Friday, August 24, 2007

Democrats Committing
Political Suicide

What a week it’s been for Democrats shooting themselves in the foot. First a presidential candidate said the Democrats can’t handle a terror attack as well as Republicans, then there is a New Jersey mayor who does not want his police to report illegal aliens charged with crimes to the Feds. And this is after an illegal immigrant is charged with murdering three college students!

Yesterday, Sen. Hillary Clinton told supporters during a presidential campaign stop in New Hampshire that if there was a terror attack between now and Election Day in 2008, the Republicans would win the White House.

She did add that she was the “Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with (a terror attack),” reported The New York Post.

Great job, Hillary. What a great way to remind independent and party voters that the Democrats have always been viewed as weak on terrorism. Not only did you hurt yourself but you just hurt your party’s senators and congressmen/women who are running for election.

It’s not surprising that the presidential candidates are back stabbing each other, but it is shocking when they start sabotaging the chances of their colleagues.

Clinton just showed how shallow of a person she is by caring more about her chances of winning the election than people’s lives if there was a terrorism attack.

And that’s three strikes against her, and that was only in one speech!

And then we have Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker and his deep commitment to illegal immigrant but not for the citizens of his city.

As many will know, Newark made national headlines earlier this month when three college students were murdered in execution-style shootings, with one was injured. One of the murder suspects, Jose Carranza, is an illegal immigrant.

Federal authorities were never informed that Carranza, from Peru, was charged with child rape and aggravated assault before he was arrested for the murders.

That is why Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said earlier this week that the murder victims’ families should sue Newark because the city does not demand that police officers check the legal immigration status of criminal suspects. And the Democratic mayor of the city had this to say.

“Local law-enforcement officials should not be going out asking, inquiring and investigating whether people are documented or undocumented,” Booker said in an Associated Press interview.

So, Booker does not want police officers to do their jobs, which is to serve and protect the people of Newark? If Newark police told federal authorities that Carranza was charged for child rape and assault, then he might have been deported or at the very least, locked up and not made bail like he did.

But no, Booker is playing politics with illegal immigrants and it might have cost the lives of three college students. How he can sleep at night is amazing. It would be even more amazing if he has a political career after all of this.

Because essentially he just said he does not care about legal Newark citizens by not requiring police to investigate a suspect if he or she is an illegal alien, thus placing many innocent lives in danger. That’s more than shallow, that’s downright wicked and immoral.

Democrats don’t have to worry about losing to Republicans in 2008; they’re doing a good job of defeating themselves!

Is YouTube The Way To Vote?

This is pretty scary. Some time ago, I wrote about Obama Girl, whose real name is Amber Lee Ettinger. No, certainly not the scary part, but this comment from a person claiming to be a photographer of the lip-synching Obama supporter is.

“… You Tube is changing the way American people view their political hopefulls. You can still vote for whomever you want. It's just a more entertaining and more modern way that political candidates can reach the American people,” according to a Brian Williams on a CNN comment page about a recent story that questions Ettinger’s allegiance to the Democratic presidential candidate.

Now, if anyone has seen Ettinger’s desired-filled video, one would realize that it has about as much meaning and insight as a JibJab political cartoon.

Granted, this Williams person has a point, politics can be a bore. However, spicing it up with a girl who belongs on a Playboy spread out shouldn’t be helping anyone decide who to vote for.

And despite Williams’ belief that modern candidates want to reach potential voters by using not-quite soft porn, then he hasn’t heard that Barack Obama wasn’t pleased with the video. Obama has already stated in an Associated Press interview this week that he doesn’t appreciate Ettinger’s endorsement.

In fact, I can’t imagine any self-respecting candidate who is serious about winning the highest office in the land who would want that type of support.

When I’m going to vote on Election Day, I’m not going to choose a candidate, who if elected will have a finger next to that little red nuclear button, because some scantily clad singer from a 15-year-old boy’s wet dream endorsed him or her.

Electing an American president should be taken seriously. And maybe it’s time that the rest of the voting population who is under 30 start to realize that.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Will New Imus Boss Learn From CBS’ Mistake?

As by now, everyone has heard that the notorious radio talk show host Don Imus has made a nice settlement deal with his former employer, CBS. But that’s not the real important item.

What’s important is that an anonymous source, according to the Associated Press, says that Imus is trying to get back on the air. Apparently, he may go to WABC-AM, according to this Associated Press source.

If ABC hires the I-Man, will it learn from CBS’ mistake of firing him?

Was Imus wrong for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team “nappy-headed ho’s?” You better believe it. In fact, he has made so many insulting remarks about people throughout the years, that it’s surprising he got so much attention now.

Was it wrong for people to call for the firing of the shock jock? No, they have as much right as American citizens to say what they want as Imus did.

Was CBS right in firing Imus? No. Besides the fact that his apology should have been enough, there was no need for Imus to be fired. CBS was trying to cover itself. It also shows that CBS doesn’t have what it takes to be a part of the confrontational world of talk radio.

If CBS can’t take any heat, then it shouldn’t be in the game. It’s that simple. And CBS is one of the big three, certainly a pillar of broadcast journalism, and a symbol of the First Amendment. If CBS caved in so easily like a house of cards because people were screaming bloody murder about Imus’ stupid remarks, then CBS has no idea what journalism or freedom of speech means.

And ABC has dealt with a lot of heavy hitters like its own talk radio hosts Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. It would seem logical that ABC can handle a tamer Imus compared to those two.

But Imus’ firing reflects what is happening to America in a certain degree. No more Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s infamous and inspiring words, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

No, it seems as if we have to protect everyone and not hurt their feelings. And while being nice is a virtue that seems to be dwindling away in today’s society, it should not be an unwilling accomplice in the murder of the First Amendment.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Suspected Newark Killer Is An Illegal Immigrant

Is New Haven, the Connecticut town that gave illegal immigrants ID cards, having second thoughts after it was discovered that the man charged with the execution-style shootings of three college students is an illegal alien himself?

The murders of Newark, N.J., residents Terrance Aeriel, 18; Dashon Harvey, 20; and Iofemi Hightower, 20, and the attempted murder of 19-year-old Natasha Aeriel have shocked the nation.

What also came as a shock today was that one of the suspects, 28-year-old Jose Carranza, is an illegal immigrant from Peru, although CNN has decided to label him as “undocumented.” FOX News, on the other hand, called him “illegal.”

FOX News reported that Carranza had a fake Social Security number during his recent arrest and had previously been “arrested on charges of raping a 5-year-old girl and then threatening the child and parents.”

CNN reported the same as far as the charge of having a fake Social Security number but also reported that Carranza is accused in another case of raping and threatening to kill a 13-year-old, a girlfriend's child. At this time, it is not known if the two alleged victims are actually the same person but the age is wrong or if it’s two different people.

In addition to murder, both networks have reported that Carranza is charged with robbery, along with other criminal offenses connected to the Newark murders. CNN did report that police are also investigating if the murders are gang-related.

So, Carranza, whose fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, is an illegal immigrant. And it isn’t the first time that an illegal immigrant has been charged with murder or rape. Are all illegal aliens killers and rapists? Of course not.

But as a nation, we have to take a united stance against people who illegally come into this country. Giving them ID cards or driver licenses or other services is not the answer. Some of them are vicious killers that need to go back to their own country before they can prey on any more Americans.

If local, state and federal branches of the government actually got serious about illegal immigrants, instead of treating them like lost, rain-drenched kittens, then those three young people would be alive today.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Candidates’ Girls Cheapens Already Dirty Politics

First it was a YouTube video of Obama Girl lusting over the Democratic candidate. Then there was another video of Obama Girl having a dance off with Giuliani Girl. And if one devotee singing praise isn’t enough, Republican Mitt Romney has three girls and I won’t even bother making the standard Mormon joke.

Listen, it’s bad enough that these politicians are stabbing each other in the back, and that’s just within their own party, but I for one can’t stomach these cheerleaders.

I actually shudder to think what the next presidential election is going to be like. Maybe the candidates will wear corporate stickers as they talk “smack” with Vince McMahon during WrestleMania, or whatever that fake sport is called now.

It’s already bad enough when petty issues come up about a candidate, like Romney having his dog ride on the car roof. There are enough distractions as it is but I don’t need to see some hot girl doing a strip dance as she’s lip-synching her affections to Democrat Barack Obama.

Even Hillary Clinton has her own spokes singer, although her video borderlines a Penthouse letter. (Feel free to insert your own Bill Clinton joke.)

And why are only a few candidates get to have girls singing for them? Granted, as a politician, you couldn’t ask for better advertising in order to attract younger voters. Sadly, most young voters, from my experience, are so brain dead anyway, they would vote for the candidate who was drunk off his soapbox on national T.V. So having a girl about to spill out of her clothes for a candidate is a huge step up.

But getting back to those candidates who don’t have an entourage, I guess it’s only a matter of time before we see them. But luckily, we don’t have to wait for them to start attacking each other like the candidates. The Romney Three have already attacked Obama Girl in the type of political ad on YouTube that most people immediately run away in terror from if it were a normal presidential ad.

Listen, it’s bad enough that we have candidates pretending to care about the average citizen, to show up at town hall meetings to flash a quick smile and give a good 30-second sound byte of how bad their opponent really is. But to have supporters, assuming they are doing this on their own accord, start singing their affection to a politician, cheapens politics to a new level of low.

But on the bright side, at least these girls are a sight better if we have to watch a political mud fight.

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Remembering The End Of W.W. 2

This week marks the 62nd anniversary of dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus saving countless lives while incinerating many.

The debate still rages on today over whether or not the two bombs should have been dropped. Many feel the innocent lives that died that day paid too big of a price. At one time I agreed. It wasn’t until later that I learned that Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd army and that Nagasaki had a major munitions manufacturing center.

It also wasn’t until later that I learned that a planned American invasion was being considered instead of dropping the bombs. This invasion would have resulted in more deaths of the Japanese, as well as American deaths. And it would have certainly prolonged the war.

The awful power of the atomic bombs is still terrifying to think about. But it had to be one of history’s great “necessary evils.” After all, it did save countless lives on both sides. Maybe it was the aftermath of what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that has prevented any country from using such destructive weapons since.

While I have always logically supported the use of the atomic bombs, only in the past few years have there been personal reasons why I support the obliteration of two Japanese cities that happened long before I was born.

I’m sure many science fiction fans are familiar with this popular theory: If you go back in time and kill your grandfather, you will cease to exist.

If President Harry Truman decided to go with the invasion of Japan, there would have been air raids over Tokyo. It probably would have resulted in the death of one or two very special, young children. Or they might have survived but would have never met.

Either case, they wouldn’t have produced a daughter, with whom I’m married to or we wouldn’t have two beautiful children. And I can’t imagine any parent wanting to change history if it meant erasing their children from existence.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

How Fair Would A Renewed
Fairness Doctrine Be?

After media giant Rupert Murdoch’s recent deal to purchase of the Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, many Democrats and the left will be screaming with more vigor for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

But just how fair would a renewed Fairness Doctrine be, assuming it would be the same one that was abandoned more than 20 years ago? The doctrine was essentially for licensed broadcast media networks, television and radio, to report on issues fairly and with balance.

However, in 1987, the FCC deemed the Fairness Doctrine unconstitutional because it placed a restriction on the journalistic freedom of the broadcast press.

But lately, the doctrine is in huge demand, with a fair dose of one-sidedness from its supporters.

It’s hypocritical for Democrats and liberals, self-knighted caretakers of free speech, to want to restrict what they see as conservative takeover of the airwaves. With the spread and popular growth of conservative talk radio and the FOX News network, many on the progressive side want to squash it.

It almost seems that the Democrats and the left want to actually confine the American public from freely choosing what they want to watch and listen too. It certainly does not sound very fair, does it?

But would a newly reinstated Fairness Doctrine, assuming it would be the same one that was abandoned so many years ago, actually help the Democrats and the left?

For example, let’s say MSNBC is interviewing war-activist Cindy Sheehan about her run for Congress and Sheehan again says that President Bush lied about former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. Would MSNBC be forced to have include Georges Sada, a retired general of the Iraqi Air Force, who has claimed that the former dictator had the WMD shipped to Syria?

Or better yet, if presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is on CNN and is discussing how he is in favor of renewing the ban on assault-type weapons, would CNN be required to show a U.S. Department of Justice study that showed the bill did not stop crime?

The Fairness Doctrine would definitely come back and haunt the Democrats and the left and it would undermine their chances of winning the White House in 2008.

But the left and the Democrats seem hell-bent to reinstate the doctrine, as if to rid conservative talk radio. However, that is as likely as Hillary Clinton reciting the reasons why her husband launched Operation Desert Fox against Hussein, which mirrors those of President Bush’s.

What many liberals and Democrats have to understand is why conservative talk radio is so popular and why the liberal Air America isn’t. It all comes down to money and ratings and it’s as simple as that. Or maybe they do get it and that’s why they are so upset with the popularity to begin with.

Let’s face it, if ABC thought it could gain more advertising and more people tuning in to listen to finger nails on a chalkboard, we would never hear Sean Hannity’s voice on the airwaves again.

There is a big difference between reporting on the news and commenting on it. Placing the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio is wrong, because it doesn’t report the news but gives an opinionated commentary about it, thus restricting hosts' freedom of speech.

If the Democrats and the left truly want fairness and balance, then they would abandon their witch hunt against talk radio and place their efforts in having the doctrine only for reporting the news.

Clearly, fairer, objective and balanced reporting on the issues would be far more beneficial to the American public then limiting the opinion that the majority of America wants to tune into.