Activists Should Not Be Journalists
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Mar 25, 2004
A few weeks ago in this space, I opined that partisan journalism was getting out of the control in America, and that ideological fanaticism was badly damaging journalistic standards because, in some cases, facts were being altered to fit the agendas of certain reporters and commentators. Now comes more disturbing news about the news.
According to an article in The New York Times Magazine, a non-publicized meeting was held in New York City early last December, attended by Senator John Kerry and a number of liberal leaning journalists including CNN's Jeff Greenfield, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post and Frank Rich of the aforementioned New York Times.
Now this pow-wow might have been just an innocent 'get to know you' soiree, but there are hints it might have been quite something else. One of the attendees, Jim Kelly, the managing editor of Time Magazine, was quoted as saying that Kerry was asked a number of times about his vote on Iraq and, according to Kelly, "by the third go-round the answer was getting shorter and more relevant."
The "third go-round?" That sounds like coaching to me but I could be wrong.
Maybe the Senator simply wasn't making himself clear. What I'm not wrong about is that more than a few so-called journalists have turned into "activists," people who are dedicating themselves to getting a certain party or person elected and are using their positions in the media to do it.
There is nothing wrong with news organizations endorsing a candidate or a columnist writing about his or her political preferences. But actively participating in political campaigns by coaching candidates and strategizing with them is absolutely against every journalistic standard, and it is happening, usually under the radar.
John Kerry invited me to his Nantucket home a couple of years ago, and I went over to chat with the Senator and meet his wife. Nice time. We both have deep New England roots, and that's what we talked about. I stayed away from politics, and so did he. Nothing wrong with a journalist getting a personal look at a Senator.
But let's face it, with the rise of entertainers like Rush Limbaugh and other radio talk show people who openly root for the Republicans, those on the left feel they are at a disadvantage. Thus, we now have that vacuum being filled by some opinion journalists who never met a left-wing cause they didn't espouse. Again, fanatical news analysts are allowed, even though they're boring. But crossing the line into actively helping a political campaign cannot be tolerated by any news operation.
The exposure of the liberal journalists who met with Kerry received scant attention from the media. Can you image if executives from The Fox News Channel, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Times had gathered at Camp David for a little slap and tickle with W? ...and nobody was told about it? And The New York Times found out about it? Can you say PAGE ONE BOLD FACE HEADLINE?
So, you, as a news consumer, should know that American journalism is becoming increasingly partisan, and that ideologues on both the right and the left have infiltrated the news business at very high levels. But remember this: passionate news analysis is one thing--abusing the public trust is quite something else.
robert schimmel on dr katz:
"in plane crashes- they always say people have to be identified by their dental records. but, if they dont know who you are, how do they know who your dentist is?!"
just so were all aware- this was a joke. im not an idiot.
The Fox News Angle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by CK Rairden
Mar 26, 2004
A funny thing happened on the way to the 9/11-commission coronation of Richard Clarke. FOX News reporter Jim Angle changed the course of the hearings, and perhaps history. In dramatic fashion, roughly two hours before would-be star witness Richard Clarke was to testify, the reporter released both transcripts and a tape recording from a conference call interview with Clarke from August 2002 on the FOX News Channel. The bombshell release had Clarke praising the Bush plan to fight terrorism, and that contradicted much of what Clarke had already said in interviews and would soon testify to under oath.
The 2002 comments by Clarke were earth shattering considering his ‘World Tour’ to promote his book “Against All Enemies” was full throttle with radio, television and print interviews. Clarke also had a scheduled stop at the 9/11 hearings where his book had already been waved to cameras and touted by some committee members as a sort of ‘holy gospel’ on their perceived failures of the president to fight terrorism. Many in the mainstream media had given Clarke rock star treatment, and even though that treatment continued, the Angle tape recording gave much needed background context on Clarke.
Some chose to ignore it, but many others did not.
The scoop was so important that FOX News broke into Sandy Berger’s testimony at the commission at roughly 11:35am EST on Wednesday with Jim Angle explaining on camera live where the recording came from and how it came to be released. It was an incredible scoop for FOX News and Jim Angle and playing the tape caused a bit of a stir among the media and a credibility gap for Clarke for many observers.
And with good reason, the first entry from the 2002 conference call attributed to Clarke was enough to discredit him among many critics. Clarke began on the tape, “Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.”
No plan from Clinton passed to Bush. That’s not the news that had been reported.
Angle not only had the transcript but the self-proclaimed ‘pack rat’ obviously had archived the tape and had a clear audio recording of Clarke praising the president’s policies with such direct statements as “[the Administration process is to] add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.” Clarke concluded his prepared statements on the tape with yet another striking contradiction, “[The Administration] then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.”
Not exactly what Clarke had been saying for the last week.
Angle explained that the comments came from an interview where Clarke knew he was being taped but the interview was considered “on background.” That is an arrangement used often by the media where the source (in this case Richard Clarke) provides information to reporters on the condition of anonymity. At the time, the National Security Council (NSC) asked that his quotes be attributed to an unnamed official. Angle later explained that the NSC lifted that restriction and gave FOX News permission to run the tape, and release the transcripts.
And that’s just what they did on Wednesday morning.
That infuriated committee member and former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-Nebraska) who let loose with this scathing denouncement during the hearings. “All of us who have provided background briefings for the press before should beware," Kerrey opined, “Fox should say 'occasionally fair and balanced' after putting something like this out, because they violated a serious trust.” It was difficult to take that seriously though as the democrats on the committee had already used Clarke’s ‘for profit’ best selling book as a virtual factual guide for questioning of other witnesses.
Jim Angle deserved praise for the thorough job he did on this matter, not criticism. Sure the tape was exactly what the White House wanted released to discredit Clarke, but in reality it was Clarke in his own words discrediting himself. It didn’t even come close to leveling the playing field as Clarke’s book and interviews had been touted in the media for 48 hours prior to Angle’s bombshell release. No reporter worth his salt who had the tape and sought and received permission to release it would sit on the story.
CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante agreed telling the USA Today, “If [Jim Angle] held on to the tape, God bless him. I wish my records were that good.” NBC's Andrea Mitchell agreed also telling the USA Today, “[Angle was] right to pursue the story.” And clearly these two veteran reporters are correct, and Bob Kerrey was wrong. With a week of incredible interviews, a 60 Minutes infomercial and gotcha journalism stories Jim Angle procured a most important piece of information that allowed the public to decide for themselves whether or not Richard Clarke has any credibility.
Jim Angle trumped the slick marketing of 60 Minutes, and interviews with Richard Clarke by Larry King, PBS and TIME magazine with what can only be described as an incredible record keeping system and a tough as nails work ethic.
And Angle accomplished this with a mono telephone interview tape from nearly 18 months ago.
taken from washingtondispatch.com (great site)
Got this alert from AFA, and thought I'd post it. This guy is an idiot for saying this stuff. If you don't agree with him and embrace the homosexual agenda, then you're hateful and spewing inhumanity. Nonsense. Take action today.
Dear Josh,
Showing complete intolerance for those who disagree with him, Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota recently accused those opposing homosexual "marriage" of spewing "hatred and inhumanity."
He referred to those favoring marriage as being between one man and one woman as "forces of bigotry and hatred..." He said an amendment was "unconstitutional and un-Christian."
And he said a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman institutionalizes discrimination against homosexuals. He said such an amendment is "vicious, ugly, mean-spirited and should be illegal." Those who support the amendment are supporting something vicious, ugly and mean-spirited.
Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, a homosexual advocacy group, was quoted as saying, "I couldn’t be happier" with Sen. Dayton’s statements. He went on to say, "We need the power of the word (marriage)."
"Jesus Christ didn’t say, 'Love only thy opposite-sex neighbors,'" Dayton said, saying that Christ was silent on homosexuality even as he repeatedly condemned adultery and divorce. "No one has suggested a constitutional amendment against adultery and divorce." Sen. Dayton failed to note that Jesus was also silent about rape and incest. Would Sen. Dayton also favor legalizing rape and incest?
Senator Dayton’s comments were reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (2/29/04).
Please email your two U.S. Senators and Congressmanand ask them to keep this debate on the issue and not on the name-calling gutter level used by Sen. Dayton.
Very Important! Be sure to forward this email to at least one friend.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this email to at least one friend.
Falwell Confidential
Date: March 25, 2004
From: Jerry Falwell
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF GOD RESTS IN THE HANDS OF THE COURT
I recently examined T.H. Matteson's engraving depicting the first prayer in
Congress, September 24, 1774, in Philadelphia's Carpenters Hall. In the
illustration, Jacob Duche kneels at a podium, his eyes raised toward heaven
as he recites his legendary prayer. Members of Congress, many of them on
their knees, humbly participate in the beseeching of God to grant His
blessings on the young nation.
While the etching is an embellished account of the event, Mr. Duche's
earnest prayer reveals the godly fervor that inhabited that august body that
day:
"Lord our Heavenly Father, High and Mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords,
who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with
power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and
Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these our American
States, who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown
themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent
on Thee, to Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to
Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone
canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care;
give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious
designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of
their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own
unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the
weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou
present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable
assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation.
That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and
peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and
piety, prevail and flourish amongst Thy people. Preserve the health of
their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions
they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for
them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to
come. All this we ask In the Name and through the merits of Jesus Christ,
Thy Son and our Savior. Amen."
Fast forward now nearly 230 years to present-day America, where the U.S.
Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments on whether the diminutive phrase
"under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of the so-called
"separation of church and state." We have reached this low point in our
nation's history because a federal appeals court actually ruled last year in
favor of an egocentric atheist named Michael Newdow who abhors our freedoms
of religious expression.
The members of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals conveniently ignored
the obvious fact that this nation was founded by men of deep and abiding
religious convictions, men who valued public expressions of faith, even
within the hallowed walls of the early Congress. Sadly, many modern-day
jurists - court jesters, if you will - are on a campaign to sanction
ever-changing politically-correct ideals instead of following the rule of
law. There is literally no telling what this type of legal belief system
could ultimately bring about.
Mathew Staver of the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel filed an amicus
brief at the Court in the Ten Commandments case. The brief draws the
Court's attention to the vast reservoir of public acknowledgments of God in
our nation's revered history. Mr. Staver told me that the brief traces many
presidential proclamations throughout the years that have unequivocally
alluded to God and invoked His blessings on America. The brief also traces
the inaugural addresses of every president - from George Washington to
George W. Bush - and lists each time they acknowledged God in their
addresses.
Additionally, he notes that the founding documents of America acknowledge
God - from Virginia's first charter to the Manifesto of the Continental
Congress. The brief describes how every state constitution acknowledges
God; it also argues that God is the foundation of our freedom and our laws.
Here are just a couple of examples of presidents and founders invoking God:
President John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, eloquently stated, "The
rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand
of God." Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us
by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God." Thomas
Jefferson, whose "separation of church and state" metaphor has been
manipulated in order to advance the stark secularist agenda, exhorted, "[It
is] God who gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought
secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds
of the people that these liberties are a Gift of God?"
Mr. Staver said, "The phrase 'under God' in the Pledge in no way establishes
a religion. American history is a religious history. When the Court views
the long-standing history that illuminates our common heritage, they should
easily uphold the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance."
Our Founders would have had no tolerance for Mr. Newdow or modern jurists
who purposely ignore our nation's evident history of reverencing God. I
don't know what kind of America they are trying to create, but it is
certainly not the America envisioned by Washington, Madison, Jefferson,
Franklin, or any other of the noble men who labored to ensure that religious
liberty was a key component of this nation.
-------------------------------
From Josh:I actually have been trying to get ahold of this dvd from the library, but they don't have it, I discovered...I looked on e bay, but it's no cheaper than buying at from the store, and I really don't want to spend any money on a DVD right now, but I'd like to see the film.
-------------------------------
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN DVD/VHS IS A FANTASTIC EASTER RESOURCE
As I shared with you a few months back, THE GOSPEL OF JOHN the film made a
tremendous impression on me. It is the perfect complement to THE PASSION OF
THE CHRIST, as it fully explains Christ's glory. This is a must-have movie
for every Christian because it is a family-friendly film that will serve to
deepen the understanding of Christ for those who already believe. It is
also a powerful education tool to bring non-believers into the community of
God and should be used as a treasured resource this Easter.
With the heightened awareness brought on by THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, I
recommend THE GOSPEL OF JOHN this Easter. Order the DVD and VHS now at:
1-800-851-4170 or
http://www.gospelofjohnthefilm.com/links/link.asp?AFDS3392S=110406&AFDS3392P=store/FeaturedItems.aspx
like i said earlier today...micheal newdow is a scumbag. he is STILL to this day using his daughter as a pawn in his futile fight and his nonstop whining and tantrum session. he stood outside the supreme court today claiming that his CHRISTIAN daughter was being indoctrinated in her school by the words "under god" being in the pledge.
a poll today shows that 90% of americans want 'under god' to stay in the pledge. newdow is in a tiny minority of godless americans who continually whine about everything. to the people who are offended by the words 'under god,' you, my friends are some of the biggest pussies to walk the earth. if that offends you, you will never make it in the real world because you are fragile little beings who cry at everything. good riddance to you fools.
as for newdow, i would like to send a letter to the court that is deciding his bitter dispute with his ex-wife over their daughter. he wants custody, yet there is no way he deserves it, especially for doing this vile thing to his daughter...using her for his own purposes. i am thinking of writing the court a letter urging them to not give custody to mr newdow, since he clearly is out to use his daughter for his own gain, and that is not a sign of a fit parent.
mr newdow- you are the lowest of the low, you are the sort of persons real americans cannot stand. frankly, you dont belong in this great country, if you ask me. thankfully, the court is leaning towards keeping 'under god' in the pledge- even ginsberg, the most radical member of the court seems to be against your position from her comments today. luckily, losers like you cannot decide the fate of reasonable americans.
KERRY, CUBA -- AND THE TRUTH
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 21, 2004
It comes as no surprise to learn that John Kerry, who hates to take one position on an issue when he can take two or three, has come down strongly in favor -- and strongly against -- US policy in Cuba.
As Peter Wallsten reported last week in the Miami Herald, when Kerry was asked during a Florida campaign stop where he stands on Fidel Castro's repressive regime, he answered, "I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist, secret-police government in the world." And to make it clear that this bristling stance was no election-year sham, he added: "I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him."
Well, let's see. Congress passed Helms-Burton in March 1996, just days after Castro's air force murdered four unarmed civilians by blowing their planes out of the sky. Helms-Burton codified the longstanding US embargo, but its most significant provision was arguably Title III, which for the first time authorized Americans whose property was stolen by the Cuban government to file suit against any foreign company that acquires the stolen assets. The Senate vote on final passage was a lopsided 74-22 -- with Kerry voting no.
When Wallsten asked why Kerry said he voted for Helms-Burton when in fact he voted against it, he was told that the senator opposed the bill "because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects." And what were those "technical aspects?" Oh, only the bill's most important new sanction: Title III. The yes vote that Kerry trumpeted in Florida had come five months earlier, on a weaker version of Helms-Burton that never became law.
The truth, it seems, is that Kerry is "pretty tough on Castro" and "tough on companies that deal with him" only when he's seeking votes in Florida. When he campaigns elsewhere -- in Massachusetts, say -- he strikes a different pose. During his Senate re-election campaign in 1996, he told The Boston Globe that he opposed Helms-Burton and would support dropping the whole embargo if Castro would accept certain reforms. "He insisted," the Globe reported, "that the embargo only strengthens Castro by excluding American culture."
By 2000, Kerry was even more adamant. A reappraisal of the embargo was "way overdue," he said, claiming that "the only reason" Cuba is treated differently from China and Russia "is the politics of Florida."
So once again Kerry manages to come down on just about all sides of a controversial issue: for and against Helms-Burton, for and against the embargo, for and against "the politics of Florida." His bristling anti-Castro stance, it seems, is just an election-year sham after all.
He's right about one thing, though: Castro *is* running a "Stalinist, secret-police government." To Kerry, that may be just a throwaway campaign sound bite. To dissidents rotting in the dictator's jails, it is a grim reality.
It was just one year ago, while the world's attention was focused on Iraq, that Castro launched a vicious crackdown on Cuba's peaceful opposition. In the space of three weeks, 75 democracy advocates, human-rights monitors, librarians, and independent journalists were rounded up, tried on phony charges, and sentenced to as much as 28 years in prison. Today, all 75 remain behind bars. Many are suffering from illness and inhumane treatment. Among them:
Victor Rolando Arroyo Carmona, a 52-year-old independent journalist, has lost 35 pounds since being imprisoned. He is afflicted with heart problems, high blood pressure, and frequent headaches. Last June, after protesting the abuse of another inmate, he was locked in solitary confinement. On Dec. 31, he was dragged from his cell by three prison guards, who brutally beat him about the face and body.
Oscar Espinosa Chepe, 63, is an economist who was convicted of "undermining national independence" by criticizing the regime. He is sick with cirrhosis of the liver, liver failure, and bleeding from his digestive tract. According to Miriam Leiva, his wife and fellow dissident, he is imprisoned at a Havana military hospital, with no windows or clean drinking water. The light in his cell burns 24 hours a day, he has lost 40 pounds, and a fungal infection is eating away at his legs. He is not allowed to use the telephone or receive letters, and his wife is permitted to visit him just one hour per month.
Nelson Aguiar Ramirez, a member of the Assembly to Promote Civil Society, went on a hunger strike in August to protest intolerable prison conditions. He has arteriosclerosis, which causes his legs to swell, and suffers from an enlarged prostate and a urinary infection. His wife, meanwhile, has repeatedly been warned to stop praying at the Church of St. Rita, a gathering place for the families of jailed dissidents. When she brought medicine and vitamins to the prison where Aguiar Ramirez is being held, she was told he couldn't have them until she stops going to church.
Unlike John Kerry, Cuba's brave democrats don't bob and weave and dissemble. They speak plainly and face the consequences with courage. Their heroism and dignity should inspire us all.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
The founder of the murdering terrorist group, Hamas, responsible for the death of many innocent Israelis has been killed by an air strike. The Israeli military has made a step towards destroying all terrorist organizations.
Great news for the civilized world, since this man was an evil murderer. He is now dead and will burn in hell for the numerous violent acts his group of thugs have carried out.
Thousands of Palestinians praised him as a martyr. Disgusting. Like I've said many times- the Palestinian people are dangerous as a whole, since so many of them support terrorism- and they don't deserve a state of their own no matter how much they get their act together- tho, I don't think they'll ever get their act together at all.
It's terrorist attacks that groups like Hamas carry out that make protesters, worldwide, look silly. No one can reasonably complain when a terrorist group or their leader is taken out...and no sane person can complain when brutal regimes (like Hussein's) are taken out. All of these things go hand-in-hand...evil is evil.
THE CANCER OF ANTISEMITISM IN EUROPE
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 14, 2004
I have been meaning to write about the resurgence of antisemitism in Europe, a topic to which I last devoted a column in April 2002. Jews, I wrote then, "are the canary in the coal mine of civilization. When they become the objects of savagery and hate, it means the air has been poisoned and an explosion is soon to come."
At the time, much of official Europe resented the attention being paid to the return of anti-Jewish hatred to the continent where 6 million Jews were murdered between 1938 and 1945. "Stop saying that there is antisemitism in France," the French president, Jacques Chirac, admonished a Jewish editor. "There is no antisemitism in France."
Official Europe takes the attacks on Jews, most of which are the work of Muslim immigrants from the Middle East, more seriously now. At a conference in Brussels last month, Romano Prodi, the European Commission president, acknowledged that there are "vestiges of the historical antisemitism" in Europe today. "Attacking a Jew," French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has said, "is tantamount to attacking the French republic." Chirac told the president of Israel during a state visit that he would be "uncompromising" in rooting out antisemitism.
And yet the hatred spreads.
At the University of Geneva, a Jewish researcher wearing a small Star of David necklace was attacked in a campus elevator by Arab students. When she reported the attack, she was told not to wear the necklace in public.
In Hasselt, Belgium, Muslim fans at a soccer match between the Israeli and Belgian national teams waved Hamas and Hezbollah banners, and chanted: "Jews to the gas chambers!" and "Strangle the Jews!"
The British Political Cartoon Society awarded first prize in its annual competition to a cartoon in depicting a gigantic, naked Ariel Sharon biting off the head of an Arab baby. "What's wrong," reads the caption, "you've never seen a politician kissing a baby?"
In Germany, scores of Jewish graves and Holocaust memorials have been defaced. At the cemetery in Beeskow, for example, "Heil Hitler" and "Crap on the six million lie" were painted on gravestones. At Langenstein-Zwieberge, a sub-camp of the notorious Buchenwald concentration camp, vandals plastered the walls with copies of antisemitic Third Reich newspapers.
According to a poll conducted by the European Union last fall, 59 percent of EU citizens identify Israel as the world's greatest threat to peace -- ahead of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In December, millions of Europeans with satellite TV reception were able to watch "Al-Shatat," a Syrian film that portrayed Jews as blood-drinking monsters who conspire to rule the world.
In a leading Greek newspaper, a journalist wrote that the Jews "have vindicated the persecutions of the Nazis. . . . They deserved such an executioner [as Hitler] since they proved to be murderers themselves." At a televised reception to mark the publication of his memoirs, Mikis Theodorakis, the composer of "Zorba the Greek," denounced Jews. "These little people are the root of evil," he told an audience that included two cabinet members -- neither of whom reacted to his antisemitic outburst.
The hatred has been most palpable in France. There have been so many attacks on Jews in recent months that the chief rabbi has urged religious boys and men to wear baseball caps instead of yarmulkes outside their homes. In November, a newly-built wing of the Merkaz Hatorah school outside Paris was gutted by arson. Last week, in a newspaper column headlined "Jewish children are in danger," six French scientists described recent episodes of antisemitic violence in Parisian schools. In one of them, a girl was thrown to the ground and beaten by 20 students, who were yelling, "Dirty Jew! Dirty Jew!"
* * *
As this is written, it is Friday afternoon, about 36 hours since the massive bombing that tore apart Madrid's commuter-rail network. The death toll has reached 199. Another 1,500 victims have been wounded, many severely. The Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi says it has received a statement of responsibility purportedly issued in the name of Al Qaeda. The statement describes the bombing as "part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America's ally in its war against Islam." Spanish police have found a van with seven detonators and an Arabic tape of verses from the Koran.
Whether this massacre, like earlier massacres in Istanbul and Bali and at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, was the work of radical Islamists, the world will know soon enough. What the world should already know but so often forgets is that Jews are the canary in the coal mine of civilization. Antisemitism is like cancer; unchecked, it can metastasize and sicken the entire body. When civilized nations fail to rise up against the Jew-haters in their midst, it is often just a matter of time before the Jew-haters in their midst rise up against them.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
Josh, as a Bush Volunteer you have received this important strategic memo direct from President Bush's chief strategist, Matthew Dowd. As you read it, one thing should be clear - this election will be very close and the President is counting on the efforts of his grassroots supporters, people like you, to make the difference.
TO: Campaign Leadership
FR: Matthew Dowd
Chief Strategist
RE: CBS/New York Times poll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are a few highlights of the CBS News/New York Times poll released this morning that were largely missing in the story:
The President's job approval is rising. A majority of Americans, 51%, approve, while 42% disapprove, a net increase of 6 points from the 47% that approved and 44% that disapproved in the late February CBS News poll.
The President now leads Kerry by 3 points among registered voters, 46% to 43%. This is a net increase of 4 points since mid-February, when Kerry led by a point.
Against a possible Kerry-Edwards ticket, Bush-Cheney now leads by 2 points. A Bush-Cheney ticket leads a hypothetical Kerry-Edwards ticket among registered voters, 46% to 44%. This is a net increase of 10 points since late February, when the Kerry-Edwards ticket led by 8 points.
The President's support is also more intense than Kerry's. 76% of the President's supporters say that their mind is made up, while just 70% of Kerry's say the same.
President Bush is viewed more favorably by Americans. 43% of Americans view the President favorably, an increase of 3 points since mid-February. 39% view him unfavorably and 17% have no opinion of him.
More Americans now view John Kerry unfavorably. Kerry's favorability declined, from 37% favorable/28% unfavorable to 28% favorable/29% unfavorable, a net decrease of 10 points since the late February CBS News poll. 41% of voters have never heard of Kerry or have no opinion of him.
A majority of Americans now see Kerry as a man who only says what people want to hear. Just 33% say that Kerry says what he believes, while 57% say that he does not. On the other hand, a majority of Americans, 51%, see President Bush as a man who says what he believes.
The real story from this poll is Kerry's 10-point drop in favorability since the late February CBS News poll and President Bush's rise in the midst of months of negative attacks from the Democrats
I thought I would just post this for the numbers. I still wonder how anyone can support John Kerry, who is clearly as fake as they come...and I wonder why more people aren't demanding that he actually show up for his job in the senate...the job he's being paid for- $125, 000 isn't it? I don't recall what the current salary is. I wish I could get paid for work, even tho I never show up.
----------------------------
> 1) When a CBS News poll found John Kerry leading George W.
Bush by 48 to 43 percent amongst registered voters, Dan Rather
reported it on the February 16 CBS Evening News, and when another
CBS News poll two weeks ago put Kerry up by a mere one point over
Bush, by 47 to 46 percent with registered voters, the February 28
CBS Evening News highlighted the finding. But on Monday, while the
CBSNews.com home page, for much of the afternoon and into the
evening featured the results of a new CBS News/New York Times
poll, with a headline which declared, "Bush Moves Ahead of Kerry,"
the CBS Evening News didn't utter a word about the new numbers
which put Bush up over Kerry by 46 to 43 percent with registered
voters.
Two weeks ago, the CBS Evening News emphasized how Bush's
approval rating had fallen below 50 percent, but the new poll
found his approval rating back above 50 percent -- but that too
went unmentioned Monday night.
The March 15 CBS Evening News, however, had time for full
stories on a small anti-war protest outside the White House by
family members of those in the military (see item #2 below) and
how the Bush administration supposedly gagged an official from
telling the true cost of the Medicare prescription drug
entitlement program. "Families of some of the American casualties
of the war reached out to President Bush today," Dan Rather
reported, "asking him to bring U.S. troops home." Rather soon
introduced another story: "In an election year battle over the new
Medicare prescription drug benefit, the Bush administration is now
being accused of trying to sell the program to the public in a
very misleading way. And CBS's John Roberts also has new details
tonight of allegations that the administration deliberately misled
Congress to get the kind of Medicare overhaul the President
wanted."
On Tuesday morning, CBS's The Early Show reported how the CBS
News/New York Times survey placed Bush ahead of Kerry, but not
until the 8am newscast an hour into the two-hour morning show.
"Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds,"
announced the headline over the Tuesday New York Times article by
Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, which began: "George Bush and John
Kerry enter the general election at a time of growing concern
among Americans that the nation is veering in the wrong direction,
the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows. Mr. Bush faces
unrest over his management of the economy, while the public has
doubts about Mr. Kerry's political convictions."
Not until the eighth paragraph did Nagourney and Elder get to
the head-to-head result, though they contended it showed a tie:
"The Times/CBS News poll offered the latest evidence that the race
for President was as tight as has long been predicted. Even after
two weeks in which Mr. Bush has run televised advertisements
promoting himself and attacking Mr. Kerry, and in which Mr. Kerry
has enjoyed the glow of favorable coverage that greeted his
near-sweep of Democratic primaries, the two men are effectively
tied, with 46 percent of voters saying they supported Mr. Bush and
43 percent backing Mr. Kerry."
For the March 16 New York Times story in full:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/politics/campaign/16POLL.html
The networks routinely report poll results the night before
their print partners put them in the newspaper, and since
CBSNews.com had the results posted as its lead item all afternoon
Monday and into the early evening, the CBS Evening News producers
certainly had access to the results of the poll conducted March
10-14. "Poll: Bush Moves Ahead of Kerry" read the home page
headline at: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml
The posting ran through the findings in the poll, including:
-- KERRY VS. BUSH: CHOICE IN NOVEMBER
(Registered voters)
John Kerry
Now: 43%
Two weeks ago: 47%
George Bush
Now: 46%
Two weeks ago: 46%
-- VIEWS OF THE CANDIDATES
(Registered voters)
Bush
Favorable: 43%
Unfavorable: 39%
Undecided/Unknown: 17%
Kerry
Favorable: 28%
Unfavorable: 29%
Undecided/Unknown: 41%
-- THE PRESIDENT'S JOB APPROVAL RATINGS
Overall
Now: 51%
Two weeks ago: 47%
For the CBSNews.com rundown of the CBS News/New York Times
poll, see:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/opinion/polls/main606465.shtml
Contrast the lack of interest, by the CBS Evening News staff,
in this latest poll compared with the previous two CBS News polls,
surveys conducted without the New York Times.
Anchor Russ Mitchell announced on the Saturday, February 28
CBS Evening News: "A new CBS News out poll out tonight, poll out
tonight, rather, puts President Bush's job approval below 50
percent for the first time. From an Iraq war high of 73 percent
last April, the President's rating has dropped steadily with the
exception of a bump after the capture of Hussein to 47 percent
now, an all-time low. As Randall Pinkston tells us, the poll has
other promising numbers for the President's Democratic
challengers."
Pinkston explained: "Gearing up for the biggest batch of votes
of the primary season, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry campaigned
in California while North Carolina Senator John Edwards stumped in
Georgia. While he trails Kerry in delegates, there was promising
news for Edwards in a new CBS News poll of likely voters."
On screen, CBS put the faces of the candidates inside graphic
circles meant to mimic campaign buttons as they cycled through the
match-ups recited by Pinkston: "If the election were held today,
Edwards would tie President Bush. Kerry would beat the President
by one percent, but if Kerry and Edwards were on the same ticket,
they would beat the Bush/Cheney team by eight points."
The specific numbers: Edwards 45 percent vs. George W. Bush 45
percent; John Kerry 47 percent vs. George W. Bush 46 percent;
Kerry/Edwards 50 percent vs. Bush/Cheney 42 percent.
That 46 to 45 split was well within the poll's three-point
margin of error.
For the CBSNews.com posting of the results of that survey:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/29/opinion/polls/main602884.shtml
A month ago, on the Monday, February 16 CBS Evening News, Dan
Rather made room for a polling update favorable to Kerry and
Democrats:
"Turning to politics in this country, the holiday honoring our
Presidents was no holiday for the presidential candidates.
President Bush was out campaigning again today in the battleground
state of Florida, his 19th trip there as President. And part of
the reason why, perhaps, is a key finding in a new CBS News poll
out tonight. It suggests Democratic Senator John Kerry at this
point is five percentage points ahead of Mr. Bush. And keep in
mind, this is a national poll that does not take into account
state-by-state electoral vote considerations. Also keep in mind,
the front-loaded Democratic primaries are still under way."
An on-screen graphic filled in the numbers with Kerry having a
48 to 43 percent lead over Bush. For the CBSNews.com posting of
the complete findings:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/16/opinion/polls/main600505.shtml
> 2) A small anti-war protest march by barely 200 people
across the street from the White House generated a full CBS
Evening News story on Monday night in which reporter Bob Orr
ignored the far-left political agenda of the participants as he
emphasized how they were just typical relatives of those in the
military: "These protesters -- mothers, fathers, husbands and
wives -- read the roll of America's dead, placing the names of
their loved ones in a makeshift coffin." Orr featured an interview
with one father in which Orr stressed how he was pro-war at one
time: "You weren't against the war at the outset?" Father: "No,
not at all." And Orr painted them all as potential victims of the
right-wing thought police: "Now, at the risk of having their own
patriotism questioned, families say they're mounting a critical
home front mission."
Skipped over by Orr, the political agenda of the leftist
groups which organized the protest. The home page of a group
called "Military Families Speak Out," a representative of which
Orr quoted, features a politically-loaded screed, in the form of a
letter to President Bush, from a mother whose son was killed in
Iraq:
"You inherited peace and prosperity and created murder,
mayhem, and massive debt....While we who have lost our loved ones
have only tears to fill the empty space where love and laughter
lived, you and your Halliburton cronies have found the oil wells
and will undoubtedly keep your blood stained gains."
Rather set up the March 15 story, as taken down by MRC analyst
Brad Wilmouth: "Families of some of the American casualties of the
war reached out to President Bush today, asking him to bring U.S.
troops home. CBS's Bob Orr reports the families marched from the
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where severely-wounded soldiers
are treated, to the White House."
Orr began: "They marched silently in a somber procession
carrying black wreathes to commemorate those lost in a war they no
longer support. Outside the White House, these protesters --
mothers, fathers, husbands and wives -- read the roll of America's
dead, placing the names of their loved ones in a makeshift coffin.
One of the names belonged to Lila Lipscomb's son, Michael
Pedersen, killed last April when his helicopter went down in a
firefight....While military families rarely speak out, these
protesters accuse the President of trying to sanitize the war by
declining to attend a single military funeral and by preventing
the public from doing flag-draped coffins as they are returned to
the US. Parents of some of the 3000 plus wounded have also had
enough. Pat and Jerome Gunn's son, Jason, survived a roadside bomb
last November. While he's still recovering from shrapnel wounds,
Jason's now been ordered back to Iraq. You weren't against the war
at the outset?"
Jerome Gunn, father of U.S. Soldier: "No, not at all."
Orr to Gunn: "In fact, you called yourself a hawk."
Gunn: "Basically, yeah."
Orr: "But how do you feel now?"
Gunn: "I feel we're being misdirected. I feel that they took a
noble cause and subverted it."
Orr: "Now, at the risk of having their own patriotism
questioned, families say they're mounting a critical home front
mission."
Charlie Richardson, Military Families Speak Out: "We believe
that the most supportive thing you can do when a war is being
fought that shouldn't be fought is speak out and try to end that
war and get the troops home."
Orr concluded, over video of a podium with a sign which
declared, "Mourn the Dead. End the War": "To bring an end to a
roll call which they say is already far too long. Bob Orr, CBS
News, Washington."
The home page for Military Families Speak Out features an
angry, politically-charged from the left, letter to Bush from
Rosemarie Dietz Slavenas. An excerpt:
....You inherited peace and prosperity and created murder, mayhem,
and massive debt. According to the ongoing investigation of the
helicopter crash that took Brian's and 15 other American lives,
the Illinois National Guard aircraft were sent into the field
without basic survivability equipment, to accommodate your "shoot
and bomb first, think and investigate later" brand of foreign
policy. We don't need a trigger happy President.
Finders keepers, losers weepers. While we who have lost our loved
ones have only tears to fill the empty space where love and
laughter lived, you and your Halliburton cronies have found the
oil wells and will undoubtedly keep your blood stained gains. Our
sorrow, your gain. Brian was conscientious; someone wasn't. Brian
was faithful; someone wasn't. Brian was thoughtful; someone
wasn't. Brian was considerate; someone wasn't. Brian was truthful;
someone isn't. Brian wasn't sloppy. Someone is.
END of Excerpt
TIME FOR REGIME CHANGE IN TEHRAN
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 11, 2004
It has been more than two years since President Bush pronounced Iran a charter member of the "Axis of Evil." In his 2002 State of the Union address, he told Congress that the theocratic regime in Tehran was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons and exporting terror, "while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom."
It has been 20 months since Bush issued a statement encouraging the thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators who had taken to the streets of Iran's major cities. "The people of Iran want the same freedoms, human rights, and opportunities as people around the world," he said, promising that if Iranians moved to replace their rulers with a government committed to liberty and tolerance, "they will have no better friend than the United States of America."
It has been four months since the president articulated a "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East." Speaking at the National Endowment for Democracy, he noted that Iranians' "demand for democracy is strong and broad," and warned: "The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy."
When it comes to the liberation of Iran, President Bush's words have been perfect. When will his administration's deeds follow suit?
The United States should long ago have made regime change in Tehran a clear-cut goal of US foreign policy. At every turn, the mullahs who rule Iran have demonstrated their enmity for everything we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East. They are determined to keep Iraq agitated and unstable, and actively work to undercut US influence there. They camouflage their avid pursuit of a nuclear bomb behind a cloud of diplomatic blue smoke, one day making a show of cooperation with Western investigators, the next day demanding that the investigations end. Iran remains the world's foremost sponsor of terror, sheltering Al Qaeda thugs within its borders and dispatching trained killers to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
At home, meanwhile, the Iranian regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei continues to prove that elections are not necessarily proof of democracy. Last month's rigged vote took a long-running soap opera -- the political struggle between Iran's Islamist hard-liners and its supposed reformers -- to a new low. Virtually all of the 5,600 candidates running for parliament were reactionary loyalists; the mullahs made sure of that by kicking more than 2,000 critics of the regime off the ballot.
This farce of an election deserves nothing but unequivocal condemnation. Washington should be seizing every opportunity to identify the Khomeinists who rule Iran as illegitimate despots, and to make the case that their downfall is essential to the repair of the Middle East. Instead, administration officials describe Iran as "a sort-of democracy" and insist that the best way to deal with the mullahs is through engagement and patient diplomacy. When Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was asked during a Congressional hearing whether it was US policy to support regime change in Iran, his answer was blunt: "No, sir."
When is Bush going to insist that the State Department start promoting *his* foreign policy for a change? After 25 years of Islamofascist rule in Tehran, it is sheer fantasy to believe that anything less than a clean sweep will end Tehran's hostile policies. The mullahs may occasionally alter their outward behavior for tactical reasons, observes the prolific journalist Amir Taheri, who was born and educated in Iran. "But the regime's strategy, which is aimed at driving the US out of the Middle East, destroying Israel, and replacing all Arab regimes with 'truly Islamic' ones, remains unchanged."
The Iranian government started the war we are in with an attack on the US embassy in Tehran, and the taking of 52 Americans hostage, in November 1979. In the years since, it has had a direct or indirect role in the killing or maiming of thousands of innocent victims worldwide. Every bomb that unleashes new carnage in Iraq is a reminder that our war on terrorism will not prevail unless the turbaned thugs next door are forced from power. So what is the administration waiting for?
Toppling the mullahs would not require a US invasion. The majority of Iran's 67 million people loathe their government. Many are unabashedly pro-American. If the United States explicitly called for regime change in Tehran and backed up that call with diplomatic and financial support for the pro-democracy resistance, Iranians would respond with courage and resolve. Like the festering Communist dictatorships that collapsed when the people of Eastern Europe rose against them in 1989, the corrupt Islamists in Iran can be defeated by the men and women they have oppressed for so long.
If we are going to win the war on terror, the liberation of Iran is not an option. It is a prerequisite. The Bush administration should be saying so -- and living up to its words.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
Victories in the fight to protect marriage...and to stop homosexual marriages today. The Califorina Supreme Court has put a halt to same sex marriages in San Francisco, where the mayor of that city broke the law in issuing thousands of illegal marriage licenses recently...also, in Massachusetts, a ban on gay marriage has won preliminary approval.
Good news for most Americans who think that marriage, as an institution, is important and sacred, and it is clearly a union created for a man and a woman.
Help continue this fight against the homosexual agenda by contacting your representatives in Congress and your state government officials.
Terrorist attacks in Madrid, Spain...an arabic letter found in a van nearby with explosive materials. A probable connection to Islamic terrorists. When will people wise up and realize that Islam poses the greatest threat this planet has ever known? A religion that is, at its core, violent- why is anyone surprised?
We need to stop playing kiss-up and calling it a "religion of peace," when we all know that just isn't true.
I always cringe when I hear these idiots that want to equate homosexuality with civil rights...they have started talking about "homosexual rights" and then talking about civil rights and civil rights lawyers, and civil rights groups, etc. It's nonsense. Like Jacoby says in this piece, gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. You can pretend it is all you want, but it doesn't make it so...
-------------------------------------------------
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE VS. CIVIL RIGHTS
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Sunday, March 7, 2004
Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. But that hasn't stopped the advocates of same-sex marriage from draping themselves in the glory of the civil rights movement -- and smearing the defenders of traditional marriage as the moral equal of segregationists.
In The New York Times last Sunday, cultural critic Frank Rich, quoting a "civil rights lawyer," beatified the gay and lesbian couples lining up to receive illegal marriage licenses from San Francisco's new mayor, Gavin Newsom.
"An act as unremarkable as getting a wedding license has been transformed by the people embracing it," Rich wrote, "much as the unremarkable act of sitting at a Formica lunch counter was transformed by an act of civil disobedience at a Woolworth's in North Carolina 44 years ago this month." Nearby, the Times ran a photograph of a smiling lesbian couple in matching wedding veils -- and an even larger photograph of a 1960 lunch counter sit-in.
Rich's essay -- "The Joy of Gay Marriage" -- went on to cast the supporters of traditional marriage as hateful zealots. They are "eager to foment the bloodiest culture war possible," he charged. "They are gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era."
But it is the marriage radicals like Rich and Newsom who are doing their best to inflame a culture war. And as is so often the case in wartime, truth -- in this case, historical truth -- has been an early casualty.
For contrary to what Rich seems to believe, when Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain approached the lunch counter of the Elm Street Woolworth's in Greensboro, N.C. on Feb. 1, 1960, all they were looking for was something to eat. The four North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College students only wanted what any white customer might want, and *on precisely the same terms* -- the same food at the same counter at the same price.
Those first four sit-in strikers, like the thousands of others who would emulate them at lunch counters across the South, weren't demanding that Woolworth's prepare or serve their food in ways it had never been prepared or served before. They weren't trying to do something that had never been lawful in any state of the union. They weren't bent on forcing a revolutionary change upon a timeless social institution.
All they were seeking was what should already have been theirs under the law of the land. The 14th Amendment -- approved by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1868 -- had declared that blacks no less than whites were entitled to equal protection of the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 -- passed by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and signed into law by President Grant -- had barred discrimination in public accommodations.
But the Supreme Court had gutted those protections with shameful decisions in 1883 and 1896. The court's betrayal of black Americans was the reason why, more than six decades later, segregation still polluted so much of the nation. To restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose, to re-create the Civil Rights Act, to return to black citizens the equality that had been stolen from them -- that was the great cause of civil rights.
The marriage radicals, on the other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the law's equal protection, nor of the right to marry -- only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically -- by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights.
But dare to speak against it, and you are no better than Bull Connor.
Last month, as Massachusetts lawmakers prepared to debate a constitutional amendment on the meaning of marriage, the state's leading black clergy came out strongly in support of the age-old definition: the union of a man and a woman. They were promptly tarred as enemies of civil rights. "Martin Luther King," one left-wing legislator barked, "is rolling over in his grave at a statement like this."
But if anything has King spinning in his grave, it is the indecency of exploiting his name for a cause he never supported. The civil rights movement for which he lived and died was grounded in a fundamental truth: All of us are created equal. The same-sex marriage movement, by contrast, is grounded in the *denial* of a fundamental truth: The Creator who made us equal made us male and female. That duality has always and everywhere been the starting point for marriage. The newly fashionable claim that marriage can ignore that duality is akin to the claim, back when lunch counters were segregated, that America was a land of liberty and justice for all.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
KERRY'S SWEEP BODES WELL FOR BUSH
(Super Tuesday post-election comment)
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
And so the primary season ends. November is still eight months away and some 20 presidential primaries and caucuses have yet to take place, but no matter: The general election campaign is now underway. John Kerry is going to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. And that means that President Bush is one step closer to reelection.
Just as they did four years ago with Al Gore, as they did in 1988 with Michael Dukakis, in 1984 with Walter Mondale, and in 1980 with Jimmy Carter, the Democrats are poised to nominate a tedious blister as their standard bearer. In the months ahead, the voters will be harangued and hectored by Kerry, who will lecture them about how Bush has been the worst president in modern times, the Bush economy the most desperate, the Bush foreign policy the most reckless.
But as spring and summer give way to fall, it will gradually dawn on many of them that Kerry isn't actually saying anything. What was true of the first President Bush, they will discover, is true of Kerry: He has no "vision thing." He has a glib and sonorous answer to every question, but the more he talks -- and he talks a lot; his default setting is "filibuster" -- the less voters will be able to put their finger on why he wants to be president, or what it is he truly cares about, or whether anything about him is more than an inch deep.
"Excited by his resume, his panache as a war hero, Americans from coast to coast will be disappointed in the real man," Jack Beatty, an ardent liberal, wrote recently in The Atlantic Online. "They will long for him to stop his answers at the one-minute mark and by Minute 2 will have tuned out, and by Minute 3 will pine for the terse nullity of George W. Bush."
Terse Bush certainly is, but unlike Beatty, I don't think he is a nullity. In 2000 I did think that and didn't vote for him. But Sept. 11 changed Bush. It focused his mind and his presidency on a single overarching challenge: defeating international terrorism and the Middle Eastern fascists who sustain it. Hard-line Democrats have spent the past three years telling themselves that Bush is a shallow idiot or a reckless cowboy, and all the while the object of their derision has been steadily pressing ahead, advancing the most audacious foreign policy since Ronald Reagan set out to win the Cold War.
Democrats thought Reagan was an idiot and a cowboy as well, too simplistic and dangerous to be given the keys to the White House. "When the globe is a tinderbox, we need a president who knows what he's doing. We need a president who . . . has been tested by experience, who has read and remembered history . . . who sees force as a last and not as a first resort." That was Walter Mondale in 1984, sounding remarkably like Kerry in 2004.
Unlike Reagan, Bush isn't going to win a 49-state landslide -- the nation is far too deeply divided now. Indeed, Bush may not win at all, especially if the war takes a sudden bad turn. But he is likelier to win with an opponent like Kerry, who looks great only at first -- only until voters realize how much less there is to him than meets the eye.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
----------------------------------------------
A NORTH KOREAN IN CANADA
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 4, 2004
If you have ever started to emerge from one nightmare only to find yourself plunged into a new one, you will find the ordeal of Ri Song Dae frighteningly familiar.
In August 2001, Ri entered Canada with his wife and their 6-year-old son, Chang Il. They were defectors from the monstrous dictatorship in North Korea, and had come to Canada to seek asylum.
For 10 years, Ri had been a low-level trade functionary, periodically sent abroad to purchase foodstuffs like corn and rice. He had long known of the savage brutality of Kim Jong Il's regime, of course; no government official could fail to be aware of it. What finally prompted him to flee was seeing the horrible treatment meted out to escaped North Koreans who were caught and returned. According to human rights monitors, that treatment includes humiliation and torture, typically followed by slow starvation and slave labor in a prison camp -- or public execution.
Ri filed a formal claim for refugee status for himself and Chang Il four months after arriving in Canada, but by then his second nightmare had begun. His wife, browbeaten by her Japanese parents for her "betrayal," attempted to commit suicide, then agreed to leave her husband and son and return to North Korea. She was seized in Taiwan en route to visiting her parents, turned over to North Korea, and executed in April 2002. Ri's father was executed as well, in keeping with the North Korean policy of ruthlessly punishing not only "criminals," but also their parents and children.
On Sept. 12, 2003, more than two years after Ri's plea for asylum was filed, Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board issued its ruling. It was an Orwellian stunner.
Board member Bonnie Milliner ruled that Ri's young son was entitled to stay in Canada, since he would face severe persecution if he were returned to Pyongyang. But Ri's appeal for refugee protection was denied, even though Milliner agreed that "he would face execution on return to North Korea." Why would Canada send a man back to his certain death? Because, Milliner wrote, "there are serious reasons for considering that [Ri] has committed crimes against humanity by virtue of his long-standing membership in the Government of North Korea."
In other words, Ri was deemed complicit in crimes against humanity solely because he had held a government job. Milliner acknowledged that there was no evidence he had committed any atrocities at all -- indeed, Canada's War Crimes Unit confirmed in writing that Ri was "not a person of interest to them." But he knew of the regime's savagery, yet waited 10 years to defect. To the Immigration and Refugee Board, that added up to a case for sending him back to be killed.
If the board's decision were to stand, Ri would be sent off to die and his 6-year-old would become an orphan. His prospects grew even bleaker on Feb. 20, when Milliner's ruling was upheld by Canada's citizenship and immigration ministry. Canadians express pride in their country's humanitarian values, but it has been hard to detect any of those values as this case has moved through the Canadian bureaucracy.
Fortunately, Ri has just received a last-minute reprieve. Yesterday afternoon, Canada's public safety minister, Anne McLellan, granted the frightened defector permission to stay in Canada indefinitely, since his life would be in danger if he were deported. Her decision effectively overrules the earlier decrees. Ri's long nightmare may at last be over.
But back in North Korea, there are no happy endings.
Media coverage of Kim Jong Il's government has been focused on its illegal nuclear weapons program and its proliferation of missile technology to other dangerous regimes. But even more ghastly is the suffering it inflicts on its own people.
The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday on Pyongyang's use of political prisoners as chemical-weapons guinea pigs. A senior North Korean chemist who escaped in 2002 described a military facility in which prisoners were kept in stacked cages made of concrete and wire. On one occasion, he testified, two prisoners -- so emaciated that ``they looked barely human'' -- were placed in a testing chamber that was outfitted with a large window and a sound system so scientists could see and hear the victims' reactions when they were sprayed with poison.
"One man was scratching desperately," the defector recollected. "He scratched his neck, his chest. . . . He was covered in blood. . . . I kept trying to look away. I knew how toxic these chemicals were in even small doses."
It took, he said, three agonizing hours for each man to die.
When I wrote last month about North Korea's concentration camps and gas chambers, many readers wrote to ask: What can I do? The first and most important step for anyone who wants to help is to learn more. Three excellent sources of information on North Korea are The Chosun Journal (www.chosunjournal.com), the Citizens Alliance for North Korean Human Rights (www.nkhumanrights.or.kr), and the US Committee For Human Rights in North Korea (www.hrnk.org). All three provide vital, and often heartbreaking, details on the horrors of Kim's tyranny, as well as many options for further action. They should be the first stop for anyone for whom "never again" is not just an empty slogan.
Ri Song Dae and his little boy are safe now, but 22 million of their countrymen remain trapped, at the mercy of the most evil government on earth. Learn what is happening to them. Cry out in protest. This is not a time for silence.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
In a trend that seems to be sweeping courts across the nation- activist judges are trying their best to ban God from everything public...they're trying to destroy the limited religious freedoms we still have left. The story below is just one example of this.
One note- Barry Lynn...you are an idiot. You are a fake christian who is so anti-christian, it scares me. you're an embarassment to the pulpit by even calling yourself a reverend.
------------------------------
Falwell Confidential
Date: March 5, 2004
From: Jerry Falwell
DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION . FOR ALL BUT THOSE IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES
We are constantly advised by education officials that diversity is the key
to 21st Century schooling. But when it comes to religious Americans,
diversity suddenly becomes a nebulous term. A recent court case illustrates
how religious Americans are often forced to play on an uneven playing field
solely because they desire to follow the calling of their faith.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that college scholarship programs
can be denied to students majoring in theological studies. This ruling
could have a dramatic effect on a wide range of religious freedom issues.
The Court, in a 7-2 decision, said that the Constitution's guarantee of free
exercise of religion does not mean that students in ministry-related college
studies are entitled to state scholarship funds. The case surrounded
Washington state student Joshua Davey who saw his state Promise Scholarship
revoked after administrators learned that he was a pastoral ministries
major.
This is certainly not the environment our Founders intended for people of
faith. Our history is alive with examples where funds were utilized to
promote Christianity.
Consider that the U.S. Congress actually provided funding for three Bible
societies during James Madison's presidency. Do you think that the Founders
would have been concerned if a few dollars had gone to college students
enrolled in religious studies?
Certainly not.
But modern-day civil libertarians have, in many ways, gained the momentum in
the effort to purge religion from the public square. Students like Josh
Davey are paying the price.
Had these stringent secularists been running things during our nation's
founding, I doubt that Jacob Duche would have been afforded the opportunity
to offer the first prayer in Congress on September 7, 1774, in Philadelphia'
s Carpenters Hall. Nor would we have ever had any national days of public
prayer, or had "In God We Trust" as a national motto.
Our Founders clearly intended people of faith to be included in all areas of
society and government - not to be treated as pariahs.
Revolutionary leader Thomas Paine, in 1797, criticized the secularism of
education, saying, "Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He
can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the
Author."
However, in last week's majority opinion for the High Court, Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist said that states should have the ability to restrict
scholarships to those majoring in theological studies - yes, students
looking through the discovery to the Author.
"Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious
endeavor," the chief justice wrote. "That a state would deal differently
with religious education for the ministry than with education for other
callings" is not evidence of "hostility toward religion."
He noted the scholarship program "goes a long way toward including religion
in its benefits," because it allows students to use scholarship money to
attend accredited religious schools.
Yes, but only insofar as those students are not majoring in theological
studies.
I respect Chief Justice Rehnquist, but I believe he took a strangely myopic
view of those studying for the ministry. In fact, the student who brought
suit against the state of Washington in this case actually had a double
major that included pastoral ministries and business management. But the
ministry, like any other profession, is a varied pursuit that has many
secular applications.
Writing the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, along with Justice Clarence
Thomas, charged that the scholarship program "discriminates against
religion."
Indeed, I believe the Court has sanctioned the disconnection between
religious people and everyone else. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the
American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) agreed that the ruling "clearly
sanctions religious discrimination."
Mr. Sekulow, who presented oral arguments before the High Court in the case,
said, "It is troubling that the decision is irreconcilable with more than a
half century of Supreme Court precedent regarding the free exercise of
religion. In this case, Josh Davey simply wanted to be treated equally on
the same terms and conditions as other scholarship recipients. The decision
does not prohibit states from structuring scholarship programs to permit the
pursuit of a degree in devotional theology. The Supreme Court, however,
missed an important opportunity to protect the constitutional rights of all
students."
The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and
State - a man who is so secular-minded that he believes our currency should
not bear the slogan "In God We Trust" - said, "This is a huge defeat for
those who want to force taxpayers to pay for religious schooling and other
ministries. This maintains an important barrier to efforts to fund school
vouchers and other faith-based programs. Americans clearly have a right to
practice their religion, but they can't demand that the government pay for
it."
There you have it - this case will be utilized to accelerate the effort to
further purge the semblances of religion from the public square.
Dave Silverman, communications director for American Atheists, went even
further, saying the government should never assist the pursuits of people of
faith.
"If you can't use public money to train religious leaders," he reasoned,
"you cannot be raiding the public treasury to fund social programs that
incorporate religious teaching, or provide subsidies for students to attend
religious schools."
You can see that these guys won't rest until America adopts an exclusively
secular society where people of faith are fully disdained, rejected and
penalized.
It behooves Christians in this nation to heed the words of our nation's
first U.S. Chief Justice John Jay, who said, "Providence has given to our
people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the
privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer
Christians for their rulers."
Just to show you, once again, that Hollywood is cram packed with idiots without brains...let me just say a couple of things- Ethan Hawke is brainless, and name one good movie he's been in besides Training Day, and it was only good because Eva Mendes went totally nude in it, and she's as hot as the day is long...
Also, Katie Couric is one of the most moronic people to ever be allowed to grace any television screen. I can just see her on her knees in front of the Clintons, washing Hillary's feet like she's the Messiah.
--------------------------
1. Ethan Hawke on Cheatin' Pols
Ethan Hawke and wife Uma Thurman recently split up.
The allegations in the press have been that the actor was messing around with a model while on location in Canada.
A look at some snippets from an interview in Details magazine indicates that the connubial hubbub might have affected Hawke's political perspective.
Hawke said, "Martin Luther King Jr. suffered from infidelity, so did John F. Kennedy. Clinton is a self-made man. And you're much more likely to find great leadership coming from a man who likes to have sex with a lot of women than one who's monogamous."
In apparent deference to married women, Hawke explained, "I'm not saying that men shouldn't be monogamous, but what I mean is, there's no [expletive] correlation in the world to that having anything to do with ethics as a leader, as a world leader."
Hawke also did something during the interview that the political Hollywood pundits can't seem to refrain from doing these days. He cast a barb at Bush.
He said President Bush was "probably the least prepared person to be president of the United States that's been elected in a long time, if not ever."
The Left Coast Report remarks that the same people who want move the character line into left field now want to drop-kick the sphere of ethics.
2. Harry Belafonte's Unusual Jacko Defense
It looks as if calypso commie Harry Belafonte has come up with something new for Michael Jackson's P.R. campaign that even Mark Geragos may not have thought of. It's the "war in Iraq defense."
While in Nairobi, Belafonte pointed out to Agence France-Presse that "Michael Jackson is innocent until proven guilty by the court of law."
The singer said the U.S. media had an "insatiable appetite" for the case.
Hitting it right on both points, Belafonte then let loose with a unique defense strategy. He said, "It is inappropriate for the media to start asking what ifs and what abouts. What about the children who suffered in Iraq?"
The Left Coast Report thinks that Belafonte's "change the subject and then hit Bush" tune makes him eligible for a DNC Grammy.
3. Charlize Theron Wants 'Monster' to Live
In response to her portrayal of a woman who was executed for a committing a series of vicious murders, Charlize Theron has earned an Academy Award nomination.
Appearing in front of reporters at the Berlin Film Festival for the overseas premiere of her film, the actress took the opportunity to scorn the death penalty.
"I don't think condemning people who murder and then killing them necessarily sends out the right message," Theron, told the press, calling those executed for capital crimes "political pawns."
Theron added, "I'm not for the death penalty, and working on this film didn't really change anything for me. If anything it made me more aware of how ineffective it is."
The Left Coast Report sees the fact that an executed killer can't be paroled to kill anyone else as pretty darn effective.
4. Michael Douglas Wins Celluloid Election
The readers of USA Today have been polled as to their choice for president, and guess what? They passed over Kerry, Bush and Nader for ... Michael Douglas?
Although Douglas said he was "very flattered," he speculated that his selection might have something to do with Catherine Zeta-Jones becoming first lady.
Actually, Douglas won the vote for best presidential portrayal in cinema.
Douglas, who has pushed nuclear disarmament and been a spokesman for the United Nations as a "messenger of peace," beat out the competition with 39 percent of the 10,568 votes cast.
The actor won for his representation of the idealized liberal president that Aaron Sorkin of "West Wing" fame and Rob Reiner inflicted on the national psyche in 1995 in "The American President."
The Left Coast Report suspects that the Kerry campaign will try to enlist Sorkin as its next speechwriter.
5. Amish TV
Rep. Joe Pitts is leading 51 members of Congress who want Les Moonves to call off a UPN "reality" series.
The series that's creating the stir features Amish teen-agers being transplanted to tempting locales in Los Angeles.
Moonves was at the center of the struggle over the infamous Reagan miniseries and Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." Now he's in another television tussle with Pitts, who represents the southern Pennsylvania countryside in which the Amish reside.
As the chairman of CBS, Moonves also watches over UPN. He reportedly said a few weeks ago that a show where "people who don't have television walk down Rodeo Drive" and are "freaked out by what they see" would make interesting TV.
Moonves insisted, "It will not be denigrating to the Amish."
Pitts told the Associated Press that "the mentality reminds me of the old sideshows in the circus, and it is wrong to do this to a minority group like the Amish."
The Amish are known for avoiding the use of technology and dressing in plain homemade clothing. But when Amish teens turn 16, they are given a period in which to experiment outside their austere lifestyle. The young people are permitted to sample the outside world so they can be certain that they want to be baptized as adults.
UPN released the following statement in response to the 51 legislators: "UPN and the show's producers have every intention of treating the Amish, their beliefs and their heritage with the utmost respect and decency. Any young Amish adults who do choose to participate ... will do so only of their own free will and with absolutely full knowledge of the content, nature and intent of the program."
The Left Coast Report is concerned that the show won't exactly be in line with Weird Al's "Amish Paradise."
6. Katie Couric Displays First Lady Partiality
Katie Couric recently interviewed a few of America's first ladies for NBC's "Today" show.
The interviews of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Reagan turned out to be a study in correspondent contrast.
Couric introduced Hillary in this way: "Hillary Rodham Clinton. She perhaps faced more challenges professional and personal than any other first lady in history. Now three years after she left the White House, Hillary Rodham Clinton may wield more political power than her husband."
There was no mention of Hillary's cattle futures windfall, Billy Dale's Travel Office nightmare or the mystery of the disappearing and reappearing Rose Law firm billing records.
By the way, Katie and her pal Hillary appeared together last weekend at a forum in south Florida.
But when Couric interviewed Nancy Reagan, after mentioning some perfunctory accomplishments that she brought to the position, Couric chirped: "Unfortunately some critics were saying no to Nancy Reagan. She was taken to task for wearing designer gowns and redecorating the White House during a recession. But her regular consultations with an astrologer raised the most eyebrows."
The Left Coast Report says we haven't seen such skill at interviewing since Larry King sat down with Connie Chung.
KERRY'S LACK OF POLITICAL COURAGE
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Sunday, February 29, 2004
So far in this campaign Mr. Kerry has shown little interest in being daring, expressing a thought that is unexpected or quirky on even minor issues. We wish we could see a little of the political courage of the Vietnam hero who came back to lead the fight against the war.
-- The New York Times, Feb. 26, 2004
And that, believe it or not, is from the Times's *endorsement* of John Kerry in Tuesday's presidential primary. The editorial's wistful words get to the heart of the character issue that troubles so many of those who have looked closely at Kerry's career in public life. The Democratic frontrunner is increasingly being described as a "flip-flopper" or a "waffler" or "two-faced." But the real problem with Kerry is something more fundamental. As the Times rightly notes, he lacks political courage.
Perhaps that is why he and his campaign talk about it so much.
The search engine on Kerry's campaign website lists some 200 pages on which "courage" appears. When he formally announced his candidacy at Boston's Faneuil Hall last September, he uttered the words "courage" or "courageous" 19 times ("courageous Americans always rise to the occasion . . . the courage of our people to change what is wrong . . . it was courage that was talked about in this hall . . . we must have the courage to stand up . . . the courage of Americans can change this country"). The sign behind him read: "The courage to do what's right for America." And when he took his announcement speech on the road, the trip was billed as the "American Courage Tour."
No one doubts Kerry's physical courage. He is a Vietnam veteran, with a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts that attest to his battlefield bravery. But courage in combat doesn't necessarily translate into courage on the Senate floor or the campaign trail. And that kind of courage -- the courage of a leader who knows his own mind and speaks it fearlessly, who doesn't trim with every shifting breeze, who doesn't court unpopularity but isn't afraid of it, either -- has never been a hallmark of Kerry's career.
Every few days, we seem to get a fresh example (or a resurrected old one) of Kerry brazenly revising his history, or declaring "flip" from one side of his mouth while asserting "flop" out of the other.
Last week the Jerusalem Post reported that Kerry strongly defended Israel's controversial security fence as "a legitimate act of self defense," since "no nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses." He said "the fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel," and insisted that the International Court of Justice in the Hague has no authority to pass judgment on it.
Yet just a few months ago, Kerry gave every indication of being firmly against it.
"We don't need another barrier to peace," he told the Arab American Institute in October. "Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder."
This may be the first time that a politician has *literally* come down on both sides of the fence. It can't be a comfortable position. But it's the one in which Kerry can all too often be found.
It is not news that candidates, hungry for popularity, occasionally try to be all things to all people. The problem with Kerry isn't that he engages in shifty equivocation and revisionism once in a while. It is that he has done so over and over and over. Like the first JFK, Kerry served with distinction as a Navy lieutenant in wartime. But never in his public career has he been what John F. Kennedy called a "profile in courage."
In 1992, Kerry insisted that Bill Clinton's draft avoidance during the Vietnam War must not be made a political issue. "We do not need to divide America over who served and how," he said. In 2004, not only doesn't he silence Democrats who disparage George W. Bush's military record, he goes out of his way to play the Vietnam card. "I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did," Kerry said last week. Profile in courage?
As he campaigns for president, Kerry says he has "a message for the influence peddlers . . . and all the special interests who now call the White House home: We're coming. You're going. And don't let the door hit you on the way out." Yet over the past 15 years, reports The Washington Post, this enemy of "influence peddlers" has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other member of the US Senate. Profile in courage?
Under fire in Vietnam, Kerry was fearless and steadfast. But rarely if ever has he shown comparable bravery on the political battlefields at home. It is difficult to think of any instance in which he has taken a tough stand and stuck with it despite the clear political risk in doing so. Instead, time and time again, he has tried to have it both ways -- from the medals he threw away/didn't throw away to the wars in Iraq he supported/didn't support. At the age of 25, John Kerry's courage was indisputable. Now, at age 60, it is more or less undetectable.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)