Tuesday, October 24, 2006
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
JIMMY CARTER SUPPORTS THE DEAL!!!!!!!!
The entire Republican Party does not support this deal, but Jimmy Carter does. Shouldn't that be enough not to support something?
If he couldn't stand up to the Iranians then, why should Bush listen to him now (or ever).
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Cheney's PR: How Not to Do Damage Control
In the story, the "reporter" tells it like it isn't: "At best, it has fed criticism of Cheney as aloof and isolated. At worst, critics suggest, it has shown a president unable to control his own vice president."
Here's how it really is, as reported correctly in the National Ledger:
Poll: Only 27% Say Dick Cheney Accident Raises Serious Questions
I guess that no one cares, except the Democrats. That's probably why Google News still has literally hundreds of stories on the topic, which by now is nothing more than pure spin from the "objective" media. Enough already. You lost.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Cheney under fire as victim worsens (The Age)
Cheney could face charges in shooting (AP)
Man Cheney shot has heart attack (BBC)
Right now, there are 4,368 stories on Google News about this accident. If this is a story, and Iran's nuclear capability isn't, one thing is pretty clear: journalists, by and large, are idiots.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
This will all be mute soon enough. The Dems will take back the senate in 06 and both the white house and congress in 08. Then we can negotiate for peace after that. No more fear, no more lies, no more war.
What the liberal who posted this comment doesn't know is that these people are the ones they have to "negotiate for peace" with:
Saturday, February 04, 2006
A few days ago, Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog that predicts whether 6 more weeks of winter are in store, popped out and saw his own shadow. To some, this means six more weeks of winter. To others, Phil presents an opportunity for an utterly moronic publicity stunt, as noted by USA Today:
The National Environmental Trust said it's groundhog-suit-wearing human "will ignore his shadow and will instead rely on global warming evidence to forecast an early spring."
This is the current status of the global warming debate. Kyoto didn't work out, so the left is putting a guy in a groundhog suit, sending him to Punxsutawney, and having him act as the "shadow" of a real groundhog.
These people are truly becoming pathetic.
My second post was more nefarious. I commented on one of the "fighting Dem" stories, which feature liberal veterans running for office. I noted (consistent with liberal values, I might add) that people who have served in the military should not hold public office. After all, anyone who would willingly go slaughter innocents, kick in doors in the middle of the night, and sexually assault random females in Iraq (like all the other troops) is not particularly "progressive," and therefore should not play a role in the Democrat party. The regulars were not pleased. The first response said "Do you want us to lose?" (Never mind that the principle that veterans shouldn't serve in government is totally abhorrent.) Other posts followed, basically calling me an out of touch "revolutionary" (which is now apparently passe). I responded that Adolf Hitler served in the military before holding public office (he was also a vegetarian, by the way), and that this proves the point that you can't trust military hawks in positions of power. After that, the other posters flagged my comment for the "parent," who thereafter prevented me from posting and erased all my previous posts.
I acted as an honest liberal, and now I'm banned from Daily Kos for life. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Listening to Bush tonight, I couldn't help thinking that the Democrat/Media's main issues (e.g., whether Bush gleefully watched "Brokeback Mountain," whether abortion on demand will survive into the Iranian nuclear age, whether a photo of Jack Abramoff and Bush exists) are 100% irrelevant to the pressing issues right now. How about America's competitiveness in the world? Bush is at least addressing the issue where it's most important: science/math education and freeing trade restrictions and taxes. The Democrats? They clapped when the value of the "American worker" was praised, but have no program, except for one that doles out favors to special interest groups, such as teachers' unions. Bush ripped the Islamofascists, but the Dems have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO OFFER, except criticism of the President's surveillance program and the lack of a "timetable" for pulling the troops out of Iraq.
The Democrats are utterly irrelevant. Never vote for them.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Had enough of the "love the troops, hate the idea of them winning" rhetoric of the Democratic party? If so, you'll loooove this column, which compares the indistinguishable quotes of Howard Dean, John Murtha, and Osama bin Laden. Who says they're traitors?
Thursday, January 19, 2006
How do American students stack up against their foreign counterparts? If they lived in Asia, they would probably take the short bus. Perhaps the most damning indictment of liberal, teachers'-union-run public schools ever, this functional capacity evaluation proves that college students are practically illiterate when asked to take on common tasks. Guess which courses of study are the least educational? If you don't know, here they are:
The survey showed a strong relationship between analytic coursework and literacy. Students in two-year and four-year schools scored higher when they took classes that challenged them to apply theories to practical problems or weigh competing arguments.
Competing arguments? Analytical coursework? Name a sociology, womens' studies or African American studies department where you'll hear a "competing argument." For that matter, name a public school where the bulk of the teachers aren't liberals pumping kids full of defeatist 60s rhetoric about "social justice," i.e., communism.
Oh well, at least our kids will understand "diversity"!
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Who would think that Muslims in America could be activiely plotting a nuclear terror attack? Anyone reasonable, that's who. But when U.S. government agents used electronic monitoring equipment to detect nuclear devices around (Gasp!) Mosques and the homes of Muslims in the U.S., the liberal media was (and remains) outraged. Apparently there is a right to build and use nuclear weapons in the Constitution (but only if you use them against Americans).
"It is a waste of time, it is a waste of resources and it is causing us to be concerned about our citizenship, our constitutional rights," Nihad Awad, of CAIR, told CNN. A waste of time? I'd bet stopping innocent Muslim flight students for questioning would have been a "waste of time" to this moron as of 9/10/01. If any group would detonate a nuke on our soil, it would probably be a Muslim terrorist cell, so it's perfectly reasonable to target these groups for homeland security purposes. As for civil rights, these types of sweeps are about as non-invasive as it gets.
But none of that matters to the liberal media. According to them, the Muslims in the U.S. are beyond reproach. If it makes Bush look like big brother, they'll run with pretty much anything these days.
I once visited a Mosque in Madison, Wisconsin, just to see what it looked like and how the worship service was conducted. During the "sermon" portion of the service, the Imam got up and ranted for about 20 minutes about how terrible the U.S. and Israel were. I suspect that this "sermon" is repeated millions of times per year in Mosques throughout the world, on a daily basis. Accordingly, if any place should be targeted as a potential meeting place for terrorists in the U.S., it would be a Mosque.
No offense to our innocent Muslim friends, but you've made no effort to distance yourselves from a pretty bad crowd, and must accept the consequences that follow.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Egomaniac, sunglasses-wearing song-and-dance man Bono, of the world-famous arena-rockers U2, has been named Time magazine's "Person of the Year," along with Bill and Melinda Gates. His contribution? Urging government leaders to cancel third world debts. Here's the criteria for the award:
The aim is to pick "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse."
Did Bono "embody what was important" about anything this year? If by "important" Time means that he (or, more likely, his staff) has worked dilligently on the thoroughly idiotic policy of debt "forgiveness." As any thinking person knows, the nations whose debts we are asked to forgive were NOT innocent bystanders to their own misfortunes. And if we forgive the debts of corruption-ridden governments whose own mishandling of money was the cause of these debts in the first place, with NO corresponding demands for internal reform, we essentially wipe the credit card ledger clean and encourage the same behavior that got them there in the first place. Not only that, but many of these dicatorships depend on just this sort of aid to prop up their socialist/communist governments, which have no hope of succeeding on their own. By writing them no-strings-attached checks, we help to perpetuate tyranny.
While the debt forgiveness program has little appeal to people who understand international relations and economics, it has immense appeal to people in the media and entertainment worlds because it sounds compassionate. Every time Time magazine nominates someone like Bono, it encourages people to think that the well intentioned, but in reality stupid, policy suggestions of know-nothing entertainers are worth giving a fair hearing. Bono should do us all a favor and stick to music. On second thought, maybe he should give that up too. After all, his band hasn't put out a good album since "The Joshua Tree" about 20 years ago.
Next year's Person of the Year? I'm betting on Jessica Simpson.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Liberals revealed their true selves again this week in their response to convicted, cold-blooded murderer "Tookie" Williams' death by lethal injection and their conflicting response to President George W. Bush's admission that some of the pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMDs was wrong. In "Tookie's" case, the liberals completely forgot his former misdeeds, including the murders of four people who did nothing more than try to run a business and make a living, while glorifying his alleged authorship of an anti-gang children's book (which apparently erases all moral culpability). In Bush's case, the liberals finally got what they wanted--an admission that some of the Iraq intelligence was wrong--yet they're still calling for Bush's execution (see graphic), because "Bush Lied, People Died." To them, someone making the "mistake" of murdering American citizens, never admitting it, and then writing a little-known children's book about gangs makes a person less deserving of death than someone responsible for liberating a nation filled with oppressed people based on questionable intelligence. Are these people nuts?
If you'd like to see a great example of the lunacy of the left (and distasteful protesting) during the leadup to and aftermath of the Williams execution, read this article and, when you're good and mad, check out this man-on-the-scene reporting, which is hillarious.
Author's Note: Like many liberals, I oppose the death penalty, not because of "racism" or other idiotic reasons, but instead because the government has and will continue to wrongfully convict a small number of individuals. Further, I believe that these prisoners could be better used as slave laborers for the benefit of others, so that they could give back something to the society from which they took so much, rather than as an endless irritant in our courts. If a life worse than death is provided for them, why not keep them alive?
Thursday, December 08, 2005
What in the hell is wrong with liberals these days? For starters, they seem to have completely forgotten history. They are constantly criticizing Bush and comparing him to Hitler. But at the same time, they praise people like the late Yassir Arafat, Al Qaeda "detainees," and even Saddam Hussein. If liberals hate Hitler so much, it's worth asking what a Nazi is, isn't it?
Maybe it's someone who denies the holocaust occurred, like soon-to-be-liberal-hero (when we and/or Israel finally attack) "President" Mahmoud Amadinejad of Iran. Or maybe it's the Palestinians, who also seem to be in favor of wiping the Israel (and the Jews) "off the map." The following graphic is instructive:
But all of these things can be said about liberals too, which is the height of irony. A religion/political movement like Wahabbism, which denigrates women, targets civilians militarily, accepts the coexistence of no other religion (sorry liberals, that includes atheism), and has no respect for individual rights or civil liberties would, logically, repulse liberals. Unfortunately, they're too stupid/ignorant to realize that in all their Bush-bashing, Christian-hating fervor they've come to accept a movement than is logically a hundred-million times less tolerant, more homophobic, less rights-respecting, and just about every other bad thing, than Christian conservatism.
I guess the Soviet term for Cold War liberals, "useful idiot," is an equally good description of Islamoliberals today. So who's more of a Nazi, George w. Bush or his leftist opponents? To answer that question, just look to the Wahabbis' most adamant supporters: The American left.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
When the Soviet Union was still around, thousands of American students became Kremlinologists, counting words and deconstructing seemingly innocuous phrases in the speeches of the secretive arch-conservatives who ruled that crumbling empire.
Huh? As you may have guessed, the intellectual honesty (and rigor) of this column doesn't get much better. Here is the picture accomanying the column, which implies Bush is "playing God" with Iraqi children:
I guess this picture, which no doubt represents many of the children living under Saddam's utopia, wasn't available:
But who cares what happens to the Iraqis anyway, so long as a Democrat gets elected. This column proves one thing at least: Liberals never let facts get in the way of their arguments.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Lending legitimacy to his undeserved Nobel Prize award, celebrities are lining up to celebrate the achievements of Mohamed ElBaredi. You may remember ElBaredi as the important-sounding International Atomic Energy Agency head who used diplomacy in the vastly "successful" efforts to stop Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Well, maybe not successful in any measurable sense. But in left-wing moonbat terms, he's as successful as they come, largely because he pooh poohs the use of force, unlike cowboy George W. Bush.
Next time you're children are hiding under a desk during a nuclear bomb scare at school, you'll know who to thank.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Dear Democrats and Media Members,
For the eight-gazzillionth time, some of the actions taken in the Iraq War were "mistakes." Number one, we were probably far too nice to the so-called "insurgents," which encouraged them to fight harder because they had no fear of the consequences. If we would have done it right, they would be dead, not rotting away in Abu Grhaib Prison. Number two, we should have watched the CIA closer to make sure that subversive MoveOn.org-contributing political operatives (i.e., Joseph Wilson) were not put on fact-finding missions for the CIA (by their wives) where the facts were found before the mission began. Number three, we probably should have killed Saddam Hussein without a trial. After all, his defense lawyers might be alive if we had, and no one really doubts his guilt anyway (except Ramsey Clark). And finally, we should have built military bases on the Iranian border immediately after the occupation, just to scare the Mullahs in that country and make them realize our non-proliferation threats are credible.
Now it's your turn. How about admitting your military failures to the victims of 9/11, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the 1st World Trade Center bombing, the Embassy workers in Tanzania and Kenya, the fallen soldiers in Somalia (and the people there), and the millions people living in Communist regimes (including Vietnam)? Your weak-kneed policies, always seeking to appease dicators--Castro, Kim Jong Il, the Iraqi "insurgents," Osama, the Somali warlords, et. al--are what provide the short-term solutions and the cause the long-term problems.
Your "solutions" encourage our violent, barbarian-like enemies to attack us again, and again, and again. In every confrontation, from Vietnam to Iraq, your party has sought to "understand" our enemies by capitulating to them. You see this as a solution, but our enemies see this as weakness, and weakness always begets violent challenge. But in any event, you don't want to "win" anyway. You think America is so terrible that us winning in war and instilling our democratic values (like we did in Germany and Japan) is always a loss to the people on the other side--even if those people have NO freedoms at all. If you hate American values and democracy this much, why don't you go live in Cuba, where everyone has their own private doctor and a '57 Chevy (and nothing else, including civil liberties). If that's good enough for them, it's good enough for you.
Now you say that "staying the course" in Iraq should be replaced with a weaker solution, such as a gradual pullout. You say that the Administration should admit its mistakes and chart a different course. Yet you offer no solution that won't embolden our enemies. You want to turn this conflict into another Vietnam by preventing the troops on the ground from winning the war. For your own political gain, you want the troops to fail. No way.
You want an apology? You first.
Monday, November 21, 2005
It's hard to fathom why a Vietnam veteran would join the anti-war forces of Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. After all, Sheehan and Moore are the successors to the hippie protesters that spit on the troops and called them "baby killer!" at the end of the Vietnam War. Anybody with an understanding of history would realize that the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were beaten in the Capitol building, college campuses, and the editorial pages of newspapers--and not on the battlefield. Now Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa.), a veteran and former POW, is essentially lending aid and comfort to those seeking to reignite the Vietnam era, as perfectly shown by this "thank you" in the uber-liberal "Progressive" magazine. Maybe it's mind control?
The main reason that Democrats and the media give so much credence to the opinions of people like Murtha and Sheehan is because they've "been there" in terms of sacrifice (and propaganda value) and agree with the liberal ready-to-cave attitude toward Iraq. What the Democrats and media ignore are the people who "are there" today. This was perfectly illustrated by the Democrats' outrage when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) restated the words of a Marine currently in Iraq who dared to criticize the opinions of the vaunted Rep. Murtha, who is, uhh, a veteran after all.
If this keeps up, Bernard Goldberg will fill an encyclopedia before he retires.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Earlier this week, the media and Democrats were dancing in the streets after Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine Colonel, introduced a Bill favoring an expedited pullout from Iraq. According to the always-unbiased Chicago Tribune, Murtha is "one of the House's most respected hawks." And he's also a Democrat. Surely, the media/Democrats thought, his call for withdrawal will carry a great deal of weight, right?
Wrong. Last night, the Republicans in the House called for a vote on a non-binding resolution with similar language. Here is the relevant language:
It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
If the Democrats were honest about their anti-war, hippy-like stance on Iraq, they would have voted that their "sense" was that a termination of the Iraq conflict was appropriate. Instead, the Democrats freaked out big-time. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the resolution "a disgrace." Tensions boiled over when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) made the following statement on the floor of the House about an earlier conversation with a Marine colonel:
"He asked me to send Congress a message--stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message--that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."
The Democrats started screaming for her words to be taken down, and Schmidt (for no good reason) apologized. But after all the shrill debate, the Democrats were forced into putting their stances on the record. The vote was 403-3 against the resolution, with even Murtha in the majority. Ha ha ha!!!
In voting for the resolution, the Democrats were forced to choose between their base and their kooks. In voting at all, the Democrats would either alienate their base, the Commie kooks (Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, et al), or the so-called "moderates," i.e. union liberals, who (stupidly) vote Democrat but generally support the war.
Finally, someone knows what they're doing on Capitol Hill. It's about time.
Friday, November 18, 2005
The whole Hillary Plame affair seems to be winding down. In the beginning, the more optimistic members of the left/media complex anxiously waited for Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to hand out their "Fitzmas" gifts--an indictment of Karl Rove, maybe even Cheney or Bush. Eagerness turned to slight dismay when only the Vice President's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted, and not even for revealing Plame's identity as an alleged "deep cover" operative. Instead, he was charged with lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters, during which he allegedly leaked her name. At least that gave Chris Matthews something to talk about.
Now Watergate reporter Bob Woodward, a paragon of virtue on the left, has come out and said that Libby may be telling the truth. It turns out that someone else leaked Plame's identity to Woodward, and it wasn't Libby. So what will the media say now?
Now they're turning on Woodward, saying he's gotten too close to the institutions of power and chronicling his fall from the grace since the days of his Watergate reporting. Here's what our buddy Ariana Huffington, speaking for the mainstream left, had to say:
"Hear that hissing noise? That's the sound of the air being let out of Woodward's reputation."
Yeah, he's no Mary Mapes. That's for sure.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
I usually laugh at liberals and their socialist fatwahs against America. Media bias? It's just par for the course. But once in awhile, the mainstream media applies such a double standard that I seriously, and I mean SERIOUSLY, wonder whether there is some sort of socialist conspiracy going on underneath our noses.
Today was one of those days. If you haven't heard (and you probably didn't), Hillary Clinton held a birthday party for 88-year-old Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) in the one-time house of Frederick Douglass. And why is that such a big deal? Well, Senator Byrd was a Ku Klux Klan member during the 1940s. But he was more than your average member, he was elected to the office of Kleagle, and then elevated to the office of Grand Cyclops in that venerable organization. What has he done since? He filibustered by speaking for hours on end when the Senate debated the 1964 Civil Rights Act that, despite his (and other Democrats') efforts, eventually passed with wide Republican support. And a few years back, he noted during a TV interview that he's seen a lot of "white niggers" during his time.
No big deal, right? Well, it was a national crisis when Trent Lott, during a birthday party, said that things would have been better had Strom Thurmond been elected President. As you may recall, Strom Thurmond (like Byrd) was a segregationist. Based on this offhand remark alone, made while singing the praises of an equally old Strom Thurmond, the media immediately jumped to the conclusion that Lott wished that segregation would have continued. They demanded that he apologize, on non-segregation-supporting Black Entertainment Television, and he was eventually forced to resign his leadership position in the Senate (in a fit of Republican weakness).
There is a virtual silence in the media today about the Byrd b-day affair at Douglass' house. Objectively speaking, the decision to hold this party at that location was much, much more offensive than Trent Lott's comment ever could be. Not only was Byrd a former segregationist, he was a Klan member and a strident opponent of civil rights. As someone who isn't as "race conscious" as most liberals, even I can see how off-color it is to defile Douglass' house with the presence of such a man.
So what is the non-silent media saying? They're presenting this as an "attack" by Jeanine Pirro, Clinton's future opponent for her annointed NY Senate seat. What a load of s%#@!!!!
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
In a 1980s job application, soon-to-be Justice Alito said that the "right" to abortion is not found in the Constitution. Worse still, he implied that affirmative action is unconstitutional. These wild, extreme beliefs put him much farther on the ideological extreme that Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Or so the Washington Post would have you believe....
Guess which of Ruth's beliefs made her a "consensus nominee":
1. Government should pay for abortions.
2. The age of "consent" for sexual activity should be 12 years old.
3. The right to consensual prostitution can be found in the text of the Constitution.
4. The right to practice polygamy can be found in the text of the Constitution.
5. Mothers' and Fathers' Days are discriminatory and should be outlawed.
Still guessing? Don't worry, the Post assures us that Ruth hasn't made outlawing Mothers' Day her "life's work."
And the mainstream media wonders why its readership is declining.
Monday, November 14, 2005
A nuclear bomb, in a political sense, will detonate tomorrow. The cause of this explosion-to-be was the discovery of a personal statement that accompanied Judge Alito's job application for the US Attorney General's Office during the Reagan Administration. Here are the money quotes:
"Most recently, it has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly.
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.
"I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values."
Chuck Schumer could not be reached for comment, as he was busy practicing for the Senate confirmation hearings (see picture).
Saturday, November 12, 2005
NY Times: Yale Law Frets Over Court Choices It Knows Best
Great quote from the Federalist Society president at Yale:
"Joshua Hawley, a third-year student and the president of the law school's chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative group, said he hoped the school had learned a lesson from the earlier experiences.
"The faculty was perhaps somewhat chastened," Mr. Hawley said, "by the charge that they had stabbed a colleague in the back and then had stabbed a former student in the back.""
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Tim Kaine and John Corzine may have won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. And both of them may deserve to be in jail, if only for sedition. But this fiesty pol has won an even greater victory--being elected to the school board in Riverside, California from prison. Jim Traficant would be sooooo proud. Click here to read all about it!
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Could you imagine if the Mexican immigrants in the U.S. decided they would torch cars, schools, and government buildings throughout this country because they were "disadvantaged"? What do you think would happen if roving gangs of kids terrorized entire neighborhoods and the police completely lost control? Hopefully it wouldn't be what's happening in France, where the government is holding administrative meetings to decide what to do about a similar problem in Paris and its suburbs. That's right, they're holding meetings, on the 10th day of the riots--to decide what to do. Last time I checked, a violent response got pretty good results. But in "enlightened" France, such a response is unthinkable. Prepare for surrender.
This, my friends, is what happens when you run a government that has pacifism as its foreign and domestic policy. How quickly they've forgotten the lessons of WWII. Better call the UN, hold yet another meeting, and then hope that the violence dies down on its own. Word to the wise: It won't.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Movie downloads could cost Racine man up to $600,000
Retiree faces suit over grandson's home computer file sharing
By BOB PURVIS
Posted: Nov. 1, 2005
A Racine man who says he doesn't even like watching movies, let alone copying them off the Internet, is being sued by the film industry for copyright infringement after his 13-year-old grandson downloaded four movies on their home computer.
The Motion Picture Association of America, on behalf of three major Hollywood studios, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Fred Lawrence, a 67-year-old retiree. The suit seeks as much as $600,000 in damages for downloading four movies over iMesh, an Internet file-sharing service.
The lawsuit comes after Lawrence, a former employee of Snap-on Inc. and seasonal worker for the City of Racine, refused a March offer to settle the matter by paying $4,000.
"First of all, like I say, I guess I'd have to plead being naïve about the whole thing," said Lawrence. He said his grandson, then 12, downloaded "The Incredibles," "I, Robot," "The Grudge," and "The Forgotten" in December, not knowing it was illegal.
Lawrence said his grandson downloaded the movies out of curiosity. The family already owned three of the four titles on DVD, and his grandson deleted the computer files immediately, he said.
"I personally didn't do it, and I wouldn't do it. But I don't think it was anything but an innocent mistake my grandson made," Lawrence said.
He hasn't settled because he doesn't have the money, and a lawyer said the settlement was likely a scare tactic that wouldn't result in a lawsuit. Now he doesn't know what he's going to do.
"I can see where they wouldn't want this to happen, but when you get up around $4,000 . . . I don't have that kind of money," Lawrence said. "I never was and never will be a wealthy person."
The movie industry readily concedes it won't gain public sympathy suing someone like Lawrence, but a spokesperson said that's not the point.
"We're not asking for anyone's sympathy. We are asking for people to understand the consequences of Internet piracy," said Kori Bernards, vice president of corporate communications for MPAA.
Bernards said the problem is the movies Lawrence's grandson downloaded were then available to thousands of other users on the iMesh network.
"Basically what you are doing when you use peer-to-peer software is you are offering someone else's product that they own to thousands of other people for free, and it's not fair," Bernards said. "People need to understand that when they are swapping movies online they are not anonymous, and that they will face consequences like this lawsuit."
Bernards said that illegal downloading costs the movie industry an estimated $5.4 billion a year.
The industry has filed hundreds of lawsuits against users of peer-to-peer file sharing networks, joining the music recording industry in the crackdown on such networks, said Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties on the Internet.
Most cases have been settled out of court, he said, and the ones that aren't are moving slowly through the system, where judges have been baffled with how to treat many of the lawsuits.
"Frankly, most of the reaction I have seen from the federal courts has been bewilderment. They aren't used to having hundreds of people who can't afford attorneys coming in not knowing why they are there in the first place," von Lohmann said. Lawrence's case fits the norm in many of the file-sharing suits, where companies go after the parent or grandparent paying for Internet service, although it is often a child doing the downloading.
In some instances, parents have argued they didn't do the downloading and won, only to have the industry sue the child.
"That is not a very pleasant outcome, but if you truly can't afford it, it's probably easier for your child to file for bankruptcy than for you to file for bankruptcy," von Lohmann said.
While the recording industry focuses on people who have downloaded hundreds of songs, it's not uncommon for movie studios to target people with just a few movie downloads, von Lohmann said.
"I think the attitude most of the time is, 'the odds are this wasn't your first one,' and that means sometimes they do hit someone who has downloaded very few movies," von Lohmann said.
Von Lohmann and Bernards said it is unlikely that the studios would seek the maximum penalties of up to $150,000 per movie, but that is of small consolation, said Lawrence, who hasn't even seen the movies cited in the lawsuit.
"To be honest with you, I don't even watch movies very often."
Ok, so stupid kid downloads movies from internet. Fine. But I think the problem was that he allowed them to be uploaded from his computer. That’s the crime, as I understand it. And if I’m wrong, let me know. So the out of touch with reality MPAA decides that suing an old man for $600,000 is the right answer. WRONG! MPAA, please demonstrate the damages you incurred as a result of this kid downloading these four movies, three of which he already owned. So you lost out on $20 because the kid didn’t buy the DVD from Best Buy. Fine, then sue him for $20. Or, maybe the movie industry should learn how to embrace technology and get people on their side instead of making national headlines by suing senior citizens for ungodly amounts of money.
Editorial: A nomination that will divide
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Oct. 31, 2005
In picking Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, President Bush gave his right flank what it wanted: a true-blue conservative. The question now is: Is Bush giving the country what it needs?
The nomination is troubling in that 1) it's liable to divide America rather than unite it, 2) it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation's rich diversity and 3) Alito has taken worrisome stands on many issues. Still, Alito deserves the benefit of the doubt until he gets his day in court - or rather before the Senate Judiciary Committee - to make the case for his confirmation.
Bush had chosen White House counsel Harriet Miers to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but many conservatives vigorously objected, questioning whether Miers had the intellectual stamina to stay conservative. The nominee withdrew her name. Now, Bush has picked Alito, a judge who may be in the archconservative mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Prior to Miers, Bush had named Appeals Court Judge John Roberts to succeed O'Connor but switched to have him succeed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in September. A guiding principle for Bush in the two previous nominations seemed to have been candidates with thin paper trails - the less to trip them up at the hearings.
Bush discarded that principle in naming Alito, who boasts a thick portfolio of opinions he's authored, the result of sitting on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia for 15 years. Bush said that Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years." That experience, the intelligence he displays and his firm grasp of constitutional law are pluses.
But, regrettably, Bush declined to consult with Senate Democratic leaders in making his choice. A big reason President Clinton had relatively smooth sailing on his high court nominees is that he did consult with GOP leaders beforehand.
Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.
In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.
Finally, many of Alito's opinions, often dissents, are worrisome. He was the sole justice on a 3rd Circuit panel in 1991 to regard a Pennsylvania requirement that women notify thir husbands before getting an abortion as not an undue burden on access to the procedure. The Supreme Court specifically disagreed with his dissent in an opinion written by O'Connor.
In 1996, he was the sole dissenter when the 3rd Circuit upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns. Also that year, he tried - in the end, futilely - to make it harder to bring discrimination complaints to trial.
These and many other issues deserve a thorough airing by the Judiciary Committee.
Charlie Sykes has found and documented the reaction all over the internet to this ridiculous editorial.
So, for future reference, when naming the members of the USSC, please use the following list: CJ John Roberts, Ruth Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter,
Stephen Breyer, *, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, (Samuel Alito).
If you think that the New York Times, the newspaper "of record," isn't biased, then read this column exposing the truth. Even if you know that the Times is biased, read it anyway, then memorize this example for your next coctail party.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Check out this test, which lays bare the hypocrisy of just about every major liberal you can think of. It's a great teaching tool for kids, including law students.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
An interesting turn of events on Madison-hero and liberal icon George Galloway.
Here's a clip of your 9/17/05 story quoting your shining knight:
"I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed 1 million Iraqis, most of them children. Most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to be born at that time."
Here's a clip from today's Financial Times:
More than $600,000 raised from allocations of Iraqi crude oil was deposited into accounts for the wife and campaign charity of George Galloway, the British member of parliament (MP), a Senate subcommittee investigating the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal alleged yesterday.
Documents, including wire transfers, as well as interviews with top officials of the Saddam Hussein regime show Mr Galloway "personally solicited and received lucrative oil allocations from the Hussein regime", the committee alleged.
Can you detect the gap between the rhetoric and the truth?
Monday, October 24, 2005
This picture was taken from the RevCom website, which is dedicated to furthering the Communist movement. Please scroll down.
This picture was taken from the Democratic National Committee website.
The thin red line has ceased to exist!
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Check out these rantings, from the wacko who runs revcom.us, about Communism and Democracy:
Here is a copy of an email I sent to CBS this morning:
I would like to lodge a complaint about the CBS Sunday Morning Journal segment covering the Toledo race riots, and yes, they were riots, although you wouldn't know that from the coverage. Your reporter's coverage of the event was dismally politically correct, as evidenced by the limits of its scope.
The story began, appropriately enough, by covering a white resident's building of a fence to keep out his black neighbor's children, his regular videotaping of black youths, and his myriad complaints about the same youths to police, whom he thought were "suspicious." Eventually, he received the support of American Nazis, who then in turn protested Toledo. So far so good.
Just when the real story had begun to develop, the plug was pulled to avoid any suggestion of political incorectness on the part of the reporter. The sad fact was that the Nazis, for all their ideological fallaciousness, were PEACEFULLY PROTESTING. Their peaceful protest was responded to with VIOLENCE, LOOTING, and ARSON on the part of some of Toledo's black residents, who your reporter completely exonerated by blaming the Nazis for inciting them. In fact, the report barely even touched on this aspect of the story at all, which, unfortunately, was not at all surprising.
It would have taken guts to accurately cover this story, and the fact that some of Toledo residents completely lack tolerance for the OPINIONS of others. In our society, we are all legally obligated to respect the opinions of others. In fact, it's written into the First Amendment. For example, veterans of the Iraq war are obligated to respect Cindy Sheehan's right to protest the war; Jews are obligated to respect the right of Louis Farrakhan to express anti-Semitic beliefs; and on and on it goes. Likewise, blacks are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to respect the expression of beliefs by others, no matter how stupid. By letting certain members of the public off the hook when they egregiously violate the rights of others, your news organization becomes complicit in the same sort of "tolerance" that accompanied violent reprisals against certain forms of speech in Nazi Germany during the 1930s. In your silence, you become more like your ideological enemies than you would ever be brave enough to admit.
Another troubling aspect of this coverage is the suggestion that black Americans just can't control themselves, and therefore can't be blamed for their conduct when incited in any way. This same attitude is expressed, unfortuately, in the low expectations of may public school and correctional systems throughout the nation, which assume, without saying so, the same thing. Low expectations, I believe, are the cause of low school performance and deviant conduct. As long as people like you are reinforcing these stereotypes, it will be almost impossible to make any improvements in our society. Not that you would care, as long as the ratings keep coming in.
Jeffrey C. Marty
Monday, October 03, 2005