Here we go again with a so-called freedom of speech claim of a bunch of low-class, petulant children playing at being real “journalists” in one of our state funded Universities. This time it’s the little fellas at The Rocky Mountain Collegian, the school paper of Colorado State University, who are hiding behind a real right and using it as cover to realize their 15 minutes of fame. These anti-intellectual, collegians are, of course, pretending to be shocked that anyone would question their “right” to print an expletive in bold headlines in their paper and are claiming that they didn’t mean to “upset” anyone. I have another four-letter word that describes this absurd claim: LIES.
Proving that our schools seem to be more interested in creating controversy, teaching anti-American ideas, and indulging in childish behavior, this supposed student newspaper staff seemed to imagine that journalism should reflect some trash mouthed, morning disc jockey’s schtick instead of serious, reasoned debate. Sadly, it is obvious that these kiddies were left to their own devices in writing and preparing their paper. It seems woefully clear that there was no faculty supervision of these anarchist wannabes. So, not only are we left wondering why our college kids so anti-intellectual but we have to wonder why no one is supervising their misguided attempts at writing. Do these school administrators get a salary to TEACH or do they not?
Remembering that Colorado is the home of Ward Churchill, though, perhaps CSU’s professors’ teaching worked only too well for these half-informed, infant newspapermen?
Denver TV Channel 7 gives us an understated headline for their report, Profane Language Puts Student Editor’s Job On Line, Editorial Raises Eyebrows, Controversy At CSU, to alert us to the story.
FORT COLLINS, Colo. — A four word editorial with a four letter word in it is sparking a spirited discussion on free speech at Colorado State University.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian published an editorial on page 4 of the paper Friday which read “Taser this … F*** Bush.”
Naturally, they are hiding behind their misconstruction of the principle of free speech to excuse their idiocy.
In a letter to the University Community and Collegian readers, McSwane wrote, “While the editorial board feels strongly with regard to First Amendment issues, we have found the unintended consequences of such a bold statement to be extremely disheartening.”
“I plan to be honest,” he said. “Our intentions weren’t ‘Hey, let’s upset the community.’ It was, ‘Let’s get college students to talk about freedom of speech.'”
Mr. McSwane is obviously being disingenuous… no I should speak plainly. Mr. McSwane is a liar. How can there be much doubt that he knew full well what would happen when a reaction of outrage over his calumny occurs and that he had, indeed, counted on it in order to get noticed? He wanted his name on TV and he got it. After all, of the decision for going forward with this nonsense, editor David McSwane said, “We felt it illustrated our point about freedom of speech.” Obviously it was thought out in advance and they counted on this reaction.
But here is the thing that is most vexing from these sorts of actions and that is the faux outrage that perpetrators like McSwane counter with when confronted with their effrontery.
He pretends to be shocked that anyone would be mad at him. He claims to be amazed that his paper was pulled from the shelves and that advertisers were pulling their ads. Gosh, why would people be so mad?
-By Warner Todd Huston
This one takes the cake as today, Reuters is trying to manufacture a controversy. Apparently al Reuters doesn’t understand the concept of “context” because they’re idiotically claiming that in his Thursday press conference Bush said that Nelson Mandela is dead. Calling what Bush said “an embarrassing gaffe,” Reuters took Bush’s words out of context to make it seem as if Bush was talking about something he was not talking about. But any intelligent person can easily understand Bush’s context merely by listening to his whole sentence instead of shortening it to just two words.
With a headline that reads, Mandela still alive after embarrassing Bush remark, Reuters does their best to make a Bush “gaffe” where none exists.
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) – Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader’s death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.
Heartwarming that Reuters is so concerned over Mandela’s health, isn’t it?
But here’s the problem. During the press conference, Bush was not talking about the actual Nelson Mandela. He was talking about people like Nelson Mandela and speaking metaphorically. And listening to Bush’s entire segment, while not artfully stated, makes it clear that he was not talking about the actual Nelson Mandela.
-By Warner Todd Huston
There has been study after study proving the leftward tilt of the American media establishment, so the constant denials by that same media sounds increasingly absurd and hard to believe. But, it is one thing to have people who truly believe their own ideology is the best guide for the future and base their honest actions on that belief and quite another to act unethically in pursuit of their professions. Unfortunately, there seems far more of the later these days than the former. And here is just another example of the later to dishearten all of us.
In this case, U.S.A. Today published a story that not only advances the fortunes of our self-professed enemy, but one that is cynically intended as a self-serving ploy. The paper’s story lends a big assist in promulgating Chinese propaganda as the paper helps explain away the nature of the forced military training that Chinese children undergo. Calling the compulsory training a benign sounding “camp” and presenting the children’s training as if it is a mere summer excursion, USA Today soft sells China’s militarization of their youth in theirs titled, ”Chinese kids undergo required military training.”
As USA Today dutifully reports China’s propaganda — the children go there to “sing songs” with the training only meant to “bolster teamwork” — we see a disgraceful example of the MSM’s practice of not “offending” a totalitarian nation so as not to lose their “access” there. Instead of reporting the harsh truth, we have USA Today offering a sunny and happy report on Chinese warmongering.
By David M. Huntwork
Kai Chang from the blog Zuky wrote a piece titled The Greatest Cliché: The Unexamined Propaganda of “Political Correctness” (http://www.kaichang.net/2006/11/the_sloppy_prop.html) which sought to ‘reclaim’ the phrase Political Correctness and to wave a finger at all those who have dared to strike back at the PC advocates. It has been hailed as the “definitive analysis of Political Correctness” by a variety of Left wing bloggers while at the same time completely sidestepping its true nature. The author manages to both deny and misguide when it comes to this issue. His obvious hesitancy in dealing with the PC movement is both striking and revealing.
The phrase “politically correct” can be used in two distinct ways: either with its original literal meaning, or with the mocking sarcasm that’s common these days. I’ll get to the former in a moment, but I’ll begin with the latter. As it’s commonly used, “PC” is a deliberately imprecise expression (just try finding or writing a terse, precise definition) because its objective isn’t to communicate a substantive idea, but simply to sneer and snivel about the linguistic and cultural burdens of treating all people with the respect and sensitivity with which they wish to be treated. Thus, the Herculean effort required to call me “Asian American” rather than “chink” is seen as a concession to “the PC police”, an unsettling infringement on the free-wheeling conversation of, I suppose, “non-chinks”. Having to refer to black folks as “African Americans” rather than various historically-prevalent epithets surely strikes some red-blooded blue-balled white-men as a form of cultural oppression. Having to refer to “women” rather than “bitches” lays a violent buzzkill on the bar-room banter of men preoccupied with beating on their chests and off other body parts.
Ah, yes, the Left waxes indignant about being painted with the Politically Correct brush.
There is, of course, no mention of the thousands of examples of official persecution carried out due to Political Correctness. No listing of the campus speech codes, the corporate hypersensitivity, the frightened political figures and the cowed populace at large that cannot be denied. Yet hardly a day goes by where the news does not report yet another poor individual who has run afoul of the PC crowd.
-By Warner Todd Huston
File this under it-takes-all-kinds, but a state Senator in Nebraska has decided to sue God. That’s right, this fool of a politician has decided to pull God into court. The AP reports that Ernie Chambers (who’s probably always been mad that his parents decided to name him “Erine”), the so-called “angriest black man in Nebraska,” claims he is trying to “make a point” about frivolous lawsuits… by making more of them.
LINCOLN, Neb. – The defendant in a state senator’s lawsuit is accused of causing untold death and horror and threatening to cause more still. He can be sued in Douglas County, the legislator claims, because He’s everywhere.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers sued God last week. Angered by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he’s trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.
Claiming God to be a terrorist and murderer, Chambers is seeking a “permanent injunction” against God.
Let’s hope some self-respecting judge throws this nonsense out like it should be thrown out.
-By Warner Todd Huston
This particular AP report is an interesting study in how the AP subtly backs the Democrats in their efforts to undermine the war effort and how they present the GOP as somehow lacking all support or being merely a blocking force in Congress instead of actually representing their constituent’s wishes. In the AP’s stylebook, Republican = bad and Democrat = good. In this case, funding for the troops is presented like an average fight over tax money and only the Demos side is discussed with no GOP views offered in the story.
Let’s start with the very first paragraph of the story titled Democrats to Wait on War Funding Debate.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are not expected to take up President Bush’s war spending request until November, giving them time to calculate their next move and see if Republican support for his policies deteriorates.
Well, now, see the good news? The Dems have a strategy! But, this strategy consists of depriving our soldiers of the funds they need to keep moving forward. Yet the AP presents it as a mere political strategy, as if it were a story about funding Social Security or Medicare — just an average funding battle. The AP gives it as benign a presentation as they can.
Then the AP goes on, still ignoring the actual target of the funding debate:
-By Marie Jon’
Given what President Bush said when he spoke to the American citizenry, the response that followed from the National Democrat Party should not have been surprising. Their specialty is a constant barrage of investigative congressional hearings and assorted faultfinding committees. One wonders if anything good can come from the mouth of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070913-2.wm.v.html
A courageous man named General David Petraeus presented a truthful report to the Congress about progress of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democrat Party decided to use it as an opportunity not to glean knowledge, but to besmirch a hero. To do so, they used the arm of an Internet-based political group that was founded under the Clinton administration.
MoveOn.org took out a scandalous ad in the New York Times: “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” Are you surprised more by the childish word-play or the antagonism itself? Why this level of despite on the part of the far Left? Why must their feelings for their country, the troops, and our Commander-in-Chief rise to the level of hate? https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
The eyes of many are beginning to open; in the terror war, it is not unreasonable to view the Democrat Party as America’s “other” enemy. When folks hear the very same rhetoric the far Left uses spewing out of Osama bin Laden’s profane mouth, they can’t help but see the threat they also pose. A house divided instills boldness within the Jihadist’s mind. “We must sacrifice our lives to attack the enemy,” according to bin Laden. Similarly, it seems the Democrats are willing to sacrifice the country.
-By Warner Todd Huston
Goodness gracious, Michael Kinsley, vaunted leftist, upright “journalist,” salt of the earth, is supporting a group that would rather call names and stir hatred for our troops than support a general that the entire U.S. Senate voted unanimously for only a few months ago. The founding editor of Slate online magazine, Microsoft’s “serious” news and commentary magazine, thinks brash, slander is a great way to carry out the public debate on serious issues that affect the lives of millions of people. It’s disgraceful. It’s just beyond the pale … It’s … oh, my heavens … say, is it a bit stuffy in here? … I think I’m going to … Could I have a glass of … oh, dear [thud].
Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrisy in the American punditry class.
Childishly, Kinsley is turning the controversy over the vitriol and hatred displayed by Moveon.org’s disgusting “Betray us” ad that calls general Petraeus a liar and traitor, into the fault of talk radio and Conservative pundits.
Welcome to the wonderful world of umbrage, the new language of American politics. You would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away. And when they came round, they demanded — as if with one voice (or at least as if with one list of talking points) — that every Democratic presidential candidate must “condemn” this shocking, shocking document.
This insipid view of the hate indulged in by the American left is as free of morality as can ever be imagined. Kinsley’s blaming of this incident on the reaction of the right, though, is a typical example of the immorality of the left. It is a perfect example of the sort of attitudes that leftists are mired in. Its similar to the sort of assumption that an attacked person is somehow wrong for replying to the attack, as if defending yourself is just as “bad” as the bully attacker’s actions.
After all, isn’t the left upset at Bush for replying to terrorism with force? As if we are wrong for replying to having nearly 3,000 of our innocent citizens incinerated on 9/11?
Help the Soldiers!
American GeniusOur Founding Ideas
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Federalist Papers
- The U.S. Constitution
- Debates of 1787
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- The Writing of John Locke
"Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
What THEY Say:
Foreign News In English
Contact UsEmail Publius' Forum
Separation of School