Monday, February 28, 2005
Legislation Updates...
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) has reintroduced the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR800), protecting firearm manufacturers and dealers from frivolous lawsuits.
Reps. Tom Tancredo and Mark Souder are seeking broader sponsorship on a bill that would formally recognize Taiwan and essentially scrap our "One China" policy in favor of a "One China, One Taiwan" policy.
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) introduced the Financial Customer Identification Verification Improvement Act (HR815), which would prohibit the use of identification cards issued by foreign governments, including matricula consular cards, for purposes of verifying the identity of a person who wants to open an account at a U.S. financial institution.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett reintroduced HR43, to restore the celebration of George Washington's birthday to a federal holiday and effectively end "President's Day"- which the federal government never officially recognized, it should be noted.
Call your representatives and senators and let them know what YOU think.
Reps. Tom Tancredo and Mark Souder are seeking broader sponsorship on a bill that would formally recognize Taiwan and essentially scrap our "One China" policy in favor of a "One China, One Taiwan" policy.
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) introduced the Financial Customer Identification Verification Improvement Act (HR815), which would prohibit the use of identification cards issued by foreign governments, including matricula consular cards, for purposes of verifying the identity of a person who wants to open an account at a U.S. financial institution.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett reintroduced HR43, to restore the celebration of George Washington's birthday to a federal holiday and effectively end "President's Day"- which the federal government never officially recognized, it should be noted.
Call your representatives and senators and let them know what YOU think.
Our Newest Op Ed- By R.A. Hawkins
Canada Knows Best (No Ticky No Washy)
- By R.A. Hawkins
Canada has informed us that they want nothing to do with our missile defense system. They are unwilling to pay any money into it at all. But they know best don't they. In all actuality they don't need a missile defense system and we should have known better than to even ask them. They have found a different kind of a missile shield. It's working quite well for Europe right now and since Canada has such strong ties to Olde Europe they are simply following the example of the fatherland. I'm unaware as of yet of any instances of them having any anti Israel rallies. So they haven't completely rounded 'that' corner..........
Click HERE To Read On
- By R.A. Hawkins
Canada has informed us that they want nothing to do with our missile defense system. They are unwilling to pay any money into it at all. But they know best don't they. In all actuality they don't need a missile defense system and we should have known better than to even ask them. They have found a different kind of a missile shield. It's working quite well for Europe right now and since Canada has such strong ties to Olde Europe they are simply following the example of the fatherland. I'm unaware as of yet of any instances of them having any anti Israel rallies. So they haven't completely rounded 'that' corner..........
Click HERE To Read On
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Media Aiding Terrorists in Iraq!
Here is a GREAT article by a Lt. Col. in our armed forces that is saying what I have been saying for over a year; the "free" press seems to be interested in defeating the USA in Iraq.
Here are a few excerpts (CLICK ON THE TITLE TO SEE ENTIRE ARTICLE)...
World's view of Iraqi reality is distorted
By LTC Tim Ryan - Guest Columnist
All right, I've had enough.
I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.
The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.
Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight.
Here are a few excerpts (CLICK ON THE TITLE TO SEE ENTIRE ARTICLE)...
World's view of Iraqi reality is distorted
By LTC Tim Ryan - Guest Columnist
All right, I've had enough.
I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.
The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.
Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Harry Reid and cohorts - "almost a socialist"
Senator Harry Reid is trying to make a big name for himself where it concerns President Bush's judicial nominations that the Senate has been snarled with since Bush's election in 2000. Reid is just the latest in a line of Senate obstructionists who have done their level best to thwart the will of the majority of the American people. When I think of this Reid another Reed comes to mind. Speaker of the House Tom Reed from the 1880s, to be specific, who once said "We live in a world of sin and sorrow. Otherwise there would be no Democratic Party."
The current Reid is just the latest example of the left using tactics now that they decried when they were a nascent ideology at the dawn of the 20th century. The Progressives of the late 1800s and early 1900s created a novel way to look at the creation of the Constitution and, therefore, this country. It was a conspiracy theory to beat all conspiracy theories.
The biggest proponent of it was a writer (some call him an historian, but he was no such thing, in reality) named Charles Beard. The novel idea that he proposed in 1912 was that the Founding Fathers hated Democracy and had no interest in philosophy, but were just money grubbing, selfish creeps who wanted to keep the vaunted "people" in misery and poverty. He basically called all the Founders liars. He further went on to state that the Founders used the courts to force their ideas on an unwilling populace, thereby bypassing legislature and democracy. By the way, according to a Beard friend, Matthew Josephson, Charles Beard once described himself as "almost a socialist" in the early 1900s. Shocking, I know.
From that point on leftist intelligensia became fond of claiming that the establishment, the government and the country itself was illegitimate because democracy was thwarted and so it all must be destroyed because of that early deception. They patted themselves on the back that THEY were more "democratic" than Republicans at the turn of the century or any American politician since the founding.
But, do we see what Democrats and Leftist's are now doing and have been doing since FDR's days in office? That's right, hypocritically thwarting democracy by using the courts to go around the legislature as they castigated the Founders for doing. So, now we get back to why Harry Reid is obstructing Bush's judicial nominations. Now we must consider why, for the first time in US Senate history, that filibusters are being used against even lower court nominations. Now we can realize why Harry Reid and his un-democratic Democrats are so intent on trying to "screw things up" in the Senate (Reid's very words Last week). They wish to be LESS democratic. THEY wish to be sure that judges who do not toe the line of their social agenda are to be denied a place in the courts of this country.
At issue is their impotency at the ballot box. They are losing more and more offices as each decade has passed since the Reagan revolution in 1980. But, even before that they realized that their socialist leaning agenda was not something the average American would agree to. So, the courts was the balm they could spread upon their bleeding hearts. If the American people aren't smart enough to agree with the social liberals, then go around them, was and is their cry. Why not? The Founders did it, after all. And FDR did, too. And they were all successful, right?
Only the godfather of this idea that the Founders were anti-democratic created his new polemic on faulty historical analysis. His was an historical fraud of finding "proof" to fit his preconceived "almost a socialist" agenda. Nearly everything the Founder's did in the Constitutional convention was based on the voluminous reading of philosophy and history that the Founders immersed themselves in. The ideas of democracy from the classical histories to that of recent times was the Mother's milk of the Founder's creation of the Constitution as the Federalists Papers makes abundantly clear. Further more, many of the Founders had quite a few run ins with the Supreme Court and other courts themselves and they, too, grumbled about "activist judges". That very fact alone makes the lie to the very basis of the Left's reasoning for court packing.
So, there we have it. Harry Reid is just another "almost a socialist" who is trying his level best to defeat the kind of democracy that the Founders AND the American people want.
I have one request of Harry's constituents. Daschle this guy, will ya?
By Warner Todd Huston
The current Reid is just the latest example of the left using tactics now that they decried when they were a nascent ideology at the dawn of the 20th century. The Progressives of the late 1800s and early 1900s created a novel way to look at the creation of the Constitution and, therefore, this country. It was a conspiracy theory to beat all conspiracy theories.
The biggest proponent of it was a writer (some call him an historian, but he was no such thing, in reality) named Charles Beard. The novel idea that he proposed in 1912 was that the Founding Fathers hated Democracy and had no interest in philosophy, but were just money grubbing, selfish creeps who wanted to keep the vaunted "people" in misery and poverty. He basically called all the Founders liars. He further went on to state that the Founders used the courts to force their ideas on an unwilling populace, thereby bypassing legislature and democracy. By the way, according to a Beard friend, Matthew Josephson, Charles Beard once described himself as "almost a socialist" in the early 1900s. Shocking, I know.
From that point on leftist intelligensia became fond of claiming that the establishment, the government and the country itself was illegitimate because democracy was thwarted and so it all must be destroyed because of that early deception. They patted themselves on the back that THEY were more "democratic" than Republicans at the turn of the century or any American politician since the founding.
But, do we see what Democrats and Leftist's are now doing and have been doing since FDR's days in office? That's right, hypocritically thwarting democracy by using the courts to go around the legislature as they castigated the Founders for doing. So, now we get back to why Harry Reid is obstructing Bush's judicial nominations. Now we must consider why, for the first time in US Senate history, that filibusters are being used against even lower court nominations. Now we can realize why Harry Reid and his un-democratic Democrats are so intent on trying to "screw things up" in the Senate (Reid's very words Last week). They wish to be LESS democratic. THEY wish to be sure that judges who do not toe the line of their social agenda are to be denied a place in the courts of this country.
At issue is their impotency at the ballot box. They are losing more and more offices as each decade has passed since the Reagan revolution in 1980. But, even before that they realized that their socialist leaning agenda was not something the average American would agree to. So, the courts was the balm they could spread upon their bleeding hearts. If the American people aren't smart enough to agree with the social liberals, then go around them, was and is their cry. Why not? The Founders did it, after all. And FDR did, too. And they were all successful, right?
Only the godfather of this idea that the Founders were anti-democratic created his new polemic on faulty historical analysis. His was an historical fraud of finding "proof" to fit his preconceived "almost a socialist" agenda. Nearly everything the Founder's did in the Constitutional convention was based on the voluminous reading of philosophy and history that the Founders immersed themselves in. The ideas of democracy from the classical histories to that of recent times was the Mother's milk of the Founder's creation of the Constitution as the Federalists Papers makes abundantly clear. Further more, many of the Founders had quite a few run ins with the Supreme Court and other courts themselves and they, too, grumbled about "activist judges". That very fact alone makes the lie to the very basis of the Left's reasoning for court packing.
So, there we have it. Harry Reid is just another "almost a socialist" who is trying his level best to defeat the kind of democracy that the Founders AND the American people want.
I have one request of Harry's constituents. Daschle this guy, will ya?
By Warner Todd Huston
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed-By Michael M. Bates
William Rehnquist: The Lone Ranger no more
- By Michael M. Bates
Members of the Supreme Court traditionally toil in relative obscurity. Chief Justice William Rehnquist is no exception.
In the early 70s President Richard Nixon mistakenly called him "Renchburg" in a conversation. Only a few months later, Mr. Nixon, presumably now knowing the man's actual name, nominated him to the Supreme Court.
William Rehnquist has served on the court for over 30 years. More than half that time, he's been the chief justice. Still, most Americans don't know who he is, despite the substantial influence he's had on the United States and its people............
Click HERE To Read On
- By Michael M. Bates
Members of the Supreme Court traditionally toil in relative obscurity. Chief Justice William Rehnquist is no exception.
In the early 70s President Richard Nixon mistakenly called him "Renchburg" in a conversation. Only a few months later, Mr. Nixon, presumably now knowing the man's actual name, nominated him to the Supreme Court.
William Rehnquist has served on the court for over 30 years. More than half that time, he's been the chief justice. Still, most Americans don't know who he is, despite the substantial influence he's had on the United States and its people............
Click HERE To Read On
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Quick Takes-Spain votes for the EU
Well, the EeeeEwww (that's European Union, or EU, to the uninitiated) has fooled another nation into its foolishness. Spain has voted and approved further investigation into belonging to the EU.
But to show the false facade that these pernicious thieves hide behind, look at how they phrased the question put before Spanish voters:
"Do you approve the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe?"
Yeah, right. Seemingly innocent enough. Notice how this bland question doesn't inform the voters what they are in for, eh? The EU will rob all its member states to fund an unwieldy monster of a nanny state that will give free rides to france and Germany, whilst everyone else will be expected to foot the bill. So far that is its history and I don't see any reason why that should change.
But, the Spaniards have been easy to fool before, now haven't they?
But to show the false facade that these pernicious thieves hide behind, look at how they phrased the question put before Spanish voters:
"Do you approve the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe?"
Yeah, right. Seemingly innocent enough. Notice how this bland question doesn't inform the voters what they are in for, eh? The EU will rob all its member states to fund an unwieldy monster of a nanny state that will give free rides to france and Germany, whilst everyone else will be expected to foot the bill. So far that is its history and I don't see any reason why that should change.
But, the Spaniards have been easy to fool before, now haven't they?
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed- by Hans Zeiger
Two Decades
- By Hans Zeiger
It is my twentieth birthday. When I became an American two decades ago at 9:33 in the evening, Tacoma General Hospital, I was a survivor of abortion. Every child born in those days, and in the twelve years prior and in all the years since, has been a survivor. If ever birth cries were justified, mine were. I had much to mourn.........
Click HERE To Read On
- By Hans Zeiger
It is my twentieth birthday. When I became an American two decades ago at 9:33 in the evening, Tacoma General Hospital, I was a survivor of abortion. Every child born in those days, and in the twelve years prior and in all the years since, has been a survivor. If ever birth cries were justified, mine were. I had much to mourn.........
Click HERE To Read On
Our Newest Op Ed- By John T. Plecnik
After Fundraising Scandal, College Republicans Brace for Contested Election
- By John T. Plecnik
Regardless of age, we have all heard the phrase, "First Amendment Rights," bandied about. Free speech has been the rallying cry of the liberal elite since the 60s, and every time violent protesters are beaten back by police or cordoned off from a rally, the ACLU comes a calling. However, the same team of trial lawyers, rebel billionaires and Deaniacs turn a blind eye toward the abuses of their academic brethren. America's colleges and universities are anything but free speech zones. Contrary to their mantra of universal tolerance, Stalinist professors and administrators see intellectual diversity as a disease. Unpopular viewpoints, like a belief in absolute truth or the Republican Party, are actively discouraged .........
Click HERE To Read On
- By John T. Plecnik
Regardless of age, we have all heard the phrase, "First Amendment Rights," bandied about. Free speech has been the rallying cry of the liberal elite since the 60s, and every time violent protesters are beaten back by police or cordoned off from a rally, the ACLU comes a calling. However, the same team of trial lawyers, rebel billionaires and Deaniacs turn a blind eye toward the abuses of their academic brethren. America's colleges and universities are anything but free speech zones. Contrary to their mantra of universal tolerance, Stalinist professors and administrators see intellectual diversity as a disease. Unpopular viewpoints, like a belief in absolute truth or the Republican Party, are actively discouraged .........
Click HERE To Read On
Our Newest Op Ed- By Justin Darr
Keeping the Faith... At Arm's Length
- By Justin Darr
When television personality Bill Maher stated on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" that the religious suffer from a neurological disorder that "stops people from thinking," he committed a grievous sin. Not against the Christian Community that he was mocking, but against his fellow liberals. You see, the Left as their own set of "10 Commandments," and like our own, they do not want anyone seeing them in public. And, Bill Maher has broken one of the most sacred of these Commandments by being honest and articulating what he, and many other liberals think about America's Christians............
Click HERE To Read On
- By Justin Darr
When television personality Bill Maher stated on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" that the religious suffer from a neurological disorder that "stops people from thinking," he committed a grievous sin. Not against the Christian Community that he was mocking, but against his fellow liberals. You see, the Left as their own set of "10 Commandments," and like our own, they do not want anyone seeing them in public. And, Bill Maher has broken one of the most sacred of these Commandments by being honest and articulating what he, and many other liberals think about America's Christians............
Click HERE To Read On
Our Newest Op Ed- By R.A.Hawkins
Liberal Legal Plunder (Funding Black on Black Crime)
- By R.A. Hawkins
I used to work for a black guy quite a few years ago. While we worked together he and I became fairly good friends, but we haven't had much time to say much more than hello until lately. He retired a while back but has recently come back to help out, which gave us the time we needed to catch up and actually talk. He had a few people move into his neighborhood recently and the government moved them there. Now he has to move right along with all of his other neighbors. Fortunately he was planning on building another house anyway. This is of course not the case for his neighbors.........
Click HERE To Read On
- By R.A. Hawkins
I used to work for a black guy quite a few years ago. While we worked together he and I became fairly good friends, but we haven't had much time to say much more than hello until lately. He retired a while back but has recently come back to help out, which gave us the time we needed to catch up and actually talk. He had a few people move into his neighborhood recently and the government moved them there. Now he has to move right along with all of his other neighbors. Fortunately he was planning on building another house anyway. This is of course not the case for his neighbors.........
Click HERE To Read On
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Quick Takes- Legislation Notice
The latest information on the September 11th hijackers reveals that Florida police stopped ringleader Mohamed Atta not once, but twice, in the two months prior to the attacks. But because Atta was able to produce a Florida state driver's license, he was not detained. This is because Florida is one of 11 states that issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, allowing them free travel -- in Atta's case, air travel -- throughout the country. Rep. James Sensenbrenner's HR418, the "Real ID Act," aims to prohibit the issuance to illegal aliens of any form of identification usable for a federal purpose -- such as boarding a commercial aircraft.
Call your representatives and let them know how you feel!
Call your representatives and let them know how you feel!
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed-By Michael M. Bates
It's time to discourage the scoundrels
- By Michael M. Bates
Jack Paar told the joke about asking an old lady why she never voted. "It only encourages them," she explained.
During the tax season, it's a good time to point out that we have another opportunity to dishearten the scoundrels. Once you get past the personal identification information on Form 1040, the first question asked is if you want to give $3 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund...........
Click HERE To Read On
- By Michael M. Bates
Jack Paar told the joke about asking an old lady why she never voted. "It only encourages them," she explained.
During the tax season, it's a good time to point out that we have another opportunity to dishearten the scoundrels. Once you get past the personal identification information on Form 1040, the first question asked is if you want to give $3 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund...........
Click HERE To Read On
Our Newest Op Ed-By Rudy Takala
A Litany Of Hate
- By Rudy Takala
Since my article entitled "Liberals Ain't Got No Manhood" recently appeared speaking to the comments of Lt. Gen. Mattis, I've received a sizeable amount of hate mail. I've also been the subject of numerous blogs wishing me dead; one had a picture of me with a red target on my forehead. These are indeed intriguing things coming from those who make at least occasional claims to tolerance .........
Click HERE To Read On
- By Rudy Takala
Since my article entitled "Liberals Ain't Got No Manhood" recently appeared speaking to the comments of Lt. Gen. Mattis, I've received a sizeable amount of hate mail. I've also been the subject of numerous blogs wishing me dead; one had a picture of me with a red target on my forehead. These are indeed intriguing things coming from those who make at least occasional claims to tolerance .........
Click HERE To Read On
Wall Street Journal-Attacking Bloggers
Recently, in a Wall Street Opinion Journal Op Ed the Eason Jordon story ceased to be about Eason Jordon and became an attack on the Bloggers who revealed it to the public.
Wow, was this Op Ed abrupt and petulant! In the piece, they claimed they make "grown-up decisions about what is newsworthy, and what isn't" but shouldn't it go without saying that the Journal does so? I think we all realize that the journal has every right to decide what they wish to write about, don't we?
However, this piece reeks of backtracking and apologizing for their missing a huge story. It also reeks of arrogance, reading as if to say "WE know BETTER than YOU lowly readers what is news."
Apparently whomever wrote this piece does not know what is news as not only did the Journal pass this story up until AFTER it was all said and done, but quite a lot of things transpired during the Blog minted "Easongate" that the Journal totally missed.
For instance, the writer of this piece acted as if Mr. Jordon just somehow accidentally said this outrage agaisnt the military in a sort of slip of the tongue only at the Davros conference. But Jordon has been reported (and NOT by Bloggers alone) saying similar things to other foreign gatherings.
This Op Ed denouncing the Bloggers reeks of another thing. Shooting the messenger. Bloggers reveald the story, they did not create it. Eason Jordon did so with his loose talk, inability to prove his allegations, and initial desire to whistle as he walked through the graveyard hoping the ghosties wouldn't notice him!
Sorry, but the Journal is all wet on this one.
Wow, was this Op Ed abrupt and petulant! In the piece, they claimed they make "grown-up decisions about what is newsworthy, and what isn't" but shouldn't it go without saying that the Journal does so? I think we all realize that the journal has every right to decide what they wish to write about, don't we?
However, this piece reeks of backtracking and apologizing for their missing a huge story. It also reeks of arrogance, reading as if to say "WE know BETTER than YOU lowly readers what is news."
Apparently whomever wrote this piece does not know what is news as not only did the Journal pass this story up until AFTER it was all said and done, but quite a lot of things transpired during the Blog minted "Easongate" that the Journal totally missed.
For instance, the writer of this piece acted as if Mr. Jordon just somehow accidentally said this outrage agaisnt the military in a sort of slip of the tongue only at the Davros conference. But Jordon has been reported (and NOT by Bloggers alone) saying similar things to other foreign gatherings.
This Op Ed denouncing the Bloggers reeks of another thing. Shooting the messenger. Bloggers reveald the story, they did not create it. Eason Jordon did so with his loose talk, inability to prove his allegations, and initial desire to whistle as he walked through the graveyard hoping the ghosties wouldn't notice him!
Sorry, but the Journal is all wet on this one.
Monday, February 14, 2005
A Liberal That Hates Me? -A Leftist Blogger Attacks Me!
Now here is the fun of blogging. One can offer an opinion and within minutes one can find a refutation of that opinion somewhere on the web. It is quite fun, really. I have been alerted that a fellow Blogger has picked me as his latest target. Therefore, in the spirit of open debate, I enjoin the fray. Yep, this is gonna be fun.
That fellow Blogger, Kurt Nimmo, has taken exception to my latest titled "Leftist's Tacit Support of Terrorism" , in which I warn our home grown anti-Americans that they should think harder about what they say in public in this new age of a general war on terrorism.
With the title he gave his critique, right off the bat you can tell that Mr. Nimmo wants to imagine that I said something that I did not say and that I mean something which I do not mean. He called his piece "Warner Todd Huston Wants You Locked Away". What is it they say? As long as they spelled your name correctly?
In his fist paragraph, Mr. Nimmo is upset at me over what he thinks is my unexamined fealty to President George W. Bush and his "phony baloney war on terrorism." Curiously, I never mentioned the President at all so he starts out his attack with a strawman he delights in knocking down. He also makes a similar leap in logic to proclaim that I feel any lawyer that represents an accused terror suspect must, therefore, be a confidante of terrorists and must be punished. Once again, I said no such thing. I did, however, mention a lawyer who it has been proven was a participant in her client's terror activities and has now been punished and rightfully so. All quite in accordance to our laws both morally and legally.
But, I never mentioned the President, nor did I condemn all defending lawyers in such a blanket way as Mr. Nimmo submits that I did. I can see that emotionalism is going to be the order of the day. But wait, all this wailing and gnashing of teeth is just Nimmo warming to his game.
In his next paragraph, Nimmo claims that I feel that racism and sexism are the American way of life, when he notices that I use disparagingly a quote attributed to the convicted Lynne Stewart. Yet he emphasizes the wrong aspect of the quote in the context in which I was using it. Nimmo utterly ignores the section where Stewart advocates violence to achieve the ending of "sexism and racism" in the USA that Nimmo imagines I somehow want continued. Regardless of the fact that "racism and sexism" was not in any way a subject of the piece I wrote, Nimmo imagines that his capability to read my mind is complete. He conveniently ignores the fact that my Op Ed was about terrorism and that Stewart ADVOCATED terrorism within her OWN country to rid us of "racism and sexism". It is an astonishing thing for him to ignore as it would be assumed that Nimmo would excoriate me if I were to say that liberals should have violence perpetrated against them to rid us of leftism. It can only be assumed that Nimmo is FOR terrorism, if only when it is leveled against the "right" enemy.
Tsk, tsk, Mr. Nimmo. You should be warned that advocating terrorism might get you thrown out of the Liberal Clubhouse. Then again, maybe it won't.
Next up, I was accused of saying that people such as Noam Chomsky and this silly Ward Churchill fellow should stop speaking their minds for fear of being condemned to death because the convicted Stewart could possibly face such a fate in the upcoming penalty phase of her trial. But, there is no such law on the books that might condemn people to death for political tract writings of a Chomsky or the banal uttering of a Churchill nor am I suggesting we institute one.
The amusing thing he wrote in this part, though, was this: "... I said death sentence, because that is essentially what Lynne Stewart may receive. She is 65 years old and could face as much as 45 years in prison at her July 15 sentencing." To me this is curious, as it seems to assume that no one who is so decrepit and old as 65 years of age should have their crimes receive a befitting penalty just because they are that old and decrepit! One could imagine that in Mr. Nimmo's world one should wait until that untouchable age of 65 to go on that killing spree they have always dreamed of launching. After all, they are OLD, man. You can't properly punish an old person, can you?
He also quotes another attorney who is worried that the eavesdropping that the Federal government did to amass the evidence against Stewart destroys the lawyer/client relationship and will make future defense attorneys afraid to represent their client properly. This is a farce. No attorney is being told not to represent their client, but what they are being told is that they should not ASSIST their client with terrorist operations which is exactly what Stewart did. There is no serious threat to representation with the conviction of Stewart at all.
Next, I am being accused of desiring to stop anyone who is against current US policy from saying his piece. But I clearly said supporting terrorism against the USA (ala a Ward Churchill for instance) was the type of inciting to terrorism I was against. After all, I was quite against most of what Bill Clinton did in the 1990's with his foreign policy and it proves that I was right since what he did contributed to the disaster of 9/11. But, I certainly wouldn't have wanted Clinton's leftist goon squad coming down on me in the 1990's. Nor do I want to squelch leftist dissent today in a like manner.
Amusingly he casts about that discredited 100,000 Iraqi casualty figure to bolster his thin argument. Along the lines of telling the lie loud enough and long enough and it will become truth, I suppose. He also proves he has no real knowledge of what America's Founding Fathers imagined "free speech" was with this: "It is sincerely interesting how these guys turn the constitutional right to engage in free speech into fascism".
The Founders did not imagine that they were opening the door to every last citizen the "right to free speech" when they were creating the Constitutional Union. "Free speech" was a political right, not a public one as I clearly define in the original Op Ed, which he conveniently ignores. Then they defined that political right as the right of politicians to enter into debate on the issues of the day without the fear of the National Government shutting them down. We based much of our political terminology and law structures on the English Common Law with the most famous interpretation of that being written by Sir William Blackstone. Blackstone defined "free speech" to be a Parliamentary right and did not extend it to the citizenry at large. He and the Founding Fathers thought that government had every right to curtail speech for the "good of the common weal". So, Nimmo is wholly wrong to say that we have a nation based on the type of "free speech" that he imagines the Founders understood. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly shown that Government does reserve the right to quell certain kinds of "free speech".
Now, I feel comfortable ignoring his racist remarks after that and will go on to more substantive points ... well, as substantive as Nimmo gets, anyway.
His next criticism is rather convoluted and hard to follow but I will make an attempt to do so here. Nimmo somehow mistakes my admonition to home grown anti-Americans to be more careful of what they say in public to my desire to put down any manner of criticism against US foreign policy. He then makes some kind of fantastic leap that I would imagine that what a Chomsky or Churchill says might directly incite Iraqis to attack Americans to "violently resist the illegal occupation of their country." I really don't imagine that most Iraqis would or even could easily discover what Chomsky or Churchill is saying, but it doesn't take every common Iraqi dissenter against American policy to have done so for an adverse effect to occur none-the-less. Only the ideological leaders need pay attention to a Chomsky or Churchill to imagine they have the USA on the ropes, so-to-speak, and take the supporting blather of Chomsky and Churchill to heart. Chomsky and Churchill give succor to the ideological leaders of anti-Americanism and that is quite sufficient to filter down to the terrorists in the "Arab street" to assist them in their aims.
To go on, Nimmo challenges me to find where Chomsky or Churchill did give support to terrorism. Churchill's comments were widely reported, after which he upheld them instead of repudiating them. So, his perfidy is widely dispersed and I don't have to go on about it here as it is easily found. Chomsky is, of course, quite a bit more careful of what he does say in his anti-American tirades, but people like David Horowitz have amply delineated Chomsky's tacit support of anti-American activities, so my efforts would be rather unnecessary to say the least.
But, and here Nimmo goes off the deep end once again, I did say TACIT approval of terrorism. Such as when Churchill said that innocent men and women deserved what they got on 9/11. Of course one can be intellectually dishonest and claim that he didn't directly call for them to be blown up on that terrible day, but his tacit approval is no better than a direct call for such. It should be remembered, though, the very title of my original piece had the word "tacit" included right in it upfront.
By the way, Nimmo teases us with a "lastly" just before the last section above, yet drones on for another two paragraphs. The left ain't much for "truth in advertising", are they?
So, he goes on to say that he is "afraid" of the "kind of terrorists who sit in the White House and the Pentagon" in a typical placard waving, left speak for "I have nothing terribly insightful to say". But he gets right to the kind of hate speak that I was talking about in my entire Op Ed when he goes on with:
"In fact, I hope for a day when sane people in other countries-most of whom declare emphatically in polls, over and over, that they are afraid of the sociopaths in the White House, the Pentagon and Congress-put an end to the murderous madness you support."
Amazing. The left really must be terror ism supporters, then. I mean, this polemic isn't even "tacit" approval but outright advocacy of violence against our own country. This is exactly what I was talking about. The self hating desire to see some foreign country come down and destroy this evil United States of America. What a horrible wish.
His last (and this REALLY a proper "lastly" this time) outrageous paragraph is priceless, so I will dissect it section by section.
"As for the resultant economic misery and privation that will result, you can only blame yourself, Warner Todd Huston..."
Ah, you mean the kind of economic "privation" that the USA is responsible for that has raised the standard of living upon every continent of the globe? THAT economic "privation"?
"... I will not be calling for you to receive a life sentence for engaging in free speech. As scurrilous and hurtful as your speech is - as you demand imprisonment for those who dare disagree with you..."
Where did I do that again? Oh, yeah, when I gloried in the disgraced lawyer's conviction for aiding and abetting the operations of a convicted terrorist, that's where. Funny how he extends my glee at a criminal correctly punished as my desire to attack everyone who doesn't agree with me.
"...and your heroes, Bush and the Strausscons - it is protected by the Constitution, that is for as long as we cherish that document, as you obviously do not."
Ha, ha. Yeah, we evil "Strausscons". First of all I am sure that Nimmo never heard of Leo Strauss until he got his leftist talking points email and I'd guess he still doesn't know who he was or what he taught to this very day. Secondly, I have already proven he doesn't know a thing about the Constitution nor the Founders who created it. But it is highly doubtful that he does cherish the document as he claims in any case. But that is just my guess.
Lastly (and I REALLY mean it, unlike Mr. Nimmo), His Blog ends with the typical spot where readers are invited to offer their comments to what he has written. With his much ballyhooed claim that he is a great advocate of free speech, one would imagine that Mr. Nimmo is eagerly awaiting your comments. Yet this is the last segment of his entry on my piece...
"Leave a comment ... Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time."
Priceless, just priceless!!
Yep, this REALLY was fun!
By Warner Todd Huston
That fellow Blogger, Kurt Nimmo, has taken exception to my latest titled "Leftist's Tacit Support of Terrorism" , in which I warn our home grown anti-Americans that they should think harder about what they say in public in this new age of a general war on terrorism.
With the title he gave his critique, right off the bat you can tell that Mr. Nimmo wants to imagine that I said something that I did not say and that I mean something which I do not mean. He called his piece "Warner Todd Huston Wants You Locked Away". What is it they say? As long as they spelled your name correctly?
In his fist paragraph, Mr. Nimmo is upset at me over what he thinks is my unexamined fealty to President George W. Bush and his "phony baloney war on terrorism." Curiously, I never mentioned the President at all so he starts out his attack with a strawman he delights in knocking down. He also makes a similar leap in logic to proclaim that I feel any lawyer that represents an accused terror suspect must, therefore, be a confidante of terrorists and must be punished. Once again, I said no such thing. I did, however, mention a lawyer who it has been proven was a participant in her client's terror activities and has now been punished and rightfully so. All quite in accordance to our laws both morally and legally.
But, I never mentioned the President, nor did I condemn all defending lawyers in such a blanket way as Mr. Nimmo submits that I did. I can see that emotionalism is going to be the order of the day. But wait, all this wailing and gnashing of teeth is just Nimmo warming to his game.
In his next paragraph, Nimmo claims that I feel that racism and sexism are the American way of life, when he notices that I use disparagingly a quote attributed to the convicted Lynne Stewart. Yet he emphasizes the wrong aspect of the quote in the context in which I was using it. Nimmo utterly ignores the section where Stewart advocates violence to achieve the ending of "sexism and racism" in the USA that Nimmo imagines I somehow want continued. Regardless of the fact that "racism and sexism" was not in any way a subject of the piece I wrote, Nimmo imagines that his capability to read my mind is complete. He conveniently ignores the fact that my Op Ed was about terrorism and that Stewart ADVOCATED terrorism within her OWN country to rid us of "racism and sexism". It is an astonishing thing for him to ignore as it would be assumed that Nimmo would excoriate me if I were to say that liberals should have violence perpetrated against them to rid us of leftism. It can only be assumed that Nimmo is FOR terrorism, if only when it is leveled against the "right" enemy.
Tsk, tsk, Mr. Nimmo. You should be warned that advocating terrorism might get you thrown out of the Liberal Clubhouse. Then again, maybe it won't.
Next up, I was accused of saying that people such as Noam Chomsky and this silly Ward Churchill fellow should stop speaking their minds for fear of being condemned to death because the convicted Stewart could possibly face such a fate in the upcoming penalty phase of her trial. But, there is no such law on the books that might condemn people to death for political tract writings of a Chomsky or the banal uttering of a Churchill nor am I suggesting we institute one.
The amusing thing he wrote in this part, though, was this: "... I said death sentence, because that is essentially what Lynne Stewart may receive. She is 65 years old and could face as much as 45 years in prison at her July 15 sentencing." To me this is curious, as it seems to assume that no one who is so decrepit and old as 65 years of age should have their crimes receive a befitting penalty just because they are that old and decrepit! One could imagine that in Mr. Nimmo's world one should wait until that untouchable age of 65 to go on that killing spree they have always dreamed of launching. After all, they are OLD, man. You can't properly punish an old person, can you?
He also quotes another attorney who is worried that the eavesdropping that the Federal government did to amass the evidence against Stewart destroys the lawyer/client relationship and will make future defense attorneys afraid to represent their client properly. This is a farce. No attorney is being told not to represent their client, but what they are being told is that they should not ASSIST their client with terrorist operations which is exactly what Stewart did. There is no serious threat to representation with the conviction of Stewart at all.
Next, I am being accused of desiring to stop anyone who is against current US policy from saying his piece. But I clearly said supporting terrorism against the USA (ala a Ward Churchill for instance) was the type of inciting to terrorism I was against. After all, I was quite against most of what Bill Clinton did in the 1990's with his foreign policy and it proves that I was right since what he did contributed to the disaster of 9/11. But, I certainly wouldn't have wanted Clinton's leftist goon squad coming down on me in the 1990's. Nor do I want to squelch leftist dissent today in a like manner.
Amusingly he casts about that discredited 100,000 Iraqi casualty figure to bolster his thin argument. Along the lines of telling the lie loud enough and long enough and it will become truth, I suppose. He also proves he has no real knowledge of what America's Founding Fathers imagined "free speech" was with this: "It is sincerely interesting how these guys turn the constitutional right to engage in free speech into fascism".
The Founders did not imagine that they were opening the door to every last citizen the "right to free speech" when they were creating the Constitutional Union. "Free speech" was a political right, not a public one as I clearly define in the original Op Ed, which he conveniently ignores. Then they defined that political right as the right of politicians to enter into debate on the issues of the day without the fear of the National Government shutting them down. We based much of our political terminology and law structures on the English Common Law with the most famous interpretation of that being written by Sir William Blackstone. Blackstone defined "free speech" to be a Parliamentary right and did not extend it to the citizenry at large. He and the Founding Fathers thought that government had every right to curtail speech for the "good of the common weal". So, Nimmo is wholly wrong to say that we have a nation based on the type of "free speech" that he imagines the Founders understood. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly shown that Government does reserve the right to quell certain kinds of "free speech".
Now, I feel comfortable ignoring his racist remarks after that and will go on to more substantive points ... well, as substantive as Nimmo gets, anyway.
His next criticism is rather convoluted and hard to follow but I will make an attempt to do so here. Nimmo somehow mistakes my admonition to home grown anti-Americans to be more careful of what they say in public to my desire to put down any manner of criticism against US foreign policy. He then makes some kind of fantastic leap that I would imagine that what a Chomsky or Churchill says might directly incite Iraqis to attack Americans to "violently resist the illegal occupation of their country." I really don't imagine that most Iraqis would or even could easily discover what Chomsky or Churchill is saying, but it doesn't take every common Iraqi dissenter against American policy to have done so for an adverse effect to occur none-the-less. Only the ideological leaders need pay attention to a Chomsky or Churchill to imagine they have the USA on the ropes, so-to-speak, and take the supporting blather of Chomsky and Churchill to heart. Chomsky and Churchill give succor to the ideological leaders of anti-Americanism and that is quite sufficient to filter down to the terrorists in the "Arab street" to assist them in their aims.
To go on, Nimmo challenges me to find where Chomsky or Churchill did give support to terrorism. Churchill's comments were widely reported, after which he upheld them instead of repudiating them. So, his perfidy is widely dispersed and I don't have to go on about it here as it is easily found. Chomsky is, of course, quite a bit more careful of what he does say in his anti-American tirades, but people like David Horowitz have amply delineated Chomsky's tacit support of anti-American activities, so my efforts would be rather unnecessary to say the least.
But, and here Nimmo goes off the deep end once again, I did say TACIT approval of terrorism. Such as when Churchill said that innocent men and women deserved what they got on 9/11. Of course one can be intellectually dishonest and claim that he didn't directly call for them to be blown up on that terrible day, but his tacit approval is no better than a direct call for such. It should be remembered, though, the very title of my original piece had the word "tacit" included right in it upfront.
By the way, Nimmo teases us with a "lastly" just before the last section above, yet drones on for another two paragraphs. The left ain't much for "truth in advertising", are they?
So, he goes on to say that he is "afraid" of the "kind of terrorists who sit in the White House and the Pentagon" in a typical placard waving, left speak for "I have nothing terribly insightful to say". But he gets right to the kind of hate speak that I was talking about in my entire Op Ed when he goes on with:
"In fact, I hope for a day when sane people in other countries-most of whom declare emphatically in polls, over and over, that they are afraid of the sociopaths in the White House, the Pentagon and Congress-put an end to the murderous madness you support."
Amazing. The left really must be terror ism supporters, then. I mean, this polemic isn't even "tacit" approval but outright advocacy of violence against our own country. This is exactly what I was talking about. The self hating desire to see some foreign country come down and destroy this evil United States of America. What a horrible wish.
His last (and this REALLY a proper "lastly" this time) outrageous paragraph is priceless, so I will dissect it section by section.
"As for the resultant economic misery and privation that will result, you can only blame yourself, Warner Todd Huston..."
Ah, you mean the kind of economic "privation" that the USA is responsible for that has raised the standard of living upon every continent of the globe? THAT economic "privation"?
"... I will not be calling for you to receive a life sentence for engaging in free speech. As scurrilous and hurtful as your speech is - as you demand imprisonment for those who dare disagree with you..."
Where did I do that again? Oh, yeah, when I gloried in the disgraced lawyer's conviction for aiding and abetting the operations of a convicted terrorist, that's where. Funny how he extends my glee at a criminal correctly punished as my desire to attack everyone who doesn't agree with me.
"...and your heroes, Bush and the Strausscons - it is protected by the Constitution, that is for as long as we cherish that document, as you obviously do not."
Ha, ha. Yeah, we evil "Strausscons". First of all I am sure that Nimmo never heard of Leo Strauss until he got his leftist talking points email and I'd guess he still doesn't know who he was or what he taught to this very day. Secondly, I have already proven he doesn't know a thing about the Constitution nor the Founders who created it. But it is highly doubtful that he does cherish the document as he claims in any case. But that is just my guess.
Lastly (and I REALLY mean it, unlike Mr. Nimmo), His Blog ends with the typical spot where readers are invited to offer their comments to what he has written. With his much ballyhooed claim that he is a great advocate of free speech, one would imagine that Mr. Nimmo is eagerly awaiting your comments. Yet this is the last segment of his entry on my piece...
"Leave a comment ... Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time."
Priceless, just priceless!!
Yep, this REALLY was fun!
By Warner Todd Huston
Our Newest Op Ed- By Justin Darr
The War Within the War
- By Justin Darr
On March 5th, 2002, long before there was a Camp X-Ray, American Petty Officer Neil Roberts fell out of his helicopter while on an operation in Afghanistan and was promptly bludgeoned, had his throat slit from ear to ear, and was shot in the back of the head by his terrorist captors. International human rights organizations were united in one voice expressing their outrage at this flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Oh, wait, did I accidentally say "expressed outrage?" No, I meant to say "expressed serious concern." No, that is not right either. Perhaps a better term would be "noticed that it happened." Actually, that is incorrect as well. The reality of the matter is that the only thing the international human rights community has been united in expressing about the wonton slaughter and torture of not just American POW's, but civilian reporters, contractors, school children and pretty much anyone else who has the misfortune of being in their general vicinity, has been nothing............
Click HERE To Read On
- By Justin Darr
On March 5th, 2002, long before there was a Camp X-Ray, American Petty Officer Neil Roberts fell out of his helicopter while on an operation in Afghanistan and was promptly bludgeoned, had his throat slit from ear to ear, and was shot in the back of the head by his terrorist captors. International human rights organizations were united in one voice expressing their outrage at this flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Oh, wait, did I accidentally say "expressed outrage?" No, I meant to say "expressed serious concern." No, that is not right either. Perhaps a better term would be "noticed that it happened." Actually, that is incorrect as well. The reality of the matter is that the only thing the international human rights community has been united in expressing about the wonton slaughter and torture of not just American POW's, but civilian reporters, contractors, school children and pretty much anyone else who has the misfortune of being in their general vicinity, has been nothing............
Click HERE To Read On
Our Newest Op Ed- by R.A.Hawkins
Kim's IL (When Good Tin Pot Dictators Go Bad)
- By R.A. Hawkins
Actually I can't say that the leader of North Korea has suddenly gone bad. He never was any good to begin with. That was why I had such a difficult time watching Clinton let China help him cut stupid deals with him. The obvious thing has happened too. They have admitted that they have made nuclear weapons. It was about time he came clean on that one. It reminds me of the time my neighbors dog told me he had fleas. I knew better than to listen to him. That was what got Son of Sam into trouble. He was listening to his neighbor's dog, who was telling him to do some pretty rotten things. You should never listen to a neighbor's dog. Only listen to your own dog. He or she (sorry I shouldn't have brought gender into this) has a vested interest in your well-being. That isn't necessarily so with your neighbors dog. I can't help but wonder if Clinton's dog told him to cut those deals though. I suspect he was aware that he was just window dressing anyway because mose people relate to dog owners better than cat owners. It must have been some twisted revenge of some sort because I was right again. They went right on with their nuke program. It looks like Buddy was setting him up.........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
- By R.A. Hawkins
Actually I can't say that the leader of North Korea has suddenly gone bad. He never was any good to begin with. That was why I had such a difficult time watching Clinton let China help him cut stupid deals with him. The obvious thing has happened too. They have admitted that they have made nuclear weapons. It was about time he came clean on that one. It reminds me of the time my neighbors dog told me he had fleas. I knew better than to listen to him. That was what got Son of Sam into trouble. He was listening to his neighbor's dog, who was telling him to do some pretty rotten things. You should never listen to a neighbor's dog. Only listen to your own dog. He or she (sorry I shouldn't have brought gender into this) has a vested interest in your well-being. That isn't necessarily so with your neighbors dog. I can't help but wonder if Clinton's dog told him to cut those deals though. I suspect he was aware that he was just window dressing anyway because mose people relate to dog owners better than cat owners. It must have been some twisted revenge of some sort because I was right again. They went right on with their nuke program. It looks like Buddy was setting him up.........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Quick Takes- New Bills update, Washington D.C.
Representative Jeff Flake (R, Arizona) has introduced the United Nations Oil-for-Food Accountability Act. This act would withhold U.S. contributions to the UN until the President certifies that the UN is cooperating in the investigation of the "Oil-for-Food" Program.
Also California Representative Duncan Hunter has introduced the Right to Life Act. This act seeks to extend the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to include the right to life of each born and pre-born individual.
Contact your Federal Representative's office and urge them to favor these bills.
Also California Representative Duncan Hunter has introduced the Right to Life Act. This act seeks to extend the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to include the right to life of each born and pre-born individual.
Contact your Federal Representative's office and urge them to favor these bills.
Blogger's Success- CNN's Eason Jordon Quits
After taking down CBS and Dan Rather in the Bush National Guard document fiasco the Bloggers have won another round with the Main Stream Media. Several weeks ago it was reported that CNN's chief news executive, Eason Jordon, claimed that US forces were hunting down and assassinating journalists in Iraq. He claimed at a conference in Davros, Switzerland that he knew of 12 journalists killed by US soldiers. And Davros wasn't the only place Mr. Jordon has said such outrageous things.
Bloggers called for his proof. They said he simply cannot be allowed to gallivant across the Globe, harming the USA's reputation as he travels, offering no proof what so ever for his comments yet being considered an upstanding representative of CNN, and by extension, the country.
We in the Blogosphere clamored for the video tape of the conference at which Jordon gave his unsolicited comments. Curiously, the people at the World Trade Conference refused to reveal it. Bloggers speculated on how bad this looked for Jordon. We all wondered aloud, and quite loudly at that, if the tape was so damning in evidence against Mr. Jordon that they didn't want to get involved. And, save some weak disclaimers from CNN, Jordon did not respond publicly on the controversy.
Jordon did pass a memo to his coworkers at CNN trying to explain away his comments which said, in part "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise." But this seems a rather weak protest since he said the very same things he is attempting to distance himself from at other times and in other places as reported by The Guardian Newspapers in England, just for one.
In his resignation announcement, Jordon said "I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq."
However, it would seem to many that his desire to prevent the tarnishing of CNN is a day late and a dollar short. CNN is fast losing an audience as the recent numbers showed. For example, viewership of Fox News was at a 5 to 1 ratio to that of CNN's audience during President Bush's recent State of the Union speech showing CNN's weakness. It is fast becoming the CutRate News Network.
Now Eason Jordon has been toppled. A man who is responsible for passing wild eyed, anti-American conspiracy theories in foreign lands is not the kind of person who should have such a high standing position at a world wide and highly visible news network such as CNN.
So, mark another victory for the Bloggers. Well fought for a noble end.
By Warner Todd Huston
Bloggers called for his proof. They said he simply cannot be allowed to gallivant across the Globe, harming the USA's reputation as he travels, offering no proof what so ever for his comments yet being considered an upstanding representative of CNN, and by extension, the country.
We in the Blogosphere clamored for the video tape of the conference at which Jordon gave his unsolicited comments. Curiously, the people at the World Trade Conference refused to reveal it. Bloggers speculated on how bad this looked for Jordon. We all wondered aloud, and quite loudly at that, if the tape was so damning in evidence against Mr. Jordon that they didn't want to get involved. And, save some weak disclaimers from CNN, Jordon did not respond publicly on the controversy.
Jordon did pass a memo to his coworkers at CNN trying to explain away his comments which said, in part "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise." But this seems a rather weak protest since he said the very same things he is attempting to distance himself from at other times and in other places as reported by The Guardian Newspapers in England, just for one.
In his resignation announcement, Jordon said "I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq."
However, it would seem to many that his desire to prevent the tarnishing of CNN is a day late and a dollar short. CNN is fast losing an audience as the recent numbers showed. For example, viewership of Fox News was at a 5 to 1 ratio to that of CNN's audience during President Bush's recent State of the Union speech showing CNN's weakness. It is fast becoming the CutRate News Network.
Now Eason Jordon has been toppled. A man who is responsible for passing wild eyed, anti-American conspiracy theories in foreign lands is not the kind of person who should have such a high standing position at a world wide and highly visible news network such as CNN.
So, mark another victory for the Bloggers. Well fought for a noble end.
By Warner Todd Huston
Friday, February 11, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed- By Warner Todd Huston
Leftist's Tacit Support of Terrorism
- By Warner Todd Huston
February 10, was a banner day in the fight against terrorism domestically. A shot was fired over the bow of all those on the American left who support terrorism against the USA, either outright or in their secret inner souls. Liberals have been shown that at long last the courts will no longer be automatically expected to turn a deaf ear to assisting terrorists in word or deed. Lynne Stewart, attorney for WTC bombing suspect Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, has been convicted of aiding terrorists through her role as a privileged confidante of the convicted terrorist............
Click HERE for full Op Ed
- By Warner Todd Huston
February 10, was a banner day in the fight against terrorism domestically. A shot was fired over the bow of all those on the American left who support terrorism against the USA, either outright or in their secret inner souls. Liberals have been shown that at long last the courts will no longer be automatically expected to turn a deaf ear to assisting terrorists in word or deed. Lynne Stewart, attorney for WTC bombing suspect Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, has been convicted of aiding terrorists through her role as a privileged confidante of the convicted terrorist............
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed- By Rudy Takala
Liberals Ain't Got No Manhood
- By Rudy Takala
Lieutenant General James Mattis recently made comments at a forum in San Diego that are now pervading the news; he said, "It's fun to shoot some people... You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
So of course, liberals have now become frantic in their revolted outrage. As the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad, said, "We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event. These disturbing remarks are indicative of an apparent indifference to the value of human life." .........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
- By Rudy Takala
Lieutenant General James Mattis recently made comments at a forum in San Diego that are now pervading the news; he said, "It's fun to shoot some people... You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
So of course, liberals have now become frantic in their revolted outrage. As the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad, said, "We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event. These disturbing remarks are indicative of an apparent indifference to the value of human life." .........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Our Newest Op Ed- By Michael M. Bates
Finally, a modest step toward fiscal sanity
- By Michael M. Bates
On Monday President Bush unveiled his proposed budget for next year. Amid the howling, shrieking, whining, wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects, it may be tempting to overlook the question of how draconian the recommended cuts really are. The answer: Not very............
Click HERE for full Op Ed
- By Michael M. Bates
On Monday President Bush unveiled his proposed budget for next year. Amid the howling, shrieking, whining, wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects, it may be tempting to overlook the question of how draconian the recommended cuts really are. The answer: Not very............
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed - By Christian Hartsock
"It's the Values, Stupid!"
- By Christian Hartsock
It seems Republicans have been taking their recent landslide victory for granted both too much and too little. After winning 19 senate seats and reclaiming the presidency by a whopping 3.5 million margin in the largest popular vote in history, Republicans are apparently losing sight of those particular aspects of their social agenda which specifically accounted for this monumental success. Worse: the Democrats have been taking notes.
Ironically, after months of incessant weeping and gnashing of teeth, the left may have ultimately learned more from the sobering election results than the GOP even has - so much that they have begun taking noticeable steps towards reforming their image. Most recently, Hillary Clinton has been gushing over her religious faith; at least four CBS employees have either resigned or been fired; and most astonishingly, Michael Moore was last seen clean-shaven...........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
- By Christian Hartsock
It seems Republicans have been taking their recent landslide victory for granted both too much and too little. After winning 19 senate seats and reclaiming the presidency by a whopping 3.5 million margin in the largest popular vote in history, Republicans are apparently losing sight of those particular aspects of their social agenda which specifically accounted for this monumental success. Worse: the Democrats have been taking notes.
Ironically, after months of incessant weeping and gnashing of teeth, the left may have ultimately learned more from the sobering election results than the GOP even has - so much that they have begun taking noticeable steps towards reforming their image. Most recently, Hillary Clinton has been gushing over her religious faith; at least four CBS employees have either resigned or been fired; and most astonishingly, Michael Moore was last seen clean-shaven...........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Monday, February 07, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed
Scroll down for our Eason Jordon reports-
Dhimmi Wits (Both Here and There)
- By R.A. Hawkins
I never was clear about whether the Italians paid the ransom for the two Italians (Simona Pari And Simona Torretta) or if that was a bunch of hype. In all actuality it doesn't matter whether it really happened or not. The perception is that it did happen and because it is believed in that region that the Italians did pay, we now have another female Italian hostage. Some claimed that this made the Italians dhimmi, or protected. It did the exact opposite. It showed the various nutcases and criminals that crime does pay and quite handsomely too. You of course have to violate the tenets of Islam and go and pick on women, but that doesn't seem to be a problem to these people. They are just like Zarqawi. Before he decided to hang his turbine next to Osama's he was just a common criminal. He has found a way to do what he likes to do and claim he has a cause for doing it. That is always the case for any insurgency though. It always invites some of the absolute worst people into its fold.........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Dhimmi Wits (Both Here and There)
- By R.A. Hawkins
I never was clear about whether the Italians paid the ransom for the two Italians (Simona Pari And Simona Torretta) or if that was a bunch of hype. In all actuality it doesn't matter whether it really happened or not. The perception is that it did happen and because it is believed in that region that the Italians did pay, we now have another female Italian hostage. Some claimed that this made the Italians dhimmi, or protected. It did the exact opposite. It showed the various nutcases and criminals that crime does pay and quite handsomely too. You of course have to violate the tenets of Islam and go and pick on women, but that doesn't seem to be a problem to these people. They are just like Zarqawi. Before he decided to hang his turbine next to Osama's he was just a common criminal. He has found a way to do what he likes to do and claim he has a cause for doing it. That is always the case for any insurgency though. It always invites some of the absolute worst people into its fold.........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed- by John T. Plecnik
Scoll down for our Eason Jpordon Reports...
After Fundraising Scandal, College Republicans Brace for Contested Election
- By John T. Plecnik
As our nation gets used to the idea of Howard Dean serving as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, another national, political organization is looking for leadership. The College Republican National Committee (CRNC) is preparing to host elections during its 56th biennial convention in Arlington, V.A. From June 24-26, the most influential members of the College Republicans will join their elder cousins in the GOP for a massive rally and election. Every national office, from Chairman to Treasurer, is up for grabs.
For anyone foolish enough to write off the CRNC as child's play, consider the millions of dollars they've raised, their paid staff and army of volunteers. Even the White House keeps an eye on their favorite students. The elections for national office are no game, and some candidates are expected to raise thousands of dollars for their campaigns.
Ironically, all this money might be our biggest problem. While various factions jockey for position, the infamous fundraising scandal of last fall remains, pardon the pun, the elephant in the room. .........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
After Fundraising Scandal, College Republicans Brace for Contested Election
- By John T. Plecnik
As our nation gets used to the idea of Howard Dean serving as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, another national, political organization is looking for leadership. The College Republican National Committee (CRNC) is preparing to host elections during its 56th biennial convention in Arlington, V.A. From June 24-26, the most influential members of the College Republicans will join their elder cousins in the GOP for a massive rally and election. Every national office, from Chairman to Treasurer, is up for grabs.
For anyone foolish enough to write off the CRNC as child's play, consider the millions of dollars they've raised, their paid staff and army of volunteers. Even the White House keeps an eye on their favorite students. The elections for national office are no game, and some candidates are expected to raise thousands of dollars for their campaigns.
Ironically, all this money might be our biggest problem. While various factions jockey for position, the infamous fundraising scandal of last fall remains, pardon the pun, the elephant in the room. .........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Eason Jordon, Put up or Resign from CNN
Well, I have waited a bit to make this update on the CNN Eason Jordon story to see what CNN and the main stream media would do with it. It has been three days so far and the MSM (main stream media) seems to be struck dumb over it as barely a mention has been made of the story.
I feel we are seeing the stark limitations of the MSM here. Since the video or taped sounds of this comment from Eason Jordon is not being revealed by the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, the MSM is unable to make sense of the story, apparently. If no one can hear it, I suppose they imagine it was not said.
Now, we in the blogosphere can be imagined to be taking Mr. Jordon's comments out of context like the CNN email reply claims. After all, we have only one confirmation of the original report by Rony Abovitz, that being a confirmation of the report by a person who is friendly in ideology to Eason Jordon, reporter Rebecca McKinnon, who was also at the conference. We also must admit that the Bloggers can be susceptible to a certain level of "group think" (all feeding off each other and no one actually able to confirm this report) or a propensity to be over active in their own reports. This is a danger as Bloggers we must admit to and work hard to avoid.
However, that being said, there seems to be enough confirmations that this story has some validity. We also have begun to find past instances where Mr. Jordon has acted the lose cannon. He said, for instance, that US forces have been torturing journalists in Iraq. According to The Guardian newspaper from the UK, Jordon said "The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces." Apparently Jordan told this to an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal.
So now we are at a crossroads as to what we should believe in this case. Do we go down the road that believes that this story got overblown by the Blogosphere? Or do we go down the one that leads to the Bloggers being right? The one where Eason Jordon is the kind of person who is unable to keep an even temper in front of foreign audiences, the one where he lapses into denunciations of his own country with absolutely no proof what so ever for his claims? I have waited a prudent time, I believe, to arrive at the later since my first report on Wednesday, Feb. 2nd .
So where are we? We have CNN making a half hearted disclaimer after which they have left the story uninvestigated to date. We have seen several other stories proving Mr. Jordon's tendency to go off at the mouth. We have seen a lack of proof for his claims. And, more importantly, we are beginning to find out that the original report is most likely correct in its facts through a confirmation by a source also at the conference and agreeing with the tenor of Mr. Abovitz' report.
Now, I believe it is time for Eason Jordon to be called on the carpet. Mr. Jordon, we call on you to either prove your claims or resign the important position you have as CNN "news" chief. After all, the news is the job of an investigator and reporter, not a place for the next Steven King to hone his fictional prose style nor is it the place for a wile eyed conspiracy theorist or polemicist.
You have placed yourself in front of foreign audiences and claimed that the US Forces have hunted down and killed journalists. You have also claimed that US forces have kidnapped journalists and tortured them. These claims, said before foreign audiences, harm the reputation of the United States of America. But we Americans are seriously interested in justice. If you have proof that US forces have done these vile things and as many as 12 times at that, then you are under a moral obligation to reveal this truth to the US people. We WILL, as a nation, have the heads of those who ordered such horrors.
However, chances are that you are just another loud mouthed US hater that is more interested in hurting the USA and it's reputation than in finding any truth or reporting any true story. If THIS turns out to be the case, I demand, as a US citizen, that CNN fire this ignorant, destructive and borderline treasonous man.
Eason Jordon must be fired unless he can prove his allegations.
It's just that simple.
By Warner Todd Huston
I feel we are seeing the stark limitations of the MSM here. Since the video or taped sounds of this comment from Eason Jordon is not being revealed by the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, the MSM is unable to make sense of the story, apparently. If no one can hear it, I suppose they imagine it was not said.
Now, we in the blogosphere can be imagined to be taking Mr. Jordon's comments out of context like the CNN email reply claims. After all, we have only one confirmation of the original report by Rony Abovitz, that being a confirmation of the report by a person who is friendly in ideology to Eason Jordon, reporter Rebecca McKinnon, who was also at the conference. We also must admit that the Bloggers can be susceptible to a certain level of "group think" (all feeding off each other and no one actually able to confirm this report) or a propensity to be over active in their own reports. This is a danger as Bloggers we must admit to and work hard to avoid.
However, that being said, there seems to be enough confirmations that this story has some validity. We also have begun to find past instances where Mr. Jordon has acted the lose cannon. He said, for instance, that US forces have been torturing journalists in Iraq. According to The Guardian newspaper from the UK, Jordon said "The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces." Apparently Jordan told this to an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal.
So now we are at a crossroads as to what we should believe in this case. Do we go down the road that believes that this story got overblown by the Blogosphere? Or do we go down the one that leads to the Bloggers being right? The one where Eason Jordon is the kind of person who is unable to keep an even temper in front of foreign audiences, the one where he lapses into denunciations of his own country with absolutely no proof what so ever for his claims? I have waited a prudent time, I believe, to arrive at the later since my first report on Wednesday, Feb. 2nd .
So where are we? We have CNN making a half hearted disclaimer after which they have left the story uninvestigated to date. We have seen several other stories proving Mr. Jordon's tendency to go off at the mouth. We have seen a lack of proof for his claims. And, more importantly, we are beginning to find out that the original report is most likely correct in its facts through a confirmation by a source also at the conference and agreeing with the tenor of Mr. Abovitz' report.
Now, I believe it is time for Eason Jordon to be called on the carpet. Mr. Jordon, we call on you to either prove your claims or resign the important position you have as CNN "news" chief. After all, the news is the job of an investigator and reporter, not a place for the next Steven King to hone his fictional prose style nor is it the place for a wile eyed conspiracy theorist or polemicist.
You have placed yourself in front of foreign audiences and claimed that the US Forces have hunted down and killed journalists. You have also claimed that US forces have kidnapped journalists and tortured them. These claims, said before foreign audiences, harm the reputation of the United States of America. But we Americans are seriously interested in justice. If you have proof that US forces have done these vile things and as many as 12 times at that, then you are under a moral obligation to reveal this truth to the US people. We WILL, as a nation, have the heads of those who ordered such horrors.
However, chances are that you are just another loud mouthed US hater that is more interested in hurting the USA and it's reputation than in finding any truth or reporting any true story. If THIS turns out to be the case, I demand, as a US citizen, that CNN fire this ignorant, destructive and borderline treasonous man.
Eason Jordon must be fired unless he can prove his allegations.
It's just that simple.
By Warner Todd Huston
Friday, February 04, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed
Past American "Exit Strategies"
- By Warner Todd Huston
In his response to President Bush's State of the union speech Wednesday night, Senator Harry Reid called on the President to create an "exit strategy" for our involvement in Iraq. Likewise, Reid's comrades have echoed the call and have been agitating for such an announced policy since we entered Iraq. How are we going to get out, they demand? What will be the "plan"?
In considering this I tend to look back in a review of history. It is always a worthwhile endeavor to look back as it often aids us in evaluating the solutions to today's problems by looking at what we did in similar situations in the past. So, Let us go back to some of our previous great conflicts to see what we did to clarify our "exit strategies"..........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
- By Warner Todd Huston
In his response to President Bush's State of the union speech Wednesday night, Senator Harry Reid called on the President to create an "exit strategy" for our involvement in Iraq. Likewise, Reid's comrades have echoed the call and have been agitating for such an announced policy since we entered Iraq. How are we going to get out, they demand? What will be the "plan"?
In considering this I tend to look back in a review of history. It is always a worthwhile endeavor to look back as it often aids us in evaluating the solutions to today's problems by looking at what we did in similar situations in the past. So, Let us go back to some of our previous great conflicts to see what we did to clarify our "exit strategies"..........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Thursday, February 03, 2005
CNN Replies to Publius' Forum
This just in ... (Sorry, I always wanted to say that)
CNN has emailed Publius' Forum a disclaimer on the Eason Jordon story and, in the pursuit of fairness, here it is in it's entirety:
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
"Many blogs have taken Mr. Jordan's remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists. Mr. Jordan simply pointed out the facts: While the majority of journalists killed in Iraq have been slain at the hands of insurgents, the Pentagon has also noted that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. The Pentagon has apologized for those actions.
Mr. Jordan was responding to an assertion by Cong. Frank that all 63 journalist victims had been the result of "collateral damage."'
I will leave this go without further comment as things are happening fast and furious on this story with Mr. Jordon being quoted as having said many other outrageous claims in the recent past. I'd like to see where this story goes before I attempt further comment.
Warner Todd Huston
CNN has emailed Publius' Forum a disclaimer on the Eason Jordon story and, in the pursuit of fairness, here it is in it's entirety:
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
"Many blogs have taken Mr. Jordan's remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists. Mr. Jordan simply pointed out the facts: While the majority of journalists killed in Iraq have been slain at the hands of insurgents, the Pentagon has also noted that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. The Pentagon has apologized for those actions.
Mr. Jordan was responding to an assertion by Cong. Frank that all 63 journalist victims had been the result of "collateral damage."'
I will leave this go without further comment as things are happening fast and furious on this story with Mr. Jordon being quoted as having said many other outrageous claims in the recent past. I'd like to see where this story goes before I attempt further comment.
Warner Todd Huston
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
CNN's Chief News Executive a Fabricator?
I am forced to conclude that CNN's Eason Jordon lied at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland where he appeared at a public forum entitled, "Will Democracy Survive the Media?"
This discussion, moderated by David Gergen, the Director for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, also had on the panel U.S. Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut. Those in the audience were mostly journalists and quite a few Arab World Economic Forum attendees.
Rony Abovitz of The World Economic Forum Weblog was also attending and he reports that during the forum, Eason Jordon of CNN claimed that he personally knew of 12 journalists who were not only killed by US forces in Iraq, but were targeted for assassination by those US forces. Is this not shocking news? If true can you imagine the world of predatory journalism keeping such a story under the radar?
Granted, Mr. Abovitz went on to report that Mr. Jordon spent a little time backpedaling and trying to diffuse the claim. But Jordon did not disclaim the central point that he thinks US armed forces have been used to hunt down and kill journalists in Iraq, again according to Abovitz.
Now, I have to conclude that Eason Jordon is just plain lying about this claim. After all, why would the world of journalism keep such a damning story quiet? And after Jordon finally let the story out into the public why have they still let it go unnoticed? And, US media aside, by what compulsion would the rest of the world's media keep this story quiet? It can't be said that the world's media is so cowed by the US government that they would keep the story under wraps. It certainly cannot be said that foreign media outlets are so pro-USA that they would keep it quite so as not to hurt the USA's reputation in the Arab world as Jordon's claim is sure to do.
And Eason Jordon is not generally considered some wild eyed nut to journalists. From the CNN website: "Eason Jordon is executive vice president and chief news executive of CNN. He chairs the CNN Editorial Board, is a member of the CNN Executive Committee and provides strategic advice to CNN's senior management team. Jordan's global portfolio includes managing CNN's editorial relationships with international affiliates, governments and major newspapers. He oversees CNN's World Report Conference and the CNN International Professional Program. Jordan travels the world both as a CNN executive and a working journalist."
That would be the resume of a man of standing as far as journalists are concerned. Not some man pounding out conspiracy stories on a hand cranked mimeograph machine in his basement, I'd suspect.
So, how can he appear at this public forum at which people form all over the world are in attendance and make such crazy statements? It is true that the rest of the world's journalists are not now and have not taken this story up to prove or disprove it. But if this was a totally unknown story until Mr. Jordon blurted it out in Switzerland and if this bombshell story has still not been investigated by anyone in the world, much less an American journalist, we simply have to assume that Jordon was making the story up out of whole cloth. It simply must be an untruth.
A falsity.
A lie.
If it weren't every newspaper and TV reporter in the world would be all over this story. Yet Jordon's claims have been ignored. And now I am forced to revisit Jordon's status as a legitimate journalist. Maybe he is a wild eyed conspiracy nut after all?
By Warner Todd Huston
This discussion, moderated by David Gergen, the Director for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, also had on the panel U.S. Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut. Those in the audience were mostly journalists and quite a few Arab World Economic Forum attendees.
Rony Abovitz of The World Economic Forum Weblog was also attending and he reports that during the forum, Eason Jordon of CNN claimed that he personally knew of 12 journalists who were not only killed by US forces in Iraq, but were targeted for assassination by those US forces. Is this not shocking news? If true can you imagine the world of predatory journalism keeping such a story under the radar?
Granted, Mr. Abovitz went on to report that Mr. Jordon spent a little time backpedaling and trying to diffuse the claim. But Jordon did not disclaim the central point that he thinks US armed forces have been used to hunt down and kill journalists in Iraq, again according to Abovitz.
Now, I have to conclude that Eason Jordon is just plain lying about this claim. After all, why would the world of journalism keep such a damning story quiet? And after Jordon finally let the story out into the public why have they still let it go unnoticed? And, US media aside, by what compulsion would the rest of the world's media keep this story quiet? It can't be said that the world's media is so cowed by the US government that they would keep the story under wraps. It certainly cannot be said that foreign media outlets are so pro-USA that they would keep it quite so as not to hurt the USA's reputation in the Arab world as Jordon's claim is sure to do.
And Eason Jordon is not generally considered some wild eyed nut to journalists. From the CNN website: "Eason Jordon is executive vice president and chief news executive of CNN. He chairs the CNN Editorial Board, is a member of the CNN Executive Committee and provides strategic advice to CNN's senior management team. Jordan's global portfolio includes managing CNN's editorial relationships with international affiliates, governments and major newspapers. He oversees CNN's World Report Conference and the CNN International Professional Program. Jordan travels the world both as a CNN executive and a working journalist."
That would be the resume of a man of standing as far as journalists are concerned. Not some man pounding out conspiracy stories on a hand cranked mimeograph machine in his basement, I'd suspect.
So, how can he appear at this public forum at which people form all over the world are in attendance and make such crazy statements? It is true that the rest of the world's journalists are not now and have not taken this story up to prove or disprove it. But if this was a totally unknown story until Mr. Jordon blurted it out in Switzerland and if this bombshell story has still not been investigated by anyone in the world, much less an American journalist, we simply have to assume that Jordon was making the story up out of whole cloth. It simply must be an untruth.
A falsity.
A lie.
If it weren't every newspaper and TV reporter in the world would be all over this story. Yet Jordon's claims have been ignored. And now I am forced to revisit Jordon's status as a legitimate journalist. Maybe he is a wild eyed conspiracy nut after all?
By Warner Todd Huston
Newest Op Ed - Michael Bates
Tales of teenage angst still linger on
- By Michael M. Bates
Ray Peterson died last week. Over 40 years ago, Mr. Peterson gave us a memorable description of teenage tragedy in the song "Tell Laura I Love Her."...........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
- By Michael M. Bates
Ray Peterson died last week. Over 40 years ago, Mr. Peterson gave us a memorable description of teenage tragedy in the song "Tell Laura I Love Her."...........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Newest Op Ed - Greg Stewart
Ward Churchill-The Freedom of Voice
- By Greg Stewart
It does not matter, whether you are a democrat or republican, the words of Ward Churchill are/were hurtful, outlandish, inflammatory-and spiteful. But! He has the right to say them. .........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
- By Greg Stewart
It does not matter, whether you are a democrat or republican, the words of Ward Churchill are/were hurtful, outlandish, inflammatory-and spiteful. But! He has the right to say them. .........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
Nwest Op Ed - Hans Zeiger
Students vs. Professors
- By Hans Zeiger
"Marxism is dying globally," writes columnist and recent UCLA graduate Ben Shapiro. "But it's alive and kicking at America's universities." Shapiro's list of communist courses, texts, and activities in American higher education spans a chapter in his new book "Brainwashed: How America's Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth".
Students can minor in Marxist Studies at University of California Riverside. A class in "Marxist Literary Theory" is offered at Rutgers University. There is "Black Marxism" at University of California Santa Barbara, and "Taking Marx Seriously" at Amherst College. "Engaging Cuba: Uncommon Approaches to the Common Good" is a course at the Evergreen State College that glorifies Castro's Cuba for its successes in education, health care, and agricultural production. These courses are more than partial to communist theory - they are actually like Red propaganda sessions. Capitalism - along with its accompanying institutions - is roundly portrayed as the source of all greed, inequality, and evil in general. .........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
- By Hans Zeiger
"Marxism is dying globally," writes columnist and recent UCLA graduate Ben Shapiro. "But it's alive and kicking at America's universities." Shapiro's list of communist courses, texts, and activities in American higher education spans a chapter in his new book "Brainwashed: How America's Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth".
Students can minor in Marxist Studies at University of California Riverside. A class in "Marxist Literary Theory" is offered at Rutgers University. There is "Black Marxism" at University of California Santa Barbara, and "Taking Marx Seriously" at Amherst College. "Engaging Cuba: Uncommon Approaches to the Common Good" is a course at the Evergreen State College that glorifies Castro's Cuba for its successes in education, health care, and agricultural production. These courses are more than partial to communist theory - they are actually like Red propaganda sessions. Capitalism - along with its accompanying institutions - is roundly portrayed as the source of all greed, inequality, and evil in general. .........
Click HERE for full Op Ed
|
