Thursday, September 28, 2006

KOLR 10's Town Hall Meeting on the War on Terror

I just watched KOLR 10 host their town hall meeting about the War on Terror ( News ) with Dr. Ibrahim, ex-CIA analyst McDon....oops, I mean McGovern, Retired Army Col. Robinette and what was...Fletcher? I think? The retired Marine whose son is serving in Iraq. It was a very interesting discussion. Dr. Ibrahim, gave the most food for thought in my humble opinion.

I couldn't help but note that Mr. McGovern would not answer the question posed regarding whether he was anti-Zionist directly...saying "I am pro-justice...." very telling that he would not answer the question as posed.

Dr. Ibrahim said something interesting in that Americans need to understand that Arabs view Palestinians as "very critically important" but would also point out that it is every bit as important for Arabs to understand that Israel is "very critically important" to a majority of Americans.

Discussions such as this are good and I'm glad to see them going on, but clearly McGovern does nothing to end the polarization over the war in Iraq. The obviously thrives on it...calling our intelligence community "cowardly folks in the intelligence community " and attributing that sentiment to the head of the House Intelligence Committee because he dared to hire his own person to do an assessment of National intelligence in a "little charade," when McGovern pulled that description out of thin air. No one but McGovern has called our intelligence community "cowardly folks in the intelligence community."

Then there was the straw man question someone posed which suggested that some people believe that "if you don't support our President you are anti-American," Who has ever really said that? That is what lefties think we mean when we disapprove their destructive criticism.

I know I am not the only one who is tired of discussing straw men and ready to get down to the business of meeting the goals we need to meet in Iraq and get our military out of that country.

What we need is better ideas, better plans, better results. Yes, there is a right to dissent in America, there are young men fighting for that right as I have repeatedly written. But with that right to dissent comes a responsibility, as well. It is simply not enough to shout "No blood for oil!" or "Bush is a liar!" Too many on the far left have the impression that they can shout talking points without any responsibility for offering solutions.

Perhaps it would be a good starting point for all of us to remember that every American wants our troops home safely at the earliest possible date and go from there.

Much of the solution is reliant on moderate Muslims taking on more responsibility themselves as Dr. Ibrahim suggested. Education should be a more important aspect of reaching our goals but, with that in mind consider all the schools that are being built, all the supplies being supplied to young Iraqi boys and girls...are they being taught to hate America? Are they being taught a love of democracy? A love of freedom? Is it inherent that all people seek freedom? I'd like to hear Dr. Ibrahim's reply to those questions.

This dialog is going on here and all across America. There are people who are getting their jollies from rhetorically jabbing their debate opponent(s) in the eye instead of listening to what their opponents have to say. That is unfortunate, we are not playing a game here though there are people who apparently think we are. In my opinion they are the ones who are helping to polarize our country and one can only ask why they seek to polarize and divide us, what is their motive? Dr. Ibrahim said that hatred is spawned out of for thought, indeed.

I'll be sending a link to this to KOLR 10. They are taking further emails at for anyone interested.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

How About Some Disjointed Thoughts?

Thought I'd pop in and type out a few words. I don't even really know where it's going to lead. I've got loads of things on my mind.

My brother, sister-in-law and nephew came and spent the day and all evening with us yesterday. We celebrated my mother's 71st birthday. Her birthday isn't actually until Wednesday but we cheated a little. I decorated a very laughable birthday cake but after putting the candles in it it didn't look all that bad. It tasted great with the help of a little Blue Bunny on top! ;)

I had a really interesting discussion about religion with my brother. Something we hadn't talked about in a very long time. The last time we talked about it we got in a bit of a tiff (it might have just been me) but we both really enjoyed the discussion last night and I think it reminded us of how much we USED to enjoy talking. I hope we can continue the discussion.

The Libertarian Guy (tm) had a funny post that I read and shared with my brother, Insanity on a worldwide scale. He is running for the 134th district House seat in Missouri, read more about his platform here: Rodgers for 134th District, personally, I think he's far too cool to be a representative, I doubt the majority of his constituents could be represented by such a cool dude (and excuse my terminology, I ain't very cool, myself) considering they simply cannot measure up to him on the cool scale. ;)

Dan and Jeanne commented on Irreconcilable Differences, recommending that I read Wes Wilson's White Horse Journal. When reading Dan and Jeanne's blog I discovered they mentioned that "Wes" is Dan's brother-in-law, I don't know if this is Wes Wilson or just coincidental but upon reading Wes' entry at White Horse Journal, Justice for the Middle East, where he suggests:

"The world sees that it is only America that funds and arms Israel, so when Israel makes a blunder we too are blamed - hence the World Trade Center bombings and the outflow in the billions for homeland security protection plan contracts. Consequently we need to insist on supporting only our own mainstay virtues of American Democracy in all our dealings concerning Israel and the rest of occupied Palestine. This means that we must make clear that we Americans are not Zionists - and that every democracy that we Americans help build or fund with our own hard earned tax dollars and potent military hardware must be 100% secular - like we are - and that each citizen-inhabitant must be treated equally before the law. That is, there can be no exclusive theocracy or nepotistic tribalism allowed or even tolerated if any American tax dollars or armaments are going to be used to fund, support, or defend it. This will mean that instead of the "two country" policy 'solution' - which is not a solution and never will be (e.g. Hamas) - must be abandoned in favor of a "one country solution" like the one we have fought for and now launched at great cost in Iraq - or else all our support will stop. When and if this is adopted by our government as its new policy for Israel-Palestine it will mean that eventually the voting population of Israel-Palestine will become more and more Palestinian. This will mean that the compromises favoring 'justice for all' that are not being addressed now - will surely be addressed as the Palestinian votes add up within this new Democratic country - by vote, not by force - which is of course the only way a true democracy should work.

When this policy is in place - like we are attempting in Iraq - each citizen of Israel-Palestine will get one vote - whether Israeli or Palestinian, Jew, agnostic, Christian or Muslim. When such a broad and honorable way of dealing with the entire "Middle East Crisis" becomes widely known as the official American foreign policy - then we will be seen by all parties to be treating all people involved equally and fairly - and terror against Americans worldwide will subside dramatically."

I suppose Dan and Jeanne think this is an impressive idea. I am being generous when I say that I think it is unfeasible and impossible. To suggest that we do away with Israel as a country, in favor of a new country which would incompass Israel and Palestine together completely ignores the basic fact that Palestinans have been used as pawns by more malevolent entities, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. These TERRORISTS control the Palestinians' actions and reactions in much the same way Islam's Imams recently controlled the Muslim reaction to the Pope's comments about Mohammed. The Palestinians are taught by radical fascist terrorists to hate Israel, to hate the U.S. and to act out in violent ways against them.

Mr. Wilson seems to think if we simply tell the Palestinians that we aren't Zionists and promote the misnomer idea that we can all get along that eventually they'll stop attacking us? That "terror against Americans worldwide will subside dramatically?" All we need to do is talk to them, make Israel (?) one country which includes Palestinians and the world will live in peace...Kumbaya muh Lord, kumbaya...

Okay, so it IS a novel and new idea but I'd suggest that there could be a reason no one else is espousing it? :::hint, hint:::

I'm calling a man about a job tomorrow. I think it will be flexible enough to allow me to care for my Ma and do something I've dreamed of doing my whole life...I'll let you know how that turns out. :)

I nearly FAINTED when I heard Bill Clinton barely fall short of having a mental breakdown on Fox News Sunday with Mike Wallace this morning!!!!!!! Ahahahahaha! It is a vast right wing conspiracy, after all! I'm lovin' it! And speaking of that catch phrase I'm so broke I can't even afford a McDonald's cheeseburger.*

*Hint, hint to that guy I'm calling about a job tomorrow. ;)

Dang, I've missed having the time to write here. I know it's disjointed, but you have NO idea why...heh, heh.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Okay, Here's What's Going On....

I had to call an ambulance to come and pick my Mother up on Sunday morning. She was staying at my house at the time. I am hearing that she will be able to go home tomorrow. I do not know what this is going to mean in terms of how much time I will have available to be online and/or working on the blog.

I covet any and all prayers for my Mother, for me and our family, and I thank you in advance for them.

I hope to be contributing more soon.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Irreconcilable Differences

According to Glenn T. Stanton, as quoted at, the number of adults who have been divorced quadrupled from over 4 million in 1970 to over 17 million in 1994. It is likely that more than a few of those adults cited "irreconcilable differences" as a justification for their divorces.

Today America is polarized, there are clearly some irreconcilable differences between certain political pundits. What is a citizen to do when he or she would like to divorce themselves from the political antics and power plays by one party against the other?

I believe that Republicans, who clearly are more willing to fight for our security and safety in these states should be awarded the home, the car and custody of the kids. I plan to explain why I have come to this conclusion.

I'd wager all of us have heard of a jealous wife who believes her faithful husband is guilty of having an affair, no amount of pleading and explaining will cause that wife to believe her husband. He can give her the details of his day, he can call her throughout the day but this jealous wife is convinced that sometime in between the dry cleaners and the office, or the office and the house he stopped at a sleazy hotel along the way and met an imaginary mistress who is twice as beautiful as she, twice as young and much better in bed.

Eventually the husband will either have an affair because his wife expects it and all her dreams (or nightmares) will come true or their marriage will simply end in divorce because she continues to believe the worst of him, regardless of what he says or does. In essence she lies about him, she lies about him to all her friends, her family, oftentimes even her church family, all the while convinced he lied to her when he never lied at all.

So is the love/hate affair/marriage of George W. Bush with the jealous Democrat party. So does the Democrat party lie about him, wrongly convinced that he first lied to them and there seems to be nothing that he or any Republican could ever say to convince them otherwise. I suggest we simply put this behind us, grant the Democrats the divorce that they make inevitable and move on. We'll cite irreconcilable differences and we'll be expecting child support and health insurance. If the government needs to garnish their wages or raise taxes on the Democrats to meet the costly demands of these righteous judgments, that suits me just fine. Democrats like higher taxes anyway, and everyone knows with their bleeding hearts they should be happy to provide for our needs.

There is a way out of this inevitable divorce between the citizens of our great nation. We can use the techniques utilized by a marriage councilor. We can acknowledge that we hear one another. We can stop assuming things about each other and we can seek to mend our broken hearts, the broken trust of our nation.

I cannot speak for Democrats and I don't claim to be able to speak for all Republicans, but here is the beginning of what I hope will open a dialog between us. Let me warn you that much like that angry husband who has been accused of cheating for ten years and is ready to scream in the face of the wife, I am at my wit's end. If I appear to be angry at the Democrats, my "other half," it is because I am angry, I'll not pretend otherwise. I am throwing down the gauntlet. I am telling the jealous wife that if she doesn't stop with her insane hallucinations that there will be no reconciliation.

Here is what you must do to appease your angry husband, and I acknowledge that you are as frustrated with your husband as your husband is with you:

1). You must lose your defeatist attitude.

2). We have heard your message that you are unhappy that we went to war in Iraq. Well, some mothers are unhappy when their child is diagnosed with an illness but it doesn't mean she can or will disown her child. Neither can you disown your country, or the war we are engaged in, in Iraq.

3). We have heard you say that we are losing the war in Iraq. We do not want to lose our hope for victory there, we are optimists. We believe America can win the war in Iraq and the broader war on terrorism but we need your help. When your son got in trouble the other day you expected your husband to stand behind you as you meted out punishment, whether it was to ground him, to take away his video game, to remove the television from his room, whatever it was you delegated as punishment, you had the right to expect that your husband would support you even if he disagreed with your punishment, even if he questioned you. He could question you in private but before your son you rightfully expected him to "have your back." So it is with us, we can rightfully expect that even if you don't like the war in Iraq you'll still have our back. Disagree with us in private, not before the international community. Don't air our dirty laundry in public!

4). We have heard you when you complain Bush hasn't done enough to secure our nation at home and many of us agree with you. We want our borders secure. We want to see less pork barrel spending in Congress, we want to see "conservatives" act conservative for a change. We want to see better security at the airports. What are your ideas? You criticize but you don't give us alternatives. I've even had some of you complain you just simply don't have to offer an alternative, that it isn't your responsibility, that you aren't the "party" in control of this nation.

Excuse me? Someone elected Democrat leaders in Washington and while you are busy excoriating the Republican leadership for doing all the wrong things and making all the wrong decisions they happened to have been elected by you and have a responsibility not only to you but to all of us, to our nation. Why would you not expect them to give your viewpoints a voice!? You cannot actually be proud of them, can you!?

You claim you have the right to dissent, the right to be heard, the right to offer criticism but with criticism comes a certain amount of responsibility. Not simply responsibility to those in your own state or community, but to your nation. You may live in Missouri, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, I don't care where you live or where your representatives came from, they owe it to you and to your nation to serve them well, to give 100 percent to our country. Together, our representatives and Senators collectively make up the government of the United States of America and as their constituents we are reliant on them to give voice to good alternatives and solutions rather than simply disagree with the actions and policies that are being followed.

Yes, your leaders have a responsibility to put forth a reasoned alternative approach to be discussed, it is a very important part of constructive criticism. Without it you and your leaders, as your representatives, are destructively criticizing our country and undermining the war against Islamic fascism. That, of necessity aids the enemy of our nation. It is simply a fact and cannot be denied. There is nothing wrong with dissent, there is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, there is everything wrong with destructive criticism and you and your leaders are unwilling to even aid their own country by offering an alternative policy, instead leveling politicized rhetoric in a political power play which has absolutely nothing to do with the best interests of America and everything to do with an upcoming political election. To be honest with you I feel no particular tie to the Republican party, though I am a registered Republican. I plead with you, give us some good ideas for how to achieve victory in the war in Iraq and the broader war against terrorism. You owe us that much if you really want to reconcile our differences.

Democrats, you have a choice, if you do not like the way you are perceived then you can step up to the plate, by not offering a solution and by only offering criticism what you do offer speaks for itself. If you do not like being called or known as "un-American" "traitors" stop with the destructive criticism and offer a viable alternative plan to win the war in Iraq and the broader war on terrorism.

Your husband seeks reconciliation. What can you offer? Are you so convinced that your lie is the truth and our truth is a lie that we cannot patch things up? Can we move beyond irreconcilable differences and discuss solutions yet?

If we cannot, I see no recourse but to start the divorce proceedings. I have had the same argument with you for the last five years. I have explained myself over and over again to you. I am not having an affair. I only want what is best for our marriage, our country. I will not be incessantly replying to the same arguments you have offered me the last five years for the next five years. You claim you have a right to be heard, well so do I!!!

Do you have anything left to offer this "marriage?" If you have nothing left to offer your country, perhaps it's time for a divorce. I forgot to mention earlier, we will be claiming you as dependents on our income tax returns.

Monday, September 11, 2006

The Fifth Anniversary of 9/11

I remember 9/11/01. We all do. We all have stories of where we were, what we were doing...I couldn't begin to describe to anyone how I felt...there simply were no words as I sat dumbfounded and speechless when the second plane flew into the second tower.

I won't try to sound mushy or somber, emotional or stoic. It is enough to know that the veil was taken off our eyes that day. It is enough to know that for those who lived through that day and watched those reports...and later the invasion of Iraq, our lives will never be the same again and our perspectives will never be what they were before those days.

God bless America.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Democrat Political Power Trumps Free Speech

It seems that is attempting to draw a comparison between The Reagan movie that CBS was going to air and the recent brouhaha over "The Path to 9/11," in - Pols pound 'Path...' :

"The Path to 9/11" is looking a lot like "The Reagans, Part II...."

...But much in the same way right-wing groups mobilized to attack CBS' "The Reagans" a few years ago, Democratic partisans were doing everything they could to discredit ABC's "The Path to 9/11."

...and in ABC's 9/11 Movie :

"It's the same lame argument that conservatives raised in high dudgeon in 2003 over CBS's unflattering miniseries about Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Unfortunately, in that case, CBS and its commercial sponsors did cower in the face of an orchestrated conservative campaign. The network dumped the miniseries onto cable channel Showtime, where it was seen by a much smaller audience. (But it did at least see the light of day, and the republic is still standing.)"

There is however, a major difference between what happened regarding the Reagan film and what is happening today regarding "The Path to 9/11."

As noted in 'Reagans' filmmakers: CBS ruined movie - Nov. 25, 2003 from it was the fans of Reagan who caused CBS to decide not to air the movie on network television:

"...CBS' decision not to air "The Reagans" came after weeks of complaints by fans of the former president that it would distort his legacy...."

Or was it? BBC on the Internet reported CBS denies folding over Reagans:

"Mr Moonves stated that the decision to pull the drama was his alone. He added that he was not influenced by the Republican outcry over the mini-series or pressure from Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone or president Mel Karmazin.

"Unfortunately, in this instance, some of the criticisms, although coming from obviously one political perspective, I felt were somewhat well-founded," Mr. Moonves said."

Am I the only one who sees the huge difference between fans uniting to point out the disrespect shown to the Reagan family and members of a party's leadership making veiled threats to ABC in reminding them more than once that they will be in a position of needing their broadcast license renewed at some point in the future? This is not a good comparison at all. Show me where leaders in the Republican party issued letters to CBS and offered veiled threats about their broadcast license renewal, show me comparable outcry among the LEADERS of the Republican party calling for this movie to be canceled if "changes are not made."

After all these years of Bush bashing is the Democrat leadership so defensive that they'll try to censor a broadcast network rather than take a little of the blame upon themselves for the tragedy of 9/11/01? I believe we have our answer.

This is all about politics and politics should not rule over the freedom of press, speech, expression and dissent rights of Americans. Democrats have a nasty habit of letting political power trump all.

Friday, September 08, 2006

The Controversy isn't about "The Path to 9/11," it's about Freedom of Speech

Shortly after the beheading of Nicholas Berg, I joined a political yahoo group called FREEDOM'S FORUM, this is a private group which claims on it's main page:

"This is the place where all ideas, pro or con can be expressed without the use of personal attacks on judgment, intelligence, or motive. We all agree to disagree without being disagreeable."

In this yahoo group many members were putting forth what I considered nothing short of absolutely CRAZY conspiracy theories about how terrorists didn't behead Nicholas Berg, rather our own government had staged'd have to ask them the reason our government would want to stage a beheading of one of its own citizens, it's beyond me and I paid little attention to their insane ideas other than to recognize that they were insane. If you question that this sort of thing goes on, one click on this link: Nicholas Berg MetaFilter, will prove my case.

I only mention Nicholas Berg's beheading to set up the timeline. The reason Freedom's Forum came to mind was because with the recent call from Democrat leader's Reid and Durbin and others Requesting the Cancellation of “The Path to 9/11,” the ABC mini-series, my mind naturally returned to the days and weeks prior to the opening of the Michael Moore mockumentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. Many of the members of Freedom's Forum, which was stacked overwhelmingly with rabid left wing ideologues, were convinced that our government, under the leadership of "Dubya" would make some effort to stop it from opening at theaters across the country and that's the point. For all the liberal gnashing of teeth about Republicans marching in "lock-step," for all of the Hitler comparisons and charges of fascism and authoritarianism, for all their charges against the Bush administration's supposed treading on civil (sic) liberties (sic), the Bush administration and the Republican party did not call for Fahrenheit 9/11's opening to be canceled, did not issue a letter from Republican leaders to stop its opening. I waited, I watched, it didn't happen.

Fahrenheit 9/11 opened in theaters across the country and our President had little to say, it was as though he hardly noticed. Did some Republicans point out misrepresentations and outright lies promoted as fact in the film? Yep, but no one challenged Michael Moore's right to make the film or its distribution. Jeff Shannon's review at has this to say:

"Rarely has the First Amendment been exercised with such fervor and forthrightness of purpose...with the singular intention of toppling the war-ravaged administration of President George W. Bush. It's the Bush presidency that Moore, with his provocative array of facts and figures, blames for corporate corruption, senseless death, unnecessary war..."

The Bush Administration and Republicans failed to make a concerted and unified call for F-9/11 not to be aired, not to be allowed to show in theaters.

Before I was censored from sharing my views at Freedom's Forum by being cast out and BANNED from ever returning (*ahem*), the DNC held its Convention in Boston. In a Common Dreams story: Free-Speech Zone? Democratic Convention Plan Puts Protesters Blocks Away it is reported that:

"The disappointment in the preliminary plans is likely to be the start of a protracted battle that has the potential to end up in court, as did a similar dispute at the 2000 Democratic convention in Los Angeles. Relegated to a parking lot blocks from the convention arena, protesters sued, and less than a month before that convention began, a federal judge ruled that the designated area was unconstitutional. Organizers were forced to move the area to a parking lot directly across the street from an arena entrance, in keeping with earlier federal court rulings that any legal demonstration be allowed within "sight and sound" of its intended audience.

In New York City, where the Republicans will hold their convention this year, police are anticipating tens of thousands of protesters. No plans have been made for where protests will be allowed, but civil liberties groups have already raised concerns about potential police tactics."

In a link found here: Republican National Convention Blog NYC 2004, following is the protest schedule map permits demonstrations, and I quote:

"Permits for marches, demonstrations, and sound devices have been issued to 19 organizations and 20 venues by the New York City Police Department and Parks Department for a variety of separate events before and during the Republican National Convention.

Since this list was last issued, five additional permits have been issued to a total of 19 organizations at 20 venues, including the National Organization of Women for a rally of approximately 50,000 in the East Meadow of Central Park and United for Peace & Justice with a march and rally for approximately 250,000 north on 7th Avenue past Madison Square Garden and west on 34h Street to the West Side Highway.

Permits have been issued during the period of the RNC for the following concerts: Summer of Love, Rock the Vote, and the New York Pops. While the Convention itself begins Monday, August 30th and continues through Thursday, September 2nd, permits have been issued for demonstrations and other events beginning Sunday, August 22nd."

I'm sure all of us can remember the media coverage of the streets of NYC, full of protesters in the days before and the day of the RNC in 2004. There was no Republican leadership calling for them to be caged blocks away from the RNC site.

Further, liberal Democrats across the country united to condemn the airing of "Stolen Honor" because they feared the adverse effects on voters should those *ignorant masses* view it, as documented by Media Matters.

Broadcast Engineering and Digital Television reports here: Beyond The Headlines - Oct. 18, 2004 that:

"As waves of controversy continue over Sinclair Broadcasting’s decision to air an anti-Kerry film on its 62 stations only days before the presidential election, the FCC’s Michael Powell said last week that the commission has no power to stop it....

...Nineteen senators wrote to Powell asking him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group’s plan to run the program only days before the Nov. 2 election. The senators termed the 90-minute program an “attack ad” against Sen. Kerry.

Separately, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission contending that Sinclair’s airing of the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush’s campaign. The DNC said the program was “written, produced, and funded by extreme right-wing activists” and that the station group is going to broadcast "a blatantly political—and false—message while disguising it as ‘news.’"

The FCC’s Powell, contended the FCC does not regulate editorial decisions by media companies, and said the only federal regulations that might come into play in the wake of a broadcast is an obligation that broadcasters provide equal time to candidates in federal election campaigns. According to media reports, an offer has been made to the Kerry campaign to appear on TV after the program has aired."

PressThink advised: John Kerry Should Accept Sinclair Broadcasting's Offer:

"Kerry should accept.

If he takes the deal it sets up an historic broadcast. A final confrontation with the Right. Isn’t that what the Right wants too? A chance, indeed, to clear the air about Vietnam, and a lot of other things. Will America watch? America will watch. And if he can’t win that broadcast, he does not deserve to win the prize.

But the main reason he should take the deal is that his advisors are gonna say: are you nuts? And that’s the point: to create Kerry unbound. Alone with the camera. Let him prove himself right there and make the election about even more than it is now.

Take the deal and get someone really smart to negotiate it. The program must be live, and air unedited. Sinclair must use its own people on the panel— no hiring Britt Hume. No adding Bush to the panel. The closer to election day the better."

Kerry didn't have to accept, however, because as this Online NewsHour Update shows: Sinclair Pulls Back from Airing Anti-Kerry Film. Sinclair caved to the pressure of Democrats to not air the program.

What does all this suggest? Simply that Democrats like to portray Republicans as treading on their civil liberties when it comes to fighting against terrorism, that when there is actually something of importance like the war on terror and National security at stake they are unwilling to make the smallest of sacrifices to aid in the war against Islamic fascism, but by Jeebers, don't call attention to any shortcoming by any Democrat, past or present!!! Everyone knows that National security, or the lack thereof, is the sole and singular responsibility of George W. Bush!!!

The ACLU opposes profiling of Arabs at our airports, opposes sections of the Patriot Act, takes our government to court over their right to prosecute Al Qaeda affiliates, see ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Declare Guantánamo Bay Military Commissions Illegal and fearmongers about public library records, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

When we examine which party most vocally calls for censorship of news, movies, mini-series, or documentaries intended to inform the public of historical FACTS pertaining to the lead up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks or, in fact, any promotion of any material which might cast either party in a bad light it has been consistently a Democrat trait to call for censorship, to demand the cancellation of the airing of certain possibly politically charged media pieces.

Why should it be any surprise that now Bill Clinton and his past administration is in a snit fit over the airing of the mini-series about "The Path to 9/11?" The Chicago Tribune reports that the Clinton team protests `9/11' film...:

"A mini-series about the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks is "terribly wrong" and ABC should correct it or not air it, former Clinton administration officials said in letters to the head of the network's parent company.

But in a statement Thursday ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, . . . so criticisms . . . are premature and irresponsible...."

...Former President Bill Clinton told reporters Thursday that HE HADN'T SEEN THE MINI-SERIES but said "I think they ought to tell the truth." (emphasis mine)

...and Reid and Durbin have sent a Letter Requesting the Cancellation of “The Path to 9/11.”

In Senate Bill Silences Freedom of Speech, I exposed Bill SB 1437, introduced by Senator Kuehl, Democrat, California. To quote myself:

"We keep hearing cries from colleges and institutions of higher learning about the importance of hearing different viewpoints, about "academic freedom," and as long as they are defending the likes of a Ward Churchill or even high school geography teacher, Alan Bennish or the burning of "Old Glory," liberal Democrats are all for freedom of speech and expression, but if you are traditional-value minded it appears they want to make your viewpoint a criminal offense."

Democrats talk tough about free speech when it advances their own agenda of bashing George W. Bush and/or the Republican party. They like to dish out rhetoric but before a mini-series has aired, before Democrats have even seen it they have more or less threatened ABC with veiled repercussion if they air this mini-series. The fact of the matter is that no one has yet seen the mini-series in its entirety and I trust the "ignorant masses" to view and form their own opinions regarding the series. Now I hear that there has been some editing done since Clinton and his cronies raised such a stink, editing due to political pressure has been CONFIRMED by the WRITER of the mini-series. Is this a free press? No. This is what the Democrats would like to do to our free speech rights. The Democrats have reminded ABC that their licensing would be coming up for renewal in the future (hint, hint). I sincerely hope Democrat voters are paying attention to their leadership. I sincerely hope that they can see the hypocrisy at play in this episode and the others I outlined in this post. Republicans have some problems, but problems with free speech is a Democrat problem, not a Republican one.

Monday, September 04, 2006

A Re-Run: Jim Wallis and Hypocrisy at the Other End of the Political Spectrum

I thought since Jim Wallis is back in the news because his book, " God's Politics," has just come out in paperback edition that it would be a good time to provide a link to this post:

On Jim Wallis, Progressive Christians and Hypocrisy at the Other End of the Political Spectrum

Now, I'm off to my Mother's house to help her prepare for an out patient test tomorrow!

Friday, September 01, 2006

Some Catty "Bickering" about the Strossen/Filler Debate

Last night I attended the opening convocation at Drury University. This year's theme is "Liberty and Security in a Post-9-11 World." I chose it from two assignments offered at Springfield Citizen-Press, which is an experiment in citizen journalism started by Andrew (Andy) R. Cline, an assistant professor of journalism at Missouri State University. He edited and published my report: Filler, Strossen debate balance between security and liberty this evening at the Springfield Citizen-Press website. I had a great time with this experience and would encourage anyone interested in writing and learning about journalism and the ethics involved to take his challenge, go on an assignment offered at the site and enjoy what was for me an otherwise unavailable opportunity, to work with a journalism professor without paying tuition!!! ;o

Professor Cline has promised to give me some feedback tomorrow afternoon and I look forward to his constructive criticism.

Cline gave me a few hints on what to pay attention to at the debate last night and encouraged me to be non-partisan and report the story without bias. I gave it my best effort. Now, I can have a little relaxed fun about the event. :)

At least a couple of things really struck me at the debate.

During the question and answer session, Gene Davison, President of the Peace Network of the Ozarks singled out Mr. Filler with the question of whether the government had looked at his library records and if so, would he be able to tell him or would it be kept secret. Mr. Filler, naturally, couldn't say whether the government had looked at Mr. Davison's library records but as he went on to address the question in a broader sense, Mr. Davison stormed out of Clara Thompson Hall, slamming the door loudly behind him as he went. Some people in the crowd expressed surprise, craning their heads to see what had happened with shocked looks on their faces, I heard one girl exclaim, "he left before he got his answer!" He didn't even get to hear Nadine Strossen thank him for his activism in the community. There's just no pleasing some dissenters!

I am absolutely and completely a supporter of free speech and expression. I rather enjoy participating in it myself. That's what makes it ironic when someone like Strossen seems to contradict herself. First Strossen spoke about how important it is to have open debate and exchange of ideas and how she, and the ACLU, want to make sure that our country remains a beacon of freedom and liberty and then she quoted Tom Cain, and I didn't get all of the quote, but it was accusatory in tone about "bickering" (and when she said the word "bickering" she practically spit it into the microphone as though "bickering" was truly disgusting). My husband and I were talking about it after the debate and we decided that it must be freedom to dissent when she voices her opposition to the Bush administration but if anyone disagrees with her views and opinions it must be "bickering." Sigh.

Now, one more thing. While I was doing some background research on Nadine Strossen as requested by Professor Cline, I came across an excellent example of bias, check out this quote from a Reason magazine interview with Ms. Strossen:

Reason: What are your priorities as president of the ACLU?

Nadine Strossen: My priority is to be a prominent, visible spokesperson for civil liberties. Recent events have revealed that civil liberties are never going to be secure unless there is public understanding and support for them. The Supreme Court issues decisions that are protective of rights that are not supported by at least substantial minorities of the population. Politicians run against the Court, and you get something like the Reagan and Bush presidencies stacking the Court and seriously endangering some of our most fundamental rights.

I guess Republican Presidents STACK the Court and Democrat Presidents simply nominate Judges to them. Sigh number two.

Anyway, I hope it doesn't disappoint Professor Cline that I just had to get all this catty "bickering" out of my biased self. ;)