Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Tookie Williams Deserved Death

As Tookie Williams was executed by lethal injection, supporters who shouted in unison "The state of California just killed an innocent man." How ridiculous for anyone who is intellectually honest to even suggest such a thing in this case.

There is no doubt that Stanley "Tookie" Williams killed those four people in 1979. The prosecution met the burden of proof and a jury of his peers, which included one black man, convicted him of four counts of aggravated first degree murder. The witnesses that testified in the case were credible, and none were proven to have lied, and none of them ever recanted their testimony. The prosecution knew where Tookie bought the shotgun that he used in the killings, and ballistics tests matched the weapon to the murders. Williams was guilty of his crimes and a just punisment was handed down.

What makes Williams more deserving of death is what he did while in prison. This man was not a model prisoner. He tried to escape, fought with guards, and did much while in prison to further illustrate his depravity. He may have written children's books to help deter inner-city kids from joining gangs. Yetthis gesture while having the appearance of nobility, does little clean the blood that is on his hands. Redemption does not come from such hollow acts, and ultimately the only one who can grant him forgiveness is no one on this planet. His crimes are just too egregious.

But make no mistakes, other than his writings, this man has done little to deserve clemency in this life. Just because some moron nominated Williams for the Nobel Peace Prize, does not make him a champion of peace. How many young African-Americans have chosen life in the Crips only to see their lives snuffed out in a drive-by shooting? How many innocent people have died at the hands of the Crips (the gang that Williams co-founded)? Did he ever confess to his crimes? NO! Did he ever help police in their fight against gang violence by turning on the gang that he co-founded? NO! Has he ever shown remorse for any of the things that he did in his life? NO! This is a man who spread evil, was convicted of murder, and then went to prison to await his fate that was carried out earlier this morning.

His execution was the final act of justice on this earth in this case. He is now with his maker, and hopefully the first people that he saw on the other side were those people that he robbed of life and liberty. If he is truly penitent then may God grant him forgiveness. He deserves none in this life.

Friday, December 02, 2005


Congressman John Murtha has left the realm of criticism of Iraq and his comments have moved into the realm of Treason. Murtha is saying now that the Military is basically broken and that the Army is living "hand to mouth"

These comments are destructive and damaging to the Military. Not only do these comments help to reduce the moral of the military, but it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. If the enemy believes what this man is saying, it could embolden them to fight on and to not give up.

The liberal left is doing everything to try and undercut the mission of the military in the War on Terror.

Make no mistakes. This is a war. If the terrorists were not trying to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, they would be plotting to kill American civilians across the globe and in the US in particular.

These people will stop at nothing. Their goal is to annihilate freedom and install an Islamic theocracy throughout the world.

If you think I am exaggerating, take a minute to analyze what is going on in the middle east. How many countries in the middle east have democracies. Before Saddam was overthrown and captured there was exactly ONE: Israel. Now there is Israel and Iraq. The people of Lebanon are trying to get Syrian Bathists out of their country. Egypt is leaning toward more democratic elections. Is it a coincidence that these changes have come since the U.S. has decided to take the war against terror to the terrorists?

pacifism has never worked. It is a sad truth that often the way to peace and freedom is through bloodshed. We must stay the course. We must fight the fight, and the left needs to stop politicizing the war and get behind the President of the United States.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Iraq War Talking points

I am sick of the liberals talking points concerning the intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. Since the Scooter Libby indictment the dems have orchestrated an attack on the Bush administration. They were hoping that the indictment of members of the Bush Administration would help fuel the fire, but with only one indictment and on lesser charges, the dems decided to roll out their attacks. Along with claims of corruption, the dems are now saying that the Bush Administration manipulated the pre-war intelligence leading up to the Iraq War.

Since the Bush Administration to this point has remained passive and not attacked this dishonest rhetoric I would like to respond for them. I will make the following points.

1) The same assertions that the Bush administration made about WMD, were made by the Clinton Administration. Clinton claimed that Saddam was a major threat.

2) Members of the intelligence committees have were privy to the much of the same raw intelligence that the Administration had in the run up to the Iraq War, yet not one Democrat on those committees ever even questioned the intelligence.

3) Even the most liberal Democrats supported the war. Both Kennedy and Kerry initially supported action against Iraq. They therefore have no intellectual footing to be able to really say they are opposed to the war.

4) Just about every western country had the same intel with regards to WMD in Iraq. The UK, Germany, France and Russia all had the same intelligence that Iraq was hiding WMD. In fact much of the US's intel was based on foreign intelligence services, since liberals had stripped the CIA of its human intelligence capabilities over the past twenty years through budget cuts.

5) WMD was not the only justification for going to war with Iraq. The US used WMD to justify its actions to the United Nations. Remember that the threat was that Iraq was a part of the Axis of Evil that was helping to sponsor terrorism around the world, and that Iraq's sponsorship of global terrorism posed an imminent threat to the United States.

6) While the 9/11 report stated there was no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, the report did NOT state that there were no connections between Al Qaida and Iraq. In fact there are several reports out there that back up the assertions that members of Iraq's secret police had met with members of Al Qaida in the past few years. And there are stories out there that do loosely link Al Qaida with the terrorists involved with the 9/11 attacks.

These are just a few true points that the world needs to be reminded of. I will post more later.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

My letter to Senator Harry Reid

Dear Senator Reid,

I read the recent reports that you plan on voting against the confirmation of John Roberts for chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In your statement you said, "No one doubts that John Roberts is an excellent lawyer and an affable person. But at the end of this process, I have too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify a vote confirming him to this enormously important lifetime position." You further state, "I have reluctantly concluded that this nominee has not satisfied the high burden that would justify my voting for his confirmation based on the current record. The question is close, and the arguments against him do not warrant extraordinary procedural tactics to block the nomination," Reid said.

Do you realize how hollow your statement sounds? You say you cannot confirm him, which in essence means you feel he is unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, yet you do not feel that you need to block the nomination. There is no doubt that a seat on the SCOTUS is enormously important, yet you don't think it is important enough to filibuster this nomination, yet you have supported filibusters for lower court nominations. Thus I am forced to conclude that your statement lacks intellectual honesty.

What I think has happened is that your party, having been hijacked by the extreme left wing, has become simply a party of opposition instead of a party that should be providing counter ideas to the Republicans. And since you are the minority leader, you feel that you have to lead this party by voting against this more than qualified nominee, simply because the fringes of your party are so vocally against him. Rather, would it not have been more prudent to throw your hat of support into the ring, and show that while you may not agree with Mr. Roberts ideology, you still must consent to his nomination because he is a qualified candidate.

This is what virtually every Senator did with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's nomination. I would have bet that more than 4/5ths of the Republicans felt that Ginsberg should not have been nominated, but because she appeared "qualified" they relented and confirmed her, despite the fact that she does not possess intellectual capacity or intuition that a Supreme Court Justice should have. Despite the fact that she really should not have been confirmed the Senate voted 98-0 to confirm her. This vote happened despite the fact that Ginsburg was General counsel and on the Board of Directors for the very left wing ACLU. And yet you cannot support John Roberts.

It is sad that a man with your religious background, could have lost so much of his roots. It seems that you have abandoned basic LDS principles and beliefs. Yes you are pro-life. But you vote against judges that will do what they need to do and simply interpret the constitution, not amend it by Judicial caveat. You should remember that the Doctrine and Covenants states that God, "established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom [he] raised up unto this very purpose" (D&C 101:80). Yet you oppose those people that would actually interpret the Constitution form it's original intent.

Now I do not pretend to think that the Constitution is a perfect document, but it is the foundation that the laws of this country were founded on. You have a charge as a Senator to defend it, not weaken it. Yet with each vote that you give in support of a far left wing agenda, you separate yourself from those of us who believe in this great land. As you stand arm-in-arm with Nancy Pelosi and other left wing liberals, you further align yourself with principles that are contrary to the Doctrines of the gospel that you profess to believe in.

Find some gumption and support this man for SCOTUS. Break ranks and vote what you know to be right.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Cindy Go Home!

So it looks like now that media circus around Cindy Sheehan has been assuaged by the Hurricane and Bush's going back to the White House. However, now I am reading that Cindy has signed on to speak on college campuses across the country.

What does this woman have to contribute to the national discourse on college campuses? She possesses neither the intellectual capacity nor the ability to maintain a discussion past her memorized talking points concerning her opposition to the war and President Bush. This is best illustrated by her statement that President Bush needs to pull troops out of occupied New Orleans. What in the world does that mean?

Man, I cannot wait until she comes to Arizona State University and talks about how the universe chose her as the spark that lit this anti-war "inferno" (yes she did say that). Now that is a deep thought. There is so much to discuss and debate in those remarks.

Arguments can be made against the war in Iraq, but they need to be rooted in some sort of intellectual honesty. They cannot be rooted in the over-emotionalism of a woman who lost her son in the war. Nor can these areguements be rooted in 60's radicalism that is so bankrupt of truth that rational people don't even listen.

She does have the right to say what she wants. The Constitution guarantees it. But for colleges and universities to spend money on such garbage is ridiculous and wasteful.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

What is it about art?

Why does Art move us so much? If there is anyone who reads what I write, they would probably not expect this type of a post from me. My political leanings are obviously starboard, but I am still moved by things that touch my hear.

Great films reach me. Great books move me. Great songs ring true in my heart. I would imagine that the creators of these great things would probably disagree with most of what I believe, but I hope that they understand that what they create can touch people from all walks of life.

But I think that something that moves us now, might not move us later. The films that I enjoy now are not the same films that I loved growing up. I can remember seeing "The Breakfast Club" when I was a teenager and feeling that movie resonate within me. It captured the real dynamic of high school better than any film that I have seen before or since. I identified with all of the characters that were in that film. I understood them because because I knew them at my own school, and ultimately I saw myself in the characters I watched on the screen.

I watch that film now however and I see it in a different way. That film reminds me of my younger days. In high school, I as much as any other awkward kid who struggled with "teen angst" but now I don't remember much about what I loathed about high school. The sorrows are there in my memory, but the happy times seem to shine more brightly in my mind now than all of the garbage that I dealt with ( not that my childhood was that difficult) then.

Now, different films, books, and songs touch me in different ways. I don't remember crying very often when watching an emotional movie scene when I was younger, yet now I find myself pushing back tears way too often. Songs do this too. But I do know that what is happening now; these pieces of art touch my soul. They reach into me and pluck the strings that make the sweetest sounds within me.

Most people watch a film like "Black Hawk Down" and see a great military action film. I see a story about the struggle of man in the face of impossible odds. I see the selfless acts of soldiers doing their job. I watch a film like "October Sky" and I see a teenager, unable to understand his father, connect with him. I listen to a song like "100 years" and it makes me think about how short life is, and to live it right.

I thank God that he has given so many people on this earth, such wonderful talents. And I thank the artists of this world who do not hide their talent under a bushel, but use it so that we all can enjoy and benefit from it.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

Remebering 9/11

It is the fourth anniversary of 9/11. I just finished watching a documentary of what happened on UA flight 93, the flight that went down in Shanksville PA. The documentary shows the passengers trying to retake the plane before it is crashed into someplace like the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. The passengers and crew on that plane were heroes. They were the first to sacrifice their lives in the War on Terror.

As I watched this film all of the feelings about 9/11 returned to me. The fear and disbelief did not go away for a long time. I don't think anyone knew what to think or believe. But make no mistakes, what happened on 9/11 was the first acts of War against democracy and freedom. Al Qaida and Islamic fundamentalists would like to supplant the free countries of this world with a theocratic government that would take away the freedoms of all people. These people are EVIL. They will not stop until they are eradicated from this Earth.

America has recovered from 9/11. America has taken the fight to the terrorists. President Bush has correctly acted by overthrowing two governments that sponsored and supported terrorists.

We cannot allow terrorists to threaten freedom and democracy. Our Government has acted correctly. I stand with those who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop these evil people. I honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in protecting my freedom.

I have not forgotten. I will never forget.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Politicizing Catastrophe

It is becoming clearer each day that Hurricane Katrina has become a disaster of Biblical proportions. I am saddened by the degree and scope of the loss in that region of our great country. I cannot even begin to imagine what so many are going through in the Gulf Coast. My prayers are extended to those who are suffering at this time and those leaders who have a tough road ahead, in guiding the efforts to restore order where lawlessness reigns and rebuild a shattered region.

I am saddened that so many have so quickly politicized this catastrophe. I knew that Conservatives and particularly the Bush administration would be blamed for what happened, but I did not think that the blame would come so fast. I have read two articles that place almost all of the blame on the President and his policies. First it was Robert Kennedy Jr, who blamed Haley Barbour and the Bush administration for rejecting the Kyoto treaty. It is thoroughly absurd to believe that the Kyoto Treaty, if enacted would have stopped global warming (if global warming is even happening). Most studies of the Kyoto protocols have stated that if enacted in full it would still have a negligible effect in reducing greenhouse gases and thus reverse global warming.

Next I read Sydney Blumenthal directly blame the Bush Administration for this catastrophe because he did not protect wetlands. According to his article, had wetlands been protected around New Orleans, that it could have reduced the flood surge by a foot. According to news reports the flood surge in the gulf coast was as much as 9 feet. So lets say that Blumenthals assertions are completely accurate and that the flood surge would have been reduced by a foot. It is doubtful that this would have made any difference. It is still a flood surge of 8 feet, and probably would have caused the levees to give way anyway. But we should not take either of what these two say at their words.

There is still no consensus that global warming is even happening. There are many who question the science of those who believe in global warming. There are also scientists who say that it is happening, but do not blame mankind but rather say that it is a natural phenomenon, and that mankind cannot stop it. And some say that we have been in a warming trend for thousands of years. Remember the Ice Age. If it wasn't for global warming, the planet would still be a very cold place to live indeed.

Regardless of these debates, it is disgusting that some have decided to exploit this catastrophe for political purposes. One may argue that Bush did the same thing following 9/11, but I say that he did what he felt was right to make America safe again. Those who have politicized this event should be ashamed of themselves. This is a natural disaster. It is not a terrorist attack that could have been prevented, had America not been asleep at the wheel.

This is not a time to criticize, but rather a time to get behind our leaders and support them. It is time for us as Americans to pitch in any way we can. America rallied around New York and Washington after 9/11, and we must do it again in the wake of Katrina. It is time for us to mourn the dead, assess the damage, and begin to rebuild. It is time again for us to ask the Almighty for help in this tremendous time of need. It is time once again for the world to see the greatness and resilience of the American people. We will overcome this. We are all Americans, and we must stick together in this time of crisis and not allow ourselves to be pulled apart by politicos who would use this tragedy to advance their own agendas.

Let us unite again and help restore what has been lost in our country.

Saturday, June 18, 2005


As I listened to Dick Durbin compare the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Russian Gulags I was reminded again of how Liberals have for decades underestimated our enemies. It began in the early days of the Cold War as communist spies had literally permeated the US government and the State Department. It continued with appeasement strategies of Presidents like Truman. Had I not read Anne Coulter's book Treason I would have been flabbergasted at what the left has done to further commit treason with the War on Terror. (If you have not read this book or do not believe me, you must read Treason, it is a powerful expose into the world of the far left and their continual behavior in opposition to the Cold War and now the War on Terror).

Lets set the "way-back" machine to September 11, 2001. Nineteen psychotic Muslims boarded four Jumbo Jets and plowed three into buildings and one into a field, killing thousands. They came after us. Why? Because they hate our way of life. They hate America. Their wish is to see our country with its freedoms destroyed. These men support oppressive regimes such as the Bathist Governments in Syria and Iraq. They support the theocracy in Iraq and they supported the Taliban. They do not believe in freedom. They do not care about justice. They believe that they are here to cleanse the world of the infidel. The jihadists now waging war in Iraq have beheaded innocent civilians, and done everything they can to undermine the fledgeling democracy in Iraq.

Make no mistakes. These people if given the chance will attack the U.S. again. Those held in Guantanamo Bay have taken up arms against the US. They have tried to kill our soldiers. They are prisoners of War. Some that we have released we have recaptured or killed in fighting in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Many of those in Gintmo are some of the worst people in all the world. They would kill you if given the chance, just because you are and American. You think I am exaggerating? Just remind yourself about the insurgents who beheaded several Americans and videotaped it, to try and intimidate the American people.

This war is still raging. Just because we are not fighting a particular country per se does not mean that we are not at war. Al Qaida does not just want the US out of the Middle East. These terrorists want to destroy our way of life. They do not believe in democracy and freedom. The believe that a Muslim theocracy is the right way to govern. They believe that women have very little rights if any. They believe that if a woman is raped, she brought dishonor and shame on her family and should be put to death, not the rapist . They supported regimes that did not allow women to leave their homes and outlawed education for women. The terrorists believe that western civilization is corrupt and evil. They believe that they have the truth and that all others because they do not believe in Allah should die.

The US has Gintmo because the people being held there are too dangerous for society. I read some of the interrogation techniques used on the "20th Hijacker." Where the libs saw horror, I saw restraint. The interrogators did not torture this man; they interrogated him. Compare his treatment with the treatment of several Americans kidnapped in Iraq. He is alive and well. They are dead, their heads chopped off by dull machetes, their murderers standing over them proud of what they had just done. But Amnesty International calls Gintmo, the "Gulag of our Time." Do these idiots even know what happened in the Soviet Gulags? Were the prisoners there served rice pilaf and Orange Glazed chicken? NO. They were tortured endlessly and then murdered. The people in the Russian Gulags, the Concentration Camps of the Nazis, the death camps of the Khmer Rouge held and killed innocent people. The camp at Gintmo is holding about 750 enemy combatants, including many members of Al Qaida. Yet Dick Durbin has the gall to compare Gintmo with some of greatest atrocities of our time.

Simply Amazing.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Law and Order, CI you just lost one viewer

Mark my words people. I will never watch Law and Order: Criminal Intent ever again. Not ever. I was disgusted last night while watching the season finale of Law and Order:CI as Detective Eames, played by Katherine Erbe suggested that their investigation looking into the murders of two judges should focus on looking for someone wearing a "Tom Delay" t-shirt. A few seconds after this, the detectives on the show, said that the white supremacist that shot the second judge targeted the wrong man, since this judge was so conservative. At that point I turned off the televison and said, "I am done with this show."

Attempting to tie white supremacist and neo-nazi's to mainstream conservatives is like calling Joseph Stalin a Democrat. Just because one is conservative, and a Constructionist does not make him or her a racist. Just because a white supremacist uses the same constitutional arguments to defend his rights (to be a wack job) as a conservative, does not put him in league with conservatives.

But, as I write this I remember that Liberals think that (in their own mind)their view is the morally elevated view and that all those that oppose them are not just wrong, but immoral. Because I do not think that the use of racial quota's as a form of affirmative action is wrong, I am a racist. Because I believe that abortion as a form of birth control is morally reprehensible I am a sexist. Because I believe in an individuals right to bear arms (a right protected by the Bill of Rights), I am instantly lumped in with Michigan militia types who stockpile weapons.

There is no point in even trying to defend such arguments. First because liberals believe what they think that they will never be convinced otherwise. Second, because the arguments are absurd.

I have always been a Law and Order fan. In fact, Law and Order shows are just about the only shows that I watch on television anymore. Well now I have one more hour in my week to read Anne Coulter or Mark Levine. Law and Order:CI, I am sorry that I ever wasted time watching your ridiculous show.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

The Truth about the "Nuclear Option" and Filibusters

Now that a compromise has been reached and once again Senate Republicans have proven that they have neither the backbone or gumption to stand up to a fight, let me tell you briefly about how detrimental to the Constitution the "nuclear option" would have been to the country.

In two words; not detrimental at all. The Senate has the ability to change their own rules. Furthermore the use of the filibuster is prohibited in some instances already. Omnibus legislation, such as the federal budget, are not allowed to be filibustered under current Senate rules. Do the rights of the minority mean any less when an omnibus bill has legislation included in it that they oppose? Of course not. Yet, those who oppose the ending of judicial filibuster say that the rights of the minority would be trampled if the Senate were to change the rules. This is simply hogwash.

Remember that no judicial nominee has EVER been filibustered in the history of the Senate that had Majority support. NOT ONE. Yet democrats in the Senate would like you to think otherwise. They often bring up the nomination of Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as an example of Republicans filibustering Democratic nominees. First, this amounts to democrats childishly pointing at republicans and saying "See, They did it too." Second, this filibuster was about a sitting Supreme being elevated to Chief Justice. Fortas lacked bipartisan and barely had majority support. A filibuster defeated his nomination, but not to the court. Fortas's nomination was filibustered because there were ethical questions that were brought out during his confirmation hearing before the judiciary committee. The reasons for the filibuster of his nomination were not rooted in partisan politics but rather real concerns about his ethics.

Janice Rogers Brown and the other nominations to the circuit court have been filibustered for years simply because their ideological view did not match those on their left who think that their anointed view is the only correct view in America.

Democrats have accused Republicans of abusing power, yet Dems themselves are the ones who are guilty of abusing power. They have consistently thwarted the will of the people, shirked their "Advise and Consent" responsibility and have acted like the party in the Oval Office when it comes to judicial nominations.

Monday, May 23, 2005

To Not Filibuster

Well it looks like "centrist" members of both parties have come to an agreement and it looks like the majority party will not change the rules and remove the filibuster from the arsenal that Senate democrats currently use to help undermine the constitution and thwart the will of the people. The so-called nuclear option has been averted.

This in my opinion is still nothing more than a victory for the minority party. How can the democrats who control neither house nor the presidency. The use of the filibuster has amounted to the circumventing of the constitution by the minority party.

The Constitution of the United States of America tells us that the Senate is supposed to give "advice and consent" to Presidential appointees such as cabinet positions, ambassadors and Judges. Understand from this verbiage in the constitution and other documents that advice and consent does not mean that the minority party decides who is confirmed and who is not.

Libs always say that Republicans have done the same thing to Dem Presidents and that more than 95% of Judicial nominees have been confirmed by the Senate. This is erroneous. The democrats use of the filibuster is unprecedented. When you consider only appellate Judges President Bush has only had 67% of his nominees confirmed. President Clinton by contrast had more than 75%. But what this does not tell you is that not once did the Senate not give Clinton appointees an up-or-down vote on the floor.

Then consider the appointment of Ruth Bader-Guinsberg to the Supreme Court. If there is not a person that deserved to be rejected it was her. She, apart from being a nut, did not in my opinion possess the intellectual capacity to sit on the highest court in the land. She was confirmed with heavy bi-partisan support.

Next consider the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas. This man was subjected to a smear campaign of unprecedented proportions. He was accused of things that if were true, should have eliminated him from consideration, yet he was still confirmed. Why? Well first because everyone who was honest with themselves knew that Thomas was telling the truth and that Anita Hill was lying. Much of this can be read at the following link.
While Democrats at the time were very much opposed to Thomas' nomination, no one even considered a filibuster. Why? Because those Senators at least respected the constitution. This group of liberals would rather use the constitution of the United States as toilet paper rather than fulfill their constitutional duty to give "advice and consent" to the president on judicial nominees.

Make no mistakes. This fight is not really over appellate court nominees, but rather it is about future Supreme Court vacancies that will most certainly occur in the next couple of years. The last thing Democrats want is Supreme Court Justices that follow the constitution rather than a so-called evolving set of standards that Justice Kennedy recently referred to in one of the Supreme Court's recent ridiculous decisions. To put it simply. Conservatives want Justices like Scalia, and Thomas; Liberals want Justices such as Kennedy and Bader-Ginsberg. Here's to hoping that Constitutionalists are nominated and confirmed and activist liberal judges are dealt a major blow to their incrimental agendas.

Monday, May 16, 2005

Pandora's Box

This weekend's Newsweek story alleging that the Holy Koran had been desecrated by interrogators at Guantanimo Bay is the latest example of News organizations institutional bias against the Bush Administration and the U.S.'s war on terror. Newsweek's haste in reporting this story has enraged Muslims worldwide and caused rioting and deaths in Afghanistan.

It turns out now that Newsweek's source cannot be proven and the magazine is now beginning to moon walk faster than Michael Jackson. Despite the fact that Newsweek is backtracking they will not print a retraction. This smacks of journalistic hubris of the highest magnitude. Newsweek and other left leaning news organizations have become so focused on bringing down a twice elected president, that they have lost sight of what they are supposed to do, help to defend the constitution by informing the people of what government is doing.

Yet because of an institutional media bias permeates the mainstream press to such a degree that I honestly believe that they do not realize their ridiculous bias against Conservatives and traditional values. They have become so blinded by their hatred of President Bush and his policies that they refuse to report stories when liberals are involved.

But what is more disturbing is that it seems that the liberal media has become so blinded by this hatred that they rush to press with any story that helps to damage the Bush Administration without first checking and confirming sources. It has been going on for years and culminated with the 60 Minutes piece about Bush's guard duty that was later discredited. And now again the liberal media is at it again with this story. While the National Guard story could have affected the election, this story has had global consequences.

But the question is whether or not a retraction will be heard by the Muslim world and be accepted as false. This story has, by the White House's own words, damaged America's image in the eyes of Muslims all over the world. Al Jezerra and other Arab news outlets reported on the original story but have not reported Newsweek's backing away from the story. Al Jezerra has basically become the propaganda arm of Al Qaida, and I doubt even if Newsweek does print a full retraction that Al Jezerra will relay that retraction to the Islamic world. But even if they did I don't think that many Muslims would believe the report.

Islamic culture has for decades fostered a general disdain and distrust of anything that comes from the West. The Islamic religion, while propped up as a religion of peace by the mainstream press, is really just the opposite. They look at Christianity not just as a sin but rather an abomination. Muslims call Christians "Infidels." Fundamentalist Muslims blamed the West for the corruption of their religion. In summary, Muslims generally hate non-believers. They consider them lesser people. So for a story to originate from the land of the infidel that purports desecration of something held so deeply sacred would understandably infuriate Muslims. A full apology and retraction (which Newsweek has yet to publish) amounts to little more than closing Pandora's Box after all sorrow had been released into the world.

Before the US just had Fundamentalist Muslims declaring Jihad, now more moderate leaders are declaring Holy War against the Infidel.

Thanks Newsweek for unraveling US foreign policy with such a well researched story.

Friday, March 25, 2005

Flippin Cheaters!!!

I keep hearing about how if Barry Bonds had not been juicing for the last number of years, it would not matter because steroids do not make a person have better eye-hand coordination. This has to be one of the most short-sided points of view I have ever heard in my entire life.

Lets consider Barry Bonds. Sure he is a great baseball player, probably one of the greatest to come around in the past twenty years. Yes he did win three MVP trophies before people think he began using steroids. I have little doubt that such performance enhancing drugs like steroids, while increasing strength, have little if any effect on a person's eye-hand coordination.

However there is no doubt that steroids have helped Bonds. Balls that would have been deep fly-outs, just clear the wall. Balls that are home runs go farther. Soft line drives that might have been caught become hard line drives that split the gaps. Ground balls that may be gobbled up by infielders make it through holes and mean more hits. Because Bonds is such a difficult player to pitch to, he walks more.

Then there is the issue of injury and recovery time. It can easily be argued that when a person is on steroids, his or her recovery time from working out is much shorter, allowing that athlete to work out longer, harder and build more muscle mass. For a baseball player in a 162 game season, this is an invaluable advantage. Playing day in and day out over a six month period wears on a persons body. That is why there are so many injuries in modern sports. Bodies break down. Baseball players on steroids do not have as many problems with wearing down during the "dog days" of summer when the season is drawing out and players are getting tired.

This scandal is as bad, in my opinion, as the Chicago Black Sox scandal of 1919. Every record broken in the last ten years is tainted. Every MVP trophy awarded can be called into question. Everyone who loves this game now wonder if their favorite player is on "roids". Thanks baseball. Thank you for further corrupting a kids game.

No, there is no anti-Israel Bias at the NY Times.

Recently the New York Times published an Op-Ed of a Palestinian who describes the deplorable conditions that he says exist in Israeli prison...