About Me

Name:Warner Todd Huston
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Carter's Son Insults Nevada Mother of KIA Veteran

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Sunday, November 05, 2006 6:09:04 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

Democrats love to exploit fear and pain as a general rule and Jimmah Carter's little boy in Nevada is no exception t that rule. Democrats also like to shift blame to others, and Jimmah's 'lil boy shines in that category, as well.

It seems a Jack Carter "campaign aide" tried to enlist the mother of an Iraqi war veteran killed in service to his country to the service of bashing the war and the military her son so proudly served.

JACK CARTER CAMPAIGN: Woman insulted by letter

Carter's "aide" sent a letter to Eleanor Dachtler of Las Vegas who's son, Nick Anderson, was killed in Iraq on Nov. 12th, 2004. The letter was attempting to get Dachtler to appear at an anti-war rally sponsored by Carter. The letter promised her that her appearance would generate media coverage, assuming she would do anything to be on TV presumably.

"I read the letter, and I thought, 'This guy is a (expletive),'" said the aggrieved mother. She also expressed annoyance and feelings of having her privacy invaded that the Carter "aide" checked into her voting record to discover she was a registered Democrat.

Dachtler said the reason she was so incensed was because Nevada lawmakers, including Carter's opponent, John Ensign, were helpful to her when her son lost his life in service. Further, she refused to speak out against the cause her son believed in and gave his life for.

"My son went there for a purpose; he was military-oriented all the way," Dachtler said. "I don't care about political reasons for being there. I believe that my son died for the thousands of people who were slaughtered and massacred by Saddam."

Naturally, Jackie boy claimed he knew nothing of what was going on... which begs the question: if he doesn't even know what is going on in his own campaign offices, HOW is he going to govern?

So, we see just another example of Democrats willing to exploit the pain of a grieving mother as well as a candidate who claims he doesn't even know what is going on in his own campaign.

No wonder he is losing by double digits.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Book- '101 Most Influential' List Used to Bash Capitalism

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Sunday, November 05, 2006 5:48:15 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

A new book has hit the stands that has been a "filler" topic for many talk radio programs this week. Called 101 most influential people who never lived, the book is penned by three authors who rate fictional characters of literature and film who they feel had the greatest influence on society.

The book is being treated as light, amusing reading, with USA Today quoting author. Lazar as saying, "The point of the book is to entertain". Most radio interviews I have heard have treated it as a "fun" topic.

But, a recent interview of one of the authors, Dr. Alan Lazar, was aired on Nick Digilio's WLS, Chicago radio program that was quite revealing of the "real purpose" of this book, however.

It seems it has a two fold purpose: bash capitalism and attack big tobacco. Neither purpose is stated upfront.

Pretty heavy subtext for a "book that is to entertain", wouldn't you say?

The number one most influential character proves both points strongly. Chosen number one was the "Marlboro Man", the manly cowboy who for several decades rode and smoked his way across our TVs and advertising enticing us to buy cigarettes.

As the book's website puts it:

1. The Marlboro Man: The American cowboy mythologized by legendary Chicago adman Leo Burnett in service of Big Tobacco still reigns at the reins as a global symbol of capitalism.

During the interview, Dr. Lazer admitted that the choice of "The cowboy of death" -- as USA Today puts it -- was meant as a political statement. "I'm a physician", Lazar said going on to say he and his co-authors wanted to make a statement against Big Tobacco with that choice. "We wanted to say that smoking is bad for you." He also went on to admit that adding another Big Tobacco character to the list, Camel brand's "Joe Camel", was done for the same reason. "Joe Camel is part of our statement against smoking", he informed us.

Lazar also issued a few digs at how capitalism has made his characters able to influence these bad things in our society. The radio host noticed the pattern. "A lot of these are pretty negative on capitalism" he said. Dr. Lazar agreed, pointing out that the reason they put Barbie on the list is because "Barbie teaches every girl that, to be happy, you have to own everything."

That greedy girl.

Conversely, they liked Mary Tyler Moore because on her show "You don't need a man to be happy".

Burn that Bra, Mary. Up with girl power.

So, a book ostensibly made to "entertain" is really meant to celebrate a demeaning of capitalism, an attack on Big Tobacco, and to advocate a tearing down traditional roles and mores.

Sort of destroys the credibility of their list if political statements are all that is meant by the thing, wouldn't you say? Instead of a dispassionate assessment of the actual influence of the characters they evaluated, we end up with their personal political agenda driving their choices.

I'd say this book should rank in the top several hundred books meant for political diatribe, the top two most surely being Hitler's Mein Kampf and Marx's Das Kapitalism! How's that for a list?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Just Plain Lie About Economy

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Saturday, November 04, 2006 8:17:02 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

 We are seeing it all over the news over the last 24 hour news cycle, the unemployment rate has fallen to 4.4%. This is a five and one half year low.

In fact, Bush had an even better year in 2001 when the rate was 4.3%.

The unemployment rate fell in October to 4.4 percent from 4.6 percent in September. It was the lowest jobless rate since 4.3 percent in May 2001.

Now we have a rate of 4.4% and yet the Democrats call this the worst jobs record since the Depression? As quoted in the Los Angeles Times Nancy Pelosi (Dem. Calif) thinks the economy is in ruins. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said that "The president has the worst jobs record since the Great Depression."

Huh?

Let's take a quick look at Clinton's best unemployment record for a comparison. You remember bill Clinton? That Democratic president who's brilliance the Democrats constantly proclaim?

In 1999, the Clinton administration saw an unemployment rate of 4.2%, the lowest rate during his tenure which was, in turn, the lowest since 1969.

So, Clinton was a mastermind of the economy (even with the DotCom Bust?) with a rate of 4.2% and Bush is the worst since the depression with a rate of 4.3% ... even though Clinton's 4.2% was the best since 1969!!

Need we remind you that Nancy Pelosi is in line to become speaker of the House if Democrats get in the majority? Is a person who claims a .1 percent difference is enough to proclaim one a fantastic economy and another one of the worst in history the kind of serious person we want as a national leader?

She just cannot be that stupid, so she MUST be a liar. How can anyone ever trust a Democrat? Vote Republican and defeat this woman, unfit for the Speaker's chair.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Georgia Child Mutilator Found Guilty

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Saturday, November 04, 2006 6:47:34 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

Just an update on the story I brought you about a Georgia man accused of mutilating his little girl's genitalia by a practice that euphemistically goes by the name "Female circumcision" in Muslim countries.

Man Found Guilty In Genital Mutilation Of Daughter

Lawrenceville, GA (AHN) - An Ethiopian immigrant was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the genital mutilation of his 2-year-old daughter.

Khalid Adem, 30, was found guilty Wednesday of aggravated battery and cruelty to children, in what may be the first criminal case of its kind in the United States. During a trial in which the defendant's own daughter offered understated, but damning videotape testimony, prosecutors succeeded in convincing a jury that Adem had used scissors to slice away the girl's clitoris at his family's home in suburban Atlanta in 2001.

We now have a conviction over this horrible, Muslim Barbarity.

It is terrible that this young girl had to be a victim of this disgusting Muslim custom, but from it we have a precedent that said practice is ground for criminal action in these great United States.

Let this serve as noitice that we will NOT allow such an outrage to be performed on girls here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Was the Vote for Iraq War 'Right'?

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Friday, November 03, 2006 10:12:56 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

In another grand example of "journalistic" integrity, USA Today has declared the Iraq war a total failure even as we are still in the middle of it all. With that "truth" reported, I'd like to have their crystal ball to get the next lottery numbers, too.

But, they aren't the only ones. We hear leftists and anti-War on Terror types repeatedly claim that the whole action and subsequent attempt to build an Iraqi democracy was "clearly wrong". We hear that it should never have happened, that our actions were somehow illegitimate, or that we hadn't the right to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.

But, by what real evidence are such claims of our relative wrongness made? How can pundits and commentators set these claims in tones of surety?  

The truth is, claims that our actions are wrong cannot be claimed provably correct with total assurance. It will take decades to prove out whether it was "wrong" or "right" and many more years after that to see what other countries will do from what we have done here. All we have now are best guesses, bias, and conjecture as to what will happen or even what IS happening now.

Now, it is absolutely true to say that the peace in Iraq has been hard to win. It is a fair assessment to say that the Bush administration has made many mistakes in re-building and nation building in Iraq. But, it is not fair to say the efforts in Iraq have been a failure. As mentioned, this project the Bush administration has undertaken will take many, many years to develop (as Bush duly warned us when he began it all).

Yet, the soothsayers at USA Today and other like minded naysayers have shined up their crystal ball and pronounced that any vote for the war in Iraq was not the "right" vote. In an article titled  2 wars, 2 votes in Congress, only 10 who got both right, USA Today has presumed that they know if our efforts in Iraq was "right" or was "tragically ill-conceived".

The arrogance of this proclamation is amazing for a supposed "news" paper that is purportedly dedicated to "reporting", instead of creating, the news.

The paper has decided that a vote to give Bush the go-ahead to enter Iraq  in 2002 was the "wrong" vote, saying "Just as certainly, the wiser vote in 2002 was to deny the second President Bush authorization to invade Iraq."

They know this.... how?

This is based on... what?

Just the fact that we are having troubles there now? Using that simple-minded formula just about every war we have won could have been proclaimed a "failure" or the "wrong choice" while at a low point in the effort!

<p>Are they using casualties as a guide?

If so, we would have considered WWII a failure during Iwo Jima, for instance, where we lost nearly 7,000 killed and 21,000  wounded during that bloody battle. Would USA Today have declared WWII a "loss" at that time were they "reporting" the effects of that war?

Following their current pattern, they would.

Worse, the entire premise is wrong as the war against Saddam itself was a smashing success. We went through Saddam's forces with few losses and in record time, a fact that many seem to completely forget. The war part of our invasion was quick and a complete success. It's the occupation and peace building we are having trouble with.

Looking over history (not just that of America's wars but of any country's), one simply cannot judge a war's outcome while in the midst of it. Wars take many years to fully reveal their effects and for USA Today to act as if they fully understand the war in Iraq and can pronounce it a failure is an exercise based on pure partisan punditry and NOT any kind of historical analysis.

Past Conflicts

Before we became a Nation there was what amounted to a world war called "King George's War" which led to the "French and Indian War" in 1750's America. The outcome of that war was the end of French influence in the Americas (for the most part) and supremacy for the British and the Colonists.

But, while the Brits won, the experience sent the Americans ever closer to independence because of the fact that the British Crown forced the Colonists to defend themselves causing the Colonists to begin to wonder why they needed the Brits in the first place. After this war, Benjamin Franklin began to suggest to his peers that we form a Union of colonies to organize for our governance and defense. It was an idea that resurfaced repeatedly until 1776 only twenty some years later.

On the other hand, and after a war over 150 years later, the allies in Europe felt they had won the Great War at Versailles, for instance. The Germans were beaten and the French, Americans and Brits were divvying up German territory and setting terms. A great win after so many millions of deaths. But the outcome of World War One was World War Two. The "win" turned into a further war.

Did the allies fully understand that their treatment of Germany as a result of the Versailles treaty would set the stage for the next World War so soon into the future as Wilson signed the treaty at Versailles?

Hardly.

Yet, USA Today thinks they fully understand the current actions in Iraq? They think they can predict and surely proclaim the war a failure?

Hardly.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Teaching Math - Then and Now

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Thursday, November 02, 2006 8:52:13 PM
I'm not usually one much for passing on internet joke emails, but THIS one is all too serious in its humor....

The evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:

Teaching Math In 1950

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1960

A logger sells a truckload of lumber! for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1970

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

Teaching Math In 1980

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number! 20.

Teaching Math In 1990

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20.What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)

Teaching Math In 2006

Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la
producciones es $80.
___________________
Sad, but all too close to reality!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will the MSM post the picture?

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:49:48 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

Click here for a great Pic of Troops jabbing Kerry

We have a chance, here, to watch ahead of time for how many Mainstream News Media services will post the photo making fun of Kerry's obscene statements against our troops. How many will show the good nature of our men and women at arms? How many will help prove that our troops aren't as stupid as Kerry would have us believe?

So far this photo has burned up the internet appearing on Powerline and Drudge having originally made its appearance on the blog of radio personality, Charlie Sykes.

It appears in the New York Post today, but how many others will take it up?

Of course, since it makes our troops look better, it's possible that few MSM outlets will use it.

We shall see today... keep your eyes peeled and report back here and join the game.

The picture was created by the good folks in the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division (MN National Guard). Showing the pluck and intelligence of our troops "stuck in Iraq".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

John F. Kerry Thinks US Soldiers Are Uneducated

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:00:42 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

The Pasadena Star News yesterday reported on a rally for failing California Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Phil Angelides, at which John Kerry warned students in the audience that if they didn't get an education they would have no other alternative than to be forced into the US Armed Forces.

Kerry then told the students that if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs - "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," he said to a mixture of laughter and gasps.

Obviously, Kerry feels that all our soldiers are uneducated louts with no other opportunities.

So, how many news outlets do you think will bother to cover this gasp inducing claim from former Democratic Party presidential candidate, John F. Kerry?

Let's see if this is picked up by anyone. It's been a day already and only Drudge and Neil Boortz seems to have caught it thus far.

Any takers on a bet that it is ignored otherwise?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ohio Voter ID Law Stands... for Now

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:25:23 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

In a never ending attempt to thwart what the electorate through their elected representatives want implemented, the state Courts and leftist activists are dong anything they can to cancel, halt or stay voter ID requirement laws. Fortunately, several Federal Courts have reversed the state court rulings and allowing the ID laws to stand... for now. but, various extreme democrat activists will continue their efforts to eliminate ID requirements to vote.

Ohio voting law is back in action

CINCINNATI — A federal appeals court on Sunday put on hold a decision that suspended Ohio's identification requirements for absentee voting, meaning voters applying for the early ballots must continue giving proof of their ID.

It simply makes good common sense to require voters to present an ID upon entering the polling place. Then only reason anyone would have to oppose this requirement is that they want people who are NOT eligible to vote in the first place to be able to vote illegally.

The left wants to pretend that this is some effort by the GOP to "disenfranchise" voters, but it is merely a sensible attempt to eliminate ineligible voters. Of course, the left wants to get as many illegal votes as it can as this has always been a great resource for them. And this is the only reason they are fighting ID laws.

It SURE as heck isn't because they care about voters' rights!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NYT- 'A Silent Disenfranchisement ' of Voters?

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:36:45 AM
-by Warner Todd Huston

The New York Times is sure that voters are losing their rights the country over, in essence yelling "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" for voters this year. They have been ballyhooing that voters are being "disenfranchised" all across the country by voting machines and voting law changes -- their biggest worry being ID requirements. The Times points in horror to the continuing effort of the States to nail down who is eligible and a proliferation of new laws assuring that eligibility before casting a ballot claiming this is proof of such "disenfranchisement". Ridiculously, the Times has decided proving you are eligible to vote is a threat to democracy.

Funny how they don't consider people who vote illegally as being any threat to democracy... of course that is because illegal voting benefits the Democrats, their favored party.

In an editorial titled Remember to Vote, Hope It Counts, the Times moans about these new requirements to present IDs at the polls in order to cast a ballot in states such as Ohio, Arizona, Indiana and others.

Michael Waldman, the executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, has penned an opinion in today's Times without offering much by way of proof for his contentions. But, he is sure that it is the end of our rights!  Well, maybe just the rights of Democrats... his only real concern.

The piece is so filled with assumptions, guesses and wild what-ifs that it boggles the mind. Of course, it is all some grand conspiracy as far as the good director is concerned. It couldn't just be that new conventions, practices and laws will have their glitches and might be in need of adjustment! Mr. Waldman expects perfection the first time out, apparently.

As primaries earlier this year demonstrated, local officials and poll workers are overwhelmed by all the changes -- some of them engineered by mischievous partisans who have passed laws and rules that would block many eligible citizens from voting.

I guess it also couldn't be that people are sick and tired of illegal voting, gerrymandered vote totals and dead people shuffling to the polls in their dusty burial clothes to cast that favored Democratic ballot? No, it MUST be a grand conspiracy of the eeeevil GOP to suppress those poor Democrat's votes.

But, wait. Mr. Waldman tips his hand showing us his real concern.

There is a silent disenfranchisement afoot -- one that could affect hundreds of thousands of voters. That’s bad for democracy. In the 2004 presidential election, some states were decided by less than 1 percent of the vote. This year, dozens of Congressional races could be close enough that vote suppression would affect them.
(Bolded emphasis mine)

Ah, there you have it. It never mattered that illegal votes were being cast in the past, but now that elections are being decided by such slim margins, Waldman wants his illegal votes protected!

Conjecture on my part, you say? No, not really.

Looking forward, Congress and state legislatures should spurn partisan attempts to manipulate elections by imposing new voting requirements, like proof of citizenship and identification.

And that isn't the only time he gnashes his teeth and rends his clothes over this terrible thought that it might be a good idea for voters to present some proof that they are eligible to vote in the first place.

In a graphic connected to the story, Waldman mentions ID requirements as a worry or an outright outrage several times. He claims that Ohio, Arizona, Indiana, Florida and many other states are somehow "disenfranchising" voters with this "partisan" mischief.

He also reveals a desire to take away more power from the states and institute overarching Federal voting laws in contravention to our American system.

Taken together, they show just how urgent it is that the country move toward a system of universal voter registration, in which the government takes responsibility to ensure that all citizens are on the rolls, with real protections.

Just another big government, liberal idea, there. Obviously Waldman hopes to have but one, national voting law for him to gerrymander instead of worrying about so many different laws in as many states that his folks have to keep track of in which to gerrymander the vote. Much easier to steal the votes, that-a way, eh Mr. Waldman!

His graphic is filled with fear mongering and guesswork, so much so that it is hard to take it seriously. Here are a few of them:

Under a proposed Ohio law, naturalized citizens who couldn't produce naturalization papers at the polls could not cast regular ballots -- just provisional ones, which are counted only in recounts. This would require these voters to carry documents that cost more than $200. A federal judge recently permanently blocked this discriminatory law.

Boo hoo. Seems to me that a naturalized citizen should take the responsibility to be sure he has all the records he needs to vote. But to Waldman, just showing up should be enough to vote. Who needs to be a legal voter? Who needs to prove anything? Obviously just wanting to vote should be enough. Vote early, vote often!

This year, Hoosiers can't vote unless they show state-issued photo ID's with expiration dates. But up to 10 percent of Americans lack drivers' licenses or accepted alternatives.

Again, shouldn't they take responsibility to be sure they meet requirements if they want their vote cast? Is having a photo ID so out of the question?

In South Dakota, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and other states this year, you can't vote unless your voter registration record precisely matches personal information on some other list -- say, of drivers' licenses. Typos and common glitches could keep up to 20 percent of registrants from voting.

"Could keep up to 20 percent" from voting? Where does that conjecture come from? Maybe it could keep only 2 percent from voting… maybe no percent? It’s easy to just say any old number, after all.

New laws impose harsh requirements on voter registration groups and expose them to criminal penalties for harmless mistakes, including errors in collecting forms.

And why does one think such a new requirement has been imposed? Because of Democrats' decades old penchant of rounding up felons, the un-registered, mental patients and long lists of dead people to fill out voters rolls, that's why. And people are sick of it, Mr. Waldman. And, what, exactly, is wrong with trying to make sure voter registrations are legal and above board, anyway?

Since last year, Arizona has required voters to bring a birth certificate or passport to register, and then to bring a different set of government documents to vote. ... no doubt thousands more will be turned away on Election Day

"No doubt thousands more will be turned away"? Pure conjecture and a conjecture based on biased assumptions.

There is no doubt that we have many troubles with our systems of voting. But Waldman's ideas of just forgetting about trying to tighten requirements and to solidify registrations rolls and to allow just any one to cast a ballot whether they can legally do so or not is merely a recipe to continue allowing the kind of Democrat vote fraud that has been going on for decades.

But, then again, that would be his ultimate goal. Looser requirements, no checking for legal votes, and rampant neglect of the law would assist vote fraud far more than otherwise. And obviously the New York Times agrees with Waldman.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Democrats Have in Store for US...

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Monday, October 30, 2006 6:18:53 PM
-By Warner Todd Huston

Mad at the GOP? Thinking of voting "independent"... or not voting at all?

If so, here is a little taste of what Democrats have in store for us if they take control of Congress. (Courtesy of the PatriotPost.com)

Charles Rangel (D-NY) proposed the "Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act" (HR 2456) to eliminate mandatory sentencing for crack-cocaine convictions. California Barbara Lee (D-CA) put forward the "Justice for the Unprotected against Sexually Transmitted Infections among the Confined and Exposed (JUSTICE) Act" (HR 6083) to permit the distribution of prophylactics in prisons. Another New York Congressman, Jerrold Nadler, proffered the "Antibullying Campaign Act" (HR 3787) to institute a federal-grant program against bullying in schools. In a bit of bullying of her own, the recently retired Cynthia "Slugger" McKinney (D-GA) drew up the "Tupac Shakur Records Release Act of 2006" (HR 4968) to create a special collection of the gangsta rapper's government records at the National Archives.

On the subject of entitlements, Democrats don't hold back. Robert Wexler (D-FL) offered the "Social Security Forever Act" (HR 2472) to create a new tax on workers, employers and the self-employed to keep Social Security afloat. John Dingell (D-MI) offered up a pair of bills, the "National Health Insurance Act" (HR 15) and the "Medicare for All Act" (HR 4683), each raising taxes to promote socialized health care. Dingell's efforts weren't enough for Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, however, who proposed the bill "To provide for coverage under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs of incontinence undergarments" (HR 1052) for taxpayer-funded adult diapers.

Then there's Iraq. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), in the spirit of Lennon, offered the "Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act" (HR 3760) to establish a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence to... well, act peacefully and non-violently, we suppose. Jim McGovern (D-MA) didn't beat around the bush with his "End the War in Iraq Act" (HR 4232), which sought to defund the war in Iraq immediately and force a complete troop withdrawal. Ever angling to put rich kids in their place, the aforementioned Charles Rangel wants his "Universal National Service Act" (HR 4752) obligating U.S. citizens between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform two years' service in the Armed Forces or civilian elements of national defense.

Also in the mix during the past two years were bills to legalize medical marijuana (HR 2087), grant voting rights to ex-cons (HR 663), create a right to unrestricted late-term abortion (HR 5151), and provide gas to the poor at taxpayer expense (HR 3712). Proposed amendments to the Constitution include one guaranteeing equal public education (HJ Res 29) and equal health care (HJ Res 30), as well as constitutional rights to housing (HJ Res 40) and full employment (HJ Res 35).

... Just a little reminder from your friends at Publius' Forum blog!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BBC Claims it ISN'T Biased... uh, huh, riiiight!

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Monday, October 30, 2006 9:25:10 AM
A few weeks ago, the BBC complained that one of my Newsbusters pieces unfairly criticized them as horribly biased. Then a recent report emerged wherein Andrew Marr, a BBC staffer, said at an internal seminar that the Beeb had gone too far in pursuit of multiculturalism.

It seems that the BBC is getting tired of these so-called mischaracterizations...

BBC 'not crammed full of soft liberals' says deputy chief

One of the BBC's most senior executives has defended the corporation against accusations that it is "crammed full of soft liberals" obsessed with pushing a politically correct agenda.

In an exclusive interview, Mark Byford, the deputy director-general, has hit back at suggestions that the broadcaster is too sensitive to the feelings of Muslim viewers and that it has an inbuilt anti-Christian bias.

But this claim seems disingenuous after a week were the BBC announced a consideration of allowing Veiled Muslim news presenters and has featured an embedded reporter with the Taleban allowing the Taleban free and unfettered access to a platform from which they can disseminate their anti-British and anti-western propaganda.

The internal BBC seminar was revealing, too.

Andrew Marr, the presenter, told an audience at an internal seminar that the organisation had an abnormally large number of young employees, ethnic minorities and gay people.

At the same event, executives including Alan Yentob agreed that while kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bible could be consigned to Room 101 – the BBC's fictitious depository of pet hates – the Koran could not.

In any case, the BEEB is obviously feeling the heat. Let's hope it makes them begin to put an end to their hatred for Christians and western morals. And I am proud to say that Newsbusters has been one of the many voices calling the BEEB to account.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gov't 'Spying' on Peace Activists... NOT!

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:29:09 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

On ABC 7 News tonight a local Chicago "peace" Wacko was briefly interviewed during which time he claimed the Chicago police were "spying" on him.

OK, black helicopter stuff, right? We can just laugh it off as the rant of a nutcase. It would be funny, but this particular nutcase's assumptions cost the city of Chicago "tens of thousands of dollars" this weekend!

Hundreds of police officers show up for canceled protest

Police: Mix-up was waste of resources
By Dan Ponce

October 28, 2006 - Hundreds of police officers showed up to keep the peace at what was supposed to be an anti-war rally Saturday afternoon. Police are now calling it a waste of resources after the protesters did not show.

It's a mix up that will cost tax payers tens of thousands of dollars. The anti-war demonstration at Washington Square was supposed to start at noon and the Chicago Police Department was ready. But the protesters were a no show, and police say it was a big waste of time and money.

OK, hardy, har, har. The cops showed up for a protest that had been canceled and the "peace" activists had not bothered to inform the city that all the security wouldn't be needed.

Easy to laugh, I suppose. But the police had a real reason to organize this overwhelming force because in 2003 there was a "peace" protest that went wild, during which many were injured and damage was done to property. The police had an obligation to make sure this would not happen again.

Here is the excuse given by the nitwit who organized the non-protest...

John Beacham, Illinois Anti-War Coalition... had one more theory as to why the police department should have known protesters weren't showing up.

"The city is usually spying on us and watching us carefully, so we just figured they understood there wasn't a demonstration today," said Beecham.

Um, no, Johnnie boy. Not only do American governments NOT make it a habit to "spy" on "peace" activists, but YOU, sir, are not important enough for government to surveil in the first place! And, if this isn't proof that Johnnie and his little pals were NOT being "spied" upon, what would?

The tin foil on his head is too tight, it appears.

The very last line of the story gave me hope, though.

But the deputy superintendent says the department will look into recouping some of its costs.

I hope Johnnie boy and all his little half-wit buddies get sued by the city for the costs incurred for the organization of this police presence for the cancelled "peace" protest.... PLUS court costs!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cheney's Wife - NO Pushover

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:59:02 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

Vice president Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, is no pushover. She proved that by taking on CNN's Wolf Blitzer as the TV personality interviewed her for her newest book, Our 50 States.

Earlier in the week, CNN showed an outrageous video of an Islamofascist. terrorist shooting at U.S. Soldiers. Blitzer began to badger the nation's 2nd lady and she responded with spunk and vigor:

-begin transcript excerpt-
LC: But what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?

WB: The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want terrorists to win?

LC: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?

WB: With all due respect, with all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.

LC: Oh, Wolf…

WB: This is reporting the news, which is what we do. We’re not partisan…

LC: Where did you get the film?

WB: We got the film…look, this is an issue that has been widely discussed, this is an issue that we reported on extensively. We make no apologies for showing that. That was a very carefully considered decision, why we did that. And I think, and I think, of your…

LC: Well, I think it’s shocking.

WB: If you’re a serious journalist, you want to report the news. Sometimes the news is good, sometimes the news isn’t so good.

LC: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?

WB: And if you put it in context, if you put it in context, that’s what news is. We said it was propaganda. We didn’t distort where we got it. We didn’t distort anything about it. We gave it the context. Let’s talk about another issue in the news, and then we’ll get to the book.
-end transcript excerpt-

Good for you Mrs. Cheney. These people act against our culture with impunity. It's about time some one calls them to account!

(Here is the full transcript of the interview Lynne Cheney interview)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NYT- Having Trouble Defining GOP 'Moderates'

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:05:18 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

The New York Times is moaning the supposed loss of the "Republican Moderate" in Congress with their latest piece, Moderate Republicans Feeling Like Endangered Species.

Amusingly, some of the names they use to define a "Republican Moderate" are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. They also mention Mike DeWine of Ohio, but the three they focus on are Snowe, Collins and Chafee... these are the people they call "moderate".

Let's take a look at how the ACU rates the conservative voting record of these three (0 being least conservative and 100 the most conservative).

Susan Collins - 32
Olympia Snowe - 32
lincoln Chafee- 12

These three are FAR from being "moderate". They are more like Democrats -- and far left ones at that -- than Republicans and rarely vote with their national Party on any issue. But, to the NYT "moderate" means voting with Democrats, apparently.

At least DeWine got a 56. Now he could really be claimed a moderate with that kind of voting record.

But, the Times' confusion on what a "moderate Republican" is aside, the most amusing thing about the report is that it pegs this presumed GOP veer to the far right on "party leaders" who are "pursuing a strategy dominated by conservative themes".

Not once in the story, however, does the Times seem to recognize that political parties have voters and it is voters who usually drive the agenda of a party. American voters have been drifting more and more toward center right issues since Ronald Reagan, but the Times seems to think that it is the party that is forcing voters to vote a certain way instead of voters pushing the party that way by the support they give to candidates with certain ideologies.

"Moderate" Republicans are losing, not because the Party is forcing its candidates to be conservatives, but because voters are rejecting these left leaning candidates. For good or ill, Republican voters are not voting for these so-called moderates. The GOP's drift right (if it is, indeed, happening) is a response to what wins them votes, not something forced from the top down.

Of course, the Times realizes this fact. But, their own agenda is to discourage GOP votes, sour people on the Party and the proceedings and elect their own candidates to office. What better way to do that than to undermine support for the GOP with stories that lures readers into believing that the Party is conspiratorially eliminating the "moderate's" voice? What better way than to make it seem as if the GOP is becoming some outrageous, right-wing juggernaut forcing its out-of-the-mainstream opinions down everyone's throats?

Anyway, with "Moderates" like Collins, Snowe and Chafee, who needs Kennedy, Durbin or Kerry?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…6869707172737475767778Next »