Friday, October 22, 2004

A victory for Christians - Public School Must Pay for Censoring Christian Student

Court rules that a Christian teen was discriminated against because of her religious views.

A federal district judge has ordered Michigan’s Ann Arbor Public Schools to pay $102,738 in attorney fees and costs in a case involving a high school’s refusal to let a Christian student express her views on homosexuality.
As stated by Judge Rosen, “This case presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating ‘diversity’ by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an ‘unwelcomed’ viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view. This practice of ‘one-way diversity,’ unsettling in itself, was rendered still more troubling – both constitutionally and ethically – by the fact that the approved viewpoint was, in one manifestation, presented to students as religious doctrine by six clerics (some in full garb) quoting from religious Scripture.”

"This case is another example of blatant anti-Christian bigotry masquerading as 'tolerance,' and 'diversity,'" said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America (CWA). "It's why CWA works long and hard to fight 'sexual orientation' being added to so-called hate crime statutes. It's loaded with potential for abuse such as this."

But then, since this would not be in line with the beliefs of Mrs. Heinz-Kerry", how would something like this fare under a Kerry presidency?

Thursday, October 21, 2004

The BBC imitates Moore's F9/11

It seems that the BBC has a "bizarre new documentary on terrorism and neoconservatism".

- - As Curtis explained in a magazine interview this week: "My original intention was to look at the neo-cons and then the radical Islamists. I was astonished to discover that they have the same philosophical roots. They both believe that the problem with modern society is that individuals question anything; by doing that they [those individuals] have already torn down God, that eventually they will tear down everything else and therefore they will have to be opposed.- -

Are they truly so clueless that they believe this kind of stuff? After watching this kind of garbage, its no wonder that people in England are being encouraged to write condescending letters to "undecided voters" here in the U.S. and says things like "if you back Kerry, you will be voting against a savage militaristic foreign policy of pre-emptive killing which has stained the great name of the US so hideously in recent times".

"Dying for the UN"

Following up on Larry F's excellent post below "Commander - in - Chief Kerry?" comes this illuminating quote from William Kristol's column in The Weekly Standard:
Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
I guess this is what he meant by a "Global Test". And this is the UN that dithers while thousands die. We're going to put our security in their hands? I think not.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

What Liberal Media Bias?

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post certainly thinks it's all a big myth
MILBANK: Well, I wouldn't say they've gotten a small amount of coverage. On the other hand, I think the First Amendment doesn't discriminate, and Sinclair should be absolutely free to do what they're doing.

The bigger scandal at Sinclair is that they wouldn't run Ted Koppel's "Nightline" when he read out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. So they're not -- they're not being fair here. But absolutely...

KURTZ: And their executives have contributed a fair amount of money to Bush and the Republicans. So they've got a fairness issue here. MILBANK: If nothing else, this should dispel the notion of the liberal media, when you have Sinclair, when you have "The New York Post," when you have "The Wall Street Journal" editorial page, when you have "The Washington Times" and when you have a towering giant like Laura Ingraham.
Well now, let's take a look at the top twenty U.S. newspapers by paid subcription

The Wall Street Journal
USA Today
The New York Times
Los Angeles Times
The Washington Post
Daily News, New York
Chicago Tribune
Houston Chronicle
The Dallas Morning News
Chicago Sun-Times
The Boston Globe
San Francisco Chronicle
New York Post
The Arizona Republic
The Star-Ledger, Newark
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Denver Rocky Mountain News
The Plain Dealer, Cleveland
The San Diego Union-Tribune

Of the top 5 papers, all but the Wall Street Journal are liberal.

The New York Post is 14, and the Washington Times does not even make the list. Funny how these papers rile up the left so much. Maybe because they have a habit of exposing the truth?

If we take a look at TV and Cable news, we have Fox News in the conservartive column. But CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN? Hopelessly liberal. And don't get me started on Reuters or the BBC(check my site later for an article on them.)


My post on the BBC's wonderful new "documentary" is up. Just be sure you're able to stifle your scream before you read it.

I've also got a post up on a conversation on between CNN's Howard Kurtz and Newsweek's Evan Thomas that you won't want to miss.

Sunday, October 17, 2004

Commander-in-Chief Kerry???!!!

I can only imagine our enemies drooling over the prospect of this scenario. This is the same man honored at Hanoi’s Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum honoring highly useful-idiots. Offering up this man to be at the helm of the world’s strongest military is like giving jihadists and corrupt governments a giant goodie-filled piñata.
The man who boasts of his discerning the real complexities of global issues is clueless when it comes to what the Commander-in-Chief’s duties are in time of war. One of those duties includes promoting a positive morale within the ranks of our military while destroying or at least diminishing the morale of our enemy. Why is that so difficult for Kerry to understand? When Kerry says this is the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” just whose confidence is he really stoking? Kerry links six pages of “catastrophic failures in Iraq” on his website while blogger Chrenkoff posts the good news in Iraq. Which one of these sites do you suppose better promotes jihadists’ propaganda? In a speech at New York University Kerry tries to convince his young audience that the sky is falling: “Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight. And ”42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July…66 in August… and already 54 halfway through September.“ A Commander-in-Chief cannot be an obsessive-compulsive body counter during a time of war, especially one of attrition (unless you want to boost the enemies’ resolve and effectiveness as Kerry helped accomplish in Vietnam). Can you imagine what scenario Kerry’s hand-wringing and body-calculations would have produced if he had lead the U.S. during World War II’s Battle of the Bulge: 8,607 dead, 21,144 missing, 47.139 wounded, or Iwo Jima: 6,821 dead 19,217 wounded? Yet as we near the election his ‘defeatist’ remarks continue to give aid, comfort, and power to our enemies.

More excerpts from the NYU speech: “On September 12th, headlines in newspapers abroad declared ‘we are all Americans now’ [We now know what absolute B.S. that was]. But through his policy in Iraq, the President squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world. ”…Read “Myth of the Squandered Sympathy

He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.”…Like our friends :France, Russia, and China?

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction” Kerry now has powers of omniscience!

Al-Qaeda could easily copy and paste much of Kerry’s speech and use it effectively in its recruiting pamphlets. Kerry repeats ad nauseum of our failure to “win the peace”(an appealing charge to a young culture steeped in instant gratification). In 1945 Eisenhower said to his staff…”The only way we’ll know if we won this war is 50 years from now Germany is a stable and prosperous and peaceful democracy. Then we’ll know that we have won the war.”

“From the Boston Globe's excellent and careful campaign biography of Sen. Kerry [via Dave Frum’s Diary] :…Sen. Kerry's foreign policy ideas can best be summed up as "opportunistic oppositionism." It's a tactic well suited for a man trying to make his way by mobilizing angry out-of-power constituencies. But the conclusion I take away is that if Sen. Kerry should ever find himself in a position where he has to make the decisions - rather than react to decisions made by others - he would have absolutely no idea of what to do ... and would very likely do nothing at all while blaming others for everything that went wrong as a result of his own inaction.

Kerry’s grasp of wartime policy is the antithesis of the Commander-in-Chief’s job description.