This just in: 


In a file photo Anna Nicole Smith, center, tries to shield herself from cameras as she arrives at the U.S. Supreme Court, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2006, in Washington with her attorney Howard K. Stern, left. Stern said Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2006, that he was the father of the reality TV star's newborn girl. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)


Eighteen days after of her 20-year-old son, Daniel, died from a lethal combination of methadone and two anti-depressant drugs, Anna Nicole Smith exchanged vows with her attorney/boyfriend/possible baby daddy, Howard K. Stern, on a boat near Nassau, Bahamas.  However, according to another of Ms. Smith's attorneys, Michael Scott, there was no formal marriage ceremony and the vows were "not legally binding."

The couple "exchanged vows before God" but did not obtain a marriage license, Scott told The Associated Press. Stern says he is the father of [the] baby of the 38-year-old former Playboy playmate.

How convenient.  "OK, since you're my baby daddy (I think...), let's just make like we're committed, but not legally committed.  Let's just act like we're married without having to really be married."

There is a chance that another man might be the "lucky" baby daddy.

From MSNBC:

Photographer Larry Birkhead, a former boyfriend of Anna Nicole Smith, tells Us Weekly magazine that, no matter what a national TV audience was told Tuesday night, he’s the real father of the reality TV star’s newborn girl. And he’s seeking a DNA test to prove it.

Smith’s lawyer, Howard K. Stern, told CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Tuesday that he is the “proud father” of the girl, Dannie Lynn Hope, born Sept. 7, and he plans to marry Smith “at some point.”

“Right now we have to somehow get through what we’re going through,” said Stern, referring to the Sept. 10 death of Smith’s son, Daniel Smith. The 20-year-old Smith died of unknown causes at his mother’s hospital bedside in the Bahamas.

“And I’ll tell you, our baby is the one ray of hope,” Stern said.

In an interview on the magazine’s Web site, Birkhead calls Stern’s remarks “laughable.”

“I am not surprised he would say this but I am laughing at it,” he says. “Larry King didn’t even believe Howard.”

Birkhead says science can settle the matter. “I have asked for a DNA test and I welcome it,” he says.

He’s confident about what the results would be, saying, “I know I am the father of the child. I look forward to having a relationship with my new daughter.”

Stern did not immediately respond to a call by The Associated Press on Wednesday.

What does the Dutchmeister think?

No comment.

It is no secret that the relationship between black Americans and the Republican Party has been rocky for decades. Despite its history of ending slavery and getting civil rights legislation through Congress, the GOP’s standing within the black community over the past 40 years has not been positive. At the same time, the Democratic Party, thanks in large part to the modern-day civil rights establishment, has maintained a virtual vice-like grip on the black vote throughout the entire post-civil rights era. Since LBJ defeated Barry Goldwater in 1964, Democrats have won 80 to 95 percent of the black vote in every major election – but what have blacks received for their political loyalty in return?

Speaking at the National Urban League’s annual convention during his 2004 re-election campaign, President George W. Bush posed the audience the following question: “What have the Democrats done for you?” As author and political commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson notes in his new book, The Emerging Black GOP Majority, that question, bold and audacious as it was, served as a challenge to black America to re-evaluate its decades-long allegiance to the Democratic Party and give the GOP a fresh new look.

Dr. Hutchinson attempts to analyze and assess the successes and failures of the Republican Party to break the Democrats’ hold on the black vote. The author delves into how both parties have tried to invoke the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in an effort to garner black support, particularly from black clergy.

Dr. Hutchinson discusses the political fallout for the GOP in general and the Bush administration in particular, from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In doing so, he implies that whatever gains that President Bush may have made in winning more of the black vote after his November 2004 re-election victory (earning between an estimated 10 – 12% of the black vote, as opposed to less than 10% in 2000) may have been severely compromised given the perception of many blacks of how the president handled the Katrina situation.

This is the biggest problem I have with the book.

Hutchinson insinuates that most (if not all) blacks blame President Bush for what Hurricane Katrina did to poor black residents of New Orleans’ Ninth Ward, repeating the accusation by many (including rapper Kanye West) that Bush is insensitive to the needs of blacks. Yet he makes virtually no mention of the incredible screw-ups committed by New Orleans’ Democratic mayor Ray Nagin, who is black, and Governor Kathleen Blanco in the days and weeks leading up to Hurricane Katrina. Such a glaring omission, I feel, will cause some readers to assume that Katrina was “Bush’s fault,” when in fact the lion’s share of the blame rests with Nagin and Blanco.

Another issue I have is that the author insinuates that Republicans have had to resort to “divisive racial rhetoric,” the 1988 GOP Willie Horton campaign ad being one example. For one thing, Willie Horton, the serial killer serving life in prison in Massachusetts who escaped to ultimately kill again, was black! During that year’s presidential election, Vice President George H.W. Bush’s campaign used the ad to show, rightly, that his Democratic opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, was soft on crime. The ad wasn’t meant to be racially offensive, and the fact that many blacks were “offended” nonetheless just goes to show how many misguided blacks, in the name of “racial solidarity,” will make excuses for every murderous cretin that comes out of the black community who deserves to be behind bars (see Horton).

Secondly, in terms of racial pandering, the Democrats – with the help of the irrelevant civil rights “leadership” – wrote the book on it! Which political party consistently paints anyone opposed to affirmative action as “racist”? In fact, the main reason why the Democratic Party has succeeded in winning most of the black vote every election cycle is not because they have done anything to actually deserve it, but because they and their civil rights enablers have succeeded in pandering to the cult of eternal black victimhood and perpetual grievance upon which the modern-day civil rights establishment depends for its very survival.

Dr. Hutchinson makes a laudable effort to be objective. However, I get the impression that he goes just a little too easy on Democrats, while not giving the GOP and President Bush enough credit for how its platform and programs have resulted in concrete benefits for black America. Remember: The Republican Party was founded as the anti-slavery party. It was a majority of Republicans in Congress that helped pass landmark civil and voting rights legislation in the 1960s. Black employment and homeownership increased substantially under President Bush. Furthermore, unlike the Democrats, President Bush supports school choice programs which would overwhelmingly benefit poor black children trapped in failing public schools, and which a majority of black parents support.

Can anyone point to anything similar in recent years from Democrats? The author fails to elaborate on this very important point.

Despite its flaws, The Emerging Black GOP Majority serves as an interesting political commentary.

From today's Washington Times:

Amid fears of a possible Muslim backlash (a recurring theme in world events these days), Deutsche Oper, one of Berlin, Germany's three main opera houses, recently decided to cancel a planned revival of Mozart's classic 1781 work "Idomeneo," because the production inserts a scene that displays the severed head of the Prophet Mohammed.  
German Chancellor Angela Merkel leads a universal condemnation of the opera house's decision to cancel the production, citing concerns against self-censorship.

"We should watch that we don't keep retreating for fear of radicals willing to employ violence," Mrs. Merkel told the Neue Presse, a Hanover, Germany, newspaper. "Self-censorship based on fear is indefensible." 

The production also depicts the severed heads of Jesus and Buddha, says "Idomeneno" director Hans Neuenfels, stating that his intention was to mock all traditional religions.

Bowing to such threats "plays into the hands of radicals," said Flemming Rose of Copenhagen, Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper, whose published cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed a year ago sparked wide-spread Muslim outrage and violence. "You are telling them, 'Your tactics are working.'" The Berlin opera house cited the Danish cartoon crisis as one reason behind its decision.

In a column yesterday, DW Radio political correspondent Marcel Furstenau wrote, "If the Deutsche Oper decision is an indication of future behavior, then it spells the end of artistic freedom and freedom of expression in Germany."

As the Washington Times points out, this is just the latest in a string of cultural clashes that have bedeviled Europe in recent years, as the Continent's liberal democracies have struggled to adjust politically and culturally to a large and growing minority Muslim population. 

What I find interesting about this story is the fact that, although that the scene in "Idomeneo" depicts the severed heads of historic figures of three world religions - Islam, Christianity and Buddhism - Deutsche Oper is only concerned about offending Muslims.  I guess Christian and Buddhist sensitivities are not as important to consider.  Then again, Christians and Muslims don't riot, plunder, pillage, and commit cold-blooded murder whenever someone insults their religion, either.  I have yet to read about a Christian Minister or Buddhist holy man admonishing their followers to "murder anyone who insults" Christ Jesus or Buddha "at the first opportunity."

Granted, mocking traditional religion by depicting the severed heads of religious figures might be in poor taste.  I wouldn't spend money to see something like that, but that's me.  However, this just goes to show that Muslim radicals are succeeding in bullying the West into self-censorship when it comes to "offending" Islam (yet the same radicals feel free to insult Christianity and Judaism almost constantly - and with impunity).

Here's a novel idea: Instead of canceling the production entirely, why not just take out the controversial depictions in question - all three of them! - and then let the show go on as planned? 

Well, a lot has happened over the last few weeks since I last blogged.  There are three recent stories, however, that I feel particularly compelled to blog about.

Radical Muslim Outrage (Again) and Moderate Muslim Silence

Remember the old saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names [or words] will never hurt me."  Well, apparently, the Muslim world never got the memo.  First it was the bogus Newsweek story last year alleging that Guantanamo guards flushed the Qur'an down the toilet.  That led to massive rioting, violent protests, and roughly a dozen deaths.  Next, the "infamous" Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed resulted in the same thing: massive rioting, violent protests, and bloodshed. 

Now, in a speech earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI cited a Medieval text that characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his command to spread by the sword the faith."  Notice that the Pope did not say this himself; he merely quoted the words of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II who, centuries ago, criticized the Muslim Prophet.  



How did Muslims in the Middle East react?  You guessed it - rioting, massive protests, and bloodshed.  (Read Mary Katherine Ham's article on the fallout over the Pope's remarks.) Worse yet, a radical Muslim cleric in Somalia used the resulting outrage to incite violence in that country, which culminated in the execution-style shooting death of a Catholic nun, Sister, Leonella - a woman who had spent four decades of her life caring for the poor in Africa.  Jeff Jacoby quotes Sheik Abubukar Hassan Malin, the Muslim cleric whose call to violence ultimately resulted in Sister Leonella's death, as saying, "We urge you, Muslims, wherever you are to hunt down the pope for his barbaric statements.  Whoever offends our prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim.”  

As Jacoby rightly puts it, "Sister Leonella was not the pope, but she was presumably close enough for purposes of the local jihadis."

Jacoby goes on to point out the irony of it all:

If it weren't so sickening, it would be farcical: A line in the pope's speech suggests that Islam has a dark history of violence, and offended Muslims vent their displeasure by howling for his death, firebombing churches, and attacking innocent Christians. One of the points Benedict made in his speech at the University of Regensburg was that religious faith untethered by reason can lead to savagery. The mobs denouncing him could hardly have done a better job of proving him right....  Freedom of speech [is] irrelevant: While the rioters and those inciting them routinely insult Christianity, Judaism, and other religions, they demand that no one be allowed to denigrate Islam or its prophet. It is a staggering double standard, and too many in the West seem willing to go along with it.

Jacoby's last point about the freedom-of-speech double-standard is instructive.  Thomas Sowell drives this point home in a new article when he writes:

There was far more controversy over remarks made by the Pope than over the violence unleashed by Muslims against people who had nothing to do with what the Pope said.  That our enemies do not understand the significance of free speech in a free society, where things that offend us can be denounced without indiscriminate violence, is bad enough. But that we ourselves seem headed further down the slippery slope of self-censorship is chilling.

How can moderate Muslims continue to claim that Islam is a "religion of peace" when their radical brethren use the slightest provocation or perceived misunderstanding as an excuse to riot, plunder, pillage, and kill?  How can they expect to continue to be taken seriously by the non-Muslim world if they continue to remain silent when radical extremists use their religion to incite violence and death?  Have they been so bullied into silence out of fear for their own lives that they find it easier to criticize those like the Pope who have supposedly "offended" Islam than to speak out against those among them whose bloody actions (including the senseless murder of a Catholic nun who dedicated her life to helping poor African Muslims) only serve to tarnish their religion in the eyes of the world? 

"Let's Coddle Terrorists, so They will Like Us..."



RINO (Republican In Name Only) Senators John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham should be ashamed of themselves for even considering the asinine idea of extending Geneva Convention protections to suspected terrorists.  Have these gentlemen literally lost their minds?  What in God's name makes them believe that "well, if we just treat the terrorists we have in custody well, then maybe they won't mistreat Americans they have in custody"? 

Sowell offers some common sense (as always):

Does any sane adult believe that the cutthroats we are dealing with will respect the Geneva convention? Or that our extension of Geneva convention rights to them will be seen as anything other than another sign of weakness and confusion that will encourage them in their terrorism?... The much larger question -- the question of survival -- is whether we have the clarity and the courage to go all-out in self-defense against those who are going all-out to destroy us, even at the cost of their own lives.

Ann Coulter really takes issue with such spinelessly nonsensical thinking in her recent column, the title of which says it all: "Are Videotaped Beheadings Covered by Geneva?"

The belief that we can impress the enemy with our magnanimity is an idea that just won't die. It's worse than the idea that paying welfare recipients benefits won't discourage them from working. (Some tiny minority might still seek work.) It's worse than the idea that taxes can be raised endlessly without reducing tax receipts...

But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn't work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese -- enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today.

By the way, how did the Geneva Conventions work out for McCain at the Hanoi Hilton?

Sen. McCain should ask himself whether the North Vietnamese gave a rat's backside about the Geneva Conventions as they were breaking his leg, starving him, and submitting him whatever forms of torture their sick minds could come up with during his seven years of captivity as a POW.  I don't recall the late Abu Musab Al Zarqawi (may he burn in Hades) reading Article Whatever of the Geneva Conventions before beheading American hostage Nick Berg a few years back.  (It sounded more like "Allah-u Akbar!" as the butcher knive was slicing Berg's jugular and spinal chord to me, but I could be wrong.)  One could expect (but be no less appalled) if Senate Democrats like Reed, Kerry and Kennedy pulled such nonsense, which only proves my first point: Warner, Graham, and especially McCain should be ashamed of themselves.

Bill Clinton's Hissy Fit



Everybody is talking about former President Clinton's temper tantrum on last weekend's "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace."  

First of all, I have to hand it Chris Wallace for not only weathering that storm (he's a better man than I), but for also doing what no other reporter on any other network has the guts to do: Ask Clinton the tough questions regarding his Presidency vis-à-vis the War on Terror, particularly Osama Bin Laden.  

Wallace asked Clinton why he didn't do more as president "to put Bin Laden and Al-Qaida out of business."  Considering that the Clinton administration didn't do squat after the 1993 World Trade Center Bombings (which happened within the first year of his first term in office), the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (which took the lives of over 200 people), or the bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000, it was sensible question.  And that's what set Clinton off! 

(Check out the transcript.)

Wallace, having read the transcripts of Clinton's previous media appearances (e.g. NBC's "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert, and Larry King among others), later pointed out that none of the other reporters who interviewed the former president even brought up the question of his administration's anti-terror efforts, especially in light of Team Clinton previous tantrum over the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11."

As Brent Bozell III points out in his new article, the poweder-puff questions tossed Clinton's way by other MSM types are nothing short of nauseating.

You can't really be astonished by Larry King, whose usual tough question would be along the lines of "Jif or Skippy, Mr. President?" I exaggerate, but not by much. Here's an actual Larry King question to Clinton from last week: "Now, the purpose of your initiative overall is to make the world a better place, right? ... Is it a better place?" 

... The real disappointment on this list is Russert, the man who built a reputation for grilling politicians with long text boxes of challenging information. But for Clinton, Russert delivered a Larry King performance. His actual first questions: "The second year of the Clinton Global Initiative. What did you achieve this year? ... Do people keep their commitments?" Then he went on to other toughies. Is [Vice President] Cheney wrong on Iraq? And when Hillary runs, are you ready for the nasty attacks on her?

The second annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative was more proof that Clinton walks around with the major media in his jacket pocket. Look no further than the long list of so-called "featured attendees" who associated themselves with the event. Many of them were moderators of panel discussions -- not only predictable names like George Stephanopoulos, but Tom Brokaw, Judy Woodruff, Newsweek international editor Fareed Zakaria, CNN anchors Zain Verjee and Sanjay Gupta, and NPR anchor Michele Norris. Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer and Christiane Amanpour were also on the list of supportive media attendees.

It's easy to see from this display that Clinton is a pampered peacock, a prima donna who expects the media elite to love him, and explodes like a spoiled child when anyone dares challenge him. He only expects a challenge from the radical right-wingers at Fox. That's what he calls anyone who would ruffle a fine feather of his glorious legacy-building project.

Personally, I found it hilarious to see Clinton come unglued.  And again, kudos to Chris Wallace for doing what any journalist worth his/her salt is supposed to do.  I'm sure it gave his father, Mike Wallace over at CBS's "60 Minutes," heart palpitations.  (Seeing his son ask the tough questions, not Clinton's outburst, mind you.)

From today's Washington Times:



Republican senatorial candidate Michael Steele, left, attended a rally with Democratic supporters including, William H. 'Billy' Murphy, Jr., right, and A. Dwight Pettit in Baltimore yesterday.  Bert V. Goulait (THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

BALTIMORE -- Prominent black Democrats yesterday bucked their party to support Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele -- the Republican nominee in Maryland's U.S. Senate race. 
    
"Like so many people who have come out today, I'm sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Democratic Party," said William H. "Billy" Murphy Jr., a Baltimore civil rights lawyer who hosted the "Steele Democrats" event at the Eubie Blake National Jazz Institute and Cultural Center. 
    
"I'm sick and tired of being relied upon for support but not respected as a leader," Mr. Murphy said. "It pains me that I would stand here ... today in rejection of my party's refusal to embrace us in its leadership. But I am happy to be doing that for Michael Steele." 
    
A surprise for Mr. Steele came from the son of Kweisi Mfume, a past president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People who lost last week's Democratic primary to U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin. 
    
Michael Mfume, a producer of the horror film "Ax 'Em" and an active supporter of his father's campaign, told reporters at the Eubie Blake center that he did not speak for his father. 
    
"There is a saying by Billie Holiday. It goes: 'A mother may have. A poppa may have. But God bless a child that has its own,'" he said. 
    
A spokeswoman for Kweisi Mfume said that he did not know about his son's plans to support Mr. Steele, who is the first black elected to statewide office in Maryland. 
    
Kweisi Mfume, who voiced support for Mr. Cardin in his concession speech but has not actively campaigned for him, has said the Democratic "bosses" shunned his campaign in favor of Mr. Cardin's. 
    
"This is nothing new," said Baltimore lawyer A. Dwight Pettit, a black Democrat at the Steele event. 
    
He said that state party leaders rejected his run for Baltimore state's attorney in 1978 and his nomination for U.S. attorney by President Carter in 1976 in support of white candidates. 
    
"We are on a national stage right now in Maryland to show that if the Republican Party reaches out to African-American communities, they are not foreclosed on immediately," he said. "The question is: What has the Democratic Party done for the African-American community?"

Let's hope other black Democrats wake up and finally see the light as well.  My money is on Steele in November.

From today's Washington Times:

NEW YORK -- Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas pleaded with President Bush yesterday that his government is "in dire need" of U.S. aid and support as the two leaders sought to jump-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. 

Hours later, the Bush administration joined the European Union, the United Nations and Russia in calling on Israel to release $500 million in tax revenues it has collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority but has refused to free up -- a move one U.N. official privately said was a concession by the White House. 
    
"We look forward to your support and your help and your aid, because we are in dire need for your help and support," Mr. Abbas said after a 40-minute meeting with Mr. Bush. "Mr. President, we will always be faithful and truthful to peace, and we will not disappoint you."

When it comes to curbing the violent attacks by the terrorist elements within your organization against Israeli civilians, Abbas have been a disappointment ever since he succeeded Yasser Arafat two years ago.  Now he's pleading with the U.S. for financial aid.  Why doesn't he ask Arafat's widow, Suha, about the estimated $1 billion in foreign aid that her late husband, as head of the PLO, embezzled from his own people, and which she's still living off of rather extravigantly, by the way.

In an article dated November 27, 2003 published for the Middle East Forum, Asaf Romirowsky delves into the PLO's embezzlement scandals when Arafat was still alive and in power, and his widow enjoyed every bit of it.

[The Palestinian people] have been living with the visible manifestations of Arafat's double standards of living for a very long time. They have seen the extravagant houses their "elected officials" own and the fancy cars they drive. During the "euphoric age of Oslo", when Arafat's wife, Suha, graced the Palestinian people with her presence, she would often drive her newly purchased BMW through the streets of Gaza while most of Gaza's residents could barely feed their families. With the collapse of Oslo, Suha relocated to Paris where she regularly shops at designers' stores as she subsists on a generous stipend of $100,000 a month that comes directly from Palestinian Authority funds.

But more deeply, Suha represents the exact opposite of the proletarian public image Arafat strives to project. As Rubin articulates, "Suha was an embarrassment on two counts. First, she was clearly a member of the Westernized Arab elite, which Arafat had supposedly been fighting all of his life. Her expensive Western clothes, dyed blonde hair, and Parisian shopping sprees undercut Arafat's Spartan image as an incorruptible man of the people and pious Muslim...

Arafat wants his people to believe that creating a Palestinian state is costlier than they realize and that he should not have to publicly clarify the many expenses involved in creating the new state. According to Mohammed Rachid, Arafat's former economic adviser, it is estimated that Arafat had over $300 million dollars in his possession in order to create jobs, improve the medical facilities and help put food on people's tables. One need only view the poverty and lack of services in the West Bank and especially Gaza in order to see that funds were not allocated towards these ends. This raises the big question – why did Arafat not use the PA's revenue in a way that would benefit all Palestinians?

The answer is quite simple. If the socio-economic conditions improved in Gaza and the West Bank Arafat would have a very difficult time maintaining the idea that Israel is "oppressing" the Palestinian people. Improving economic conditions in the disputed territories would possibly lead to a lessening of Arafat's control over Palestinian affairs, and as his self-preservation at all costs attitude demonstrates, Yasir Arafat is more interested in maintaining control than improving the Palestinians' situation. Moreover, the rise of hope produced by improved conditions in the territories would cause an immediate drop in the rational for terrorist activities against Israeli civilians. As long as the Palestinian people view peace as something prevented by Israel Arafat can continue cultivating the hatred needed to perpetuate the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

Abbas might try Suha on her cell phone.  She's probably out shopping in Paris.

As far as the Israeli government's refusal to give up the $500 million in tax revenues for the Palestinia Authority, more power to them.  The Israelis shouldn't cough up one red cent of that money to the PA, especially given the fact that Hamas, which controls a majority of seats in the Palestinian government, still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.  Israel knows that Abbas will allow Hamas to use that money to fund more anti-Israel terrorist attacks while possibly pulling an Arafat and embezzling a few million or so on the side, while narry a destitute Palestinian man, woman or child - civil servant or otherwise - will see a nickle of it.

As far as "jump-starting" the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Abbas's pledge to be "faithful and truthful to peace," don't make me laugh!  Haven't we been down this road enough times already?

I hope everyone had a good weekend.  To get your week off to a good start, here are two articles by two of my favorite writers: Star Parker and Mike Adams.

Enjoy!

Great nation or reality show? 
By Star Parker

"Survivor" has played the race card. The CBS reality show now creates teams selected by race to compete with each other. White, black, Latino and Asian.

Horrible and tasteless, you say. Exploitive and reaching for ratings by appealing to our worst instincts.

In the name of the Almighty Dollar, CBS, critics say, sets back our lofty goals of racial harmony, divides our nation along racial lines and promotes the very racial stereotypes we've tried so hard to bury.

But, really, what's all the fuss about? What's new here?

We've been living this reality show for 40 years.

Click here to read the rest.


My Conversion to Radical Islam
By Mike S. Adams

Last Friday night, I went for a jog to relieve some stress after I found out my department denied my application for full professor. There’s something about being turned down by a diverse committee made up entirely of Democrats that causes a young Republican to search his soul for answers. And, thanks to Muhammad and Abdul, I found them.

I really wasn’t looking for these two proponents of the religion of peace but – all praise to Allah! - they sure found me. Of course, when I saw them riding up on their bicycles, I immediately assumed they were Mormons and picked up the pace. But, as they got nearer, I noticed they were too dark and brawny to be from Utah. So I slowed down to chat for awhile.

Their pitch to me was different from the one I got as a Baptist. Rather than asking me what I planned to do with Jesus, they suddenly pointed their pistols at my head and demanded that I drop to my knees. Fearing a scene reminiscent of the one in Deliverance, I quickly gave my life to Allah. I’ve been a Muslim for nearly three days now. A happier and more peaceful man I’ve never been.

Click here to read the rest.

The media seems to be absolutely fascinated with female convicted sex offenders these days, especially the producers of "Dateline NBC."  Last June the show did a nauseatingly fawning interview with Mary Kay Letourneau and her statutory-rape-victim-turned-husband Vili Fualaau. 



This time, it's - yep, you guessed it - Debra LaFave.  The former Florida middle-school teacher convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old male student sat down with none other than Matt Lauer for an exclusive interview.



Nevermind that both women use their bad childhoods as excuses for their immoral and reprehensible behavior.  Nevermind that they ruined so many people's lives, not to mention their own marriages, in the process (read the interview of the mother of LaFave's victim and Owen LaFave, Debra's ex-husband, with Greta Van Susteren).  What's sad about these two disturbed women is that fact that "Dateline NBC" is giving them all the attention they obviously crave.

Mary Kay Letourneau has said that she had already "emotionally checked out" of her first marriage before she began a sexual relationship with Vili Fualaau, and has admitted that she, like LaFave, had issues with her father.  Both of these women should have sought professional help to deal with their inner demons long before they did what they did.  Had they done so, they might have avoided becoming the infamous figures they are today. 

Nobody's perfect.  We all get dealt a bad hand at times.  Yet having a bad childhood doesn't give anyone an excuse to become a sexually deviant law-breaker.
 
Debra LaFave's actions were beyond shameless.  Yet, because she's physically attractive (a "knockout" according to Matt Lauer's "Dateline NBC" voice-over), many people (mostly men) probably don't see what she did as a crime.  In fact, I'm sure that many young boys and some adult men believe that the young man with whom she had a sexual relationship is probably the luckiest kid in the world.  I agree with Bill O'Reilly that LaFave should be in prison, not parading herself on national TV making excuses and looking for sympathy. 

Furthermore, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: If these were men (emotionally disturbed or not, bad childhoods or not) convicted of having sex with underaged girls, they both would be doing hard time in prison. (Letourneau did serve seven years for her crime).  They certainly wouldn't be the subject of fawning "Dateline NBC" interviews and treated as pseudo-celebrities. 

Yet, the message that "Dateline" is sending is that female sex offenders (especially of the "knockout" variety in LaFave's case) are held to a much lower standard of public shame and condemnation than their male counterparts.  The double-standard at play here is just as blatantly shameless as the actions of Debra LaFave and Mary Kay Letourneau.

Case in point: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).  Read on.

Pelosi: 'The War in Iraq Is Not the War on Terror'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
September 14, 2006

(CNSNews.com) -"The war in Iraq is the wrong war. No matter how many times the president wants to say it, the war in Iraq is not the war on terror. The war in Afghanistan was."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made that comment Wednesday in a speech on the House floor. She was blasting a Republican resolution marking the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Pelosi says Republicans have introduced a partisan and "congratulatory" resolution: "It praises Congress for some reason," Pelosi complained.

"Instead of having the focus on the innocent victims of 9/11, it talks about the accomplishments of this Congress. I can't even imagine why they (Republican leaders) thought that was a good idea. Since they have opened the door to what they have done, they have also opened the door to what they have not done," she said.

Pelosi said the Senate's 9/11 anniversary resolution -- with its mix of mourning for the victims, consolation for the families, praise for the troops, and resolve to find the culprits -- strikes the right note.

Lost focus'

Pelosi says the nation has "lost focus on terrorism since the invasion of Iraq." (President Bush has described the war in Iraq as a key element in the global fight against terrorism.)

"Our focus should have continued to be on Afghanistan," Pelosi said. "We had the opportunity to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan and we missed the opportunity because we lost our focus."

In her speech, Pelosi listed what's gone wrong in Afghanistan -- the news is all bad, she suggests -- and then she mentions a number of security flaws at home, including a lack of screening at the nation's ports, etc. "The list goes on of shortcomings," she said.

But at the end of her speech, Pelosi says that "of course" Democrats will vote for the "flawed" resolution.

"It could be better. Just because the Republicans decided they wanted to praise themselves instead of focusing on the business at hand doesn't mean we won't support it."

Pelosi urged Congress to pass the recommendations of the 9/11 commission to "truly" honor the memory of those who died on Sept. 11, 2001.

Where's the Democrats' plan?

Aside from passing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, Pelosi -- in Wednesday's floor speech -- offered no solutions to the problems she enumerates.

The failure to come up with an alternative plan is a problem for Democrats. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that many voters don't think the Democrats have a plan to deal with the problems they continually mention.

According to the poll, 42 percent of registered voters said they are more concerned about Democrats having no plan to deal with the nation's problems than they are about Republicans offering no changes in dealing with those problems. Thirty-seven percent said they were more concerned about Republicans refusing to change course. (The poll of 1,009 registered voters, conducted Sept. 8-11, has a margin of error of plus/minus 3.1 points.)

Even the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council, a group embraced by Bill and Hillary Clinton, is urging Democrats "to outline exactly what [they] would do to correct the nation's course and actually make life in a dangerous world safer for all Americans."

In an email "dispatch" to supporters, the DLC urged Democrats to adopt a "progressive alternative" to the "failed" GOP strategy. (The DLC says Democrats should use the Progressive Policy Institute's book "With All Our Might" as a starting point.)

The Bush administration has made it clear it will not "change course or accept responsibility for its mistakes," the DLC said.

"The next few weeks will show if Democrats are willing to rise to the occasion to offer the country a very different and successful path forward in the perilous journey that began on 9/11."

The Dutchmeister Says...

So, Pelosi doesn't believe the war in Iraq is part of the global War on Terror. She (along with her liberal colleagues) continues to bash the Bush Administration. The Democrats have neither an alternative plan vis-à-vis the War on Terror nor any solutions whatsoever for the problems Pelosi and company outline.  And most Americans surveyed know it.

This is yet one more example for why liberals should never - ever - be allowed to lead us in a time of war.

Thanks to Mr. Robert M. Lipshutz, Esq., for these great words of wisdom.

How To Negotiate With Terrorists

This brief blog entry takes you through a series of negotiations over time between peacemakers and terrorists:

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of a line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker introduces himself. The terrorist kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks, "why did you kill my friend?" The terrorist kills him and rapes his wife.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "Stop that!" The terrorist kills him, rapes his daughter and kills his wife.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to t he right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "I'll pay you $1000 if you stop attacking us." The terrorist agrees to the deal, takes the $1000, and kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker appeals to the United Nations. The United Nations says the peacemaker is at fault. The terrorist kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker now has a gun, and threatens to use it. Other peacemakers start chanting the old 60's whine, "Can't we all just get along?" The peacemaker hesitates. The terrorist kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker tries to convince his peacemaker friends that the terrorists aren't going to respond to negotiations, but they insist that if he kills the terrorist it'll just make the other terrorists mad. The peacemaker reluctantly agrees to try negotiating again. The terrorist kills him., his entire family, and his neighbor's family.

A heated debate now ensues between the peacemakers who want to be nice to the terrorists and the peacemakers who believe that there can never be peace until the terrorists are all dead. While they are debating, the terrorists kill 15 more peacemakers.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks himself, "Which is more important: being liked by everyone, or protecting my family?" The terrorist pulls a knife to kill the peacemaker, but the peacemaker pulls a gun and kills the terrorist first. The United Nations condemns the peacemaker's use of unproportional force. Many of his peacemaker friends turn against him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker apologizes for what his friend did to the other terrorist. The terrorist kills him, his entire family and his neighbors, and threatens to destroy the city as soon as they develop a bigger weapon.

A peacemaker refuses to meet at the line because every time a peacemaker goes to the line the terrorist kills him. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line and fires rockets into the peacemaker's town. The United Nations condemns the way the peacemaker provoked the terrorist by refusing to come to the line and meet with him.

Generations pass and not much changes until one day when the son of a peacemaker decides that the old strategy simply won't work. He walks up to the left side of the line a little early. As the terrorist approaches the right side of the line the peacemaker shoots him. Another terrorist approaches to replace the first, and the peacemaker shoots him too. This scene plays out several more times. Then a terrorist approaches carrying a white flag, but he also has weapons. The peacemaker shoots him. A terrorist next approaches with a cease-fire resolution from the U.N. The peacemaker shoots him also. A large group of terrorists approach and the peacemaker shoots them all and drops a nuclear bomb on the city they came from. The peacemaker continues killing the terrorists until the terrorists are all dead.

There is finally peace on earth and the United Nations takes the credit.

You have got to be kidding me.  I knew that Clinton-era officials have been throwing a collective hissy fit over ABC's upcoming mini-series "The Path to 9-11."  Now, it's the Senate Democrats having conniptions - and are now threatening ABC!

(From Stephen Spruiell of National Review Online's Media Blog.)

Sens. Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan sent Walt Disney, ABC's parent company, a letter yesterday with the following message (emphasis Spruiell's):

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation. 

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. [...]

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Mary Katherine Ham has more on her blog about this.  Can you believe the gall of these men!?  Unbelievable.

 

Harvard University, reverred as the nation's (if not the world's) premier Ivy League institution of higher learning, has abdicated its standing as a university that values intellectual diversity and scholarly debate.  As the most (supposedly) elite university on the planet, it has successfully been hijacked by the radical left.  The faculty and student body practically revolted against president Lawrence H. Summers in the winter/spring of 2005 for having the audacity to provoke a scholarly discussion about the innate differences between men and women in explaining the dearth of women in high academic positions in math and science (a topic about which much scholarly ink has been spilled, but which gives liberal academics the heeby-jeebies).  The heat got bad that Summers has since resigned as president.

Harvard came under fire several months ago when a professor helped write an article criticizing a so-called "Israel Lobby" for driving foreign policy in Washington to the detriment of U.S. interests. Two years ago, Harvard returned a $2.5 million gift to the Divinity School from the president of the United Arab Emirates, after controversy arose over the president's ties to a think tank espousing an anti-Semitic platform.

Now, the university that every parent wants his/her child to attend (and are willing to pay and arm and a leg and a few teeth to send them there) has sunk to a new low: Harvard's Kennedy School of Government has invited former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to give a speech on (if you can believe it) "Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence," this Sunday, September 10, 2001 - the eve of the fifth anniversary of 9-11.



For those not familiar with the Iranian Ayatollah, who is in the U.S. on what Jeff Jacoby has aptly called a propaganda tour, here's a little snapshot courtesy of Hugh Hewitt:

• During the period of time he was in office, from 1997 to 2005, Khatami presided over Iran’s secret nuclear program. Currently, the Iranian Government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is snubbing the international community’s request to cease nuclear weapons production.

• In the recent conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border, Khatami described the terrorist group Hezbollah as a “shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.”

• Khatami has endorsed Ahmadinejad’s call for the annihilation of Israel.

• During Khatami’s presidency, Iran refused to hand over the Iranian intelligence officials who were responsible for the attack on the Khobar Towers that killed 19 U.S. military personnel.

• In his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of Iranian students, journalists, and others who spoke out for freedom and democracy. Khatami relaxed freedom of speech laws giving democracy reformers a false sense of security only to engage in one of the largest crackdowns in the country’s history.

• In Khatami’s Iran, there was no religious tolerance. According to the U.S. Office of International Religious Freedom, Iran was one of the worst offenders of religious persecutions. Minorities, such as Evangelicals, Jews, Catholics and others, have suffered.

Given his track record, I find it almost laughable that such an reprehensible individual from a rogue nation would be invited to discuss the ethics of tolerance. 

Fortunately, Massachusetts Republican Governor Mitt Romney, in refusing to offer any state assistance, police escort or VIP treatment whatsoever to the Ayatollah's visit, shows that there are still some elected officials today who do the right thing.  Saying that "State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel," Romney blasted Harvard for inviting Khatami to speak by rightfully calling it "a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11."

However, the Dean of the Kennedy School defends its decision to allow Khatami to speak this coming Sunday.  "Do we listen to those that we disagree with, and vigorously challenge them, or do we close our ears completely?" Dean David Ellwood said in an interview published Thursday in The Boston Globe. 

Well, let's see, Dean Ellwood.  If memory serves me correctly, you and your faculty brethren made no effort to "listen" to Larry Summers last year.  Since you "disagreed" (read: refused to acknowledge) that innate gender differences should even be mouthed, let alone discussed publicly, you went beyond merely "vigorously challenging" President Summers; you publicly tarred and feathered the guy, while "closing your ears completely" to anything else he had to say, before he ultimately stepped down.

Yet, you think it's cool beans to have as your keynote speaker someone like Mohammed Khatami?

I'll say it another way: Harvard crucified its own president (who, intellectually, could probably mop the floor with any Harvard professor) for simply trying to get a discussion going about a subject that should be anything but politically incorrect; yet, will invite an anti-Semitic, terror-sponsoring potentate to its campus one day removed from the five-year anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on American soil in the history of our great nation - one that claimed 3,000 innocent lives.

Am I missing something here, folks?

If either one of my alma maters (Boston University and Carnegie Mellon University) tries to pull some nonsense like this, boy are they gonna hear it from me.

From The Mercury News:

San Diego, CA: Fox 6 News reporter John Mattes was physically assaulted as he and his cameraman, who captured the attack on video, tried to do a story on a couple they believed were involved in a real estate scam.  Mattes, was questioning a couple for allegedly stealing identities when the woman, Rosa Baraza, was videotaped hitting Mattes in the face with her water bottle, which she had emptied by dousing the TV camera with water, and screaming obscenities at him.  Local 6 News showed video of the woman's husband, Assad "Sam" Sulieman, walking up to Mattes in La Jolla, Calif., and punching him in the face. He was then seen repeatedly beating the reporter with his fists.

The man's photographer jumped into the brawl and tried to break up the fight. A police officer eventually had to stop the attack with his gun drawn.

Mattes was taken to an emergency room with a bloodied face, bruised ribs and apparent bite wounds.




Suleiman and Baraza face a variety of charges. Suleiman is charged with battery, while his wife faces charges of battery, brandishing a weapon (a rock), grand theft, and making criminal threats.  They are now free on bail and will be arraigned in court on Monday, but their long reign of terror appears to continue.