Liberty Bell Blues

2011-05-01T21:26:00.000-07:00

Osama bin Laden is dead! Late in the day on May 1st, 2011, it has been confirmed that the al Qaeda leader was killed in a U.S. military operation in Pakistan. At last, the headline we've waited ten years to see! What a great day for the world. God Bless America!

2008-11-04T14:12:00.000-08:00

Voter intimidation in Philadelphia, and other PA election day scandals.

Two Black Panthers attempted to block voters from entering a Philadelphia polling place. One of them brandished a nightstick, and one reportedly told a poll watcher: "We're tired of white supremacy." Here is a YouTube video:

Here is a video of police confronting them:

Also, GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of at least half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status. Here is the Townhall.com article:

http://townhall.com/blog/g/cf47766b-5a6d-44ab-95e7-ce60631bcadc

And Townhall.com points out a few other problems in the state of Pennsylvania:

1) State operatives are reporting that calls are being made to Republican voters in Lancaster County telling them their polling stations have been changed.

2) NBC News is reporting major "voting obstacles" at at least eight different polling stations in PA. Broken voting machines are listed as the main problem.

2008-07-12T22:12:00.000-07:00

R.I.P. Tony Snow. The former White House press secretary and conservative pundit died today after a long battle with colon cancer. Here is the story from Fox News, where Snow worked as a TV anchor:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,381250,00.html

My fondest memories of Mr. Snow date back to the days when he was a sometime guest host on Rush Limbaugh's radio program. I remember him once saying that life is basically simple when you do what you are supposed to do. It's when you try to weasel your way out of doing the right thing that life becomes complicated. He used Bill Clinton as an example, recalling the times when Clinton tried to defend his actions by attempting to redefine such common words as "sex" and "alone" and "is", and by trying to find loopholes in the Ten Commandments. If you do what you are supposed to do in this world, Snow said, then there is no need to complicate things so much.

Those words have stayed with me for years, and I have often repeated them to people. Much to my surprise, people sometimes give me a puzzled-looking expression when I say it! I would think that people would basically agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many people have a tendency to try to weasel their way out of doing the right thing. And, personally, I live in a very liberal city where it almost seems to be the norm! The sad thing is that when people try to "get over", as the saying goes, they not only complicate their own lives, but they complicate things for the rest of us as well. It seems to me that liberalism in general tends to complicate things that are simple, because the simple truth about things often refutes what liberals want to believe.

I thank Mr. Snow for articulating that important life lesson which has helped to stiffen my moral spine over the years, and has helped me to better understand liberalism. May God rest his soul.

2008-07-12T21:56:00.000-07:00

Media buries story about Saddam Hussein's WMD program. Which, of course, is what they have been doing for five years. Investor's Business Daily reports:

Hear about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq? No? Why should you? It doesn't fit the media's neat story line that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed no nuclear threat when we invaded in 2003. It's a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad. In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel---thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region. This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a 'significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.' Seems to us this should be big news. After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush 'lied' about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S. This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon...Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff... That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush's decision to invade.

2008-07-06T17:13:00.000-07:00

Iraqis lead final purge of al Qaeda. It would be nice to read this great article in an American publication, but it actually appears in the Times of London. I'm glad the Brits are still on our side, unlike the American left. Here is the article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece

Here is the first uplifting paragraph:

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

Yes! Did you hear that, American media? The Iraq war is the main front in the U.S. war on terror, and we have won one of its "most spectacular victories" in Iraq. Anyone who calls themselves "American" should be overjoyed. Here's more from the article:

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

I hope you are as proud as I am that we are winning this war that so many people said we could not win. Just remember: if Barack Obama becomes our next president, and he pulls U.S. troops out of Iraq prematurely (on whatever type of timetable he is talking about this week), all of these great gains could be lost.

2008-05-21T16:13:00.000-07:00

Gas prices aren't that far out of line. That may be hard to believe, but it's the truth. Here is an article from MSN Money that puts things into perspective:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/Why4DollarAGallonGasIsABargain.aspx?GT1=33007

Here are some interesting points that the article makes:

1.

When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, a gallon of gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20% more than 86 years ago.

Given the ever-increasing global demand for oil products -- during the first quarter of this year, China's oil consumption jumped by 16.5% -- and the increasing costs associated with finding, producing and refining crude oil, it makes sense that today's motorists are paying more for their motor fuel than their grandparents and great-grandparents did.

Gasoline is also a fairly minor expense when you consider the overall cost of car ownership. In 1975, gasoline made up 33.4% of the total cost of owning and operating a car. By 2006, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, gasoline costs had declined to just 17.1% of the total cost of car ownership. Of course, fuel costs have risen by about $1 per gallon since 2006, but even with those increases, fuel continues to be a relatively small part of the cost of car ownership.

Significant declines in U.S. oil consumption have occurred only after prolonged periods of high prices. Over the last two decades, U.S. consumers have been spoiled by low fuel prices. And those lower prices led to a buying binge that put millions of giant SUVs, pickups and other gas guzzlers on our roads.

A gallon of gasoline in the U.S. is also dirt-cheap compared with gas in other countries. British motorists are paying about $8.38 per gallon for gasoline. In Norway, a major oil exporter, drivers are paying $8.73. In 2007, out of the 32 industrialized countries surveyed by the International Energy Agency, only one (Mexico) had cheaper gasoline than the United States.

Last year, drivers in Turkey were paying three times as much for their gasoline as Americans were. The IEA data also show that in India -- where the per-capita gross domestic product is about $2,700 (about 6% of the per-capita GDP in the United States) -- drivers have been paying more for their diesel fuel and gasoline than their American counterparts.

(Gasoline is also cheap compared with other essential fuels. A Starbucks venti latte costs the equivalent of $23 per gallon, while Budweiser beer runs $11 per gallon.)

That last quote is a great point. A gallon of gas is still cheaper than a gallon of milk, at least in my town. And I recently bought two bottles of Heineken in a bar for $4.50 each. Those two bottles, which cost a total of nine dollars, certainly did not equal one gallon! Examples are endless. If you do the math, you'll find that many of the things that you purchase would cost well over $4 for a full gallon. Of course, we generally do not use as many gallons of these things as we use gallons of gas. That is where laws of supply and demand and profit margins come into play.

My advice to my fellow consumers is to get used to high gas prices. The lifestyle changes that we make in order to afford these prices are likely to be long-term, if not permanent. Gas prices will go higher before they go lower, and when they do go lower, they are not likely to go down as much as we would like. We will need to make adjustments accordingly.

Another bit of advice: don't fall prey to the constant media negativity about the situation. Just as the media has been constantly focused on the negative aspects of the economy (which is still growing, albeit slowly, with low unemployment) and the Iraq war (in which we have made great gains), so will the media constantly try to demoralize us about inflation. Don't let them get you down.

2008-05-07T18:39:00.000-07:00

Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, but Hillary won't quit. Pundits are declaring victory for Barack Obama's campaign and defeat for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Although it seems almost impossible for Hillary to win the nomination at this point, she is apparently hoping for the possibility that superdelegates may hand her a victory, or that courts may declare that her victories in the Florida and Michigan primaries will no longer be disqualified from the delegate count.

But there is another school of thought that says that Hillary wants to destroy Obama's chances at the presidency even if she knows she can't win. One possible reason she would do this is to keep her options open for the 2012 race. Some people think she will be too old for a presidential run by then. But she will be younger then than John McCain is now. And if McCain defeats Obama in this year's general election, McCain may not run for a second term four years from now, when he will be 75 years old. So Hillary may be eyeing that long-term prize.

Another possible reason that Hillary may want to destroy Obama's candidacy is revenge. It seems like only yesterday that Hillary was thought to be the inevitable Democratic nominee -- and, by some, the inevitable next president. Knowing Hillary (as well as her hubby Bill), she probably thought she was entitled to be the next president. She probably sees Obama as an insolent young punk who came out of nowhere and stole her rightful prize. Five years ago, few people outside of Illinois knew who Obama was. How dare he stand in the way of the Clintons!

Many Democrats are now asking Hillary to step aside so that Obama and the DNC can officially begin the fight against McCain. But Her Highness apparently intends to stay in the race, possibly all the way to the convention.

Personally, I hope she does. I've been taking pleasure in watching the two Democratic candidates beat each other up. It's usually rare to see a Democrat feud with another Democrat, or a liberal to attack another liberal. But that's exactly what has been happening these past months. It has also been fun to watch the Clinton attack machine directed at another Democrat for a change. The Clintons excel at the politics of division; they deeply divided their country during their eight years in the White House. It's been a pleasure to see them divide their own party this time.

I have this to say to liberals who are angry over Hillary's antics: the Clintons are a monster that you helped to create. You elected Hillary's lying, cheating husband to two terms as president. You defended the Clintons through countless scandals and illegal activities, sending them the message that they can do whatever they please, right or wrong. To all you Democrats who stood behind the Clintons no matter what they did: you have brought this current election-year mess on yourselves and your party.

I would enjoy watching the Democratic Party's civil war even more if the Republican party had nominated a good conservative candidate to benefit from it. Unfortunately, the Republican nominee is John McCain.

2008-05-07T17:57:00.000-07:00

An ex-Gitmo prisoner committed a suicide attack in Iraq. The U.S. military has confirmed that a man named Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi took part in a suicide attack in Mosul last week, and that al-Ajmi was a former detainee at the U.S.-run detention center at Guantanamo. Here is the MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24504862

This should serve as a wake-up call to those (including Republican presidential nominee John McCain) who want to close down the prison at Gitmo. What, I ask you, will we do with the detainees after the prison is closed? The prisoners at Gitmo are not purse snatchers, nor are they what libertarians like to call "non-violent drug offenders". They are terrorists. T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. If they are set free, they will commit more acts of terror.

2008-05-07T16:45:00.000-07:00

The Myanmar government is refusing international aid. A cyclone has killed over 22,000 people in the Southeast Asian country which is also known as Burma. The U.N. estimates that about 1 million people are now homeless in Myanmar, and that its entire lower delta region is basically underwater. Obviously, this is a major disaster which will require much help from around the world. Here is a related article:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080507/D90GR35G2.html

So, why is Myanmar's government blocking relief efforts? Because it is an isolated dictatorship. A dictatorship requires its people to be completely dependent on its government so that its regime can maintain power. If the people of Myanmar receive help from other countries and outside organizations, it may make them less dependent on their government. Even if the difference in dependency is miniscule and short-lived, the government will still see it as a threat. Of course, Myanmar's government is probably incapable of providing sufficient relief for its people, and probably wouldn't provide it even if they could.

As this disturbing drama plays out on the world stage, I think that American leftists ought to learn a lesson from it. This is what can happen in a totalitarian regime, and if America becomes a socialist country (as liberals apparently want it to), totalitarianism may be the only way to enforce the socialism.

I especially want to point this situation out to so-called "multiculturalists", who claim that America is evil and other cultures are better. "Multiculturalism" is really just a euphemism for anti-Americanism. People who subscribe to this philosophy actually tend to know suprisingly little about other world cultures, even though they claim to be experts on the subject. For the past seven years, I have been stunned at how little leftists tend to know about the cultures of Muslim countries, even after everything that has happened since 9/11. It also amazes me how little leftists seem to know about the ways of life in Communist countries. When the controversy over Elian Gonzalez erupted in 2000, I was shocked by how many liberals failed to understand that Cuba is vastly different than the United States. When I tried to explain to my liberal friends that Gonzalez escaped from an oppressive country, and that he would be placed under the control of Castro's government after the Clinton administration forced the boy's return to that country, they refused to believe me. After all the years of the Cold War, how can people be so ignorant about the ways of a Communist country that sits less than a hundred miles south of the Florida keys? As usual, liberals took the side of America's enemy.

The cultures of Third World dictatorships are another thing that so-called multiculturalists often seem clueless about. When liberals hear about the difficult lives that people live in such countries, they often find ways to somehow blame America. (That's what multiculturalism always boils down to).

So...this Myanmar situation is an opportunity for liberals to learn about what really goes on in some cultures. In a dictatorship, nothing is more important to the government than maintaining control over its people. In many cases, such regimes murder thousands, if not millions, of people in order to exert and maintain power. In the case of Myanmar, the government is willing to let its people continue to suffer, and perhaps die, rather than risk the possibility of those people becoming less dependent on the regime.

Meanwhile, America (the country which multiculturalists hate) is one of many countries around the world that seeks to help the people of Myanmar, but so far the Myanmar government is refusing to allow it.

2007-09-18T17:57:00.000-07:00

Hillary-Care is back! Our former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her quest to become our next president, has introduced a new health care plan as part of her campaign. Here is an AP article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6

The article tells us that Hillary wants to make it mandatory for all Americans to purchase health insurance, but says there will be no punitive measures to force people into the system. Is it me, or is this an obvious contradiction? How can something be mandated by the government but have no legal consequences? She wants to make it so that "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination." Hmmm...business owners might love this idea, but can it possibly work? Many people have health benefits through their employers. Is this type of policy really going to result in more people having health coverage? Elsewhere, the article says that Hillary intends to build on the current employer-based system. But wait -- isn't this another glaring contradiction? If we'll need proof of health insurance to get a job in the first place, then why will we need an employer-based system?

Here is the scary part of the article:

Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it. The mandatory aspect of her proposal, however, gets glossed over in the ad.

That's a huge thing to gloss over! In case you don't remember the health care plan that Hillary and her husband Bill tried to push through during the first two years of Bill's presidency, I'll remind you of some "mandates" which were hidden in that massive big-government plan, the published form of which ran over 1,300 pages:

1. Under the original version of Hillary-Care, all Americans would have been assigned to mandatory health alliances. Each person would have been required to only use the health alliance they were assigned to. If any American dared to choose their own doctor, the penalty would have been a mandatory 15-year prison sentence. The plan would have also created other outrageous new laws too numerous to mention.

2. Also, many new taxes were involved in the plan, including a whomping 12% national sales tax, as well as major tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol. (At the time, the latter ideas were called "sin taxes". Liberalism truly is a secular religion.).

Hillary is obviously trying to portray her new plan as being very different and less restrictive than her original disastrous plan was. Don't believe it. The Clintons (yes, both of them) will try to portray this new health care plan as all things to everyone in order to get it passed through Congress. Once they achieve that goal, Hillary's true socialist and totalitarian nature will rear its ugly head, and the American health care system (which, despite its problems, is the best health care system in the world) will be put under government control. As one commentator once put it, health care will be handled with all the efficiency of the postal service -- and with all the compassion of the I.R.S.

2007-09-07T20:07:00.000-07:00

MTV continues its mission to pollute the minds of American youth. The cable channel formerly known as Music Television could become more effective than al Qaeda in bringing about the demise of Western Civilization. It will soon be airing a bisexual dating show called A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila. Who is Tila Tequila, you ask? She is a blond Vietnamese bisexual who has made a name for herself for being some kind of "queen" of MySpace...you know, that other thing that is helping to pollute the minds of our youth. Here is the TV Week article:

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/09/mtv_greenlights_tila_tequila_d.php

When I first read this article, I wondered if the apocalypse was near. But when I read the TrackBack comments below the article, I was relieved to see that there is much moral outrage over the show's concept, and that many people see it (and MTV) for the repulsive sleaze that it is.

I don't know if this represents a new low for the supposed music channel, which is now mainly a purveyor of trashy reality shows. It seems that MTV has been pandering to the lowest common denominator and pushing leftist values on our youth for many years now. People who are 25 and under have been exposed to a constant barrage of sexual imagery throughout their lives. So, how does MTV generate controversy in an anything-goes era? They make the sexual content more deviant.

If this trend continues, the future of America will be sad. If future generations continue to be dumbed down and taught that sexual perversion is the norm, our society will inevitably collapse. If too many youngsters continue to be exposed to a steady diet of such mindless filth, America will become a nation of Beavises and Buttheads, and it will be unable to sustain itself.

The conventional wisdom is that parents are responsible for supervising what their children watch, and this is basically true. However, parents cannot watch their children 24-7. The media is guilty of continually degrading the culture, possibly to the point of no return. Some will say that it is simply a matter of supply and demand, and that the media is simply giving people what they want. But the almighty dollar is really not the main reason that a show such as A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila finds its way on the air. It has more to do with the liberal media's contempt for traditional values, against which it has waged a war for decades.

So, if any parents are still unaware of what children are watching on MTV, or on the internet, or on just about any other pop cultural medium, this should serve as a wake-up call.

Here's my advice for the young: do not look up to the people that MTV parades before you in their reality shows, or in any music videos that may still occasionally pop up on the channel. MTV may make them look cool, or glamourous, but they are not. Most of them are losers. And if you follow their example, or if you even spend too much of your time watching them make fools of themselves, you will grow to be losers as well. MTV and other media outlets may help such people achieve fame and riches, but you will not find similar rewards if you emulate them. Instead, you will end up living lives of poverty and misery.

2007-04-27T09:30:00.000-07:00

Don't panic over slower economic growth. The mainstream media will probably try to discourage the public about the economy even more than usual today. The reason? Gross domestic product grew at only 1.3% in the first quarter, the slowest growth rate since early 2003. Should we panic? I say no. First of all, I wouldn't be surprised if the figure is soon revised upward, like it often is. Second, we saw similarly slow GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2005 (1.8%) but the economy came back strong the following quarter, growing at an impressive 5.6% rate in the first quarter of 2006. It takes more than one quarter to tell the tale. That is why economists define a recession as consisting of at least two consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage. As of now, the economy has been growing steadily for five-and-a-half years, yet the media has portrayed it as a weak economy. Remember this: the economy grows during war time. The recent troop surge in Iraq and higher government spending on the war is likely to keep the economy growing. Some economists are not predicting a recession this year; others say there is a one-in-three chance of a recession occurring soon. My advice: don't worry about a recession until it happens, and even when it does, try to go on living your normal lifestyle. That's the best defense we have as consumers against an economic downturn.

2007-04-27T09:14:00.000-07:00

Two helpings of good news about the war on terror:

Story #1: A senior al-Qaida operative is captured.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OP1BT80&show_article=1

Story #2: Saudi Arabia arrests 172 militants and foils an attack plot.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6599963.stm

2007-04-25T14:55:00.000-07:00

Is Osama bin Laden still among the living? I know this question is asked often, and speculation about the al Qaeda leader's possible death has been common in the past. Still, bin Laden's recent silence does make me wonder. The last time we saw video of bin Laden was in 2004, and he did not look healthy. He released a few audio tapes in 2005, but experts say that his voice sounded weak on those tapes. Considering all of the things that have recently happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, you would think that bin Laden would be making more tapes (audio or video) to address these events to his followers. Instead, we only hear from his No. 2 man Ayman al-Zawahiri, or from people like the Taliban commander who has recently been interviewed by the Al Jazeera network.

This Taliban leader claims that Osama planned the alleged attack on Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan this past February, as well as the ongoing terrorist operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, there has never been evidence that bin Laden does any actual operational planning for al Qaeda. He is thought to be mainly a spiritual leader for the network, while actual planning for operations is conducted by his deputies. Also, there is no proof that the attack on the air base where Cheney was visiting was anything other than a coincidence. Al Qaeda did not claim that the attack was aimed at Cheney until the worldwide media had been reporting for hours about Cheney's presence at the base. The terror network probably had no prior knowledge of Cheney's visit.

Al Qaeda clearly wants to believe that bin Laden is alive, and they want the rest of the world to believe it as well. So, why won't Osama show his face, or at least his voice? There has been speculation that bin Laden died last summer in Pakistan from typhoid fever, but of course there is no confirmation that it is true.

It wouldn't be the first time that there was a three-year gap between bin Laden videos. After a pale-and-frail Osama appeared in a November 2001 video which was deemed demoralizing to his followers, he did not issue another video until October 2004, just before the U.S. presidential election. So it is possible that he is simply staying invisible for another three year period. But, again, it seems unlike him to be silent in times like these.

I'll paraphrase what President Bush said during that previous three-year gap between bin Laden videos. If Osama is still alive, we'll get him. If he's dead, then we got him.

2007-04-25T14:17:00.000-07:00

Hooray! Rosie O'Donnell is leaving "The View". Here is the story:

http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?section=news&feed=ap&src=601&news_id=ap-d8onrtt80&date=20070425

I realize that this does not mean we have heard the last of Miss Ignorance. If anything, she'll probably get her own show and make more money. Still, it's nice to know that there will at least be some point in time in which I will not hear constant reports about the hateful comments that this woman makes on the air. You know, like the one about radical Christianity being just as threatening as radical Islam. What exactly is "radical Christianity", Rosie? Or, how about her suggestion that the recent hostage situation in Iran was just a conspiracy by British leaders who wanted to go to war with Iran? Or, how about her attempt to smear Kelly Ripa as a homophobe simply because Ripa did not want Clay Aiken to put his hand over her mouth?

It's amazing what nonsense Rosie can get away with, considering the whole flap over Don Imus.

2007-04-25T13:46:00.000-07:00

Dow Jones passes 13,000; AP presents it as bad news. Gotta love this! The Dow Jones industrial average reached new record highs today, surpassing 13,000 for the first time ever. At one point during the day, it went just above 13,100. Great news for our ever-booming economy, right? Of course, the Associated Press says it's not good. Here is a sample of the AP's ability to spin an economic milestone as a bad thing:

It looks like a cause for celebration: The Dow Jones industrial average surged from 12,000 to 13,000 in just six months. But appearances can be deceiving, and there may be more reason to worry rather than rejoice about Wall Street's latest accomplishment.

Stronger-than-expected profits from several large companies helped push the stock market to historic heights. But many big corporations, including the Dow components, made a chunk of that money overseas, where economies are growing faster than in the U.S. And many of the same worries that weighed on investors earlier in the year remain: rising energy costs, a slumping housing market and a possible credit crunch.

Riiiight. Here's the real reason the AP is not happy about this: there is no Democrat in the White House to take credit for it. This also raises the bar for the Dow to reach a new record high the next time a Democrat is in the White House.

This type of reporting makes me feel even better when there is good economic news. A liberal's pain is my pleasure.

2007-03-09T15:11:00.000-08:00

Insurgent Leader Nabbed in Iraq Raid. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of the al Qaeda-connected group known as Islamic State of Iraq, was captured in a raid west of Baghdad. Here is the AP story:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/09/D8NOSOP80.html

So, how important is this guy? This article that appeared in the New York Sun last month puts it into perspective:

http://www.nysun.com/article/48291?page_no=1

Remember: these are the people that liberal Democrats want the U.S. to surrender to!

2007-02-11T12:30:00.000-08:00

New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers. This situation in Arizona illustrates what will happen across the country if and when the national minimum wage is increased:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210biz-teenwork0210.html

If you are a liberal and you have read the above article and still do not understand basic economics, I will try to clear things up for you. The minimum wage is not supposed to be a wage that adults make a living on. It is an entry-level wage, meaning that unskilled and inexperienced laborers (including teenagers who need money for car insurance) can gain work experience and buy cool clothes and CDs as well. People who need to earn more money than the minimum wage need to better themselves to rise above it. That is the beauty of living in America. We are free to improve ourselves, and this freedom has resulted in higher standards of living for all of us. I know that liberals like to wallow in class envy, and whine about what John Edwards calls "two Americas". But if you want to see what real poverty looks like, try visiting a third world country some day. Very few people achieve the American dream overnight. Many people have started small and worked their way up to prosperity. But such people need a starting point, and if the minimum wage is increased, fewer teenagers or other inexperienced laborers will have opportunities to work their way up. This will stunt the growth of our work force.

Here's another thing that liberals need to understand, but apparently never will: businesses do not have unlimited supplies of money, especially not small businesses. Businesses are started so that the entrepreneurs can earn a living for themselves. If jobs are created in the process, that's great, and it helps our society as well as individuals. But people do not start businesses because they look forward to hiring numerous employees and paying them federally mandated wages. If that were the motivating factor for business owners, there wouldn't be any businesses created. Businesses rely on profits to exist, let alone to prosper. If you mandate an increase in the minimum wage, it eats away at the necessary profits that many businesses need to survive. What do the businesses do about this? They will often cut other costs to offset the new costs. This often results in jobs being lost, and a decline in the quality of the goods and services being produced. Another thing that businesses will do to keep their necessary profit margins is: raise prices. Yes, we all will pay for the minimum wage increase through higher prices. That includes the people who get their wages increased. Doesn't really help them much, if at all.

If Democrats really want low-wage workers to take home more pay, why not consider a tax cut for low-wage workers? Oh, no! We can't have that! Our government needs all the tax revenue it can get in order to continue their wasteful spending. They can't do with a penny less, so they will force employers (the creators of job opportunities) to give up the money instead.

It's always easier to lay responsibility at someone else's feet, isn't it?

2007-01-04T11:19:00.000-08:00

The new year has more murders than days in Philadelphia. Not that it's surprising, but it's certainly depressing. The city's 2007 homicide statistics are off to a running start during this first week. CBS News reports 6 murders so far this year, and 4 of them happened within a 12-hour period. Here is the story:

http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_004063830.html

2006-12-29T19:57:00.000-08:00

Saddam Hussein has been executed. The former Iraqi dictator, whose reign of terror reportedly resulted in the deaths of over 1,000,000 people, was hanged at approximately 10:00 PM EST on December 29th.

This is an important day in world history. Although the brutal tyrant was tried and executed by the Iraqi legal system, it was the United States that made it possible for Saddam to be brought to justice. Saddam's decades-long reign ended in April 2003, after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. U.S. soldiers captured Saddam in December of that year. Saddam was held in U.S. custody until shortly before his execution, when he was turned over to Iraqi authorities.

Saddam's death will hopefully give some relief to the surviving victims of his regime. Unfortunately, the results of Saddam's reign are far from undone in Iraq. His regime instilled an entitlement attitude in the Sunni Arabs whom he favored, and fostered hostility among the Shiites and Kurds whom he terrorized. These bitter divisions gave rise to insurgent groups who have been wreaking merciless havoc on the country that ought to be celebrating their liberation from Saddam's tyrannical dictatorship. Instead, the violence and hatred Saddam inflicted on Iraq continue to have deadly consequences, for the Iraqi people as well as for the U.S.-led coalition forces who continue to fight for freedom and stability in the troubled country.

Saddam is now being judged by the Almighty. Here on Earth, people must heed the lessons the world has learned from Saddam's reign of terror, and work to repair the damage he has done to Iraq and the rest of the world.

2006-12-20T19:43:00.000-08:00

New study claims Americans weren't more chaste in the past. The study alleges that more than nine out of ten Americans have had premarital sex, even in past generations. Here is the AP article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16287113/

The article's title says "Even grandma had premarital sex". Excuse me? Whose grandma are they referring to? In the first paragraph, they clarify this statement by saying that "high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past." Well, my grandmother was born long before the 1940s. And so were many other people who have lived "in the past". People who were born in the '40's are generally considered to be part of the baby-boom generation. And, of course, the baby-boomers were responsible for the sexual revolution of the '60's and '70's, right? So, the conclusion of this study is that baby-boomers were no more chaste than Generation X and Y? Even if I believed the results of this study, I wouldn't consider that to be shocking.

Of course, I don't believe the results of this study. Lawrence Finer, the study's author, is a research director at a liberal think tank called the Guttmacher Institute, which opposes education programs that promote abstinence. Any "study" conducted by this organization will be designed to produce results which can be used to advance their agenda. An earlier study by Guttmacher concluded that success of abstinence in cutting teen pregnancies is a myth. How can that be? How can teenagers who abstain from sex get pregnant? Are they being artificially inseminated? It makes no sense. That's how much credibility Guttmacher has in my book.

In truth, there was a time when Americans were more chaste. There have always been fornicators, of course. But up until the 1950's, before baby-boomers came of age, sexual mores were vastly different than they are today. Sex outside of marriage was frowned upon in mainstream American society. In those pre-Great Society, pre-Roe v. Wade times, there wasn't nearly as much illegitimacy, as much spreading of venereal diseases, or as many abortions as there are today.

As most of us are aware, the '60's counterculture rebelled against old-fashioned sexual morality, and the consequences have been devastating to American society. We now live in an age in which young people are constantly bombarded with sexual imagery. Today's media insinuates that there is something abnormal about not engaging in premarital sex.

Even with the times being the way they are, I do not believe that more than 90% of the population fornicates. There are more virtuous people in our society than the media or public schools would have you believe. Liberals feel a need to portray everyone as being no more morally upright than they are, which is why this particular article tries to put the thought in your head that your grandparents were fornicators. This is also the reason that liberals defended Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal; they liked the idea of having a President who shared their immorality.

And the reason that liberals are so opposed to abstinence-only education is because they do not want illegitimacy rates to fall. Why? The more children are born out of wedlock, the more people will be dependent on the government. Liberals rely on government dependency to keep them in power.

My advice to young unmarried people is to avoid sex outside of marriage. It will make your life much easier, regardless of what your peers, your teachers, and the media may be telling you to the contrary.

2006-11-28T14:26:00.000-08:00

7,000 al Qaeda members killed or captured in past two years. All we ever seem to get from the mainstream media is negativity. Therefore, when I come across a positive story about the war on terror, I feel compelled to pass it on. According to a coalition spokesman, U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed or captured at least 7,000 Al-Qaeda fighters in the past two years, with 30 "senior leaders" taken out of action since July. Here is the article:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/28/061128160959.redzwzyd.html

And liberals say we are losing!

2006-11-06T13:16:00.000-08:00

U.S. troops say an Iraq pullout will be devastating. It's surprising to see this story presented by MSNBC, but here it is:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15582948/

Here are some essential paragraphs:

With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

More:

Leading Democrats have argued for a timeline to bring U.S. troops home, because obvious progress has been elusive, especially in Baghdad, and even some Republican lawmakers have recently called for a change in strategy. But soldiers criticized the idea of a precipitate withdrawal, largely because they believe their hard work would go for naught.

And:

"This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed."

It's good to see a mainstream media outlet get the story right for a change. Keep this article in mind next time you hear politicians, reporters, or Cindy Sheehan-like leftists talk about pulling out of Iraq.

2006-11-05T11:19:00.000-08:00

Ten reasons to vote Republican this Tuesday. The media has already declared the Democrats as the winners of the 2006 midterm elections. If you believe the mainstream press, Republicans have no hope of keeping control of the Senate or the House of Representatives. They claim that frustration over the war in Iraq will cause conservatives to stay home on election day and cause liberals to swamp the polls. History shows that the out-of-power party usually makes significant gains in Congress during a President's second term. But that didn't happen last time, when Republicans lost a few seats during Clinton's sixth year in office.

Will conservative voters sit this election out? Maybe, maybe not. It seems that conservatives don't really get out to vote unless they feel threatened. Well, I'd say they should feel threatened by the idea of a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Here are ten reasons why I believe conservatives ought to cast their votes to keep Congress under Republican control.

1. Democrats have nothing new to offer. Democrats, as usual, have not given voters a positive reason to vote for them. This election season has been about bashing Bush, and the Democrats have not suggested that they have any clue how to improve things. The only thing I can conclude is that they simply plan to oppose every move Bush makes for the last two years of his term, much like the do-nothing Democratic Senate did when it was led by Tom Daschle during Bush's first two years in office.

2. Nancy Pelosi will likely become Speaker of the House. You may be asking, "Nancy Who?" The bug-eyed House Minority Leader has been making herself scarce lately, possibly because the Democrats understandably do not want her to be the face of their party this election season. But if the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, Pelosi will most likely become Speaker of the House. The ultra-liberal San Francisco Dem would then become the person responsible for introducing legislation to the floor of the House. Remember: when the Supreme Court issued its outrageous eminent domain ruling, Pelosi said that "it was as if God had spoken". We cannot afford to have a blatant leftist like Pelosi in such a position of importance.

3. Terrorists are endorsing Democrats. Don't believe me? Feast your eyes on this article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

Is it any surprise? Democrats have undermined the war on terror, shamelessly playing politics with our national security. America's enemies would benefit greatly from a Democratic Congress which will have more power to block the administration's efforts to fight terrorism.

4. John Kerry's recent comments show utter contempt for our military. You may be asking, "So what? Kerry's name is not on any ballot." Well, neither is Bush's, but that doesn't stop the Democrats from making him a campaign issue. If Democrats take control of the Senate, the party of Kerry will be in power. Kerry is one of his party's biggest names -- he is, after all, their most recent Presidential nominee -- and chances are that he will hold a position of authority in a Democratic Senate, possibly in the form of a committee chairmanship. Our country and our armed forces deserve better.

5. Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death! Did you want me to point out a significant Bush administration achievement? Today, the brutal Iraqi dictator whom America removed from power has justly been sentenced to hang by his countrymen. Here's the story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227595,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2006

We are truly witnessing a historic event, and it is a great day for the world. Democrats have been using the Iraq war against Bush in their campaigns, but this event flies in their faces. Of course, the Democrats wrongly claim that Saddam was no threat to anyone, which brings us to No. 6...

6. The U.S. media has now confirmed that Saddam was working on a nuclear program. Of course, that's not the way the story has been presented to us. You've probably seen headlines this past week about nuclear secrets being divulged on a government web site. Here is the New York Times article which got that story started:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

According to the article, these secrets were dangerous to reveal, and they were taken from Iraqi documents seized during the war -- which means that Saddam's government had these dangerous nuclear secrets in their possession! Read this paragraph:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

What?!? As little as a year away from when? From 2002? Remember, the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, which was as little as a year later! Sounds like we went to war just in time, didn't we? Wait...there's more:

Last spring, after the site began posting old Iraqi documents about chemical weapons, United Nations arms-control officials in New York won the withdrawal of a report that gave information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by causing respiratory failure.

So! We found Iraqi documents about how to create chemical weapons as well! But, the Democrats and the media have been telling us for three years that Saddam had no WMD programs! Democrats truly cannot be trusted with national security matters.

7. The economy is booming. Many Democrat-funded attack ads claim that the economy is bad, and it's Bush's fault, so the voters should therefore elect more Democrats. This claim is even more nonsensical than it seems, because the economy is in great shape. The U.S. unemployment rate for the month of October was 4.4%, which is lower than it has been for most of the past 36 years. If Democrats regain power, their liberal policies will only obstruct further economic growth. For example: the Dems have stated a desire to repeal Bush's 2001 tax cut, which helped to bring about our current prosperity.

8. More Supreme Court appointments are likely to come. Considering the ages of the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, there is likely to be at least one vacancy in the next two years; some are even predicting two or three vacancies. A Democrat-controlled Senate would fight tooth and nail to prevent Bush from appointing Constitutionalist judges to the Court.

9. Democrats will waste time and tax dollars on meaningless "investigations" of the Bush administration. Have you noticed how Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media attempt to turn every action of the administration into a scandal that calls for an investigation? If Democrats gain control of Congress, they will have power to actually carry out their investigations, and they will criminalize every administration action that they can get their hands on. Rep. John Conyers, who has repeatedly stated plans to begin impeachment proceedings against the President, will have greater ability to do so. Are you ready for a two-year national nightmare?

10. Democrats have a shameful history of opposing America's best interests, attacking traditional values, and bringing standards down to the lowest common denominator. And they are showing no signs of stopping. Need I say more?

I implore conservative voters to please go to the polls and cast your votes on Tuesday. It is very important.

2006-09-03T16:44:00.000-07:00

Bad news for terrorists = good news for the world. Two upbeat stories showing that terrorists are having a bad Labor Day weekend:

The current No. 2 leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq has been arrested, and he gave information that led to 20 of his aides and followers being captured or killed. Iraq's national security adviser believes that "al-Qaeda in Iraq suffers from a serious leadership crisis". Here's the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14647177/

Also, NATO and Afghan forces killed more than 200 suspected Taliban guerillas in a major offensive in Afghanistan. Here's that story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14653529/

This gives us some things to celebrate this Labor Day.

2006-07-04T12:27:00.000-07:00

Poll: Just 48% Cite U.S. Independence as Top Reason for 4th of July Holiday. Here are the poll results from Zogby:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1137

Should this be a cause for concern? In some ways, yes.

Freedom isn't free. Some people may dismiss that saying as a feel-good slogan, but it is the absolute truth. Much blood and sacrifice was required to bring about American freedom, which was born 230 years ago today. And much more blood and sacrifice has been given since then in order to preserve it. In fact, our military continues to fight and sacrifice for our freedom, as they fight our enemies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other place where the need for fighting arises. People need to be aware of the price we have paid, and the prices we still need to pay, for our freedom.

This day, known as Independence Day, is as good a day as any to celebrate the fruits of our freedom, as well as to pause and remember those who have fought and died for it. Of course, this is not the only day of the year that Americans should be aware of this. I thank God every day for the freedom we enjoy in this country.

Of course, many people take American freedom for granted. This is understandable, since most Americans don't need to think about the alternatives, and are free to simply go about their daily lives. The ability to do this is one of the things that makes this country great. While many people in other countries around the world can only dream of living in freedom, most Americans are simply used to it. This speaks volumes about the enormity of the accomplishments of those who have fought for our freedom.

There is only one part of the Zogby article that troubles me:

When it comes to celebrating America’s independence, there is a huge division down party lines, the poll shows. Sixty-five percent of Republicans say they use the Fourth for that purpose, while just 30% of Democrats say the same. Almost half (48%) of independents agree.

I must ask: why, oh why, is there a whomping 35-percentage-point gap between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to this? It seems that many Democrats hold the concept of patriotism in contempt. And they wonder why American voters do not trust them on matters of national security.

2006-07-02T13:02:00.000-07:00

Study: Men assume sexual interest when there may be none. I came across this slightly male-bashing article in MSN's Health & Fitness website:

http://health.msn.com/centers/mensexualhealth/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100137643>1=8357

It starts like this:

Turns out men don't have to be living on Mars and women on Venus for communication problems to muck up dealings between the sexes.

Even when they're seated across a table from each other in a first-time, five-minute conversation, a man tends to sexualize a woman and incorrectly assume sexual interest on her part, new research finds.

(Gasp!). Those horrible men. This "new research" doesn't really tell me anything new. Speaking as a man, I can tell you that sometimes when an attractive woman is being friendly, a man can mistake it for a sexual come-on. It's in a man's nature.

Now, ladies, don't fly off the handle. I am not excusing any type of immoral or ungentlemanly male behavior. The article says that this research was conducted to find ways to curb sexual harrassment and date rape. Both of those things (provided that any incident in question is a clear case of either) are inexcusable.

But there are differences between the sexes, regardless of the liberal media's claims to the contrary. Men and women are made differently, and we perceive things differently. Men and women are meant to serve different purposes, especially as parents.

Am I saying that men are superior to women, or vice versa? Of course not. But differences between the sexes exist for a reason. If there were no emotional or psychological differences between the sexes, the human race would either never reproduce, or it would overreproduce.

Here's more from the article:

"We wanted to see if basically the macho-type guy was the only one who did this," said Levesque, adding the study showed that wasn't the case. "That variable -- the socialization to be 'macho' -- doesn't make a difference," he said.

Reporting in the new issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly, the researchers said that when a man meets a woman for the first time and they converse briefly, he's much likelier than she is to rate himself -- and her -- higher on sexual traits such as flirtatiousness. And he's more likely to think she's interested in him sexually, when she may not be.

Again, this is natural, not a result of socialization. When a man meets an attractive woman, he is going to respond to the attraction internally, and he may try to imagine what type of partner she would be. This is the reason men have been courting women throughout written history and, I assume, before that as well. It's where babies end up coming from. Are men going to make mistakes about whether or not certain women are attracted to them? Sure. Mistakes have always been a part of human nature as well. Keep in mind that this theory about natural male (not macho) behavior causing harrassment and date rape was already a foregone conclusion of the researchers before this study was conducted. As far as I can see, the study offers no proof that such offenses are natural results of natural maleness. Some people are simply intent on portraying male feelings and behaviors as being sexist and harmful.

Here is a piece from the article that makes me say "Duh!":

Men rated their women partners higher in sexuality than the women rated the men, said Levesque, who did the research while at the University of Connecticut. "It wasn't that men over-sexualized women only when there was chemistry," he explained. "Their ratings in terms of sexiness did not have a lot to do with whether she was extroverted, agreeable, or whether she behaved in particularly friendly ways."

"If he found her to be physically attractive, he would tend to rate her as sexier," he said, adding that other studies have found the same over-sexualization effect and that men give physically attractive women higher marks for sexiness.

No kidding! They needed to conduct research to figure that out? These people need to get out more. Here's another brilliant observation from Professor Levesque:

Levesque doesn't know why all the men in the study seemed to over-sexualize women, but he speculated that "it's got to be something about socialization, that men are being taught in some way to view women as sexual objects."

Nah! Do you think? Could these men be watching MTV? Or cable TV in general? Or TV in general, for that matter? Do you think they might read magazines? Do you think they might be exposed to pornography, which is so much easier to access now than it was decades ago? The men who participated in this study were aged 18 to 22. Their generation has been exposed to a life-long barrage of sexual imagery in the media. Many of them were probably exposed to public school sex-ed classes as well, and were probably given free condoms to play with.

Here is a more interesting quote from another prof:

The study findings are no surprise to Charles Hill, a professor of psychology at Whittier College, in California. He said the two chemical routes to sexual arousal help explain the study findings.

Testosterone, a hormone that both men and women produce, helps arouse both genders sexually, Hill said. But so does the hormone oxytocin, also in both genders. "Oxytocin promotes infant-mother bonding and women have a boost of it when ovulating, pregnant or lactating," he said. "But it also promotes emotional bonding to people in general," he said. "It may help explain why in the study that men rated women as sexy based on attractiveness, whereas women's rating of sexuality was correlated not only with attractiveness but also personality. There was an emotional component to how they rated" the men.

Not that the "emotional component" in women is news to me, but I'm glad it was mentioned. Men only need to see an attractive woman for their interest to be aroused; female-to-male attraction is a bit harder to understand. Again, it comes down to natural differences between the sexes.

Here's more from Professor Levesque:

For women, Levesque said, the best advice "may be understanding that more often than not he is going to be thinking in sexual terms. You may walk away thinking the conversation went well or not and he may still be thinking in those [sexual attraction] terms."

He may still be thinking in those terms! How dare he! So, would that mean that the conversation did not go well?

Here's more from the professor:

For men, he said: "Don't think every women you meet is attracted to you." This caveat especially holds true for men who think of themselves as sexy or sexual. "Men [in the study] who thought of themselves as sexy also tended to think of their partners as sexy and as interested in them." That may not be the case, however.

Logical enough. However, remember what was said earlier about female-to-male attraction being different? Here is my belief: women tend to be attracted to men who are confident. A man who assumes every woman is attracted to him may be overconfident, and may possess an arrogance that turns women off. But it seems to me that if a man believes that women in general tend to find him attractive, he is found attractive by many women. It's called confidence, and as long as a man does not possess an excess amount of it, many women are likely to be attracted to him. There is nothing wrong with a man being a man, contrary to politically correct belief. In fact, too many men these days seem feminized, which is probably a result of radical feminism, and what Christina Hoff Sommers calls the war against boys.

If anyone reading this happens to be a radical feminist, do yourself a favor: scroll up to the beginning of this post and re-read the fourth paragraph. It may save you from bursting a blood vessel.

2006-06-29T19:15:00.000-07:00

More WMDs have been found in Iraq, in addition to the ones previously reported. Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, did not give many details about the additional WMD material found in recent months, but he said he expected more to be found. Here is the Reuters article.

Naturally, liberals are trying to downplay the significance of these findings, after telling us for three years that Iraqi WMDs didn't exist. They claim that because these weapons were produced before the first Gulf War in '91, they are of degraded quality and were not an imminent threat. But, in the words of Rep. Curt Weldon (R, Pa):

For those who claim that these weapons are not the weapons of mass destruction that the United States went to war over, I would refer them to 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions that Saddam Hussein violated. It didn't say pre-'91 chemical weapons. It didn't say post-'91 chemical weapons. It said chemical weapons.

2006-06-29T12:57:00.000-07:00

From the people who brought you eminent domain...the Supreme Court today ruled that the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners is illegal. The Reuters story is here.

Of course, the decision was made 5-3 by the five liberal judges on the Court including the so-called "moderate conservative" Anthony Kennedy. I wish at least one of them would retire. Bring on the next Supreme Court vacancy.

This decision is dismaying. The Court seems to be granting the same rights to foreign terrorists that American criminals have. It's bad enough that domestic criminals seem to have more rights than law-abiding citizens do. Are we now extending these rights to the Taliban?

The court claims that the tribunals violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules. When foreign terrorists take Americans prisoner, do they act according to the Geneva Conventions? No. They torture and behead people, sometimes on videotape. Nothing like that is going on at Guantanamo, I assure you. Our prisoners there are treated very well considering that they are Taliban lowlife.

Of course, leftist groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International are overjoyed about the Court's decision. They are increasingly calling for the Guantanamo prison to be closed.

But what are we to do with the terrorists who are imprisoned there? Are we supposed to turn them loose so that they can kill more Americans, either here or abroad?

I know that liberals refuse to understand this, but I will try to explain it anyway. The War on Terror is not a game. It is a war. The people who are imprisoned at Guantanamo are people who want to kill us. They are terrorists. They fought against American soldiers who toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban is merged with al Qaeda, the organization that killed over 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, and continues to kill more Americans in Iraq. The prisoners at Guantanamo are not American citizens. They are foreign terrorists who hate America and want to destroy it.

What part of the above paragraph don't liberals understand?

2006-06-29T11:01:00.000-07:00

Economy Zips Ahead Faster Than Expected. In the first quarter of 2006, the U.S. economy grew at a rate of 5.6%, the fastest pace in 2 1/2 years. It was stronger than the previous estimate of 5.3%. Here is the AP story:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ECONOMY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-06-29-08-45-40

The article points out that, in the current quarter, economic growth has probably slowed to a rate of 2.5 to 3 percent. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The bottom line: this is boom time. Don't believe the constant negativity that the media keeps feeding us about the economy.

2006-06-29T10:36:00.000-07:00

Cardinal fears Church could face court on abortion. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, criticized several Western countries for allowing abortion and introducing gay marriage and civil unions. Here is the Reuters article.

The Cardinal says:

I fear that faced with current legislation, speaking in defense of life, of the rights of the family, is becoming in some societies a crime against the state, a form of disobedience of the government, a discrimination against women. The Church risks being brought in front of some international court, if the debate gets any more tense, if the most radical opinions are heeded.

The Cardinal also said that gay marriage is "absolute nothingness". He said:

Civil unions are a legal fiction, two people who promise each other nothing, who promise nothing to their children nor to the state but want the same rights as marriage.

The countries he singled out for his concerns included Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Nordic countries. If American liberals get their way, these teachings could also become "crimes against the state" in the States. As Ann Coulter says, liberalism is entrenched as the state religion of this country, and liberals are intolerant of any challenges to their secular religion.

2006-06-29T10:15:00.000-07:00

Katrina looters get 15 years in prison. A Louisiana judge apparently disagrees with Celine Dion's "Let them touch those things" philosophy. Three people who were convicted of looting liquor from a grocery store after Hurricane Katrina were sentenced Wednesday to 15 years in prison by a Kenner judge. Here's the CNN story.

The attorneys for the three defendents intend to appeal the conviction and the sentencing, saying that the punishment is "excessive". Liberals will probably take their side, just like they took the side of people who looted during the L.A. riots in '92.

2006-06-27T18:15:00.000-07:00

AP incorrectly claims that scientists praise Gore's movie. It isn't news to me that the Associated Press is liberal biased, or that it is typically biased in favor of Al Gore. But it's nice to see a United States Senate Committee acknowledge as much. Here is a press release from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which criticizes the AP for ignoring scientists who question the science in Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

2006-06-23T20:59:00.000-07:00

Don't believe the hype: global warming is a myth. You've surely heard some of the glowing praise that Al Gore's filmed slideshow An Inconvenient Truth has been receiving from the media. It seems that the media will never cease in its efforts to brainwash everyone into believing that the planet is heating up, and that mankind (especially Americans) are to blame for it.

I will never understand how people fall for this. What makes people think that we/they have any control over Earth's climate? And, really, what makes them think that the planet is in the process of overheating? Every time winter comes around, especially when we experience record low temperatures on certain days, I wonder how people can go on believing in global warming. I have haunting memories of some Philadelphia winters. In 1994, my area was plagued with a long cold winter of icy roads and heavy snowfall. My area experienced full-blown blizzards in 1996 and in 2003. In the winter of 2004, the temperatures were so cold that I caught a mild case of pneumonia just by taking a walk around my neighborhood. Throughout all of the years that these things have taken place, Al Gore and his ilk have continued to preach about the impending horrors of global warming.

Now, some scientists are claiming that temperatures are higher now than they have been in 2,000 years! They say it's hotter now than it ever has been since the time of Jesus Christ. Here's an article about that:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

I believe the left is truly going off the deep end with this theory. How in the world can a claim like this be proven? The "proxy" evidence described in the article doesn't prove a thing to me, but the media seems to be reporting this wild theory as if it is a proven fact.

A new National Academy of Sciences report titled "Surface Temperature Reconstructions For The Last 2000 Years" refutes this theory. Here is an article.

Of course, Al Gore is slamming scientists who disagree with his global warming theories. Here is what he said to Charlie Rose last Monday:

"The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

"The debate's over"? I think not, Al. Many credible scientists have issues with the "international consensus". Here is an article with quotes by some of them:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml?s=et

Here is what famed Oxford professor David Bellamy has to say:

"It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be. If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs. The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."

2006-06-22T17:48:00.000-07:00

John Murtha is an embarrassment to Democrats, and to Pennsylvanians. Did you hear about the prominent Democratic congressman's appearance on NBC's Meet The Press last Sunday? Murtha, who has been getting plenty of media attention in recent months for his anti-war stance, told Tim Russert that troops in Iraq should be redeployed to a nearby country, so that they will be removed from Iraq but can go back in if needed. What would be the point of that? Murtha became even more illogical, saying that one place that the troops could be redeployed to is Okinawa, Japan -- which is about 5,000 miles from Iraq!

Murtha now rivals Republican Senator Arlen Specter for the Most Embarrassing Legislator From Pennsylvania award. I'm glad Murtha is not from my district -- his district is in western PA -- but I almost wish that he was, so that I could cast a vote against him in November.

I am now learning that Murtha has a skeleton in his closet: he was involved in the Abscam scandal. Here is Robert Novak's commentary on the subject:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200606/COM20060622a.html

2006-06-22T17:19:00.000-07:00

WMDs have been found in Iraq, but the media doesn't want to report it. Senators Rick Santorum (R, Pa) and Pete Hoekstra (R, Mi) said on Wednesday that 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agents have been found in Iraq since 2003, and that more WMDs are assessed to exist. Here is the story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

This is major news, isn't it? Haven't people been saying for three years that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Why won't the media now widely report the information about these findings?

The simple answer is because they don't want people to know about it. The media has been brainwashing the public for the past three years with "Bush lied, people died" propaganda, and this news proves them wrong -- and, as far as I'm concerned, proves them to be gross liars who put their politics ahead of our national security.

I applaud Senators Santorum (who is from my state) and Hoekstra for having the courage to present the unpopular truth to us. I have a feeling that both of them will be made to pay a price for doing so.

2006-06-08T19:52:00.000-07:00

Zowie! Zarqawi went POWWIE! He won't spend no more weekends in Bali! Pardon my rapping; it's my Philadelphia localese coming out. I guess you've heard the splendid news by now. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda of Iraq and the most wanted terrorist in Iraq, was killed in a U.S. military air strike on Wednesday. Here is the Reuters story.

What a great day for the world. And what a bad week for liberals! First they lost a House race in California, and now we get great news in the war on terror that not even they can dampen (although I'm sure they'll try their best). November isn't looking like the sure thing you've been thinking it is, is it, Dems?

2006-05-26T14:45:00.000-07:00

Gas prices would go up, not down, under Democrats. Liberals still tend to blame President Bush for high gasoline prices. I remember being taught in fifth grade Social Studies class that a U.S. president does not have the power to force prices down. (Jimmy Carter was president at the time, inflation was out of control, and, yes, gas prices were high). Since then, my understanding of that has only gotten better. If a president had power to control consumer prices, he would have far too much power over people and businesses, and this would not be a free country. Limited government is what sets us apart from monarchies and dictatorships.

I recently was shopping in a hardware store, and I heard the man behind the counter (who was not a young man by any means) loudly telling another person that "Bush is an oil man, and that's why gas prices are so high!". You would think that someone in his position would have a better understanding of supply-and-demand economics. Maybe he does, and (like many liberals) he is simply willing to forget everything he knows for the sake of his ideology. It sounded to me like he was parroting Nancy Pelosi's claim that oil prices were high because "there are two oil men in the White House". Any objective person can tell that is simply election-year pandering, but liberals will believe what they want to believe.

A recent probe found no evidence of illegal price-gouging by oil companies, which Democrats have been accusing them of ever since Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000. Of course, the liberal media is downplaying this finding -- or, should I say, lack of findings.

If Democrats regain power, their attempts to regulate the oil industry will only drive prices up further. Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY) has suggested taxing oil company profits. What will this accomplish? Companies will raise prices higher, so that they will continue to reap the same profits as they did before any new taxes were enacted. Businesses do not give up their profit margins. If they do, they are likely to go out of business, because profits are the reason that private-sector businesses exist. What will consumers do if the hated oil companies go under? Drill for their own oil? Build their own refineries?

For all their demagoguery on energy prices, Democrats have only stood in the way of any progress that might result in a decrease of those prices. They oppose new oil drilling and exploration, keeping us dependent on oil-rich countries that hate us. They pay lip service to conservation, but they oppose federal measures that would encourage it.

The RNC website features a "gas calculator", which supposedly computes how much Democrats' policies would increase your personal travel costs. The results can be taken with a grain of salt, but the point is well taken.

http://www.gop.com/GasCalculator/

2006-05-26T13:53:00.000-07:00

Capitol Police visit Rick Santorum's Penn Hills home. A strange election-year story from a Pittsburgh news program:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/9269616/detail.html

On Wednesday, Capitol Police agents dispatched from Washington spent nearly 90 minutes doing a security check on Sen. Rick Santorum's Penn Hill's house.

"Why would he call Capitol Police when we have Penn Hills police right here? If he's a resident of Penn Hills, why didn't he call the Penn Hills police? And for his kids to be in danger? That's a big joke because his kids are never in this house," Santorum critic Erin Vecchio said.

This is the latest twist in Santorum's long-running clash with a local Democratic couple that Santorum accuses of trespassing and peeking into windows in a bid to prove he doesn't really live there.

"The fact is, that we never stepped foot on that property. I put a challenge out to Rick, saying that I would take a lie detector test if he would take a lie detector test if he ever lived in that house," Vecchio said.

Vecchio is the Penn Hills Democratic chairwoman whose husband was quoted in news reports as saying Santorum's home was emptied of furniture and had no curtains until days ago.

The Santorum campaign launched radio ads describing the couple as operatives of his Democratic opponent Bob Casey, stalking the senator's home and children.

Vecchio was also the Penn Hills School Board member who tried to force Santorum to repay the district thousands of dollars it had to pay for his kids' cyber schooling.

"We never went on that property. His whole issue with me is pay back Penn Hills the money that you owe us and I'll go away," Vecchio said.

Santorum's staff said the Capitol Police visit was to ensure the safety and security of the Santorum family home. They said, "It is extremely disappointing that because of hardball politics, we have come to this."

The Casey campaign said Santorum's accusations lack any credibility and that he should repay Penn Hills taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars for not living in the district.

Channel 4 Action News heard neighbors take both sides of the fight.

Mark Hawkins, a family friend, said. "When Rick's in, not doing his job … this is where his family is. I mean, this is where he is."

Neighbor Don Gingery said, "The place has been empty for three or four months."

"Empty? How do you know?" asked Channel 4 Action News reporter Bob Mayo.

"I live right here," Gingery said.

2006-05-20T20:14:00.000-07:00

Iraq swears in new government. It's a historic day for Iraq and the world. In the words of U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad:

"What happened in the assembly represents the end of Iraq's political transition that began in April 2003 from the American administration under occupation, to a democratically elected Iraqi government. We have a lot at stake in terms of Iraq's success. That's no secret."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14629228.htm

Of course, the violence continued. At least 22 people were killed in an explosion at a Baghdad gas station and at least 17 corpses were discovered around the city. This type of violence will not be quelled overnight. When America first declared its independence in the late 1700's, violence from British forces continued for many years. The road to democracy is difficult, but necessary.

President Bush said this in a statement:

"The United States and freedom-loving nations around the world will stand with Iraq as it takes its place among the world's democracies and as an ally in the war on terror."

2006-05-20T19:52:00.000-07:00

In other abortion-related news:

Republican congressman Mark Souder (R-Ind.) convened a hearing this past Wednesday on the RU-486 abortion pill, which has been linked to deadly infections in at least eight women:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200605/CUL20060518b.html

Amnesty International is considering promoting abortion as a worldwide "right". This is the same "human rights" organization that complained for years about Saddam Hussein's atrocities, but opposed the U.S. campaign to remove him from power in Iraq.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200605/INT20060518a.html

And here is a story about an abortion center in Birmingham, Alabama which gave an RU-486 pill to a woman in her third trimester of pregnancy:

http://www.lifenews.com/state1659.html

2006-05-20T18:46:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton blames right wingers for abortion. The Senator and former first lady is putting forth another "vast right-wing conspiracy" theory. She now claims that right-wing "ideologues" -- who generally oppose abortion -- are responsible for it. How? Here is the Newsmax article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/17/231039.shtml

2008 White House hopeful Hillary Clinton is blaming right wing "ideologues" for denying women access to contraceptives - leaving them no choice but to end their unwanted pregnancies with abortion.

The move to withhold contraceptives "was started by a small group of extreme ideologues who claim the right to impose their personal beliefs on the overwhelming majority of the American people," Clinton declared in an e-mail to supporters on Wednesday.

"They're waging this silent war on contraception by using the power of the White House and their right-wing allies in Congress," she complains, adding, "and so far, they're getting away with it."

So just how are these right wing ideologues driving up the abortion rate? Clinton explains:

"Low-income women, denied access to contraception, are having more unwanted pregnancies - four times as many as those for higher income women. And almost half of all unwanted pregnancies end in abortions."

The former first lady didn't explain, however, why - in places like New York City, where high school nurses' offices distribute candy-flavored condoms - the abortion rate continues to soar.

And I would love to hear her explanation for that! Hillary's e-mail reminds me of inane statements that were made by Joycelyn Elders, who was the first Surgeon General of the Clinton administration. Elders, who once proudly called herself the "condom queen", once claimed (with a straight face) that "condoms are not readily available" to the public. Excuse me? Has the woman ever set foot in a drugstore? How can liberals say that anyone is "denied access" to contraceptives? And as for the "low-income women" part of Hillary's message -- what exactly is she saying? That low-income women have an entitlement to receive free contraceptives paid for by taxpayers?

Anyway, getting back to the article:

The former first lady didn't explain, however, why - in places like New York City, where high school nurses' offices distribute candy-flavored condoms - the abortion rate continues to soar.

In January, for instance, the New York Daily News reported:

"For every 100 babies born in New York City, women had 74 abortions in 2004, according to newly released figures that reaffirm the city as the abortion capital of the country ... That means 40 out of 100 pregnancies in the city ended in a planned abortion - almost double the national average of 24 of 100 pregnancies in 2002."

Those numbers are sickening. Hillary's husband Bill once promised the country that abortion would be "safe, legal, and rare". Well, that's one out of three. Abortion is obviously still legal, but I would hardly describe it as "safe", certainly not for the baby being aborted, and arguably not for the would-be mother, either. Abortions (especially the partial-birth variety) involve numerous health hazards, including potential damage to the woman's birth canal.

And the figures reported above indicate that abortion is certainly not "rare". Even when you get beyond the shocking New York City numbers (40 out of 100 pregnancies?), the national average of 24 out of 100 pregnancies ending in abortions is truly devastating. That means that nearly one-fourth of America's future population is being brutally murdered before the fact.

2006-05-16T15:44:00.000-07:00

France names street for cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal. Here's more proof that we are probably better off without France's help in Iraq. My hometown paper The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that a Paris suburb has named a street for a world-famous convicted cop-killer from my hometown. Here's the article:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14587429.htm

From the article:

As Philadelphians cope with another police slaying, news comes that a suburb of Paris has named a street for Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of the 1981 murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.

Hundreds of supporters of Abu-Jamal attended a ceremony on April 29 to dedicate the Rue Mumia-Abu Jamal in the city of St.-Denis.

"In France, they see him as a towering figure," said Suzanne Ross, cochair of the Free Mumia Coalition of New York City, who was part of the ceremony.

Ross said the street is in the town's Human Rights district, which includes Nelson Mandela Stadium.

Richard Costello, past president of the Philadelphia lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, said the street dedication was "deplorable" but "consistent with the offensive position the French have taken in this matter. They've made him into some type of hero."

Abu-Jamal, 53, was sentenced to death in 1982 for the shooting of Faulkner, who was 25. A memorial plaque honoring Faulkner has been installed at 13th and Locust Streets, where he was shot.

Abu-Jamal, a former Philadelphia journalist, Black Panther member, and critic of police brutality, has maintained his innocence.

Here is something that troubles me:

Last year, a federal appeals court agreed to consider Abu-Jamal's appeal of his conviction. The court said it would consider Abu-Jamal's allegation of racial bias in jury selection, as well as claims that the prosecutor gave an improper summation and that a judge in a previous appeal was biased.

I do not trust the court to reach a verdict based on evidence. It will more likely be based on politics. Many leftists -- be they in France, Hollywood, or Philadelphia -- have been convinced of Mumia's innocence (regardless of evidence to the contrary) and portray him as both a hero and a victim. I fear that the court may overturn his conviction based on political correctness.

Here is what the victim's widow had to say:

When notified of the French dedication, Maureen Faulkner, widow of the victim, called it "disgusting."

"This is so unnerving for me to get this news," Faulkner said from Los Angeles, where she lives. "It's insulting to the police officers of Philadelphia that they are naming a street after a murderer."

The campaign to free Abu-Jamal has generated international attention, particularly among anti-death-penalty activists in France. At the dedication ceremony, Julia Wright, a translator in Paris and daughter of the late African American author Richard Wright, called Abu-Jamal "our Mandela."

Maureen Faulkner, on the other hand, urged Americans to boycott Paris.

"The people of Philadelphia should think if they have any trips to Paris this summer, to cancel those trips," Faulkner said.

Of the French support of Abu-Jamal, she added: "These are the people who sheltered Ira Einhorn" - a fugitive who was finally returned to Philadelphia and convicted of killing his girlfriend, Holly Maddux.

2006-05-16T14:03:00.000-07:00

Sexual-orientation questions cause stir at high school. Here is another story, this one from Wisconsin, that ought to serve as a wake-up call for society at large. At a Wisconsin high school, a student organization designed a "heterosexual questionnaire", approved by two teachers. Students were asked such questions as: "If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?" and "Considering the battering, abuse, and divorce rate associated with heterosexual coupling, why would you want to enter into that type of relationship?"

Hundreds of students at the school were told to submit written answers, and a full class period was used to discuss the survey. Here is an article:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=424003

From the article:

Parent Lisa Krier on Monday called for the two teachers to be disciplined, saying the survey was a form of sexual harassment by teachers against students.

"If somebody doesn't call them on it, it will continue," she said.

Both Principal Duane Woelfel and Patty Ruth, president of the Port Washington-Saukville School Board, said the survey was inappropriate and that proper authorization was not given before it was brought into classrooms.

"The message that really needs to go out at this point is that this administration will ensure that this type of survey will never go out again," Ruth said.

Woelfel said he has received complaints from about two dozen parents and community members regarding the survey. The principal said he was not aware of the survey until a parent gave him a copy a day after it was distributed.

"We were extremely concerned when we found out about it, and we're going to make sure that it doesn't happen again," Woelfel said.

The teachers who Woelfel said are responsible for the survey - social studies teacher Sarah Olson and communications teacher Julie Grudzinski - could not be reached for comment.

Woelfel estimated that the survey was given to about 400 of the school's 930 students on April 25, the day before the national Day of Silence, an annual event co-sponsored by the New York City-based Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

More:

Students in the group presenting the survey were trying to convey that "students who have an alternative lifestyle get asked these questions every day, so please be considerate. It was an exercise in compassion and understanding that did not work out real well," Woelfel said.

Woelfel said the survey violated school policy because parents were not notified in advance and given the opportunity to decide whether their children should participate.

Supposedly, the survey was part of an effort to reduce harassment against "non-heterosexuals". How? By harassing heterosexuals?

One question reads: "Is it likely that you have (sic) just haven't met the right same gender partner yet?". Questions such as that and the two I mentioned earlier suggest that the designers of the survey want to encourage experimentation with homosexuality. But wait -- I thought that people didn't choose it! The prevailing conventional wisdom is that being gay is not a matter of choice. Why, people say, would anyone choose such a life full of torment?

Whether or not people choose to have feelings of homosexuality is debatable. But people definitely do choose to engage in homosexual behavior. That is a matter of free will, just as heterosexual activity is. Liberals spin it a different way, insinuating (if not saying outright) that it is impossible not to act on sexual feelings.

Nonsense. Liberals might do whatever they please, but not all people do. Contrary to popular belief, there are still people with morals. The aim of gay activists is to remove all social taboos on homosexual behavior, so that the activity in which they choose (yes, choose) to engage will be considered right and natural. But it is not.

The survey actually did contain one good question. The final question was "Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?".

The answer is: because of liberalism. Ever since the sexual revolution of the '60's and '70's, liberals have placed an emphasis on sex as if it is the most important thing about our lives and our identities. The effects have been, to say the least, destructive. Sexual imagery now dominates our popular culture. Society now projects the idea that anyone who does not engage in casual sex is not normal.

I can tell you from past (and present) experience that it is not impossible to avoid sexual encounters. I am heterosexual, and I am celibate. I am not married, and I do not fool around. I am exposed to the same images and temptations that many others are. I have experienced peer pressure, in youth and in adulthood. Abstinence from sex is not always easy in the short run, but in the long run it makes life much easier. In the city of Philadelphia where I live, the consequences of sexual immorality are on display everywhere, and they are ugly.

What is the best way to counteract society's constant endorsement of casual sex?

Religion.

2006-05-05T17:15:00.000-07:00

White guilt in a time of war? An interesting opinion piece from Shelby Steele appeared in the Wall Street Journal this past Tuesday. It is even more relevant three days later, now that Zacarias Moussaoui has escaped the death penalty.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318

2006-05-05T13:28:00.000-07:00

Polls, polls, polls. Which ones are we to believe?

A new AP Ipsos poll says that Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low of 33%, and that conservatives are unhappy with the president and the Republican Congress. Here are details:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/5/92432.shtml?s=icp

At one point, this article says that 31% of conservatives want Republicans out of power. Really? Nearly one-third of conservatives would rather have Democrats in power? With Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House? I'm having a tough time believing that.

On the other hand, a new Fox News poll claims that Bush's ratings have risen slightly to 38%, up five points from two weeks ago:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194278,00.html

Rasmussen Reports, which is usually more trustworthy than most other polls, says his approval rating is 43%, which is also an increase over recent numbers.

2006-05-05T13:03:00.000-07:00

California bill would ban "mom" and "dad" from textbooks, and mandate pro-homosexual lessons. Just when I thought the left coast couldn't go any further off the deep end: a bill is advancing in the California legislature that would ban traditional sex-specific terms from school texts, and require students to learn "gay history". Here is the article:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50044

Here are some details:

Having already been approved by the state's Senate Judiciary Committee, SB 1437, which would mandate grades 1-12 buy books "accurately" portraying "the sexual diversity of our society," got the nod yesterday of the Senate Education Committee.

The bill also requires students hear history lessons on "the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America."

"This bill is the most extreme effort thus far to transform our public schools into institutions of indoctrination that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "SB 1437 seeks to eliminate all 'stereotypes' of the traditional family so that young children are brainwashed into believing that families with moms and dads are irrelevant."

Here's more:

England says the measure amounts to unneeded social experimentation.

"SB 1437 disregards the religious and moral convictions of parents and students and will result in reverse discrimination," she said.

Sponsored by Democratic Sen. Sheila Kuehl – a lesbian actress best known for playing Zelda in "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" in the 1960s – the legislation would add "gender" (actual or perceived) and "sexual orientation" to the law that prohibits California public schools from having textbooks, teaching materials, instruction or "school-sponsored activities" that reflect adversely upon people based on characteristics like race, creed and handicap.

It doesn't surprise me that Californians would elect someone like Kuehl as a representative, or that Kuehl would sponsor such legislation. But I am amazed that this bill is receiving any type of support. If this bill actually becomes California law, other states could follow suit. Let this be a wake-up call for all concerned.

2006-05-01T14:27:00.000-07:00

Economy carries momentum into the 2nd quarter. More good economic news, after last week's announcement that the economy grew at a strong rate of 4.8% in the first quarter. Strong economic activity has continued into the current quarter. Numbers for the month of April show that manufacturing activity is up, construction spending is at a record high, and consumer spending increased despite high energy prices. Inflation is a concern, but it is far less severe than some have predicted it would be. Here is the AP story:

http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?section=news&feed=ap&src=601&news_id=ap-d8hb74c81&date=20060501

Need I say it again? This is boom time, folks, and don't let liberals tell you otherwise.

2006-05-01T12:22:00.000-07:00

Rush Limbaugh's legal battle is over at last. On Friday afternoon, the conservative radio talker surrendered to authorities on a single drug charge, to which he pleads "not guilty". He was released on $3,000 bail, and the charge of "doctor shopping" will be dropped after 18 months if Limbaugh continues to be treated by the same doctor who has treated him for two-and-a-half years. Here is a Newsweek article on the story that Limbaugh himself is pleased with:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12555181/site/newsweek/

Many others in the media are naturally reporting these events in a misleading way. Many of the initial headlines said Limbaugh was "arrested" -- which must have given false hope to his liberal foes who were hoping he would be jailed. Al Franken, for one, has said he hoped to see Limbaugh do a "perp walk". Franken must surely be disappointed. The media is also pointing out that Limbaugh must submit to random drug testing, but on his radio show today, Limbaugh said he has already been subject to such tests for two years, and that he has passed every time.

Some are insinuating that the deal that Limbaugh's attorney worked out indicates that Limbaugh is afraid of being convicted if the case had gone to trial. Who knows how that would have turned out? This case has been taking place in Palm Beach, Florida -- the home of dimpled chads. If that county's citizens are not able to vote properly, could jurors from that county be trusted to render a fair verdict?

Limbaugh has characterized the whole case as a "fishing expedition". In hindsight, it all now seems like much ado about almost nothing. A Drudge Report flashback points out that the prosecutors once claimed they had evidence that Limbaugh committed at least ten felonies, and that he had obtained up to 2,000 painkillers. But now it seems that only the "doctor shopping" charge could stick, and the single charge only alleges that Limbaugh illegally obtained about 40 pills. So that's what all the commotion has been about for 2 1/2 years?

Rush Limbaugh's official site:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

2006-04-18T14:35:00.000-07:00

Rich and poor agree: Income tax unfair. Duh! A new Ipsos poll, clearly conducted to coincide with tax time, gives us this not-so-startling news. Here is an article about it:

http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060416/NEWS01/604160490/1001/news

Here is key text:

More than half of those who make less than $50,000 a year said it's unfair, and more than six in 10 of those who make more than $50,000 felt that way.

In fact, unhappiness with the tax system was spread fairly evenly across income groups, age groups and education levels.

This seems to somewhat contradict what the media was telling us five years ago, just before Bush's tax cuts were passed. We were told that polls indicated that a majority of people were opposed to tax relief. If this was true, I have to wonder what type of loaded questions were asked of the respondents. Anyway, here is the article's next paragraph:

A majority of people said the middle class, the self-employed and small businesses pay too much in taxes, the poll found. And they think those with high incomes and big businesses don't pay enough.

I knew that was coming! "Those with high incomes and big businesses don't pay enough." Are people aware of the percentages that people in those brackets have to pay in taxes? It amounts to a lot of money if you earn it! Of course, some people go through life envying people who have things that they don't, so they want the government to punish those people for daring to be well off. Those people need to think about what the world would be like without rich people or big businesses. Where would you get a job? Who would pay you your five-figure salary? Probably not a middle-class person, and certainly not a poor person. If the tax code continues to punish achievers, their incentive to achieve will be taken away, and that will hurt all of us.

Besides, raising taxes on the rich does not amount to the rest of us paying less in taxes. Also, even if the rich were taxed at 100%, it still would not pay for all of the spending that our government indulges in. And if anyone were taxed at 100%, why would they bother working ever again?

The top federal income tax rate is currently 35%. Imagine if you were taxed at that rate, in addition to all the other deductions that come out of your paycheck. Wouldn't that put a crimp in your lifestyle? If you envy the lifestyles of the wealthy, think of it this way: when rich people spend their money, we all benefit from it. Why? Because that pumps more money into our economy. More goods and services are sold, more profits are made, more jobs (and more taxpayers) are created -- and the money is generally put to better use in the private sector than it is by our wasteful government.

2006-04-17T12:34:00.000-07:00

Iraq containment would have cost nearly as much as the war. The financial cost of the war in Iraq is going into hundreds of billions, and some even estimate that it could end up surpassing a trillion. To my mind, this puts the age-old theory that the Iraq war was just a "war for oil" to bed forever. The "war for oil" theory is a simple-minded one at best, and a colossally ignorant one at worst. If all America wanted from Iraq was oil, it would have been much cheaper to simply buy it. A number of countries (France, Germany, Russia, China) had cut billion-dollar oil deals with Saddam Hussein's regime -- which, I believe, is the reason those countries opposed the war. If all Saddam wanted for oil was a billion, or even several billion, it would have been much cheaper and easier for the U.S. to buy it from him than to invade and occupy his country. Besides, the price of oil has certainly not declined since Saddam was removed from power -- it has increased! As I write this, a barrel of oil is topping $70. This would certainly not be the case if the U.S. was raiding and plundering the oil supply of Iraq.

Although the monetary costs of the Iraq war and reconstruction may be astronomical, economists at the University Of Chicago estimate that the costs of continuing containment would have been nearly the same. And, in my view, there would have been far less to show for it.

Here is the report from Newsmax:

Amid estimates that the cost of the war in Iraq could run into the trillions, some economists say the real expense could be only slightly higher than what it would have cost to merely contain Iraq instead of invading.

A study by three economists at the University of Chicago's business school - Steven Davis, Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel - gives seven scenarios for the war, and the likeliest two indicate a final cost of between $410 billion and $630 billion.

But the economists also evaluate a range of possible outcomes if the U.S. had chosen the alternative to war.

They note that even before the 9/11 attacks, the United States had 28,000 troops in the region around Iraq, as well as about 30 ships and 200 aircraft enforcing no-fly zones. These forces alone were costing $11 billion to $18 billion a year, according to a report on the study in the influential publication The Economist.

The economists estimate that, without an invasion, there was a 3 percent chance each year that the rule of Saddam Hussein or his sons would collapse.

"Given what America was spending on Iraq, the authors reckon, it would have cost at least $200 billion, in present value terms, to keep containing it until it no longer posed a threat," The Economist reports.

Furthermore, containment would have involved a few contingencies, such as the periodic need for a show of force.

The University of Chicago economists figure that there would have been a 10 percent chance every year of having to send troops to the region again to keep Saddam under control.
Under these assumptions, they "estimate that the expected cost of containment would have been around $400 billion, only a little less than the $410 billion that they now expect the war to cost," according to The Economist.

Predictions of the war's cost by the Bush administration have proved too low. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited a figure of $50 billion to $60 billion, and Bush's top economic adviser Larry Lindsey put the figure at $100 billion to $200 billion.

Now an estimate by Linda Bilmes of Harvard University and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University put the cost at an astronomical $2.24 trillion through 2015.

But The Economist points out that the Bilmes-Stiglitz estimate takes into account higher oil prices, which are only slightly dictated by the war in Iraq, and interest payments on U.S. spending in Iraq. It also includes $3 billion annually to be spent on veterans' care over the next 20 to 40 years.

A third study by Scott Wallsten and Katrina Kosec for the AEI-Brookings Joint Centre predicts that the war will eventually cost America from $540 billion to $670 billion.

2006-04-16T11:28:00.000-07:00

Happy Easter! I hope that you and your families enjoy this blessed holiday.

Today, in his first Easter mass as pontiff, Pope Benedict called on Catholics to "transform a world of violence and corruption". The longer I live, the more I understand how the teachings of Christ are the way to a better world. Christianity has always been considered "out of fashion", but it is still going strong after 2,000 years, while fads and fashions have come and gone. Christianity must, and will, remain strong despite the many attacks against it.

You've probably heard news stories about the so-called "Gospel of Judas", and you've definitely heard of the Da Vinci Code. The willingness of some people to believe in such outlandish conspiracy theories will never cease to amaze me. For now, I'll refer you to this article about the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks about these matters.

2006-04-13T10:57:00.000-07:00

Top al Qaeda militant is killed in Pakistan. Good news in the war on terror: Mohsin Musa Matawalli Atwah, one of the terror network's top bombmakers, was killed in an airstrike along with 13 other suspected militants. Here is the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12295616

I like the sound of this:

The two Pakistani security officials, based in the capital, Islamabad, told the AP that Wednesday’s operation targeted Atwah and another al-Qaida militant, identified as Abdul Rahman al-Masri, another bomb-making expert.

But a third official, who also declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, told the AP that it was likely that Abdul Rahman was one of the aliases used by Atwah. The FBI Web site also says one of Atwah’s aliases is Abdul Rahman.

So, we may have killed two targets by hitting one? Let's hope so.

2006-04-13T10:42:00.000-07:00

Ann Coulter strikes again! Godless: The Church of Liberalism is the name of her new book, in which she criticizes the libs' war on religion -- and on God. Instead of listing it under its title, Amazon.com is simply listing it as The New Ann Coulter. I smell controversy! To make her point even stronger, the book is going to be released on June 6th, which some people are placing a 6/06/06 significance upon.

The book is reportedly going to have a first printing of 500,000 copies, and Coulter is reportedly receiving the biggest advance ever for a conservative writer. You go, girl!

2006-03-24T18:47:00.000-08:00

53 Senators voted to raid the Social Security trust fund. Last week, Senators Jim DeMint and Mike Crapo introduced an amendment to prevent the current Social Security surplus from continuing to be spent. 53 Senators voted against it. Yes, you're doing the math right. Eight of them were Republicans who ought to be particularly ashamed. Townhall.com names the list of offenders:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Talent (R-MO)
Wyden (D-OR)

2006-03-17T13:52:00.000-08:00

Two more women die after using RU-486 abortion pill. This is in addition to four other women who died recently from a bacterial infection that developed after the women took the abortion pill, although the causes of death in the two new cases are not yet known for certain. Here is the Reuters story:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-03-17T193051Z_01_WAT005095_RTRUKOC_0_US-ABORTION-PILL.xml&rpc=22

2006-03-17T12:19:00.000-08:00

Two Convicted, Face Life in School Killing. Two North Philly gang members were convicted of first-degree murder for the February 2004 shooting of 10-year-old Faheem Thomas-Childs. They have been sentenced to life in prison without parole. Here is the Philadelphia Inquirer story:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/14117999.htm

Here are the ever-ugly Philadelphia murder statistics reported in the article:

While official and public anger continue to simmer, Philadelphia's homicide rate has stayed high: 328 the year Faheem was killed, 380 last year, and 62 as of yesterday, according to police, a rate that, if it continues, would see 302 murders in the city by year's end.

And the article lists the names of other children and teenagers who have been homicide victims in the two years since Faheem's death:

2004

Lamont Adams, 16
Uri Alston, 17
Tyrone Blue Jr., 16
Milton Brown, 16
Nicholas Busa, 17
Tykeem Cherry, 16
Faheem Thomas-Childs, 10
Josiah Cruz, 6 months
Kyree Cohen, 17
Adam Daniel Hammer, 17
Marquis Harris, 13
Tyrique Lovett, 15
Anthony Oliver, 14
Jalil Speaks, 16
Malik Upchurch, 15
Ramone Valentine, 16

2005

Kenneth Baptiste, 17
Audrey Bell, age unknown
Kenneth Best, 17
Jevon Chestnut, 13
Isiah Cobb, 16
Wander DeJesus, 9
Malik Edmonds, 16
Nashir Hinton, 11
Rashan Howard, 17
Terrell Johnson, 17
Richard Johnson, 17
Michael Jones, 17
Jamal Joyner, 16
Shane Pomfret, 15
Lamont Pough, 17
Troy Sampson, 17
Kareem Sephes, 16
Daniel Starling, 16

2006

Tariq Blue, 14
Agustus Favors, 15
Darnell Winn, 15

2006-03-17T11:47:00.000-08:00

Lynn Swann Tied with Rendell in Poll. A recent poll of Pennsylvania voters shows Republican challenger Lynn Swann tied with incumbent Governor Ed Rendell. Details are here:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/14/225831.shtml?s=et

Strategic Vision, LLC, an Atlanta-headquartered public relations and public affairs agency announced the results of a three-day poll of 1,200 likely voters in Pennsylvania on various political issues. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In a match-up between Governor Rendell and Republican Lynn Swann, the results were Rendell 44 percent; Swann 44 percent; and 2 percent went to "other candidate," with 10 percent undecided.

Elsewhere in this article, it mentions that Rendell's approval rating among PA voters is 43 percent, though it should be pointed out that 23 percent were undecided. A lot can happen between now and November, but if Rendell does fail to get reelected, he will be the first incumbent PA governor to meet that fate in decades.

The PA poll numbers aren't good for President Bush, either. His approval rating among PA voters is 35% according to this poll, a number that seems to mirror the reported national consensus. On the face of it, this is not surprising, considering that PA is a blue state. But David E. Johnson, CEO and co-founder of Strategic Vision, LLC, says that Bush has lost ground among conservatives in the state. Johnson says:

"The President’s poll numbers have gone down since January in Pennsylvania. Part of this loss can be attributed to the spate of bad stories that the administration has received from the Cheney hunting incident to the aborted ports deal. More alarming for the administration must be the loss of conservative Republican support...President Bush, up until last year, retained strong Republican support and was viewed as the ideological heir to Ronald Reagan. Since last summer, that support has steadily eroded ... Indeed many Republicans appear to be looking beyond the Bush administration and do not identify themselves as Bush Republicans but rather as Reagan Republicans."

If PA conservatives are indeed down on Bush, it is hopefully not because their thoughts are being influenced by the liberal media. Surely, conservatives in every state ought to be aware of the mainstream media's anti-Bush bias.

2006-03-03T19:21:00.000-08:00

Media negativity causes adult-level anxiety in children. Here is an unsurprising article in the Ottawa Sun:

http://www.ottawasun.com/Lifestyle/2006/03/02/1468946-sun.html

The article says:

"It's a very stressful time for kids to grow up." They feel threatened, vulnerable and more fearful of the future than ever before because of overexposure to pessimistic messages and images, says Mel Levine, pediatrics professor at the University of North Carolina Medical School and co-founder of All Kinds of Minds (Allkindsofminds.org).

"They're getting a warped view of the world. The media has developed a fascination with the downside of life" and it's dragging kids down too, says Levine. "There's no balanced view -- they're constantly taught to feel vulnerable instead of optimistic and excited about the future."

According to the Hospital for Sick Children psychiatrist Dr. Arlette Lefebvre, "We should let kids be kids and protect their innocence as long as possible."

I do believe this is true, and I think the constant negativity displayed by the liberal media in the last five years has had a similar effect on liberal adults in Philadelphia.

2006-03-03T18:15:00.000-08:00

Bush Didn’t Lie About Levee Breaching. Not that it's a surprise, but the latest attempt by the media and the Democrats to create a Bush scandal is nothing but liberal spin. News reports have been claiming that a videotape of a briefing to the president by disaster officials showed that Bush was informed that the New Orleans levees could be breached by Hurricane Katrina. But the tape shows no such thing. In the tape, National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield told the president that the levees might be "topped" -- which means that the storm surge could have pushed water over the top of the levees. Also, Mayfield told Bush that "the forecast now suggests that there will be minimal flooding in the City of New Orleans itself.” Here is the story:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/3/120101.shtml?s=ic

As usual, the truth is quite different than what we are being told by the mainstream media.

2006-03-03T18:12:00.000-08:00

Japan Finds Fuel Source in Cattle Dung. How about that! I wonder if this was one of the alternate sources of energy that President Bush was referring to in his State of the Union address.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/3/144314.shtml?s=ic

2006-03-03T18:02:00.000-08:00

Peanut butter kiss didn't kill teen after all. Remember the news story from November about the 15-year-old Canadian girl who supposedly died after she kissed her boyfriend, because she had a peanut allergy and he had recently eaten a peanut butter sandwich? Well, a Quebec coroner now says that was not the cause of the girl's death. He has not said yet what the cause really was, but he felt he needed to inform a Canadian allergy association that the original story was incorrect. The story is here:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11659935/?GT1=7850

2006-03-02T14:10:00.000-08:00

New partisan storm erupts over Katrina. Here we go again. A government video has been obtained and publicly released by the Associated Press, allegedly showing that President Bush was warned by federal disaster officials about the possibility of the New Orleans levees being breached by Hurricane Katrina. First of all, that's not true (see this post). But Democrats are naturally trying to spin this as proof that Bush did not care about the situation and that he did not make the proper preparations to respond to the coming disaster. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are predictably calling for a new investigation into the federal response, with Reid accusing the Bush administration of "hiding what really happened" and "systematically misleading the American people". And, of course, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and Senator Mary Landrieu (D, La.) are trying to portray this video as proof that the federal, not city or state, government was responsible for all of the failures.

This, of course, is all nonsense. Since I hate to have to cover old ground, I will refer you to two blog posts I made on this subject in September:

Mandatory evacuation was ordered for New Orleans

The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed

2006-03-01T12:51:00.000-08:00

CBS Slants Bush Poll in Favor of Democrats. The Rathergate network is busted -- again. You've probably been hearing about the CBS poll that puts the president's approval rating at 34%. But the Media Research Center points out that the poll was skewed to favor Democrats. Here is the website:

http://newsbusters.org/node/4211

It says:

On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18) it says how many Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.

"Total Republicans" contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.
"Total Democrats" contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.
"Total Independents" contacted: 337 unweighted and 348 weighted.

Brent Baker also noted how CBS failed to highlight a key portion of its poll on the Feb. 27 "CBS Evening News." 66 percent of respondents thought the media devoted "too much time" to Cheney's hunting accident.

UPDATE 12:31. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has a helpful table in this report (page 13) on what percentage of Americans consider themselves to be Republican or Democrat. It shows that in both 2004 and 2005, 30% said they were Republican compared to 33% who said they were Democrats. The new CBS poll (even after being weighted) had a population of only 28% Republicans to 37% Democrats.

This bias does not surprise me, of course. By contrast, Rasmussen Reports shows Bush job approval at 43%. This may not be a number to brag about, especially considering that it was 49% only ten days ago, but it is a big difference from the CBS number. Rasmussen polls have generally been reliable in the past, when it came to predicting election results.

2006-03-01T12:43:00.000-08:00

Cocaine Brought To Class By Second-Grader, and passed around the classroom. Here is another unsettling story about small Philadelphia children possessing drugs:

http://www.nbc10.com/news/7550102/detail.html

2006-02-16T08:43:00.000-08:00

Vice President Cheney accepts responsibility for the hunting accident. Cheney told FOX News on Wednesday that he alone is responsible for the weekend hunting accident in which he shot Austin attorney Harry Whittington. He told Brit Hume:

"Ultimately I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend, and that's something I'll never forget...The image of him falling is something I will never be able to get out my mind. It was one of the worst days of my life."

Of course, liberals continue in their efforts to exploit this unfortunate incident. They have been harping on the way the incident was reported to the press, and now they are criticizing Cheney for choosing FOX News as the forum to address the incident. CNN commentator Jack Cafferty called the interview "a little bit like Bonnie interviewing Clyde. ... I mean, running over there to the FOX network -- talk about seeking a safe haven."

I'll tell you what he means by that. FOX News is often portrayed by liberals as a conservative network that is sympathetic to Republicans. This is actually not true. The difference between FOX and other news networks is that FOX has conservative commentators as well as liberal ones. Other news networks (especially CNN) have obvious liberal bias almost across the board, give or take a token conservative or two. So, was Cheney supposed to choose a news outlet that was clearly hostile to him? Apparently, that is what liberals are saying. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D, NJ) said:

"Now that he feels forced to talk, he wants to restrict the discussion to a friendly news outlet, guaranteeing no hard questions from the press corps."

First of all, speaking to Brit Hume hardly guarantees "no hard questions". Second of all, many Democrats are known to avoid appearing on FOX News, even as they complain that the network does not feature enough Democrats. Why? Because they fear hard questions. Liberal Democrats are used to being given a free pass by liberal-biased news outlets, and they often react with hostility when they are asked probing questions. That is one of many reasons why Democrats have been losing elections.

Besides the fact that Cheney was more likely to receive fair treatment from FOX than from other networks, there is another reason why Cheney was wise to choose FOX: it is the top-rated cable news network. That is something that the more liberal networks clearly resent, and their childish outbursts aren't likely to help them.

By the way, a new Rasmussen poll indicates that only 27% of Americans believe that the recent hunting accident raises serious questions about Cheney's ability to serve as Vice President. More than twice as many, 57%, say it was "just one of those very embarrassing things that happens to all of us."

The FOX News story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184957,00.html

2006-02-16T08:07:00.000-08:00

Saddam Hussein spoke of terrorism and WMDs in tape-recorded meetings. ABC News has reported that 12 hours of tape-recorded meetings between Saddam and his top aides, recorded in the former dictator's palace in the mid-'90's, have been obtained from the U.N. On these tapes, Saddam can be heard predicting terrorist attacks on the United States, and his aides discuss the creation of biological weapons and hiding weapons of mass destruction from U.N. inspectors. Here is the story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996

According to the translation, Saddam can be heard saying:

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction...In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?"

He added that Iraq would not do such a thing. Likely story! Russian intelligence told U.S. intelligence that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Elsewhere on these tapes, Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel (who was killed by Iraqi security forces in 1996) can be heard saying that weapons of mass destruction were hidden from U.N. inspectors. He said:

"We did not reveal all that we have. Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."

Charles Duelfer, who led the official U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the war, points out that the tapes don't prove that WMDs were still hidden in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion. But he says this:

"What they do is support the conclusion in the report, which we made in the last couple of years, that the regime had the intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass destruction, when circumstances permitted."

This, my friends, is why the United States could not allow circumstances to permit such things.

2006-02-14T09:31:00.000-08:00

American actors star in anti-American propaganda film. Valley Of The Wolves - Iraq is the title of the film that opened last week in Turkey, Austria, and Germany. It is described as a Rambo-like action story about Turkish gunmen who battle evil Americans in Iraq. One character named Sam (as in "Uncle Sam") is a sociopath who kills people without a second thought and claims he is doing God's will. The character is meant to symbolize George W. Bush. He is played by American actor Billy Zane. Zane has no problem with his role in this movie. He said:

"I acted in this movie because I'm a pacifist. I'm against all kinds of war."

The movie depicts American marines as ruthless killers of Iraqis, and depicts soldiers mistreating inmates at Abu Ghraib prison. One character is a Jewish-American doctor who harvests the organs of inmates and sends the organs to the U.S., England, and Israel. This character is portrayed by American actor Gary Busey. Busey defends the film as "freedom of expression".

What's wrong with this picture? I am reminded of an e-mail that a friend sent me recently with the subject line "How Hollywood Has Changed". It's a good e-mail, and I will reprint the text of it here in case no one has sent it to you.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WW II MOVIE STARS

With the advent of World War II many of our actors went to fight rather than stand and rant against this country we all love. They gave up their wealth, position and fame to become service men & women, many as simple "enlisted men".

This page lists but a few, but from this group of only 18 men came over 70 medals in honor of their valor, spanning from Bronze Stars, Silver Stars, Distinguish Service Cross', Purple Hearts and one Congressional Medal of Honor.

Most of these brave men have since passed on.

Real Hollywood Heros

Alec Guinness (Star Wars~Bridge over the River Kwai) operated a British Royal Navy landing craft on D-Day.

James Doohan ("Scotty" on Star Trek) landed in Normandy with the U. S. Army on D-Day.

Donald Pleasance (The Great Escape) really was an R. A. F. pilot who was shot down, held prisoner and tortured by the Germans.

David Niven was a Sandhurst graduate and Lt. Colonel of the British Commandos in Normandy.

James Stewart Entered the Army Air Force as a private and worked his way to the rank of Colonel. During World War II, Stewart served as a bomber pilot, his service record crediting him with leading more than 20 missions over Germany, and taking part in hundreds of air strikes during his tour of duty. Stewart earned the Air Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross, France's Croix de Guerre,and 7 Battle Stars during World War II. In peace time, Stewart continued to be an active member of the Air Force as a reservist, reaching the rank of Brigadier General before retiring in the late 1950's.

Clark Gable (Mega-Movie Star when war broke out) Although he was beyond the draft age at the time the U.S. entered WW II Clark Gable enlisted as a private in the AAF on Aug. 12, 1942 at Los Angeles. He attended the Officers' Candidate School at Miami Beach, Fla. and graduated as a second lieutenant on Oct. 28, 1942. He then attended aerial gunnery school and in Feb. 1943 he was assigned to the 351st Bomb Group at Polebrook where he flew operational missions over Europe in B-17s. Capt. Gable returned to the U.S. in Oct. 1943 and was relieved from active duty as a major on Jun. 12, 1944 at his own request, since he was over-age for combat.

Charlton Heston was an Army Air Corps Sergeant in Kodiak.

Ernest Borgnine was a U. S. Navy Gunners Mate 1935-1945.

Charles Durning was a U. S. Army Ranger at Normandy earning a Silver Star and awarded the Purple Heart.

Charles Bronson was a tail gunner in the Army Air Corps, more specifically on B-29s in the 20th Air Force out of Guam, Tinian, and Saipan.

George C. Scott was a decorated U. S. Marine.

Eddie Albert (Green Acres TV) was awarded a Bronze Star for his heroic action as a U. S. Naval officer aiding Marines at the horrific battle on the island of Tarawa in the Pacific Nov. 1943.

Brian Keith served as a U.S. Marine rear gunner in several actions against the Japanese on Rabaul in the Pacific.

Lee Marvin was a U.S. Marine on Saipan during the Marianas campaign when he was wounded earning the Purple Heart.

John Russell: In 1942, he enlisted in the Marine Corps where he received a battlefield commission and was wounded and highly decorated for valor at Guadalcanal.

Robert Ryan was a U.S. Marine who served with the OSS in Yugoslavia.

Tyrone Power (an established movie star when Pearl Harbor was bombed) joined the US Marines, was a pilot flying supplies into, and wounded Marines out of, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Audie Murphy, little 5'5" tall 110 pound guy from Bay City, Texas who played cowboy parts?

Most decorated serviceman of WWII and earned: Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, 2 Silver Star Medals, Legion of Merit, 2 Bronze Star Medals with "V", 2 Purple Hearts, U.S. Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, 2 Distinguished Unit Emblems, American Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star, Four Bronze Service Stars (representing nine campaigns) and one Bronze Arrowhead (representing assault landing at Sicily and Southern France) World War II Victory Medal Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Combat Infantry Badge, Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar, Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar, French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre, French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier, French Croix de Guerre With Silver Star, French Croix de Guerre with Palm, Medal of Liberated France, Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm.

So how do you feel the real heroes of the silver screen acted when compared to the hollywonks today who spray out anti-American drivel as they bite the hand that feeds them?

Can you imagine these stars of yesteryear saying they hate our flag, making anti-war speeches, marching in anti-American parades and saying they hate our president?

I thought not, neither did I!

If you enjoyed the story send it on, if not delete it as we cannot always agree, and that is what is great about the USA.

BUT REMEMBER:

The e-mail ends with an image from 9/11.

2006-02-14T08:32:00.000-08:00

Batman to the rescue! According to Contactmusic.com, the superhero Batman is going to take on the al Qaeda terrorist network in an upcoming graphic novel titled Holy Terror, Batman! Writer Frank Miller says:

"It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a piece of propaganda. Batman kicks al-Qaeda's a**."

Well, good! It's nice to see that someone in the media is on the right side in the war on terror.

2006-02-14T07:48:00.000-08:00

Earth In The Balance, Book 2 -- and a movie, too! Did I miss something? Has the world been crying out for a follow-up to Al Gore's 1992 book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit? That was the book in which the then-senator and soon-to-be-vice-president argued that the planet was headed for an environmental apocalypse, and that modern technology and the American way of life were to blame. Gore's book has been widely discredited (and is very difficult to read). It is often described as a best-seller, although it reportedly sold no more than 300,000 copies (which is not considered "best-selling" by most standards).

Well, if you (like the Unabomber) are one of the book's admirers, I have great news for you. Gore's follow-up book is coming in May. It is titled An Inconvenient Truth, published by Rodale Books. Wait, there's more! Davis Guggenheim (Elisabeth Shue's husband) has directed an accompanying documentary film of the same name, featuring our beloved former vice president. It will be released May 26th by Paramount Pictures' new specialty division. It premiered (appropriately enough) at the Sundance Film Festival last month. According to the Hollywood Reporter, it "weaves the science behind the issue of global warming with the former vice president's personal history and longtime commitment to communicating the pressing need to reverse the effects of global climate change." Paramount specialty division president John Lesher calls the film "a visually mesmerizing and shocking look at the serious and dire state of our planet." He adds:

"We are very proud to help Al Gore expose the urgency of global warming to the widest possible audience."

I wouldn't count on the audience being all that wide. The only people who will be interested in this book and movie will be the fringe left. Through both media, Gore will simply be preaching to his choir.

2006-02-14T07:31:00.000-08:00

Boom time! Retail sales posted the strongest gains in six years for January. Here is the news article:

http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?section=news&feed=ap&src=601&news_id=ap-d8fov4eg0&date=20060214

Consumers, lured to the malls by unusually warm weather and eager to spend their Christmas gift cards, boosted retail sales by a much larger than expected amount in January with sales outside of autos surging at the fastest pace in six years.

The Commerce Department said Tuesday that retail sales excluding autos were up 2.2 percent in January, the best showing in this category since late 1999. With autos included, retail sales rose by 2.3 percent, the best showing in 20 months. Overall retail sales had risen by a tiny 0.4 percent in December.

The overall increase was more than double what economists had been forecasting. They attributed the strong showing in part to the mildest January in more than a century. This prompted consumers to troop to the stores to redeem the gift cards they had received in December.

This should quell the panic some people probably felt when the economy only grew by 1.1% last quarter. Make no mistake about it: this is nearly as good as the economy gets. Unemployment is down to 4.7%, inflation is happening but it's not slowing consumers down -- this is boom time, folks, and don't let the liberal media tell you otherwise.

2006-02-08T09:51:00.000-08:00

Rendell vs. Swann! Yeah, baby, yeah! It's only 2006, and here we may have the PA gubernatorial battle of the century. In case you haven't heard, former Pennsylvania Lt. Governor Bill Scranton has announced that he will not run in the primary for the PA governor's race. This clears the way for Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steeler, to receive the Republican nomination and run against incumbent Democrat governor Ed Rendell.

This will be an energetic election season. Rendell and Swann are virtually tied in recent polls, while Scranton trailed Rendell by ten points. Swann's only competition in the primary will be Jim Panyard, a Lebanon county businessman who is not seen as a strong candidate. Swann will now be able to concentrate his resources on the fight against Rendell, giving Swann the potential to actually unseat an incumbent PA governor. The Philadelphia Inquirer is likening this race to an Eagles-vs-Steelers "smackdown". (If that comparison holds, Rendell is in trouble!).

2006-02-07T14:06:00.000-08:00

Best Picture Oscar nominees didn't get much box office boost. And I am happy to report this! The movies that are currently playing in theatres were added to more venues as a result of their Oscar nods, but did not generate significant ticket sales. Here is the weekend box office report from Box Office Mojo, and the relevant paragraphs:

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2001&p=l.htm

Going into the weekend, though, the group of Best Picture nominees were collectively the least popular with audiences on record, with two barely over $50 million at announcement time last Tuesday—Crash and Brokeback Mountain. It's the second year in a row that the Academy's selections diverged wildly from the public's, and the resulting boost did little to assuage the Oscars' continued wane.

Brokeback Mountain roped 435 more theaters for a total of 2,089, but saw business drop eight percent. Ang Lee's $14 million cowboy love story gathered $6 million, taking its total to $60.1 million in 59 days.

"We've got a lot of runs that have been playing for a month, and some of these markets are over-encumbered," Foley noted of Focus' highest-grossing picture ever. "So there's a weakness in some of these theaters that are playing out. It's a function of normal attrition, despite the Academy awards stuff. It's the core markets that it's important to sustain."

Foley expects Brokeback Mountain to climb past $80 million at least and more if it wins Best Picture. "[$100 million] always necessitated a win," Foley said.

A Best Picture nomination helped Sony Pictures Classics catapult Capote into wide release for the first time. Playing at 1,239 theaters in its 19th weekend, the drama about writer Truman Capote took in a paltry $2.3 million. Under-performing relative to past Oscar pictures, the $7 million production is still hit in the realm of specialty releases, with $18 million in the till.

With Best Picture nomination in tow, Good Night, and Good Luck. broadcasted in wide release again, rallying few new patrons. George Clooney's $7 million 1950s journalism drama showed at 929 locations but drew $1.5 million, bringing its total to $26.8 million in over four months.

The final Best Picture nominee in theaters—Crash has been on DVD for five months with no theatrical re-issue scheduled—Munich was even with last weekend, despite an expansion. Steven Spielberg's $70 million drama about the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympics' Palestinian terrorist attack pulled $1.7 million from 1,151 theaters for a somber $43 million in 45 days.

Without receiving a Best Picture nomination as many expected, Walk the Line drummed up an eight percent increase over last weekend, making $3.3 million. The $28 million Johnny Cash biographical drama was already a sizable hit without the aid of Oscar, and its total stands at $110.6 million in 80 days.

2006-02-07T13:45:00.000-08:00

Ex-Flyer Rick Tocchet and NJ state trooper charged in illegal sports betting ring. The Philadelphia Inquirer has a story on this scandal involving the former Philadelphia Flyers hockey star:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/13813048.htm

New Jersey state investigators today announced they had dismantled an illegal sports betting ring they say was orchestrated by former Philadelphia Flyers star Rick Tocchet and a state trooper.

Authorities said the ring had ties to the mob, and touched on at least one Hollywood star and several professional hockey players.

Officials with the State Police and the Division of Criminal Justice said Trooper James Harney, 40, of Marlton, had been charged with official misconduct, promoting gambling, money laundering and conspiracy, for his role in a betting scheme they said operated mainly in South Jersey and Philadelphia but extended nationwide. Harney's alleged partner, Tocchet, 41, who played for the Flyers from 1984 to 1992 and from 1999 to 2002 and is now an assistant coach for the Phoenix Coyotes, also was served with a complaint summons charging him with promoting gambling, money laundering and conspiracy.

James Ulmer, 40, of Swedesboro, who investigators said helped the pair taking bets, was similarly charged. He and Tocchet could face five to 10 years in prison if convicted.

Harney, an 8-year veteran of the force stationed in Moorestown, faces a minimum of 20 years in prison, lawyers for the attorney general's office said. If convicted, Harney, who has been suspended without pay, also would never be allowed to return to a government job.

2006-02-07T13:18:00.000-08:00

Boscov's is to acquire 10 stores, 4 of them within the Philly region. Those 4 stores will be at Deptford Mall, Montgomery Mall, Oxford Valley Mall and Willow Grove Park mall. Here is the Philadelphia Inquirer story:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/13808123.htm

This shines some light on why the Reading-based department store chain closed its store at the Franklin Mills mall in Philadelphia last week. Now that there are no more Boscov's stores within Philadelphia city limits, I wonder if the company will continue to host the city's annual Thanksgiving Day parade each year. If you're wondering who will be moving in to the former Franklin Mills location, rumor has it that a fast-growing clothing company called Steve and Barry's University Sportswear will be taking over that space. Incidentally, the first Steve and Barry's store, which opened in 1985, was a collegiate apparel store at the University of Pennsylvania.

2006-02-01T10:57:00.000-08:00

Bush was shining in last night's State Of The Union address, at least for the first half of it. When Bush spoke about the war on terror, the Democrats were put in their place. The things that Democrats refused to applaud spoke volumes about who the Democrats are. When Bush said that we won't wait to get "hit again" by terrorists, the Democrats sat on their hands. When the president said that we were in the Iraq war to win, and that any decision to withdraw will be made by generals on the ground instead of politicians in Washington, the Democrats sat on their hands. When Bush stated that fewer abortions were being performed now than in the previous three decades, the Democrats sat on their hands. (So, are they really "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion"?). And when Bush criticized Congress for failing to act on social security reform, the Democrats -- loudly applauded and taunted the president! How mature! I will never be able to take Democrats seriously on the social security issue again; indeed, I'm not sure that I ever did anyway. The RNC should use that footage in Republican campaign commercials during this year's congressional election season (I'll bet Karl Rove is already working on ways to use it). When the president spoke of foreign policy, he was in top form, more relaxed than usual, yet looking like a true leader.

The second half of the speech was less impressive, as he spoke about domestic issues. His idea to research alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world sounded good, but such goals seem unlikely to be met. Many pundits are remarking that Bush is asking the Democrats to work with him in bipartisan fashion, but this is mainly political talk. The president knows full well that the Dems have no desire at all to work together; they only wish to be obstructionists without offering alternate ideas of their own. Still, this speech may make it more difficult for Democrats to convince people that Bush is a divider.

The Democratic response, delivered by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, sounded more like a campaign speech by someone seeking office. This is not surprising, since Kaine has only been Virginia's governor for about two weeks. Kaine kept repeating the statement "there is a better way", which sounds suspiciously like the Kerry-Edwards campaign slogan "help is on the way". But he always failed to mention what the "better way" was. In what has become all too typical of Democrats, Kaine claimed that Bush was doing everything wrong with "poor choices and bad management", but offered no ideas on how to improve things. For someone who is being touted as a "rising new star" in the Democratic party, Kaine sure seems like more of the same old thing to me.

Democrats seem awfully confident that they will make significant gains in Congress this year, perhaps taking back one or more houses of Congress. Historically, such things have usually happened; during a president's second term, the opposition party usually makes gains in the mid-term elections. But the most recent case was an exception. During Bill Clinton's second term, when he was plagued by the Lewinsky scandal and impending impeachment, the Republicans didn't bother campaigning on ideas, assuming that the media was beating up on Clinton so badly that Republicans were guaranteed to make gains. But it didn't work that way; Republicans lost seats in Congress instead of gaining. The same thing can happen to Democrats, if they simply think that they will make gains because the press is beating on Bush, and they fail to offer new ideas of their own. Didn't they pay attention to what happened to John Kerry?

2006-02-01T10:49:00.000-08:00

Plenty of political action at Oscars this year. Here's an article discussing the politics behind this year's Oscar nominations:

http://channels.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?id=2006013122380002916497&dt=20060131223800&w=RTR&coview=

Here's a good paragraph:

What remains to be seen is how the world -- and the bits of red state America between the coasts -- will respond to what is sure to be one of the bluest Oscarcasts in recent memory, especially with wise-cracking New York liberal Jon Stewart as host.

Personally, I live in a blue state (Pennsylvania), and I usually don't miss the Oscarcast, but I'm planning on missing it this year.

2006-01-31T11:46:00.000-08:00

Consumer Confidence Higher Than Expected. Yes, more bad news for liberals! Here are the first two paragraphs of the AP Business story:

http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?section=news&feed=ap&src=601&news_id=ap-d8ffqoh80&date=20060131

Americans became more optimistic about the economy in January, sending a widely followed measure of consumer confidence to the highest level in about three and a half years, a private research group said Tuesday.

The Conference Board said that its consumer confidence index rose to 106.3, the highest level since June 2002, when the reading was also 106.3. The latest reading was up from a revised 103.8 in December. Analysts had expected a reading of 105.0 in January.

Of course, our media prefers to report bad economic news, and that's what the rest of the article tries to do. Read it at the above link if you wish; those first two paragraphs are all I need to read.

2006-01-31T11:14:00.000-08:00

Alito is sworn in as the 110th Supreme Court justice. Samuel Alito was confirmed by the Senate in a vote that was mostly party-line. Liberals were unsuccessful in rallying for a filibuster against Alito's confirmation vote, and a much-predicted showdown was avoided. President Bush said:

"Sam Alito is a brilliant and fair-minded judge who strictly interprets the Constitution and laws and does not legislate from the bench. He is a man of deep character and integrity, and he will make all Americans proud as a justice on our highest court."

We never know how a Supreme Court justice will rule on issues until after their confirmation, but Alito seems like a solid choice. The former 3rd U.S. Circuit Court judge is predictably receiving praise from Republicans and criticism from Democrats. Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY) said:

"I must say that I wish the president was in a position to do more than claim a partisan victory tonight. The union would be better and stronger and more unified if we were confirming a different nominee, a nominee who could have united us more than divided us."

Save it, Chuck. What your party wants are liberal activists on the high court, instead of judges who rule according to the law. Now that there is one more justice on the court who is not likely to legislate from the bench, liberals are further losing their ability to push their agenda through.

2006-01-31T10:54:00.000-08:00

EarthLink Finalizes Wireless Deal in Philadelphia. This article appeared in the Associated Press yesterday:

http://www.newsday.com/technology/wire/sns-ap-wireless-philly,0,7248530.story

EarthLink Inc. has finalized a 10-year contract to provide wireless Internet service across Philadelphia, a city official said Monday.

Philadelphia was the first large city to announce plans to build a wireless Internet network and provide low-cost access to residents as a way to span the digital divide. Smaller cities already have networks in operation.

In Philadelphia, EarthLink will own the network and charge a wholesale rate of $9 a month to Internet service providers that would then resell access to the public, according to Dianah Neff, the city's chief information officer.

The contract doesn't specify the monthly rate that would be charged to consumers, but Neff said the wholesale price is low enough to enable ISPs to offer low-cost services. City officials had been trying to keep the monthly price to $20 or less.

The contract will go before the City Council for approval in February. Construction should start right after the contract is signed. EarthLink will build the network initially over a 15-square-mile area in Northeast Philadelphia to prove the system will work, Neff said. If successful, citywide access could be turned on by spring 2007.

Under the terms of the agreement, which can be renewed, Atlanta-based EarthLink will carry the cost to build the Wi-Fi network to cover 135 square miles.

EarthLink also will pay the city and Wireless Philadelphia, the nonprofit handling the project, a fee to mount equipment on city infrastructure, such as lamp posts.

2006-01-31T09:56:00.000-08:00

Have you seen the list of Oscar nominations? It's not pretty. Brokeback Mountain, a story about a gay relationship between two cowboys, got eight nominations, including Best Picture. Felicity Huffman received a best actress nomination for Transamerica, in which she portrays a man who is about to undergo a sex-change operation. Good Night and Good Luck, George Clooney's movie about Sen. Joseph McCarthy (which Clooney reportedly made in response to Ann Coulter's book Treason), received six nominations. The complete list is here:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/31/D8FFMNQ00.html

Hmmm. Does it sound to you like Hollywood has a liberal agenda? "Duh", right? I've always been something of a film buff, so I usually sit through the boring Oscar broadcast every year. But I don't think I will put myself through it this year. Something about the list of nominees gives me the feeling that there will be more Hollywood liberalism on parade during this year's ceremony than usual, and it may be more than my stomach can handle. This statement by Brokeback Mountain director Ang Lee is already making me gag:

"I didn't know there were so many gay people out there. Everywhere, they turn up. More importantly, I think I'm amazed how people everywhere have had the sensitivity to want to get into the complexity of the issue, the probability of love, the illusion of love, all those things. It's not simple things you can categorize as right or wrong."

Spare me. I have the feeling that Brokeback Mountain will be the big winner this year, for the same reason that Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby won top prize last year. Hollywood has contempt for traditional values, and giving its top honors to movies about euthanasia and gay cowboys is their way of thumbing their noses at mainstream America.

For what it's worth, my personal pick for best picture is probably Crash. I usually despise movies that preach about racism, because Hollywood practices its own brand of elite racism, and it is hypocritical for them to sermonize to us about it. Do you remember the 2002 Oscar ceremony? The two lead acting awards were won by black performers (Denzel Washington, Halle Berry), and Sidney Poitier was given a lifetime achievement award. It was clearly Hollywood's attempt to throw a bone to the black community so that blacks would stop accusing Hollywood of racism. Having said that, Crash is a well-made movie that effectively presents many different viewpoints on race relations. It is meatier and more perceptive than most modern movies.

2006-01-25T08:45:00.000-08:00

Trump proposes a 45-story waterfront condo in Philly. The Donald said on Monday that he would build a 45-story luxury condominium high-rise along the Delaware waterfront called Trump Tower Philadelphia. It would consist of at least 250 units on Penn Street near the end of Spring Garden Street. Construction would begin this summer and would be completed in mid-2008. Here is the Philadelphia Inquirer story:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/13695425.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_nation

This follows on the heels of news that Trump wants to build a casino in Philly's Nicetown section. Trump is a 1968 graduate of Wharton School who says of Philadelphia:

"I went to school here. It's a great city. I know it well."

Some people think that the interest of Trump and other world-class developers in building condos and casinos in Philadelphia shows how far the city has come. It could be a good sign for the city's future, but Philly residents shouldn't jump for joy just yet. One real estate developer who is quoted in the article questions how that particular neighborhood will be able to change to accomodate the Trump Tower and its residents. I would say this goes trebly for the Nicetown section, the crime-ridden North Philly neighborhood in which Trump hopes to build his casino. In a previous post, I questioned what Trump was thinking by choosing that area. I recently had a conversation with an elderly gentleman who said that poor neighborhoods are actually the ideal places to build casinos -- because poor people are the ones most likely to gamble, and wealthy people are far less likely. Most of us are familiar with a stereotype of rich playboys who gamble the night away in riverside palaces. Such people may exist, but they are rare, and they aren't likely to be drawn to Philadelphia if casinos are built here. Poor and lower-middle-class people are more likely to gamble in hopes that they can score a windfall. Besides, the old-timer said, wealthy people are likely to protest the building of a casino in their neighborhood, because they don't want "that kind of riffraff" coming into their area. By contrast, Nicetown residents may think Trump is doing them a favor by building a big high-profile casino in their troubled area.

But I think casinos will do more harm than good to Philadelphia, and maybe even Pennsylvania in general. I realize that "Fast Eddie" Rendell is salivating over the potential state tax revenues that casinos may generate, and that others think casinos will provide good job opportunities in areas like Nicetown or Fishtown. But gambling is an addiction, and I have troubling visions of already-impoverished Philadelphia families being impoverished further by the gambling bug. I'm not so sure that the city's future is looking as bright as some people think.

2006-01-25T08:19:00.000-08:00

51% of voters don't want Hillary for president, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The poll results indicate that 51% of registered voters "would definitely not vote" for Clinton, while just 16% said they definitely would, and 32% said they would consider it. A few more findings:

- Committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber committed pro-Hillary voters by 3-1.

- Men are especially anti-Clinton — 60 percent say there's no way they'd back her for commander-in-chief.

- 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her. This suggests that she'd have a tough time winning any red states.

- 46 percent said they would oppose Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice if she ran for President. Rice has said repeatedly that she will not run.

2006-01-21T18:27:00.000-08:00

Bin Laden "Truce" Offer Reveals Terror Network in Tatters. Richard Miniter, author of the books Disinformation , Shadow War, and Losing Bin Laden , says that the recent audiotape of Osama bin Laden reveals that the U.S. is winning the "information war" with al Qaeda, and that bin Laden is losing ground with the Muslim world. Here is the Human Events article:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=11750&o=DIB007

Here is key text:

It was not long ago that the propaganda arm of al Qaeda could easily get videotapes onto al Jazeera in hours. But the new tape played on al Jazeera took upwards of five weeks to move from bin Laden to al Jazeera.

Could al Qaeda's network be fraying? One thing is for certain: Al Qaeda's reliance on a network of human couriers to smuggle these tapes suggests fearfulness and potential apprehension.

I think it's become more apparent that bin Laden is no longer in operational control of al Qaeda. He merely serves as a mythological figure at this point, and one with diminishing power, at that. Here's more:

Bin Laden's offer of a "truce" to help rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan is actually an attempt to rebuild support among Muslim populations in those two countries, who have borne the brunt of terrorist attacks since 9/11. With Muslim opinion increasingly alienated away from bin Laden the truce and rebuilding effort is a last chance effort by bin Laden to win back the hearts and minds of his one-time Muslim supporters.

Bin Laden's threat to strike inside the United States is not as frightening as it once was. More than 600 individuals linked to Islamic terrorism have been deported from the United States since September 2001. And al Qaeda cells from the Virginia suburbs to Bly, Ore., have been dismantled or disrupted. Since 9/11, the U.S. and its allies have killed or captured more than 5,000 al Qaeda operatives in 102 countries, and more than two thirds of its senior leadership has been killed or captured over the same period.

And one more thing:

This tape explodes the myth that bin Laden died in the recent Pakistani earthquake.

This tape should caution analysts who repeatedly predict bin Laden's demise, based solely on the fact that "we haven't heard from him in a while."

Good point. But did anyone really believe Sen. Harry Reid's baseless speculation that bin Laden supposedly died in the earthquake?

2006-01-18T18:49:00.000-08:00

It gets better: at least two other al Qaeda leaders are believed dead, and one of them is al-Zawahiri's son-in-law. Here's the Reuters story:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-01-19T012818Z_01_SP13150_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PAKISTAN-QAEDA.xml&rpc=22

Pakistani intelligence sources on Thursday identified three of four al Qaeda members believed to have been killed by a U.S. airstrike last week, though they have yet to recover the bodies.

One of the dead was said to be Abdul Rehman Al-Misri al Maghribi, a son-in-law of al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri.

Another was Midhat Murfi al Sayid Omer, an expert in explosives and poisons who carried a $5 million U.S. reward on his head.

The third man named was Abu Obaidah al Misri, al Qaeda's chief of operations in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province.

2006-01-18T14:39:00.000-08:00

U.S. Strike Killed Al Qaeda Bomb Maker. ABC News reported the good news today:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986

ABC News has learned that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.

Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of three known al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit conference in the village of Damadola.

The United States had posted a $5 million reward for Mursi's capture. He is described by U.S. authorities as the man who ran al Qaeda's infamous Derunta training camp in Afghanistan, where he used dogs and other animals as subjects of experiments with poison and chemicals.

"This is extraordinarily important," said former FBI agent Jack Cloonan, an ABC News consultant, who was the senior agent on the FBI's al Qaeda squad. "He's the man who trained the shoe bomber, Richard Reid and Zacharias Mousssaoui, as well as hundreds of others."

Pakistani authorities tell ABC News they have confirmation that Mursi was among those on the guest list for the late-night meeting. The authorities say al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was also expected to attend but apparently changed his mind.

It's great to hear that an "extraordinarily important" member of al Qaeda has been taken out. It would have been even better if al-Zawahiri had been present at the "dinner" (the word which the media has used until now to describe the apparent terror conference), but we'll get him another time. Al Qaeda operatives cannot be allowed to feel safe anywhere. The media has been focusing on Pakistanis who opposed the American missile strike. No one likes to hear about innocent casualties in operations like these; there were reportedly women and children killed along with the terrorists. But this should put everyone living in a terrorist-friendly region on notice that they are in harm's way. The best thing they can do to protect themselves and their families is to avoid contact with known terrorists and, if possible, turn the terrorists in. I realize this is dangerous for them, but so is living too close to a terrorist's home or meeting place. I remember President Bush saying, in an address to the nation shortly after 9/11, that any country that "feeds" terrorists is our enemy in the war on terror. He may not have meant it literally, but this missile strike demonstrates what can happen to anyone who invites terrorists over for dinner.

2006-01-14T16:38:00.000-08:00

Elisabeth Shue is reportedly pregnant -- so what? Maybe I'm overreacting to this news story from AP Entertainment about the actress Elisabeth Shue's reported pregnancy:

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-people-shue,0,5796435.story?coll=sns-ap-entertainment-headlines

Here is what the headline says:

Elisabeth Shue Reportedly Pregnant Again

And here is the first line of the article:

Elisabeth Shue can leave Las Vegas but apparently she can't get out of the nursery.

Now, is it me, or does this opening line make it sound as if the actress is churning out children like a baby factory? But here's the next line:

Shue is pregnant with her third child, US Weekly reported Friday on its Web site, citing her manager, David Seltzer.

OK, and now we skip to the last line of the article:

She and her husband, Davis Guggenheim, have an 8-year-old son, Miles, and a 4-year-old daughter, Stella.

So, what's the big deal? Pardon my ignorance, but is it so unusual for a 42-year-old woman to have three children that were each born four years after the other, all by the same father? Apparently it is unusual in Hollywood, especially when the father of all three children is the woman's husband!

Don't get me wrong; I know why Shue's pregnancy is making headlines. News sources like Us Weekly and AP Entertainment specialize in reporting on such things as celebrity pregnancies. And it does have some relevance to the industry, because the article notes that Shue has dropped out of a Joel Schumacher film project called Number 23 because of her pregnancy. So, I understand why it is a newsworthy item within these sources.

But something about the article's tone is bugging me. The writer (presumably a Hollywood liberal) seems to think it is strange that Shue would live her life this way. Dear Sir or Madam: lots of people live like this in mainstream society (which, I realize, is often viewed with contempt by Hollywood). Of course, I think much of contemporary society places more importance on work than on family, which is a sad thing, because it used to be the other way around. People used to get jobs and build careers in order to support their families; now it seems like people build and plan their families around their careers. That goes trebly for Hollywood, where actresses have a reputation for putting off having children for the sake of their careers. I don't know how many times I have read interviews in which 40-something actresses have said that they were trying to have children before it was too late, and that they regretted not having children sooner. Well, Shue is one actress who did not make that mistake, and I applaud her for not putting her career before her family. (Maybe she doesn't want my praise -- Hollywood stars sometimes act insulted when they are praised by conservatives -- but I applaud her anyway).

I know. Maybe I read too much into these things. I'll calm down now, and let you go back to reading Us Weekly.

2006-01-07T11:51:00.000-08:00

Tom DeLay gives up his post as House Majority Leader. The story is here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180965,00.html

It's a shame that the Democrats succeeded in bringing down an effective leader. The prosecutor Ronnie Earle, who brought the indictment against DeLay in September, has a history of partisan vendettas. On September 28th, DeLay's spokesperson Kevin Madden had this to say:

"These charges have no basis in the facts or the law. This is just another example of Ronnie Earle misusing his office for partisan vendettas. Despite the clearly political agenda of this prosecutor, Congressman DeLay has cooperated with officials throughout the entire process. Even in the last two weeks, Ronnie Earle himself had acknowledged publicly that Mr. DeLay was not a target of his investigation. However, as with many of Ronnie Earle's previous partisan investigations, Ronnie Earle refused to let the facts or the law get in the way of his partisan desire to indict a political foe. This purely political investigation has been marked by illegal grand jury leaks, a fundraising speech by Ronnie Earle for Texas Democrats that inappropriately focused on the investigation, misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them. Ronnie Earle's previous misuse of his office has resulted in failed prosecutions and we trust his partisan grandstanding will strike out again, as it should. Ronnie Earle's 1994 indictment against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was quickly dismissed and his charges in the 1980s against former Attorney General Jim Mattox-another political foe of Earle-fell apart at trial. We regret the people of Texas will once again have their taxpayer dollars wasted on Ronnie Earle's pursuit of headlines and political paybacks. Ronnie Earle began this investigation in 2002, after the Democrat Party lost the Texas state legislature to Republicans. For three years and through numerous grand juries, Ronnie Earle has tried to manufacture charges against Republicans involved in winning those elections using arcane statutes never before utilized in a case in the state. This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat."

DeLay may be acquitted as well, but Earle has unfortunately succeeded in removing an effective leader from his post, if not from Congress. Hopefully the new House Majority Leader will be just as effective as the Hammer.

2006-01-07T11:36:00.000-08:00

Chronic Returners May Be 'Bulimic' Spenders. This ABC News story affirms what I believed for years while I worked in retail: some people make a constant habit of returning the items they buy, and have no intention of keeping the items. I've never been able to understand such people, but this story provides good insights:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Business/story?id=1481435

It says:

There are an estimated 15 million shopaholics in America and many of them are chronic returners. Some are driven to return the things they just bought because they feel guilty, or some make the purchase for the high and never really intend to keep the items.

Some compare it to the eating disorder bulimia — also characterized by binging and purging.

Many consider it a harmless habit, but a woman who asked to remain anonymous said she spends 20 hours a week returning items. Shopping once cost her home and 401K fund. Returning is her way of fulfilling the emotional need to spend.

"One hundred percent of the time I have regret, remorse, guilt," she said. "It can make me physically ill."

It's been estimated that one in 20 Americans struggle with compulsive shopping and 70 percent of Americans visit the mall once a week.

Dr. April Lane Benson, a psychologist who authored "I Shop, Therefore I Am," said serial returning is a well-kept secret because it carries so much embarrassment and shame.

It's "something people don't tend to talk about because the person who is the compulsive returner is often very perfectionistic and feels that they should be more in control," said Benson, a psychologist who specializes in treating compulsive shoppers.

Benson said dopamine levels rise during the anticipation of the buy and then crash afterward.

And here is something I have no trouble believing at all:

It has been estimated that retailers lose billions of dollars a year to bad returns.

Nothing personal against any "serial returners" who may be reading this, but such a habit is a burden on society as well as the individual. Such people should heed this advice offered in the news story:

Benson said people should ask themselves a few questions before they buy: Where am I? How do I feel? Do I need this? What if I wait? How will I pay? Where will I put it?

"Those questions slow you down so that you really begin to think about what you're doing and what are the consequences," she said.

2005-12-29T14:08:00.000-08:00

Trump is eyeing Nicetown for his Philly casino. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Donald Trump is aiming to build a new casino in the Nicetown section of the city, at the site of the former Budd Co. factory. However, Trump faces competition from other gambling companies that are vying for slots licenses in the Philadelphia area. The story is here.

I wonder if Trump is aware of what type of area he is looking at. Nicetown is not a neighborhood that lives up to its name. It is a very bad neighborhood with a high rate of crime. Perhaps The Donald thinks he will be able to change it, or improve it. In any event, I hope he is prepared to hire plenty of people to work security if he does win the right to operate slots here.

Four other companies are also hoping to build casinos in Philly, and all of their prospective sites are on the waterfront. One company called Sugar House Gaming wishes to build a casino at the site of the former Jack Frost sugar refinery, which Philadelphians used to refer to as the "sugar house". Isn't it ironic?

If you have heard rumors (as I have) that Trump is eyeing a site other than Nicetown for his Philly casino, then it is probably just a rumor. I don't want to name the site that is rumored to be Trump's target, because I don't want to help perpetuate rumors that are potentially damaging. The official word is that Trump is aiming for Nicetown, and the other companies are aiming for waterfront sites.

Other related stories:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/slots/

2005-12-28T09:07:00.000-08:00

History Texts Take Up Clinton Impeachment. For those who've often wondered how history -- and history classes -- would tell the story of Bill Clinton's impeachment, this article explains how it is currently developing:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/27/D8EOJKTG0.html

In a nutshell, texts generally avoid telling the lurid details of Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, and instead focus on the relevance of Clinton's impeachment to recent history -- and I'm all for that. But one paragraph of this article makes me wonder how biased these texts are:

The impeachment is portrayed in the context of his two-term tenure, a milestone event, but not one that overshadows how Clinton handled the economy, crime and health care.

That is the only time the article mentions the "economy, crime, and health care" thing, so I'm not certain if that statement reflects the point of view of the article's author, or if it means that students are being taught in school that Clinton actually did good things in those areas. I'm afraid the latter may be the case. What did Clinton have to do with the economy, crime, and health care during his eight years in office?

The economy. The economy was strong during Bill Clinton's time in office, but it had nothing to do with Clinton's handling of the economy. The economy handled itself for those eight years. When Clinton ran for president in 1992, he told voters that America was suffering from "the worst economy in 50 years", and people who couldn't remember the '70's believed him. But it was far from true. The economy was recovering from a recession at the time, but it was a relatively short and mild one. It lasted from the fourth quarter of 1990 to the first quarter of 1991. That's two whole quarters, folks, the minimum amount of time for the definition of "recession" to fit. It was most definitely not the worst in 50 years, either; there were recessions in 1974 and 1982 that were far worse, and the years in between those were generally not boom times. At the time Clinton was making this "worst economy in 50 years" claim, the economy was already growing. The recession ended in April 1991, after the first Gulf war. Growth was slow after that, because that's the way economic cycles work. But (with the help of the liberal doom-and-gloom media), Clinton successfully convinced voters that they needed him to save them from another Great Depression. After Clinton won the election, the media suddenly began to report better economic news, and the not-yet-inaugurated governor of Arkansas took credit for it! Al Gore, Clinton's VP-to-be, claimed that the economy was growing because of "hope", because the people were now suddenly optimistic after he and Bill were elected. By the time of Clinton's inauguration in January 1993, the economy had already been in turnaround for 21 months. During that supposedly horrible year of 1992, gross domestic product grew at robust quarterly rates of 3.9% to 4.5%; during Clinton's first three years, 1993-1995, quarterly growth went up and down like a yo-yo, ranging from 0.5% to 5.5%. Growth was especially sluggish in early 1995, as the effects of Clinton's tax increase were felt. Stronger growth prevailed for the next four or five years, but it was in spite of Clinton's policies, not because of them. In fact, the so-called "Bush recession" began in the third quarter of 2000, when Clinton was still in office -- and had been for seven-and-a-half years. (You can view a GDP growth chart here).

Crime. The crime rate did decline under Clinton, but that was due mainly to the work of big city mayors and state governors. The best example is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who turned the dreaded Big Apple into one of the country's safer cities. Clinton did sign a crime bill into law in 1994, but it was little more than a pork-barrel project. Its best remembered feature was midnight basketball -- which did little more than draw gangs to the games, where they committed more crimes.

Health care. Who can forget the attempt by Bill and Hillary Clinton to put the entire American health care system (about one-seventh of the U.S. economy) under government control? Bill and Hillary portrayed it as the ultimate act of compassion that would guarantee health care coverage to all Americans. But the plan, co-written by Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner, was a socialist nightmare that would have created enough new laws to make every American's head spin. The plan was over 1,300 pages in length, but those who managed to make it past page 900 discovered a little plan to make it illegal for people to choose their own doctors. Every American citizen would have been assigned to a mandatory government health alliance, and if you went to any other health alliance for your needs, there was a mandatory 15-year prison sentence to serve as punishment! People get less time than that for murder! I could just imagine if people didn't catch on to these things, and the plan had gone through. Clinton would have answered the outraged critics by saying: "It was in the plan! Everyone should have read the plan!" It would have been like a scene from The Hitchhikers' Guide To The Galaxy. When the American people did catch on to what was being snuck past them, the plan died a much-deserved death. In the 1994 mid-term elections, Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Many pundits interpreted this as the public's punishment for Clinton's health care plan. For the remaining six years of the Clinton presidency, the Clintons did little more for the health care industry than demonize it, driving down pharmaceutical stocks and taking the profit out of flu vaccines (which, of course, resulted in a shorter supply).

Man, I wish I had a hand in writing history textbooks!

2005-12-25T16:46:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas! And I do mean Merry Christmas! I'm not content to merely say "happy holidays!". And the tree in my living room is not a "holiday tree", it is a Christmas tree! What's the big deal, you ask? Many people want to remove the word "Christmas" from our language. It is derived from two words: "Christ" and "mass", two words that many people are unfortunately uncomfortable with these days. If you celebrate Hannukah, well then, happy Hannukah as well! If you are one of those fools who celebrates Kwanzaa, the bogus African holiday dreamed up by the leftist lunatic Ron Karenga, then I can only feel sorry for you.

The usual war on Christmas that is waged by liberals each year was as intense as ever this year, and I feel compelled to declare victory for the pro-Christmas side. There was actually a Congressional resolution in support of Christmas, and it passed overwhelmingly by a 401-22 vote. It was sponsored by JoAnn Davis (R, Va), who said this:

"Celebrating Christmas is not a violation of separation of church and state. The Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue."

This was the text of the resolution:

Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives:

(1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.

Not surprisingly, all 22 of the "representatives" who voted against this resolution were Democrats. Thanks to the folks at Newsmax.com, here are their names:

Ackerman, D-NY, 5th district
Blumenauer, D-OR, 3rd
Capps, D-CA, 23rd
Cleaver, D-MO, 5th
DeGette, D-CO, 1st
Harman, D-CA, 36th
Hastings, D-FL, 23rd
Honda, D-CA, 15th
Lee, D-CA, 9th
Lewis, D-GA, 5th
McDermott, D-WA, 7th
Miller, George, D-CA, 7th
Moore, D-WI, 4th
Moran, D-VA, 8th
Payne, D-NJ, 10th
Rush, D-IL, 1st
Schakowsky, D-IL, 9th
Scott, D-VA, 3rd
Stark, D-CA, 13th
Wasserman Schultz, D-FL, 20th
Wexler, D-FL, 19th
Woolsey, D-CA, 6th

For once, this shameful list does not contain a single Congressman from Pennsylvania. I am so proud.

2005-12-17T09:58:00.000-08:00

Democrats are siding with the terrorists -- again. Dems have stalled the renewal of the Patriot Act with a Senate filibuster. And now they are criticizing President Bush for "eavesdropping" on terror suspects. (When I say "Democrats", that includes Arlen Specter, the in-name-only Republican senator from my state). Have they forgotten 9/11? Of course not. Liberals aren't quite that ignorant (are they?). But Democrats have lost their collective marbles now that they have been out of power for some time, and they are willing to resort to any means necessary to regain it. As a result, they are willing to side with terrorists against President Bush if it means that they can regain seats in Congress next November. But this is going to backfire on them, just as similar tactics continually have been. Most registered Democrats I know (and believe me, I know a lot of them; I live in Philadelphia) do not sympathize with terrorists. Most of them have not forgotten 9/11 (although they sometimes pretend they have, depending on what type of conversation we are having). By showing more concern for so-called "privacy rights" of terror suspects than for the safety of the American citizens who elect them, Democrats are likely to alienate a big chunk of their constituency, simply so that they can shore up the far-left Michael Moore wing of their party.

You've probably heard conspiracy theories about Bush knowing about 9/11 before it happened. But let's imagine, for one moment, that he did have that knowledge. What would he have been able to do about it? Liberals would have fought tooth and nail to block any action Bush would have taken to prevent it. If they oppose efforts to fight terrorism after we were attacked, what kind of efforts would they have supported if we weren't yet attacked? Liberals have now alerted terrorists to a counter-terrorism tool. Why would they do this? The Drudge Report says that the New York Times broke the story to coincide with a book release.

This is why Ann Coulter says that liberals are guilty of treason.

2005-12-15T17:19:00.000-08:00

America's first civil-union couple are parting ways. The lesbian couple who entered into the nation's first same-sex civil union are splitting up amid allegations of violent behavior. Carolyn Conrad, who is 35, asked a court in October to end her relationship with Kathleen Peterson, who is 46. Conrad also obtained a restraining order Wednesday against Peterson, saying Peterson punched a hole in the wall during an argument and threatened to harm a friend. Here is the story:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/15/D8EGT8A80.html

The article goes on to say:

The two had been together for five years when they were legally joined in Brattleboro minutes after Vermont's civil-union law took effect on July 1, 2000. Two years ago, the couple were offering relationship advice on the gay-rights Web site.

By the end of 2004, a total of 7,549 same-sex couples had entered civil unions in Vermont, the first state to offer gay couples nearly all the rights and privileges of marriage. There have been 78 dissolutions.

Bari Shamas, a member of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, said gay relationships are prone to the same difficulties as heterosexual marriages.

"There's no proof that our relationships are any better than heterosexual relationships," Shamas said.

You can say that again! Although the institution of heterosexual marriage is suffering (the average straight marriage is now said to last 8 or 9 years), gay unions tend to have far shorter lifespans (the average gay civil union is said to last one-and-a-half years). Why bother legalizing gay marriage? It seems to me that gays only want to do this to (a) make a point, and (b) receive marriage benefits. But I believe that gay unions and the concept of gay marriage degrade and trivialize the sacred institution of marriage (as does opposite-sex co-habitation), and the consequences of this will be irreparable.

2005-12-12T17:17:00.000-08:00

The sexual revolution sweeps across China, according to an article in the UK Independent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article332352.ece

I'm hardly against the people of China having more freedoms, but this is not what I had in mind. Those of us who live in America (and are not in liberal denial) have seen the destructive consequences of a "sexual revolution". A prominent conservative commentator likes to say that America needs to export liberalism, so that other countries will be burdened with the same things that make it harder for America to compete with them. It sounds as though he's getting his wish. Apparently, a major component of liberalism has been successfully exported to the Most Favored Nation, the most populous nation, by way of Al Gore's invention -- the internet, that is. Here's a key part of the story:

The new permissiveness means that being faithful to one's partner is no longer obligatory; a March 2005 survey revealed that a third of young people in urban areas believe extra-marital affairs should be tolerated.

Professor Li, who teaches at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, has spent 10 years researching the sex lives of the Chinese, and she believes China will "catch up" with the West in terms of sexual practices within 20 years.

But judging by the 50,000 people who flocked to last month's Sex and Culture festival in Guangzhou city in southern Guangdong Province to browse the latest in sex toys - 70 per cent of the world's total are made in the province - it may be sooner than that.

Yes, it certainly may be. It sounds to me like they're catching up fast. Here's more:

Some sociologists believe the policy introduced in 1979 restricting urban couples to having just one child was the spark for the sexual permissiveness. Professor Pan Suiming, of the Renmin University of China, said: "The one-child policy shattered the Confucian belief that reproduction is the only purpose of sex."

Aha! Not to endorse Confucianism, but this is a brilliant example of what can happen when an oppressive government tramples on traditional values within a country. One more paragraph I want to point out:

Unsurprisingly, this new-found sexual freedom has a negative side.

Hold on a second! Was the article describing the positive side before? Anyway, here's the rest of the negative side:

Unsurprisingly, this new-found sexual freedom has a negative side. The number of young single women having abortions has soared: 65 per cent of women terminating pregnancies in 2004 were single, compared to 25 per cent in 1999. Rates of HIV infections are growing quickest amongst the 15-to-24 age group, and the number of couples getting divorced in 2004 was 1.6 million, a 21 per cent rise on 2003. But now the genie is out of the bottle, it seems there is no turning back.

Yes, that sounds negative to me. Many people worry that China will soon be the worst enemy of the U.S., but it sounds as though the People's Republic may well be on the verge of imminent collapse.

2005-12-12T13:20:00.000-08:00

Bush spoke in Philadelphia today about Iraq. During his speech at the World Affairs Council, the president pointed out that transitions to democracy never come without paying a price. He said:

"A few blocks from here stands Independence Hall, where our Declaration of Independence was signed and our Constitution was debated.

From the perspective of more than two centuries the success of America’s democratic experiment seems almost inevitable. At the time, however, that success didn’t seem so obvious or assured.

The eight years from the end of the Revolutionary War to the election of a constitutional government were a time of disorder and upheaval.

There were uprisings, with mobs attacking courthouses and government buildings. There was a planned military coup that was defused only by the personal intervention of George Washington.
In 1783, Congress was chased from this city by angry veterans demanding back pay, and they stayed on the run for six months.

There were tensions between the mercantile North and the agricultural South that threatened to break apart our young republic.

And there were British loyalists who were opposed to independence and had to be reconciled with America’s new democracy.

Our founders faced many difficult challenges, they made mistakes, they learned from their experiences and they adjusted their approach.

Our nation’s first effort at a governing charter, the Articles of Confederation, failed. It took years of debate and compromise before we ratified our Constitution and inaugurated our first president.

It took a four-year civil war and a century of struggle after that before the promise of our Declaration was extended to all Americans.

It is important to keep this history in mind as we look at the progress of freedom and democracy in Iraq.

No nation in history has made the transition to a free society without facing challenges, setbacks and false starts.

The past 2½ years have been a period of difficult struggle in Iraq, yet they have also been a time of great hope and achievement for the Iraqi people.

Just over 2½ years ago, Iraq was in the grip of a cruel dictator who had invaded his neighbors, sponsored terrorists, pursued and used weapons of mass destruction, murdered his own people and, for more than a decade, defied the demands of the United Nations and the civilized world.

Since then, the Iraqi people have assumed sovereignty over their country, held free elections, drafted a democratic constitution and approved that constitution in a nationwide referendum.

Three days from now they go to the polls for the third time this year and choose a new government under the new constitution.

It’s a remarkable transformation for a country that has virtually no experience with democracy and which is struggling to overcome the legacy of one of the worst tyrannies the world has known.

And Iraqis achieved all this while determined enemies used violence and destruction to stop the progress.

There’s still a lot of difficult work to be done in Iraq. But thanks to the courage of the Iraqi people, the year 2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq, the history of the Middle East and the history of freedom."

When answering questions by reporters afterward, the president said that he rejects the notion that democracy is only appropriate for certain types of people. He believes that the desire for freedom is universal.

According to a new ABC News poll, 70% of Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

2005-12-03T16:47:00.000-08:00

CIA missile strike kills al-Qaida No. 3. Yes! The operational commander of al-Qaida and possibly the No. 3 official in the terrorist organization, Hamza Rabia, was killed early Thursday morning by a CIA missile attack on a safehouse in Pakistan. Here is the MSN News story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10303175/

We are winning! It's nice to hear positive news being reported about the war on terror for a change. It's actually rare that we hear news reports about U.S. operations in Afghanistan, because they have been successful! One story you may have missed, concerning U.S. military battles with the Taliban this past year, is here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1031/p01s04-wosc.html

Here's a key part:

This has been the most violent year here since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. The US Army is moving in smaller numbers to lure the Taliban out of hiding for fights they cannot win. The result: More than 1,200 enemy deaths this year, including high-level commanders.

Way to go!

2005-12-03T16:39:00.000-08:00

Here's a scary thought: an Al Sharpton TV sitcom! And it may become a reality! I kid you not, here is the unsettling AP story:

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-people,0,7601450.story?coll=sns-ap-entertainment-headlines

He's been a minister, an activist and a presidential candidate. Now Al Sharpton wants to be a sitcom star.

Sharpton told the Daily News in Saturday's editions that he is working with CBS on a pilot, tentatively named, "Al in the Family."

"It's about conflicting social and political views," Sharpton said. "There'll also be a social message."

The Democrat, who has also run for mayor of New York and the U.S. Senate, said one possible episode would have one of his TV children becoming a Republican.

"I don't know if I am a good actor or not, but I will be playing myself and I have been practicing that for 51 years," he said.

Boy, I can't wait!

2005-12-03T16:23:00.000-08:00

Philly Streets Packed With Rocky Hopefuls. Yes, it's true. Sly Stallone is making another Rocky movie (it will be the sixth), and crowds of people showed up in Philly today hoping to be cast as extras. Stallone has said that the movie will focus on an aging, widowed Rocky who is reluctant to get back in the ring but ends up doing it "just to compete, not to win." (I guess this means Talia Shire won't be in this one, trying to talk Rocky out of fighting? Except maybe as a ghost?). Here's the AP article:

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-box-rockys-extras,0,3541792.story?coll=sns-ap-entertainment-headlines

Here are two key paragraphs:

Casting director Diane Heery said filming has already started in Las Vegas and is expected to start in Philadelphia on Jan. 9 and last about four weeks. Stallone would pick many of the extras needed for scenes shot in various city locations, Heery said.

"They want the character and personality of Philadelphia," Heery said. "We're looking for the face to tell the story of Philadelphia. We're looking for real people."

Good. But I hope this movie is better than the incredibly boring Rocky V (1990), which also was filmed mainly in Philadelphia. That movie was a slight embarrassment to the city.

2005-11-28T11:18:00.000-08:00

Teen With Peanut Allergy Dies After Kiss. This story concerns me, because I have two nephews who suffer from this allergy:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-canada-deadly-kiss,0,5114574.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

SAGUENAY, Quebec -- A 15-year-old girl with a peanut allergy died after kissing her boyfriend, who had just eaten a peanut butter snack, hospital officials said Monday. Christina Desforges died in a Quebec hospital Wednesday after doctors were unable to treat her allergic reaction to the kiss the previous weekend.

Desforges, who lived in Saguenay, about 155 miles north of Quebec City, was almost immediately given a shot of adrenaline, a standard tool for treating the anaphylactic shock brought on by a peanut allergy, officials said.

An autopsy was being performed. Dr. Nina Verreault, an allergist at the Chicoutimi Hospital in Saguenay, declined to comment on the case.

The symptoms of peanut allergy can include hives, plunging blood pressure and swelling of the face and throat, which can block breathing.

Peanut allergies have been rising in recent decades. The reason remains unclear but one study found that baby creams or lotions with peanut oil may cause children to develop allergies later in life.

About 1.5 million Americans are severely allergic to even the smallest trace of peanuts and peanut allergies account for 50 to 100 deaths in the United States each year. Canadian figures were not immediately available.