Publius' Forum

- By Thomas E. Brewton

Between the Constitution as written and the liberal paradigm, no compromise is possible. Every concession to liberal policies entails sacrificing individual political liberty.

When people share common principles, compromise is possible. But when the founding principles of society, expressed in the Constitution, are attacked by liberal moral relativists bent upon destroying those principles, acceding to their demands is, not compromise, but surrender.


For that reason, demands by liberal media and by voters that Congress compromise and "get something done" are really demands that we continue slowly to dismantle the Constitution. The analogy is to heat yourself in the winter by tearing your house down, piece by piece, to burn in the fireplace.

The Constitution created a government of limited power for a religious and moral people. Political power was to be curbed by citizens' God-given, inalienable, natural-law individual rights to life, liberty, and private property. As the English Glorious Revolution of 1689 established, when a ruler arbitrarily contravenes those rights, he has broken the social compact and thereby forfeited his right to rule...............
Click HERE To Read On

-By Warner Todd Huston
As reported on Newsbusters by Michelle Humphrey, actor Danny Devito was on ABC's "The View" today and went into a seemingly drunken tirade against President Bush and generally acted the fool on the show.

And, as Michelle added in her update to her original entry, ABCNews issued Devito's "apology" on their website.

But, this "apology" is interesting in that ABCNews mentions all the wild statements and strange behavior by Devito on every subject except his Bush bashing. We are left wondering why it was "proper" reporting to mention Devito's seeming inebriation, his mention of partying with actor George Clooney, his slurred speech, his being bleeped, his Clinton White House story and then his "apology" to Barbra Walters.... yet not a single mention of his attack on president Bush.

Is it perhaps because ABCNews doesn't think Devito's boorish behavior was wrong when he was calling Bush names and making monkey noises in reference to the president?

I'd say it is pretty clear that ABCNews doesn't feel that Devito has anything to apologize for where it concerns his attack on president Bush.

What do you think?

By Warner Todd Huston

Has it at long last begun to occur that John F. Kennedy is fading from the perennial lists of historian's picks of the "top most influential" historical Americans? If this latest survey of Historians is any indication, it just may be.

And it is about time, too… unless you are a hero worshipping journalist like Peter S. Canellos of the Boston Globe who is calling foul in his piece this morning titled, In pantheon, whither JFK?.

The Atlantic Monthly asked 10 eminent historians to rank the 100 most influential Americans of all time, and Kennedy did not make the cut. Worse, he was named on only two ballots.

Only TWO. Gosh, this is a calamity.

Canellos goes on to reveal others on the list, a list that includes the presidents before and after JFK, and informs us why these historians didn't put JFK on the list and why the two who did, did so.

But, he also laments that these foolish historians made a huge mistake with a display of near outrage at their malfeasance.

…Now, historians seem ready to believe that Kennedy's fame was entirely a matter of style -- and of grief.

...Still, the historians may have overcorrected

...Kennedy was solidly articulate: He solicited input from a wide range of advisers and outside specialists, deftly debated various approaches, showed respect but not too much deference to the Joint Chiefs, and crafted a combination of military actions and diplomatic thrusts that completely outmaneuvered the Soviets.

…It (the Cuban Missile Crisis) was a textbook example of presidential leadership under perhaps the greatest pressure faced by any chief executive. Johnson and Nixon -- and others of Kennedy's successors -- could have learned from it.

Interesting how people such as Canellos love historians when they say Reagan was not the big deal some think, or that George W. Bush is the "worst" president in history.

But don’t go goring THEIR favorite oxen!

Granted this list is pulled from a larger pool of possible entries than the "Greatest President" lists that we usually hear about considering that a president list gives only 43 choices. But for JFK not to have made in into a top 100 list is momentous, indeed. It may just signal a shift in consideration away from the substance free hero worship inculcated in the 60’s generation and toward a more honest portrayal of his somewhat empty presidency.

JFK may count as one of America's most tragic, unfulfilled potentialities, but he most certainly cannot figure among the country's greatest individuals. In fact, he was in office for such a short time it is not a fair reading of his accomplishments to rank him as a momentous president at all.

His one major moment of crisis in office, the famed Cuban Missile Crisis, may have displayed some of his elements of leadership -- though some claim he gave too much away in the face of Soviet capitulation turning their loss into their gain and our win into a loss -- and some mention his visionary thinking on space – though, left to others to complete -- but Kennedy really had little lasting impact on the country. He did little about the Cold War, he had no part in the Civil rights battles, nor did he effect much change in foreign policy. He did have some temporary effect on the economy, but his successors quickly wiped it out.

His one true legacy seems to be the mourning the country endured upon his assassination compounded by that of his brother and Martin Luther King's.

But there is one more enduring mark that Kennedy has left amongst us. His ability to enamor journalists as Cannellos eminently displays. This is an effect that papers over his lack of achievements in comparison to others in his position for those in journalism. Those who still hang on to that gauzy feeling of "Camelot" that the press was so instrumental in mythologizing even as he was still alive, still look to his short time in office as some sort of Golden Age quite regardless of any real achievement.

Mr. Canellos gives us another example that, while the Media may ostensibly imagine themselves too smart for religion, they won’t have their religious icons attacked or besmirched… or left off of historian’s "best of" lists.

- By R.A. Hawkins

I guess if I were to try to put a title to the current geo-political occurrences I would have to call it 'Win Another One For the Gimper'. Ortega wins the election in Nicaragua and Kerry says Ortega is a changed man these days. But of course he is, Kerry. He, like the radical left in this country, has learned to not be so obvious as to what they're really up to. The left has learned that in order for us to swallow their socialist agenda they will have to smother the entire cow flop in whipped cream and even go so far as to place a nice big cherry on top. The last election has shown them that this works and with enough voters, they can make it work for them. Yummy.

But it is interesting to me how this has apparently been taken elsewhere in the world. There have been several assassinations of those critical of Putin and his way of doing things. As Putin has tightened the grip on the media in Russia, our media here is remained for the most part silent. Those who have escaped the grip of the motherland have gotten louder. The latest critic to be 'retired' was Litvinenko. It turns out that he was killed with some type of radioactive agent. I guess ex-KGB agents are about as safe as ex-Moslems, so it doesn't surprise me that Putin is shaking hands with Iran's icon of virtue and calm, Ahmadajinad, as they celebrate the arrival of the Tor-M1 missile systems in Iran. Part of what I'm saying here is that Putin is still what he always was: A radical KGB agent planning a slow takeover. He's fortunate enough to live in a country where he won't have to waste all of those rubles on whipped cream and cherries. He'll just say 'Bon apatite!' and they'll dig in like they always have.............................................
Click HERE To Read On

-By Warner Todd Huston

A man poured gasoline on himself on November 3rd and on the side of the road on Chicago's Kennedy Expressway he lit himself on fire. It caused a traffic jam, but little else. In fact, no one even knew who the suicide was for several days until a friend of his got a letter sent him by the dead man just before his final day.

And still, few cared.

It turns out this was supposed to be some kind of anti-war statement akin to a Buddhist monk's self-immolation in Saigon during Vietnam. Sadly, this protester didn't seem to know that statements don't mean very much unless someone actually hears them.

The man, an activist named Mark David "Malachi" Ritscher, left a rambling manifesto-like web page purportedly explaining his actions that does little but show his rather unbalanced mental state. As Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper put it, the web message "comes across as intelligent, passionate, bitter, angry, disoriented -- and disturbed".

3 weeks after this all happened, the AP posted a sympathetic story about "Malachi" Ritscher that makes him out to be the martyr that he so desperately wanted to be. It is filled with quotes from his admiring friends and laments about his "cause". The AP also goes to pains to make readers believe that "Malachi" Ritscher might not have been mentally disturbed in an obvious attempt to legitimize his final action.

As the AP tries its darndest to turn this man into some sort of anti-war hero, the facts reveal that he was a troubled man. It appears he was estranged from his children and other family members, could not hold a job or finish his schooling, and spent his time wandering around Chicago's music scene, a rootless, distant man. The name he went by, Malachi, wasn't even really his given name. He changed it several years ago for what ever reason, apparently never satisfied with himself.

Again to quote Richard Roeper, "...if he thought setting himself on fire and ending his life in Chicago would change anyone's mind about the war in Iraq, his last gesture on this planet was his saddest and his most futile."

In their attempt to celebrate his anti-war statement, the AP refuses to focus on the manifesto statement Mark David "Malachi" Ritscher left behind on his website. Consequently, and contrary to AP's mythologizing, we should take some time to review what it says to help us evaluate this man's last moments. (Ritscher's final statement can be found at http://www.savagesound.com/gallery99.htm)

Along with all the prosaic anti-war sentiments that can be found on just about any anti-war website, Ritscher startlingly recounts his dissatisfaction that he did not murder Donald Rumsfeld when he felt he had a chance to do so.

I have had one previous opportunity to serve my country in a meaningful way - at 8:05 one morning in 2002 I passed Donald Rumsfeld on Delaware Avenue and I was acutely aware that slashing his throat would spare the lives of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people. I had a knife clenched in my hand, and there were no bodyguards visible; to my deep shame I hesitated, and the moment was past.

Is assassinating a government official something to celebrate? Is it the statement of a sane man? Wouldn't it seem a pertinent thing to mention in a story of this nature? The AP must not think so as they do not mention it. Not even once.

Ritshcer also reveals an utter lack of knowledge about the political system our Founding Fathers created. He writes:

Our government has lost its way since our founders tried to build a structure which allowed people to practice their own beliefs, as far as it did not negatively affect others.

OK, all well and good. But he follows that with this:

A coalition system which includes a Green Party would be an obvious better approach than our winner-take-all system. Direct electronic debate and balloting would be an improvement over our non-representative congress. Consider that the French people actually have a voice, because they are willing to riot when the government doesn't listen to them.

We do not now, nor have we ever had anything like a "Direct ... debate and balloting" in this country. That is a direct democracy and a direct democracy is something that every Founder was wholly against.

He went on to reveal more misunderstanding about what a government is supposed to do.

Our elected representatives are supposed to find diplomatic and benevolent solutions to these situations.

No, Mr. "Malachi", a government is not "supposed" to necessarily 'find diplomatic and benevolent solutions", but ones that are morally right. Diplomacy by its very nature entails compromise and sometimes it is not the correct decision to compromise on true principles. We went to war against both the Confederacy and the Axis powers, both decisions were right and neither "diplomatic". To a lesser degree, LBJ risked the wrath of his own party when he pushed civil rights legislation with Republican support. No "diplomacy" edged that decision to the floor of Congress, but it was the right decision to make none-the-less. And, while diplomacy was the vehicle, Ronald Reagan did not budge when the Soviets wanted him to compromise and this anti-diplomatic stance did more to help end the Cold War than any other.

Diplomacy is not the end in and of itself that so many on the left imagine it to be. Sometimes diplomacy comes to an end and hard decisions must then be made. We empower government to try diplomacy, but not to distance itself from the hard decisions in favor of compromise at all times as compromise is not always a positive thing.

It must be remembered that the world compromised with Hitler and that compromising led to the deaths of millions.

In any case, the wasted life of this particular anti-war protester is a sad affair. But elevating this disturbed individual to the heights of martyrdom does neither he nor anyone else any service. Worse, it shows the AP to be advocates instead of reporting journalists.

- By Thomas E. Brewton

The liberal media denounce Pope Benedict's adherence to Biblical and historical truth as rigidity. They want pragmatism and flexibility, which amounts to moral relativism.

Pope Benedict and Christianity stand accused of "divisiveness."

Liberals, along with Muslims, denounced the Pope last September when he spoke at the University of Regensburg. The New York Times demanded an apology for his lack of sensitivity.

What exactly had he done?

As reported in a VOA News article by Sabina Castelfranco, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of Islam and violence. At a morning mass, he rejected the use of God's name to justify hatred and fanaticism..............
Click HERE To Read On

-By Warner Todd Huston

Patterico's Pontifications blog has done some stellar detective work on a particular L.A. Times story wherein the Times claims that U.S. forces attacked a town with an ariel strike that killed 30 Iraqis, including women and children.

The Times also reported that widespread destruction resulted from this reported "bombardment".

A Times correspondent in Ramadi said at least 15 homes were pulverized by aerial bombardment and families could be seen digging through the ruins with shovels and bare hands.

Gruesome, eh?

Problem is, the big story that the Times reported upon doesn't seem to have ever happened.

As Patterico so ably demonstrates there was no "U.S. airstrike", no buildings were destroyed (perhaps damage to one, though), and, worse, no women OR children were killed.

It does seem 30 were killed and there does seem to have been a battle between insurgents and coalition forces, but those killed were all men (read insurgents) and they were all killed by ground forces. No air support was utilized in this fight at all. Not even a helium filled birthday balloon hovered over this battle ground.

Patterico has quite a long post filled with his investigation to disprove that Times' story. It is so comprehensive, I will not try to distill it here. Suffice to say, it is fantastic reading and is a must for those who want the truth about our efforts in Iraq. (Patterico's post is titled, Is the L.A. Times Repeating Enemy Propaganda?)

Go read this revealing story. It'll make your blood boil.

I will say one thing further, though. The biggest problem with the western MSM's reporting in Iraq is that they have NO ONE in the zone actually witnessing, filming, photographing, or reporting live from these events they are so willing to splash across the pages of our papers.

The western MSM hires what are called "stringers" to do their in person, ground work. These people are invariably members of the propaganda arm of Hammas, Al Qaeda or any of many recognized terror groups. These "stringers" take their doctored photos and their fake stories straight to Western MSM sources where they are printed up as absolute fact without a single effort by those western sources to check the facts, look for corroborating reports, or even ask the U.S. military for comment. (Extensively reported in the newmedia as Reutergate and Fauxtography, where "news" photos and stories have been faked)

The MSM is undeniably unreliable with their reports on Iraq.

But, is it out of the question to suspect they KNOW they are printing falsehoods against our soldiers and endangering their lives? Sadly, it is awfully hard to escape the conclusion that they are, indeed, fully aware that their "reports" are pure lies because stories of these so-called disasters in Iraq neatly fits in with their desire to lose this war.

The MSM have taken an active hand in the efforts to destroy our war effort. It's fine to have an ideological bone to pick, but when stories begin to harm our soldier's moral and reputations, we have left the arena of discussion of policy and edged dangerously close to treason.

- By Greg Stewart

Is all political violence "revolutionary" No, it is just revolutionary. It can be either evolutionary or devolutionary as well. Meaning that political violence through its identity is wrapped up in some form of Platonic Idealism. In other words, that there is some perfect ideal in how a "society" should behave and act; and, only through traumatic action, violence for instance, can the society affect change to become "The Ideal Society."

This ideal can move the society either forward or backwards. In fact, the rallying call of cultures/and or societies is that there must be "change," because what is happening now [what they do to "us"] is "wrong" and "we" do today is "right;" no matter how heinous.

Nevertheless, to get this "Ideal Society" is the crux of the battle; thus, the politics of the society is another form of religion. In essence, it is, but secular and another form of organizing the masses, to control the discontent, until the masses decide enough is enough. Or they led by the "educated liberator" to "show them" the way. To give a vehicle for what "they" believe is morally wrong their society or some "other" society that is perceived as a threat to their way of life.....................
Click HERE To Read On

-By Warner Todd Huston

Patterico's Pontifications blog has done some stellar detective work on a particular L.A. Times story wherein the Times claims that U.S. forces attacked a town with an ariel strike that killed 30 Iraqis, including women and children.

The Times also reported that widespread destruction resulted from this reported "bombardment".

A Times correspondent in Ramadi said at least 15 homes were pulverized by aerial bombardment and families could be seen digging through the ruins with shovels and bare hands.

Gruesome, eh?

Problem is, the big story that the Times reported upon doesn't seem to have ever happened.

As Patterico so ably demonstrates there was no "U.S. airstrike", no buildings were destroyed (perhaps damage to one, though), and, worse, no women OR children were killed.

It does seem 30 were killed and there does seem to have been a battle between insurgents and coalition forces, but those killed were all men (read insurgents) and they were all killed by ground forces. No air support was utilized in this fight at all. Not even a helium filled birthday balloon hovered over this battle ground.

Patterico has quite a long post filled with his investigation to disprove that Times' story. It is so comprehensive, I will not try to distill it here. Suffice to say, it is fantastic reading and is a must for those who want the truth about our efforts in Iraq. (Patterico's post is titled, Is the L.A. Times Repeating Enemy Propaganda?)

Go read this revealing story. It'll make your blood boil.

I will say one thing further, though. The biggest problem with the western MSM's reporting in Iraq is that they have NO ONE in the zone actually witnessing, filming, photographing, or reporting live from these events they are so willing to splash across the pages of our papers.

The western MSM hires what are called "stringers" to do their in person, ground work. These people are invariably members of the propaganda arm of Hammas, Al Qaeda or any of many recognized terror groups. These "stringers" take their doctored photos and their fake stories straight to Western MSM sources where they are printed up as absolute fact without a single effort by those western sources to check the facts, look for corroborating reports, or even ask the U.S. military for comment. (Extensively reported on NewsBusters and other sites as Reutergate and Fauxtography, where "news" photos and stories have been faked)

The MSM is undeniably unreliable with their reports on Iraq.

But, is it out of the question to suspect they KNOW they are printing falsehoods against our soldiers and endangering their lives? Sadly, it is awfully hard to escape the conclusion that they are, indeed, fully aware that their "reports" are pure lies because stories of these so-called disasters in Iraq neatly fits in with their desire to lose this war.

The MSM have taken an active hand in the efforts to destroy our war effort. It's fine to have an ideological bone to pick, but when stories begin to harm our soldier's moral and reputations, we have left the arena of discussion of policy and edged dangerously close to treason.

-by Warner Todd Huston

Many of you will have heard of this interesting, sinister story about ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko having been poisoned and killed as he lived in England.

but I have a few points I'd like to remind everyone about...

Spy 'Poisoned By Radiation'

A large quantity of radiation, probably from a substance called Polonium 210, has been found in the body of dead ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko.

Police in the UK are trying to find out who and what killed the 43-year-old former security agent.

Who can doubt that this defector and vehement critic of Russian president Vladimir Putin, was ordered killed by that same leader? After all, half a dozen of Putin's critics in business and journalism have suddenly been murdered over the last few years.

Mysterious?

Not very.

Still, it is interesting to see the British press going gaga over this guy's death. So, I thought it would behoove us to remember that Litvinenko was a spy just like the guy that killed him (whom ever that may have been). And we should realize that Litvinenko probably ordered the deaths of many men in his day... and it is likely he despatched some of them personally.

Who killed Litvinenko?

Alexander Litvinenko was a man who could be taught little about the seamy side of modern Russia. A KGB agent for 18 years, he occupied a world where intrigue, betrayal and ruthless trickery were the tools of working life.

So, yes it is horrible that this assassination took place right in the western country of England where such things aren't supposed to happen. But let's not act as if Litvinenko is some wide-eyed, innocent here.

Reaping what one sowed is an apt axiom.

- By Michael M. Bates

It didn't take long, did it? The Democratic Congressional majority is unflinchingly leading us into that promised new direction, bowling us over with excitingly innovative ideas even before officially taking over.

An example of the daring, novel approaches we can expect came this weekend from New York's Charles Rangel, who'll chair the Ways and Means Committee, arguably the most powerful panel in Congress. Mr. Rangel will wield a big gavel; when he talks, people -- especially his colleagues -- listen.

The Congressman told CBS News' Face the Nation viewers he will initiate legislation reintroducing the military draft.

The irony is delicious. Only 38 percent of young people (18-29) voted for Republican Congressional candidates earlier this month. Doubtless that percentage was even lower among college students naive enough to buy the Leftist propaganda that permeates campuses across the nation......................................
Click HERE To Read On

-By Warner Todd Huston

With the talk of Charlie Rangel’s second try to get the draft reinstated, it is interesting to take a look at how leftists are attempting to destroy our military and one of the ways the left is trying to undermine our military is by attacking its recruiting base in high schools across the country. Activists are trying to persuade kids of military recruitment age to "opt out" from allowing their schools to provide the student's public information to military sources.

The anti-military left has also found a constant assistant in the MSM toward this goal. Every few months the MSM comes out with articles highlighting military recruiting and invariably they also give free publicity to the anti-ilitary groups trying to stop recruiting.

For example, a recent USA Today report, titled Some opt out of military options, introduces us to a school in northern Illinois where a large number of parents, totaling about half the class, have signed forms to stop the school from sending the military their info -- a trend that has grown there since at least 2004.

USA Today helpfully supplies a graphic showing the "Opt out" split in the school body. 2004 saw 2,126 opt outers in a student body of 4,505. 2,802 of 4,573 in 2005 and 2,920 out of 4,472 this school year. This stat shows a pretty steady growth toward the anti-military position.

It almost mirrors the voting trend north of Chicago in Lake County, Illinois, where the school is located.

Lincolnshire, Illinois, a northern suburb of the city of Chicago, is in Lake county. It broke close to even in the 2004 election with 50% going for Bush and 48% going for Kerry. And, while they voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Barack Obama in 2004, the rest of the votes were weighted Republican at least since the 2000 general election. But in this 2006 cycle, the GOP took a hit with Democratic votes gaining for most of the top offices, as it did in many areas of the country.

But, what the USA Today article proves most clearly, is that the left is doing what it does best; organize. And they are organizing in an effort to undermine the US military. The article covers several organizations that have organized to fight Military recruiters from having access to school records.

Even cities have taken up the anti-military cause. The school board in San Francisco has recently banned the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps from operating in city high schools, despite complaints from students, over the “don’t ask, don't tell” that supposedly discriminates against gays. School board member, Eric Mar, was quoted as saying "…in many ways, we're preventing military values on students at the high-school level.”

The reason I use this article as an example, though, is in the unusual aspect of it. It gives both sides of the argument where few others do. This article gives space to military spokesmen and gives some info to mitigate the attacks by the anti-military left. The most salient points being that the military isn't asking for any more information than colleges and Universities get from schools and that the military can get the student's info from other sources quite legally, anyway.

Still, we get a pretty detailed listing of several of the anti-military groups formed to mount an attack on the US military's ability to recruit in schools. In that USA Today helps the anti-military as much as possible.

As I said, that mirrors the common drift of most of the stories on the issue of recruiting. A quick perusal of some of the stories over the last couple of years -- since the war in Iraq started -- on military recruiting shows a constant drumbeat against the military. Whether it be a dour report on the military missing its goals or the resistance being mounted in schools to disrupt military recruit efforts, these stories constantly show a heavy bias against the military.

A few examples:

A writer from the Portland Oregonian gins up a tale about how military recruiter's misconduct " is a growing national problem as the military faces increasing pressure to hit recruiting targets during an unpopular war." ( a story the subject of which that I proved to be pure hyperbole since the stats show an extremely low number of such cases.US Army Recruiters' 'Misconduct' Over Reported By Media )

The San Francisco Chronicle delighted in reporting that the "U.S. is recruiting misfits for army
Felons, racists, gang members fill in the ranks".

A2005 story informs us that the army is having trouble because "Parents can opt to deny this information to recruiters, and antiwar groups are mounting a national effort to encourage them to do so."

Then there was the 2004 PBS story that highlighted the work of "the head of a local San Diego peace group which has serious problems with military recruitment at high schools."

In 2002, Mother Jones Magazine complained that military recruiters access to students "undercuts the authority of some local school districts, including San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, that have barred recruiters from schools on the grounds that the military discriminates against gays and lesbians."

In any case, the inference is clear. The stories show a mounting effort to undermine the US military's recruitment efforts. Sadly, in this time of mounting security risks, one of the most threatening things that recruiters face seem not to be the prospect of new recruits being sent into combat, but teachers and unpatriotic parents telling their kids they don't have any duty to their country.

We have heard the sobriquet of "Greatest Generation" bestowed upon those who fought WWII. One wonders what title these kinds of people might be saddled with in the decades to come? Perhaps the "Weakest Generation"? And, it would not be the mantle given to the youngsters who now serve, but their parent's generation, instead.

- By Thomas E. Brewton

Liberal Democrats are economic ignoramuses and they hope that the voters are too.

Neither the Democratic Party left wing, nor the Fed has learned the fundamental truth documented by the late Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz in A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.

Mr. Friedman, who died November 16, 2006, effectively eviscerated Keynesian economics, which was the academic foundation of New Deal socialistic statism and remained the economic orthodoxy of the Democratic Party after World War II.

One of Professor Friedman's messages is that, when the government attempts to regulate the economy it almost always does more harm than good. Another is that the economy will grow faster and more steadily when the Fed acts to keep the money supply in a stable relationship to GDP. This promotes price stability, i.e., the absence of inflation.

The real economy grows and more jobs are created, not as a consequence of management by government planners, but because private businesses make long-term investments to produce more goods and services. As we saw in the 1930s Depression, businesses don't make long-term investments when taxes are being raised, inflation is rampant, and they are continually harassed by harmful rounds of government regulations.............
Click HERE To Read On

-By Warner Todd Huston

In yet another anti-gun rant, the Times has once again sounded the good liberal mantra: Got a problem? Throw money at it.

Apparently, outgoing Senator George Allen (R, Vir.) has introduced one of his last bills in the waning days of the 109th sitting of the Senate, a bill allowing concealed carry of firearms inside our National Parks.

Naturally, the New York Times is not amused. (A Parting Shot From George Allen)

After informing us that the bill has passed the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, they emotionally proclaim that they "hope it will die the miserable death it deserves". Then they go on an interesting rant on how the gun lobby has:

- "co-opted the civil rights movement"... bet they have never said that of the Gay lobby who has made a specialty of "co-opting" civil rights rhetoric.

- nationalized the "armed paranoia that the NRA" stands for... bet they have never equated the pro abortion lobby to "paranoia" when Femenazis shrilly yell that women's "rights" are being violated if they have no access to abortions.

The Times also imagines that it has divined the minds of the Framers and proclaimed the 2nd Amendment a "collective right" instead of an individual's right, despite the easily proven fallacy of their claim -- which is why the law has, in the Times' words, "been misread in one legislature after another" bringing them to pass concealed carry laws.

At this time 48 states have some form of allowable concealed carry law. That being the case, it's hard to believe that 98% of the country has merely fallen for "paranoia". Worse, it is curious that the New York Times seems to be so against majority Democracy. After all, when 98% of the people agree to something, wouldn't that make the Times' point of view among the smallest of minority opinions?

How do they explain their way out of being so far from the mainstream position? More of their own brand of paranoia. The Times presumably feels that concealed carry laws have passed in so many -- no nearly ALL -- of the states by some conspiracy. It must be, because nearly every state has passed a concealed carry law "often in the face of strong public disapproval" in their estimation.

How it is that nearly every state in the Union can so blithely ignore this "strong public disapproval" for concealed carry is not explored. Apparently the Times imagines that just saying it makes it so. Kind of like when John Kerry says he really does love the US military, despite all his actions that shouts the opposite.

Their denial is amazing.

But the howler of the piece is the claim that throwing money at crime, as opposed to allowing citizens to protect themselves, would make us all safer in our National Parks.

If Americans want to feel safer in their national parks, the proper solution is to increase park funding...

It is hard to type while I am laughing so hard.

Now, remember they called the NRA paranoiacs? Try THIS paranoia on for size...

To zealots who believe that the Second Amendment trumps all others, the parks are merely another badland, like schools and church parking lots, that could be cleaned up if the carrying of private weapons were allowed. The concealed-weapon advocates are doing an excellent job of sounding terrified by “lonely wilderness trails.” But make no mistake. Senator Allen’s bill would make no one safer. It can only endanger the public.

Riiight. Being able to protect oneself makes everyone more "endangered".

Is that why every stuffed shirt Democrat in Federal government and state government, along with their friends in Hollywood, have armed bodyguards? Is it because they wish to "endanger the public"?

I report, you laugh until you can't breathe.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Somethings rotten in the state of Denmark and it is the immoral world of being "European", one that leftists HERE want for us...

Animal bordellos draw Norwegian

Denmark's animal bordellos reportedly draw Norwegian clients, but both countries have loopholes that make such establishments legal.

Neither Denmark nor Norway has a prohibition on sex with animals, as long as the animals do not suffer.

In correspondence with the animal owners, the newspaper was told that the animals involved have many years of experience and that the animals themselves wanted sex.

Legal gray area
The Norwegian Food Safety Authority's section chief for animal welfare, Torunn Knævelsrud, could not rule out that such a bordello could be legal here as well.

"It is difficult to say yes or no," Knævelsrud told Aftenposten.no.

Yes, I am SURE it is "difficult to say yes or no". That is what happens when you live in the world of moral relativism. Nothing seems "right" and nothing seems "wrong".

Do you think I am taking that one little phrase from section chief Knævelsrud out of context? Don't be so sure because here is what else he said to the Danish paper:

"It could be that the animals don't really care," Knævelsrud said. "But I think it is in the nature of the case that animals will often be victims of injury, stress or suffering in connection with sexual acts with humans..."

It COULD be that the animals don't really care? And how would we determine that? Ask them?

Sorry, but this is exactly the kind of immorality that is the ultimate result of European moral relevancy. With a truly European moral code (or lack thereof) this is what you end up with, an inability to say just what is right and what is wrong. Everything is relative, everything could be good yet nothing is bad... not REALLY bad.

Because, heck, guys. Them animals could just like being sexually exploited and abused.

- By Greg Stewart

Editor's Note: I originally wrote this review for my Anthropology of Popular Culture class in the December of 2003. At the time, I was at different mindset. Some of this will come across as agenda ridden from a liberal left perspective. Guess what? It was and is, but the cultural perspective from some will find it valid and a bit understated. So, I ask you for moment and step outside the box of rigidity and look beyond the obvious and view from "The Others" perspective.


I wanted to see the ultimate movie experience in special effects, martial arts, and conclude a storyline cliffhanger from the second movie, Matrix Reloaded; however, the epoch Matrix Revolutions was to be the definitive conclusion of the series, but left me confused. Why?

For the most part, the third Matrix movie wraps up the trilogy with very few open-ended questions. Yet, I am plagued with a sing question about the series: the casting of the characters both-- primary and secondary. It is subtle. I would like to think that it is unintentional, but my suspicions are that it may not be. What am I referring to? Even though the movie purports diversity, the hegemonic themes of Christianity are riddled throughout the movie (and the trilogy--to be honest)....................
Click HERE To Read On

We take today off to spend it with our families.

We wish all of you a happy Thanksgiving.

And please, remember our troops serving in far away lands this day.

-By Warner Todd Huston
The New York Times can't even give us an article on a lighter aspect of politics without slamming Vice President Cheney in some way, can they?

In Sunday's issue, the Times ran a piece exploring where the term "lame duck" came from...
The Lame Duck’s Waddle to Oblivion

As Washington prepares for a new balance of power, there has been so much talk of “lame ducks” that you would be forgiven if you thought Vice President Cheney had gone hunting again. But the political phrase of the moment is actually derived not from the hunt for waterfowl, but for riches.

They have to slam the VP, they just HAVE to!

Now, I'd like to find the NYT article talking about what the word "is" is and linking it to Clinton's inability to keep his zipper up.

FYI: "Lame duck" is taken after the early 1800's English phrase for a debtor. In a similar way that a debtor cannot raise the money to pay his debts, the lame Duck phrase was later adopted by Americans to mean politicians who weren't able to raise the votes to get re-elected.

-By Warner Todd Huston

With a headline sure to confuse any reader and/or cause more hate for the U.S.A., Reuters has proclaimed the U.S. as "unfriendly to visitors". What is their "proof"? A survey of how "rude" immigration officials are!

Somehow, in Reuters' mind, a rude immigration official makes a whole country "unfriendly". Apparently, Reuters is only too happy to conflate a harried immigration department -- no doubt one over taxed because of concerns over terrorism -- to the relative "unfriendliness" of everyone in that country.

Sounds like stereotyping to me.

US is unfriendly to visitors: survey

The United States is the world's most unfriendly country for international travellers, a survey suggests.

The global survey showed the US was ranked "the worst" because of rude immigration officials and long delays in processing visas.

Somehow, I doubt we would find too many Americans that would be all upset over how long it takes foreigners to get into our country. After all, the 9/11 hijackers just waltzed into this country without a word said, for the most part. And, from what I recall, THEY weren't too "friendly", themselves.

And, of course, Americans are wrong about everything. Our immigration laws and officials have, according to Reuters, caused "more fear" than "terrorism or crime"

"The survey shows there is more fear of our immigration officials than of terrorism or crime."

Talk about absurd.

I am now waiting for Reuters to have headlines like the following:

"England unfriendly for dental care", or "France unfriendly to restaurant goers"

...but I won't hold my unfriendly, American breath.

- By Frederick Meekins

Though the sermon "Long Range New Covenant Thinking: Early Marriage" by Ovid Need available at SermonAudio.com does a commendable job of explicating the passages regarding dominion over creation and of expounding the need to train children for family life, it uses these passages as cover to impose personal opinion as revealed doctrine.

According to Need, the sincere Christian desiring to fulfill God's will weds at an early age. As proof, Need cites the passage in Proverbs 5:18 saying, "Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth" and notes that in Bible times often people were married by the age of eighteen for boys and sometimes as young as thirteen for girls (he conveniently fails to point out the abysmally low life expectancy prevalent in ancient times).

Part of the reason for this decree in favor of adolescent matrimony (perhaps not that young but one must wonder if Need is going to suggest we slavishly adhere to ancient Judaic practices and in his own comments insinuates 30 is too old to have not yet wed) is to curb the evil tendency in the male towards (ominous drum roll, please)--- INDEPENDENCE. Heaven forbid one enjoy a period in life without nagging....................................
Click HERE To Read On

-By Warner Todd Huston

With the recent racial slur outburst from "Seinfeld" actor, Michael Richards, we will have to pay close attention to see if Richards gets a softer treatment than Mel Gibson did with his own racial slur laden rant earlier in the year.

But, if this AP report is any indication, it seems sure that "Kramer" won't be as maligned as Mel Gibson.

Richards Apologizes for Racial Slurs

Daryl Pitts, a Laugh Factory audience member interviewed by CNN, compared the incident to another recent celebrity controversy.

"You think about Mel Gibson and what he said, and put that in the context of this, it's very upsetting," Pitts said, referring to Gibson's anti-Semitic outburst during his arrest for drunken driving.

Scrutiny of Richards' remarks likely will continue but won't match the level prompted by Gibson's behavior because Richards is far less famous, (Veteran publicist Michael ) Levine said.

So, Richards is not "famous" enough to be scolded by the MSM?

And, how many will point out that Gibson said his comments while impaired by mood altering substances (alcohol), and that Richards was ostensibly in his full faculties?

Probably not many.

And, we are sure to see Gibson raked over the coals with EVERY "Kramer" story for the rest of the day, for sure. This story will be an excuse for the MSM to dive into Gibson all over again.

My guess would be that "Kramer" will not get near the amount of venom spewed at him. Of course, "Kramer" didn't make a movie about Jesus that made millions despite Hollywood's best efforts to laugh it out of theaters, either!

After all, did Mel Gibson get 7 some minutes of David Letterman's show to apologize?

News of the Day

Noncitizen criminals triggering questions

By Associated Press
November 19, 2006

NASHVILLE - Deporting criminals who are citizens of other countries sounds like a no-brainer, but what happens when their home countries won't take them back?

Iranians, Cubans and many Palestinians who are ordered deported from the United States cannot be returned to their homelands, experts said, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled they cannot be held indefinitely.

"There are countries that will not provide travel documents for their citizens to be returned," said Temple Black of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Solution? Helicopter them in, kick them out and leave. Let their own country worry about them.

News of the Day

Robert Novak reports on some spending cutters...

Shutting Down the Senate's Favor Factory

While House Republicans reacted to stinging rejection from America's voters by refusing to change leadership, their Senate counterparts have tried to use their closing weeks in power to enact a last burst of pork-barrel spending. But that effort was stalled last week by independent-minded Republican senators, spearheaded by two abrasive freshmen and one longtime hairshirt. Before Congress recessed Friday for Thanksgiving, the GOP leadership appeared to capitulate.

The freshmen, Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, campaigning in 2004 in Oklahoma and South Carolina, promised not to fall in line with GOP leaders. Fulfilling that pledge allied them with the long-termer John McCain. They have been backed by Jeff Sessions of Alabama and another freshman, John Sununu of New Hampshire. In the lame-duck session's first week, they played Horatio at the Bridge by combining to block a pork-filled omnibus spending bill.

FINALLY, some cut spending Republicans to praise!

Now, let's hope they aren't just creating a lame-duck stunt to shove the spending bills into the next congress so that it will merely be the Democratic controlled Congress that gets blamed for their passage. Let's hope this is not just cynical politicking but is REAL fiscal responsibility being pushed by these Representatives.

- By R.A. Hawkins

One of the issues the liberals have harped on since the start of the war is the possibility of having to bring back the draft. Then there are those totally awesome whack jobs Kucinich and Kerry. I have to take a moment to comment on Kerry's military record. Let's see... four and a half months in Vietnam and three Purple Hearts. Yeah that’s what I thought. He should not chew gum. One of those Purple Hearts was from a scratch he received after he hit a nearby rock with a rifle grenade. As with all of his subsequent wounds, it was self inflicted. Kucinich is talking about de-funding the war in Iraq. That must be a French name or something. I bet he would have gone for a Purple Heart when he got himself in the eye with that freedom fry if he could have.

The liberals will have a very difficult time supporting the war in Iraq because the war was caused by Saddam's support of anything terrorist related, as well as started by Bush. If it had been Clinton who had started the war the liberals would have no problem and would still be using their old talking points to support it. But the fact remains that these people will now feel obligated to kiss the collective keesters of the collective collectivists (peace activists, or surrender activists if you're a realist)............................................
Click HERE To Read On

-By Warner Todd Huston
Will Trent Lott be as much a disaster for the GOP in the role of Minority Whip as he was the LAST time when he was in a position of power?(as Majority Leader in 2002)

It remains to be seen, but a bad sign is all the praise from "colleagues" Lott has gotten with his phoenix like rise back to a position of importance in the Senate. Both sides of the aisle have been clapping him on the back for his resurgence.

On the surface of it, I'd say it is all a bad sign. If the Democrats think this is a good move for the GOP, it probably ISN'T.

It must be remembered that, as Majority Leader, Lott distressingly gave away power to the enemy party repeatedly. He constantly allowed the Democrats to influence committees even though it was the GOP's first chance to push through policy for decades. He also constantly stymied the White House and the President who was purportedly in his own party.

Then, he turned a simple birthday party into an excuse for the left to rekindle the claim that all Republicans are racists.

Lott may know the "arcane rules" of the Senate, but he has an axe to grind against president Bush (whom he OBVIOUSLY didn't support even BEFORE Lott's stupid birthday comment), and he was just short of a collaborator with Democrats giving them all kinds of support when he was Majority Leader.

This having an axe to grind against Bush is the worst of all signs, even worse than his constant bending over for the Democrats that he did in 2002.

The Revival of Trent Lott

Hello, Mr. President. This is Lazarus speaking." That is how Trent Lott answered a phone call last week from George W. Bush, the man who helped force him out of the Senate's top job in 2002 after Lott praised Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential campaign. Maybe Lott is selling himself short. After all, Lazarus was in the tomb for only four days, but it took Lott, 65, four years to mount the improbable comeback that culminated in his election last Wednesday as minority whip, the second most powerful G.O.P. position in the Senate. But if Bush, who called from Air Force One en route to Singapore, was spooked by the Mississippi Senator's resurrection, he did his best to hide it. Lott says Bush laughed off the Lazarus analogy and said, "Well, we're looking forward to working with you."

Yeah, nice!

ALL we need is a guy who hates his own president and one who helps Democrats as often as he does his own Party to become our Minority Whip! Why not just invite Lincoln Chafee back into the Senate, at that rate? As if the GOP isn't in trouble enough as it is?

The good word about Lott is his thoroughgoing knowledge of the Senate's rules. OK, all fine and dandy. But if he uses those rules to sound "reasonable"... and by "reasonable" I mean to give Democrats every benefit of the doubt and every opportunity to get THEIR way... then we are doomed.

And, need we remind anyone that Lott was a Democrat until he switched parties, anyway? Obviously he has an affinity for them with all the "sharing" of power he allowed them in 2002!

I am going to say right now that Lott will be a disaster for a party that has made disaster its middle name.

In the House, Conservative candidates for Minority leader and Whip Mike Pence and John Shadegg lost to John Boehner and Roy Blunt, neither of which are considered entirely conservative – not to mention that they are tied to old leadership and NOT new faces. It seems the House decided that the lesson from the elections is that left leaning Republicans are the future of the Party.

So, what I am saying here is that Conservatives should expect Congress to be a wasteland for conservative policy for the foreseeable future.

News of the Day

Proof once again that the road to hell is paved with government programs.

Putin plan to reward mothers backfires

When Vladimir Putin announced hefty benefits for women who had a second child, his pliant parliament and the Russian media pronounced him a genius.

Far from halting one of the world's worst demographic crises, however, Mr Putin appears to have triggered a surge in abortions.

In a state of the nation address last spring, he proposed a package of incentives, including a £5,000 payout to mothers who give birth for a second time – in a country where average wages are just £150 a month.

The money, however, will only be eligible to those who give birth after January.

Vast numbers of women already pregnant decided to have an abortion because they were going to give birth before the cut-off date, maternity hospitals and regional legislators have claimed.

Also, as the details of the scheme have became clearer, a substantial number of women changed their minds. Many were unaware that the money would not be paid out until the child was three.

Now it transpires that the mothers' will not receive cash at all. Instead, certificates will be issued that can be redeemed against their child's education or paid into a pension fund or mortgage. Only about five per cent of Russians have mortgages.

Government bait and switch on TOP of the law of unintended consequences!

Whotta combo punch for the Russians!

News of the Day

Here is a very subtle bias on behalf of the New York Times where it concerns the deaths of two famous economists this year.

New York Times headline April 30th, 2006

John Kenneth Galbraith, 97, Dies; Economist Held a Mirror to Society

New York Times deadline November 16th, 2006

Milton Friedman, Free Markets Theorist, Dies at 94

(Bolded emphasis, mine)

So, the Times gives leftist Galbraith the proper title of "economist", yet calls Friedman merely a "theorist". A very subtle way to transmit that Galbraith was "legitimate" in the New York Times' eyes, but Freidman but a dabbler and theory maker.

(hat tip to Tom Blumer of Newsbusters.org)

- By Thomas E. Brewton

Old Testament tribulations of Judah and Israel, the 19th century events that set the stage for British decline as a world power, and the current state of affairs in the United States have worrisome similarities. All three peoples turned away from God and vaunted their own intellectual powers.

In the Old Testament books of Judges and 1st and 2nd Kings, as well as the numerous books of the prophets, the repeated message to rulers and to the people is that turning away from God to worship idols, whether of man-made gods or of wealth and power, always led to disaster at the hands of foreign aggressors.

A society in which individuals and rulers failed to deal justly with the poor, the widows, and the orphans, a society in which the rulers failed to pray to God for guidance, was a society that disintegrated from internal rot.

England, while it was a united Christian nation, became the greatest commercial power on earth and the nation with the greatest degree of individual political liberty. That began to fall apart by the middle of the 19th century, when the materialistic doctrines of atheism and agnosticism began their rise to dominance in intellectual and political life.

Following the same pattern, while still a nation united under God, the United States grew rapidly, both in population and industrial production, to eclipse England by the end of the 19th century. Only a couple of decades later, the Godless doctrine of socialistic materialism had completely infected our major universities, ultimately corrupting our youth. ............
Click HERE To Read On

- By David Morrell

In the election of 1929, the Labour Party took control of the British Parliament. Winston Churchill reflected on the victory of the Socialists over the Conservative Party and posited three reasons why the Conservatives lost; two are especially germane to discussion concerning last week's election.

The first was "the natural desire for change after four and a half years of steady but unexciting administration." In our case, it was nearly twelve years of Republican majorities in Congress that eventually tired the patience of the American electorate.

The second reason for the loss was "the prolonged campaign of disparagement leveled against [the Prime Minister] by the powerful popular Press." This again is true for last week's election. Democrats did not so much stand for something as they stood against Bush and the Republicans. With the help of the media, the Democrats have charged them with mismanagement of the War on Terror, domestic wiretapping abuse, and a long list of other distasteful policies and practices. I can still hear the old lines of Cindy Sheehan and the neo-sixties radicals lining Michigan Avenue: "Bush lied, thousands died"; "WMD"; "No Blood for Oil." Not to mention the more discreet ones from other, "more legitimate", sources............
Click HERE To Read On

-By Warner Todd Huston

Reading the Globe's Nov 18th piece about vice President Cheney, one can palpably feel their fingers being crossed, their wishes being cast into the wishing well, that Cheney is on the outs with this supposed "big demotion" the paper sees for his immediate future.

In short, will Rumsfeld's abrupt dismissal finally diminish Cheney's unprecedented dominance of Bush? Or did the always cunning vice president read the writing on the wall and decide that it was time for his good friend Rumsfeld to go?

And typically, as with every story about the VP, one quotient missing in the analysis is the president himself, prosaically fitting into the the Cheney-as-puppetmaster story line the MSM has created for him. (Though, now they want to cast James Baker in Cheney's puppeteering shoes)

They even want us to believe that Cheney somehow strong-armed Bush into the Iraq policy and the War on Terror as if 9/11 never occurred.

With Rumsfeld, Cheney was responsible for the 180-degree reversal in Bush's professed foreign policy

Obviously, 9/11 had nothing to do with it according to the Globe. It was all just Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The Globe has even reached for the macabre, saying that the VP, "America's de facto prime minister" has been "eerily missing from public view".

IN THE 10 days since President Bush fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one figure is eerily missing from public view and public accounts of what occurred: Vice President Dick Cheney. As usual, America's de facto prime minister is either literally or metaphorically in an undisclosed location.

Shades of Edgar Allan Poe, there, Globe.

But, then, they always have made Cheney out to be the Uncle Creepy of the Administration, eh?

They then go on to rehash the MSM's conventional "wisdom" that Cheney is out of favor because Rumsfeld has been terminated, assuming that Cheney's ideas on the Iraq war are finished.

Of course, this assumes that Bush has gone to his new nominee for the Secretary of Defense because of the defeat at the polls and as sudden a turn against his past policies -- even as Bush has repeatedly said since the elections that he has no intention of pulling out of Iraq.

What this story assumes is that Bush is so wishy washy that any wind will blow him from his course. It also assumes that Gates will be bringing a pull-out mentality and that he will bring a contrary opinion to the President's.

See, Bush is too stupid to have his OWN policy and be able to control his OWN administration. Right, Globe? He needs a Cheney, gates, or now a Baker to run it all for him, eh?

But, the MSM has decided to ignore the story that Bush was meeting with Gates on november 5th, BEFORE the elections, to sound him out for Rummy's job. It just isn't very sensible to expect that the president is bringing in a guy who will cause an abrupt about face on a policy that the President has made his cornerstone for most of his presidency.

But, that would deny the Bush-is-stupid story line that the MSM propagates, so they certainly won't walk down this road of analysis, you can be sure!

-By Warner Todd Huston

There was a recent report of a rapist that was caught by the efforts of a Hope, Arkansas couple who frequently pickets an abortion clinic in hopes of preventing young women there from killing their babies.

It seems that the couple sometimes takes photos of the cars that arrive at the clinic and this led to the arrest of an accused child rapist by a smart detective.

Protesters' photos may be clue in rape case

Detective Jimmy Long, an investigator in Bryant, Ark., was building a case on a man suspected of sexually abusing a 15-year-old girl. Long had a tip that the man got her pregnant and brought her to the Hope Clinic for Women here for an abortion.

That happens to be where Daniel and Angela Michael have camped out for years photographing just about every car that comes in the parking lot. As founders of Small Victories Ministries, they oppose abortion.

The detective checked out the photos that the protesters had collected and, sure enough, there was one of this rapist's car, dropping off the young girl for her abortion. The case now goes to court with the rapist in custody.

It is good news, of course, that this rapist was found.

But, there is more to the story, more behind the simple replay of good detective work.

Obviously, this Arkansas abortion mill gave this underage girl an abortion and didn't alert the authorities that she was raped, as the law requires.

Hope Clinic Executive Director Sally Burgess could not comment on the rape allegations because of patient confidentiality laws. But the clinic has safeguards to protect teenagers, she said.

"If a teenager lets on to us that something of this nature is occurring, we're absolutely going to notify the authorities," she said.

Shouldn't the fact that she is but a 15 year-old make them even the slightest bit curious???

This story is proof, once again, that these baby killing "clinics" have one purpose and one purpose only: to murder babies. They SURE as hell don't care about their purported "patients", the young women they leave scarred and otherwise untreated. These "clinics" the country over turn a blind eye to rape and abuse every day in favor of fulfilling their political motivations.

Yes, it's great that a detective caught this particular rapist. But how many rapists do these "clinics" across the country allow to stay free, to stay raping their way through the ranks of our young girls?

THAT is the real story, here.

- By Michael M. Bates

This week marks the deaths of 913 people, including 276 children, in the Guyanan jungle. Most of them died by their own hand, voluntarily drinking a cyanide-laced grape punch (not Kool Aid, contrary to the idiomatic expression). The ones who wouldn’t kill themselves were shot. Babies had the lethal concoction forced into their mouths with syringes.

Orchestrating the 1978 holocaust was "Reverend" Jim Jones, founder of the People's Temple. His church had been based in San Francisco until allegations of brutality, financial irregularities, and mistreatment of children became widely publicized. In 1977 he set up shop in South America.

Jones is sometimes described as a religious fanatic, as a man who used faith to do monstrous things. The truth is his faith wasn't, as many presume, in Christianity. He believed in Marx more than in Christ.

Jones baptized people "in the holy name of socialism" and called himself the Socialist Worker God. His church's newspaper featured a picture of him shaking hands in Cuba with Black Panther Huey Newton. Jones wanted his followers to learn Russian. He'd left instructions for assets to be sent to the Soviet Union..............................................
Click HERE To Read On

News of the Day

In a DUH moment, a lefty finds his statistics reveals that Conservatives give more money to charity than do Leftists.

Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

Who couldn't have realized that?

Well, who not so taken in by the "caring" left's propaganda, that is?

-By Warner Todd Huston

Now that the Democrats have picked their Majority Leader in the House the outcome gives us (and her) the first hint that Speaker Pelosi is not the powerhouse she thought she was. Her man, Murtha, lost in a landslide: 149 to 86... a thumpin' to say the least.

In my last report on how the MSM covered this little inter Dem fight I pointed out that they were ignoring how distant were the two positions on pulling out of Iraq that is held by the erstwhile candidates for Majority Leader.

I noted how they refused to portray Murtha's position as "extreme", even as he supports pulling out of Iraq immediately to Hoyer's, who does not. I noted that the MSM did not waste much breath contrasting Murtha's position with the far less volatile position held by Hoyer.

It seems strangely inconsistent that the MSM ignored the Iraq war issue in their stories since they made the entire recent election all about Iraq and how it is a mess and that our soldiers should come home. Yet, a guy who does not want an immediate pull out defeated Murtha and this fact went uncommented upon.

Instead, the angle that was taken was all about both Murtha and Hoyer's corruption scandals and their various levels of money taken from lobbyists, the issue of Iraq barely given any notice at all.

So now that Hoyer has won, what was the gist of the coverage? I thought I would follow my pre-Majority leader coverage with a wrap up.

David Corn of the Nation made a prediction that has yet to come true, at least with the initial coverage of Hoyer's ascension to Majority leader.

Still, this vote will be depicted as a slam on Pelosi and on the start-withdrawing-now Democrats.

While this story has been reported as an embarrassing loss for Pelosi, no mention has been made by the MSM about how this is a "slam" on the "start-withdrawing-now Democrats." The MSM obviously has the back of Pelosi and the "start-withdrawing-now Democrats", apparently. After all, they have studiously avoided the issue that might bring a harsh light upon them.

A perusal of about a dozen stories today on the outcome of the Dems Majority election shows that the moderate/extremist angle was still passed over. But, curiously, the corruption angle was soft peddled, too, in the aftermath. Yesterday's comments were filled with the corruption of both Hoyer and Murtha, but today it was barely mentioned, as if it was suddenly not that important.

Instead, Hoyer was proclaimed the "moderate" that will perfectly balance Pelosi's "liberal reputation" with Hoyer's "moderate" stance on Iraq constantly portrayed as a positive. Has support for the cut-and-run Democrat suddenly dried up among the MSM now that the Dems have won?

Still, the L.A. Times has no mention of the "moderate" Hoyer in their story, Party gets a rocky start, except to say that Hoyer got the backing of "moderate" Democrats.

The New York Times tried to paint the Democrats as perfectly unified even in the face of this stinging defeat of Pelosi's first attempt at power politics.

But Democrat after Democrat said the outcome of the leadership fight was a reflection that a clear majority of the party believed that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer had been a winning combination, despite the strains between them, and that there was no reason to make an abrupt change. In the view of many Democrats, Mr. Hoyer’s moderate image offset her more liberal reputation, and his floor management and vote-counting abilities -- sharply illustrated by his victory today -- free her to concentrate on the party’s broader message.

The San Francisco Chronicle mentions that Pelosi picked Murtha just precisely for his extreme Pull-out-of-Iraq position, but does not really make much of the fact that Murtha lost to a man who doesn't share that position.

Pelosi showed her stance= Speaking of Murtha, who was her campaign manager for her leadership bids, she said that having him as majority leader "would be the best way to end the war in Iraq.''

Murtha said "Nancy asked me to set a policy (on the war) for the Democratic Party. Most of the party signed onto it," he said, referring to his call to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq

That's it. They state it, but do not develop it at all showing a sudden desire to wait and see, apparently. A far cry from the reactionary assumptions they made of Republicans before the election.

TheBoston Herald mirrors the Chronicle's take on the story with a mention of Pelosi's support of Murtha when she issued a "letter of support for him, praising him for having called a year ago for an end to the U.S. military presence in Iraq."

“I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election,” she wrote.

Four days later, behind closed doors, she lauded Murtha for having altered the course of the campaign debate on the war and said it was in part responsible for the Democrats’ electoral victories. She urged fellow Democrats to elect him majority leader to help her change the course of the war.

Well, she lost even as she based her support for Murtha on that very anti-war issue. The Herald, though, does not develop the point past a mere mention of it.

Reuters at least mentions it most succinctly.

Steny Hoyer, a moderate Maryland Democrat, easily defeated Pennsylvania's John Murtha, a leading proponent of a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, to become the next House majority leader.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek also admitted that Pelosi chose Murtha for his extreme anti-war position:

Her (Pelosi's) original plan was to stay neutral in the race between Hoyer and Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. Then she quietly started making calls for Murtha, whom she felt she owed a debt of gratitude for his willingness to oppose the war in Iraq.

But, Fineman also avoids further analysis of the loss as any kind of statement against Murtha's extreme stance.

Time Magazine leaves it at: "The moderate Hoyer won".

Sharp punditry, there!

The Chicago Tribune also made note that "Murtha also led House Democrats in their opposition to President Bush's managing of Iraq" and that this was the reason Pelosi picked him.

Because Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran, was on the vanguard of the Democratic opposition to the Iraq War (he called last November for U.S. troops to be redeployed) Pelosi and many other Democrats publicly said he should be given the high-profile post.

No further discussion from there, however.

Lastly, the WashingtonPost ignored the Murtha/Hoyer comparison instead contrasting Pelosi and Hoyer:

Steny H. Hoyer is a practical moderate and Nancy Pelosi is a liberal idealist, and for more than 40 years they have competed like siblings, all the way to the pinnacle of politics.

The race was long and bitter. Hoyer ran as the more moderate and experienced candidate, while Pelosi portrayed herself as forward thinking and progressive

And in the story from the New York Times mentioned above, Hoyer was proclaimed "a moderately liberal lawmaker with close ties to the business community and a history of strong support for the federal installations in suburban Washington, had political credentials of his own."

Moderately liberal? The ACU gave him a 12% for the 2005 Congress. Not very "moderate", there.

So, what can we conclude from the MSM's coverage of the Hoyer win as Majority Leader?

Several disturbing points emerge:

-The MSM didn't feel that Murtha's loss as an advocate of the get-out-of-Iraq-now caucus to a "moderate" on the issue was important enough to highlight.

-The corruption issue was a non-starter for the MSM -- though it is always a great issue with which to beat up Republicans.

-Pelosi's loss on the get-out-of-Iraq-now issue was not too interesting, either.

This coverage raises some very interesting questions.

Wasn't the recent election all about pulling out of Iraq? Why was this point ignored? Shouldn't it be big news that the Democrats voted down a get-out-now supporter for a so-called "moderate"?

Where are Olbermann, Streisand, Mommie Sheehan, and their ilk calling for the Democrat's head on a pike for turning their back on Pelosi and Murtha for such a "moderate"?

Also, where are the Republicans for pointing out that Pelosi is, indeed, trying to make the pullout position a corner stone of her leadership?

Of course, should the MSM have taken up these questions it would bring strife upon the Democrats in who's corner the MSM sits like tail wagging, puppies. No surprise, there.

- By Thomas E. Brewton

Since the 1930s, most Americans have come to believe in a fairy tale that has no happy ending. Democrats' victories in the recent elections have revived the fairy tale.

Washington Post staff writer Dan Balz, in a November 13, 2006, article explores the unresolved questions and internal debates remaining after the recent congressional elections.

One of those questions, as he sees it, is:

Equally important is the question of which party can adequately address the twin problems of keeping the United States competitive in a global economy and restoring the social contract that has helped provide economic security to workers and that has been shattered as a result of the corporate restructuring that globalization has brought about.

Mr. Balz is working under a false assumption: the expectation that the Federal government controls business, as well as the idea that it is possible to have a "social contract" under which government can effectively provide economic security to workers.............
Click HERE To Read On

Milton Friedman, one of the most influential economists of the past century and winner of a 1976 Nobel Prize, died on Thursday morning of heart failure at a San Francisco area hospital, a spokeswoman for his family said. He was 94.

He was a shot in the arm to Conservatives around the world and came around at a time when the nonsense of Kensian gobbeldegook was still thought of as the leading economic philosophy.

It isn't often that an economist becomes news in and of himself, but we are thankful that Dr. Friedman was one of those who rose above his dry subject to excite the minds of Americans and lead them to realize that socialism isn't the ticket to economic success.

Thank you Milt and you WILL be missed.

-By Warner Todd Huston

It has been interesting, to say the least, to watch the MSM twist itself into knots trying to report this story of Pelosi backing the extremist Murtha for Party leadership over the objections of the so-called "blue dog" Democrats who were recently elected to Congress.

Pelosi has decided to ardently back the extreme anti-war activist, John Murtha (Dem, PA), for the Democrat's Majority leader position in a move that has 'baffled" many Democrats, especially those incoming Democrats who ran as conservative alternatives to Republicans -- as well as other incumbent moderate Democrats -- who are instead backing Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer.

Hoyer is well known on the floor not to be quite as extreme as Murtha is on a pull out from Iraq (Hoyer voted to give Bush the OK to go into Iraq in 2002, but he IS for gradual withdraw to be sure), but few Americans will have even heard of Steny Hoyer, he not being much of a "national" figure. On the other hand, anyone who had paid politics much attention knows that Murtha is against the war and is a vocal critic of President Bush. Murtha is well known for his many extreme positions and statements.

So, we have a "moderate" in Hoyer facing an extremist in Murtha in this fight for Party Majority leader. But, one would be hard pressed to see any MSM outlet presenting the facts in such a light. In fact, the MSM seems to want to present the story as a corruption issue instead of a war issue, even as they want to assume that the recent election is a vote by the electorate to get out of Iraq.

The New York Times lamented the loss of "unity" with this leadership fight, seemingly pleading for the Democrats to stop giving the GOP something to be so "giddy" about. Not a word, though that this is a fight between the "moderate" Hoyer and the more extreme Mutha.

Of course, at the top of the story are a few jabs at Republicans, even though this is NOT a Republican story. I think it is impossible for the NYT to publish a story without taking a shot or two at the GOP. Those mean Republicans are reported as the "(d)owntrodden Republicans" who were "were enjoying the spectacle" and as being "giddy" over it all.

But, the Times does not use descriptives like "extreme" to describe Mr. Murtha, oh no! As close as they get to it is saying that he played some role in "building Democratic opposition to the Iraq war, an issue that was crucial to the party’s victories last week."

The Baltimore Sun also heads their story on the Pelois/Murtha/Hoyer issue with jabs at the GOP by resurrecting Trent Lott's troubles from 2002 at the top of their story. Trent Lott is part of the Democratic Party Majority leader story... how? Obviously, the Sun wants to take as much of the light off the troubles in the Democrat leadership as they can with a they-are-bad-too type of finger pointing, with hopes that most people will only read the first few paragraphs of the story leaving them with only bad thoughts about Republicans, presumably.

The L.A. Times has used their story to highlight the allegations of corruption leveled at both Murtha and Hoyer, a common (and unavoidable) thread running through all these stories.

But to Murtha's obvious position as the leading extremist against the war, the L.A. Times merely describes Murtha as a "tough-talking veteran who made headlines last year by denouncing President Bush's policy in Iraq". No hint of his being an extremist on the war in comparison to Hoyer's somewhat less dogmatic stance on the war.

How often in the last 4 years did we hear pro-war Republicans as "Hawks" or "Neo-Conservatives", or "War supporters"? And how often has ANY moderation on the war been seen as a cause to highlight at the cost of all else?

But, where is the "fairness" and "balance" in this case where one man, Murtha, holds a very extreme position and one, Hoyer, a lesser one?

Interesting how suddenly there are no extremes and no moderates when we are reporting on Democrats, eh?