New York Times - Uncredible

At one time the New York Times was what they claim to be on their banner, "The Paper of Record." That must have been a long time ago because for at least that last 15-20 years the NYT has simply been a leftist publication which lacks any credibility with the majority of Americans. Very few Americans take the NYT seriously any more and they have good reason not to.

To prove that thesis, if the majority of Americans believed in what the New York Times wrote they would never have elected George W. Bush for a second term. The NYT was leading the charge for the Democratic Party to do as much as they could to discredit Bush and influence the electoral process. If you agreed with the NYT you had to vote for Kerry. It didn't happen. In fact, Bush won by a much larger margin than the last election (thankfully) and gained the most votes of any US President in history.

Has the NYT learned from their mistakes? Of course not. Until you replace the Paul Krugmans, Maureen Dowds, and other leftists from the ranks of writers for the NYT and replace them with journalists on both sides of the political spectrum you will continue to have the politically correct garbage and inaccurate reporting you have now. That is not going to happen anytime soon or possibly ever. They have made their bed and they are comfortable in it.

Yes, the paper of record is now the paper of distortion. Read it at your own risk.

CNN - US Military Targets Journalists

Eason Jordan, one of the senior news executives of CNN, believes that the US military is deliberately targeting particular journalists in Iraq. He said this at an international conference. Here is a portion of an article written about the meeting by a reporter who was there and heard the comments.

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience.

This is how over-the-top the mainstream media is in their beliefs about conservatives and the US military. This is a clear demonstration of the contempt the media has for the brave men and women who are risking their lives for our protection in Iraq. This CNN executive is not only denying their sacrifice, he is demonizing our soldiers and Marines by accusing them of deliberately murdering journalists.

There is absolutely no excuse for his behavior nor is there any reason that the other MSM stations are not even mentioning what Jordan said. Fox News was the only one to mention it but only once. Bloggers are covering it and CNN has issued a quasi-apology about being misunderstood. Sure.

Anyone who still believes the mainstream media is objective and unbiased must also still believe in the tooth fairy.

CNN's rating have been dropping like a rock over the last few years while Fox News Channel has been surging ahead. Ted Turner was so upset about it that he referred to the Fox News staff as "Nazis." I think it is becoming obvious to everyone why CNN is failing and Fox News is winning. Eason Jordan and his like at CNN has just shown us again why we should never tune in to CNN.

Martha Stewart and Ethics

I have just read that Martha Stewart will be hosting a new Apprentice show with the full blessings of NBC, the TV network who is broadcasting it. This is a woman who has been found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements. Oh well, I guess no one is perfect. Of course she should be honored by getting her own Apprentice program.

What is the message this sends to our young people about ethics?

If you think about that question very long the answer is obvious. It tells our young people that whether or not you are ethical doesn't matter as long as you have enough money, power or at the very least, friends in high places. In the general sense, it makes us appear hypocritical if we advise them not to lie or cheat. I agree that anyone who serves their time for a crime they committed should not be hounded for the rest of their life for it. On the other hand, they should not be glorified as a shining example of womanhood right after they get out of prison either.

I admire what Martha Stewart did in building her business and achieving great financial success. That is what makes her crime so stupid, she didn't need the money. I don't admire Martha Stewart for sitting on the Board of Directors for the New York Stock Exchange and then engaging in illegal activities to try to keep from losing some money. She knew better and did it anyway.

A recent study showed that 75% of high school children had cheated on their exams in school. This was up from 25% in the sixties and 50% in the eighties. The trend is certainly not going in the right direction. We encourage children and young people to lie, steal and cheat because when certain adults do it we either rationalize their behavior or say it is no big deal. Until we change our treatment of those in high places who are unethical, our own message of ethics will be diluted to the point of being ineffective.

Unless we start showing that we take ethical behavior seriously and that it does have long-term negative consequences, our young people will continue to cheat to get ahead. The message we definitely should not be sending them is that if they are unethical enough, they may get their own national TV show.

Kennedy - Moral Leader?

Should we listen to Ted Kennedy when he tries to speak with moral authority about such issues as Iraq and whether or not President Bush is lying? Is Kennedy the moral leader the Democratic Party needs at this time? After all, didn't the last election show us that the American people respect values after all and can see through a candidate that lacks them vs. one who has them?

Ted Kennedy has told us that Iraq is a quagmire like Vietnam. Yet, wasn't it Ted Kennedy's brother, John F. Kennedy, as President who first got us into Vietnam? In fact, wasn't it the Democratic Party led by Kennedy and Johnson who pursued the entire strategy of the Vietnam War through several presidential administrations only to be pulled out by a Republican president, Richard Nixon? Was Ted Kennedy calling Vietnam a quagmire back then? I don't think so.

Is this the same Ted Kennedy that went to a party, had too much to drink and then plunged his car into the Chappaquiddick river with Mary Jo Kopechne in it and refused to notify authorities for nine hours after the event because he did not want to be caught driving under the influence? Unfortunately, during that nine hours Mary Jo Kopechne drowned in the back seat of the car on the bottom of the river while Kennedy slept off his drunk at a local hotel. By the time the authorities were notified, there was nothing they could do to save the young woman.

Then our new Democratic moral leader is the same Kennedy who, when faced with a moral decision of either saving a young woman's life and damaging his political career or letting her die and keeping his career, chose the latter. This is the moral leader who lied to the police about his whereabouts on that tragic night and he says he knows the truth about Iraq? This is the moral leader who knows best when to bring the troops home for their safety but couldn't get police or firefighters help for a young woman who may still have been alive in the Chappaquiddick river?

Ted Kennedy is the reason I changed my political registration away from the Democratic Party. Anyone who feels this man has the moral standing to challenge an honest and Christian man like President Bush has their values completely backward. In 1984 terms, you must believe that right is wrong and peace is war to believe that Ted Kennedy is a moral man, let alone a moral leader.

Bush's Inaugural Dreams

You cannot achieve great things without taking great risks.

George W Bush has spoken of an audacious dream of liberty for all the people in the world. This is a noble long-term goal that he knows, and his advisors know, will not be achieved during his tenure as an American President.

But what a dream it is.

As all successful business people know, unless you have a vision, you will never succeed in business. This axiom applies to politics as well. Bush's vision, which will be derided by the mainstream press and laughed at by European sophisticates, is that all people of the world should be allowed to live in liberty and have a voice in the political future of their respective countries. What an incredible vision which, if ever obtained, would completely change the world.

Some say that President Wilson had a similar vision and failed, as did President Kennedy. So I guess the lesson they wish us to learn is that if at first you don't succeed - quit. What about trying again and again and again?

Give liberty a chance and we may find peace. Let the world be ruled by democracies instead of tinpot dictators and we will have a safer world. At the very least, we should not give in to liberal pessimism trumpeted by the likes of Ted Kennedy. Natan Sharansky has written a book called "The Case for Democracy" which outlines a compelling argument that validates this whole thesis.

Iraqis will vote by the millions this weekend as the second example of democracy taking hold in a Muslim country. The MSM will downplay the validity only because the Sunnis are not voting. Who cares? The Sunnis had their feet on the necks of the rest of the country for so many years, why should we care if they vote or not? They bomb and kill innocent Iraqis trying to find work and then say "it is not safe enough to vote." Now they are saying "don't blame us if you are hurt or killed when you vote" even though they are the ones planting the bombs or at least knows who is. Doesn't anyone understand how ridiculous that sounds?

Democracy can change the world into a safer and more prosperous place. In fact, if the world is ever to see true world peace, I believe it will only happen if all countries are democracies. For those who really desire peace, you should be supporting the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Iranians and any others who wish to be free. Yes, it will cost money and American lives but isn't world peace worth it?

It's Not My Fault

I have just finished watching a defense attorney on Fox News who, in all seriousness, said that her client (a teenage boy) should not have been prosecuted for beating his pregnant girlfriend's (also a teenager) abdomen with a baseball bat in order to abort their baby. He was successful in killing the baby inside his girlfriend with this tactic and they subsequently secretly buried the remains of the dead baby in their backyard.

Their attorney's argument is that the two teenagers were given bad advice by two crisis hotlines they called and therefore they should not be held responsible for their actions. What an excellent example the legal profession is setting for the other teenagers in our society. No matter how horrendous the action you take to kill a unwanted fetus, we will always make excuses for you by making sure everyone understands that it is not your fault. We will use our years of training in college and law school to make sure you are not held accountable for your actions. Not only are you not accountable, you are the "victim" of an over zealous prosecutor who doesn't seem to understand that killing a fetus with a baseball bat is perfectly acceptable.

And we wonder why no one takes responsibility for their actions any longer. Gee, I wonder why...

What People's Choice?

The so-called "people's choice" awards were on tonight (something I never watch for reasons explained soon) and you have to really wonder about the voting system for these awards. Michael Moore's farce of "Fahrenheit 911" was voted most favorite movie (equivalent to best movie in Oscar terms) and Ellen Degeneres was voted funniest female star and also best day time talk show host (she actually won two of these 'awards'). Where do they get the people who vote like this?

We just had a presidential election that proved, once and for all, the majority of the people in the country (around 60 million of them) like George Bush and approve of his job as President. Yet, the People's Choice award staff expect us to believe that the "people" like Michael Moore's fraud of a documentary above all other movies in 2004? I don't think so. It is clear that the deck is stacked in favor of those celebrated liberals of the left who never get tired of patting themselves on the back about how incredibly smart and talented they are.

This is why any of these 'awards' such as the Oscar, People's Choice, Pulitzer Prize and even the Nobel Prize in some fields have become so politicized that, in general, conservatives or Republicans need not even apply. Unless you are a liberal and leftist, the chance of your success being recognized by mainstream media and other professional awards is very slim indeed. Why has Bruce Willis never won or even been nominated for an Oscar? He is politically conservative. Why don't conservative writers even get mentioned for a Pulitzer? They're conservative and therefore, by liberal definition, not intelligent enough to win a Pulitzer. For the same reason our universities are filled with liberal professors who only hire other liberal professors, other professions are moving in lock step just as the Nazi's used to. In universities, in newspaper newsrooms, in major media TV anchor slots, unless you share their political worldview you will never get the job, not to mention recognition, that you deserve no matter how talented you may be. For the Nazis, you had to belong to the Nazi party to have an opportunity. For contemporary America, you need to belong to the liberal groupthink to get professional recognition or even an entry level job.

For those who watch this junk TV, they probably don't care that the system is rigged and the award meaningless. That is, nonetheless, the reality of these kinds of shows. They will never tell us who the really talented are because they leave out any actor, writer, journalist or professor who does not dance to their political tune. Therefore the show should be called the "Liberal People's Choice After Eliminating All Conservatives Award." At least that would be honest.

Design-a-God

There seems to be a movement of people who wish to make God into whatever they want him (or her) to be. Some people want God to be just love. Others want a God that will never sit in judgement of them but accept whatever they want to do. The common thread of this movement, which can be quite varied, is that these people decide who God is and what morality God accepts.

In other words, the people who are designing God (usually in their own image) are also throwing off the accumulated wisdom and revelation of traditional religion and deciding for themselves what our moral structures should be and how religion should be practiced. In a very real sense, they are taking the place of God. They are the ones making the decisions, not God. Logic would also tell you that they then consider themselves God or at least they consider themselves with God-like powers such as the ability to discern true morality.

I have no objection to individuals rejecting deism or the existence of God. God gave us free will so that we could make that choice ourselves. What does not make any sense, however, is that individuals would replace God with their own image of what they think God should be, not what he is. Narcissism is defined as excessive self-admiration. One would have to be narcissitic to believe that they can replace God with their own wisdom. By deciding for God what God should believe is to replace God's thinking with their own. They are elevating themselves to the status of God - no - actually above God because their sense of morality is higher than that of traditional God-inspired or revealed morality. What kind of ego must a person have to do that?

No, God cannot be whatever we want God to be. As God says, "I am." He is what he is. You can reject God or accept him but you cannot design God into your own personal deity.

Islamic Terrorism Defined

It is now official, the Mosul, Iraq attack against the US military base messhall where hundreds of American troops were gathered for a noon meal was caused by a suicide bomber. Over twenty people were killed and sixty-nine others wounded according to the most recent figures for casualties in this attack. Naturally, as a consequence, security will be tightened and people more thoroughly checked on US bases in Iraq with this gruesome reminder that Islamic terrorism is our true enemy.

Why does this all sound familiar? It's familiar because Israel has been going through this for years while the world has made excuses for the Palestinians/Arabs and attacked Israel for it's behavior in trying to stop suicide bombers. The Netanya suicide bombing by an Islamic terrorist killed twenty-nine people sitting down for a Passover meal in Israel in 2002. When I was in Israel in 2003, I visited a bar near the Tel Aviv beachfront called Mike's Place. A week after I left Israel a pair of suicide bombers attacked the same bar and killed several patrons while wounding many more. It was only through the heroic efforts of a security guard at the entrance that prevented many more innocent deaths.

The world thought that Israel alone was going to be target for Islamic terrorism and they could ignore it, or even worse, excuse it by blaming the Israeli government. The US had this same approach until 9-11. Some of the wiser pundits compared Israel to the proverbial canary in the mine shaft. Unfortunately, they were absolutely right. Our enemy is not Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, Palestinian radicals, Chechnyan rebels, Indonesian extremists, or any other name the media uses. Our enemy is Islamic terrorism which is not defined by one nation, one people or one race. It is defined by it's religion and it's political goal which is fascism.

Just as with other fascists, Islamic fascism must be defeated, not negotiated with. Islamic fascists do not want to negotiate with you but they will give you a choice - convert or die. We must defeat this fascism as we defeated the Nazis in WWII in order to bring true peace to the world. Those who support our troops in Iraq and their mission represent the honest "peace party" because they know this is the only way to achieve peace in the long run. The short run will be difficult and painful, just as it was in WWII, but the goal is an honorable and worthy one.

Hanukkah and Nativity Scenes

This is the time of year that political correctness goes bananas. People and organizations use the excuse "we don't want to offend anyone" to try to remove all Christian symbols from the public square. This is not about anyone feeling offended but more about secular power flexing it's muscles.

Let's look at that phrase "we don't want to offend anyone." You can use this excuse to ban almost anything. That is exactly the point. The people and organizations, like the ACLU, are using this broad language to push their own agendas, not because they are sincerely interested in protecting anyone's rights. We hear this phrase over and over again but it only applies to Christianity and Christian symbols, not Muslim, Jewish or anyone else. Why is that? Is anyone offended by a public menorah celebrating Hanukkah?

Here in the Northwest the city of Portland, Oregon has a tradition of putting a huge Christmas tree (soon to be Holiday Tree?) in the public square downtown and also allow the lighting of a large menorah for Hanukkah. No nativity scene is allowed because it is too religious. What about the menorah which is lighted each night by a rabbi? Is that not religious? What if a Christian was offended?

This exact same case was recently decided by a Florida court where a woman wanted to put a nativity scene along side an existing menorah display on city property and was denied by the city council. She went to court and the city tried to argue that a menorah is not a religious symbol. They lost. The nativity scene will now be added to the public square as it should. To most Jews, the idea that the menorah has no spiritual meaning to the Jewish people is ridiculous but it shows how far the secularists and anti-Christians will go to remove true Christian symbols from public buildings and squares.

Diversity should be the celebration of all faiths and ideologies, not the suppression of the majority religion and elevation of everything else. This is the view of the proud politically incorrect. And to be even more politically incorrect we want to wish everyone a very "Merry Christmas!"

The New/Old Target - Rumsfeld

It is typical for the mainstream media to have a political target that they choose and then gang up on. The current target is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (not a new one) and his supposed crime of being blunt with a soldier about armored Humvees. Rumsfeld was right that you cannot protect everyone simply by upgrading armor. We recently read of a young soldier from Oregon that was killed while in a M-1 tank. The M-1 is the most powerful tank in the world with the best in armor plating but was still damaged by a IED in Iraq which cost the life of this brave young man.

As usual, all the facts you can throw at the mainstream media will not deter their course. Once they had decided on a target, like junkyard dogs, they go after the throat. The only remedy is for the public to be educated by non-traditional media sources that do not have a political agenda or at least tell the other side of the story. Thank God for the internet and our ability to communicate with each other exclusive of the what the mainstream press desires to serve up for us.

Rumsfeld is also being criticized for not personally signing letters to the families of those military citizens who have been killed in Iraq. Although this seems to be a petty criticism and hardly worth mentioning among all the important duties of a Secretary of Defense during a period of war, if President Bush has the time to do so, then Rumsfeld should as well. It would be interesting to research if any other Secretary of Defense has machine-signed these letters during other conflicts such as Vietnam, Korea and WWII. Frankly, I think you would find that the SOD during those wars did not personally sign each letter so why does this criticism have so much coverage by the media? Could it be sharks circling in the water?