AP Skews News to the Left View


This news head line caught my attention on the Internet: Marines announce murder, other charges. My first thought was about the accusations relating to the American military and Haditha.

Here is the opening sentence:

Seven Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged Wednesday with premeditated murder in the shooting death of an Iraqi man and could face the death penalty if convicted.


After reading the first sentence, again I am thinking Haditha. My thinking was amazement because non-leftist sources were beginning to point to evidence that much of the accusations were staged by Islamofascist insurgents and bought into by the MSM. There have been huge indications that the violence at Haditha was the fault of insurgents and anything pointing toward Marines was from unsubstantiated sources.

So, I keep reading. In the second to last paragraph (the lucky 13th paragraph) I read:

The case is separate from the alleged killing by other Marines of 24 Iraqi civilians at Haditha last November. A pair of investigations related to that case is still under way and no criminal charges have been filed.


Nearly the entire article is complete and the AP reports that the horrendous murder charges have NOTHING to do with Haditha. In fact the charges being brought up on the seven Marines and Navy corpsman have to make it past Article 32 proceedings before a Court Martial is considered.

The AP is doing its best to convict military personnel in the public media. In fairness the AP should try to uncover facts as to why Americans would be so belligerent. It might have something to do with a brutal enemy that hates us and itself practices no military rules of engagement. Why is not the AP and other MSM not reporting about possible war crimes from Islamofascist insurgents? Could it be the AP and the MSM are discreetly rooting for the success of the Islamofascists and for the failure of American boys protecting such rights as the freedom of the press? Hmm…

Boyle Still Waiting For A Confirmation Vote After 5 Years


It is mind boggling the steps the liberal members of the Senate have gone to prevent President Bush Appointees from getting an up or down vote. It is even more mind boggling how a Republican majority in the Senate has allowed Boyle to languish in Appointment limbo for five years!

**********************************

Senate to Confirm Ikuta in Four Months While Boyle Waits Five Years

 

WASHINGTON, June 19 /Christian Newswire/ — Concerned Women for America (CWA) says the speedy confirmation of Sandra Ikuta to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit expected later today stands in stark contrast to the dilatory delay of the confirmation of Judge Terrance Boyle to the Fourth Circuit, the longest-waiting nominee in history. 

 

President Bush nominated Ikuta on February 8, 2006. He nominated Judge Boyle on May 9, 2001. Boyle languished four years in the Senate Judiciary Committee before being reported out on June 16, 2005. He has been waiting more than a year for a vote in the Senate. As yet, his nomination hasn’t been placed on the Senate calendar even though the vacancy in the Fourth Circuit is deemed a “judicial emergency.”  The people represented in the Fourth Circuit, especially those in North and South Carolina need to let their Senators know they want action on Judge Boyle’s nomination.

 

“It’s inexcusable that this highly-qualified judge who has served 22 years on the district court continues to be held hostage by the Senate,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel.  “The Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit has selected Judge Boyle to join the circuit temporarily and help decide cases.  He has authored 17 opinions, none of which has been reversed by the Supreme Court.

 

“An immediate up-or-down vote is the only acceptable course of action,” concluded LaRue.

 

CWA’s Chief Counsel Jan LaRue shapes legal policy for CWA, analyzing, commenting, and writing about court activity and the ramifications of legal decisions for American families.

 

 Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

EU: Islamofascism Re-Ignites European Nationalism


In the realm of geo-politics there is a much adieu about consensus, multilateralism and unilateralism all in relation to global hegemonic power of the United States of America. The EU has been looked at as a viable competitor to the National Interests of America. If Charles Kupchan is correct then that moniker may fade.

How that will work for or against American National Interests is something I am not sure about. Russia still wants to be a World Player, so there might be some designs to offer alliances to European nations that do not like America. It is not unheard of in Europe’s history. Russia has allied itself with Britain against France in the Napoleonic Wars. Russia has allied itself with Germany off and on in both WWI and WWII. If Europe fragments along nationalistic lines, the only thing that might unite them is a growing dislike for Mohammedan immigrants.

It will be interesting how the International political game of National Interests will play out. Who will align with who and what role Islamofascism will play in those alignments? Remember the Appeasers may try a hook-up with Islamofascists merely for oil. Oil is the principle economy cog internationally at the present.

But if oil/petroleum dependence is lessened by inventive alternatives, then what will happen? So many roads to choose; the end in mind is to far away to make the rational choice on the road to travel.

Did Someone Screw up?


Andy McCarthy of NRO’s The Corner questions the release of information that led to the death of al Zarqawi. Stuart Buck of The Buck Stops Here questions and wonders of the motive as well.

Andy McCarthy is right — if this New York Times story about the killing of Zarqawi is true, it is absolutely unbelievable that someone at the Pentagon, as well as the Times itself, would burn a good intelligence asset that way. If (and I do emphasize that "if") it’s true that someone at the Pentagon leaked that we have an informant highly placed inside Al Qaeda, that Pentagon official should go to jail for a very long time.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that this might be a disinformation campaign. I guess I agree; surely no one at the Pentagon would be so idiotic as to think he could get away with exposing a source inside Al Qaeda in this way.

America is curious on how an enemy of Americans and Iraqis was taken down or at least I was curious. On the other hand, if the account is true and not disinformation, it may have been better to release the information at a better date in which American Intelligence resources are protected. If there are Mohammedans wavering in their blind allegiance to terrorizing innocent people in the name of Mohammed American Intelligence would want to create a scenario to encourage coming forth with information. McCarthy and Stuart Buck are correct: publicizing an account in this fashion would discourage future informants.

The Left Wants to Enfranchise Felons and Pedophiles


 Clinton/Kerry Want to Enable Voting for Convicts and Felons. I report how Clinton and Kerry tried to slide legislation on a federal level through the Senate.
 
Now the ACLU and CURE are trying to work the Courts.

Apparently the ACLU is using the Courts on a State level, for the left wing organization had filed suit in Colorado to enfranchise Felon and Pedophile parolees. Fortunately the case was thrown out of court on the first go around by the ACLU. Another leftwing group with the acronym of CURE (Citizens United for Rehabilitation for Errants) had joined in the law suit.

Google Censors Criticism of Radical Islam


I am probably weighing in late with this: Google is dumping news feeds that are critical of radical Mohammedanism. Which means oranizations with clout such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) are noting complaints that such critical information is disseminating via Google.

When many of the legitimate news sites (though not MSM) inquired to Google, they were told their news feeds were promoting hate speech and so they have been deleted.

Here are a few examples of Google cited as hate speech columns:

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/peck/05102006.htm
Have any of you noticed over the past few years that page after page in your daily newspapers is filled with the latest dysfunctional happenings caused by – or as a result of – the seemingly maniacal Muslim world? Honestly, I cannot open a paper or turn on the television without seeing mobs of Muslim savages celebrating in front of burning embassies, a school, a restaurant or those stupid tires they seem to think are so impressive to burn . And, don’t you just love those scenes of men in black ski masks, racing through the streets, shooting guns in the air or standing behind some terrified captive getting ready to be-head him or her?

Lord, did we have a life before the Taliban? I wonder. Is this an improvement from a few of years ago when we saw Western dignitaries sitting in yucky caves in Afghanistan, wearing Armani suits and Bally shoes; at the table sitting with them, a dirty rag-towel wearing ‘War Lords ‘ (tell me, isn’t that an 7th century concept ?), eating road kill for din-din and making plans to stop the Al Qaeda. Come to think of it, before 9/11, we never heard of words like Al Qaeda, Taliban, Jihad, Homeland Security or any other of the new vocabulary that they’ve taught us.
************
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/stock/05082006.htm
There are people in America who still do not realize that our country is at war. This is astounding considering all of the threats that Islamic terrorists and leaders have been issuing lately. These unenlightened folks consider President Bush the enemy, so Bush is actually fighting a war on two fronts. One is with Islam, the real enemy, and the other is with American leftists who are more concerned about regaining their power than the safety of the country. Sometimes it’s difficult to sort out which is more dangerous.
**************
http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/imani/04222006.htm
“In science it often happens that scientists say, you know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken, and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion”. – Carl Sagan

As has been said, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Islam in general, forbids lying. The Quran says, "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28. In the Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, "Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell." However, this has not been the case in Islam. Islam is based on big lies and contradictions.

The biggest scam in Islam, especially Shi’a Islam is perhaps the notion of “Taqqiyeh”, an immoral tactic to lie for a good cause and later retract your words. (The belief that the end justifies the means) Islam is all about schemes, war and violence.

Prophet Mohammed was an extremely violent man, a man of war. Historically, Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. The opposite is true of Prophet Muhammad. That is why we see so many suicide bombers in our era. They simply are following what the prophet of Islam had planned for them. Islam rewards those who become martyrs with 72 virgins. So sex is what the Arab Muslim murderers die for. It is all about sex. This must tell us a lot about the prophet’s own appetite for sex. He did not spare anyone; even 9 year old girls were not immune to his sexual wrath. Worshiping a sex-maniac and a child molester? I think NOT.

Though some of these articles may offend Mohammedans, it is not reported as malice. It is the reporting of fact from Mohammedan documents and Mohammedan acts. Is that hate speech or informed opinion?

Legitimate Conservative bloggers and journalists have been placed on this restriction.
Some names such as Michelle Malkin, The Jawa Report and MichNews.com are a few others.

The Search engine giant is telling America if you are Conservative and recognize the dysfunction of Mohammenanism you cannot be a part of their newsfeed. Google is an independent corporation and it is their right to prohibit what is on their operated sites, however it demonstrates a lack of credibility to promote a Liberal agenda and dispose Conservative opinion. If Google would come out and overty proclaim that is a Liberal organization that politically supports the Democratic Party agenda that would be a different matter.

The fact is a significant amount of Googles upper level staff indeed financially support the Democratic Party (as is their right), however to portray themselves as a balanced giant in the market place and prohibit a Conservative view on their news feed is the opposite of their motto: "Don’t be evil." If Google definition of "evil" Conservative politics and Christian free speech, then I guess they are within their bounds. If their definition of "evil" is like the dicitionary:

NOUN:
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader’s power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

Then Google is way off base. Conservatives and Christians consider Liberals and Mohammedans as evil. Google in marketing to both should be fair and balanced in allowing both critiques from both camps on their news feed.

There are many sources of this Google expostion, the news feed I found concerning this WorldNetDaily. Go HERE to read their article on this information.

Just Say No… To Bilingual Ballots


Newt Gingrich has an e-newsletter called "Winning the Future." Gingrich covers a few political subjects, however the one I found of interest is his point on bilingual ballots.
 
Thank God Newt is against bilingual ballots. English is the Official National Language of America. This greating melting plot of multiple nationalities have all learned English. The Hispanic legal immigrants should be no different. The illegal immigrants deserve NO special rights, privileges or benefits. Illegal immigrants are … ILLEGAL.
*************************

Legislation to reauthorize the historic Voting Rights Act contains a bad idea for America and for all our voting rights. It would continue to force certain counties to provide ballots and election materials in foreign languages.

Supporters say that requiring bilingual ballots strengthens our democracy by allowing everyone to participate. But the reality is the opposite. By sending the message that learning English isn’t important, bilingual ballots help consign immigrants to the margins of our democracy.

And Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity has pointed out another problem with the federal government’s requiring bilingual ballots: If only United States citizens can vote, and one of the requirements for being a citizen is that you learn English, why in the world would we need bilingual ballots? The answer, unfortunately, is election fraud. Non-citizens are using these ballots. How exactly does this strengthen our democracy?

Fifty-six members of the House have rightly called on Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) to remove the bilingual ballot requirement from the Voting Rights bill. Congress should just say "no" to bilingual ballots and "yes" to English-only federal election ballots.

Hastert Hears the Heartland: Enough With the Pork!

Just when it seems like Congress doesn’t understand the growing frustration of conservatives over pork-barrel spending, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives gives a sign that he, at least, is listening.

The Senate passed a $109-billion "emergency" spending bill last week. The word "emergency" is in quotation marks for a reason: The "emergencies" the pork-laden bill addresses include such items as $6 million to help sugar cane growers in Hawaii and $10 million to equip fishing boats with electronic logbooks.

All in all, the bill contains about $17 billion in pet projects. So House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) put his foot down. He called the bill "dead on arrival." And then Hastert decided to really speak his mind: "President Bush requested $92 billion for the War on Terror and some hurricane spending. The House used fiscal restraint, but now the Senate wants to come to the table with a tab that’s $17 billion over budget. The House has no intention of joining in a spending spree at the expense of American taxpayers."

Well done and well said, Speaker Hastert.

 

McCarthy’s Leak to MSM to Embarrass President Not Effect Change


 
Former (i.e. terminated) CIA employee Mary McCarthy apparent intended purpose for the leak was not based on liberal compassion. Her leak to the Press of Liberal Democratic Party intentions to do whatever it takes to embarrass President Bush.
 
This is a person that needs to be prosecuted for compromising National Security and publicly embarrassing American Allies. McCarthy was not a whistleblower for  the good of humanity, rather she is a felon promoting a political agenda of left wing politics damaging American credibility in the process.
 
The similarity to Watergate is amazing. Republicans broke into Democratic Party files to find info to discredit the DP agenda. The Republicans had a President resign over the cover-up the breakin. Here we have with McCarthy doing Democratic Party black ops to discredit a Republican President.
 
The termination of McCarthy’s employment is getting off easy. She needs to prosecuted and held accountable for her actions!
************

Monday, April 24, 2006

Why Was Leaking the First Choice for Mary McCarthy?

 

Captain Ed has a good post on all the things that the CIA leaker could have done if she was upset about the administration’s policies in the war on terror. It is a canard to say that she had to leak as a matter of conscience.

In fact, McCarthy had several options, none of which it appears she used. First, as Kerr mentions, she had the option of raising her concerns with senior CIA officials, up to Porter Goss. She could have then gone to the State Department to discuss it with their intelligence liaisons, especially since the information she revealed had the potential to damage relations with key allies — which it did when she released it to the press. McCarthy could have gone to the White House as well. Perhaps she considered that a waste of time, but without having attempted it, she wouldn’t have any idea whether the White House would have addressed her concerns.

At the end of all those options, if she still couldn’t get her concerns addressed, she could have gone to the ranking members of the two Congressional committees on intelligence or the Armed Services committees.

The fact that she didn’t even try these alternatives seems to indicate that her desire was more to embarrass the President than to effect a change in the policy.

Meanwhile Democratic politicians are trying to spin some sort of parallelism between her leak and the President declassifying information to refute the claims of Joe Wilson. And the media will go along with that argument without bothering to point out that the President did not leak the information in the National Intelligence Briefing to harm Valerie Plame but to refute the lies that Joseph Wilson had been spreading. And there is a deep difference between the President declassifying material and a CIA employee leaking still classified material. But, such subtleties seem to be beyond Senator Kerry.

Russian Intelligence


There has been news floating around for some time that indicates the Russians attempted to aid Saddam Hussein’s regime with military intelligence pertaining to America’s invasion.
 
There have been hints that America had known that Putin was duplitious and was fed bogus American troop strategies knowing Russia would betray America. This became part of the shock and awe, Hussein thought America was coming one way and they came another.
 
It is almost humorous that America knew what a so-called ally (Russia) would actually do. The lesson is serious though, America cannot trust Russia. Russia obviously is following its own National Interest. That National Interest deviates from the America’s National Interest or Russia would not be continously attempting to undermine the War on Terror. Russia is constantly fraternizing with Islamofascist Iran. The Ruskies have even had invited consultations with Hamas – a particular murderous terrorist organization. One wonders if they have contact al Qaeda in anyway, Russian moves would indicate that possibility.
******************

Russian Intelligence

When it comes to his friend Vlad, President Bush always seems ready to forgive and forget

Tuesday, March 28, 2006; Page A22

WashingtonPost.com 

 

YOU’D THINK that evidence that a supposedly friendly country had delivered detailed military intelligence to an American enemy at a time of war would quickly provoke a reaction from the U.S. government: at the least, a demand for a full explanation, followed by a reassessment of relations with that country. But that’s not how the Bush administration handles Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

For some time the administration has been in possession of captured Iraqi documents describing how the Russian ambassador in Baghdad supplied Saddam Hussein with information about U.S. troop movements before and during the invasion of Iraq, including the critical intelligence that U.S. forces planned to bypass Iraqi cities and press through the "Karbala Gap" to Baghdad.

Yet it was not until they were questioned about the documents on national television over the weekend that senior national security officials offered that they would ask the Russian government about them. And even that was qualified.

"I do think we have to look at the documents and look very carefully," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "But I don’t want of jump out ahead and start making accusations about what the Russians may or may not have known." Fair enough, but a Pentagon study has already been through at least part of that exercise. It found no reason to doubt the documents’ authenticity.

The news that Moscow would have helped Saddam Hussein fight U.S. forces might be unwelcome to those administration officials who still try to portray Mr. Putin as a partner of the West and a worthy host for the next summit of the Group of Eight nations. But it shouldn’t be surprising. As has been well documented, Russia did its best to weaken and then break the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq, and then to prevent the 2003 invasion. In exchange it reaped lucrative economic concessions from Saddam Hussein, including the payment of large bribes to senior officials and politicians.

Moreover, Mr. Putin has done his best to undermine or defeat U.S. policies in much of the rest of the world. He has fought President Bush’s efforts to promote democracy in the Muslim countries of Central Asia, rushing to embrace the autocratic president of Uzbekistan when his massacre of opposition protesters led to a rift with Washington and the closure of an important U.S. air base. He welcomed the Islamic movement Hamas to Moscow just as the Bush administration was trying to arrange its international isolation. He is propping up the dictator of Belarus even as the United States and European Union impose sanctions on him for staging fraudulent elections.

Ms. Rice and other Putin apologists ignore all this in part because they believe Russia will be helpful in stopping Iran’s nuclear program. But Russia hasn’t been helpful. Since its compromise offer to allow Iran to enrich uranium in Russian facilities failed to gain traction, it has dedicated itself to blocking concerted action by the United States and its European allies in the U.N. Security Council. Meanwhile it is discussing the sale to Iran of surface-to-air missiles. As Mr. Putin knows, Iran wants those weapons in the event its drive to obtain nuclear bombs eventually leads to a military confrontation — with the United States. But the possible consequences of bolstering the defenses of a U.S enemy may not deter him. After all, he has suffered none for Russia’s actions in Iraq.

Hensarling-Paul “Bill” and Blog Freedom of Speech


SlantRight Blog

Here is a moment that Liberals, Conservatives, people of all Religions, atheists and so on can and must rally behind. The Hensarling-Paul Bill we ensure Freedom to blog on politics without threat of being closed by a disgruntled government or candidate. The government already has made manipulated religion by monetary threat. Any 501c non-profit organization, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Mohammedan, Buddhist, charitable or whatever cannot allow the espousal of politcal causes from their pulpits. The consequences are not criminal, the government knows that would be unconstitutional. The consequences are the loss of IRS non-profit status from the government rendering contributions as non-deductible on the old tax form.

There are some politicians in Congress that have began to fear the Word of Mouth of Blogs. They wish to come as close as possible to bypassing Freedom of Speech and actually making it a crime that will result in a blog being shut down SIXTY DAYS prior to an election! This has the potential to affect every spectrum of thought on the Blogosphere.

Call your Congressman to KEEP the Internet FREE!

Below is the same pitch from conservative Gun Owners of America. Forget the Conservative or find your liberal contact info and contact your Congressman.
—————————–
U.S. House Will Vote Soon on Whether to Ditch John McCain’s Internet Regulations

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Wednesday, March 15, 2006

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote, as early as Thursday, onlegislation introduced by Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and RonPaul. This bill (H.R. 1606) will exempt the Internet from regulationunder federal "electioneering" laws.

Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is successful, many major blogs andweb sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election– and for 30 days prior to any primary — making it much moredifficult for groups like Gun Owners of America to criticize
anti-guncandidates.

How did we arrive at such a dismal state?

You may remember that, a half-decade ago, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) pushed a McCain-Feingold bill which, as enacted, prohibitsorganizations from engaging in major "broadcast communications" whicheven mention a candidate in a favorable or unfavorable light within60 days of a general election (30 days of a primary).

Senate Republicans rolled over — and George Bush signed the bill –based on the assumption that the Supreme Court would surely save themfrom their unconstitutional legislation. But, in McConnell v.Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), the Supreme Court,by a five-to-four decision, upheld McCain-Feingold, almost in its entirety.

To its enormous credit, the conservative Federal Election Commission(FEC), in the wake of the McConnell case, moved to narrowly interpretthe statute — exempting the Internet entirely from McCain-Feingold.But in Shays v. Federal Election Commission, 337 F.Supp.2d 28 (D.C.,20004), a federal judge ordered the FEC to regulate the Internet.

The FEC is doing everything in its power to minimize the impact ofthe Shays ruling.

But, there is certainly a danger that, if Hensarling and Paul areunsuccessful in exempting the Internet from FEC regulation, manymajor blogs and web sites will be construed to be engaged in"electioneering communications" because they praise or criticizecandidates. And, if this happens, they could be shut down for 60days prior to an election — or, at least, subject to a "gag rule" onwhat they are allowed to say.

ACTION: Contact your congressman. Ask him to vote for H.R. 1606, a bill to exempt the Internet from McCain-Feingold. Time is short, so please CALL rather than e-mail your representative. (You can use the sample text below to help direct your comments.) The toll-free number to call your representative is 877-762-8762. If you can’t get through, the Capitol Switchboard number is 202-225-3121.

—– Sample phone text —–
The U.S. House of Representatives will soon vote on H.R. 1606, a bill by introduced by Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and Ron Paul to exempt the Internet from regulation under federal "electioneering"laws.Unless the Hensarling-Paul bill is successful, many major blogs and web sites could be shut down for 60 days before any general election– and for 30 days prior to any primary.
Please support H.R. 1606.