Sunday, June 26, 2005

New Jersey Congressman Rush Holt = Anti-Semite?

I've discussed the Democratic anti-Semetic hatefest held at DNC headquarters (here; among others); but I was shocked to learn my own Congressman, Rush Holt, was a proud attendee. Eric Fetterman names names of those whom stood by silently as verbal atrocities were committed in their name:

The reaction of the House Democrats — some 30 in all, by that point — to McGovern's tirade?

Silence, the transcript shows.

Not a word of protest. Not a word of disagreement.

Nothing from John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who chaired the session. Nothing from legislators like Jerrold Nadler, of Manhattan's West Side. Or Harlem's Charlie Rangel, or Greg Meeks of Queens, or Barney Frank of Massachusetts or Rush Holt from New Jersey.

Meanwhile, reports Milbank, over at Democratic headquarters, activists handed out documents containing accusations that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks.

I have sent the following letter to Mr. Holt:

I was shocked to see your name listed as an attendee of the infamous Democratic "mock impeachment", where anti-semetic literature was freely distributed by groups invited to the event by the DNC, and where vile anti-semetic canards were espoused without reply by speakers "testifying" at this event.
Most disappointing of all, is that my congressman did not have the courage to speak out against this rascist behavior, nor condemn it afterward. My only conclusion is that you tactically approve of these viewpoints.

Well, Congressman, I do not approve of you creating an America where little children will be villified for their faith by the Democratic party. I have shared with my neighbors in the community (YOUR DISTRICT!)these interesting developments in your policy, and to say they were dismayed (all non-Jews, incidentally) would be putting it mildly. I intend to share this news with the Parent's groups of my local temple and elementary school as well. I will write letters to the local NJ papers, but given their ideological bent, it is unlikely they will see the light of day...

I would love an explanation of your silent approval of these anti-semetic policies. Better, an apology or a condemnation of them occuring under official Democratic auspices.
And if you cannot muster up that much strength, if you chose not to fight anti-semitism, can you at least stop promoting it?

Looking forward to your reply...

Holt formerly was a lab director at Princeton; a sister college intellectually to the Jew-hating Columbia. His congressional resume ( stinks of left-wing politcal correctness -

...currently sits on several caucuses, including those on Renewable Energy, Sustainable Development, Alzheimer’s, Diabetes, Biomedical Research, India and Indian-Americans, Hellenic and Greek-American affairs, Farmland Protection, Human Rights, and a Woman’s Right to Choose. Rep. Holt is also a member of the New Democrat Coalition.

- while his website highlights poor treatment of Arabs in the aftermath of 9/11 (little about terrorism, though). His congressional record, which shows him voting against anti-terrorism immigration legislation(, as well as essentially supporting a far-left agenda (, puts him way out of step with the citizenry of the majority of his district.

Rest assured, however, that his Ivy-Leauge pals and the drooling media ( a Princeton man? A former Jepoardy champion? The perfect intellectual elite!) support him fully; add in a district redrawn in 2002 to protect his seat (his '98/'00 voctories both by barely 1,000 votes), and you have an incumbant that will be difficult to unseat.

We'll try and keep him honest, though...Let's see if I get a reply...

Other Links: This guy is my anthesis - Holt scores 100% by the LCV on environmental issues here - ; Holt scores F by NRA on pro-gun rights policies; fVoted NO on authorizing military Force in Iraq; Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists;
Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol and Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR ttp:// He voted Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. But he CREATED a Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender(liberal code for putting the right TO gay marriage into the constitution) - all here

To the liberal nutbags, this is a great American, you see...

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Durbin's miserable "apology"...

...gets a fisking by The American Expatriot, who also exposes some selective reporting by the ever-faithful BBC:

...probably seeing that this was turning into a political nightmare, Durbin started his climb-down. Still not willing to make an actual apology, Durbin issued this damage control statement:

I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.

Unfortunately for Durbin, this was largely seen as the non-apology apology that it was. And the issue had blown up so much now that newspapers, including his home state's own Chicago Tribune, were starting to address the issue in editorials. So, yet again, he felt compelled to issue a statement yesterday, which the BBC has finally picked up. Still, Durbin couldn’t resist shading the apology just a bit, saying (unreported by the BBC):

Some may believe that my remarks crossed a line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.

Get it? He didn’t really cross the line, but he’s sincerely sorry if you think he did.

Link here:; cruise thru this blog, much of which depicts foreign media coverage of the United States, and you may start to understand "why they hate us"...

Friday, June 24, 2005

The Great Oriana Fallaci

Europe is no longer Europe, it is 'Eurabia,' a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense. Servility to the invaders has poisoned democracy, with obvious consequences for the freedom of thought, and for the concept itself of liberty.

So says the great European author and thinker Oriana Fallaci, whom is under indictment in Italy for writing a book that - gasp! - was critical of Islam. In her seventies, living in New York while battling cancer, she spits sharply in the eyes of those whom would silence her:

"When I was given the news," Ms. Fallaci says of her recent indictment, "I laughed. Bitterly, of course, but I laughed. No amusement, no surprise, because the trial is nothing else but a demonstration that everything I've written is true."

She is in a black gloom about Europe and its future: "The increased presence of Muslims in Italy, and in Europe, is directly proportional to our loss of freedom."

A brave women and a great thinker, exiled from Europe for the expression of her thoughts in her book "The Force of Reason"...are these the great freedoms the EU is offering their citizens? My God, did France actually save Europe by starting a revolution against the constitution? Or is there yet far worse to come?

Link to WSJ essay on Fallaci here

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Our Intellectual and Moral Superiors!

The Germans, of course - David Medienkritik tells us a tale, entitled:

German Diplomat Describes Civil Rights in the USA as "on a par with those of North Korea"

We at Davids Medienkritik are not easily impressed by bad behavior from German elites. After all, we've seen and reported on a lot in the past. But we were simply blown-away by what we read in a recent Wall Street Journal piece by Bret Stephens:

The article, entitled, "The German Chair: A tale of torture at the hands of an America-hating diplomat", details Mr. Stephens harrowing conversation with a relatively prominent official from the German Consulate General in New York during a recent social call to his Manhattan apartment. The remarks of the German diplomat were so outrageous and over-the-top that it is difficult to understand how he received his position in the first place, even by German standards.

"....the diplomat had no patience for my small talk. Apropos of nothing, he said he had recently made a study of U.S. tax laws and concluded that practices here were inferior to those in Germany. Given recent rates of German economic growth, I found this comment odd. But I offered no rejoinder. I was, after all, a guest in his home.

The diplomat, however, was just getting started. Bad as U.S. economic policy was, it was as nothing next to our human-rights record. Had I read the recent Amnesty International report on Guantanamo? "You mean the one that compared it to the Soviet gulag?" Yes, that one. My host disagreed with it: The gulag was better than Gitmo, since at least the Stalinist system offered its victims a trial of sorts.

Nor was that all. Civil rights in the U.S., he said, were on a par with those of North Korea and rather behind what they had been in Europe in the Middle Ages. When I offered that, as a journalist, I had encountered no restrictions on press freedom, he cut me off. "That's because The Wall Street Journal takes its orders from the government."

Link here:
Lots of ways to let the Germans know what you think of their diplomats...and them.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

The New American Nazi Party!

....Is the Democratic Party!

So what are we to make of Thursday's mock Judiciary Committee hearing designed to impeach President Bush, conducted by Michigan Congressman John Conyers? The meeting was attended by about 30 Democratic members of Congress. Among them were Jewish members, such as Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, New York Congresswoman Nita Lowey, and Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowski. As reported in the Washington Post but (surprise, surprise!) not in the New York Times,

The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. 'The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.
The event organizer,, distributed stickers saying "Bush lied/100,000 people died." One man's T-shirt proclaimed, "Whether you like Bush or not, he's still an incompetent liar," while a large poster of Uncle Sam announced: "Got kids? I want yours for cannon fodder."

So the Democrats in Congress are now giving voice and credibility to the view that Israel was responsible for the Iraq war. And other Democrats, watching the hearing at the DNC, are hosting anti-Semites who argue that Israel had advance warning of the 9/11 attacks and is therefore responsible for allowing the attacks to occur. And even deeper into familiar anti-Semitic tropes: that Israelis withheld the information so as to benefit financially.
This sounds exactly like classic anti-Semitism. These messages were not being conveyed on anti-Semitic web sites, or on Palestinian TV and radio on Thursday, but at a Democratic function from a meeting room in Congress, with more than 10% of the Democrats in Congress in attendance, and at Democratic National Headquarters.

A new low in American Political History.

Link here:

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Chickens, roosting...

I've said for a long time that the Democratic party was the party of American Anti-Semitism. John Kerry's inability to mention Isreal on the campaign trail (part of his twisted campaign to woo Muslim Michigan voters), the party's support of proud Jew hater Congesswomen Cynthia McKinney(GA.), and their embrace of the far-left wing views of radical fringe, were all signs of trouble. So here we go today; from a "mock hearing" held by Congressional Democrats:

The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration “neocons” so “the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.” He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

“Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,” McGovern said. “The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.”

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq’s threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his “candid answer.”

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations — that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an “insider trading scam” on 9/11 — that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

The event organizer,

The Democrats have taken the vilest part of our enemy's propoganda; and turned it on our own people.

This, just a day after Illinois Senator Dick Durbin compared out soldiers to Nazis.

Racist, anti-semetic traitors, all....

Link via LGF:
Read all about Durbin here - "THE TREACHEROUS DICK DURBIN"

"Gitmo Cocktail"

THE demands to shut down our Guantanamo lock-up for terrorists have nothing to do with human rights. They're about punishing America for our power and success. starts Ralph Peters' brilliant article on the hue and cry concerning Guantanamo.

The Gitmo controversy is about many things, from jealousy of the United States and outrage that we refuse to fail, to residual anger that we won the Cold War and exploded the left's great fantasy of a dictatorship of the intellectuals.

They'll keep trying to gain control of Europe, here's where Peters draws his battle lines:

The truth is that the terrorists and their defenders have something in common. It's not courage, which is one quality violent fanatics don't lack. It's that neither can be appeased.

Any concession only increases their appetites. The Clinton administration's reluctance to respond to terrorist strikes encouraged al Qaeda. If the Bush administration closed the Guantanamo facility, any alternative holding center would be attacked just as rabidly and dishonestly.

If we put our captives up at the Four Seasons, we'd be condemned because somebody smelled bacon at breakfast.

Best. Analogy. Ever. I like the next one too - left-wing ideologues as fundamentalists!

You can't negotiate with terrorists. And you cannot reason with ideologues — whether they're Islamist fanatics or pathetic old lefties fishing for a cause to give meaning to squandered lives. Terrorists, French and German neo-Stalinists, and our own democracy-hating intelligentsia aren't interested in facts. It's all about the comfort of belief.

Now here's the key point, the one that decent Americans need to understand:

Let's get this straight: Nothing we could do would appease those who feel a need for our country to fail. We must stop trying to satisfy them.

Read it all here:

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Environ-Mental Cases

The only thing that the JerseyNut likes less than a moonbat liberal is one of those crunchy environ-nuts. Every little atmospheric change is a portend of disaster; all humanity’s fault, of course (who caused all those other Ice Ages I read about in school, anyway? Alien SUV drivers?). We must lose our cars, our industry, and our advanced way of life, in order to save the planet, no matter how many may die in the process.

That’s right – environmentalists are killing the one they claim to want to help, the poorest and most vulnerable. For example:
- DDT is a horrible chemical that could hurt the ecosystem, so it must be banned, right? Well, it was, and right next to AIDS, isn’t malaria the biggest killer in Africa? Almost unanimous expert opinion agrees that DDT spraying would save uncounted lives of the poor in these third world countries, but the environ-loons will have none of that. So die, poor Africans, but die in peace, knowing your demise is helping the cause…

- Wetlands must be preserved at all costs!!! Environmentalists have gotten the state of New Jersey to declare every freakin’ puddle a wetland, and what’s the result? West Nile virus, of course! But don’t worry; it only kills the most vulnerable, like the elderly, young children, and poor people with limited access to health care. But those puddles are preserved; so the relatives of the dead should take comfort…

- Trying to buy a house anywhere on the East Coast lately? Almost impossible unless you’re making $200K, already have a home to sell, or are willing to take on crushing personal debt. Why should housing be so limited, in a state with so much land to spare? Ask the environmentalists who are driving up the prices of housing by forcing extreme regulations (passed by their Democratic lackeys) on builders, who charge more due to limited lands and excessive costs brought on by these regulations. So home buying becomes completely priced out for the lower middle class, and their portion of the American dream is eliminated, but hey! Look at those marshy swamps! Aren’t they just the crunchiest?

- Forest Fires – how many die each year in them, both ordinary citizens and brave flame-jumpers? How much money is laid out by insurance companies (raising the costs for the rest of us) in restitutions? Well, maybe if those environ-mental nutjobs would allow us just to cut down some dead trees, we could save both lives, money, AND forests!!

Remember, the Democratic party is in the pocket of these nutjobs, so when you vote for them, you are voting for malaria death in Africa, West Nile death in America, exorbitant home prices and raging forest fires. All brought to you by your local Democratic party!

Too bad the mainstream media is all to ready to jump on board with all of this scientific and political bullspit. All we hear from the media is how bad Bush as been for the environment; yet I never see any cause/effect reports on his policies; the media only repeats the dire threats of these tree-huggers, and relies on their junk science to back their specious claims. But why are they covering for the untruths of these environmentalists, not shedding light on the results of their policies, and hiding the lies that the Clinton Administration pushed on the American people to further the environmentalists leftist agenda? No different from their war reporting, I guess…

My local rag, the Asbury Park Press, takes such efforts to side with these losers they are more of an advocacy periodical than an objective news source. Sunday’s main op-ed story details the reason while a commuter rail link should not be built through suburban New Jersey. This piece advocates adding buses in place of adding trains; using lies to justify their ruse:

...NJ Transit pointed out that the rail route distance from Lakewood to Manhattan via Monmouth Junction was 74 miles. (The junction is closer to Philadelphia than to New York.) In contrast, the highway distance from Lakewood to the Port Authority Bus Terminal and parking garage is only 56 miles. NJ Transit pointed out that with the change of trains required, the rail trip would take about two hours while highway congestion rarely added 10 minutes to a one-hour bus trip.

A rush-hour bus (6:34AM; yes, that’s rush hour in Jersey) from Lakewood to The Port Authority Terminal in Manhattan, according to a bus schedule found here actually takes one hour and 48 minutes. Liars. So the extra 10 minutes that the extra congestion “rarely” adds makes it a two hour trip, same as the bus. Except riding the rails is a much more fuel-efficient and environment- friendly than adding hundreds of bus lines. It seems like a chaotic position for some one to argue; but the Park-Press has it reasons for letting this one slip through the cracks…

From what I hear, the main opposition is from two different groups of tree-huggers: One fears that, literally, too many trees will be felled. The other wants to protect some sort of historic walking path that would be disrupted by a commuter rail line.

Whom does the Park-Press side with? Well, here’s a clue from another tidbit on the op-ed page -

Three cheers for acting Gov. Codey for designating 22 miles of the Shark River "category one," the highest level of protection for waterways. That will prevent any new construction within 300 feet of either side of the waterway or its tributaries.
Three developers with large projects could be adversely affected unless they secure necessary local approvals and state permits in about a week. The designation becomes official on June 20. One project, an outlet center, is opposed by the Asbury Park Press, which has filed two civil suits against it.

So the Park-Press is actively filing civil suits on behalf of the environment? A newspaper advocating an agenda is poor enough (but common enough, alas), but to actively engage in assisting this partisan agenda by printing columns with bald-faced lies unacceptable. It seems as if this newspaper must have some interest in the land that the railroad must go through (sounds like Blazing Saddles!); or is simply allowing itself to be used by these Jersey Greens as a conduit to push their own interests, no matter what the cost to the average New Jersey citizen.

The above is a classic example of the envoirnmentalists, with their cheerleaders in the media, committing the crimes against society I mentioned above - herd 'em onto endless bus rides! End plans to build housing! And don't you dare build that outlet mall, with all the tax revenue it would generate and the jobs it would create...

After all, we have trees to save.

Update: What's a post without a link? See here for an interesting story on how the New York Times demonizes Bush for having administration officials review internal environmental documents; but gives a complete pass on years of Clinton-era grandstanding done to keep the green left on board and to support the candidacy (and book sales) of Al Gore.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Questions on a Jersey Summer Eve...

Who said the following:

Right now we have a White House and a majority in Congress who are systematically weakening the democratic traditions and institutions on which this nation was built. They are turning back the clock; they are tearing down the building blocks of democracy ... turning the clock back on the 20th century. Turning the progress back beyond Franklin Roosevelt, even beyond Teddy Roosevelt."

Was it..
-Democratic Party leader/nutjob Howard Dean?
-Liberal Bombthrower Michael Moore?
-Hollywood patriot Sean Penn?
- Presidential Candidate-in-Waiting Hillary Clinton?
-Racist New York Democrat Charles Rangel?

I guessed Dean; I was wrong…see this story by Michael Goodwin to see who the culprit was; and how in tune they are with the psycho-left-fringe element of the Democratic party…

Did you know

Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consist of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

See Atlas Shrugs for the complete list; and for an explanation of why you do may not be aware of these milestones…

And are you one of the few that spends many a sleepless night staring up at the ceiling and wondering, “Why, why do they hate us?”??

Well, David Medienkritik can give you a reason:

A fictional crime drama based on the premise that the Bush administration ordered the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington aired this week on German state television, prompting the Green Party chairman (!?) to call for an investigation…

Sunday night's episode of "Tatort," a popular murder mystery that has been running on state-run ARD-German television for 35 years, revolved around a German woman and a man who was killed in her apartment.

According to the plot, which was seen by approximately 7 million Germans, the dead man had been trained to be one of the September 11 pilots but was left behind, only to be tracked down and killed by CIA or FBI assassins. The woman, who says in the program that the September 11 attacks were instigated by the Bush family for oil and power, then is targeted, presumably to silence her. The drama concludes with the German detectives accepting the truth of her story as she eludes the U.S. government hit men and escapes to safety in an unnamed Arab country.

As ludicrous as it may sound to most Americans, the tale has resonance in Germany, where fantastic conspiracy theories often are taken as fact…
The U.S. Embassy in Berlin was not impressed with the latest episode, which seemed to use haunting Arabic music to portray Arabs and Muslims as innocent victims of American aggression

Somewhere (in Hell), Herr Goebbels is smiling…
Link here:

Sunday, June 12, 2005

“Class Matters”

The Times has been running a series (for over month now, it seems) on class mobility within the United States. Its obvious intent has to depict the country as a place where it is becoming increasingly difficult to move out of the class one is born with; a new caste society where the rich rule over a stagnant lower class. Desperately it has been highlighting the need for additional welfare and government solutions; but today some light shone through the muck, as they tell the story of one Nurse Angela Whitikers, and bestow upon us an article of analysis:

The case of a welfare mother of six pulling herself into the ranks of the middle class is rare enough to compel experts on class and poverty to zero in on a single question: What would it take to create more Angela Whitikers?

"It shows the importance of work and marriage," said Sara S. McLanahan, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton who specializes in family and poverty. "She found a good man and a good job. The thinking now is, it takes both to move out of poverty."

Seems like an on-spot analysis to me; but alas, Harvard sociologists know best:

Why do we feel that promoting marriage will solve the problem when there are so few marriageable men?" asked William Julius Wilson, professor of sociology and social policy at Harvard. "We need to find ways to duplicate the kinds of support that come from an encouraging partner."

Of course, duplicated by government services…now back to marriage:

Of the small number of poor single mothers who marry, 56 percent are lifted out of poverty, according to a 2002 study conducted by Signe-Mary McKernan and Caroline Ratcliffe for the Urban Institute. Getting a job is more common, and 39 percent of poor people who are hired rise out of poverty, as against 35 percent who get at least a two-year college degree.

56% lifted out of poverty, not by a government grant or welfare, but by the age-old act of forming a marital bond. I’ll provide links to the articles at the end, but trust me, the Times is primarily concerned about the liberal canards of racism and additional social programs than on focusing on the positives of having people marry and form stable familiar bonds.

Thomas Sowell has written articles on this seemingly non-stop series run in the Times (although the Wall Street Journal also wrote a series in the class topic), and adds his own thoughts to this new non-issue:

The new trinity among liberal intellectuals is race, class and gender. Defining any of these terms is not easy, but it is also not difficult for liberals, because they seldom bother to define them at all.
The oldest, and perhaps still the most compelling, of these concerns is class. In the vision of the left, we are born, live, and die in a particular class -- unless, of course, we give power to the left to change all that.

Among men born in families in the bottom 25 percent of income earners only 32 percent end up in the top half of the income distribution. And among men born to families in the top 25 percent in income earners, only 34 percent end up down in the bottom half.
How startling is that?
More to the point, does this show that people are trapped in poverty or can coast through life on their parents' wealth? Does it show that "society" denies "access" to the poor?
Could it just possibly show that the kind of values and behavior which lead a family to succeed or fail are also likely to be passed on to their children and lead them to succeed or fail as well? If so, how much can government policy -- liberal or conservative -- change that in any fundamental way?

One recent story attempting to show that upward mobility is a "myth" in America today nevertheless noted in passing that many recent immigrants and their children have had "extraordinary upward mobility."
If this is a class-ridden society denying "access" to upward mobility to those at the bottom, why is it that immigrants can come here at the bottom and then rise to the top?
One obvious reason is that many poor immigrants come here with very different ambitions and values from that of poor Americans born into our welfare state and imbued with notions growing out of attitudes of dependency and resentments of other people's success.

The fundamental reason that many people do not rise is not that class barriers prevent it but that they do not develop the skills, values and attitudes which cause people to rise.
The liberal welfare state means they don't have to and liberal multiculturalism says they don't need to change their values because one culture is just as good as another. In other words, liberalism is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

Let’s all say it together: liberalism is not part of the solution, but part of the problem !!! A multi-culti world cannot admit to itself that certain values actually are to blame for poverty (and, for instance, terrorism); and so unable to address the issue without sacrilege to the doctrine, liberals continue to provide solutions that are proven to be unworkable. Sowell writes a follow-up essay, in which he first makes an important definition:

Someone once defined a social problem as a situation in which the real world differs from the theories of intellectuals. To the intelligentsia, it follows, as the night follows the day, that it is the real world that is wrong and which needs to change.
Having imagined a world in which each individual has the same probability of success as anyone else, intellectuals have been shocked and outraged that the real world is nowhere close to that ideal. Vast amounts of time and resources have been devoted to trying to figure out what is stopping this ideal from being realized -- as if there was ever any reason to expect it to be

I like that, a lot. Sowell now returns to the class mobility topic:

So long as each generation raises its own children, people from different backgrounds are going to be raised with different values and habits. Even in a world with zero barriers to upward mobility, they would move at different speeds and in different directions.
If there is less upward movement today than in the past, that is by no means proof that external barriers are responsible. The welfare state and multiculturalism both reduce the incentives of the poor to adopt new ways of life that would help them rise up the economic ladder. The last thing the poor need is another dose of such counterproductive liberal medicine

Sowell is right, and the Times is wrong. The difference is that conservatives have the intellectual freedom to challenge existing ideas and posit new theories; but liberals are so locked in to the intellectual dogma of neutral values/victim status/government aid, that they cannot think out of that box.

And they wonder why the conservative party is the one seen as that with “fresh ideas”! So shocked are they when people turn to the Republicans candidates as their designated representative in order to have those ideas expressed as public policy, that the Left lashes out with conspiracy theories and cries of stolen elections; people cannot truly be rejecting their ideas!

The intellectual rot of the American Left and the Democratic Party, so ably represented by the New York Times and folks such as Charles Rangel (see post below), is going to continue and fester for some time, until they rid themselves of their own fundamentalist dogma which they have willfully allowed to enslave them.

I used this quote before; it's appropriate to to apply as a warning label on the liberal prescription:

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." --Thomas Jefferson

Links to Times article here: ; Angela Whitiker’s story is here
Link to Thomas Sowell’s first excerpt here ; second one can be found here

Right-Wing Extremism; exposed by the Times!

Front page headline, New York Times, June 9th:

"New Judge Sees Slavery in Liberalism"

Whoa, the Times chucks a bomb! Let's read a bit...

WASHINGTON, June 8 - Janice Rogers Brown, the African-American daughter of Alabama sharecroppers who was confirmed Wednesday to the federal appeals court here, often invokes slavery in describing what she sees as the perils of liberalism.

"In the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery," she has warned in speeches. Society and the courts have turned away from the founders' emphasis on personal responsibility, she has argued, toward a culture of government regulation and dependency that threatens fundamental freedoms.

"We no longer find slavery abhorrent," she told the conservative Federalist Society a few years ago. "We embrace it." She explained in another speech, "If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression."

Bravo, Ms Brown. You echo the beliefs of many Americans (at least 53%; based on W.'s margin). But read the Times next sentence to see their interpetation:

To her critics, such remarks are evidence of extremism. This week, some Senate Democrats have even singled her out as the most objectionable of President Bush's more than 200 judicial nominees...

Oh, so she's an extremist, even if a large percentage of Americans believe that left-wing ideology is not the way to go? The next time the Times call for "mainstream judges" in their editorial pages; ask yourself: Whom defines the mainstream? To the Times, mainstream values include tax hikes, gay marriage, capitulation to terrorism (and France), and the non-stop roll out of liberal welfare programs, despite decades of failures. I don't believe that would describe you, gentle reader...

Interesting that the comparison of liberalism to slavery is worthy of a front page headline as an expose on "extremism". But how about lefty New York Congressman Charles Rangel, who said in a radio interview that the Iraq war was as bad as the Holocaust ??

The Iraq war "is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. ... This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed," the 74-year-old Harlem Democrat insisted during a Monday radio appearance on the WWRL-AM morning show with Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter.

On the radio show, Rangel also suggested that proponents of military action - namely Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's former deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle - don't worry about the Americans in Iraq because they're "black and poor white soldiers" from "the lower economic class."
"They had a plan to put our kids in harm's way long before 9/11," Rangel said. "Because it's not their kids ... that's exactly why. They go and pick a fight, and then say, 'I'll hold your coat.'"

I would call this a pretty extreme statement - a man representing tens of thousands of New Yorkers claiming a war against a dictator is equal to the most evil acts of history's most evil regime. Then throw in some 9/11 conspiracy theories; why not? But no story on this in the Times, they agree with Rangel, or do they fear exposing one of their own? Someone should tell the Times that suppression of the truth to forward one's political agenda is...well, that's something that all of history's most favorite liberals (Stalin, Castro, Mao) have done, right?

Final note, back on the original subject of Justice Brown,
"Senate Democrats have even singled her out as the most objectionable of President Bush's more than 200 judicial nominees"
What is it that Democrats have against successful black women, anyway? Are they afraid that unless they remain poor and in permanent "victim status", they may leave the party?

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." --Thomas Jefferson

Our new Judge would agree with Mr. Jefferson; Charles Rangel would not. Whose side are you on?

Link to Times article here:

UPDATE on Charles Rangel: Lots of stuff out there on this traitorous snake (remember, in the 2004 election, he introduced a bill to reinstate the draft, in hopes it would prevent our military from waging war? His Quisling pals in the Democratic party jumped on this opportunity to scream that "President Bush wants to reinstate the draft! Look! There's a bill pending in Congress! The media were the only ones stupid enough to fall for that one...); here's a NY Post editorial giving him a spanking. Great quote from Mr. Rangel:

"I don't see why [anyone] would be offended."

And that, folks, is yet another reason why Democrats keep losing elections...

Saturday, June 04, 2005

How we can lose the war - Part 2

Victor David Hanson has a brilliant column entitled "Our Strange War" . Some excerpts:

The three-year-plus war that began on September 11 is the strangest conflict in our history. It is not just that the first day saw the worst attack on American soil since our creation, or that we are publicly pledged to fighting a method — “terror” — rather than the concrete enemy of Islamic fascism that employs it.

Imagine that a weak Hitler in the mid-1930s never planned conventional war with the democracies. Instead, he stealthily would fund and train thousands of SS fanatics on neutral ground to permeate European society, convinced of its decadence and the need to return to a mythical time when a purer Aryan Volk reigned supreme. Such terrorists would bomb, assassinate, promulgate fascistic hatred in the media, and whine about Versailles, hoping insidiously to gain concessions from wearied liberal societies that would make ever more excuses as they looked inward and blamed themselves for the presence of such inexplicable evil. All the while, Nazi Germany would deny any connections to these “indigenous movements” and “deplore” such “terrorism,” even as the German people got a certain buzz from seeing the victors of World War I squirm in their discomfort. A triangulating Mussolini or Franco would use their good graces to “bridge the gap,” and seek a “peaceful resolution,” while we sought to “liberate” rather than defeat the German nation.

A third edge for the terrorists lies in the West itself. After 40 years of multiculturalism and moral equivalence — the wages of wealth and freedom unmatched in the history of civilization — many in the United States believe that they have evolved beyond the use of force. Education, money, dialogue, conflict resolution theory — all this and more can achieve far more than crude Abrams tanks and F-16s.

A bin Laden or Saddam is rare in the West. In our arrogance, we think such folk are more or less like ourselves and live in a similar world of reason and tolerance. The long antennae of the canny terrorists pick up on that self-doubt. Most of the rhetoric in bin Laden’s infomercials came right out of the Western media.

As September 11 fades in the memory, too many Americans feel that it is time to let bygones be bygones. Some now consider Islamic fascism and its method of terror a “nuisance” that will go away if we just come home. We are a society where many of our elite believe the killer bin Laden is less of a threat than the elected George Bush. Al Qaeda keeps promising to kill us all; meanwhile Ralph Nader wants the wartime president impeached for misuse of failed intelligence.

The terrorists have only one hope left to win the war they launched upon us: The hope that the American Will can be weakened; broken...

If they are right, may God have mercy on our souls.

How we can lose the War

Normblog links to a review of David Selbourne's new book, The Losing Battle with Islam. The thesis, according to Norm, is pessimistic:

It's the West that is losing: 'flagellat[ing] itself for its alleged shortcomings while rushing to understand its opponents' point of view'; underestimating those opponents; succumbing - the Europeans - to anti-Americanism, and falsely blaming George W. Bush for the advance of Islam.

Norm disagrees; but I believe if one defines “the West” as the Mainstream Media, or the Democratic Party; the above statement is 100% true – even the anti-Americanism part.

File under "Sad"...

When you lay with the vipers...

Shocked, shocked am I to hear this report :

Western companies welcomed in Cuba as heroes a decade ago for bucking the U.S. embargo are packing up and leaving as the Communist government rolls back market reforms and squeezes out intermediaries

What? Going against the US doesn't pay? What would Messrs. Chirac and Shroeder say to that? (not the point here, but I couldn't resist)

Embittered by the change in attitude, small and medium-sized foreign businesses complained this week that they no longer feel welcome and worried they would not recover money owed to them by Cuban partners...The Spanish dairy firm Penasanta SA announced this month that its $8.5 million milk venture had failed due to the economic climate in Cuba, a view expressed by many other businessmen.

Even Spain's leftist, insurgent-loving, Chavez-hugging government got screwed? No way!

Cuban partners say they will pay back investments and money owed for operating costs from future profits, but it is doubtful the companies will even exist in the future," said the commercial attache at a European embassy.
Cuban officials did not answer requests for interviews on the trend.

Let this be a lesson for those whom would lie down with snakes - listening, France? Germany? Canada? Probably not; somehow this must all be America's fault...

Friday, June 03, 2005

Just say NO to GOOGLE!

Bad enough to have the mainstream media firmly in the paws of the liberals; but to have one of the gatekeepers of the next generation, Google, fall to the same fate is downright terrifying. Google is becoming a one stop shop for libera hate, offering rabidly left wing, anti-Semetic sites as news while refusing to list conservative sites with better credentials, and returning venomous websites as top links when a conservative’s name is entered as a search.

Here’s a good one – watch what happens
when you try a search on Bush court nominee Janice Brown!

Miss Atlas Shrugged
asks Google an innocent question, and gets the certifiabley insane Democratic Underground as a first search result!

Here, she has the nerve to try to place an anti-Pelosi ad
only to learn it is "hate speech"…but use the phrase Tom Delay, and, well, Google gives you another answer…

Nationally syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin is not "news-worthy", but if you want to run a headline stating a war criminal is the new attorney general, Google will list you, no problem.

Follow the links, there is a lot of disturbing stuff on this out there….what to do?

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Dutch reject the EU...

...and it's no wonder, given how badly they are getting screwed by them...

Dutch diplomats working in Brussels said that during the drafting of the constitution, the Dutch delegation felt frustrated because most of their proposals or aspirations were ignored. Those included the creation of the position of a future European president, which was approved, as well as the surrender of more of more judicial authority to the Union, which the Dutch argued against.

Dutch voters, who knew little about the drafting process, had different objections. Among their main complaints, reflected in opinion polls, was a feeling of being pushed around by the big countries and a belief that the decision-making process in Brussels lacks transparency and democracy.

The union's largest net per capita contributor, the Dutch resent that they stand to lose power within the expanded group of 25 members under the constitution's new voting rules.
The Dutch, including their government, have also loudly criticized France and Germany for flouting budget rules while the Netherlands and other countries were pressed to make painful cutbacks during recessions.

Kind of like asking to "give sanctions a chance to work", while making a fortune in the black market on sanctioned goods, right, France?

The French rejected the EU charter because they are the infants, wanting to continue with an unsustainable social benefit/high taxation system that is slowly, but surely, sending their nation to ruin.

The Dutch rejected the EU constitution because they know of the horror of living under the dictatorship of the elite: forced to endure terrorism in the name of political correctness, having your national treasury drained to help France and Germany sustain their socialist economies, and having unresponsive elites turn their backs when you have the nerve to complain about it.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Hollywood Hate on “Law & Order”

Thought you were so smart you could pull this one off quiet-like, an inside joke to brag about at cocktail parties? Not so fast, you traitorous Hollywood slimebags ! Watch their pathetic attempts to turn "Law & Order" into a vehicle to bash Republican leadership, in this case Tom Delay -

DeLay's name surfaced on Wednesday night on the show's season finale, which centered on the fictional slayings of two judges by suspected right-wing extremists.

In the episode, police are frustrated by a lack of clues, leading one officer to quip, "Maybe we should put out an APB (all-points-bulletin) for somebody in a Tom DeLay T-shirt."

DeLay penned off a letter to NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker, expressing (justified) annoyance at being linked, even fictionally, with a judge-killer (part of a right-wing group, naturally). Caught red-handed, could Zucker and crew just admit to their biases then and there; laugh it off, “apologize” perhaps, like liberals are always saying we must do? No, non…check out this howler of a defense:

NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly responded in a statement that the dialogue in question "was neither a political comment nor an accusation."

"The script line involved an exasperated detective bedeviled by a lack of clues, making a sarcastic comment about the futility of looking for a suspect when no specific description existed," Reilly said.

So I am to believe that a hardened criminal investigator, in a moment of exasperation, would realistically make a crack involving Tom freakin’ Delay? Are they serious?

Better, does anyone in Hollywood understand that we do not take them seriously - at all? That these types of backhand slaps, that one cannot defend against, these are the ones that anger Americans the most?

The election of 2004 taught these “artistic elites” nothing.

They still think they matter; they still think we care…