I am trying to get out the door for a few days of hunting.  I love hunting.  Getting outdoors, watching the dogs work, the thrill of a pheasant flushing.  It takes me away from the world of politicos and smear campaigns and liberal weirdness.  There just are not too many leftists in the rural areas in which I hunt.

But…there is always a “but”.  As I finish packing I am intrigued by the events of the day.  I just had to comment.

Today, Lewis “Scooter” Libby was indicted.  Let’s be clear.  He was not indicted for revealing the identity of (and breaking the cover of) Valerie Plame.  That is not a charge that would have stuck.  He was indicted for lying to a grand jury…for perjury.  This is the same crime with which President Clinton was charged and which led to his impeachment and to his being disbarred.  Unfortunately for Libby, he doesn’t have the support of the unethical left.  Libby will be tried.  If he is guilty, he deserves to be convicted. 

Interestingly, since the indictment was announced, there has been no other crime in America.  There are no lines in Florida waiting to buy gas.  There are no more people on the streets, living in poverty.  The war in Iraq must be over.  I say this because all of the news being broadcast by the media is about Libby.  Apparently his indictment has saved the world from itself.  Thank you, Mr. Libby.

Either that or the media is just being its usual self.  A Republican associated with the Bush administration is indicted and the rest of the news is in the variety section.  The leftist media is way too obvious.  I have to give one more example of the leftist bias of the press.  Just one more…

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post (10/28/05) wrote:  “Not two hours after the White House withdrew Harriet Miers’ nomination Thursday morning, Trent Lott, R-Miss, walked out of the Senate chamber with a spring in his step.  ‘I raised red flags the first day,’ the senator from I-told-you-so said.”

First of all, Senator Lott does not live in I-told-you so.  Secondly, as far as we all know, it was Miers who announced she was dropping out.  Has the “serious” media become Comedy Central”?  And when did accuracy take second place to rhetoric? 

Support for Miers came primarily from the far left, with Senator Kennedy being the head cheerleader.  That was because the left knew Miers was weak and would sway with the wind, regardless of which way that wind might blow.  Any constructionist views she might have had (had she had any views on the Constitution at all) would have been buried by the leftists on the Supreme Court.  I believe that she would have gotten near unanimous Democrat support.  She would not have met the standards that constructionist (or originalists) set for Supreme Court justices.

So the point of all this is?  Well, there is no point.  Just that the media continues to focus on that which embarrasses our President and our nation and uses sarcasm (masked as humor?) and lies to keep their ideology in the forefront.

Oh, and I lied.  This will not be my last example of leftist bias in the press.  Now to go shoot some birds.

I have the greatest respect for President Bush.  His nomination of Harriet Meirs was a mistake.  I have made many in my life.  Her nomination is withdrawn.  That is a good choice.  Now it is time for the President to nominate a true constructionist.  We do not need another "swing vote" on the Supreme Court.  We need a constructionist (or in current terminology, an originalist) who will interpret law based on the actual wording of the Constitution.  By "the Constitution", I mean the U.S. Constitution, not those of Europe or Russia. 

I will be away for a few days but will be back in a week.  Stay tuned and stay tough!

Human beings find the dumbest things to argue about.  One of the dumbest of all is the debate that has raged for generations over the theory of evolution and belief in creation.  The most recent version of creationist thought is called the theory of intelligent design. 

Those on either side of this manufactured debate generally scoff at the other side’s opinion.  During the Scopes trial, Scopes was tried for teaching the theory of evolution and was barred from doing so in the schools.  The creationists “won” that one.  Now, in Pennsylvania, another trial is in the news.  In this trial, those on the side of evolution are trying to prevent the theory of intelligent design from being taught in the schools. 

All of this is wrong from two different perspectives:

1. In this age of “tolerance”, we are taught the value of diversity by the left and we are shunned if we don’t tolerate difference. That is unless that difference doesn’t fit with the liberal agenda.  In that case being different is neither acceptable nor tolerated.  Schools and other public institutions are banned from any expression of the Judeo-Christian moral underpinnings of our nation.  Yet space must be created so that Muslims can practice their faith.  To leftists, only one view is acceptable on that issue.  During holidays, NO reflection of ANY religion is acceptable.  In that case, diversity equals “accept NO difference”.  Regarding the teaching of evolution vs. intelligent design, the left accepts only one side and does not tolerate the other.  This is clearly not very tolerant and not reflective at all of the entire concept of diversity.  The “debate” is clearly wrong from the left’s own perspective.

2. This us-vs.-them mentality regarding evolution and intelligent design is equally wrong from a practical point of view.  If evolution is real, why would it not be possible that a force initiated the process?  It may be true that evolution started from nothing.  Or, it is equally possible that something or someone put it all in motion.  If creationist thought is real, it could be argued that any Creator worth his salt would not create life that is static and therefore not sustainable.  Wouldn’t he create life that can grow, expand, and evolve to maintain itself in a changing environment?

None of us are intelligent enough to be able to answer these questions.  That is why the debate between secularists who believe in a process (the theory of evolution) and not a Creator and creationists who believe in a Creator but not in a process is, to say the very least, ridiculous.  Those on both sides know nothing and pretend they do. 

To say there is no Creator is no less narrow minded than saying that there is no basis to the theory of evolution.  Both views have a sense of narcissism about them.  But the view of the secularists comes from arrogance.  The view of the religious comes from faith.  I don’t know if the theory of evolution is correct or if the theory of intelligent design is correct.  I think they may both be right if taken together.  It definitely serves no purpose to debate things about which we know nothing.  This might be a really good time for some of that forgiveness and charity that the faithful talk about.  It might also be a really good time for some of that tolerance that the left loves to talk about so much.  With apologies to Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, if both sides would practice what they preach, this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship!

If you could take one action that would convince an enemy to stop fighting, would you take that action?  What if that one action went against your moral and ethical values?  What if that one action would lead to the death or humiliation of some but would save the lives of thousands more?

What is the goal of war?  The goal of war is to defeat an enemy that we believe is a danger to our nation, our community, our family, and ourselves.  If we truly believe in the danger (and if we don’t we shouldn’t have entered into a war), then we have to defeat that enemy.  Ethically speaking, it is best to defeat the enemy with the least possible loss of life…on either side.  If reaching that goal means killing some to save many more, why is that a bad thing? 

President Truman made the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan.  By doing so, many were killed but many more were saved.  A few soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison may have worked to intimidate terrorists in order to gain information that would (and probably did) save hundreds if not thousands of lives.  Similar actions may have taken place in Guantanamo with the same results.  Now a few soldiers in Afghanistan burned the already dead bodies of two Taliban terrorists, facing the bodies west instead of east.  Their goal may have been to goad the rest of the Taliban terrorists into fighting so that they would face certain death.  Or, their goal may have been to intimidate them with the fear of a death that would not take them to their version of heaven so that they would stop fighting all together.  Either way, the goal was to end the fighting sooner so that many additional lives could be saved. 

I fail to see the problem.  This is war, not elementary school.  There is a real and present danger.  The sooner we eliminate that danger the better for everyone on BOTH sides.  Maybe those who don’t like the way our military is doing the job should enlist and go try to do it better.  Otherwise, we should all just let our military do its job. 

25,000 HITS TO DATE

Thank you all very much.

I have written here several time s about the liberal bias of the press and our educational system.  I have quoted Bernard Goldberg and others regarding bias in the media and Ben Shapiro and others regarding the liberal leanings of academia.  There seems to be little doubt, when the facts are reviewed, that there is a high degree of leftist “leanage” in both arenas.

Imagine my surprise when I read an article from the New York Times News Service in the leftist Minneapolis StarTribune (John Tierney, 10/19/05) that acknowledged this bias in the world of higher education.

I rarely reprint an entire article but will do so now given that this is one of the very few articles I have seen in the liberal press that has acknowledged the facts regarding leftist bias.  Tierney wrote:

“I am in debt to liberal scholars across America. After I wrote about the leftward tilt on campus, they sent me treatises explaining that the shortage of conservatives on faculties is not a result of bias. Professors helpfully offered other theories why conservatives do not grace the halls of academe:

1 Conservatives do not value knowledge for its own sake.

2 Conservatives do not care about the social good.

3 Conservatives are too greedy to work for professors' wages.

4 Conservatives are too dumb to get tenure.

“I've studied these theories as best I could (for a conservative), but somehow I can't shake the notion that there just might be some bias on campus.

“I can imagine various reasons why liberals would be intrinsically more inclined than conservatives to pursue academic careers. But even if that's true, it doesn't explain why there are so many more liberal professors now than there used to be.

“Surveys last year showed that Democratic professors outnumber Republican professors by at least 7 to 1, more than twice the ratio of three decades earlier. The trend seems likely to continue, because younger professors are far more likely than older professors to be Democrats.

“You could argue that fewer conservatives today want to become professors, but that seems odd, given the country's move to the right in recent decades. Conservative student groups and publications are flourishing. Plenty of smart conservatives have passed up Wall Street to work for right-wing think tanks that often don't pay more than universities do, and don't offer lifetime tenure and summers off.

“At think tanks and other research institutions outside academia, there's a much higher percentage of Republicans than there is on university faculties. Apparently, despite their greed and other failings, many conservatives do want to become scholars, but they can't find work on campus.

“One reason is the structure of academia, where decisions about hiring and publishing papers are made by small independent groups of scholars. They're subject to the law of group polarization, derived from studies of juries and other groups.

“‘If people are engaged in deliberation with like-minded others, they end up more confident, more homogenous and more extreme in their beliefs,’ said Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago. ‘If you have an English or history department that leans left, their interactions will push them further left.’

“Once liberals dominate a department, they can increase their majority by voting to award tenure to like-minded scholars. As liberals dominate a field, conservatives' work comes to be seen as fringe scholarship.

“‘The filtering out of conservatives in the job pipeline rarely works by outright blackballing," said Mark Bauerlein, a conservative who is an English professor at Emory. "It doesn't have to. The intellectual focus of the disciplines does that by itself.’

“Suppose, he said, you were a conservative who wanted to do a sociology dissertation on the debilitating effects of the European welfare state, or an English dissertation arguing that anti-communist literature from the mid-20th century was as valuable as the pro-communist literature.

“‘You'd have a hard time finding a dissertation adviser, an interested publisher, and a receptive hiring committee,’ Bauerlein said. ‘Your work just wouldn't look like relevant scholarship, and would be quietly set aside.’

“Social scientists call it the false consensus effect: a group's conviction that its opinions are the norm. Liberals on campus have become so used to hearing their opinions reinforced that they have a hard time imagining there are intelligent people with different views, either on campus or in politics. Last year professors at Harvard and the University of California system gave $19 to Democrats for every $1 they gave to Republicans.

“Conservatives complain about this imbalance in academia, but in some ways they've benefited from being outcasts. They've been toughened by confronting skeptics on campus and working at think tanks in Washington involved in the political fray. They've come up with ideas -- welfare reform, school vouchers, all kinds of privatization schemes -- that have been adopted around the country and the world.

“But how many big ideas from liberal academics are on anyone's agenda? Democratic politicians are desperately trying to find something newer than the New Deal to run on next year. They're glad to take campaign contributions from professors, but they're leery of ideas from intellectuals who've been talking to themselves for so long.”

 Even the arguments used by the left to justify the lack of balance in academia are elitist.  To disparage those on the right as greedy, stupid, or uncaring is the height of arrogance.  It is that arrogance that keeps leftists talking to themselves.  They don’t learn…they regurgitate the same bile over and over again. 

Tierney’s closing point is a good one.  Even the Democrats are not very willing to take ideas from people who simply say the same thing over and over again.  Even Gore’s “power to the people” squeal and Dean’s “heeee hawwwww” scream are outweighed by the vapidity of the input from the vacuous leftists of higher education.

Power to the real people.  Power to America.  Thank you Mr. Tierney for your insights.

Now we read that the United Nations wants to take over the internet.  Maybe that is fitting since Al Gore—one of their own—claims to have created the internet.  Still, some object.  For example, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) is opposed to this take over of cyberspace.  Duh!

No one owns cyberspace.  The United Nations doesn’t even own its own headquarters.  America does. Why does it think it can own the internet? 

As noted by Dennis Prager (10/17/05), there are three opposing ideologies competing for our attention: Those whose foundation is Judeo-Christian morality, Islamic terrorists, and European-leaning secular socialists.  The Judeo-Christians are the bedrock of this nation.  They just want America to remain strong, both morally and militarily.  The Islamic fascists want our lives.  They just want us dead.  The European secular socialists want everything we have.  They want our money through taxation.  They want our freedom through legislation. They want our property through litigation.  Now they want the internet.

Now is the time to say “NO”.

The only thing that can bring defeat against terrorism is pessimism. The only thing that can bring economic recession to America is pessimism. The one group that most promotes pessimism about America is the far left.

Why are those on the far left so optimistic about our enemies and about economic failure?  Why do those on the left want islamofascists to win the war against terrorism?  Why do they want America to fall into recession? 

I believe the answer is clear.  Those on the far left only have power when we feel weak and believe that we must be dependent on government.  If we fall into economic hardship and if we appear to be losing our war on evil, the far left will regain control of the government and the power over us that goes with it.  If that happens, we will lose more of our independence and we will be less free.  The sad part is that the constant pessimism being echoed by leftist politicians and media “personalities” might turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.  There I go being pessimistic. 

The New York Times cannot be considered a bastion of conservative thought, be it financial or social conservatism.  Imagine my surprise when I read the following paragraph in a New York Times news article (October 11, 2005) written by Richard Bernstein.  The article concerned the fact that Angela Merkel has apparently unseated Gerhard Schroeder as chancellor of Germany.

"Some predicted that the ‘grand coalition’ will prove to be a formula for gridlock, perpetuating the very conditions – too much social spending and too little labor market flexibility – that are the root causes of Germany’s economic stagnation.”

Blow me over with a sneeze.  The media elite have almost always pointed to Europe as the solution to all of America’s problems.  If we would just tax our citizens at higher levels…if we would just create even more social entitlement (welfare) programs…if we would just determine the constitutionality of legislation based upon European law…if we would just do all that, America would be stronger and more “popular”.

Now, all of a sudden (in a Times news article no less) we read that one of the sources of Germany’s failure is economic stagnation caused by too much social spending (and apparently the taxation that allows such high levels of spending).  Will miracles never cease?

There is no leftist bias in the mainstream press.  The editorial staff of our leading newspapers are patriots who support America above all else. 

Oh, wait.  I must have read that in the mainstream press.  Of course it is a lie.  Of course the mainstream press is biased to the left.  Generally to the far left.  And they often lie to support their views.

Here is one incredibly moronic example taken from an editorial on energy independence in the Minneapolis (fallen) StarTribune (October 9, 2005). 

“Rather than President Bush’s push to frame a fearful us-them clash of civilizations with radical Islam, imagine a leader who would really muster all of America’s imagination and innovative spirit to, on our own terms, wean ourselves from habits that risk our environment and our safety.  Terrorists don’t hate our freedoms as much as our appetites”. 

First of all, some of the radical islamofascists who blew up the World Trade Center spent their last night on earth in a strip bar.  Talk about appetites.  Second of all, the appetite of the terrorists to cut off people’s heads and blow up their own people is a bit on the perverse side…a bit more severe than the appetite of Americans for purchasing oil-based products to keep warm in the winter and to get to work.  Thirdly, the terrorist DO hate our freedoms.  They hate the fact that their own people value the freedoms that America offers and come here as fast as they can to escape the primitive controls that radical Islam ensures.  They hate us because we have a better way and one that they know will end their reign of terror on their own and on the world at large.

It doesn’t matter why terrorist morons hate us.  They do and, unless we kill them, that won’t change.  For a newspaper that denies liberal bias to argue that if we just would conserve energy the islamofascists would somehow come to accept us is more than ridiculous.  It is idiotic and dangerous. 

How on earth is killing our economy “progressive”?  Especially on the basis of doubtful (or just plain bad) science motivated more by fanaticism than research.

How is keeping people dependent on government “progressive?  Especially when there is a choice and when the goal is simply to maintain political power.

How is rewriting the United States Constitution from the bench “progressive”?  Especially when our founders created a perfectly good method for making changes to the document…namely the amendment process.

How is taking away the individual rights of Americans “progressive”?  Especially when “progressives” constantly assert that they are only concerned about the rights of the “little guy”.

How is taking away the property rights of the average American “progressive”?  Especially when those rights are being taken away without due process and without meeting Constitutional mandates.

How is demonstrating a complete inability to debate issues “progressive”?  Especially when the issues are as critical as they are.

How is calling those with whom they disagree a series of vulgar and slanderous names “progressive”?  Especially when the name-calling is merely an act of psychological projection (e.g., the recent Dennis Prager vs. Ed Schultz uproar in which Schultz’s best shot was to call Prager a “fat ass”). 

The answer to these questions is obvious.  The so-called “progressives” are far from progressive. 

The left doesn’t want individuals to succeed because if they do the left will lose its power base. 

The left doesn’t want progress.  Those who represent the left want America to be governed by European laws that have crippled an entire continent. 

The left wants to see America crumble because it is too powerful and, to the left, power is bad, even when used for good--because to them it can never be used for good.

“Progressive”?  I think not.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said (President) Bush "has offered America a false choice, between resolve and retreat." That is today's brilliant comment from one of the "brilliant leftists" who want to control this country.

Name another choice.  What is a third choice? 

Either cave in or fight.  Either run like a coward or fight the battle and all the battles and win the war.  The left always caves in and then we look like cowards to the rest of the world.  Remember that bin Laden specifically mentioned our lack of stomach for taking casualities after President Clinton ordered retreat from Somalia after the loss of a battle.  The tone was set by President Carter who got a few soldiers killed in Iran and gave up trying to free the American hostages in Iran.

Senator Durbin is just another leftist hack who can't see integrity when it is in front of him.  There ARE only two choices, Senator.  Retreat or fight.  Real Americans don't retreat.  Real Americans fight and WIN!

Anyone who has visited this blog over the past year knows that I have the greatest respect for President Bush.  I believe that he is a man of character and integrity.  I believe that the efforts of the “mainstream” media to destroy him have taken their toll but that the President remains steadfast in following his beliefs.  I respect his decision to fight the war on terror in Iraq instead of within our own borders.  I respect the fact that he hasn’t pulled a “Clinton” or a “Carter” and run away from the enemy.  He has taken the fight to the enemy.  If the American electorate remains steadfast, we will destroy the terrorists just as Americans destroyed the evil of Germany and Japan during World War II.  He has fought the liberally biased media and the name calling socialists throughout his Presidency.  He is a man of his word and he is a man of values and integrity.

That is why I cannot understand why he chose to nominate a nonentity to the bench of the Supreme Court.  She may be a conservative.  She may be a constructionist.  But her nomination is not going to lead to a debate.  Americans needs the ultimate debate.  Conservatives are winning the battle and yet we are avoiding the debate that would prove to the nation the ignorance of the left.  It would show the country that the right has ideas and solutions while the left just complains and plays victim.  It would prove the shallowness of the Kennedy’s and Kerry’s.  We have missed the opportunity to debate and to solidify our victory.  Today we look like we are losers when we are the winners.

I still respect the President.  I just don’t understand why he is avoiding the fight that could define his Presidency and the course of our nation for the next 30 years.

It seems odd to me that so many are so angry about the coverage of the September 24 antiwar rally in Washington.  Most major newspapers placed the story well into their “A” sections.  That placement was clearly appropriate.

Every day in American, on our city streets, loud, mentally ill people are able to bring together small crowds.  Some in the crowd may be curious; some may be interested; and some may even agree with the views being spouted. 

Cindy Sheehan brought together a relatively small crowd in Washington, DC.  Even after weeks of free media advertising for the event, the crowd was very small by national standards…comparable locally to a crowd of 20 on an urban street. 

Yes, Cindy Sheehan found a few like-minded people who wanted to party or who wanted to relive their glory days as protesters in the 70s.  Just another loud, mentally ill person bringing together the curious, interested or agreeable…for no purpose and with no result.

Why does the American Civil Liberties Union want more pictures of the 2003 Abu Ghraib rowdiness?  That set of incidents had nothing whatsoever to do with the civil liberties of Americans.  I thought that was what the ACLU was supposed to be concerned about.  Showing more of the pictures of this two year old “story” will only lead to more irrational terrorist hatred and more deaths of the very Americans that the ACLU is supposed to be concerned about.  In effect, the demands of the ACLU will result in many American soldiers losing the most important liberty of all…their lives.

Apparently, the American Civil Liberties Union is more concerned about the civil liberties of Iraqi prisoners than they are about the civil liberties of Americans.  Who is surprised?  None of us should be.  The ACLU has never cared about protecting the rights of Americans.  The goal of the organization has always been to limit our civil liberties.  We can’t smoke, unintentionally offend, or look at an attractive woman without threat of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.  We are already being restricted in our right to defend ourselves.  More and more we see attempts to restrict our right to own and carry a weapon.  Partly as a result of feared ACLU action, schools are expelling our children for carrying nail clippers.  Soon we will see restrictions on the types of food we can eat.  And God forbid that we say the word “God” anywhere within hearing distance of an ACLU member.  All this brought to America by our “defenders”, the ACLU. 

None of this comes as a surprise to anyone.  We all know that the ACLU was created by communists in an attempt to undermine the moral fabric of our nation.  Communism failed to destroy America militarily.  The ACLU is trying to destroy America through litigation and intimidation.  It is working.  Fortunately for the bad guys, prisoners and international terrorists are well protected by our very own ACLU.