Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

What Do Muslims, Denmark, and Wikipedia Have In Common

0 comments
A couple of days ago I answered the call to show jihadis that we honor freedom of speech by reprinting the Muhammad cartoons. There is still more rioting in Denmark now as a result of the cartoons.

It turns out that Denmark, and western publications, aren't the only victims of the jihadi effort to censor all references to the prophet Muhammad. Wikipedia also needs our support because they are under fire to remove all images of Muhammad ... to the tune of 180,000 complaints.

Guardian:

Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.

More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.

The images at the centre of the protest appear on most of the European versions of the web encyclopedia, though not on Arabic sites.

We have pulled out all the stops to defend the publications that had the courage to publish the cartoons, and now we have to stand up for Wikipedia.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Why This Conservative Thinks Charles Barkley Is Right

4 comments
Sir Charles has been catching some serious flak from the conservative blogosphere for his comments about conservatives being "fake Christians." If you haven't seen the interview with Blitzer ... you can watch it below before you continue reading this post.


Frankly, conservatives should cut him some slack for saying he's voting Democrat because he doesn't like the direction Republicans are taking the country. Especially since many conservatives, and registered Republicans, feel the same way and are doing the same thing this next election to "prove a point", and that is exactly what they did the last congressional election. Conservatives were fed up with Republicans abandoning their principals, and they didn't like the direction Republicans were taking the country.

If you are familiar with Charles Barkley's political rants in the past ... you know damn well that Sir Charles holds many conservative beliefs, and has openly stated we wants to run for office as a Republican. He also holds many liberal beliefs as well ... many of these come from the disinformation the MSM has been putting out for years. In other words ... if I were to sit and talk with Barkley about those issues I could probably change his mind. If you were to classify his political affiliation .. he is a moderate who leans right ... as most Americans are.

Rush Limbaugh has stated that moderates are liberals in hiding, or cowards afraid to pick a side. I love Rush, but he is dead wrong on this issue. Most Americans have conservative values, but maintain at least a few liberal ideals. Hence ... most Americans are moderates who lean to the right.

Barkley makes his case against conservatives by stating he has no problem with gay marriage, and he is pro-choice. He addresses how hypocritical religious conservatives are, to him, because they often behave in a manner that is actually against the teachings of Christ and the bible. That's where Barkley makes his statement that is getting him in trouble with conservatives. He essentially said that these conservative Christians are "fake Christians" because they don't forgive others, and they judge other people harshly if they don't agree with their point of view. He is dead on accurate.

Unfortunately, Sir Charles ignorantly lumps the majority into the minority. When he stated that he gets sick every time he hears the word conservative ... he makes the mistake of attacking conservatives rather than religious zealots. He apparently doesn't draw a distinction between Republicans, conservatives, and the religious right. This is a grave error, and it has led to conservatives retaliating for being attacked. Even though Barkley wasn't knowingly attacking true conservatives at all.

One of the major mistakes that we conservatives continue to make is that we don't do enough to distinguish ourselves from Republicans. Nor have we taken the proper, and necessary, measures to separate ourselves from the religious right. By religious right I don't mean people who are religious, I mean bible thumping zealots who don't stand for conservative values, and are barely distinguishable from a cult. These groups of "Christians" are dangerous, and should be shunned by those of us who have authentic Judeo/Christian values.

It is important that you understand while reading this that I am not talking about all people of religion. I am only speaking of the fanatics. Those who blindly follow their faith the way they are told to follow it rather than how God and Jesus instructed. These people are, in fact, the biggest hypocrites in this country as Barkley accurately stated in his interview.

As a talk show host I have had many discussions of a religious nature, and have been extremely disturbed by many of my conversations with so called "Christian" listeners ... including priests, pastors, etc. I've not only been disturbed as a conservative, but as a Christian myself to the intolerance of others, elitism, hypocrisy, and downright vitriol that many of these callers convey to me.

One such example came when I had been discussing Islam in schools. There were some cases where teachers were teaching the Muslim religion to students in their class without parents knowing about it, and the many instances of schools accommodating Muslim students while refusing to extend the same courtesy to Christian students. Naturally, I was enraged that these events were taking place. It is not only against the law to teach religion in public schools, but we had a Muslim teacher indoctrinating their students in order to convert them to Islam. As to be expected, I fielded dozens of calls for over an hour from angry Christian parents who were railing on about how wrong it was to try to convert students in the classroom to a different religion than that of the child and their family. I naturally agreed with all of them because they were right. No outside force, especially a teacher, has any right to attempt to coax children away from their family's religion ... period.

Literally the next day I had another story with the same exact plot. A teacher was forcing a religion upon their students without the parents knowing about it, and many parents were rightfully upset with the teacher attempting to convert their children to the teacher's religion. To my utter horror I took call after call from listeners who were angry with me for attacking the teacher. I couldn't figure it out. It was the same exact story as the day before. You had a teacher who was forcing a specific religion upon their students against parents' wishes, and the parents were rightfully angry about it. There was literally no difference between the two stories ... except one. While the story the previous day was a Muslim teacher indoctrinating students ... the story this day was a Christian teacher indoctrinating students. To make matters worse, I took calls from several people who had called the previous day to express their outrage at a Muslim talking about Islam in class. Only now they were supporting the Christian talking about Christianity in class. Why would they be ok with one religion indoctrinating kids against parents' wishes, and opposed to the other? There is only one explanation. They are intolerant hypocrites.

Another issue where this hypocrisy reared its ugly head was only a couple of weeks ago. My co-host frequently says "oh my God." I do also, but to a lesser extent. I would like to point out that we are both Christians (her more so than me), and this was never done out of malice. However, a listener wrote a letter to our boss complaining about the use of that phrase. My boss responded by saying we didn't mean anything by it, and it is just the way we talk ... it's no big deal. By boss received an angry response containing a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS, and explanation points!!!!!!!!!! This guy was saying that it was a big deal, we needed to respect and abide by the ten commandments, and something about us being evil I think. In other words, this zealot was offended by our use of the phrase "oh my God", and demanded we be censored until we fell in line with the ten commandments. He did not tell me which version of the ten commandments he wanted me to abide by. Just so you know ... there are several versions more than the traditional two we are most familiar with. Clearly he has never read the bible or studied the teachings of Christ. Nor does he hold the Constitution in any regard, and he is clearly intolerant of other belief systems. If you don't agree as he does ... you must be silenced. That is the attitude Charles Barkley was talking about.

I felt I had a topic with this guy's letter so I read it on the air, and asked for feedback. I asked if the listeners were offended by our use of the phrase "oh my God", and I urged religious leaders to call in as well. While most of the calls were from sensible people, who identified themselves as Christians, defending Heather and myself ... some were not so understanding.

After taking several calls saying it was no big deal, and people should stop being so over sensitive ... I started getting calls from those over sensitive types. The first lady said that it offended her greatly to hear me use the lord's name in vain. She said that I should never say "oh my God" again because there are people who listen to my show who will be offended. So I should stop saying the phrase because I might offend someone. I then asked her if I should never talk about Mohammed again because that offends Muslims greatly. Her response illustrated just how hypocritical the overly religious can be. She said "she didn't care what Muslims thought." Oh really? "What is the difference between offending Christians, and offending Muslims," I asked. She had no answer for me, and continued to say that my saying "oh my God" offended her. I then asked why I should care about offending her if she didn't care about offending Muslims. She ran out of ways to deflect my question, and finally caved by saying that I should never talk about the prophet Mohammed. So now I've been censored twice!

From there I took the obvious stance that I should not say a whole host of things because it may offend listeners. I can't insult liberals, commies, education, or anything else. Do you have any idea how many people I offend when talking about the war, or when I mention disgusting fat bodies? To hell with that garbage. I may as well quit being a talk show host.

I did receive several more calls from people who felt offended by the phrase "oh my God" (including my mother-in-law) ... none could offer me a reason why it was ok to offend some, but not others. Some even attacked my beliefs, and said as a Christian I was required to respect the ten commandments or I wasn't a "real Christian." Which is strange because Christ specifically forbade such insults. Still I was confident that if I could get a religious leader to call in they would defend me. Surely a priest, or pastor, would understand that God will not send you to hell for speaking such a phrase. After all, God is not God's name ... it's his title. How can I take the lord's name in vain if I'm not even saying his name? Finally, my prayers (get it) were answered, and a pastor called in. I don't know which Christian denomination he came from.

Now was my time to be vindicated! We common folk are easily lead astray by such nonsense, but a man of God would surely agree with me about the hypocrisy of it all. As it turns out ... we common folk are lead astray by those who are in positions of leadership in our religion. While this pastor was very nice ... everything he said had a message of intolerance of different beliefs whether he knew it or not. He said it was ok to offend Muslims because their God was a false God. Only his God was the real God, and therefore was the only one we need be concerned with offending. I countered with "with all do respect ... your God is not my God." To which he replied that there was only one God, and that was his God. "Funny," I replied. "My God says the same thing." We went back and forth like this for a few minutes, and while it was always friendly we made no headway. He simply was incapable of conceding that other belief systems should be equally as respected as his version of Christianity. Again, Charles Barkley's points have been made for him simply by allowing these "Christians" to speak on their own behalf.

These are the people that Sir Charles was talking about when he called the "fake Christians." So are they indeed fake Christians? That's a tough question that can be debated for centuries with no conclusion. No doubt there are horrible "fake Christians" who are nothing more than oxygen thieves on this planet (i.e. the Westboro Baptist Church). However, these people I illustrated above are decent people. They are hypocrites yes, and intolerant, but still decent people who are entitle to their beliefs. So what would make them "fake?" Well, that can only be answered by personal opinion. Which is exactly what morals are in the first place ... nothing but an individual's personal opinion. To not respect and tolerate other people's beliefs who differ from yours is a violation of the teachings of Christ. Jesus told his disciples to go forth and spread his message, but he warned them to be respectful of others' beliefs. He did not want his disciples to insult and attack other people's beliefs. Clearly the Christians I've written about today do not adhere to that message at all. It's all about them, and their beliefs ... all others be damned. While that may not be enough to call them "fake Christians" ... an outsider like Barkley could easily interpret it that way. It is important to note that he isn't entirely mistaken either.

Some of you religious types are no doubt upset by the way I'm addressing this issue. To you, I say, that's why I don't go to church anymore. Man is no longer concerned with doing things the way that Jesus or God would want. Churches have become too much about getting as many people into their congregation as possible. This is done by fear, and by attacking other belief structures ... including other Christians.

You'll notice that many of the Christians who disagreed with me cited that their God was the one true God. The problem is that while Christians believe in one God ... it's not the same God. You heard me correctly ... Christians don't even worship the same God. History is chalk full of Christians separating from their church, and forming a new church, because they refused to believe that their God would be the deity portrayed to them by their old church. Some Christians believe Jesus IS God, and others that he is the son of God (I'm in the latter), some think God is compassionate, but still some other say God is a vengeful, mean-spirited, bigot.

So, you see, we Christians aren't unified on our God. Yet some of us feel the need to ally ourselves with other Christians to attack other religions simply because we are Christians. In doing this we ally ourselves with people who literally believe in a different God than we do, but we don't even realize it. Even though the Christian Gods share a singular history ... different Christian denominations believe in a completely different personality for their deity. In other words ... the Catholic God is different than the Baptist God. The only thing that unites Christians (other than the Christian value system) is that we believe Jesus was more than just a man or prophet.

Don't think for a second that I'm saying Christian denominations should not stick together when attacked by outsiders because we don't share the same interpretation of our God. The war on Christianity is very real, and we need to combat it. We just have to understand that Christianity does not have a singular belief system. Much like Sunni, Shia, and Wahabists don't share a unified view of Islam, but they are all still Muslim.

This is where we conservatives come in. We are caught in the middle of all this nonsense. Most of us are religious to an extent, but not bible thumpers. We are more tolerant that the religious right of those who are different, and we are far more intellectual than emotional than our zealot counterparts. Yet we continue to allow them to make the rules, and fight all of our battles for us. Guess what ... they are losing those battles. If true conservatives were to take over the abortion debate from the religious right ... it would be a done deal by now. The only reason we still have abortion is because we allow our side to play the religion card rather than using sound science to defeat the issue, and we are losing the debate. Every time religion is used in an abortion argument ... that person will lose. Why? Religion is irrelevant to the population when talking about political issues. They don't like having someone else's religion shoved down their throat.

What other issues has the religious right failed to have any success? How about homosexuality. I've talked about gay marriage dozens of times on my show, and I always get the same response from conservatives. They support civil unions with all the legal protections of marriage, but they don't want it called marriage. It's that simple of an issue. Unfortunately, the bible thumpers have made this an all or nothing issue that violates the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution. When it comes to homosexuality in schools our extreme right friends have also failed. Rather than focus on science, studies, and family involvement they constantly make it a religious issue. All of this behavior only serves to paint Republicans, conservatives, and the average person of faith as bigoted, oppressive, cold-hearted monsters. All while accomplishing virtually nothing.

That type of perception among the population is what leads to people like Charles Barkley turning on true conservatism, and attacking us. Certainly Barkley is mistaken in who he is targeting for criticism, but ultimately it is our fault as conservatives for allowing the fringe extreme right to speak on our behalf. We are as guilty as Democrats for allowing liberals to take over their party. It's too late for them ... their party is already gone, but we have time. We conservatives call ourselves the silent majority, and we are just that ... silent.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

McCain Votes Against Ban On Waterboarding

0 comments


While waterboarding is not torture, and I agree with his vote ... he has some explaining to do. Especially because of this exchange on waterboarding at the YouTube debate.


This appears to be a way for McCain to try to show the conservative base that he will listen to them, and is a true conservative. In other words, he's trying to shore up support so we don't stay home on his ass.

Think Progress:

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.

He voted no on the Intelligence Authorization Bill which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that bans waterboarding.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

NAACP Says Republicans Hate Black People

2 comments

This story brings up the same warm and fuzzy feelings I got when Kanye West famously spewed butt vomit from his mouth about Katrina.

Here in Vegas we have a free "paper" called the CityLife. It's a typical free city paper ... full of liberals who don't think things through all the time, and advertisements for illegal sexual activity that the police never follow up on. I would like to point out that they have defended me in the past ... so they aren't all bad.

In their current addition there is a story titled "Why are you such a hater? NAACP ranks Nevada lawmakers' voting records. Guess who fails to make the grade?" The article deals with Republican lawmakers in Nevada, and how the NAACP rates their voting records. From the title you can easily see how this is going to play out.

This is how the article starts off:

REPUBLICANS USED TO like black people.

Emphasis NOT MINE.

It then goes on to lie about President Bush, and compare current Republicans with the Jim Crow Democrats. It's a very fun read if you like uneducated race baiting.

I decided that since the CityLife was quoting the NAACP's report, I should probably take a look at it myself. Even though I already knew what it said ... call it white man's intuition. You can find the report here.

It uses a standard grading system employed by most of our schools ... A-F. In the interest of time I will only address the Senate in this post. If you want to do further research on the members of congress you can start here.

Once I opened my list of members in the 110th Senate I began the slightly tedious task of seeing who failed according to the NAACP, and what their party affiliation was. To my utter lack of surprise the NAACP rated all but one Democrat (Johnson) with a passing grade, and all but two Republicans (Snowe, Specter) with failing grades. It should be noted that Snowe and Specter are what you would call faux Republicans. In other words they are mistakes that don't stand up for Republican issues. I would also like to point out the Senator Byrd was given a B by the NAACP, and he is a former klansman who still uses racial epithets.

Given that virtually all Democrats received passing grades, and virtually all Republicans received failing grades ... we must deduce that the NAACP is saying that virtually all Democrats like black people, and virtually all Republicans hate black people. It was also astounding how there were virtually no C average grades.

The NAACP's love 'em or hate 'em report falls well short of reason, and truthfulness. this is also a clear example of intentionally creating a biased "report" in order to fuel racism and hate. The issues the NAACP says they graded the politicians on were nearly all monetary in nature ... not racial. Some have said the hate crimes legislation is racial, but that is only partly true. Quite frankly, if you support hate crimes legislation you are more apt to be racist than those who oppose it. Why are the lives of certain races more valuable than the lives of others? If fact, the hate crimes legislation is in direct conflict with the principals the NAACP was founded upon. It only serves to divide the races ... not bring them together on a level playing field. On top of that, why would you want a third party deciding what is, and is not, a hate crime. Aren't all violent crimes hate crimes?

The truly sad part of the NAACP's arguments is that they seem to say that black people can't succeed without government help. Hardly empowering, or a vote of confidence on behalf of the black community in the United States. Just take a few minutes to read their report on the issues they wanted all members of congress to support, and then research those issues via a third party website like Gov Track or Vote Smart so you don't get biased interpretation of the legislation.

You'll notice that the legislation the NAACP supports suggests that you black folks out there can't succeed unless the government has some special program the help you out. In other words the NAACP thinks you are not self-sufficient, educated, or hard working. They don't seem the think you can't be successful unless you play sports. Republican lawmakers and myself give you far more credit. We also understand that the average black person doesn't walk around believing that all Republicans hate them, and all Democrats love them. Since we understand that, and you understand that ... maybe it's time to make the NAACP understand the same truth.

Friday, February 08, 2008

Hugo Chavez Accuses Exxon Of Terrorism

0 comments

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is too funny! Hugo "The Human Cannonball" Chavez doesn't think fair play is well ... fair.

Venezuela accused Exxon Mobil of legal "terrorism" on Friday after the giant oil company won court orders freezing $12 billion of the major crude supplier's assets in a dispute at the heart of a worldwide fight for control of natural resources.

Venezuela's oil minister Rafael Ramirez vowed to overturn the rulings, reassuring investors they had little impact on the supplies, operations or cash flow of the state oil company, PDVSA, which has close to $100 billion in assets.

He said Exxon hoped to destabilize the government of anti-American President Hugo Chavez by using the legal battle over the nationalization of an Exxon project to create panic about the OPEC nation's finances.

Yeah, Exxon Mobil is the terrorists. Venezuela is a-o-k with seizing Exxon's assets, but heaven forbid you seize theirs.

It wasn't too long ago that Hugo took control of the last private oil fields in Venezuela. I remember Hugo relishing in his accomplishment. Not once did he ever call himself a terrorist. Hell, he wouldn't even admit he is a communist.

Good for Exxon Mobile for fighting back. Turnabout is fair play.

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Music Industry Goes Too Far In Saying Music You Buy Is Not Yours

0 comments
Figuratively of course.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is saying it is illegal to copy music you've paid for. Problem is ... there is no such law. The record industry is trying to win a precedent case in order to go after millions of people who have transfered their CD's to their MP3 players by saying we've violated copyright law. I disagree.

WaPo:

In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

Well slap my ass and call me Suzy! Since when has it been illegal to make a backup of your personal possessions? As long as you aren't distributing the material to others there should be no controversy.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

Any statements on the RIAA's website are irrelevant, and they should face charges for making false statements.

The bottom line is that MY music is MY property. Once I pay for it, it is mine to do with as I wish so long as I don't distribute it. Using the RIAA's logic ... one day it will be illegal for my wife to listen to my MP3's.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Yet Another Example Of A Hate Crime Being Called "Not A Hate Crime"

0 comments
I know it is getting pretty old hearing about these events, but it is necessary for you to understand that there a very clear double standard in regards to hate crimes. Apparently, whites and Jews can not be the victims of hate crimes.

Haaretz:

The Zionist Organization of America condemned the U.S. government's Office for Civil Rights on Wednesday for failing to protect Jewish students it says have been subject to a series of anti-Semitic provocations on the campus of the University of California, Irvine.

The ZOA alleged that Muslim students on campus have given anti-Semitic speeches, distributed Judeophobic literature, and used intimidation tactics against Jewish students. The university's failure to take disciplinary action constitutes discrimination against Jewish students, the ZOA charges.

The Office of Civil Rights, which operates under the auspices of the Department of Education, said in a report released last week that some Muslim student activities were offensive to Jewish students.

But the report concludes the speeches, marches and other activities were based on opposition to Israeli policies, not the national origin of Jewish students.

So what types of "other activities" were disregarded you ask.

"A Holocaust memorial was destroyed; that swastikas repeatedly defaced property on the campus; that a rock was thrown at a Jewish student; and that other Jewish students were harassed and verbally threatened with such statements as 'slaughter the Jews,' 'dirty Jew,' 'go back to Russia,' 'burn in hell,' and 'f_ _king Jew,'"

Yeah, dirty Jew is only opposition to Israeli policies ... RIIIGHT!

Note the school is UC Irvine, a school with a long history of radical Muslims who support murder. LGF has made a habit of documenting the extremists on UC Irvine's campus ... check it out here.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

CNN Says White Ron Paul Supporter Not "Diverse" Enough To Ask Questions At Debate

0 comments
Yeah I know ... the CNN debates are over. This is true, but while the planted questioners are worthy of discussing for the remainder of the election ... there is one story that has not been heard by the country. Truth is, this story is actually far WORSE than the Democrat plants at both the Republican and Democrat CNN debates. Why? It shows the hypocrisy of CNN to allow Democrats to ask Republicans questions while not allowing the reverse. This story also shows exactly how racist CNN really is in the name of "diversity."

It all got started in the lead up to the CNN Democrat debate here in Las Vegas, NV. A College of Southern Nevada environmental class wanted to ask the Democrat candidates about alternative fuels. The class is called "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming." The question submitted by the class was chosen as a question to ask the Democrat candidates, but there was a problem. Terrell Potter, 21, was to be the student to ask the question, but CNN didn't like that.

Review Journal:

CNN had chosen a question sent in by a College of Southern Nevada environmental class. The students in the class "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming" posed an alternative energy question that the network found suitable. But it didn't find student Terrell Potter, 21, to be the right messenger.

Potter said he is a registered Democrat who voluntarily told CNN he had donated to the presidential campaign of libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Was he sunk merely because of the donation, or because that while he is a student of biodiversity, he is just too caucasian for prime time? What if Mr. Potter happened to be black? Would CNN have overlooked the donation? What if the donation had come from his mother?

Now the article is written by Erin Neff, a typically distasteful opinion writer who hates Republicans and often is caught lying, or at best not checking her facts. However, she is dead on in this piece. She makes all the right connections, and it is well worth the read.

Because it was Erin Neff writing the piece I had to get independent corroboration, and I did indeed find it in a letter to the editor of the Review Journal. The writer? Monica Brett, the Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the College of Southern Nevada, and the professor of Terrell Potter.

Here is her letter on the CNN fiasco involving her students:

My students submitted a question to CNN for consideration at tonight's presidential debate at UNLV. An e-mail came back asking if one of my students would be happy to present this question at the debate. No criteria was listed.

I then told my students to nominate someone. I watched as they put democracy into action. After the selection process was complete, I contacted CNN and they first asked if he was "diverse." I was then told that CNN wanted to represent "diversity." When I mentioned his ethnicity -- he was white -- I was told that there was no "guarantee" he would be called upon.

The next thing I knew, CNN phoned me with an urgent message. "We have a problem," I was told. "Because your student mentioned that he gave money to (GOP presidential candidate Rep.) Ron Paul, we cannot have him ask a question. Nor can we now have any of your students ask. Why did you select him?"

Needless to say, no one at CNN looked at the quality or importance of my students' question. It is an insult to what this country stands for to censor somebody due to what party he currently is "considering" supporting. Can't a Democrat ask a Republican a question -- and vice versa? How else can we make politically informed decisions?

Monica Brett

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA.

There is a couple of things we need to consider here.

  1. Why is CNN ok with Democrats (including members of Hillary's official campaign) asking Republicans questions, but it's not ok for someone supporting a Republican candidate to ask Democrats questions?
  2. Why should Terrell's race have been a factor?
  3. Why did CNN then forbid anyone else in the class to ask the question?
  4. And why were they so curious as to why the class chose Terrell to ask the question?
  5. Finally, if CNN was able to do the proper research, and background check, on Terrell ... how is it that prominent Hillary Clinton personnel always "trick" CNN at all of their debates. They always claim they had no idea that these people were prominent Democrats associated with Hillary. This also raises the question of why non of the Youtubers could be identified for who they really were by CNN when it took bloggers literally no time to do so. Clearly CNN has displayed to ability to conduct the proper background checks with regards to Terrell.

Without a doubt ... CNN should be banned from conducting anymore debates for at least the next two presidential elections.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

What If I Were To Tell You That Bono Just Ripped Terrorists

0 comments
We all know that Bono is a media darling, and every time he speaks they put his words in print. We are usually inundated with Bono quotes and images for days after the event, but not this time. Why? Well usually Bono is advocating a liberal cause that gets him the great media publicity. However, when Bono speaks with a little more conservative zeal ... nothing.

News Busters:

In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Bono said of the Islamic fundamentalists:

I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't.

Bono goes on to show that he does not engage in Bush Derangement Syndrome, despite the urgings of the Rolling Stone's anti-Bush reporter. In response to the reporter's statement that "But this Administration destroyed that." when they discussed the outpouring of support for the United States immediately following the attacks of Spetember 11, Bono says of President Bush,

There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.

This time there doesn't seem to be the media affection we typically see for Bono. No Bush Derangement Syndrome, no MSM coverage.

So, Now John Edwards Is A Conservative On Immigration?

0 comments

We all know that Edwards doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination. Mainly because he's a kook, and not a smart one either. However, he has latched onto the most important issue among 2008 voters ... immigration.

Most Americans support a hard-line stance on illegals, and Edwards has (up to this point) been the exact opposite of what the American people want on this issue.

We must remember that there is an election to win, and Edwards being himself hasn't been getting it done. So ... it's time for the tried-and-true Democrat strategy to gain ground in an election ... change yourself.

Huffington Post:

At the debate and on ABC's This Week this past Sunday, Edwards drew a distinction between himself and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, saying he disagreed with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to grant drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. Clinton backs the proposal as a way of solving crimes and promoting road safety.

Moreover, Edwards said that while states should have say over the issue until comprehensive reform can be passed, once reform is enacted, licenses should only be granted to those immigrants who are on the path to citizenship.

Now his base (Huffington Post, Daily Kos types) are not too happy with his complete reversal of his stance on illegals.

Edwards' stance contrasts sharply from what he advocated as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, when he was unequivocal in his support for issuing driver's licenses to the undocumented.

So how does a candidate who has embraced progressive stances on many critical issues from 2004 to 2008 shift conservative on immigration? The answer, some analysts say, lies in the political dynamics of Iowa, the first caucus state.

First off, I'd like to point out that Edwards' new stance on licenses is not a conservative position as is being stated in the quoted post. True it is more conservative than the typical liberal stance, but not quite conservative.

As for this being a tactic to win the all important Iowa ... it's more likely than not, very true.

I've been reading what some liberal bloggers have been saying about Edwards' turnaround, and they seem to miss the point. They are critical of Edwards because this new stance is "conservative", but that is not the issue. The crux is that Edwards, like Clinton, has decided that it is more important to lie to potential voters in order to win. I credit Obama for not having done this.

We now have two of the three Democrat front-runners who have openly shown you their willingness to tell you what you want to hear rather than what they believe. That should be far more upsetting to liberals than Edwards taking a "conservative" stance on an issue.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

ACLU Violates Civil Rights Of Death Row Inmate

0 comments
That would be his desire for the execution to go forward.

You should know about the debate on executions going on right now, and whether lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" punishment. If you aren't aware ... it's time to read up.

Start with the José Ernesto Medellín case, and then read the Heliberto Chi case.

Essentially what we have is 51 foreigners , that have been convicted and sentenced to death in the US, may not have their sentences carried out because of the 1963 Vienna Convention. President Bush is also throwing his weight around in the matter, and Texas seems to be standing alone in fighting for their right to execute convicted criminals.

The Vienna Convention states that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. Many of the foreigners (illegals) are arguing that they were not granted access to their country's consular officials. Keep in mind that many have confessed to their crimes of rape and murder.

As a result of these cases we have the ACLU, and other groups opposed to the death penalty, challenging the Constitutionality of lethal injections. Many executions across the country have been halted until the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of lethal injections.

Obviously we have several problems with the current situation. State's rights are being violated, this is not a Constitutional issue, and we have international law infringing upon American sovereignty.

The Vienna Convention has no power over internal US affairs, and foreign nationals are NOT permitted under US law access to their consular officials. The US Supreme Court ruled on this very matter last year.

Stating that American law outweighs an international treaty, the Supreme Court said Wednesday that foreign criminals held in state prisons did not have a right to reopen their cases if their rights under the Vienna Convention had been violated.

The 6-3 ruling spares state prison officials a major headache. If the high court had ruled the other way, thousands of state inmates who were not U.S. citizens could have sought to have their convictions reversed.

The international treaty, drafted in 1963, seeks to protect foreigners, including Americans traveling or living abroad. It requires that officials notify the home-country consulate when a foreigner is arrested or held for "pending trial."

Despite its clear terms, police and prosecutors in the United States have failed to notify foreign criminal suspects that they have a right to the help of their nation's consulate.

Two years ago, the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, took up an appeal from the governments of Mexico and Germany. The court, based in The Hague, ruled that the treaty gave individuals a right to reopen their cases if they did not get the proper notification.

But the Supreme Court said Wednesday that it was not bound to follow that ruling.

As you can see ... the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, and they ruled that US law trumps an international treaty ... as it should.

Why this case is being reheard is beyond me, but Phyllis Schlafly thinks it has something to do with the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Now for the ACLU (NV chapter) violating the rights of a death row inmate.

William Castillo was sentenced to death in 1996 for bludgeoning to death an 84 year old retired teacher as she slept. He then robbed her house, left, returned, and burned it down. He would later confess to the murder, and was sentenced to die this month by lethal injection. We waived his right to appeals, and accepted his fate. Castillo requested that the ACLU and the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty not stop his execution, but his request was ignored for pure ideology.

Nancy Hart of the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty and Richard Siegel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada said the Pardons Board has the authority to halt Castillo's lethal injection pending a U.S. Supreme Court review of such injections.

Nevada uses the injection method being reviewed by the court, Hart and Siegel wrote, adding that executing Castillo might put the state "in the untenable position of having to explain why it felt compelled to rush an execution before the Supreme Court was able to rule."

"The state of Nevada should not be executing any of its prisoners, 'voluntary' or not, while the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the method violates the Constitution," they wrote.

As you can see, they didn't give a damn about what Castillo wanted. It's even more laughable that the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty asked people to "write to Gov. Jim Gibbons on behalf of William Castillo!" Even though he opposes their stance on capital punishment.

Their assertion that NV uses the same method under review by the US Supreme Court is false. Nevada uses double the formulation strength being challenged in the Supreme Court.

State Corrections Director Howard Skolnik said that Castillo will get double doses of the three drugs normally used in executions. He said that the change ensures that Castillo should "go out instantly" and not experience "any kind of discomfort."

Skolnik also said the double dose makes the Nevada method different than the Kentucky method of lethal injections, which is the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court review.

That means that if the US Supreme Court rules that the Kentucky method of lethal injections is unconstitutional ... it would not apply to Nevada anyway. The Supreme Court has not issued a halt to all executions in the US anyway, and therefore Nevada would not have to "explain why it felt compelled to rush an execution."

Their arguments are insensitive and false, but they worked.

Convicted killer William Castillo was 90 minutes away from death by lethal injection Monday night when the Nevada Supreme Court stepped in and issued a stay to allow more time to consider legal issues raised by the ACLU of Nevada.

Castillo had his final meal, and was sedated already when the order came down. Also, two of the victim's family members had come to town to witness the execution. I doubt the ACLU will reimburse them for the time and cost of their trip.

Something else had already taken place as well. Castillo's mom had said her final goodbye to her son ... only to be called later that he was not executed. You'd think Castillo and his mom would be relieved, right? Well, you'd be wrong.

News 3's Jesse Corona spoke exclusively to Castillo's family and found they are not happy about the execution being halted.

His family says he had already refused any more legal action on his behalf and that he was ready and willing to die.

"Not that I want my son to die, but I had to accept my son's decision," said Castillo's mother.

Mrs. Castillo says her son told her that he would refuse any more appeals filed on his behalf to stop his execution two months ago. She says it was the most difficult thing she's ever had to do but her son told her he wanted to take responsibility for his actions and die like a man, so she agreed to respect his wishes.

"I had to accept this, and these people come along and yank that from us?" she said.

Now I don't have sympathy for Castillo, but I do for his mother. It is impossible to imagine what she is going through. Not only does she discover that her son is a monster, but she had to come to terms with his death. Now she has to get a lawyer and fight for her son's right to be executed.

"When I hung up that phone, my son died. According to the state he was going to die 8:30 but my son died at 7 when I said goodbye," she said.

Castillo had already ate his last meal and taken the pre-execution sedative and was ready to die.

"His first words were, mom this ain't right. Get a lawyer, get someone out there to help us that was not right they had no business being here."

On top of all that ... she says that the ACLU is far more cruel than the methods they are arguing against.

Mrs. Castillo says what the ACLU did to her family was itself cruel and unusual.

She's right, and I hope she sues the hell out of the ACLU.

Mrs. Castillo, like me, is convinced the ACLU's move was a publicity stunt.

Mrs. Castillo also said that she thinks the last minute stay of execution by the ACLU was really a publicity move for the organization, and not about the issues they say it was about. She says if the ACLU's motivations were pure, they would have requested a hearing last week.

Again, she is right. Requesting a hearing the week before would have saved a lot of grief for the Castillo family, and the victim's family. Instead of requesting that hearing, however, the ACLU was polluting every news agency with their rhetoric on the situation.

The ACLU told News 3 Thursday that they have a lot of sympathy for everyone affected by what happened, but they say the issue was not about any one particular individual on death row, but instead was about the constitution.

Oh really?

So Castillo's desire to die after being convicted, and sentenced to death, was about the Constitution? Even though the Constitution gives states the right to enforce capital punishment, and even though the method of execution being used for Castillo is not the method being constitutionally challenged in the Supreme Court? Give me a break!

This is further illustration of the ACLU's hypocrisy. Why, you ask. Because the ACLU has long fought for the right to die, and they've used constitutional arguments to support their efforts.

"Each of us should have the right to die in a humane and dignified manner. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director.

That was in 1997.

  • In 2001 the ACLU supported the right of Robert Wendland's wife to take him off of life support.
  • 2005 showed another case when the ACLU supported the right to die for Harold Folley in New Mexico.

You get the point ... I don't need to go on.

So why is it that the ACLU supports the right to die for some, but not those who were sentenced to death? The answer ... their political agenda. The ACLU has an agenda to get rid of the death penalty, and in their list of priorities that agenda is more important than the right to die or state's rights.

Thus, the American Civil Liberties Union violated the civil liberties of one William Castillo even though they swear they exist only to uphold such civil liberties.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Harry Reid Says Mormons Being Led Down Wrong Path By LDS Leaders

0 comments

No doubt you haven't heard about Harry Reid attacking Christians last week because the media doesn't dare smear him. However, it is even more unlikely that you've heard about Reid smearing his own church leadership for being right-wingers.

Reid said people often question how he can be a Democrat and a Mormon, but called the social responsibility Democrats espouse a good fit with the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He questioned the guidance of some LDS Church leaders, though.

In remarks to the media following his address, Reid said that, "In the past years we've had some very prominent members of the church, like Ezra Taft Benson, who are really right-wing people.

"Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path," he said.

Then there is this little tidbit from the AP:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Mormons were ill-served by the conservative politics of past church leaders.

Then after insulting past LDS leadership for being to conservative ... Reid politely tells LDS members that their values are all screwed up.

He said Mormons must recognize there are more important issues than abortion and gay marriage. Reid opposes abortion.

"We have a country that needs to do something about health care. Global warming is here. We have a president who doesn't know how to pronounce the words," Reid said, referring to President Bush.

Harry, ever the hypocrite, thinks it is the "wrong path" for LDS leadership to uphold their traditional conservative beliefs, but he deems it ok to alter those beliefs to better coincide with the liberal agenda? For crying out loud ... he told LDS members they should be more concerned with global warming than abortion!

When I spoke of this last night on my show, I received several calls from outraged LDS members who explained how the church goes out of its way to not endorse any candidate. Something that was stated very clearly in the RJ's article.

The church does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms. Spokeswoman Kim Farah said church officials would not comment on Reid's remarks.

To attack other faiths is bad enough, but to attack your own.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Muslims Order Christians To Make Peace

0 comments
This is too rich.

This Is London:

Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.

In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions."

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and Pope Benedict are believed to have been sent copies of the document which calls for greater understanding between the two faiths.

They even try to say they aren't against Christians, but Christians must not make war against Muslims.

The Muslim scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."

While bringing the two religions together is a lofty goal, the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought is clearly delusional.

Christians won't make war with Muslims as soon as Muslims stop using terrorism with homicide bombers to reestablish the Caliphate. Christian nations have only made war with Muslim nations after being attacked, and Christians have not made war with Islam in modern times. Islam in large, however, has made war with all infidels.

So, to the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought I say this: "As Christians, we say to Muslims that we are not against them and that Christianity is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Christians on account of their religion, use homicide bombers and attack innocent civilians without provocation.

The Muslim community must not be silent on the issue of global terrorism perpetuated by Islamists anymore. When Muslims show Christians and the world that they, in fact, reject the terrorism, murder, and oppressive actions of Islamic radicals, and when Muslims join Christians and the world in combating such activities ... there will be peace."

Monday, October 08, 2007

FINALLY, Someone Covers Why The Decline In Violence In Iraq Is Not News

0 comments
H/T Hotair for the vid

Now it's time to go to work ripping these two idiot ladies to pieces.

Kurtz made it a point to tell you how major papers buried the news that I told you a week ago. He went on by giving the numbers of decline in Iraq deaths, and playing a clip from Gibson's program. Gibson was the lone exception in making the decline in Iraq deaths a lead story. Gibson reported that it was the fourth straight month that US deaths declined, and that Iraqi civilian deaths dropped by 50%.

Enter guest Robin Wright who proceeded to say that the news of the declines in deaths should NOT have been front page news. She went on to talk about an "enormous dispute" in how casualties are counted, and that we were at the beginning of a trend that we weren't sure was a trend yet.

She then talks about the military looking for irreversible momentum ... which would be after two months. She says that we haven't reached that time frame yet, but keep in mind that this was the fourth consecutive month of decline in troop deaths. That's a full 100% longer than she was looking for.

Barbara Star then weighs in on the issue by saying that "we don't know if it's a trend." She also said that it was not "enduring progress", but that it was a positive step. Kurtz then interrupted and said that if the numbers showed US and Iraqi casualties going up, it would have been front page news. Star agreed with him on that, and said that by "any definition, that is news." So why is it that by any definition an increase in casualties is news, but not a decrease?

Star went on to criticize the Pentagon for saying that there has been progress for five years (and there has been), but that she needed to see "a little bit more than one month before she gets too excited." Again, the numbers are four months straight of decline.

Either these two ladies are utterly stupid, or they didn't pay attention to the fact that these were four month numbers, or they are running damage control to negate any positives in Iraq. I'll let you decide which it is.

The bottom line is that US troop deaths are at a 14 month low. How is that for irreversible momentum? To top that off ... overall Iraqi violence, ethno-sectarian murders, and terrorism in Iraq and around the world is down from 2006.

If they were looking for more than a month of progress ... they got it. We can add in the increase in Iraqi cooperation with coalition forces, and the massive increase in weapons caches seized also. All have been increasing every month since June of '06. Even with a steady year of major leaps forward in Iraq ... the news still will not cover it because they are waiting for the insurgents to have a good month.

Obama Speaks More Religiously Than Bush

0 comments

I'm sure you recall all the criticism Bush has received for being religious, and the ridiculous things that have been said about him for it. I've heard stupid things like Bush wants to convert all Muslims to Christianity, he wants to remove separation of church and state (which doesn't exist anyway), he speaks to God (literally), and bunch of other nonsense. Naturally, the SP left has made it a goal to attack him and the religious right because of their beliefs. However, I can't recall Bush ever saying that he wanted to create the 'kingdom' on earth here in the US. If Bush would have said that ... there would have been no end to the attacks on his faith.

There is someone who wants to create the 'kingdom' right here, and it isn't a Republican. It's Barack Obama ... who's religious speech to evangelicals this weekend far surpassed any religious rhetoric ever heard out of Bush's mouth. Obama, however, is being praised ... not criticized for his words.

CNN:

Republicans no longer have a firm grip on religion in political discourse, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama told Sunday worshippers.

"We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

There are times on the stump when Obama even sounds like a pastor himself, referencing New Testament phrases and sometimes saying "I'm not gonna preach to ya!" when emphasizing a point to his audience.

According to the religion-based Web site Beliefnet.com and its "God-o-Meter" tool that measures "God-talk" in the presidential campaigns, Obama invokes religion more than any of his Democratic competitors.

Let me be clear ... I don't have a problem with him talking about religion or his beliefs. I found it odd that many people who criticize Bush over his religion are silent about Obama's speech.

Here's a small sample of the comments on CNN's website for the story.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Of The 41 Dems Demanding Rush To Apologize ... 39 Of Them Refused To Condemn Personal Attacks On The Honor & Integrity Of Our Troops Last Month

0 comments
I've spent the last two days pointing out this hypocrisy on my show, and blogged about my call to Sen. Reid's office here in Vegas.

Last month the Senate voted on the Cornyn Amendment which not only condemned the "Betray Us" ad, but it also condemned any personal attack on the honor and integrity of our troops.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Several Senate Democrats refused to strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of our troops. They were:

  1. Akaka (D-HI)
  2. Bingaman (D-NM)
  3. Boxer (D-CA)
  4. Brown (D-OH)
  5. Byrd (D-WV)
  6. Clinton (D-NY)
  7. Dodd (D-CT)
  8. Durbin (D-IL)
  9. Feingold (D-WI)
  10. Harkin (D-IA)
  11. Inouye (D-HI)
  12. Kennedy (D-MA)
  13. Kerry (D-MA)
  14. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
  15. Levin (D-MI)
  16. Menendez (D-NJ)
  17. Murray (D-WA)
  18. Reed (D-RI)
  19. Reid (D-NV)
  20. Rockefeller (D-WV)
  21. Sanders (I-VT)
  22. Schumer (D-NY)
  23. Stabenow (D-MI)
  24. Whitehouse (D-RI)
  25. Wyden (D-OR)

Of the 25 above who refused to condemn personal attacks on our troops (because many of them engage in personal attacks themselves) ... only Bingaman and Feingold refused to sign Harry Reid's letter demanding that Clear Channel repudiate Rush Limbaugh for his words which Harry Reid called attacks on:

"The courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us."

Perhaps Reid should apologize for all the times he insulted the military.

So what exactly is the difference between honor and integrity, and courage and character? Why is it that these Dems are willing to condemn attacks on courage and character, but not honor and integrity? Of course we all know the answer to that ... politics. You'd have to be a fool to not think this is a strategy to build support for the fairness doctrine. For crying out loud, Levin admitted he only read the part of the transcript that Media Matters gave him.

Let's not forget that Media Matters was started by Center for American Progress who was founded by John Podesta, former chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton. You should also know that Hillary had a part in creating both organizations.

Clear Channel told Reid and his minions to go jump in a lake in this letter.

Far more important to the political wrangling going on for the fairness doctrine is the fact that Reid is demanding that Rush apologize to Jesse MacBeth. Whom Rush was specifically talking about on his show at the time. Why would the Democrats support such a character as MacBeth?

He is a proven phony (hence phony soldier), who is now an admitted and convicted phony. He also completely discredited Iraq Veterans Against the War. MacBeth was allowed to speak at IVAW rallies, and was a poster boy for their organization for a time. Yet this group that proclaims to be veterans didn't catch the falsehoods in MacBeth's statements, and image?

How can you trust them to be an honest organization again? The picture below is from their website, and is their featured soldier profile right now. This guy is claiming to be still on active duty?


Notice some things missing?

Harry Reid's political career is coming to an end. You now all know what we in Nevada have known for a long time about this guy. The only reason he was reelected last time was that Nevadans were hoping he could stop Yucca Mountain (which he helped bring here in the first place), but he's done nothing to make that a reality. Reid is nearly done with politics, but we will have to deal with his son, Rory. Don't you guys worry about that ... we'll take care of business on our end this time.

If the Dems are going to constantly act like spoiled children, and get caught lying, there may be hope in 2008. Problem is that too many people do not pay attention to all of this, and will not be prepared to cast their vote for the right candidate. In the meantime, we must keep up the good fight and fight for our troops against this slander so they can continue to make the great progress they've been making overseas.

Monday, October 01, 2007

Harry Reid Demands Rush Apologize To Fake Soldiers

0 comments
Keep in mind that Reid is NOT asking Rush to apologize to real soldiers who oppose the war, but to the fake soldiers that Rush was talking about on his program the other day while he was talking with a real soldier.

Here's the deal ... I'm going to pass you onto Hotair for the story because they've done it well. I would like to add a couple of things onto their list pointing out Reid's hypocrisy.


It's ok for Reid and his money-machine to attack real soldiers for political gain, but it isn't ok for Rush to attack fake soldiers who've never served?

I called Reid's Las Vegas office just before writing this. I was put on hold, and it sounded like they were busy. It's pretty common for Nevadans to inundate Reid's office after he says stupid things.

They came back on the line and asked how they could help me. I identified myself immediately so they knew who I was, and said I was calling about Reid asking for Rush to apologize. Immediately, the tone of the other guys voice changed to a "not again" defeated, disconnected demeanor.

He said:

"Yes?"

To which I replied by saying:

"This is a joke isn't it?"

To my surprise he said:

"Yeah."

Clearly he didn't mean to, but it shows how he became a non-thinking robot once he knew I wasn't on his side. He then tried to speak over me, and was trying to say that he would pass it along. I interrupted him though, and was able to get out what I wanted to say.

"You do realize that Rush was talking about Jesse MacBeth ... who was a fake soldier who never served?"

He then responded by saying that he would:

"Relay my concerns to the senator."

Then we hung up.

Friday, September 07, 2007

Edwards Actually Has A Good Idea

0 comments
I've been saying this since I was in the military in the 90's. There is already some cooperation between some nations, and it is very effective. The organization should be volunteer as far as combat personnel are concerned, and only allow intelligence sharing that is strictly terrorist related. As long as there are protections from sharing info vital to national security, and the independence of those nations is respected ... it's a damn fine idea.

AP:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is proposing an international organization to fight terrorism through shared intelligence.

This is far better than his previous plan to combat terrorism.

He then attacked Bush as being the only guy in the history of the world to make mistakes with terrorism, and he said some other stupid, untrue things ... like:

"Today, terrorism is worse in Iraq, and it's worse around the world," Edwards said in excerpts provided by his campaign. "It means the results are in on George Bush's so-called global war on terror and it's not just a failure, it's a double-edged failure."

Notice he failed to address Clinton's policies, and he did not give a reason why global terrorism shot through the roof in 1998. You and I know it was the fatwas, but he doesn't.

The interesting part of his comments that terrorism is worse around the world is technically false, and at best a spin.

As you can see from the graph below from the Terrorism Knowledge Base ... global terrorism is WAY DOWN this year from last.


If you look at this graph, you will see that terrorism in Iraq is also far less this year than last.


He also failed to note that outside of Iraq and the war in Israel last year ... global terror was significantly reduced. You can't count Iraq and Israel in the terror count because they were battlefields, and the argument has always been that the rest of the world was/was not safer since Iraq. Well, it is, and there is no way to deny it.

Now that those corrections have been made in what Edwards had to say ... his plan is still good.

"Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation," Edwards said. "Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world."

I really don't know what he means by "called out." This seems to be Edwards' version of Obama trying to act tough because they have a reputation for being weak. We all know Edwards won't do anything but talk about countries who refuse. He won't take any real action against those nations that don't support anti-terrorist activities, and he's been critical of others who do want action against those countries.

He did make a very laughable statement in his speech regarding the Cold War.

Edwards accused Bush of focusing on Cold War institutions designed to win traditional wars instead of cooperation with allies to take out small hostile groups. He also accused him of "an exclusively short-term focus on the enemy we know" and "a foreign policy of convenience that readily does business with whoever is available and regularly turns a blind eye when our allies behave wrongly or fail to cooperate."

Once again another Democrat completely ignores the coalition of allies assisting us in this conflict. Even though there are more of them than the first time around.

The rest of his statement was hypocrisy at its best. He is willing to turn a blind eye to our allies doing bad things, and the Dems are notorious for continuing to focus on Cold War institutions that are now obsolete. That is the focus of appeasement.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Does Chief Border Patrol Agent Work For Drug Cartel?

0 comments
I'm starting to consider the possibility.

Whenever I talk about the border I always get someone who claims that there is a conspiracy. Not that someone is allowing our country to be conquered, but that high ranking Border Patrol and government officials are on the take. In other words ... the reason they don't stop illegals and the drugs coming across the border is that they are being paid off. Most likely by the drug cartels who not only smuggle drugs across the border, but people too.

To prove my point ... I will link four major stories dealing with the current Border Patrol sector chief of Laredo, Carlos X. Carrillo.

Carrillo made headlines a couple of weeks ago when he proclaimed that it was not the Border Patrol's job to stop illegal immigrants, or narcotics, from crossing the border. Naturally this was outrageous, yielded great criticism.

Carrillo's comments soon became laughable as he went on to proclaim that the Border Patrol was not equipped to stop illegals or drugs ... yet was somehow was equipped to stop terrorism.

I decided to go to the Border Patrol's website to see if, in fact, their mission did not include illegals or drugs. I knew the answer, but it was still worth looking into. After I confirmed the Border Patrols mission, I decided to go the the Laredo sector's webpage. What I found sent me into gut-busting laughter, and left me with tears running down my cheeks.

Only days after Laredo sector chief Carrillo said that immigration and drugs were not his problem ... there it was. Right there on the Laredo sector's page of the Border Patrol's website was a letter written by, and signed by, Laredo sector chief Carlos X. Carrillo.


It contradicted everything Carrillo had said just days before. In the letter posted on the site, Carrillo says:

Our primary function is to enforce the immigration laws and prevent illegal entry of aliens into the country.

I ended my previous with a question. "I wonder what changed his mind," I said.

Now, I think I have the answer, but more on that in a minute.

After Carrillo's ludicrous comments, Republican presidential candidate, Tom Tancredo, called for Carrillo to be fired.

WND:

U.S. Border Patrol sector chief Carlos X. Carrillo should be removed from his post after telling a town hall meeting in Texas the agency's job "is not to stop illegal immigrants," says Republican presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo called on David Aguilar, the chief of the U.S, Office of Border Patrol, to remove Carrillo from his leadership position.

"I hope David Aguilar will repudiate Carrillo's statements and remove him from a leadership position in the agency," Tancredo said in a statement released by his office. "Anything less will leave doubts about the integrity of the agency's top management and its commitments to controlling illegal entry into our country."

To the surprise of many, Aguilar defended Carrillo's statements.

Aguilar, however, defended Carrillo and said the comments were taken out of context. He said the Border Patrol's mission "is to protect our country's borders from all threats. Our highest priority is keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering our country."

The problem with Aguilar's defense of Carrillo is that they weren't taken out of context at all, and Carrillo did not say that the Border Patrol's job is to protect our border from all threats. He said:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Border Patrol's job is not to stop illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol's job is not to stop narcotics � or contraband or narcotics � the Border Patrol's mission is not to stop criminals. The Border Patrol's mission is to stop terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country."

Kind of hard to take that out of context, isn't it?

So far, Tancredo's call for Carrillo's job hasn't come to fruition. However, a few days after Tancredo's statements ... Carrillo apologized.

Liberty Post:

A Border Patrol chief yesterday apologized for saying the agency's mission is stopping terrorists, not illegal aliens or drug smugglers, a stance that outraged congressional lawmakers.

"It's painfully obvious to me that I could have done a better job of articulating my talking points," said sector Chief Carlos X. Carrillo, who made the controversial comments last week at a town hall meeting in Laredo, Texas.

The article goes on to describe the outrage of Republican lawmakers at Carrillo's comments.

Carrillo also describes what he "really" said.

"It was a two-hour town hall meeting," Chief Carrillo said. "One of the issues we discussed was illegal immigration. I said the Border Patrol cannot address the causes of illegal immigration. We're not supposed to address it. Our focus is enforcement, our focus is enforcement at the border."

A far cry different than what was reported.

Shortly after Carrillo's apology, there was another big story about Laredo in the news.

The AP did an expose on the drug cartels in Laredo, and how violent they are.

Mexican drug lords locked in a bloody fight for control of a pipeline that runs from Mexico to Dallas and up through middle America have brazenly stationed hit squads and reconnaissance teams in Laredo.

Maybe, just maybe it's not so brazen if the sector chief of the Border Patrol doesn't feel it's in his job description to deal with drug cartels.

Over the past few years, the Mexican Gulf Cartel and its rival Sinaloa Cartel have carried out a terrifying bloodbath in Nuevo Laredo, where the traffickers have a saying: "Plata o plomo" — "Silver or lead." So far, the worst of the violence has been confined to Mexico.

"Our mission is to make sure it doesn't cross over," said Jesse Guillen, a Laredo prosecutor who obtained guilty pleas from Reta and another hitman for the Gulf Cartel earlier this year. "Is it under control? Let's see."

Unlike many other drug-related killings, the Laredo slayings often involve careful planning, explicit orders and surveillance of law enforcement officers, Guillen said. And arrests aren't easy: In most cases, the killers flee back across the border.

Gee, if only we had an agency to prevent them from going back and forth across the border. Too bad sector chief Carrillo has better things to do ... like hunt Osama bin Laden.

Gone also is the grudging respect once accorded U.S. law enforcement. Holdridge said he and his wife have occasionally been followed by suspected cartel members as they drive around town.

You can't respect people you've paid off, can you?

Hitmen were paid $500 a week, according to Laredo police. When a job was done, they could get a bonus of $10,000 and two kilos of cocaine, police said in court documents.

The cartels have studied U.S. law enforcement procedures and know how to stymie officers.

Yeah, with cold, hard cash.

Cartels sometimes send out "suicide loads" — smaller piles of marijuana or cash that traffickers know will get caught by local law enforcement. Such busts tie up officers with paperwork for hours, giving traffickers time to drive a bigger load through unnoticed, Holdridge said.

I left that last part in there to illustrate what may have happened in the Ramos, Compean case.

Is Carrillo on the take? I don't know, but his behavior is dubious at best. Tancredo's calls for him to be removed are correct, and should go without saying. We need sector chiefs that don't double-talk, and contradict themselves. We need tough, smart agents who will not allow Laredo to turn into killing fields. Regardless of if Carrillo is corrupt ... he has shown he can not get the job done in his sector.




 

Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner Converted into Blogger Template by Bloganol dot com