Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Righteous Indignation is now officially "hate speech"

and is also "threatening". This according to a report filed by WNBC . They cover the story of Arlene Scala, Chair of Women's Studies at William Paterson University, who filed a complaint for discrimination, intimidation and sexual harassment against 63 year old Jihad Daniel, an employee and student at Paterson.

His offense? After receiving an email from Scala, promoting a homosexual film (Ruthie and Connine: Every Room in the House', a lesbian relationship story") he responded to Scala (by clicking on the link provided ) and stated:

"Do not send me any mail about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve.' These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned."

And that's it. In it's entirety. The whole shebang (did I just now violate some sexual harassment standard?). Upon receiving this request, Scala fired off a complaint to the university claiming that Daniel's email was "threatening" and was discriminatory. The school's President concluded that Daniel violated the school's discrimination policy and issued a letter of Reprimand which was to be placed in his file.

So now, a person with sincere religious beliefs, who does not want to be on someone's email list, who emails them only once and who gives his reasons privately for not wanting to be on the list, is guilty of discrimination? What's next, prosecute people who asked to be removed from spam lists for Restraint of Trade or some violation of the Commerce Clause?

It's simply not enough for liberal colleges to proclaim they are bastions of free speech and thought, they must actually pretend like it on occasion.

**UPDATE: Daniel's cause has been taken up by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). You can find out more at their site: FIRE

Saturday, July 23, 2005

The loss of the ruling elite.

Most telling of Libs perspective on the SCOTUS is Senator Schumer's comments on Judge Roberts nomination and hearings before the Senate:

. . It is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly, honestly and fully in the coming months.

His views will affect a generation of Americans, and it his obligation during the nomination process to let the American people know those views.

In a editorial, the New York Sun takes Schumer to task and reminds us of Schumer's prior rebukes from Judge Roberts and fellow Senators about his inappropriate line of questioning during Judge Roberts earlier confirmation. The interesting thing is not that the libs would do something inappropriate, that's pretty much the norm. No, it's the implication by Schumer that SCOTUS judges should let the "American people know those views" -- WHICH is entirely reasonable IF you believe the Supreme Court is responsible to make new law. If you view the Supreme Court as an extension of the Congress, an arm to effect legislation that Congress itself won't pass, then it's logical to demand that any new appointees (dictators for life?) should reveal their feelings toward various positions.

Many libs have oft scoffed at Conservatives talking about court activism. There is an effort underway to redefine someone who would rule according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers as an "activist judge" for it is likely he would vote to repeal bad law (laws not voted on by the representatives of the people.) Only to libs, would that be a bad thing. This is the true test of Conservatives versus Liberals: Are we a nation of "rule by law" or are we a nation of "rule by men." We thank Senator Schumer for clearly delineating this distinction for us.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Kerry is unconscionable

If any, and I do mean any, had lingering doubts as to John Kerry's integrity or sense of honor, let all doubt be removed. He simply has none. But that's why he makes such a good lib. Examine, if you will, his latest pronouncement from Foxnews:

WASHINGTON — Democratic Sen. John Kerry urged the White House on Friday to release "in their entirety" all documents and memos from Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' tenure in two Republican administrations. "We cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record," said the Massachusetts senator who was his party's presidential candidate last year.

Surely, surely someone, somewhere, in the MSM will simply reply to Kerry "Can you say medical records?" Oh, in their entirety. Only a man with no conviction can so brazenly demand from someone else, something he's so unwilling to provide himself. And there you have John Kerry, the leader of the Dims. And that is the best they can do?

Friday, July 15, 2005

Rove - a bunch of hooya about nothing.

While the Dims rant about Rove's supposed treachery (is that pot kettle black??) in leaking the name of a covert agent, Mr. Wilson (the supposed covert agent's husband) has had some interesting things to say according to Newsday (sorry, can't get hyperlinks to work,0,4798469,print.story?coll=nyc-nationhome-headlines ), it appears, from Mr. Wilson's own mouth, that he admits his wife wasn't a covert op at the time the story was published. His statement was "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," while, according to reports, she hadn't been a covert op for years. Are the Dims gonna argue it's illegal to discuss ANY CIA employee?

Not only that, but the Wilson's themselves were "liberal" with "outing" Mrs. Palme. In the Washington Times, (">Washington Times), Fred Rustman, a former undercover agent, stated that the Wilson's were very open about their employers, including Mrs. Palme(Wilson's) job at the CIA. He stated emphatically "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat" Anybody find it hypocritical that Wilson wants Rove fired for the same thing he did? If you don't your a Dim.

She wasn't covert, she was telling neighors and people she met she worked at the agency. So the Dims are just doing what they do best, becoming more insignifigant every day by focusing/hyping beyond belief, non-issues and leading their flock of sheep on about a non-existant grand conspiracy of evil. Typical.

Again, waiting on all the facts to come out.... but one thing is relatively clear - IF Bush had lost the election, this wouldn't be a story or a problem. The Dims are still just mad they lost.

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Saw where Mary Jo Kopechne would be 65...

This year, if she'd never met Ted Kennedy that is.

I can't help but watch the dims labor on about Rove and integrity, while watching one of their main mouthpieces on the subject continue to hide his actions on that fatal night, July 18th, 1969 in Chappaquiddick.

When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another bloated Democrat making grand pronouncements on behalf of liberal causes, it was just preferable to ignore this degenerate, drunk. But now that he's feeling free to position himself as the judge and jury of moral positions, well, I liked him better with his mouth shut - which is relative of course.

But the time has come for decent people to rise up - righteously indignant - and remind a new generation why this drunk had to abandon his presidential bid in back in 1980. It's time to point out the type of men the modern liberal democratic party looks to as leaders.

As is often the case, Republicans have kept silent about their opponents nature and actions. But it is time to remind people that this Liberal "Icon of Integrity" left Miss Kopechne behind in an overturned car to suffocate and drown beneath the Edgartown Bridge on July 1969. The "Senator" married, with 5 other married men and 6 single women, had after a night of drinking and partying, taken the attractive and young blonde campaign worker for a ride. A ride which resulted in her tragic death. But most Americans under 35 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy ran the car off the bridge, got himself out, swam to safety (did anyone ever see him wet?), never tried to free Miss Kopechne or notify anyone for 9 hours that a wreck had occurred. No one remembers why it was he didn't seek help in a lighted house only yards from the bridge or use the fire-alarm phone at a fire station he passed on the way back to the party. No one knows why the next morning two of his buddies were waiting for him at 9 A.M. to catch the first ferry across the river his car was in. At that time, the ferry operator said Kennedy appeared to be in a jovial mood, but that was probably lasted until he was told that his Oldsmobile had been found in the river. Wouldn't you hate being reminded you drowned a girl the night before? Talk about a mood spoiler. Oh, and only then did Kennedy report the accident to the police. Then then police chief was kind enough to vacate his office so Kennedy and his friends could wait in comfortable surroundings and continue their strategy planning session.

He even tried to get Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel at the time of the accident. We all know perjury is the felony of choice for Libs. Not only that, he used his powers in the state of Massachusetts to get the court records sealed. How many "ordinary citizens" can get a court to seal records of a drunk driving incident?? Why is it the Dims are always refusing to release info? Anybody seen Kerry's complete medical records yet?

Anyway, back to Ted, most young voters don't know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy's Oldsmobile, gasped for air in the footwell of the car until she finally suffocated, while the Democrats' leader went back to his compound to nap, and then encourage his cousin to commit conspiracy while formulating the best alibi he could think of.

Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier -- for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final. Or, why the US Army denied him a commission because he cheated on tests.

As anyone listens to the Democrats' leader accuse President Bush of "telling lie after lie after lie" to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don't know about that infamous 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach, when Uncle Teddy rounded up his boys (nephews) for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape. Was he teaching them the tricks of the trade that night?

It's time for Republicans to state unabashedly that they will no longer tolerate it when it comes to Uncle Ted's rants about deception and moral failings inside the Bush White House. It's time for the Republicans to grow a pair, by showing everyone what a fraud and fake Teddy really is.

The Democratic Party should be ashamed to have this lying, drunken disgrace as their spokesman. Of course, without Kennedy, they'd be left with Kerry or Pelosi, so it really doesn't matter does it? Integrity just ain't a thang with Dims.

London only further proof of the demise of Al Quaeda.

While the world wrings it's hands and weeps (everyone except the Brits - they're going on about their business) over the London Bombings, many interesting details are being overlooked. While certainly I do not seek to diminish or play down the loss of life, I believe history will more note the relative ineffectiveness of the attack, versus the loss of life. That's right, this attack shows how weak AQ has become.

Four bombs - in one of the largest, most densely packed cities in the world. Four bombs - in a crowded mass transit system - in a major metropolitan center. Four separate bombs, and only 50 to possibly 75 dead - out of 10's of thousands using the system, out of several million living in the city. A train or ferry accident - usually kills more people. The key to this is not that AQ struck - everyone knows that a man who's willing to give his life, can't be stopped from taking others with him. It's the Secret Service's greatest fear in guarding the President. While the Secret Service goes to great lengths to prevent such attacks on the President, obviously such efforts are simply not workable or available for everyday citizens. So we'll always have, in a free and open society, this exposure to homicide bombers. The key is not that the 4 bombs went off within minutes. Setting your watch to agree with 3 other persons is not a hugely difficult technical accomplishment - unless your a muslim bomber I guess.

The key is that AQ is being reduced to using firecrackers, compared to dynamite. If this attack had been planned and executed before Iraq, before 9/11, it is likely that hundreds or thousands would have died. But AQ doesn't have the goods. They're being used up in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. It's been said that AQ has concentrated it's efforts in Iraq, fearing it's loss of a great ally and the beginnings of democracy in the bed of Islamic totalitarian dictatorships that are the Middle East. This is AQ's worst nightmare, and London is further proof that AQ's assets (men) and material (explosives) are being methodically destroyed. It can't even muster more than 10 kilos of explosive strike at the heart of one of it's greatest enemies.

Simply, we're winning the war. As AQ becomes more desperate, it reveals only their failing condition. We will still get our nose bloodied from time to time, as will the Brits, but there is no doubt, we're kicking their arse.