Sacramento' Porn Library

The Sacramento Public Library Authority Board has decided against protecting library users from explicit pornography, a move lawyers at the Pacific Justice Institute had asked them to take, and which may, in fact, violate the library's own Internet guidelines.

The library board includes the five members of the County Supervisors board, and four members of the Sacramento City Council. Now there's a real surprise.

Here are the SPL Authority Board Members:
Roger Dickinson, Chair, Board of SupervisorsCounty of Sacramento
Robbie Waters, Vice Chair City Council, City of Sacramento
Jimmie Yee, Board of Supervisors, County of Sacramento
Roberta MacGlashan, Board of Supervisors, County of Sacramento
Don Nottoli, Board of Supervisors, County of Sacramento
Bonnie Pannell, City Council, City of Sacramento
Susan Peters, Board of Supervisors, County of Sacramento
Sandy Sheedy, City Council, City of Sacramento
Raymond L. Tretheway, III, Vice Mayor, City of Sacramento
Anne Marie Gold, Library Director, Secretary of the Board
Thomas P. Friery, Authority Treasurer, City of Sacramento
Diane Balter, Authority Counsel

"The present policy is to require filters on the computers," said Brad Dacus, chief of the PJI. "However, all that is needed to have access to pornography is for an adult to request that the filters be removed."

He said then anyone in the library, including young children, would be able to see the most explicit porn the Internet can offer.
"People know all too well that the pornography doesn't shoot the bullet, but it definitely cocks the trigger," he said. "We were asking [the library board] to minimize this risk."

"There was an investigation report done recently in Chicago … and the results were extremely disturbing," he told WND. "They had things like 33 confirmed sex crimes committed at one library branch over a period of three years, and beyond that, just numerous calls to police."

He said the software must be installed on the computers under the federal Children's Internet Protection Act, but it does little good if librarians turn the filters off for any reason at all.

"They don't see it as their place to question what's going to be accessed," he said. But the result is that pedophiles and sex offenders are "mingling with young children" in the library facilities.
"To us it is unconscionable. We take so many measures to protect children from sex offenders. Jessica's Law keeps them from living near schools and churches, yet here is a situation where offenders are mingling with kids in public libraries, getting aroused, and it's a recipe for disaster."

But the library's own Internet policies include the advisory that, "Users may not invade the privacy of others or engage in any activity that is harassing, defamatory or threatening, or receive or display text or graphics which may reasonably be construed as obscene as defined by law."

Besides PJI, parents and students from Sacramento had joined in the pleas for restrictions to online pornography at the publicly-funded library.

Appearing in endorsement of the no-limits policy was a law professor and another lawyer claiming affiliation with the ACLU, both of whom argued that the First Amendment protects porn. However, they didn't explain why the taxpayers must provide it.
(World Net Daily)

Do any of these Board members really listen to the items on the agenda? Whose rights are they trying to protect? Pedophiles? Sickos?

I am going to make sure that people around Sacramento know that when they drop their children off at the library, those kids have access to all forms of internet porn. And the group of elected adults supposedly voting on behalf of their constituants, voted to allow pornography to be viewed at the public library. And, I'll also continue trying to dig up who voted for this. Right now, that information seems to be frozen on the SPL website... hmmm.

"Dreary" Liberals and the Politics of Statistics

Liberal politicians revel in insulting the average working American with the largesse of CEO salaries. "You deserve more of the profit," they declare indignantly. "Profits need to be shared." "Wealth needs to be shared with the workers."

Senator Jim Webb used this cliched tactic after President Bush's State of the Union 2007 * * * * speech last week. Seeking to once again declare Republicans the pompous CEO's of the country, lead by evil Dick "Darth" Cheney, Webb opined, "When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared."

Webb failed to offer the obvious; The benefits from stock market gains (and the losses from stock market downturns) go to people who invest their own money in corporate stock, often through retirement plans. You invest your hard-earned money, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But it's YOUR money.

Columnist Alan Reynolds, in Dismal, Dreary Democrats, offers his insight: "It is equally senseless to speak of corporate profits "not being fairly shared." Profits are a residual -- whatever is left over from the money collected from customers after subtracting the costs of production. Companies can use profits to pay dividends or expand the business."

Webb continued: "When I graduated from college," says the senator, "the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times." The latest Economist says, "If you look back 20 years, the total pay of the typical top American manager has increased from roughly 40 times the average ... to 110 times the average now."

Alan Reynolds: "Webb's estimates were surely from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which claims the average CEO earned 262 times as much as the average worker in 2005. He might as well call that 110 or "nearly 400" because it's mostly guesswork. There are no statistics on what an "average" CEO makes, because most companies are too small to be counted in the flawed surveys of newspapers and magazines."

"There are also no good statistics on what the average worker makes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics explicitly warns that the figure the EPI uses is "not the earnings average of 'typical' job or jobs held by 'typical' workers." It is constructed by taking a weekly sum and dividing it by about 33 hours a week, because part-timers are included. The EPI then massages that "hourly" average into an annual salary by multiplying it times 2080, as if everyone worked 40 hours a week. The resulting figure greatly understates typical incomes of full-time employees and excludes nearly 40 percent of all jobs."

Anyone who has taken a Statistics class knows how easily statistics are manipulated to serve a selfish purpose and outcome. Senator Jim Webb is no different, only more blatant in his determination to send a dismal message to the American public. Most Americans recognize that our economy is booming, but don't try to convince ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and the like. However, for the long, eight years of the Clinton presidency they claimed (and still claim) how they made the economy robust.

Alan Reynolds continues: "Populists who gripe about rising profits should look at what happens when profits fall. Real, inflation-adjusted compensation per hour fell every year from 1993 through 1995 but has risen by at least 1 percent a year ever since -- even during the nasty energy shock of the past few years. Falling profits would not make the recent pay gains look any better, but falling oil prices will. Real compensation adjusts for inflation, including costs of medical care and education."

Webb went on: "Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them. In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing, also."

Reynolds again refutes Webb's grim fairy tale: "Manufacturing dismantled? "Over the 12 months ending in December, total industrial production increased 3 percent," reports the Federal Reserve, "to a level that was 112.4 percent of its 2002 average." U.S. production of cars and trucks rose 3.5 percent in 2004, 5.9 percent in 2005 and at a 7.3 percent rate in the first three quarters of 2006. Overseas auto plants were sent here, not the other way around.
U.S. jobs are disappearing? Employment was 145.9 million in December, up from 142.8 million a year before. If only bad jobs are increasing, why are average and per capita U.S. incomes rising? Why are so many U.S. shopping malls, restaurants and highways so infuriatingly crowded?"

Senator Jim Webb did far more than just manipulate a few statistics to serve his selfish purpose of scaring Americans; he lied. He boldly stood in front of the television - viewing public and lied. He couldn't be so stupid to not know any better, or be ignorant of the truth, could he, given he is a college graduate and in the United States Senate? No. Jim Webb did what most dreary, dismal Democrat politicians do; they lie because they do not have the truth on their side. The statistics and facts do not add up in the Dems favor. And if they can scare you enough, they're counting on your vote. But for what? I still haven't heard what they plan to do...

He Won't Kerry On

John Kerry has decided that he will no longer grace the American people with his presence as a Presidential candidate. His state needs him, Teddy needs him, Teresa needs him, and WOW, will we miss him.

Mark Steyn has written volumes on John Kerry, but his best is this:

Steyn, from September 2004: "IF I've been following the campaign correctly, the typical John Kerry day involves an early-morning visit to Bud's Truck Stop on Route 103 at which the senator orders a hot dog. Asked what he wants on it, he requests an aubergine and lemongrass coulis. Afterward, he heads to Idaho for a windsurfing photo-op to communicate his virility, after first flying out his stylist from Cristophe's to mousse his hair into its windswept and tousled position. Following questions from the press on the cost of his hairdresser, he first denies that he has a hairdresser and then, when her curling irons and rollers are pointed out in the back of his family's SUV, snaps, "She's not my hairdresser, she's the family's hairdresser."Later, after a two-man luge run with his Secret Service agent ends with him falling off after 50 yards, he snarls, "I don't fall off. That sonofabitch agent arched his back too high." Conceding that he was never in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968, the senator says that those words were repeatedly placed in his mouth by overzealous speechwriters. He wasn't in Cambodia, his wife's first husband's corporation's wholly owned subsidiary was in Cambodia. "But if George W. Bush's Republican smear machine wants to make our service in Vietnam an issue," he warns, "I say to them: BRING. IT. ON!"

If it weren't for the small matter of the war for civilization, I'd find it hard to resist a Kerry presidency.

For the professional political analyst, watching Mondale or Dukakis or Howard Dean stuck in the part of the guy who falls downstairs is never very satisfying: They're average, unexceptional fellows whom circumstances have conspired to transform into walking disasters. But Senator Kerry was made for the role: a vain thin-skinned droning blueblood with an indestructible sense of his own status but none at all of his own ridiculousness.

This would be more than enough to see most of us through November: Why did John Kerry cross the road? "I crossed the road to volunteer for Vietnam. Some of us know something about what it means to cross the road." Who was that lady I saw you with last night? "That was no lady, that was my meal ticket." How many John Kerrys does it take to change a light bulb? At least four: One to approve the removal of the old light bulb; one to declare his courageous commitment to replacing the old bulb; one to vote against funding the new light bulb. And one to denounce George W. Bush and America's Benedict Arnold CEOs for leaving everyone in the dark."

finish it here KERRIED OFF

Despicable American Liberal

Here's an example of a despicable liberal. I am sure that he'd be the first to tell you what a patriot he is...

***********************
(Fox News) An American GI assigned to one of the harshest posts in Iraq had a simple request last week for a Wisconsin mattress company: send some floor mats to help ease the hardship of sleeping on the cold, bug-infested ground.

What he got, instead, was a swift kick from the company's Web site, which not only refused the request but added insult to injury with the admonition, "If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq."
Army Sgt. Jason Hess, stationed in Taji, Iraq, with the 1st Cavalry Division, said he emailed his request to Discount-mats.com because he and his fellow soldiers sleep on the cold ground, which contains sand mites, sand flies and other disease carriers.

In his email, dated Jan. 16, 2007, he asked the Web-based company, registered to Faisal Khetani, an American Muslim of Pakistani descent:

"Do you ship to APO (military) addresses? I'm in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for ships to APO first."

On the same day, Hess received this reply:

"SGT Hess,

We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.

Bargain SuppliersDiscount-Mats.com"

Khetani on Monday told FOX News that the person responsible for the email reply had been fired. The Web site, meanwhile, has been temporarily taken down.

Hess emailed that he has since found two mat suppliers willing to ship to an APO address in Iraq.
*******************

Hess he has since found two mat suppliers willing to ship to an APO address in Iraq, and didn't have to go through Bargain Suppliers.

Another nice liberal flexing his muscles. Such a patriot.

The "New" Family

In today's Sacramento Bee, the story New family portrait was the above-the-fold featured article. Giggly and charming, Maddy is the cherished princess of her Elk Grove family: gay dads Ed Condon and Norman Lorenz, and her little brother, Tim. Maddy's adoption in 1995 was the first for a gay couple in Sacramento County, making her both a pioneer and a poster child for same-sex parenting.

A gay couple with two kids is the headliner. Hmmm. Why is this "news?" Whose agenda is this?

Of course the researcher interviewed claims "that children of these (same-sex) households tend to be as well-adjusted and successful as offspring from heterosexual households. By some measures, they are faring better."

Chilidren from gay parents are faring better than having a mommy AND a daddy? Really? Is that why many of these same children are sexually confused and more than 80% of them admit they experiment with gay sex while in their teens? And, in Woodland, it's true for Terra and Skyler Mikalson, children of a heterosexual marriage whose mother came out as a lesbian five years ago. Shortly afterward, Terra, not yet 13, decided she was a lesbian herself. Hmmm. She decided, did she? At age 13?

Life isn't always perfect for these three families -- kids and parents alike have faced hazing and condemnation by outsiders.

The selfishness involved with gay parenting is what is so disturbing. Gay men and women know they are not accepted by society regardless of how many feature articles the Sacramento Bee does. They know first hand the discrimination and humiliation. Why drag a child through this? It's as selfish as single women insisting "I want a child, therefore I will have one." The It's all about me syndrome. Gay couples can pretend they are just like everyone else but they are not. Their children have different issues to face, and from a very early age.

Sexuality for instance, is something that children should not have to deal with at a young age, and rarely do children from heterosexual parents. But in gay households, sexuality is always on the table. How do you explain the act of sex and lovemaking to children when it's gay sex you are talking about. In most areas of society, people consider gay sex pornographic. But gays teach their children that gay sex, i.e. having sex with a person of the same sex, is okay, "normal" and perfectly acceptible.

Dennis Prager has written extensively on this subject. "As Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago recently wrote in The New York Times, "We know next to nothing" about the effects of same-sex parenting on children.

"The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting," he and his co-author wrote, "is scant at best. ... There are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples' children.

"Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study on this question 'contained at least one fatal flaw' and 'not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.'"

So the statement that "studies show" that children don't do better with a mother and father is as factually mendacious as it is morally repugnant. Why then are so many fooled by it? Because "studies show" has become the refuge of those who do not wish to think. I hear this lack of thought regularly from college educated callers to my radio show who refuse to think an issue through, or to make a moral judgment, without first having seen what "studies show."

It is disingenuous of same-sex marriage advocates to claim that while children may not be better off with same-sex parents, they will be just as well off, with two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father.

Prager continues: This claim, however, is dishonest. So dishonest that it leads to a certain cognitive dissonance among many of those who make it. On the one hand, they don't really believe that mothers (or fathers) are useless, and they do not wish to lie. On the other hand, they know that they have to say that a mother and father are no better for children than two same-sex parents or they will lose the public's support for same-sex marriage. Were they to admit the obvious truth -- that same-sex marriage means that society will legally and deliberately deprive increasing numbers of children of either a mother or a father -- few Americans would support the legal redefinition of marriage and family.

So, same-sex marriage advocates now argue that children do not do better with a mother and a father. In fact, when you google "children of gay couples," at least ten pages of pro-gay "studies," "researchers," gay-agenda college professors and psychologists pop up. And any studies of the negative effects of gay parenting are buried.

How has it happened that particularly in the media, heterosexual couples, marriage and families are now considered controversial? Who determined that the state of marriage is in trouble? It has happened because many groups and ideologies have a personal interest in denying that it is best for a child to be raised by, or even to start out life with, a father and mother. Who are they? -- Those who believe the traditional feminist viewpoint -- many professors, teachers, and their present and former students -- that men and women are essentially the same, only differing as a result of a sexist upbringing and a sexist society. Here we are back to the feminist garbage that has ruined millions of families.

But with all of this selfishness - gays, feminists, single mothers - who is asking what's best for the kids, and not what's best for themselves? Compassion for children, a child's right to a mother and father, their equality as human beings -- these all get drowned in the sea of self-centeredness, moral confusion and misdirected compassion that denies them their right to a mom and dad. (Dennis Prager)

Let's backtrack to the Gay Rights movement. I like to call it the “gay privileges” movement because gays are not presently deprived of anything that is rightfully theirs. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs. Gays want more rights than heterosexuals to justify and even appease the societal disapproval of being gay. Somehow they believe that legislating gay approval will bring them widespread approval.

They could not be any further from the truth. We have always known there are gay persons in society. The don't ask, don't tell concept up until the 80's and 90's seemed to work fine. But gays wanted more rights, recognition and most importantly, approval for their lifestyle. And with the Gay Rights movement came way too much information about the gay lifestyle. What couples do in the bedroom with their spouse should be private. A sex life is supposed to be private, just between the couple. With gays seeking approval, information about their lifetyles also came out; we all found out too much about gay sex.

And now they've dragged children through issues that should belong exclusively to them. They wanted a family - two daddies - without any consdieration for what was the best for the kids.

Military Heroes

This is a beautiful video tribute to America's military heroes.

http://www.iwo.com/heroes.htm

And if it doesn't make you feel anything for our country and for our military, France is calling.

Lonely Feminists

I subscribe to a magazine geared to women over 40. And while the pages are still filled with very attractive women attempting to convince readers to lose weight, get fit, get a new wardrobe, have a makeover and buy all new makeup, it is also a magazine filled with feminist anger and resentment.

The cover this month has a teaser that reads, "20 more years with...him?" Love, sex, money and renegotiating the marriage. Renegotiating the marriage? Sounds like man-bashing to me.

It's a sad thing to see a middle-aged male completely emasculated by his overbearing wife, daughters, sisters, and female coworkers. Today's baby-boomer men and GenX men have been severly stripped of their manliness by women thanks to the feminist movement. Walking, talking wimps.

This past weekend I observed such a couple shopping... a husband and wife nearing age 60. He asked her if he could look at something and she snapped at him, "Not today. I don't feel like looking at those. Another day." He skulked off like a chastised child. She had a superior smirk on her face as if she'd just won another battle. I was so embarassed for him. No cojones.

Yet, some of these same middle-aged men have gathered up the courage and left their angry, resentful and unhappy wives. Many remarry (sometimes younger), happy women who love them because they are men. Found cojones.

The magazine I referred to above, for women over age 40 - More magazine - has a couple of articles this month about long-term marriages and how dissatisfied most women are in them.

Most of us in long-term marriages have, at one time or another, worried that the changes we were making in ourselves were going to rock to boat right out of the water. "My huisband married a very different woman from the one I am now," we say. What we really mean is, "If I'm becoming a different woman, what am I doing married to the same man?"

This quote is from an article titled Rewriting the Terms of Endearment, creative ways to get the intimacy, adventure and self-expression you are craving.

Much of the article was how women are refusing to settle for that "creaky, cranky old institution" known as marriage and defining the terms under which they will stay married. Some women took trips with other women friends to find themselves, others left the marriage, and some just continued to bitch at the husband with no expectations for improvement.

Sounds like emasculation, explained...as long as you continue to provide me the lifestyle in which I have become accustomed, make no demands for sex or cooking, let me have all of the girls nights out that I want, and sit when you use the toilet, we'll be fine.

Several women interviewed claim that marriage is in a state of chaos. Women can't get every need met by one individual. Huh? Says who? And what kind of idiot tries to get every need met by someone else?

When women started hearing in the 1960's and 70's from other women that those old-fashioned ideas about being a good wife and mother was not necessary to be a women, all bets were off. Everywhere women turned they were told make your demands, free yourself of male oppression, become a slut and experience sexual freedom (and a host of STD's). Women my mother's age (68) demanded to get out of the house and get a job. They no longer cared as much about maintaining a lovely home for their family as they did being free of it. Children became latch-key kids and spent afternoons watching cartoons on black and white television sets. Daycares sprouted up. More women went to college for careers - not just for the old Mrs. degree. Men had jobs, but women had careers.

These same women taught their daughters to demand the same freedom. They also began to emasculate their sons, terrorizing them into submission and fear. And today these children of the 60's and 70's feminists are married and having children. Today's husbands are afraid to say anything derisive to their feminist wives lest they insult them. Husbands are required to divide up household chores, share equally in kid duties and give wives nights off to go out with the girls. I know a couple - he's a lawyer, she's a doctor. They have two school-aged children. Yet he, the guy who only makes his living on an how many hours he bills, takes kids to school, picks them up from daycare, cooks, cleans dishes, takes them to sports... The wife is beyond spoiled; she's a rather distasteful human being, treats her husband like a servant. I guess she figures that she HAD to have the babies (how horrible), so he can take care of them. Whatever.

Feminists really have it all wrong. Besides creating so much stress for themselves and their families, they often end up alone. And how silly. Men are really easy and have only a few simple needs. So what's the big deal?

Cooking: If he likes dinner at home, fix him dinner at home. I love to cook so it's not a problem for me anyway. My husband and I talk about the day while I cook, we watch the news and get caught up. It's a nice time for us. He always offers to help. And we really like to sit down for dinner together with our family. If you don't like to cook, buy prepared foods, make stuff ahead and/or get the family involved in meal preparation. What else are they going to eat? Peanut butter sandwiches.. again? It's a natural time to get reconnected again with your family.

Respect: Men need our respect. If you don't respect the guy, why did you marry him? Or what changed in the meantime? Showing your husband respect isn't so tough when you're not a self-absorbed feminist. Showing your husband respect makes him feel worthy of such a wonderful wife.

Sex: Men need sex. Men like sex. Most women need sex and some even like sex. What's the big deal? If you truly love your husband, you'll keep him really happy and at home with intimacy. Middle-aged women who are in the throws of menopause or peri-menopause have horomonal issues with estrogen levels dropping, but to shun your husband of many years is not very nice and often leads to divorce. Unless he adjusted many years ago to being cut off from maritial sex, plan on many more years of intimacy. You may even like it. Duh.

Household chores: I've never understood women who take no pride in their homes, whether it's a big house or a tiny apartment. Women by nature are nesters. And if you have kids, they can and should help. Husbands even help when they care about the home too. It's not rocket science. And if you work it's even more important to get help from the family. How can being a feminist justify a filthy house?

Communication: Women are communicators. It is up to us to initiate the communication. Don't whine that he never talks about feelings. Get him to talk by communicating with him. You may actually learn something about him if you ask questions and listen.

So what's tough about men? Food, sex, respect, nice home and communication.

In the article the author writes, "Like 1950's housewives, our men have become diminished and unfulfilled. We are the heads of our households..." Middle aged women whining that their men didn't become CEO of something, and complaining that their husbands haven't kept pace with their ambition.

No wonder they end up alone. They emasculated their men many years ago, made clear to these men that unless they were equals, there would be hell to pay. And when these men gave up trying to compete with their masculine wives, many men became the family nurturer, caregiver and are still searching for their cojones. One day they wake up and leave.

Feminists alone, and lonely. They've chased every man away, become embittered and even bigger man-haters. At the end of the article. the author writes, "But our joy in our own fulfillment is always tempered by that nagging fear that it has come at the expense of our husbands', and our impatience with the life choices they've made." Or the choices the men were forced into.

As middle aged women alone they wonder if they'd been less controlling would their husbands' lives had been richer. Did they hold their husbands back by insisting on being the center of the universe and self-absorbed feminists?

The answer is yes, yes and yes. No one so self-absorbed will have well-developed relationships, much less with a husband.

Femininst were so determined to discover who they were as women and dominate everyone along the way, they forgot what it was to be women and how to have relationships with men. And now they are lonely feminists, either trapped in empty long-term relationships or are alone. Do you wonder why?

It's Just Not FAIR!

It's not fair. I believe I was four years old when I first recall being told by my father that "Life isn't fair."

We already know that liberals complain incessantly when they don't get their way. And now, In a speech before the National Conference for Media Reform, Dennis Kucinich announced his chairmanship of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee. He wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine .

The Fairness Doctrine was a federal regulation, dating to 1949, which mandated "contrasting viewpoints" from broadcasters. In reality, the Fairness Doctrine ensured that incumbents got "free" TV coverage across their terms while challengers got crumbs. The Fairness Doctrine was also an early nuclear option: If a local broadcaster's news operation made the local congressman or his party look bad, Washington could threaten to blow up his broadcast license.
Ronald Reagan tore down this wall in 1987 (maybe as spring training for Berlin) and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination. (Opinion Journal)

The new subcommittee, Kucinich said in the speech, would be a platform to hold “hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.”

“You are the message,” he said to the cheering crowd.

Kucinich specifically criticized efforts by to the Bush administration to ease the so-called “cross-ownership” ban in a press conference after his speech. The rule keeps media companies from owning a television station in the same market as a newspaper. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has said he would like to ease the ban.

Kucinich also said that he would hold hearings on re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, a former requirement that radio and television stations provide a right to respond to allegations in “controversial” broadcasts.

Other libs, including Chris Bowers, thinks the Fairness Doctrine is "Fair and Balanced, and writes this about restoring the Fairness Doctrine: The link above leads to a petition you can sign to urge Congress to support the fairness doctrine. This is extremely important, and will help ease the threat that the Republican Noise Machine poses to our Democracy:
For many years, television and radio stations were required to give equal time to opposing sides of public or political issues to ensure the American public heard all sides of a debate. It was a requirement made by the Federal Communications Commission that came to be known as The Fairness Doctrine.
In 1986, a federal court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine did not have the force of law and could be overturned without congressional approval. Congress passed a bill to make the doctrine law but the bill was vetoed by President Reagan in 1987 and the Fairness Doctrine was abolished.
Since then, the country has experienced a proliferation of highly partisan news outlets that disseminate unbalanced news coverage. Democracy is built on the idea that the views, beliefs, and values of an informed citizenry provide the best basis for political decision-making.

he continues...Restoring the Fairness Doctrine would open up America's "marketplace of ideas." It would help to restore civility to our public discourse. It would help restore our democracy.

Restore our democracy? My eye is twitching. Their idea about opening up America's marketplace of ideas means silencing those with whom they disagree... specifically Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannitty, Laura Ingraham and other conservative talk show hosts.

However, even some over at Daily Kos don't like the idea... Daily Kos: Don't Restore the Fairness Doctrine There has been discussion on this site lately about how the Democrats should bring the "Fairness Doctrine" back into play.
I have to emphatically disagree, and I hope that my fellow Kossacks in the same camp show some support. The issue of access to media is complex, but the real question comes down to: do you believe in the First Amendment, or don't you?

I had hoped that when the Democrats, who I have worked my ass off to get elected, would not resurrect this sorry ghost from the past, but it has reared its head.
So I hope that those Democrats who still believe in the Constitution join me and denounce any attempt to restore the "Fairness Doctrine".

Well, interesting that we agree on that issue. So what's Dennis Kucinich up to?

Critics of the Fairness Doctrine believed that it was primarily used to intimidate and silence political opposition.
In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC [1] (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment. (Wikipedia)

The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. The result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. (Heritage Foundation)

DANIEL HENNINGER of Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal wrote this analysis: It wasn't obvious that conservatives soon would dominate talk radio. What worked after speech became free in the spectrum ozone was hyper-articulate conservative hosts opening their microphones to millions of hyper-angry conservative voters--not least in such liberal bastions as New York, Boston, and Los Angeles.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich, his Contract With America and the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1952--the years in which the Fairness Doctrine largely kept politics off the air. This didn't happen because the Gingrich candidates were getting their message out in the Los Angeles Times or Boston Globe.

The conservative media ascendancy chronicled by Brian Anderson has driven many liberals nuts. The liberal media-advocacy group FAIR wants a new Fairness Doctrine to repair "broadcast abuse." Just months ago, FAIR cited "the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves."

What goes around comes around, I suppose. Conservatives would say they're now using radio, TV and the Web--all of it free from political control--to give as good as they got from the 1960s onward. For years, they claim, liberal managers in broadcasting, journalism, publishing and academia marginalized them. Were conservatives imagining that?

Maybe not. Mr. Anderson cites left-wing philosopher Herbert Marcuse (who taught at Columbia, Harvard and Brandeis) urging liberals back then to practice active "intolerance against movements from the Right" in the name of "liberating tolerance." Thus, for example, liberal academics would vote to deny tenure for conservative colleagues--and still do--believing that this is a morally mandated act.

Liberals now marvel at the energy and output of the conservative "movement"--the talk shows, the think tanks, the blogosphere. No need to wonder; they compressed the rocket fuel for the inevitable explosion. Read the rest of Henninger's excellent history of the Fairness Doctrine: OpinionJournal - Wonder Land

Kucinich, a 2004 candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination who stated his intention to run again in 2008, said that his committee will hold holdings criticizing the FCC on the issue of media ownership.

One lefty blogger writes: His chillingly brilliant speeches show depth, passion, and a reverence for Truth and the Common Good. Aside from being one of the most vocal opponents of what Jon Stewart so aptly calls Bush's "catastrofuck", Kucinich suggested America could benefit from a Department of Peace to counter the snapping, insatiable maw of the military-industrial complex.

RAW STORY ("Alternative media") reported at a conference Friday which included bloggers and alternative media journalists, that Kucinich said, "I intend to hold hearings on media reform.""Those hearings would address concentration of media ownership and other issues," he pledged. "We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda…The entire domestic agenda has been ignored while the focus has been on the acceleration of wealth upwards." Kucinich also pledged to hold hearings on restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

Kucinich said, "I would be willing to hold hearings on journalists who have been prosecuted or persecuted because of their defense of the First Amendment. One of the founding matters in our country is a free and unfettered press…I think there should have been an inquiry into why Dan Rather was fired."

Kucinich suggested that his committee, which has broad oversight powers, could look into other issues, ranging from contractors involved in post-Katrina work to Bureau of Indian Affairs policies, poverty and neglect of American Indians. "We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible," the presidential contender concluded.

At least we now know Kucinich's agenda, which was not reported by NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC. Kucinich has Presidential ambitions we know, but now he actually wields power, and conservative supression is tops on his list.

Democrats "New Direction" ...to Where?

Democrats promise "A New Direction For America." What specifics have they outlined?

The stock market is at an all-time high and America's 401-Ks are back. A new direction means?

Unemployment is at 25-year lows. A new direction means?

Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction means?

Taxes are at 20-year lows. A new direction means?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction means?

No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11/01. A new direction means?

Saddam Hussein was hung for crimes against humanity. Osama bin Laden is living under a rock, having not surfaced in years, if he's alive, while 95 percent of Al Qaeda's top dogs are dead or in custody, cooperating with U.S. Intel. A new direction means?

What is the real new Democrat direction? Have you heard anything specific? Or anything at all for that matter?

Nope. Just a lot of mouths flapping with some sound coming out, but nothing is being said.

New Direction.

Dick Morris writes today for Newsmax: The Looming Democratic Party Civil War Iraq is not the only place that is threatening to dissolve into the anarchy and bloodletting of a civil war. It's about to happen to the Democratic Party. Reacting to Bush's planned "surge" in troop strength, the Democratic leaders in Congress, savoring their victory, are contemplating taking only symbolic steps to protest Bush's war policies, a timidity that will highly displease their leftist boosters.

The liberal activists who funded and impelled the Democratic victory in 2006 did not focus on winning a congressional majority so that it would take merely symbolic action. Symbolic action would have been appropriate for a minority party, but the backers of a party in the majority expect something more.

So the Democrats are about to form their customary firing squad — a circular one — and begin again the battles that ripped their party apart in the late 1960s. The battle lines are the same: The new left vs. the party establishment.

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are about to squander their credibility with their supporters on the left by failing to cut back, or cut off entirely, funding for the war.

The Democratic Party's left wing is not to be trifled with.

It is a massive force, fully mobilized, and led by aggressive online organizations such as Moveon.org. It has plenty of political leaders — like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry — who are more than willing to articulate fundamental differences with the party's congressional leadership and are not shy about doing so.

The congressional leaders' plan is to give Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself by increasing troop strength in Iraq. They are deeply skeptical about whether more soldiers will accomplish anything besides increasing casualties. But they are not about to take the rap in front of the American people for seeming to sell out our troops by cutting their funding and forcing the administration to retreat. Nor are they ready for a constitutional confrontation with the commander in chief over his wartime powers.

So, instead, they are going to hold hearings during which a parade of former generals will voice their misgivings and air their disagreements, past and present. It will be like one of Bob Woodward's books enacted on a congressional stage. But this theater is not going to appease the left.

They did not elect Democrats to Congress so they could hold hearings.

They expect laws not shows. Their frustration will become increasingly apparent as the Cindy Sheehans of the world react to the increased troop commitment in Baghdad.

The left will launch campaigns of civil disobedience, public marches and protests, online petitions, and the like.

It will be the 1960s all over again.

As long as the Democratic Party could be counted upon to represent the left on Iraq, protests against the war were channeled through the political process and were aimed at electing a Democratic Congress. But now that the Democratic leadership has, in the eyes of the leaders of the left, "betrayed" them, look for protest to overflow the bounds of partisan politics and go into the streets.

One can expect candidates in the Democratic primaries to run to the left seeking to capitalize on the frustration of peace activists at the passivity of the party's congressional leaders in the face of Bush's determination to add to troop strength committed to Iraq.

Moderate candidates like Barack Obama, John Edwards, and even Hillary Clinton may find themselves outflanked by those more willing to run to the left like Al Gore and John Kerry. Until now, we have had a two-party system in our post 9/11 debates. Now a new entrant is in the field: the new left.

Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2006.

So while the Dem leadership is holding mock hearings and creating meaningless resolutions, the kook left of the party is the group with the New Direction?...

This ought to be interesting.

Free Everything = Votes

Why do welfare recipients get a check for doing nothing? How is it that welfare mothers can sit around all day watching Oprah and Dr. Phil, supposedly taking care of their babies, and get paid? They should be required to do something for the check. Here's a plan a friend and I believe in, and she's been a single mother for 17 years: Welfare mothers that live near each other coop babysitting services and run their own daycare, watching children so that other mothers can work. You either work outside, but recfeive free daycare or babysit other mothers' kids. And all men should have to work until retirement age - that's a given, especially if they are young and strong. Bottom line: Getting something for nothing teaches these people nothing. We're working on 4th and 5th generation welfare recipients - the system stinks.

Why are driving laws not applied applied equally? God forbid that Highway Patrol officers would pick up most of the unregistered cars driven by illegal aliens with no insurance, no drivers licenses, no smog certificare, and probably stolen identity. Instead cops are instructed NOT to profile. Too bad... What a great way to round up many illegals if only they had to live under the same laws you and I are held to.

Why do illegal aliens get free health care, and welfare? I recognize that it is inhumane to turn away sick people from hospitals, and trying to find them to collect on the bill is not realistic. But has anyone in government put two and two together and come up with free healthcare = incentive for illegal aliens to come to the state? Maybe if we gave them Drivers Licenses too we'd at least have an easier time tracking them down for the bill...

Why does Fabian Nunez think that forcing California employers to provide health insurance will solve all of the problems of the uninsured? In order to do that, he'd also need to force employees to take the insurance instead of doing what many of them do: ignore the employer's health insurance and instead use county health services or emergency rooms for free. Why pay insurance premiums when the county will do it for you? Rarely does the county catch up with these employeed cheats. In my own company, only 70% of the employees sign up for the employer-subsidized health insurance. The others? They use emergency rooms, falsify county health & welfare applications for government paid health care and/or, go without. Will Fabian order them to accept the health insurance we offer, or instead order us to pay 100% of the premium? Stay tuned... I know the answer to this one.

The Nebbish Mayor

Oh please, stop the torture.

Heather announced this morning that it's official... she's running for for Mayor of Sacramento for a third term.

This proves that Sacramento is clearly a state worker "town." Because no one else would ever vote for such an ineffective, do-nothing, run-for-cover Mayor.

A whopping 11/3% of Sacramentans turned out to vote during the last election. How's that for a mandate?

Thisis the same Mayor who has staked her entire career on the Kings and a new arena, now the railyard, while crime in Sacramento is at an all time high. Sacramento's gang are thriving, and Heather remains focused on basketball and the railyard.

In South Sacramento alone, there have been more than 36 different gangs identified by the Sheriff and more than 5,000 gang members.

The Sacramento News & Review wrote about her 2004 relelction: But her reinstatement was hardly a rousing yea vote for her vision and style of leadership. It was more like a shrug of acceptance from Sacramento voters who seemed strangely willing to forgive Fargo some major bungling--especially her attempt to give the billionaire Maloofs an arena and saddle taxpayers with a $538 million sports-and-entertainment complex. Let’s state this plainly: Fargo’s plan to fund the thing by taxing and adding surcharges to prices at nearby bars and restaurants was ridiculous. Fargo failed in political astuteness.
Anyway, Fargo prevailed despite all that and is mayor again. Hmm. This makes one wonder: If she could survive the arena debacle, what might she really be capable of? Fargo’s heart seems to be in the right place. She’s smart. She works hard.
But where’s the boldness of vision, the imagination?

And they like her.

Heather is a nebbish. She's not even an astute politician. Sister City garbage, full-time driver, $100,000 per year salary... c'mon, surely Sacramento can do better. PLEASE.

"Bipartisan" Windbags

The new Democratic leaders of Congress on Wednesday accused President Bush of ignoring strong American sentiment against the war in Iraq and said they would build a bipartisan campaign against his proposed military expansion.

“We are going to fund the troops that are there,” said Brendan Daly, an aide to Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker. “Any escalation of troops we will subject to scrutiny. We will have hearings, and we will set benchmarks that the president must meet to obtain this money.”

Any challenge to Mr. Bush over paying for the additional troops is probably months away. House Democrats said their first step would be to vote on a nonbinding resolution opposing Mr. Bush’s plan. The Senate is planning to vote on a similar resolution as soon as next week.

Oh my, such conviction, such action, such wimps. A non-binding resolution? Waste of everyone's time.

How is it that the Dems are so vociferous about not supporting the war, but they continue to fund it?

Windbags. Wimps. Reelection is more important than conviction or purpose apparently.

America's Treasonous Media

Many years ago I was on the school newspaper and took journalism classes. We were taught how to investigate, to question witnesses, how to interview without leading, and how to report the facts of a story without editorializing.

Today's journalism students go into this field "To make a difference." They are taught how to manipulate, influence and get their point across. Students are encouraged to use their diversity to influence their stories. Journalism schools are encouraged to address the students’ needs for a sense of belonging.

Who is teaching objectivity? What happened to just the facts 'mam?

America's "journalists" not only lean heavily to the left in their political opinion, they allow their political persuasion to dramatically influence everything they write. In a previous post about America-Haters, I proved that the Hate-America-First crowd is always liberals. Not all liberals spew hate-America speech, but everytime you hear hate-America and blame-America speech, it is from a liberal.

So how does this make America's liberal journalists treasonous? Because their "reporting" is influenced by their hate-America ideology and their blame-America-first ideas betray their country in the name of journalism and first Amendment protections.

They are more concerned with writing of their ideology and swaying public opinion than the safety and security of Americans. And in doing so, these ignorant buffoons are playing right into the hands of America's enemies.

Case in point: The New York Times publishing The Bush administration made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts. Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.

Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

Referring to the disclosure by The New York Times last December of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, she said, "The president is concerned that once again The New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is working to protect our citizens."

The New York Times chose "Public Interest" (read our numbers are dwindling so we need to print government secrets to sell our rag) over America's security, even when depolored not to do so by the President. Absolutely reprehensible. And yet, the story reported that the program is legal, effective and, as far as any Bush antiterror initiative can be in the current poisonous environment, uncontroversial. But they published it anyway regrdless of it's complete legality.

Rich Lowry of NR says this: "By running the nation’s foremost newspaper, Bill Keller gets to decide which secrets of the U.S. government are maintained and which aren’t — and his default position is to expose them all.
On the one hand, the implicit contention of the Times is that the public almost never has an interest in secrecy, in having classified matters kept that way. On the other, it jealously guards the identity of its secret sources and wants its ability to do so in defiance of governmental investigations written into law. Here is the ultimate arrogation of public power — the Times demanding legal protection for its own secrets so it can better expose the government’s."

He continues: "This attitude reflects what is, in the minds of the members of the press, an ongoing crisis of legitimacy of the U.S. government, going back to Watergate and the FBI and CIA scandals of the 1970s. It was these abuses that created the decaying, but still regnant Imperial Press, which now reflexively adopts an adversarial stance toward our government even when it is acting in an effective way, fully within its power and abusing no one."

Yes, the press deserves deference in keeping with the First Amendment. But it cannot be a government unto itself.

Most recently, The American Thinker reported that The New York Times published information obtained from a disgruntled Port Authority employee concerning the dangerous vulnerability of the PATH transit tunnels running beneath the Hudson River - the most recent episode of the Times making public damaging information obtained through illegal national security and intelligence breaches.

"The article by William Rashbaum and William Neuman, "Hudson River Tunnels Seen as Fragile", reveals critical details of a highly sensitive review conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that concludes that the PATH tunnels are more vulnerable to terrorist attack than experts had previously thought.
These tunnels are the same as were targeted by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists captured overseas earlier this year who planned to set off bombs aboard PATH trains - which carry 230,000 passengers each day - as they passed through the Hudson River tunnels hoping to breach the tunnel walls sufficient enough to flood the tubes and drown the occupants of the trains. The captured terrorists confirmed for intelligence officials that the thwarted attack was scheduled for sometime in October or November of this year."

"Tragically, the mainstream media has shown at almost every opportunity that they have absolutely no self-restraint in handling classified government data; but imposing restrictions that undermine the First Amendment will be counter-productive in both the short-term and the long-term. The new Democratic congressional majority - who has been the secondary beneficiaries of these disclosures (behind the terrorists) - are unlikely to take action on these disclosures until they inevitably result in tragedy (at which point they will blame the Republicans). Thus, the responsibility lies with the Bush Administration, which must act quickly in this regard to protect our nation from even more damaging information from being passed on to our enemies."

There is only one way to correct this problem: shut off the information pipeline between government agencies and the newsrooms and prosecute government employees who are willing to engage in illegal - and in some cases, treasonous - conduct to advance their own personal agenda.

It is obvious that The New York Times cares little about consequences, if in fact they even believe that terrorists exist. Bill Keller has proven that he believes he is above the law and will go to any extreme to grab sensational headlines - even if that means putting the lives of every American at risk.

"Not everything is fit to print. There is to be regard for at least probable factual accuracy, for danger to innocent lives, for human decencies, and even, if cautiously, for nonpartisan considerations of the national interest."
- Alexander Bickel, about the duties of the press in his 1975 collection of essays "The Morality of Consent." Bickel was a law professor and expert on the United States Constitution.

Bill Keller should bone-up on his Constitution before he hides behind it again.

America's Latest "Most Powerful Woman" Part ll

UPDATE: I am not the only woman growing weary of Nancy Pelosi's I am Woman Hear Me Roar theme.

Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall.com offers her opinion: Pelosi’s self-congratulatory rhetoric was remarkable for its triumphalist excess. In her opening address as House Speaker, Pelosi characterized her ascension as “a moment for which [women] have waited more than 200 years,” “through the many years of struggle.” She concluded grandly, “For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling.”
Really? Prior to Pelosi’s election, were women being deliberately and systematically excluded from leadership in the corridors of political power, thereby requiring the shattering of obstacles maliciously put in place by men? Given the prominence of a number of women in Washington – ranging from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Elizabeth Dole to Education Secretary Margaret Spellings to political consultants like Donna Brazile and Mary Matalin – such an assertion seems like something of a stretch. What’s more, it’s difficult to see how the fact that a woman has been elected Speaker of the House marks the lifting of a heavy yoke of oppression for all American women – especially when it’s impossible to point to any meaningful repression being visited upon them in the first place (unless, of course, one counts Jane Harman, who -- in a significant breach of feminist sisterhood -- has been passed over by Pelosi for chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee)... read More.


From Nancy's speech: I'd like to thank Paul and our five children, Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul, Alexandra and our magnificent grandchildren for their love, for their support, and the confidence they gave me to go from the kitchen to the Congress. We have waited over 200 years, never losing faith. We waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren't just waiting, women were working.

From the kitchen to Congress? Would someone please beat that woman with her own spatula?

Rush retorted, "We are being told by her and the Drive-By Media that this is something brand-new and revolutionary and better than we have ever, ever had. Note, we've never had old grandpa Newt up there with the kids on his lap because he didn't care about kids, that's the assumption, men just don't care. Kids are fine as long as they're at home and the woman is raising them, but don't bring 'em to the office, that's the image that is -- but look at Ms. Pelosi. Why, she can multitask, she can breast-feed, she can clip her toenails, she can direct the House all while the kid's sitting on her lap at the same time. Take care of children, take care of the country at the same time, never, ever been done before. It's all about the feminization of the culture."

Yes, it's tongue-in-cheek but he has a point. Why has Nancy ignored her own credentials? Being a woman did not get her to the number 3 position in the country; her experience and skilled politcing did. However, she imprudently chose to play the female card instead, trampling all over her own credibility.

And the lap dog media gushed right along with her. Rosie-the Riveter she is not. Successful career politician she is.

And as long as she keeps up the feminist talk, her roar is shrill.

**************
January 5, 2007

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy, your power trip is already tiresome.

Why is it news that the Speaker of the House is a woman? Big deal. Women hold all kinds of positions in the working world. And they hold powerful positions as well.

So why is the star-struck media so enamored of wild-eyed Nancy Pelosi? Because Nancy is so enamored of Nancy. Her PR machine is very effective and, well, very Nancy.

Last night Charlie Gibson breathlessly commented on Nancy's swearing in as she had her 6-year old grandson with her proving that "she is a multi-tasker."

Oh my God. That's never been done before. She's really breaking the mold isn't she. Can't the media starlets see what fools they are, buying into the feminist BS, that somehow Nancy Pelosi is some sort of pioneer? She's no pioneer, she's a career politician just like the men who held the job before her.

No one breathlessly exclaimed what a pioneer Condolezza Rice was when she joined the Bush cabinet. Why? Because she's conservative and that disqualifies her. Look at how the media excoriates other female conservatives; Michella Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Kathleen Harris for example.

Feminists are demonstrating how imbecile they really are, harping, shreaking, moaning and sounding just like the shrews htey are when speaking of Nancy's rise to Speaker. They really even discredit her by making such noise about her status as a female and not a whisper of her accomplishments that go her there. However, Nancy seems to be entirely focused on her female status as well, so perhaps feminists are taking a cue from her after all.

"This is a historic moment for women everywhere—Nancy Pelosi has broken through the marble ceiling," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "With the House under Speaker Pelosi's leadership, women are now more hopeful for a better future. NOW looks forward to working with Speaker Pelosi on legislation that will help empower women and families."

The Daily Feminist News reports: "Throughout the many speeches and events celebrating her new role, Speaker Pelosi, a self-identified feminist, emphasized the importance of her win for American women and working mothers. In her speech before Congress, Pelosi said, "It's an historic moment for the women of America. It is a moment for which we have waited over 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren't just waiting. Women were working. Never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal. For our daughters and our granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling. For our daughters and our granddaughters now, the sky is the limit," the Chicago Tribune reports. Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal said of Speaker Pelosi's win, "Feminists everywhere are celebrating. She gives hope to the dream of equality being realized in our lifetime."

How exactly are we women still oppressed? Hmmm. We work outside of the home, we are educated, we play sports, we wear pants, we cut our hair, we get divorced and half of everything... where is the oppression that feminists live for? What rights are we deprived of?

We have completely emasculated men and boys in today's society. What's left?

Nancy's rise is not of an oppressed woman but that of a wealthy wife, and daughter of a politician. folks, she's an insider and don't be fooled. Nancy broke no glass ceilings; she did what every other politician before her did to achieve her rise in power. She bought it.

This phony hype over a women speaker is proof positive that the media has no judgment in it's choices of stars, and is merely star struck... loosers desperate to hang out with the popular kids. Why else would they spend so much time following around Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? ANd now, Nancy Pelosi.

I'd be embarassed to be the latest media darling.

The Ugly America-Haters

You have heard the expression, "The Ugly American" nes pas?

Ugly American is an epithet used to refer to perceptions of arrogant, demeaning, unthoughtful behaviors of Americans abroad. The term originated as the title of a 1958 book by authors William Lederer and Eugene Burdick.

In America today, we have residing here many Ugly Americans. The only difference is that they are in America misbehaving and rude, and not on foreign soil. The rude, offensive behavior Americans have been accused of exhibiting in other countries, we witness everyday. They are the Hate America first crowd, also known as the crazy lefties.

Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.
They insisted on calling the Soviet-backed Vietcong "the National Liberation Front of Vietnam," just as they call Islamic fascists killing Americans in Iraq "insurgents." Ho Chi Minh was hailed as a "Jeffersonian Democrat," just as Michael Moore compares the Islamic fascists in Iraq to the Minute Men. (Ann Coulter for townhall.com)

There are only two choices with savages: Fight or run. Democrats always want to run, but they dress it up in meaningless catchphrases like "diplomacy," "detente," "engagement," "multilateral engagement," "multilateral diplomacy," "containment" and "going to the U.N." I guess they figure, "Hey, appeasement worked pretty well with ... uh ... wait, I know this one ... ummm ... tip of my tongue ..." Democrats like to talk tough, but you can never trap them into fighting. There is always an obscure objection to be raised in this particular instance — but in some future war they would be intrepid! One simply can't imagine what that war would be. Democrats have never found a fight they couldn't run from. (anncoulter.org)

Anti-war protestors are one of the finest examples of America haters. Cox & Forkum have a great analysis of such Americans: "Contrary to what they proclaim, most of the protesters are not against war. They are against America waging a war of self-defense. They are against Israel waging a war of self-defense. They are against free nations waging a war against the sworn enemies of freedom. But they are not against the war that is being waged on America by militant Islamic fundamentalists."

"You will not see signs that say "DOWN WITH IRANIAN THEOCRACY" or "STOP THE PALESTINIAN SLAUGHTER OF JEWISH CHILDREN ON BUSES" or "DICTATORS LIE, MILLIONS DIE." What you will see is the vilification of America for civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and a total evasion of the fact that those deaths are the fault of the fascists who initiated or threatened to initiate force against us (not to mention the violence they visited directly upon their own people).
Though the Islamists and the "anti-war" protesters may have their differences, they are united by one thing: a common hatred of America."

David Horowitz wrote in September 2002, "When your country is attacked there can be no such thing as an "anti-war" movement. Protesters against America's war on terror, are not peaceniks, they are America-haters and saboteurs, and they should be treated as such."

He continues, "someone who shares with Osama Bin Laden the belief that America is the Great Satan and who would aid and abet any enemy, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein -- it really doesn't matter -- before they would embrace their own country and its defense. This is the creed of the sick Fifth Column in this country, whose base is the pc university and whose intellectual gurus are Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. To call these wretched people Benedict Arnolds would be an insult to a man who did betray his country but did so, at least, in behalf of a tolerant democracy. These post-modern traitors do it in behalf of murderers and fanatics, do it in behalf of nothing more, really, than a blind, fanatical hate, which is really a self-hate."

Blame & Hate America first may be popular among the truly ignorant however, it is a base a vile ideology. One must be ignorant of our country's history to believe as vehemently as they do that we are the cause of the 9/11 attacks on our soil.

Suzanne Fields comments: Anti-Americanism is the disease du jour for a lot of the world's envious, beginning with the intellectuals, who are carriers of the virus, and including bloggers, washed-up politicians and whatever man (or woman) in the street a lazy reporter with a microphone, camera, pad or pencil can find who wants to put in his nickel's worth.

In "Uberpower: The Imperial Temptation of America," Josef Joffe, the publisher-editor of Die Zeit, the German weekly newspaper, suggests that the unthinking and repetitive cliches offered by European critics expose them as bores, chasing their tails, indulging circular arguments that go nowhere, peddling tedium and trivia as original thought.
He decries the "selectivity" of the anti-American criticism as emotion that has little if anything to do with specific policies and everything to do with pressing hot buttons to drive passion and sensation that ultimately reduces legitimate debate to demagogic sloganeering. "Imperialism" is "inbred" in the bad Americans because "look what they did to the Indians." American capitalism is bad, and "blood for oil" is just another manifestation of the American way of life."Anti-Americanism . . . is not criticism of American policies, nor even dislike of particular American leaders or features of American life, such as gas-guzzling SUV's or five hundred TV channels," concludes Joffe. "It is the obsessive stereotypization, denigration, and demonization of the country and the culture."

Paul Johnson, the British historian, describes anti-Americanism as a syndrome with a variety of symptoms, all rooted in the racist, crude, childish, self-defeating behavior of the decriers.

Bill O'Reilly weighs in: "All over the world, millions of people believe America is evil, worse than the terrorists. And the unrelenting hate-Bush media in this country fuels that ridiculous concept.
Quite simply, the Bush haters are out of control and are hurting the country. It is patriotic to responsibly disagree with the president or with any administration. But it is wrong to smear public servants in any party."

Bruce Walker asks: "Why do men like Michael Moore live in America? Why, indeed, do so many people who profess hatred of America live in America? This is one of those forbidden questions in politically correct public discussions, which include these other Verboten queries: "Why are textbooks and documentaries ignoring the overwhelming evidence that communist infiltration of America during the Cold War was greater, not less, than anti-communists in the 1950s and 1960s thought?" or "Why are there no feature films about the greatest holocaust in human history, the extermination by communists of 100 million souls in the 20th Century?" or "What was the attitude of Leftist Democrat icons like Harry Truman, Hugo Black, Woodrow Wilson, Tom Clark (Ramsey's father), and LBJ toward civil rights before it was a vote-getter?"No one is compelled to live in America."

he continues, "Have the first requirement for immigrating to America a genuine, demonstrable and clear commitment to America. This could be demonstrated by a period of service in an American Foreign Legion or by a battery of psychological tests or some other method. Proficiency in English, knowledge of American history, and understanding of our political system would all be prerequisites as well. Find out which immigrants are coming to America for freedom and do all that we can to make room for them.

How? File civil actions against those Americans who patently believe that they live in a totalitarian state that never does anything right, etc. Require that the party sued by the government either agree that living in America is a blessing for which she is very grateful or pay her for her citizenship and send her to another nation, one which by treaty would accept ex-Americans.

Each American like Alec Baldwin who hated America should be divorced permanently and some frail lady from China or Peru or Egypt who demonstrates a real understanding and appreciation of America allowed to have Baldwin's citizenship. Let France have Baldwin and let America have poor people who wish simply to be free. The whole world would be better off."

No one is forcing America Haters to stay. And we know why they stay. My husband says that everything is economic. It's certainly a good motive to start with. Michael Moore continues to make lousy movies while Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and Barbra can mouth off as much as they like without repurcussions - no secret police to take them away in the night for being Anti-American, no loss of revenue on their latest movie project or effect to their stardom. The hypocracy of the America Haters is laughable except they have the star-struck media following them around like puppies after food. And other weak-minded liberals join the bandwagon to hang out with the popular kids.

So Be It

Happy New Year!

My family spent a few wonderful days on the coast recharging our batteries after Christmas. We watched movies, ate, cooked, ate and ate more. We walked on deserted beaches, soaked up the winter sun, ran the dogs and even went to the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk for a day. Son Biff brought a friend and made us laugh when they acted too cool on the rides. (fetching jen a few years ago, soaking up the sun)

And even though we were taking time off, we did not miss the newsmaking events; even the uber-liberal Monterey Herald prints news.

Saddam's execution, President Ford's death, the (bogus) Duke Rape case, Angelina Jolie's trip to Bolivia or Columbia... whatever. Some "news" just isn't that memorable or even that newsworthy.

And another new year is upon us. Wow. 2007.

I don't make resolutions. I think they are stupid. I try to keep a running list of things I wish to work on, get done, change, improve, or attempt. To start a new list just because it is a new year would add insult to injury.

However, I am not getting any younger and my book is still incomplete. Yup. I've been writing a novel; kind of a psychological thriller. I wrote it and finished it in one year. I put it down for a while and gave myself a rest. When I picked it up again to read it from a fresh perspective, I hated the ending. I had written myself into a box. So I put it away again, for 11 months, and just picked it up again in December. I need to get it done once and for all. So if that's a resolution, so be it.

Last year at this time I was still in the hospital having just gone through my fourth back surgery. It was the most miserable hospital stay. My doctor, who left town immediately after performing my surgery, thought that I could get along with Vicodin after carving up my back. Nope. I know pain, and Vicodin was as effective as a multi-vitamin. Thankfully, after 12 hours of painful writhing, a kindly doctor peeled me off of the ceiling and prescribed something stronger and actually effective. I swore at that time that I would never have another back surgery again unless I am promised a new back. I'll use a walker before I go under the knife! It is not a pleasant experience. I spent much of 2006 recouperating, and then getting back into fighting shape. Luckily, my back feels amazingly good most of the time. I guess for 2007 I will just keep myself strong and in shape, so if that's a resolution, so be it.

This year our last child, Biff, will graduate from high school. He has a very promising future and could leave almost immediately after graduation if he goes to the Naval Academy... Plebe Summer they call it. I call it Academy boot camp. I keep promising myself that I won't get mushy and weepy everytime I think about his inevitable departure. I look at the wall of family photographs in the living room and get teary-eyed when I see his little picture at ages two, four, and eight, his old soccer team group shots, this year's water polo team, and then at his graduation photo. Gulp. We are very close so this is not going to be easy. A resolution? Maybe. So be it.

As part of my rehabilitation this past year, my dogs (I have three big canines) rehabilitated as well, getting frequent power walks. They helped build my upper body strength with the tugging and pulling, while the lower body moved at an excessively fast pace for walking. So, I read a great deal about dog training (The Monks of New Skete, Brian Kilcommons)) and even become a fan of the Dog Whisperer (he's amazing) in order to make the walks more enjoyable for all of us. This year you will be able to watch me walk all three dogs in a beautiful heel, stop and sit on command, and even ignore other dogs as we walk. And we're already well on our way. Sounds like a resolution, doesn't it. So be it.

I am going to clean out the extra bedroom in our house and make it into a nice home office. Right now it is an embarassing storage facility housing everything from kitty litter boxes to weights, purses and old clothes, wrapping paper supplies, old pillows... just embarassing. It's worse than our basement. OH! That's getting a remodel as well this year. Did I just make two more resolutions? So be it.

I am going to get all of my filing done. I will take better care of my skin. I will be a more patient driver. I will read more non-fiction. I will laugh more at the stupid comments on my blog. I will wear sexier shoes instead of wearing clogs most of the time. I will be more careful about speaking my mind. I will shamelessly blog about our idiot Mayor, weekly.

Oh my. It looks as if my list just grew. So be it. Better get to work.

Happy New Year.