Jena 6 Myths

Michelle Malkin posted an editorial on her website today from the Christian Science Monitor that completely debunks the media's portrayal of the Jena 6 incident. And the myths that have pervaded the media are extreme and revealing. You can read the whole article here.

"The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. I should know. I live in Jena. My wife has taught at Jena High School for many years. And most important, I am probably the only reporter who has covered these events from the very beginning.The real story of Jena and the Jena 6 is quite different from what the national media presented. It’s time to set the record straight.

"Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree. There has never been a “whites-only” tree at Jena High School.

"Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students. An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly. According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students.

"Myth 3: Nooses Were a Hate Crime. Although many believe the three white students should have been prosecuted for a hate crime for hanging the nooses, the incident did not meet the legal criteria for a federal hate crime.

"Myth 7: The Schoolyard Fight. The event on Dec. 4, 2006 was consistently labeled a “schoolyard fight.” But witnesses described something much more horrific. Several black students, including those now known as the Jena 6, barricaded an exit to the school’s gym as they lay in wait for Justin Barker to exit. (It remains unclear why Mr. Barker was specifically targeted.)

"Myth 8: The Attack Is Linked to the Nooses. Nowhere in any of the evidence, including statements by witnesses and defendants, is there any reference to the noose incident that occurred three months prior. This was confirmed by the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, Donald Washington, on numerous occasions."

North American Union Moving Forward

This week, President Bush will be meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello resort in Canada. The topic of discussion will be the Security and Prosperity Partnership. While the White House continues to dismiss the North American Union as a "silly conspiracy," documents obtained in FOIA requests suggest otherwise.

The Washington Times picked up this story on the front page today. I found one paragraph of this story specifically interesting.

"The White House dismissed suspicions of a coming North American Union as a 'silly' conspiracy theory. 'Americans are going to remain Americans, Canadians are going to remain Canadians and Mexicans are going to remain Mexicans,' a senior Bush administration official said on the condition of anonymity."

The irony? Even when the White House is trying to dismiss claims of the North American Union it has to use anonymous officials. Why didn't it come right out and say, this is not a plan to cede away American sovereignty? Because that would be denying the truth.

Worldnetdaily.com reported that 21 members of Congress sent a letter to President Bush urging him to open up the backroom deals being made about the SPP.

"The last paragraph of the letter called upon the president 'not to pledge or agree to any further movement in connection with the SPP at the upcoming North American summit.'

"The letter concluded that, 'in the interest of transparency and accountability, we urge you to bring to the Congress whatever provisions have already been agreed upon and those now being pursued or contemplated as part of this initiative, for the purpose of obtaining authorization through the normal legislative process.'

"Signatories to the letter included the following members of the House of Representatives:

• Rep. Terry Everett, R-Alabama
• Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California
• Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado
• Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas
• Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kansas
• Rep. Walter Jones, R-North Carolina
• Rep. David Davis, R-Tenn.
• Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia
• Rep. John Boozman, R-Arkansas
• Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn.
• Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Virginia
• Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia
• Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Florida
• Rep. Sue Myrick, R-North Carolina
• Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Alabama
• Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif.
• Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa
• Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon
• Rep. Michael Rogers, R-Alabama
• Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Michigan
• Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Alabama
• Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri

Thankfully members of Congress and the media are picking up on this plan to cede away American sovereignty.

GOP just doesn't get it

Yesterday, at the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, Republican Party chairman Mel Martinez confirmed that, sometimes, the GOP just doesn't understand. Sen. Martinez scolded Republican presidential candidates Giuliani and Romney for taking a tough stance on illegal immigration and opposing the President's immigration reform. The St. Petersburg Times reported.

"Presidential contests are about leadership. ... It's about leading on the tough issues," Martinez told the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce. "It was easy to say, 'This wasn't good enough, this isn't right, I don't agree with Martinez.' ... But at the end of the day what is your answer? How would you solve this?"

Well the first step is to deport illegal immigrants, put the national guard back on the border, and toughen penalties against employers. And do not grant illegal aliens amnesty.

Isn't it simple logic, that if you increase some thing's desirability that more people will want it? Well how about offering citizenship in the greatest country in the world to the people of a corrupt third-world country? That's a pretty big incentive. And it will only increase the number of immigrants who seek to cross the border illegally.

Why doesn't the Republican Party get it? When tens of thousands of people called their senators to oppose the immigration bill, didn't that send a clear message? When GOP donations dropped off by almost 40 percent, didn't that send a clear message? The American people do not want amnesty, and they don't want illegal immigration. What ever happened to politicians representing the people?

Well, thankfully, most of the Republican Senators did represent America, and voted down the bill. Yet, Sen. Martinez still finds reason to criticize.

Georgetown professor Yahya Hendi spoke at a gathering of Saudi Arabians yesterday, saying that Muslims are improving their image and position in society. The Washington Times picked up this Reuters news clip.

"Mr. Hendi said U.S. Muslims were working on 'nationalizing' Islam as part of the fabric of U.S. society, including cutting funding links to Muslim countries.

"Mr. Hendi, who met with President Bush days after September 11, said Muslims exhibited a tendency to shun political action such as voting and running for office because it was considered akin to surrendering to U.S. culture."

This position contradicts itself sorely. If Muslims want to integrate in our society, then they will have to realize that voting is a basic part of being a responsible citizen. And just for the record, that holds true for the 50 or so percent of eligible voters who do not exercise this right.

But seeing voting as a submission to U.S. culture is a fundamental flaw. Our forefathers died for the right to have a Constititutional Republic. Voting is not U.S. culture, it is basic freedom and liberty. And Muslims see this as weak and surrender, at least, according to Mr. Hendi.

Now, Mr. Hendi presents a rather tame image of Islam. However, the website Their Own Words presents a startling counterpart to this image. Ahmad Bahr, Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council said on Sudan TV said, "America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain… Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today."

"We should have no conservatives in the media"

With liberals trying to resurrect the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine, society has increased its scrutiny of the media. And while Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton attempt to censure conservative talkshow hosts, the liberal print and television media has gone mostly unmentioned.

News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch has drawn much attention recently. He finalized purchase of the Dow Jones company, including a much debated takeover of the Wall Street Journal. While DJI owners the Bancroft family fought off the Murdoch empire for several months, after much negotiation and haggling over editorial protections. the Wall Street Journal is now apart of the Murdoch machine.

Many journalists have decried the Murdoch takeover. Hopefully, he will provide one avenue in print media where conservatives can get a fair hearing. But that is exactly what liberals don't want - a fair hearing.

What, you say? Liberals want to censure conservatives? Absolutely.

Robert Licter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs said, "Murdoch brings together two things that many journalists think ruins their profession: money and conservatism."

Money ruining journalism, perhaps. But conservatism?

There you have it. From the horse's, or more appropriately, the donkey's mouth. The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with suppressing conservative freedom of speech.

Featured on WND.com

On Saturday, July 28, 2007, Worldnetdaily.com published my article "Our cotton-candy-fluffy-bunny news." Disgusted with the recent coverage of celebrity lawbreakers, I decided to write an article decrying the low standards of journalism, especially in television coverage.

"This was a full week for the world media: President Bush explained that insurgents in Iraq are tied to al-Qaida, Attorney General Gonzalez sparred with U.S senators, and the Dow lost 226 points. Yet, as I watched the headlines blur across my TV screen, it was clear the media had "Hilton syndrome." Lindsay Lohan's arrest dominated headlines and was the lead story on almost every news program. A nauseating reminder of the Hilton media frenzy, America confirmed its infatuation with the cult of the celebrity.

"A month ago, when socialite Paris Hilton managed to get herself a jail sentence, the media pushed aside world affairs for the opportunity to catch a glimpse of the blond heiress. Enamored with her looks, and nothing else, the media reached rock bottom in standards of coverage.

"To confirm the permanence of our society's deterioration, news of Lindsay Lohan, as well as the meltdown of Britney Spears, spread across TV screens Thursday and Friday like a bad virus on your computer. Yet these are these stories Americans want. We clamor for news about our favorite celebrities. Does she trim her nails herself? Did he have a weekend fling on the beach? Will they get married, or just continue living together for the next 12 years?
Why are we so shallow?"

Al Qaeda in Iraq

While liberals continue to tell America that Iraq is not apart of the war on terrorism, a revolutionary partnership has taken place in Iraq that confirms exactly the opposite. The Washington Times reported today that, "U.S. forces have brokered an agreement between Sunni and Shi'ite tribal leaders to join forces against al Qaeda and other extremists..."

Public Terrorist Number One is Al Qaeda, and it has terrorist cells in Iraq.

The rival tribes Suuni and Shi'ite have been warring factions for hundreds, or thousands of years. For these two groups to join forces is historic. It takes something pretty extreme to cause these rivals to halt their bloody feuding and take up arms against someone else. But Al Qaeda has enough of a presence in Iraq that it is the catalyst.

Iraqi President Talabani told President Bush earlier this year that, "We have serious problems with terrorism. The main enemy of Iraqi people is al Qaeda and terrorists cooperating with them."

So liberals, take a hint. We cannot accept anything except complete victory in Iraq.

A Less Hypocritcal Mexico

"It's very hard for Mexico to preach to the north what it does not do to the south," said Mexico's ambassador Artuor Sarukhan in a meeting with some editors and reporters at The Washington times yesterday. "Unless we correct the fundamental challenge of the violation of human rights o fLatin American or Central American migrants crossing the border into Mexciao, it's very hard for me to come up and wag a finger and say you guys should protect the rights of my citizens in this country."

Ironically, Mexico has created a situation where many Mexicans no longer want certain jobs because they can come to the US and get better jobs. The International Herald Tribune reported on this story last year in its article "Mexico worries about its own southern border."

"Here at Mexico's own southern edge, Guatemalans cross legally and illegally to do jobs that Mexicans departing for the north no longer want."

Former Deputy Foreign Minister Geronimo Gutierrez admitted in an interview with the New York Times last year that, "Mexico's immigration laws were 'tougher than those being contemplated by the United States,' where the authorities caught 1.5 million people illegally crossing the Mexican border last year."

I guess Mexico is starting to realize that it can't enforce its own immigration laws and ask the US to ignore ours. However, even if Mexico opened its southern border, we certainly shouldn't follow suit.

One Nation, Under Shiva?

“We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.”

These words were not the utterances of a priest at a pagan temple, nor were they the invoking of some New Age group. These were the opening words at the US Senate on Thursday. For the first time since the Senate was formed in 1789, a Hindu chaplain led the openings prayers in the upper chamber.

Guest Chaplain Rajan Zed, who directs interfaith relations at a Hindu temple in Reno, Nevada, prayed for peace and unity of spirit. He asked the “Deity Supreme” to, “Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality.” He continued to emphasize unity, enlightenment, and being in one accord.

Sorry Mr. Zed, but unity is one thing the Senate is not good at. And praying to the ambiguous god of the earth, or the sky, or the soul of Heaven probably won’t do much good.

It wasn’t Krisha, Ganesh, Shiva, Maya, or any of the other hundreds of Hindu gods that the Founding Fathers prayed to.

In a handwritten manuscript book, George Washington recorded this prayer.

“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”

You’ll notice the lack of Hindu gods in George Washington’s prayer. Hiduism plays no role in America’s heritage. However, hundreds of books document the strong Christian foundation of this country. And it is this heritage that gives the Senate the tradition of opening up its proceedings with a Christian prayer.

John Quincy Adams, during a 4th of July celebration address, specifically tied the founding of this nation to the Christian faith.

“Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.”

The House Judiciary Committee took up the constitutionality of chaplains in Congress in 1854. In its findings, the committee specifically cited Christianity as vital to America.
“[W]hereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty.”

After guest chaplain Zed finished his prayer, Senator Harry Reid saw it fit to comment on the blessing. “I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing a faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our Heavenly Father regarding peace,” he said.

It sounds like Senator Reid wasn’t listening to Mr. Zed’s prayer. If Senator Reid is referring to the God of the Bible when he says “Heavenly Father,” then he and the guest chaplain are talking about two different things. The Bible does not support the idea of a god who dwells in the earth, but also in the sky and heaven. (In fact, traditionally it is someone else who is in the “heart” of the earth.)

This idea of compatibility among all faiths is a myth. The world contains more Muslims than Hindus, but that doesn’t mean the Senate should invite Osama Bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give an opening prayer to Allah.

Our country has a specifically Christian heritage. And we should protect and preserve this heritage by continuing the tradition of Christian chaplains asking God’s blessing on the proceedings in Congress.

A Talking Polar Bear

I was riding the Metro in Washington DC the other day when I saw this advertisement on the wall. I found it quite ironic that organizations will put more time into protecting a polar bear than an unborn baby.

Instead of wasting money putting words in a polar bear's mouth, which I'm sure he would much rather have had a seal or a human in his mouth, this group should run an ad that says something along the lines of, "First you create a single-parent home for me. Now you want to kill me." (Yes, many children are born into wonderful homes, but almost half, if not more, of all babies are born into homes that have a less than optimal environment.)

Where did this organization get the idea that polar bears are mad about their ice melting? Even that first statement is dubious. Who says that the ice is the polar bears? I think the next ad in this hypothetical world should be a seal or sea lion to the polar bears, "First you eat my baby seal, now you eat me."

Obviously polar bears, seals, and every other predator does not believe in animal rights. They freely eat members of other animal species, and sometimes of their own species. A predator will often look for the weak, the sick or the young. Like I mentioned in my article about sea lions earlier this month, animal rights activists are mostly self-contradictory.

"One day the self-appointed protector of the environment decries humanity for encroaching on wildlife and crimping the mating habits of the deer mouse; and the next day the same environmentalist swears by the theory of evolution, praising the notion of survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Justice for Border Agents

The Washington Times reported today that the Senate Judiciary committee will hold hearings next Tuesday on the punishment of two border agents.

"Ignacio Ramos, 37, and Jose Alonso Compean, 28, were sentenced in October to 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, for shooting Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican national, as he fled into Mexico after abandoning 743 pounds of marijuana near Fabens, Texas."

"Border Patrol agents have a difficult and often dangerous job in guarding our nation's borders," [Senator Diane Feinstein] said in letters to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "I believe that aggressive prosecution of Border Patrol agents has a chilling effect on their ability to carry out their duties and on the morale of all agents.

"I am extremely concerned about how this case continues to unfold," she said.

While Senator Feinstein is normally wrong on most issues, she certainly does not dissapoint here. She is absolutely right. Not only does the Border Patrol have to worry about automatic rifles and drug smugglers, but now, agents also have to worry about federal prosecution.

Not only did the government prosecute these two heros, but it proceeded to give both medical attention and full immunity to the known drug smuggler. An article in WorldNetDaily.com puts things in perspective.

"When Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos pulled the trigger last February, all he knew was that his partner was lying on the ground behind him – bloodied from a struggle with a fleeing suspect – shots had been fired and now, it appeared, the drug smuggler he was pursuing had turned toward him with what looked to be a gun in his hand.

In the split-second he had to respond, Ramos determined the course of his and his partner's lives – federal prison for the next 20 years for assault with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharging of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, violating civil rights and obstruction of justice. "

Both of these agents were named Men of the Year on FrontPageMag.com.

Hopefully, after review of the events, the committee will recommend, and President Bush will grant, a commutation, if not a full pardon to these two men.

Enforcing our immigration laws

Monday evening, the Prince William County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to start enforcing immigration laws. Prince William, a large suburban county in northern Virginia, adopted this resolution with some excellent provisions.

"All officials, agencies and personnel of the County shall fully comply with and, to the full extent permitted by law, support the enforcement of federal law prohibiting the entry into, presence or residence in the United States of aliens in violation of federal immigration law.

"County Police Officers shall inquire into the citizenship or immigration status of any person detained for a violation of state law or municipal ordinance..."

I'm sure it won't be long before the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund files suit to prevent this resolution from being fully enforced. I wonder why MALDEF even has "American" in its title. There is little American about it.

Hopefully other counties will follow this bold example.

Who can kill the N-word

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People hosted its annual convention in Detroit this past weekend. On Monday, the NAACP held a "funeral" for the N-word.

"Today we're not just burying the N-word, we're taking it out of our spirit," said Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. "We gather burying all the things that go with the N-word. We have to bury the 'pimps' and the 'hos' that go with it."

Mayor Kilpatrick is absolutely right, the N-word embodies a whole attitude - a whole culture. If the NAACP wants to get rid of the n-word, it will have to to do more than push for racial equality. It must eradicate a whole attitude. Much of the hip-hop culture is centered around a demeaning attitude. In our society the n-word has as much to do with culture as it does race.

I could list lyrics fom some of the many famous hip-hip artists like 50 cent, Kanye West or Eminem (Yes, he is white, but he is also certainly part of the hip-hop culture.) But everyone knows that the n-word is featured prominently in some, if not many of their songs.

I strongly believe that we are all created equal, and endowed by our Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property. I hope that the NAACP will follow through on this metaphorical funeral and kill the attitude that goes along with the n-word as well.

Liberal Opposition Totally Illogical

On July 12, 2007, the Senate will hold confirmation hearings for Dr. James Holsinger, nominated to be the Surgeon General of the United States. His nomination has sparked opposition from both liberals and conservatives. Liberals detest his position on homosexuality, and conservatives question his ambiguous positions on stem cell research. While he may quell the conservative opposition by giving straightforward answers about his current positions, Dr. Holsinger will likely be unable to change the minds of liberals.

While liberals point to many incidents in attempt to paint Dr. Holsinger as "anti-homosexual," much of this rhetoric stems from a paper he published in 1991 as the Chief Medical Director at the US Department of Veteran Affairs. The paper was titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." (WARNING: This paper is graphic, and should only be read by adult readers.) In the paper, he reasoned that acts of male homosexuals pose a higher risk of disease and bodily damage than heterosexual relationships.

The paper closes with this statement.

The logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male pipe fitting or the female pipe fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and disease may occur as noted above. Therefore, based on the simplest known anatomy and physiology, when dealing with the complementarity of the human sexes, one can simply say, Res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself!

Upon President Bush's announcement to nominate Dr. Holsinger, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said, “his writings suggest a scientific view rooted in anti-gay beliefs that are incompatible with the job of serving the medical health of all Americans."

Nowhere in his paper did Dr. Holsinger exhibit any sentiment that suggests he is against homosexuals. He simply pointed out an obvious fact. Yet he was immediately labeled "anti-gay." No amount of explanation will quell the liberal opposition because this opposition is not based on a logical progression.

Official Documentation on the North American Union

WorldNetDaily.com reported today:

A powerful think tank chaired by former Sen. Sam Nunn and guided by trustees including Richard Armitage, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown, William
Cohen and Henry Kissinger, is in the final stages of preparing a report to the White House and U.S. Congress on the benefits of integrating the U.S., Mexico and Canada into one political, economic and security bloc.

The final report, published in English, Spanish and French, is scheduled for submission to all three governments by Sept. 30, according to the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

Here is some more background information about the North American Union:

It is being promoted through the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act application to get files about the SPP. This is what they found.

"On March 23, 2005, heads of government Vincente Fox, George W. Bush, and Paul Martin launched the North American partnership at a meeting in Waco, Texas, with the expressed goal of 'a safer, more prosperous North America.'"

Back in 2006, NewsMax.com did a three part series about the NAU and SPP. In the interview, Diane Alden interview author Jerome Corsi. Mr. Corsi had this to say.

"We are close to a coup d'état by the executive branch. What I have come across in my investigation reminds me of the plot in the blockbuster '60s book 'Seven Days in May' ... having to do with a military coup plot against civilian government. The conclusions I arrive at seem more in line with some fantastic plot line of the TV series '24'."

Highlights in Irony

Today, the top stories drip with irony. First, of course, is our friend Bill and his comments about President Bush for commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby.

"You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy," Bill Clinton said. The Bush administration officials "believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

Sounds vaguely familiar. Perhaps that's the line America should have used when Clinton pardoned or commuted over 175 sentences in one day. Here is a good laundry list of some of the more notable pardons Clinton granted during his terms.

While the guilt of Scooter Libby is obvious, the punishment likely does not fit the crime. Dan Proft has a great commentary on HumanEvents.com.

"Libby was about to be sent to the federal hoosegow for 2.5 years for lying about how he had learned about Plame’s identity, even though said lies were not in furtherance of any criminal act and -- since he was not the leak in the first place -- even though his lies ultimately had nothing to do with the stated purpose of the investigation in the first place."

Looks like Clinton doesn't have a leg to stand on. Sudan might as well start criticizing the US for human rights violations

Sticking with the Clinton administration, Al Gore's Live Earth concerts are set to kick off today. However, the British rock band Arctic Monkeys pointed out the irony of all this hoopla.

"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts. "Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.

Remember "The Filthy Fifteen"? The Parents Music Resource Center, co-founded by Tipper Gore, released a list of musicians whose songs should be banned because of gross obscenity. Madonna made it to number eight on the list for her sexually explicit lyrics in the song "Dress You Up."

Oh, and did I mention that Madonna will headline the Live Earth concert in London. Let's just hope that Tipper Gore doesn't attend that concert.

What does Independence Day mean to you?

Growing up in the United States, I often take our liberties for granted. Every year, I celebrate July 4th in the typical American way: fireworks. Sometimes with family, other times with friends. July 3rd always finds me scouring the local pages of my newspaper for the best fireworks displays. Being in Washington DC definitely has its benefits during Independence Day. The National Symphony Orchestra and top artists always perform a great show on the Capitol Lawn. Then to the backdrop of Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture, one of the most impressive fireworks displays wows audiences all over DC. The fireworks light up the foreground of the Washington Monument for a picture perfect evening.

But is that what Independence Day really is?

Prior to my venture to the Capitol lawn, I was lounging in my apartment taking care of some weekend type chores when my roommate said hi on his way out the door. He is Serbian, and he grew up under communist oppression. Though he's been in DC for a little while now, his enthusiasm for liberty is inspiring. In his thick French accent, he asked what I was doing for the day. I replied with my plans to attend the concert, then asked him what he was doing. His answer embodies how all Americans should feel. "I am going to celebrate my first Independence Day in the capital for the free world," he said.

The capital of the free world.

His first Independence Day.

What a powerful idea. Perhaps it would do us all some good to spend time with those celebrating their July 4th in America for the first time.

Animal Rights? Sea Lions Say No!

Most animal rights activists put themselves in the stickiest contradiction and never seem to realize it. One day the self-appointed protector of the environment decries humanity for encroaching on wildlife and crimping the mating habits of the deer mouse; and the next day the same environmentalist swears by the theory of evolution, praising the notion of survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Such is the situation that the Department of Agriculture has gotten itself into. DOA has actually deployed a salmon protection team to fend off hungry sea lions. Ironically, "preliminary numbers indicate the sea lions caught more salmon this season than in any of the six others since records have been kept."

This article is really hilarious. One should ask, did the salmon actually ask for protection? Even more important, are the sea lions going to feel that their animal rights have been violated?

Marine animals are protected by the 1972 Marine Mammals Protection Act, which imposes stiff penalties for killing such an animal. Perhaps we should jail the sea lions for killing the salmon?

Us humans have taken on a mantle of protection via legislation and legislated handcuffs around our own hands. The salmon should really protest this law and ask the death penalty for sea lions.

I will believe in animal rights the day an animal of any species speaks and asks for individual rights. It's a simple request.

Immigration Bill Must Come as a Package

Yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff reacted to the defeat of the Senate immigration bill with disappointment saying that, "Some necessary tools of enforcement were left on the floor of the Senate."

I do not understand why the Senate cannot pass legislation adopting these "necessary tools" and rejecting an amnesty. Its as if the Senate cannot secure the border without providing an amnesty bill. This self-imposed handicap further emphasizes the irony of this schizophrenic body. Why would America want to increase border security, and then offer increased incentive for would-be illegal immigrants.

American citizenship is a prized possession. And if someone from a third-world country with a corrupt government can attain this prize simply by crossing the border and then paying a small fine, well that's quite a deal...for them. But what an insult to the thousands of applicants who are standing in line, sometimes literally, to get legal citizenship.

Perhaps Mr. Chertoff will encourage the Senate to take up increased border security with no strings attached.

Feature on WorldNetDaily

Today, the top visited online news site posted my commentary on the recent Supereme Court decision on race. WorldNetDaily.com featured my article "Racism on the High Court." Here is an excerpt:

"School districts in Seattle and Louisville both had programs to ensure a racially diverse school population. In fact, the program in Seattle attempted to create schools where 41 percent of students were white and 59 percent were nonwhite. The court struck these programs down. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

"Wait, did he say to prevent discrimination one should stop discriminating? What a novel idea."

Read more here.

Immigration Bill Fails

The Senate had its immigration showdown today, and conservatives won! Because this immigration bill is so important, I am posting a list of votes:

YEAs ---46
Akaka (D-HI)Bennett (R-UT)Biden (D-DE)Boxer (D-CA)Cantwell (D-WA)Cardin (D-MD)Carper (D-DE)Casey (D-PA)Clinton (D-NY)Conrad (D-ND)Craig (R-ID)Dodd (D-CT)Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)Feinstein (D-CA)Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH)Hagel (R-NE)Inouye (D-HI)Kennedy (D-MA)Kerry (D-MA)Klobuchar (D-MN)Kohl (D-WI)Kyl (R-AZ)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Lieberman (ID-CT)Lincoln (D-AR)Lott (R-MS)Lugar (R-IN)Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ)Menendez (D-NJ)Mikulski (D-MD)Murray (D-WA)Nelson (D-FL)Obama (D-IL)Reed (D-RI)Reid (D-NV)Salazar (D-CO)Schumer (D-NY)Snowe (R-ME)Specter (R-PA)Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---53
Alexander (R-TN)Allard (R-CO)Barrasso (R-WY)Baucus (D-MT)Bayh (D-IN)Bingaman (D-NM)Bond (R-MO)Brown (D-OH)Brownback (R-KS)Bunning (R-KY)Burr (R-NC)Byrd (D-WV)Chambliss (R-GA)Coburn (R-OK)Cochran (R-MS)Coleman (R-MN)Collins (R-ME)Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX)Crapo (R-ID)DeMint (R-SC)Dole (R-NC)Domenici (R-NM)Dorgan (D-ND)Ensign (R-NV)Enzi (R-WY)Grassley (R-IA)Harkin (D-IA)Hatch (R-UT)Hutchison (R-TX)Inhofe (R-OK)Isakson (R-GA)Landrieu (D-LA)McCaskill (D-MO)McConnell (R-KY)Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE)Pryor (D-AR)Roberts (R-KS)Rockefeller (D-WV)Sanders (I-VT)Sessions (R-AL)Shelby (R-AL)Smith (R-OR)Stabenow (D-MI)Stevens (R-AK)Sununu (R-NH)Tester (D-MT)Thune (R-SD)Vitter (R-LA)Voinovich (R-OH)Warner (R-VA)Webb (D-VA)

Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

Blatant Bias

Even though the New York Times has admitted its liberal bias, every now and then its skewed reporting still astonishes me. On the second page of the Washington Times (and released by AP) ran the headline "Louisianans OK partial-birth ban".

"The Louisiana Legislature approved a ban on a late-term abortion procedure yesterday, the first state to do so since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal ban earlier this year. The House voted unanimously to approve a measure that would allow "partial-birth" abortions only when failure to perform it would endanger the mother's life."

Many other papers picked up this story, The International Herald Tribune, the Chicago Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, and more. (Admittedly they almost all ran the AP story, but at least they ran the story.)

The partial-birth abortion issue is just slightly big news. This bill is the first to pass both houses of a state legislature (notably almost unanimously), and it somehow misses the editors at the New York Times.

Every copy of the Times has a textbox on the upper corner, front page, which says "All the News That's Fit to Print." I think that needs to be changed to "All the News That is Filtered to Praise Liberals and Demonize Conservatives."

To emphasize the bias, the paper made room to print the story "Louisiana: Nude and Dangerous Behind the Wheel". Well, I guess that's the news that is fit to print.

Update: The New York Times online edition did actually include this story on their online version under the very small National Briefing section, buried under layers of navigation.

Steps to a North American Union

Two weeks ago, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published additional details about a project that will "demonstrate the ability of Mexico-based motor carriers to operate safely in the United States." Translation: Mexican commercial drivers can now drive in the US without a US drivers license.

Just today, the Washington Times published an article called "Full access for Mexican trucks hits rough road".

"A Bush administration plan to proceed with a pilot program to give Mexican truckers full access of U.S. roads has caused a bipartisan uproar on Capitol Hill.

"The cross-border trucking program is bad for America,' said Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and presidential candidate. 'It appears, under the current program, that commercial interests are being pushed ahead of the safety and security interests of the American people.'

"Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill complained the program would pose serious safety concerns, and the House last month voted 411-3 to place a series of restrictions on Mexican trucks and their drivers, designed to delay the administration's program indefinitely."

This program is just another step in the plan to implement the North American Union. Dr. Jerome Corsi has written extensively about this treaty on Human Events.com.

"Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

"What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005."

Carter: A Living Legacy of Ludicrous Ideas

Former President Jimmy Carter once again confirmed his leadership of the "presidents who have horrible foreign policy ideas and then base policies on those ideas" club. In an address to a human rights group in Dublin, Ireland, Carter blasted the Bush Administration for not treating Hamas the same way it has treated Fatah.

"Besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, Hamas has proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas."

And this is the kind of person who gets a Nobel peace prize? Then again, Yassir Arafat got a Nobel prize too.

Carter went on to say that the Administration's rejection of Hamas' authority after the Palestinian elections was "criminal."

I'm sure Hamas is not offended at our "criminal" actions however. How could they be? Hamas obviously does not believe in the just rule of law, but only in the radical Jihad. In order to be criminal you must have laws for the criminals to break.

Catering to Terrorists (Again)

President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have both extended a welcoming hand to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (NYT, WP, WT). In their meeting at the White House today, Bush and Olmert both agreed to cooperate with the Palestinian leader (not just cooperate, but also fund a supply.)

Bush said of Abbas he is the "the president of all the Palestinians" and "a reasonable voice amongst the extremists."

Once again the Administration runs into the lesser of two evils. But condemning Hamas by cooperating with another terrorist supporter is just like the US funding the Taliban in the 1990s, and then turning around and supporting the Northern Alliance to defeat the Taliban.

Let us not forget that Abbas is himself an Islamic extremist. He published a book back in 1983 stating that 6 million as the total number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust was "peddled" by the Jews, and that in fact "the Jewish victims may number six million or be far fewer, even fewer than one million." He has a long history of terrorism, including participation in the Munich Olympics massacre.

The Wall Street Journal wrote a serious critique of Abbas here.

"But if Americans and Europeans are genuinely interested in promoting Palestinian-Israeli peace, it is time for them to take a realistic look at [Abbas'] record ... His outright refusal to confront and disarm terrorists, in violation of the Road Map, hardly registers anymore in the Western media and where it does, it is usually excused and attributed to his relative political weakness ... the Palestinian Authority continues to glorify terrorists."

Ironically just last year Bush praised the "democratic" elections in Palestine, regardless of the result. But just because a leader is democratically elected doesn't mean that he will be good. In fact, the US should learn an important lesson from this recent Palestinian civil war. (Can it be a civil war if the Palestinians don't have a state to separate over?)

James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation states it well, "The rise of "Hamastan" in Gaza is also a sharp indictment of the Bush Administration's policy of supporting rapid democratization of a society that lacked the necessary civil and political culture to sustain a pluralist democracy."

Got Environmentalists?

Illegal aliens are getting creative in their border crossings. They aren't simply walking across the border anymore. Now, when they cross over parts of the border covered by national forest, they actually start forest fires to distract park rangers and border patrol, and even burn the rangers out of observation posts.

Where are the environmentalists when you need them! If environmentalists can complain about a border fence damaging some ecosystem in San Diego, then what about deliberately torching a US national forest? (To say nothing about smoking US Border Patrol out of their guard towers.)

A Good Idea From Democrats?

The House Democrats have come up with a potentially successful idea...somebody call the newspapers! Actually it is in the newspapers. The Washington Times reported today that House Democrats are considering separating the immigration bill in to several parts based on topic.

"House Democrats say they may break the immigration issue up into a series of smaller bills that would put off the tougher parts and allow others to pass, such as border security, and high-tech and agriculture worker programs that have clear support."

This always seemed like a simple no brainer. Yet the Senate can't seem to figure out that an immigration bill will not pass if it contains amnesty. (One that doesn't contain a path to citizenship.) The Senate should take a hint and create at least three separate bills: one to fund border security, one to discuss a guest worker program, and one to deal with deal with immigration quotas and the point system. (hopefully the middle bill fails.)

Unashamed politicizing of Darfur

Today the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stooped to a new level and blamed climate change for the genocide in Darfur.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change. Ban said in an opinion piece to the Washington Post. " It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought."

Using climate change as a scapegoat for the violent Islamic fascists who have murdered tens of thousands of people was rhetorically brilliant and personally disgusting. Not only did the UN Secretary General increase the urgency in solving the so-called problem of global warming, but he also shifted the spotlight away from radical Jihadists.

James Phillips, research fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, wrote about the Darfur crisis in 2004, clearly explaining its roots.

The Darfur crisis, like the previous man-made famine in southern Sudan, was engineered by Sudan's dictatorship to suppress popular resistance to its radical Islamic agenda. Ever since seizing power in a 1989 coup, General Omar al-Bashir's regime has exacerbated tensions with non-Muslims in the south and with Sufi Muslims, predominant in western Sudan, who resent the forced imposition of a harsh brand of Islamic law.

When Darfur tribes rebelled in early 2003, the Bashir regime attacked defenseless villages suspected of supporting the predominantly non-Arab rebels. Much of the regime's terror campaign has been conducted by brutal Janjaweed (a colloquialism roughly translated as "devils on horses") militias that Khartoum implausibly claims are criminal elements beyond its control. The Janjaweed, who reportedly share camps with the Sudanese Army, have burned hundreds of villages and robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered their non-Arab inhabitants. Although most of their victims are Muslims, the Janjaweed consider them apostates who deserve death or slavery if they resist the jihad invoked by the extremist regime. Victims report that the Janjaweed often shout "abeed" (slaves) before they rape or kill.

The United Nations estimates that 1.2 million people have been driven from their homes and that roughly 2 million people are in dire need of food aid. Approximately 50,000 people have already died in Darfur, and the U.S. government estimates that another 1,000 die every day from attacks, starvation, and disease.

The United Nations has been dragging its feet since the genocide began. Just last year, the UN Human Rights Council convened its fourth special session to address the Darfur region of Sudan. The result was a resolution that did not assign any guilt, but simply expressed "concern regarding the seri­ousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation." The resolution did not even mention the word "violations." [28]

During that special session, the UN approved an investigory mission, led by Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams. The Sudanese government denied the mission entry to Darfur, forcing it to investigate from Ethiopia and Chad. As expected, the mis­sion's report strongly condemned the Sudanese government for orchestrating and participating in "large-scale international crimes in Darfur."[29] Allies of Sudan on the council subsequently rejected the report as invalid because the investi­gatory team had not gone to Darfur. The council finally adopted a weak resolution that "took note" of the Williams report but did not adopt its recommendations or condemn the Sudanese government for its actions in Darfur.[30]

If the UN wants to seriously address the genocide in Darfur, it must stop using political antics to promote pseudo-science and accept the real cause for this humanitarian crisis.

Where's the fence?

RapidResponse Media in conjunction with Grassfire.org is running a media campaign called "Where's the Fence?" The ad is absolutely hilarious. It is a parody of the 1980s Wendy's campaign "Where's the Beef?"

The ad also makes an excellent point, what happened to the fence that Congress appropriated funds for? Back in October 2006, Bush signed legislation authorizing 700 miles of border fence. However, Congressman Duncan Hunter stated recently in the Republican debates that to date, only 11 miles have been built.

Before we even consider revamping immigration laws, how about enforcing the laws on the books!

Republicans losing support.

Republicans are really shooting themselves in the foot with the immigration issue. It seems clear that conservatives want border security, period. The amnesty, guest worker program and earmarks of the huge immigration bill make it a poison pill to swallow.

Now conservatives are responding with their pocketbooks. The Washington Times reported today that the RNC is losing its donor base.

"Faced with an estimated 40 percent fall-off in small-donor contributions and aging phone-bank equipment that the RNC said would cost too much to update, Anne Hathaway, the committee's chief of staff, summoned the solicitations staff last week and told them they were out of work, effective immediately, the fired staffers told The Times."

Republican leaders need to take note that they will lose support if they continue to promote this liberal immigration bill.

CPAC

Last week was the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington DC. I had the privilege of hosting the radio podcast The Spew, recording live from radio row.

Aside from meeting with some fantastic conservatives, I also listened to almost all of the front-runners for the 2008 presidential nomination. The CPAC straw poll , yielded some interesting results. Not suprising was the fact that Governor Mitt Romney won, and Senator John McCain came in last (or the top tier candidates). The interesting part was Speaker Newt Gingrich's reception at CPAC. People stood on their chairs to clap as Gingrich walked in from the back of the room, shaking hands as he made his way to the front. He also claimed fourth place in the straw poll. Not bad for someone who is not even officially running.

Unfortunately, none of the candidates distinguished themselves as the 2008 hero of the conservative movement. However, I think America is much to fascinated with the campaign. And pundits are making predictions much to early. I'm sure we will have many suprises coming out as time goes on.

One suprise may come from Vice President Dick Cheney, as reported on Page One Daily News. The site reports and article in a British paper, about Condoleezza Rice possibly replacing Cheney.

Bad Decisions from the UN...Again

The Toronto Daily News reported today that, "According to the new UNISEF report, United States and Britain ranked at the bottom of a U.N. survey evaluating the well-being of children in industrialized countries."

The article goes on to say that, "UNICEF ranked 21 industrialized countries in six categories: material well-being, health and safety, education, peer and family relationships, behaviors and risks, and young people’s own subjective sense of well-being."

"The U.S. was last for health and safety, measured by rates of infant mortality, low birth weight, immunization, and deaths from accidents and injuries."

Of the industrialized nations, of which there are around 21, the Netherlands, Finland, and Denmark ranked at the top! But take a look at this article . The Dutch government intends to expand its current euthanasia policy, setting guidelines for when doctors may end the lives of terminally ill newborns with the parents' consent. Somehow, the UN doesn't factor euthanasia into the equation of "well-being".

Just another example of UN incompetency.

Giuliani

This past weekend I attended the California Republican Convention where Rudy Giuliani was the lunch speaker. A charismatic speaker, he definitely gained the support of the moderate-leaning audience.

With a weak Republican pool of presidential candidates, some conservatives may be tempted to support him as an alternative to McCain. This is a great primer on why conservatives should not compromise their principles to support this liberal Republican. Here are some exercpts:

On Abortion:

"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999

On Illegal Immigration:

But, as Michelle Malkin has revealed, under Giuliani, New York was an illegal alien sanctuary and "America's Mayor" actually sued the federal government in an effort to keep New York City employees from having to cooperate with the INS:

"When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law."

Back again

I am glad to return to the internet world. During my stint on the George Allen campaign in Virginia, I took down my blog so as not to give the liberal left an opportunity to twist the words of a campaign member.

I was the Eastern Regional Politcal Director, coordinating all of the grassroots, volunteer, and visibility activities in the northern part of the first congressional district. As a staff member of the Republican Party of Virginia, I got an inside look at how things turned out.


The lesson that we can learn is conservative principles will always win over middle-of-the-road thinking. The marriage amendment passed in Virginia by an overwhelming 57 percent. If Allen had been within even five points of the amendment, he would still have had a clean victory. The reality on the campaign: Allen did not publicly and strongly align himself with the amendment until the last two weeks of the campaign. Had he show clearly that he supported the amendment, and his liberal opponent Jim Webb was against it, then Republicans would still probably control he Senate. Hopefully Republicans will learn this lesson for the 2008 elections.