Vocal Minority

Dennis Prager's Best Articles of 2007

On this last morning of 2007, I set out with a seemingly noble goal: Select the best quotes from my favorite columnists’ articles, and post them here in a “Best of” format. I started with my idol, Jewish conservative Dennis Prager. Having read all these articles once before, I was certain that upon a second read I’d be able to find a couple of gems.

I was wrong—I had barely gotten to February when I had to concede that full articles were gems. Finding it impossible to do justice to Mr. Prager by selecting a mere few sentences, I am now forced to modify my plan. Here are my twelve favorite Dennis Prager articles of 2007, along with introductory or other key paragraphs.

I strongly urge every Jewish American to read Prager’s work, especially these cogent articles. On so many things he hits the nail square on the head. I hope they speak to you as much as they did to me having read them once during the year, and then again this morning.

America Founded to be Free, Not Secular (Jan. 3)

There has been a concerted, and successful, attempt over the last generations to depict America as always having been a secular country and many of its Founders as deists, a term misleadingly defined as irreligious people who believed in an impersonal god.

It is also argued that the values that animated the founding of America were the values of the secular Enlightenment, not those of the Bible—even for most of the Founders who were religious Christians.

This new version of American history reminds me of the old Soviet dissident joke: “In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it’s the past that is always changing.”

Forcing Girls to Cheer for Girls (Jan. 30)

High school cheerleaders must now cheer for girls’ teams as often as for boys’ teams thanks to federal education officials’ interpretations of Title IX, the civil rights law that mandates equal playing fields for both sexes. According to The New York Times, almost no one directly involved wants this—not the cheerleaders, not the fans, not the boys’ teams, and not even the girls’ teams. But it doesn’t matter: The law coerces cheerleaders to cheer at girls’ games.

Liberals Don’t Ask “What Happens Next?” (Feb. 6)

In general, the Left does not ask the question, “What will happen next?” when formulating social policy. Not thinking through the long-range consequences of their positions is liberalism’s tragic flaw. […]

In the view of many liberals, “What happens next?” is a pragmatic, but not idealistic, question by which to guide social policy. In fact, however, no question is as idealistic as “What happens next?” Asking it means that social policy is made by noble and compassionate minds, not hearts alone. In the rest of life, thinking through the consequences of actions is called “responsible” and “mature.” Those remain worthy goals in public life as well.

New Form of Evil Is Why America Has Not Won Iraq War (Mar. 27)

I never thought we could see a new form of evil. After the gas chambers of the Holocaust, the tens of millions murdered in the Gulag, the forced starvation in the Ukraine, the hideous medical experiments on people by the Germans and the Japanese in World War II, the torture chambers in all police states, I had actually believed that no new forms of evil existed.

I was wrong.

Duke Lacrosse Scandal: Eight Lessons (April 24)

America’s news media, an amoral university, an opportunistic district attorney, and a police department that seems to have collaborated in framing innocent students all combined to nearly destroy the lives of three innocent young men—members of the Duke University lacrosse team.

“Buck Fush” and the Left (June 5)

Every day I see at least one car, usually more than one, sporting a bumper sticker that reads, “Buck Fush.”

Apparently, some of our fellow Americans on the left find this message to be profound and witty. But it is not these individuals’ presence or absence of wit or profundity that interests me here—both are so obviously absent, no comments are necessary. It’s their contempt for society and their narcissism that demand commentary.

America Needs a Fourth of July Seder (July 3) *This one’s my favorite!

Perhaps the major reason Jews have been able to keep their national identity alive for 3,000 years, the last 2,000 of which were nearly all spent dispersed among other nations, is ritual. No national or cultural identity can survive without ritual, even if the group remains in its own country.

Americans knew this until the era of anti-wisdom was ushered in by the baby boomer generation in the 1960s and ‘70s. We always had national holidays that celebrated something meaningful.

Why “Islamophobia” Is a Brilliant Term (July 31)

Whoever coined the term “Islamophobia” was quite shrewd. Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. The term is not “Muslim-phobia” or “anti-Muslimist,” it is Islam-ophobia—fear of Islam—yet fear of Islam is in no way the same as hatred of all Muslims. One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist.

(Also recommended: Prager’s Oct. 30 related article The Left and the Term “Islamo-Fascism”)

If It’s Bad for America, It’s Good for Democrats (Aug. 14)

One of the two major political parties of the United States has linked all its electoral hopes on domestic pathologies, economic downturns and foreign failure.

It is actually difficult to name any positive development for America that would benefit the Democratic Party’s chances in a national election.

Name almost any subject, and this unhealthy pattern can be discerned.

Ann Coulter Wants Jews to Become Christian—So What? (Oct. 16)

Those who label Ann Coulter an anti-Semite do damage to the battle against anti-Semitism.

I say this as a committed Jew, a religious Jew, a Jewish writer and lecturer, … and a man who has fought anti-Semitism all his life.

There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?

The World Doesn’t Hate America, The Left Does (Nov. 27)

One of the most widely held beliefs in the contemporary world—so widely held it is not disputed—is that, with few exceptions, the world hates America. One of the Democrats’ major accusations against the Bush administration is that it has increased hatred of America to unprecedented levels. And in many polls, the United States is held to be among the greatest obstacles to world peace and harmony.

But it is not true that the world hates America. It is the world’s left that hates America. However, because the left dominates the world’s news media and because most people, understandably, believe what the news media report, many people, including Americans, believe that the world hates America.

Baby Boomers Owe America’s Young People an Apology (Dec. 4)

We live in the age of group apologies. I would like to add one. The baby boomer generation needs to apologize to America, especially its young generation, for many sins. […]

… Most people get wiser as they get older. But not those of us baby boomers who still believe these things. Of course, many of us never bought into these awful ideas that have so hurt you and our country, and some of us have grown up. But many of us still talk, think, dress and curse the same as we did in the ‘60s and ‘70s. And we’re still fighting what we consider the real Axis of Evil: American racism, sexism and imperialism.

Thank you, Mr. Prager, for your inspiring and thought-provoking words. Looking forward to more in 2008.

Liberal Media Spin Doctors: Just About Everybody!

 This past week the Media Research Center released its twentieth annual compilation of the best (or worst?) quotes from the hopelessly liberal mainstream media.

I’ve abridged the report and added my own two cents, but the full report (and the links to the original sources) is available here.

 

The Best Notable Quotables of 2007
by the Media Research Center
[abridged and commented on by ETR]

Dynamic Duo Award for Idolizing Bill and Hillary

 “When I watched [former President Bill Clinton] at Mrs. King’s funeral, I just have never seen anything like it....There are times when he sounds like Jesus in the temple.”

— Chris Matthews, MSNBC’s Hardball, Feb. 28.

Um, Chris, you might want to change your underpants right about now.

“Nobody can bask in applause with quite so much style — the gentle wave, the grin the shape of a sideways comma, the sense that he knows he deserves the accolades and yet is humbled by all the clapping, which makes people clap harder....He still has this way of presenting his ideas for reforms as simple, elegant solutions....Listening to the man think out loud again, it was hard not to pine for an era before bad news got really bad, before Sept. 11 showed up on the calendar every year as Patriot Day.”

— Washington Post staff writer David Segal on the launch of Bill Clinton’s latest book, Sept. 5 Style section.

Yeah, the good old days with a president getting his rocks off in the oval office with a woman who’s not his wife, obstructing justice, and letting terrorists attack American interests around the world with impunity. Just go back to watching your Friends, people. Nothing to see here.

 

“It’s her resilience and capacity to survive and thrive against all comers that partly fuels the haters’ fury.... The narrative of depravity — a tissue of inventions by conservatives — was often hard to follow....The anti-Hillary industry has never managed to bring down Hillary herself — in fact, the more they have attacked, the higher she has risen.”

— Newsweek’s Jonathan Darman and Mark Hosenball in “The New War on Hillary,” June 18 issue.

Yeah, Hillary would be a shoo-in for president if it weren’t for that Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!

 

America Makes Us Sick Award

“Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform....We pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?”

— WashingtonPost.com military columnist William Arkin in a January 30 column.

But he supports the troops. And if you don’t understand that, it’s just because you’re too stupid to understand nuuuuance.

 

“I think a draft produces a better Army than the one we would have with all volunteers, because I think you get average Americans if you have a draft. And if it’s an all-volunteer Army, you get people who join up because of some problem in their own lives. They don’t have anything else to do, they don’t have a job, or they can’t find what they want to do, so they join the Army. And it doesn’t produce the best Army.”

— CBS’s Andy Rooney on MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning, March 14.

He supports the the troops too.

 

“There is something tragic about Edwards’s failure to break through. Today, 37 million Americans live below the poverty line, 12 million more than at the time of [Sen. Robert F.] Kennedy’s death. And yet Edwards’s call of conscience has not resonated. … His difficulty speaks to the candidate’s inability to connect. It also speaks to the nation’s inability to be moved.”

— Newsweek’s Jonathan Darman, July 30 issue.

Yeah, we Americans don’t give a crap about poor people. Or, maybe we just don’t fall for Marxist rhetoric and inflated statistics being spewed by lying ambulance chasers, unlike certain supposedly intelligent and objective Newsweek columnists.

 

 
Damn Those Conservatives Award

“I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”

— Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.

Hmm, wishing for the death of the Vice President. Nice. And they call Ann Coulter mean-spirited.

 

“[M]y very first thought upon hearing of the Rev. Falwell’s passing was: Good. And I didn’t mean ‘good’ in a oh-good-he’s-gone-home-to-be-with-the-Lord kind of way. I meant ‘good’ as in ‘Ding-dong, the witch is dead.’”

— Chicago Sun-Times columnist Cathleen Falsani in her May 18 piece, “Sigh of relief over Falwell death.”

Didn’t they say the same thing when Reagan died?

 

Blue State Brigade Award for Campaign Reporting

Senator Barack Obama: “Let’s roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, let’s make certain that those resources go to the people who need it....We’re not going to solve it by pretending that issues of poverty and struggle among working families are just going to go away magically because the stock market is going up.”

Moderator Chris Matthews: “So much of what you say just grabs people like me, because it sounds like Bobby Kennedy. It sounds like the ’60s at its absolute best.”

— Exchange at AFSCME Democratic candidates forum shown live on MSNBC, June 19.

Whoa, back up the tape. According to Obama, the earned income of wealthy American citizens is not their rightful personal property; it’s resources for the people who need it. (And guess who decides what "need" is?)

 

“Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m naïve … I guess I think that anyone who’s not going to vote for Barack Obama because he is black isn’t going to vote for a Democrat anyway.”

— George Stephanopoulos, in an exchange with Sam Donaldson on ABC’s This Week, May 13.

No, you were right the first time, George: You’re wrong and naïve.

 

“With a train whistle in the background and the sweet smell of freshly cut grass in the air, John Edwards campaigned this month next to a cornfield and a big sign proclaiming: ‘This is John Edwards Country.’ Surrounding him were about 100 voters, all seated on outdoor chairs provided by the local Congregational church, in a scene that could not have been more picturesquely American — democracy in action at its most intimate level.”

—New York Times reporter Leslie Wayne on John Edwards, July 22.

WTF??? Is this a news article or a campaign ad?

 

Madness of King George Award

“You could argue that even the world’s worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought [they] were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc....Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of ‘I’m so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends’ good?’”

— Ex-Washington Post sports reporter and Seinfeld writer Peter Mehlman in a June 20 Huffington Post blog item.

Sports reporter?

 “If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”

— New Yorker magazine writer Mark Singer explaining why he donated $250 to the liberal “Victory Campaign 2004.”

Of the same magazine that pooh-poohed the hanging of Saddam Hussein. For some interesting reason, liberals have never compared him to Hitler.

 

“Good evening. A President who lied us into a war and, in so doing, needlessly killed 3,584 of our family and friends and neighbors; a President whose administration initially tried to destroy the first man to nail that lie; a President whose henchmen then ruined the career of the intelligence asset that was his wife when intelligence assets were never more essential to the viability of the Republic; a President like that has tonight freed from the prospect of prison the only man ever to come to trial for one of the component felonies in what may be the greatest crime of this young century.”

— Keith Olbermann on Bush commuting Lewis Libby’s prison sentence, MSNBC’s Countdown, July 2.

Hey, Keith? You forgot to add “a President who personally rigged Hurricane Katrina to slam into New Orleans because he hates black people.” No need to thank me. I’m here to help.

 

Channeling the Nut Roots Award

“Congress’s job is oversight of the executive branch — unless, of course, that oversight interferes with getting elected.”

— CNN’s Jack Cafferty, The Situation Room, Aug. 21.

 

Media Millionaires for Higher Taxes

“It takes leadership. After World War II, we maintained the infrastructure we had and we built an incredible network of highways, and leaders in both parties agreed that these were priorities. Now we have this tax-averse society, rallied by the Republicans, tax-averse, where everything becomes sort of a right-wing, libertarian refusal to let government spend any money or raise any money.”

— Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift discussing the Minneapolis bridge collapse, August 25 McLaughlin Group.

“You’re also looking at a [global warming] solution here in Europe: smaller vehicles, more energy efficient, many which use diesel fuel which is more efficient. And the price of gas here is $6 a gallon to discourage guzzling. A lot of big ideas and innovations coming out of Europe.”

— ABC’s Chris Cuomo reporting from Paris for Earth Day, April 20 Good Morning America.

So let me get this straight:

High gas prices in the U.S. = Evil corporations price gouging.
Even higher gas prices in Europe = Big idea and innovation.

I’d make sure I were in Paris too if I uttered this garbage.

Host George Stephanopoulos: “… [I]sn’t it going to take real sacrifice, real cutbacks in consumption if we’re going to be energy independent?...Higher gas taxes?”

Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM): “It’s going to be a collaborative effort. No, you don’t have to do it with taxes....”

Stephanopoulos: “But aren’t higher energy taxes the best way to get people to conserve?”

— ABC’s This Week, January 21.

I know, George. I’m just as surprised as you are. A problem can actually be solved without raising taxes? Say it isn’t so!

 

O Great Goreacle Award

Co-host Harry Smith: “President Bush getting ready to go to Europe for the G-8. The folks in the European Union want to do emissions reductions. The President said yesterday we’re not going to participate....If you were president, you would have probably signed on?”

Former Vice President Al Gore: “Yeah, yeah.”

Smith: “Do you mind if I-? [holds up a ‘Gore 2008’ pin]...There you go. You can hold it. [laughter]....Here, let’s see what it looks like. [holds pin to Gore’s lapel]...All right, all right. Save that in a freeze frame.”

— Exchange on CBS’s The Early Show, May 30.

Hey Al, will you wear my pin? [Giggle giggle. High-pitched squeal. Giggle giggle.]

 

“From your point of view, if you were to run for President you could take this issue [global warming] to the next level, even during just a campaign. And if you were fortunate enough to win the presidency, you’d sit in the most powerful office in the free world with a real chance to make — you could be in a position to save the planet, without putting too much emphasis on it. Wouldn’t that be enough of a reason to run for President for you?”

— Matt Lauer, exchange with Al Gore on NBC’s Today, December 6, 2006.

Matt, maybe Chris Matthews has a clean pair of underpants you can borrow.

 

Politics of Meaninglessness Award for Silliest Analysis

“Perhaps the outpouring of sympathy for [the falsely arrested Duke lacrosse players] Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty and David Evans is just a bit misplaced....As students of Duke University or other elite institutions, these young men will get on with their privileged lives....They are very differently situated in life from, say, the young women of the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.”

— Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran writing on his “Pushback” blog on ABCNews.com on April 12.

OK, Terry, so if one of your kids, who will undoubtedly attend an “elite” institution, is falsely accused of a crime and the entire liberal media and academia sides with the accuser solely because she’s a minority, you’ll feed him to the lions, right?

Or will you spend your millions to ensure your kid’s acquittal so that he can go on with his privileged life?

Seriously, the inability of some people to step outside their illogical little liberal worlds is mind-boggling!

 

“As part of our ongoing series of reports on the environment, ‘America Goes Green,’ we take on the question that can make otherwise competent adults quake with fear. We’ve all been there. You come to the end of the checkout line and then comes that question: ‘Paper or plastic?’ For that one brief moment, we grocery buyers are made to feel like the fate of the planet hinges on our decision.”

— NBC’s Brian Williams on the May 7 Nightly News.

How would you know, Brian? When was the last time you did your own food shopping?

You know why I’m quaking with fear? Because somewhere someone is still watching this ridiculous excuse for a news show.

 

CNN’s Larry King: “Are you sorry about that [60 Minutes National Guard story] now?”

Ex-CBS anchor Dan Rather: “No.”

King: “You think the report was correct?”

Rather: “Yes. And I think most people know by now that it was correct.”

— Exchange on CNN’s Larry King Live, September 20.

Well, most people at the New York Times building, on the Upper West Side, and in Hollywood. But you forgot about the rest of the country.

But stay the course, Dan. Stay the course.

 

Good Morning Morons Award

“So I’m running in the park on Saturday, in shorts, thinking this [warm weather] is great, but are we all gonna die? You know? I can’t, I can’t figure this out.”

— Co-host Meredith Vieira talking about global warming on NBC’s Today, January 8.

Lemme ‘splain it to you, Meredith: Look up at the sky. See that bright yellow ball? It’s called the Sun. Heat comes out of that. Figured it out now?

Seriously, what a waste of space this woman is.

 

Co-host Diane Sawyer: “A number of people have already said, ‘Is there anything surprising, personal about [Iranian] President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad that we didn’t know?’ Well, it turns out, someone told me he cries a lot. That he is dramatically sentimental and sympathetic if someone comes up and expresses a personal plight. So I just asked him, are you often in tears?”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Yes, that’s true. Not only for Iranians, of course, they are very close to me and I love all Iranians. And anywhere, when I see people suffering, I have the same reaction....Even when I see on TV that, for example, some Americans, because of tornadoes or a hurricane, they have lost their homes, I become sad.”

— ABC’s Good Morning America, February 13.

Oh, thank you, Diane! I was so wrong about A’jad! Heck with his desire to nuke Israel into oblivion. I’ve so misjudged this sensitive guy!

 

Co-host Matt Lauer: “The book is called The World Without Us, and it asks the question what would happen to planet Earth if human beings were to suddenly disappear....And really it’s all about trying to figure out how long it would take nature to reclaim what we’ve created.”

Co-host Meredith Vieira: “The mess.”

Lauer: “How long it would take nature to fix the mess we’ve made?...Would the Earth miss us at all? How long would it take for it to fix the problems we created?”

— NBC’s Today, September 4.

Gee, I dunno, Matt. But whatever length of time that might be, that number would decrease significantly once you and Meredith grab hands and jump off a roof together. (Sorry for the outbreak of hostility, but I so do not have the patience anymore for these losers!)

 

Media Hero Award

“He was not what I expected. He was very dignified. He was warm, friendly. He likes the U.S. It’s George Bush that he doesn’t like. He also was very personal. He talked about how hard his life was, that he wished he could be in love but you can’t be when you are heading a country.”

— ABC’s Barbara Walters recounting her interview with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, March 16 Nightline.

Yeah, kind of like Castro, right Babs? Oh wait, you love Castro too …

 

Tin Foil Hat Award for Crazy Conspiracy Theories

Co-host Joy Behar: “Is there such a thing as a man-made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to [Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)]?...”

Co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck: “Why is everything coming from the liberal perspective a conspiracy?...”

Behar: “I know what this [Republican] Party is capable of.”

—ABC’s The View, December 14, 2006.

No comment necessary.

 

“… [F]rom the mindbending idea that four guys dressed as pizza delivery men were going to outgun all the soldiers at Fort Dix, to the not-too-thought-out plan to blow up JFK Airport by lighting a match 40 miles away....The so-called plot happens to be revealed the day before the second Democratic presidential debate and as the scandal continues to unfold over the firings of U.S. attorneys and their replacements by political hacks. The so-called plot is announced by the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, New York, and by the police chief of New York City, the father of a correspondent for Fox News Channel.”

— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on his Countdown program June 4, outlining his claimed “Nexus of Politics and Terror,” arguing the Bush administration manipulates news about terror plots for political advantage.

So-called analysis by a so-called human being.

 

“Also in Washington today, a lot of excitement on Capitol Hill. A movie star showed up to testify before Congress — a movie star named Al Gore.”

— Katie Couric on the March 21 CBS Evening News.

Oh, Gawd. Gimme a freakin’ break.

“More than 46 million Americans have no health insurance. So when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and good health, all men are not created equal.”

— Katie Couric introducing a story about a doctor who cares for poor patients, March 12 CBS Evening News.

“Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and good health?”

Oh, I get it! There must be an alternate, left-wing version of the Constitution that all these media hacks have. You know, one that’s missing the Second Amendment but includes the right to abort a fetus.

 

Barbra Streisand Political IQ Award for Celebrity Vapidity

“I just want to say something: 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?...If you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?”

— Co-host Rosie O’Donnell on ABC’s The View, May 17.

But don’t you dare question her patriotism.

 

“Over the past six years we’ve had to add to the American picture: rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeas corpus, the neglect of our great city New Orleans and the people, an attack on the Constitution and the loss of our best young men and women in a tragic war. And this is a song about things that shouldn’t happen here, happening here. And so right now we plan to do something about it — we plan to sing about it.”

— Bruce Springsteen introducing his song “Living in the Future” before a live concert on NBC’s Today, September 28.

Nice quote. Now I have two reasons to give when people ask me why I can’t stand Bruce Springsteen. (The first reason: He sucks.)

 

“I don’t know what it’s going to take for people to really wake up and understand that [the Bush administration] are liars and they are murderers. I’m sorry....After the Katrina incident, after the incompetence that took place there, after the incompetence and the lying about this war. [Applause] I don’t understand it.”

— ABC’s Joy Behar on The View, February 28.

Isn’t it amazing how libs to tie every Hurricane Katrina story to Iraq, and every Iraq story to Hurricane Katrina? They must have all had a seminar.

 

“I don’t believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being. Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear. And guns are a huge part of our culture. I know I’m crazy because I’m only supposed to say that in Europe. But violence corrupts absolutely.”

— Actress Jodie Foster in an interview with Entertainment Weekly to promote her new movie, The Brave One, September 7 issue.

That’s “absolute power corrups absolutely,” you stupid freaking boob. Just shut up and stick to your pre-written scripts, OK? If Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear, it’s being caused by dopes like you.

She must have that left-wing version of the Constitution that Katie Couric was using. It’s missing the Second Amendment. (But I’ll bet anyone what Ms. Foster’s bodyguards pack heat.)

 

Drive By Media Award for Shooting at the Competition

“A top Democrat is coming out guns blazing against conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. It’s an angry new shot in the dispute over the war in Iraq and Limbaugh’s charge that some veterans who are criticizing the war are, in his words, quote, ‘phony soldiers.’”

— CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room, October 1. 

Apparently, Wolf didn’t learn in school that a journalist’s role is to report the truth, not perpetuate Democrat lies about conservatives. As the MRC correctly explains: “In fact, Limbaugh was talking about leftist anti-war groups touting tales of U.S. atrocities from Jesse Macbeth, a soldier who flunked out of basic training and who is going to prison for making it all up.”

Guess that makes Wolf a phony journalist.

 

Not Biased Enough Award

“As we saw in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the plantation mentality that governs Washington turned the press corps into sitting ducks for the war party, for government, and neoconservative propaganda and manipulation....What’s happened is not indifference or laziness or incompetence, but the fact that most journalists on the plantation have so internalized conventional wisdom that they simply accept that the system is working as it should. I’m doing a documentary this spring called Buying the War, and I can’t tell you again how many reporters have told me that it just never occurred to them that high officials would manipulate intelligence in order to go to war. Hello?”

— PBS’s Bill Moyers, in a January 12 speech to a conference on “media reform” aired four days later on the left-wing Pacifica network’s Democracy Now.

First of all, plantation mentality? What the frick does that mean?

Second, that high officials in the Bush administration have manipulated intelligence is and has been the conventional wisdom of the MSM for the past six years. What do you mean it never occurred to them???

 

“For all the howling on the right, it’s difficult to argue that mainstream news organizations operate with anything approaching Fox’s partisan and ideological agenda.”

— Longtime Los Angeles Times political reporter Ron Brownstein in a March 16 column.

From a non-partisan and non-ideological column written by a non-partisan and non-ideological reporter in the non-partisan and non-ideological L.A. Times. Howl!!!

 

“As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch”

— Headline over an October 16 story by McClatchy News Service reporters Jay Price and Qasim Zein.

Yup.

 

“Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was.”

— MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann in an interview with Playboy magazine, October issue.

For all you Olbermann fans, let’s look at this more closely:
Murdoch/FNC = worse than Al Qaeda.
Murdoch/FNC = as dangerous as the KKK.

Can anyone explain to me why this absolute freaking moron has his own show?

 

And last, but not least, my favorite:

“You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once and I was taken off the jury. And the judge said to me, ‘Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?’ And I said, ‘That’s what journalists do.’ And everybody in the courtroom laughed. It was the most hurtful moment I think I’ve ever had.”

— Co-host Diane Sawyer on ABC’s Good Morning America, July 12.

Hahahahahahahaha!  Hahahahahahahaha!  Hahahahahahahaha! Hahahahahahahaha!  Hahahahahahahaha!  Hahahahahahahaha! Hahahahahahahaha!  Hahahahahahahaha!  Hahahahahahahaha!

Ooh, my sides hurt … Thanks, Diane. I needed that.

 

As New Year's Approaches ... What Did You Say?

Every December in this country we face the same "Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays" question. I've heard many stories over the years from fellow Jews who have been frustrated or outright offended when Merry Christmas was said to them. It used to bother me too, but not so much anymore. Also in my lifetime, we've seen Christmas parties become holiday parties and Christmas Break become Winter Recess.

I, myself, say Happy Holidays, but not for the same reasons others might think. Obviously, as a Jew whose family and close friends are mainly Jewish, saying Merry Christmas isn't appropriate. But to cashiers, the mailman, and other strangers I will say Happy Holidays for two main reasons, both out of practicality and not out of political correctness. First, people will most likely be celebrating either Christmas or Chanukah (or Kwanzaa) as well as the New Year. After all, it's Happy Holidays (plural); I always assumed it included whichever religious holiday one celebrated plus the New Year.

The other reason is that the word "holiday" is all-inclusive; it covers both Christmas and Chanukah. So if you say Happy Holidays, you got everything covered.

So which one do you say?

Why I Left Liberalism #4 - Upside-Down Moral Compass

This morning on one of NJ's talk stations, NJ 101.5, they were discussing a new AIDS testing law just signed by acting governor Richard Codey while our supposedly actual governor is on vacation. According to Bloomberg:

"New Jersey will require all pregnant women to be tested for HIV unless they opt out under legislation signed into law today ... Health-care providers will test pregnant women for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, in their first and third trimesters unless they refuse, according to the new law. Newborns whose mother's HIV status is positive or unknown at the time of delivery also will be tested. "

First of all, how can someone sign a bill into law while just sitting in for the governor while vacation? Does that sound fishy to you?

Second, how can a law both require something AND give the choice to opt out? Why can't they do that with our taxes? I can see it now:

"New Jersey will require all working citizens to fork over up to 40% of their hard-earned income unless they opt out under legislation signed into law ..."

Well, one can dream ...

Anyway, to me the law sounds like a good idea. According to a 2006 CDC report:

"the rate of transmission during childbirth might be reduced to less than 2 percent from about 25 percent with a combination of universal screening, preventative drugs, Cesarean delivery and avoidance of breast feeding." 

So everyone wins--the mother, the baby, and society at large--right?

Not to everyone. According to NJ 101.5, the ACLU and certain women's groups like the local chapter of NOW disagree with the legislation, claiming it violates women's "privacy rights." Overwhelmingly, the female callers sided with the civil rights groups. Some women actually invoked "Hitler" and/or "Nazi." Just to clarify, these callers didn't explicity say that the bill was a privacy rights violation; they were making a slippery slope argument: "Today it's AIDS testing. What will it be tomorrow!?" (The few male callers, as well as the male host, had no problem with the premise of the law.)

And so, here was your typical conversation between the host and callers:

"But what about the welfare of the baby?"

"Privacy rights!"

"But what about reducing the spread of AIDS in our society?"

"Privacy rights!"

"But what about the greater good?"

"Hitler! Nazis! Fascism!"

WTF!?

Now, even without being a constitutional scholar, I know that "privacy rights" is a very abstract concept that's nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Rather, it's constantly invoked by civil rights groups to either (1) protect the most perverse and detestable behavior of the citizenry or (2) prevent the government from passing sound legislation on the basis that one's "privacy" is (or can potentially be) violated.

Let's play devil's advocate and surmise that the AIDS testing law is a privacy rights violation. Why do civil rights groups throw a fit over this, but not over much more egregious violations? All over left-leaning parts of our country, our civil rights are impinged upon with nary a peep from them--from smoking bans to restrictions on energy use, from the free assembly by certain groups to the free speech of anyone who dares violate the rules of political correctness.

I don't think the ACLU has taken issue with the upcoming light bulb ban. As one article I recently read brilliantly observes, the left wants government out of our bedroom, except when it comes to the light bulbs we use in our bedroom!

I also doubt they've ever complained that every year we're forced to inform the government exactly how much money we made the previous year and document exactly how we earned it, and then, in some cases, forced to hand over a chunk of our income--our personal property--by threat of imprisonment.

Finally, when earlier this year Hillary declared publically that she wanted to take the profits from oil companies, I don't recall the ACLU crying "privacy rights."

So how does one explain such blatant cherry picking by these left-leaning groups, who claim to guard that very line between liberty and a totalitarian theocracy? I'm far from the first to come up with the answer, but it's one worth repeating:

The left isn't really for civil rights; rather they're against traditional American values.

The Great One Mark Levin sums these up concisely as God, country, and family. To that list I'd add free market capitalism. If your civil rights related to these four areas are in jeapordy, very rarely will you find the so-called civil rights groups coming to your rescue.

Thus, they won't support a smoker's privacy rights because they hate Big Tobacco. They're not going to protect a home- or business-owner's privacy right to use standard lights bulbs because they hate Big Energy. And they're certainly not going to call out Hillary for her Marxist rhetoric because they hate Big Oil. And so on and so forth.

Let's take stock of the things that the "rights" supported by left-wing groups, as well as liberal judges:

(1) The right of teenage girls to obtain birth control without parental consent

(2) The right of teenage girls to get abortions without parental consent.

(3) The right of women to walk around topless in public.

(4) The right of terrorists, defined by the Geneva Convention as unlawful enemy combatants, to have access habeas corpus rights, American taxpayer-funded legal representation, and access to U.S. civil courts.

(5) The right of illegal immigrants to enjoy the rights of American citizens and legal immigrants.

(6) The right of anti-war protestors to desecrate the U.S. flag in various ways.

(In their defense, the ACLU seems generally to be on the side of property owners in eminent domain cases. Lions Roar or other legal scholars, please correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

OK, now here are some things left-wing civil rights groups don't support, or sometimes even actively work to suppress:

(1) The right to smoke in your own car or (soon!) home.

(2) The right to use whatever light bulb you wish or (soon!) drive whatever car you want.

(3) The right to publically express words or opinions that the Free Speech Police have seemed offensive, sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, or just plain mean-spirited.

(4) The right of business owners to earn as much profit as lawfully possible, hire whomever they deem beneficial to their company, determine what how much they should get paid, and require that their own employees speak English while on the job.

(5) The right of free assembly by the ROTC or Boy Scouts regardless of what you think of their policies (e.g., on the war, homosexuality, etc.)

(6) The right to invoke God/religion in a public venue (e.g., a school graduation ceremony or public holiday observance)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying I agree with all the above positions but, unlike the totalitarian left and the "civil rights" groups that supports their agenda, I don't care to impose my policy preferences on the rest of society. (And if you think the ACLU has every right to oppose the free assembly of the ROTC or Boy Scouts despite some of their views, bear in mind that they've campaigned to protect the free assembly of white supremacists.)

Now, add up how many points from each section you agree with. What side did you line up with more?

Articles of Note: A Funeral in Port Arthur

It's Christmas morning, and this Jew is still stuffed from last night's Chinese dinner!

In the last week the music world lost two great men. Last Sunday acoustic soft rocker Dan Fogelberg succumbed to prostate cancer, and this weekend we lost jazz pianist Oscar Peterson. These two gentlemen created some of the greatest music of their respective genres.

I'm not sure how well these men's funerals were attended or how widespread the media coverage was. But one thing that put things in perspective for me was an article I read this week on the website New Media Journal by a freelance writer by the name of Paul Hollrah. It was about the recent funeral of another figure in the entertainment world:

There was a funeral in Port Arthur, Texas on Thursday, December 13, 2007...a cloudy, dreary, rainy day in south Texas. According to the December 14 edition of the Houston Chronicle, the crowd of mourners who came to pay their last respects was so large that the funeral services were held at the Robert A. Bowers Civic Center, a 20,000 sq. ft. facility with seating for 2,800 mourners [...]

... Crowd control measures were put into effect as police separated the waiting mourners into two lines, and, mindful of safety concerns for the many celebrities, dignitaries, and important personages who were expected to attend, snipers were stationed on rooftops of nearby buildings. [...]

So who was this dearly departed whose death brought sorrow to so many? A local war hero killed on the battlefields of Iraq or Afghanistan? A beloved former teacher, mentor to thousands of Port Arthur residents? A respected politician or diplomat who had endeared himself to the people during decades of selfless public service?

No, the deceased was none other than 33-year-old Chad Butler, known throughout the rap “music” community as Pimp C, found dead of undetermined causes in his room at the Mondrian Hotel in West Hollywood on December 4.

When all the dignitaries and “rap” celebrities, including Bun B, Chamillionaire, Slim Thug, Mike Jones, and Willie D of the Geto Boys were seated, the Mayor of Port Arthur read an official proclamation in honor of Pimp C. [...]

It’s not his frequent use of the f-word, the n-word, and the ho-word that makes his work so totally useless and pointless...it is the context in which he uses those words that condemns him and essentially all of his “rap” contemporaries to the trash bin of artistic expression. It is what makes his life and the lives of other “rap” aficionados less than irrelevant ...

But beyond that, rational people might also question why a major big city newspaper, albeit a liberal one such as the Houston Chronicle, would devote so much space to the funeral of such a despicable creature. The Chronicle story covered a full half page, above the fold, on Page B1, and a full half page on Page B6, including more than 110 sq. in, of photographs, both color and black & white.

Mr. Hollrah's last paragraph sums it up quite well: 

When future generations question why the most advanced culture in the history of mankind disappeared from the face of the Earth, they can simply go to the archives, read the Houston Chronicle of Friday, December 14, 2007, and they will know.

Yes, they will.

Merry Christmas to my Christian friends.

 

Global Warming Lie #5: The Consensus Again (Cont'd)

Yet again, reader extraordinaire Dan the Myth makes some interesting comments that I felt were worthy of a full post:

"When you can't see out a Beijing hotel window because of the choking smog, that's something worth fighting."

I agree, but shouldn't that fight take place in China, whose fossil fuel emissions surpassed ours this summer? How does one reduce smog in Beijing by replacing a light bulb in New York City? China is currently exempt from the Kyoto Protocol and for over a year has been drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico (thanks to an agreement with the left's hero running Cuba.) I'll bet this fact wasn't brought up last week in Bali.

"And when I'm paying $3 a gallon because global fuel consumption continues to rise,  I chose a car that gets 31 miles/gallon over one that gets 24 mpg but pollutes less."

Dan, you've hit on more in this sentence than you probably realize:

First, who is primarily responsible for the increase in consumption? China (and India). The main way to bring the price of fuel down is by increasing supply. Econ 101. But while China and Cuba are extracting oil from the Gulf of Mexico with impunity, the environmentalists in our own country won't let us. Nor do they want us to drill in ANWR in Alaska, even though drilling at Prudhoe Bay has had no adverse effect to the surrounding area.

Second, note how you exercised your freedom as an American citizen to purchase the vehicle you wanted for the reasons you deemed valid (in this case, economic: Higher MPG = Less fuel to buy). But the goal of environmentalists in power is to force you by law to purchase the vehicle they want for the reasons they deem valid (in their view, the littlest affect on the environment). They're already doing it with our light bulbs.

And here's the kicker: 60, 70, 80 years from now, when the world realizes that all of the liberty-sucking global warming policies have done absolutely nothing, Al Gore and the others will be long dead and buried.

Make no mistake: The main goal of this campaign is not to protect the environment; it is to control every aspect of your life, from what car you're allowed to drive to what light bulbs you're allowed to use to what food you're allowed to eat to how much money you're allowed to make to how many children you're allowed have! It's totalitarian on its face.

There is no consensus. There's only the Stalinist tactics of rhetoric, fear, and suppression of opposition. Brought to you by Al Gore and the new socialists of the global warming movement. If this sounds alarmist, I think people should be alarmed.

Global Warming Lie #5: The "Consensus"

The environmentalist movement understands very well that in order to successfully impose their agenda on us and our children, their critics need to be silenced and/or smeared. By suppressing all criticism or dismissing their critics as insignificant or as unethical tools of the oil industry, they can continue perpetuating this myth of the man-made global warming “consensus.”

What’s worse, President Bush, who the enviro-left often vilifies as an enemy of the climate change movement, has drunk the Kool-Aid and signed an energy bill that will adversely affect our economy and require the production of lighter cars, which will thus be more likely to kill you in an accident.

Last week America- and capitalism-loathing elites from around the world convened in warm, comfortable Bali for the U.N. climate conference. And we can be pretty sure they didn’t swim there; they had to take fossil-fuel-spewing airplanes. Absent from this gathering are over 400 prominent scientists who are continually trying to expose this campaign for the scam it really is. These scientists are listed in the latest report of the The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Note that they hail from several countries worldwide, not just greedy, evil capitalist, oil-addicted America.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks “Consensus” [ed. ETR]

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

“... There’s nothing special about the recent rise!”

Russia: Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences

“Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact.”

Spain: Anton Uriarte, professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain

“There’s no need to be worried. It’s very interesting to study [climate change], but there’s no need to be worried.”

Netherlands: Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute

“I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting—a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number—entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul

“The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming.”

France: Dr. Marcel Leroux, director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon

“Day after day, the same mantra—that ‘the Earth is warming up’—is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance.”

Norway: Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and former expert reviewer with the U.N. IPCC

“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki

“The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases.”

Germany: Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg

“I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong. ... The earth will not die.”

Canada: Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer

“To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

Czech Republic: Czech-born Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia

“The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid.”

India: B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India

“We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”

Italy: Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna

“Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

New Zealand: Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990

“The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain’t so.”

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation

“The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”

Poland: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw

“We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”

Australia: Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide

“There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, U.N. IPCC expert reviewer

“To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

China: Drs. Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian

“Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated.” Their study asserted that “it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”

Denmark: Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre

“The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”

Belgium: Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute

“CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”

Sweden: Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University

“Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”

And from the United States: Dr. John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel.

“Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. [...]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.”

Damn. They can’t all be pawns of Dick Cheney and his oil buddies, can they?

UPDATE:

Yet again, reader extraordinaire “Dan the Myth” makes some interesting comments that I felt were worthy of a full post:

“When you can’t see out a Beijing hotel window because of the choking smog, that’s something worth fighting.”

I agree, but shouldn’t that fight take place in China, whose fossil fuel emissions surpassed ours this summer? How does one reduce smog in Beijing by replacing a light bulb in New York City? China is currently exempt from the Kyoto Protocol and for over a year has been drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico (thanks to an agreement with the left’s hero running Cuba.) I’ll bet this fact wasn’t brought up last week in Bali.

“And when I’m paying $3 a gallon because global fuel consumption continues to rise, I chose a car that gets 31 miles/gallon over one that gets 24 mpg but pollutes less.”

Dan, you’ve hit on more in this sentence than you probably realize:

First, who is primarily responsible for the recent increase in consumption? China (and India). The main way to bring the price of fuel down is by increasing supply. Econ 101. But while China is extracting oil from the Gulf of Mexico with impunity, the environmentalists in our own country won’t let us. Nor do they want us to drill in ANWR in Alaska, even though drilling at Prudhoe Bay has had no adverse effect to the surrounding area.

Second, you mentioned you exercised your freedom as an American citizen to purchase the vehicle you wanted for the reasons you deemed valid (in this case, economic: Higher MPG = Less fuel to buy). But the goal of environmentalists in power is to force you by law to purchase the vehicle they want for the reasons they deem valid. They’re already trying to do it with our light bulbs.

And here’s the kicker: 60, 70, 80 years from now, when the world realizes that all of the liberty-sucking global warming policies have done absolutely nothing, Al Gore and the others will be long dead and buried.

Make no mistake: The main goal of this campaign is not to protect the environment; it is to control every aspect of your life, from what car you’re allowed to drive to what light bulbs you’re allowed to use to what food you’re allowed to eat to how much money you’re allowed to make to how many children you’re allowed have! It’s totalitarian on its face.

There is no consensus. There’s only the Stalinist tactics of rhetoric, fear, and suppression of opposition. Brought to you by Al Gore and the new socialists of the global warming movement. If this sounds alarmist, I think people should be alarmed.

Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Liberal #3: Protecting the Worst Among Us

Right now, New Jersey transportation workers are probably removing the colorful postage stamp signs that welcome drivers entering the state, and replacing them with new ones saying, “Welcome to New Jersey: Commit Murder Here and Keep Your Own Life!”

Last week NJ governor Jon Corzine (D – what else???) signed a bill abolishing the death penalty in the Garden State. Death row inmates are cheering. Anti-capital punishment organizations are cheering. You know who’s not cheering? The families of NJ murder victims like Megan Kanka, a 7 year-old who was raped and then murdered.

So if you live in NJ and have a young daughter, I’m sure you will sleep well knowing if some scum tears up her prepubescent genitalia before choking the air out of her little throat, he’ll get to watch cable and have three squares for the rest of his life, without worrying about a day when that cruel and unusual needle goes into his arm. Corzine assures us, we are more evolved.

How morally superior my dear liberals must feel now.

The anti-capital-punishment website Reprieve.org sanctimoniously declares: Any death sentence is a moral failure. (And the left accuses the right of seeing things in black and white!) When 9/11 co-conspirator Moussaoui was spared the death penalty by a U.S. jury last year, he said, “America, you lost!” To which, the Reprieve blogger responds:

“I beg to differ. The US attorney general lost, but the people of America and the principles on which the nation was founded won. What is clear is that the US attorney general, and his boss, George W. Bush, are out of touch with both the people and common sense.”

This statement couldn’t be more wrong.

How is sparing the life a sworn enemy of this country, who has already collaborated in the murder of 3000 Americans, reflective of the principles on which the nation was founded? Can you see any of our Founding Fathers doing anything with this scum other than wasting him with their bayonets?

And as for George W. Bush being out of touch with the people and common sense, according to a Gallup poll from October, 69% of the people favor capital punishment. (Why do liberals complain about Republicans thwarting the will of the people and run for office promising to “take back America”?)

Usually those who seek to abolish the death penalty are also the ones crusading to stop the alleged torture and human rights abuses of terrorists at Guantámano and elsewhere. Is there a correlation? FrontPageMag columnist William Hawkins thinks so. In this fantastic article, Hawkins talks about liberals’ infatuation with treating the most detestable enemies of society and of our nation as humanely as possible.

… The well-being of the terrorist is no less precious than the lives of Americans, because all are equally human, part of a single extended family descending from some common origin. […]

The failure of leftism to make necessary distinctions is seen across the whole spectrum of issues, … Liberals have a longstanding reputation for being “soft on crime.” The victims of crime fade from view and the criminals become the focus of benevolent concern. The inability of liberals to deal harshly with terrorists is an extension of their inability to deal harshly with felons. Capital punishment is called inhumane because even serial killers are considered people just like the rest of “us.” […]

An ideology more at odds with common sense and experience is hard to conceive. And in the real world where ruthless adversaries abound, modern leftism is a prescription for defeat.

In their tireless crusade to ensure the best quality care for the worst among us, liberals often quote Dostoevsky who wrote that a country’s civility is measured by how humanely it treats its criminals. BS. It’s measured by how effectively it protects its most innocent and vulnerable citizens from criminals.

So, I have absolutely no idea why Corzine and the anti- capital-punishment left are celebrating. You’ve failed 7-year-old Megan Kanka and all other murder victims by saying in effect: “Your life has no value. The taking of your life by a murderer is not worth the taking of theirs. It’s the treatment of your brutal killer that is our main concern, not ensuring they receive justice for what they’ve done to you.”

That’s not just morally backward. It’s criminal.

Update on the Alleged Princeton Attack

Reader RJ says it short and sweet: He faked it, dude.

This pathetic lowlife Francisco Nava lied about the whole thing. This morning's New York Sun and Daily Princetonian have the details.

A month and half into it and this novice blogger falls for a crime hoax. As far as I know, this is the only one from the right I can recall. Liberal hoaxes are still quite common - and attract loads of media coverage. It is extremely enlightening to see that double standard. The fact that this creep made the whole thing up doesn't negate those facts.

The next question, of course, is what will happen to this liar? Crime hoaxes, whether they come from the left or right, are inexcusable and indefensible. But will there be a double standard with regard to punishment? 

The Left's Conception of Tolerance

I was saddened to discover this article about my grad school alma mater in today's New York Sun:

Alleged Attack Rattles Princeton

BY ANNIE KARNI - Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 17, 2007

PRINCETON, N.J. — An outcry from students and faculty at Princeton University is rattling the campus here after a student who is leading a movement to instill conservative moral values among undergraduates said he was physically attacked Friday, beaten, and rendered unconscious in a rare incidence of violence within the Ivy League. [...]

A politics major from Texas who is a junior, Francisco Nava, was assaulted about two miles from campus in Princeton Township by two black-clad men who pinned him against a wall and repeatedly bashed his head against the bricks, he told the student newspaper, the Daily Princetonian, in an interview. [...]

The attack came two days after Mr. Nava, a leader of the Anscombe Society, a morally conservative student group that speaks out against same-sex marriage and pre-marital sex, received death threats via e-mail. Three other Anscombe leaders and a conservative professor also received the threats. [...]

David Horowitz, the campaigner for free speech on college campuses (and featured on an earlier post), commented on the incident: 

"It's a terrible incident, but it doesn't surprise me," a conservative author who has campaigned against a culture of left-wing conformity on college campuses, David Horowitz, said in an interview. "The left has now become the hate group."

My guess is that nothing will happen to these perpetrators if they're caught, owing to the religion and political views of the victim. Liberals claim to reject intolerance and violence; that statement is only half-right. It all depends on who the victim is. If the victim belongs to a group the left deems "protected," e.g., a religious, racial, or ethnic minority, then they will defend them to the ends of the earth.

That's why Mumia Abu-Jamal, a black man on death row for murdering a white police officer 25 years ago, is today a hero to the left on campus and in Hollywood.

That's why even after the exoneration of the white male Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a black female stripper and the disbarment of the rogue prosecutor, 88 professors at Duke still stand by their position that the players are guilty guilty guilty!

That's why Iran's genocidal nuke-seeking dictator is allowed to speak unhindered at an Ivy League university, while conservative Americans are shouted off stage by angry mobs or are pelted by flying food.

Not even Jews are safe anymore, ever since being kicked off the protected list by the left's newest victim: Muslims. Expressing one's Jewish or pro-Israel beliefs on campus can be a dangerous undertaking these days, as it purportedly offends them.

By the way, as of this posting, not a single news source except the NY Sun and conservative news/blog sites are reporting this. What a freakin' suprise! As Atlas Shrugs correctly states:

"If it were a black or Muslim student, the media would be beating us over the head with this story. Even the hoaxes get full media attention. Not this and it's a horror."

How depressingly true. Both this heinous act and the mainstream media's utter silence are disgusting.

You understand, you pathetic liberal hypocrites?

Disgusting.

Rite Jew: Mark Levin

In December, 2005, a liberal listener called into Mark Levin’s daily radio show and mockingly asked exactly what his qualifications were.

For anyone familiar with Levin, the question is insulting and ridiculous. Most websites containing Mark’s bio state plainly that he “holds a B.A. from Temple University and a J.D. from Temple University School of Law.” What they don’t say is that he received that B.A. at age 19 and the J.D. at age 22. (And what degrees do Al Franken and Rosie O’Donnell have?)

The About page on MarkLevinShow.com tells the rest:

Mark Levin is one of America’s preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers ... Levin has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet—including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC.

In a nutshell, Levin is a dedicated scholar and unapologetically conservative. His first book, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, is riveting and I would recommend it to anyone interested in constitutional law, no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. And if you’re a fan of heated debate on these issues and current events, you should try his show as well.

But most of all, Levin is a human being, as evidenced by his most recent book, Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover’s Story of Joy and Anguish. A bestseller since its release last month, it’s the heartwarming story of his family’s lovable recently-deceased dog. (When I showed my wife the book, she chuckled, “He does have a heart!”)

Of course, nobody’s perfect, and there are aspects of Levin’s show that have received criticism, both deserved and undeserved. I will readily admit that he can get worked up and impassioned at times, but I would argue that his anger is never gratuitous. His pet names for some liberals could easily be called mean-spirited, but he does have some humorous lables for his favorite senators, e.g., Ted Kennedy the “Cape Cod Orca” and the distinguished senators from New York, “Chucky Schmucky Schumer” and “Hillary Rotten Clinton, her Thighness.”

It’s without question that I have learned more about the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the law by listening to Mark Levin two hours a day, five days a week, than I ever could by sitting in a college classroom. That’s what makes Mark Levin and his show unique.

Liberal Media Bias, NYT Edition: Romney & Religion

I'm a humble novice at this blog stuff. So when a much more established blog or news site captures something better than I ever could, they deserve that recognition.

That said, a big hat tip to the "Best of the Web" segment of the Wall Street Journal's "Opinion Journal," a daily serving of what's happening in the media.

In yesterday's edition, they discuss a NY Times editorial on Mitt Romney's latest religion speech. Forget the anti-religion bias expected from the hyper-secular-liberal NYT. The editorial is so shoddily written and rife with misrepresentations and historical inaccuracies, you'd think it was written on the bus to school by some freshman journalism student.

From the so-called "newspaper of record":

Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth -- that the nation's founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy. He cited the Declaration of Independence's reference to "the creator" endowing all men with unalienable rights and the founders' proclaiming not just their belief in God, but their belief that God's hand guided the American revolutionaries.

Mr. Romney dragged out the old chestnuts about "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency, and the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance--conveniently omitting that those weren't the founders' handiwork, but were adopted in the 1950s at the height of McCarthyism. . . .

The WSJ starts the ass-whipping:

Let's start with the historical inaccuracies. As the U.S. Treasury Web site notes, "In God we trust" first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864, not in the 1950s. It is true that the motto's first appearance on paper money was not until the 1950s, but it was in 1957, the year Joseph McCarthy died, not at "the height of McCarthyism."

Similarly, while "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, this too was after McCarthyism's height. President Eisenhower signed the legislation changing the pledge on June 14 of that year; five days earlier, during the Army-McCarthy hearings, Joseph Welch famously confronted the senator from Wisconsin. Less than six months later the Senate censured McCarthy.

In other words, in the process of the NYT complaining about Romney's dragging out the "old chestnut" of "In God We Trust," it drags out the old chestnut of McCarthyism, McCarthyism, McCarthyism!!! -- and gets it completely and utterly wrong!

Back to the Grey Hag:

The other myth permeating the debate over religion is that it is a dispute between those who believe religion has a place in public life and those who advocate, as Mr. Romney put it, "the elimination of religion from the public square." That same nonsense is trotted out every time a court rules that the Ten Commandments may not be displayed in a government building.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And so the WSJ opens the second can of whoop-ass:

The Times Web site itself has the text of Romney's speech, and it makes clear that the paper's editorialists grievously misrepresent what the candidate actually said. His references to the Declaration of Independence's acknowledgment of the Creator are not in the context of calling for official "Christian orthodoxy"--quite the opposite:

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders--in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. . . .

It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

So, even with a link to Romney's speech for anyone to check, the NYT sets out to correct "myths" that Romney never even promulgated! As the WSJ points out, Romney's speech contains messages that are the opposite of the what the NYT describes. So who's creating the myths here?

The last gem:

We believe democracy cannot exist without separation of church and state, not that public displays of faith are anathema. We believe, as did the founding fathers, that no specific religion should be elevated above all others by the government.

And the rebuttal:

What an utterly mindless statement. Yes, separation of church and state is central to the American constitutional order. But to believe that democracy cannot exist without it is to believe that Britain is not a democracy.

So, how can the NYT get it so wrong? Easy: there's a liberal template that they follow. It's hard to tell if the editorialist(s) even read/heard Romney's speech all the way through. There's more evidence to suggest that the editorial was mostly written before the speech was even given. Because when you--and everyone around you--have this fixed worldview about (1) what religious Americans are like, (2) what they believe, and (3) what they want for this country, why waste your time listen to what they really say and think?

The editorial, by the way, was titled "The Crisis of Faith." From where I stand, the only ones having the faith crisis are the secular-liberal God-haters at the NY Times.

Just to clarify, I am not necessarily endorsing Mitt Romney for the Republican ticket. On that issue I'm still very undecided. But, as an American Jew, I am not in the least offended by anything Romney said, and I would hope no other American Jews are either. (But, knowing many Jewish readers of the NYT, I wouldn't bet any money on that!)

P.S. On the NYT web site, a reader from Tampa posted the comment: "Harry Reid is a Mormon. Why doesn't he have to explain his religion?"

Ooh! Pick me! Pick me! I know! Could it be ... the "D" next to his name???

But Don't Question Their Patriotism: Seth MacFarlane

To some liberals, it seems that dissent is not only a form of patriotism; it’s the only form of patriotism. The other patriotism (you know, the “America is the best country in the world, warts and all” kind), however, is to be ridiculed and mocked. This was the message I got from the Nov. 18 episode of The Family Guy.

Just to clarify, I do watch this show and own the DVDs for every available season. It’s just so deliciously irreverant and politically incorrect! But its creator Seth MacFarlane is your typical outspoken Republican-hating Hollywood liberal, and so his political views influence the way social and political issues on the show are covered.

I generally have no problem with this, but sometimes MacFarlane goes too far with depicting conservatives on the show as unthinking, unfeeling, and plain evil. In one past episode, the son Chris is asked to join his school’s Young Republicans. He asks, “What do you do at a Young Republicans meeting?” to which the response was, “We help those who already have the means to help themselves. Also, we perpetuate the idea that Jesus chose America to destroy non-believers and brown people.” (The episode, incidentally, centered around the topic of same-sex marriage, which MacFarlane conveyed through his art unwielding support.)

Anyway, the Nov. 18 episode begins on Veteran's Day, where the ever-impressionable father Peter gets bitten by the patriotism bug. He then becomes this mindless America-love-it-or-leave-it robot with who shuts every dissenting voice from his family with lines like “Everything changed after 9/11!”

But the most repugnant part was this: When a non-English speaking character or anyone who the artists didn’t color lily-white appeared on the screen, Peter pointed at them, yelling “illegal alien!” and demanding that they immediately be deported. In a predictable Hollywood twist, Peter soon finds out that his mother gave birth to him while in Mexico and never did the citizenship paperwork for him when she returned stateside. This means Peter’s an illegal alien and he’s left to rectify the problem and repenting for his “patriotic” ways.

Like I said, I love this show, which really does make fun of people from all backgrounds and persuasions. But what irks me is this detestable stereotype of a patriotic American as being someone who uses 9/11 as an excuse for everything under the sun and who wants every non-English-speaking non-white person deported from the country. This is no better than the big-nosed money-grubbing Jew stereotype or the “ho” remark that got Don Imus kicked off the air about ten minutes after he said it.

So why does this not warrant the same type of consequences for MacFarlane? Well, there are two answers. One is that while conservatives like me might get offended, I don’t want anyone to get fired for it. (Unlike liberals who think, well, you know ...)

The other answer is two magic words that explain how liberals get away with most of what they pull:

(1) Double

(2) Standard

P.S. Two bits of interesting points about this episode [via Wikipedia]:

First, the premise is flawed. According to a law blog called de novo, as long as Peter’s mother was American, he would automatically be too, regardless of place of birth. (Not a surprising error, since we’re talking about heads-up-their-ass know-it-all Hollywood)

Second, the episode aired two weeks after MacFarlane left work to join his fellow Writers’ Guild members on strike. It was completed and signed off by the network bigwigs, which, according to an ign.com interview, MacFarlane called a “colossal dick move.” Yeah, stick it to the Man, Seth!

But Don't Question Their Patriotism: Setting the Stage

At any given minute, you will find liberals/Democrats calling the U.S. a racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic country. You will hear some Democrats proclaim that 35 million Americans go hungry every day (an irresponsibly and politically-motivated inflated figure), and worse, that an entire political party in this country doesn’t even care if they do. Other Democrats will go abroad and trash the country front of cheering audiences. Pampered Democrat-supporting Hollywood liberals visit the most brutal prison-nations as guests of their dictatorial leaders, and then come back to tell us that the U.S. is no better than they are (here, here, and here). College history students are fed the writings of prominent liberal intellectuals like Chomsky, Zinn, and Vidal, whose position is that the world would be a better place if the U.S. didn’t exist.

My favorite anti-American rant is that the U.S. is imperialist. While liberals were shouting this back in the 20th century, the Communists took over Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, half of Germany, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, half of Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Cuba.

But the United States is an imperialist nation! And just you remember that!

But then liberals will tell us that they love the U.S. as much as conservatives do, and give us that throw-away line that’s supposed to excuse everything: “Dissent is American and patriotic!” Please. I don’t buy it for one second. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.

So if you’re a liberal and have no problem with any of this, try this: Tell your spouse or best friend that they’re vicious, immoral, and just completely rotten to the core. Keep telling them that everyone hates them, that they are no better a human being than a mass murderer sitting on death row, and that the world might even be a better place without them. But then say you love them just as much as someone who sees their inner and outer beauty and thanks God for them every day, and accepts their flaws with compassion and understanding. I hope it will go really well for you. I also hope that your living room couch is comfortable; you’ll probably be sleeping there for quite a while.

Look, I’m not blind to America’s flaws. But, unlike liberals who tend to ignore any positive aspect of this country, I try to look at the big picture and acknowledge that, compared to any other country in world history, this is the best and the brightest, and we should be proud of that. Tens of millions of immigrants over the past few centuries can’t be wrong. After all, they ain't flocking to Cuba, are they, Mr. Moore?

To be continued …

For My Liberal Jewish Friends

A friend sent me an article from Yahoo! News (Good for them) reporting that President Bush had the parents of Daniel Pearl to the White House to light the Chanukah menorah.

For those of you who don't remember who he was (or whose knowledge is distorted by a morally confused movie starring Angelina Jolie), Daniel Pearl was a Jewish American reporter who al Qaeda kidnapped in 2002, before slowly sawing off his head and then posting a video of it on-line. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged to be the mastermind of 9/11 and is currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, admitted to personally carrying out the gruesome murder:

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl."

(But remember, liberals/Democrats keep telling us we should close down G'tmo so these wholesome and unfairly incarcerated dears can go back about their business. I even know several Jews who rallied in Washington D.C. a few months ago to protest against the torture Mohammed is supposedly being subjected to. As far as I know, his head is still attached to his neck, so what are they complaining about?)

In the email, my friend asked, "Doesn't the last sentence so eloquently capture our current work in Iraq?" I would say so. Here is that last sentence, uttered by Pearl's mother Ruth:    

"We hope that our Menorah serves as a visual reminder to all people who are facing darkness that, with hope and perseverance, freedom and goodness will prevail."

My friend also wondered if the hopelessly leftist Union for Reform Judaism, who formally opposes our actions in Iraq, would rise to support Mrs. Pearl's sentiments. I wouldn't bet on it ...

Liberal Media Spin Doctors: NBC and AP (Freedom's Watch): Update

Warning: The following post contains obscene language.

While catching up on the latest in the NBC-Freedom's Watch ad ordeal, I stumbled across a post on a seemingly innocent site called Television Blog. If the post was meant to be satirical, they failed. If it was meant to be completely devoid of class, they succeeded.

If you have the stomach to make it through the entire post (provided below uncut), watch the YouTube ad in question, courteously provided by the blogger.

Freedumb Snatch Condemn Holiday Thank the Troops Support Ad

http://FuckYouBush.com encourages Americans to support NBC this holiday season.

Freedumb Snatch is organized as an irrelevant corporation and operated in a manner consistent with a (c) section on Mrs. Claus. Freedumb Snatch is dedicated to educating individuals about and advancing the popularity of their web site propaganda. Through TV commercials that look like caring messages, and Faux News having key members of Congress as guests, and bold public diversion initiatives, Freedumb Snatch is fighting for what's right-wing in America. They welcome only those who share their beliefs to join their manipulative cloaked campaign.

Political leaders and newspapers are supporting the free speech rights of American group http://MoveOn.org for its ongoing enlightenment of corrupt Republican military leaders. America and the basis of freedom are losing. Move On keeps fighting.

Author: FuckYouBush
Keywords: moveon.org move on freedom freedom's watch newt gingrich fox news federal fraud tv commercial nbc network media gop sca
Added: December 9, 2007

Ah, now there's the tolerance, compassion, and kind-heartedness liberals keep telling us they possess but the other side doesn't. It's the right that's coarsening the political discourse, don't you know? How silly of me. All these years and I never noticed ...

Liberal Media Spin Doctors: CNN/YouTube and the Presidential Candidates Debate

Remember when earlier this year John Edwards refused to participate in a presidential debate because it was on Fox News? Edwards’ reasoning, with which many of my liberal friends and family would agree, was that FNC was not a legitimate news station, but rather a biased propaganda tool of the Republican Party and would treat Democrat candidates unfairly.

That brings us to the Republican debate on CNN a few weeks ago in Las Vegas. It was hosted by Anderson Cooper and questions were taken by people who filmed themselves and posted them on YouTube.

So, does CNN provide the unbiased and responsible journalism that Edwards accuses FNC of lacking? Because they are such a fair and impartial network, CNN would pick random questioners from across the spectrum of political persuasions, right?

Michelle Malkin, Power Line and NewsBusters do a fantastic job researching the backgrounds of the questioners and/or compiling the findings of other investigators.

Keith Kerr, a gay retired U.S. Army Colonel questioned the candidates on the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. (Of course, no one cared to recall that it was Bill Clinton who signed that policy into law, but let’s not let facts get in the way of an agenda.) Turns out Kerr is one of a 65-member of the LGBT Americans for Hillary Steering Committee. Coincidence? But of course! Did Cooper or CNN execs know about this? Naah!

Some more “just coincidental” facts about the questioners:

The man who asks the question about Social Security works for “Little Dick” Durbin.

The Muslim woman used to be an intern for CAIR, that totally unbiased Muslim rights organization.

The man who asked Ron Paul to become Independent is a Bill Richardson supporter.

The “concerned Log Cabin Republican” is actually a declared Obama supporter.

The “concerned undecided mom” from Pittsburgh is an activist for the United Steelworkers Union, which supports John Edwards.

The young woman who asked the candidates whether they think women who abort their fetuses should go to jail is a bona fide John Edwards supporter.

In addition, Dennis Prager noted some bias emanating from Anderson Cooper, the supposed impartial moderator. When asked how to win the “war on black-on-black crime” in the inner city, Mitt Romney answered that the main problem is that too many black children are being born without fathers and without strong values (a viewpoint shared by Bill Cosby and other prominent African-Americans). Cooper evidently thought Romney was dodging the question rather than addressing it because he reiterated: “But what are you going to do to win the war on black-on-black crime???”

On his show Prager pointed out how well this illustrated the stark distinction between the way Republicans view issues vs. Democrats. For Romney and probably most of the Republicans at the debate, the answer to the question was better values and more intact families. But Cooper was clearly looking for an answer that contained the words “government spending” and/or “social programs.” This is the Democrat solution to all ills; all other solutions are pointless and ineffective, not to mention hateful and mean-spirited.

It’s eye-opening moments like this that reconfirm for me whether I’m on the right side of the culture war in this country or not.

The last straw for me was that punk who held up the Bible and asked the candidates if they believed every single word in that book. This really makes my blood boil. Are these candidates running for president or Pope? What would have happened if during the 2000 debates someone tauntingly asked Joe Lieberman if he believed every single word in the Hebrew Bible? Words like “bigot” and “anti-Semite” would have covered the front page of the NY Times for weeks. (Isn’t it sweet that liberals get to decide not only who can’t be attacked by bigots, but also who can? Definitely a post for a later date.) So, of course, nobody said anything about this detestable scum making fun of their religious beliefs. Maybe at the Democrats’ next debate, someone on YouTube will shake Marx’s Communist Manifesto in their faces and see how they like it!

Here’s what I can’t stand about the liberals/Democrats: If someone on FNC turns out to have gone on one date with the sister of the college roommate of the guy who cleans the pool for George W. Bush's second cousin twice removed, FNC is accused of being a propaganda tool for the Republican Party. But here we have a clear example of CNN outrightly deliberately rigging the questions of a presidential debate (followed by the arrogant shoulder-shrugging of CNN execs who either deny or dismiss the accusations), and most liberals/Democrats couldn’t care less.

To its credit, the left-leaning L.A. Times couldn’t take the rotten smell emanating from Vegas, with columnist Tim Rutten writing up a piece titled “CNN: Corrupt News Network.”

I wonder if my friends and family who are Democrats will still continue to take this crap.

I also wonder if John Edwards, that staunch defender of fairness and impartiality, will denounce CNN and vow not to appear on that biased excuse for a news channel.

I won’t hold my breath. (Yet again Dennis Prager's axiom holds true: For liberals agenda trumps truth.)

Liberal Media Spin Doctors: NBC and AP

Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters.org has done a great job the past few days keeping track of NBC's rejection of an ad from the conservative website www.FreedomsWatch.org. The ad does nothing but thank the troops and asks viewers to do the same this holiday season. NBC execs made the most ridiculous excuses for their refusal, including that the commercial didn't include the website's URL.

In my opinion, a privately held TV network is completely entitled to decide which commercials to air or not, but there was nothing innocuous about this ad in the least. Plus, as Sheppard discovered, NBC aired an anti-war commercial by the far-left MoveOn.org a couple years ago. This ad, incidentally, also didn't provide its URL.

So, Freedom's Watch people smelled something rotten in all this: that NBC was being biased against a organization that overtly supports the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

The Associated Press wasn't helping either when, in a piece covering this issue, they described Freedom's Watch as "a group backed by wealthy Republican fundraisers" that is "critical of liberals." Sheppard appropriately asks:

"Was this the appropriate moment to so categorize this organization? If the situation was somewhat reversed, would the AP have characterized MoveOn.org or Media Matters for America as a group backed by wealthy Democrat fundraisers that is critical of conservatives?"

Probably not. But it gets even better. The plot thickened over the weekend when research by a group called the Majority Accountability Project revealed that:

"The NBC lawyer who refused to allow a non-profit group to air an advertisement thanking American troops for their service has donated at least $45,000 to a host of Congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and the campaign committees of House and Senate Democrats."

(A) Why am I not surprised? and (B) Who else besides Fox News and conservative radio will even expose this? To quote the Great One, Mark Levin: They're an incestuous little bunch, aren't they?

As of tonight, NBC has reversed its decision and will play the commercial. But I think the damage has been done. NBC and AP show their true colors. And they're not red, white, or blue (at least not the three together!)

Liberal Lie #5: Conservatives Want to Impose their Religion on Us; Liberals Don't

Ya wanna know what I love about this time of year? Is it the imposing of Christmas by the country's intolerant Christian majority upon me, a Jew, and the other non-Christmas-celebrating citizenry?

No, it's the left's attack of every possible expression of religion by Christians or Jews, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Public expression of religion to liberals is like kryptonite to Superman. They can't look at it without experiencing debilitating pain, and they'll stop at nothing in order to eradicate it. This includes, sadly, my own rabbi, who refused to take part in the lighting of a chanukiah [Chanukah candelabra] on the lawn of our municipal building, citing "separation of church and state."

But now the left is going one step further: from trying to eradicate the public expression of religion to revamping holidays to be more liberal-friendly.

When Chanukah began earlier this week, there was an article in the Jerusalem Post about an environmentalist group asking that Jews around the world forgo lighting their chanukiot on the last of the holiday's eight nights. Why? Tom Wegner, co-founder of the "Green Hanukkia" campaign, says:

"There are many people who just light candles for the tradition and for their children," he said. "To tell a child on the eighth day that we are not lighting the last candle as a sacrifice for the environment is an act that is not only educational but also will prevent the release of a huge amount of carbon dioxide that would hurt the environment."

Well, why stop there? How about not lighting Chanukah candles at all? How about not lighting candles on Shabbat? How about not lighting candles when you're remembering the dead?

After all, this is what they want our impressionable children to learn: Lighting candles destroys the planet. Oy, all those burning candles! You should feel guilty - very guilty. Pretty soon, they won't be celebrating their religious holidays at all. How unfortunate ... or was that maybe their ultimate goal? How diabolically clever!

Of course, neither these nor any other environmentalists will acknowledge that CO2 is what comes out of us when we exhale. So if you really want to help the environment, stop breathing. Same thing goes for your dogs and cats. Certainly your pet emits more CO2 per day than a Chanukah candle. There's a nice slogan: "Save the environment: Kill your pets!" Aw wait, then PETA will start sticking their CO2-emitting noses into your business. Guess you can't win ...

The green Jews also won't tell you that CO2 makes up only 0.038% (about 380 parts per million) of the Earth's atmosphere, with 2.75% of that being anthropogenic in origin. That makes the total percentage of man-made CO2 a whopping 0.001% of the atmosphere. Joseph D'Aleo, climate scientist and active member of the American Meteorological Society, puts it another way:

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor. By comparison, water vapor, a far more potent greenhouse gas, on average would occupy on average 1 floor and at times, especially in the tropics, up to 4 floors.

(Hmm, I wonder which member of Big Oil this guy's shilling for!)

But I'm not here to present facts. Facts mean nothing to those with blind religious beliefs. And that's what environmentalism these days is, a religion. All faith, no facts (but sometimes there's "circumstantial evidence"). El Rushbo has discussed this on his show. The religion of environmentalism has its own God (Gaia), its prophets and their holy books (Rachel Carson and Silent Spring, Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth), its sins (Use those curly fluorescent lightbulbs or repent!), and, most importantly, belief in an apocalypse ("We have to reverse CO2 emissions or the earth will fry in [fill in a frighteningly low number] years!")

A friend sent me an article from www.aish.com responding to the "hijacking of Chanukah." Its author, Jonathan Tobin, says:

"The holiday hijackers are at it again! First, Passover was transformed from an inspiring commemoration of the birth of the Jewish nation during the Exodus from Egypt into a catch-all festival that celebrates the rights of every afflicted minority and fashionable cause imaginable.

Now, it's Chanukah's turn.

This year, more groups are again seeking to use the old festival of lights to force feed whatever cultural or political theme appeals to them down the throats of the Jewish public.

Some who have jumped on the ecology bandwagon, now so pervasive in American culture, want to reinvent Chanukah as a 'green' holiday, in which energy conservation and activism against global warming are foremost in our minds."

And that's exactly what's happening. Liberals are taking away the once-uncontroversial traditional rituals of our holidays and infusing them with their own left-wing spin. Which is worse, trying to eradicate the public expression of non-PC religions like Christianity and (traditional) Judaism, or recreating them in your own left-wing image? Truthfully, neither one sounds kosher to me.

So, next time you hear (or utter!) that conservatives are trying to shove their values down everyone else's throats, while liberals are tolerant of all beliefs and views, remember this story.

And to you liberals who try to get me to light one less candle this Chanukah or in any other way alter my worship practices to reflect your environmental beliefs:

Don't you impose your religion on me!

And Now for Something Completely Different

If you haven't heard by now, Senator-for-life Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has been offered a multi-million $ advance to pen his autobiography. To celebrate this long-awaited event, the folks at Fark.com are having a contest for the best title and photoshopped cover. My favorite (in no particular order) are:

(1) "One Face, Two Faced, Red Face, Blue Face" by SECSManiac
(2) "Ted's Excellent Adventure" by Fototark
(3) "Where the Highway Ends" by Born Slippy
(4) "Water Under the Bridge" by Brian O'Blivion
(5) "Chappacquitted" by Johnny Caspar, Jr.

Great work!