Another Case of Liberal Descrimination

It amazes me how liberal democrats can say they take the mantle of equal rights and free speech and at the same time dish out the same level of discrimination and censorship.

 

TMZ.com reports that Barry Manilow cancelled his appearance on The View because he did not want to be on the same stage as Elizabeth Hasselbeck.  Manilow states “I strongly disagree with [Hasselbeck’s] views. I think she’s dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her.”  To their credit, Barbara Walters said it was “too bad” about Barry’s stand and producer Bill Geddie adds “we don’t do that…we support everybody…he’s not going to call the shots.

 

This is not the only instance of liberal not wanting to be in the vicinity of conservatives.  It’s just the most recent.  Here’s the hypocrisy of the whole situation:

 

• Censorship. Liberals support your freedom of speech as long as you agree with liberals or if you don’t, then keep your mouth shut.
• Discrimination.  Liberals will discriminate against you based on creed and religion.  There’s a reason why Hollywood and the press are mostly comprised of liberals.  Once a liberal finds out that you’re a conservative they automatically label you as closed minded and fanatical. This, my friend, is classic prejudice. 
• Hatred. Liberal will say that conservatives hate minorities, the poor, etc.  But with even more passion, they can get away with hating a person with opposite views.  They describe any outspoken conservative and evil and hateful, or as Mr. Manilow puts it “dangerous and offensive.”

 

I have many liberal friends, but I will tell you that when Bush won re-election in 2004, I was not a well-liked person.  It wasn’t for anything that I did personally, but it was based solely on my beliefs.

 

In response, I did not “hate” my liberal friends when the Democrats took back Congress.  Because they had nothing to do with it.

 

Your comments are welcome.

Good Job, Phil Angelides

I thought your attack ads on Governor Schwartzenegger during the 20/20 special about the death of Steve Irwin was so well timed.  Thanks for taking a touching moment and using it as a platform to promote your political career.

 

Why not run some 9/11 ads while you're at it.

Mel Gibson and the Liberal Media

I've always believed the media in general has a liberal agenda.  Many will say they don't, but they do.  Here's what I call the subtle example.  It's not blatant but it's a tactic that I see a lot.

The principle here is that you report a story that should be positive toward a public conservative, but you have to cast doubt.  The key though is that is doesn't matter who dissents.  Any one will do.

---------------------------------------

AP News - 12/7/05
Mel Gibson Plans Holocaust Miniseries

Mel Gibson is stirring passions again with his latest project - a nonfiction TV movie set against the backdrop of the Holocaust.

Gibson's Con Artist Productions is developing "Flory" for ABC, based on the true story of a Dutch Jew named Flory Van Beek and her non-Jewish boyfriend who sheltered her from the Nazis, The New York Times and Variety reported in Wednesday editions.

Critics claimed Gibson's blockbuster film "Passion of the Christ" was anti-Semitic, a charge Gibson has denied. Gibson's father also is on the record denying that the Holocaust took place.

"For (Gibson) to be associated with this movie is cause for concern," Rafael Medoff, director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Melrose Park, Pa., told the Times. "He needs to come clean that he repudiates Holocaust denial."

---------------------------------------

Who is the hell is Rafael Medoff?  He's the only guy the media could find to say something outrageous about Mel Gibson.

An example of this happens against conservatives as well.  If a story that favors the legalization of abortion comes out, the media doesn't go to those of us who have thoughtful opinions about abortion, the media goes right to the religious lunatic.

If the press was really about fair reporting, they would get actual experts on both sides to quote.

Liberals Make Up Your Mind

Democrats have a great strategy when it comes to taking down Republicans.  It helps that they have to media to be their mouthpiece.  The strategy is simple, take an issue and attack Republicans on both sides of the issue.

The prime example of this is high gas prices.

Liberal Criticism #1 - Gas prices are so high because evil gas company executives are greedy.
Liberal Criticism #2 - Evil gas company executive was to do more drilling and build refineries and they don't care about the environment.

Evaluation of Criticism #1 - Liberal are taking the side of the poor and attacking greed.  How can the poor who have to travels to their jobs afford to work with gas prices so high.  Let's punish gas companies by taxing them more.  Gas companies need to lower their price so that gas is more affordable to the working man.

Evaluation of Criticism #2 - Liberals are taking the side of the environment. Don't let gas companies do anymore drilling or upgrade and build new refineries, because gas and cars are destroying the planet.  Gas prices should be high, you evil SUV owner.

How can you win?  You can't because to the liberal it's not about improving society.  It's about maintaining political power.  Democrats need to take Republicans down, so they will attack for the sake of attack.

You have to remember the Immutable Law of Liberals, they don't need any ideas, they just need to be in office.

Dark Tuesday

As you can tell, I'm a conservative.  I was very disappointed by the results of last night's election.  I may not be in tune with Governor Schwartzenegger from a social standpoint, I am in sync with him on the public policy agenda.

He supported four very good pieces of legislation and they all when down to defeat.

The problem was that the propositions in and of themselves were good and smart ideas.  They just happen to go up against people we should admire - Teachers, Police, Firefighters and Nurses.  All four groups deserve a lot of respect.  Unfortunately, they were made the targets of these propositions, when the real targets should have been the unions they belong to.

Proposition 74 - I love teachers and they deserve to be paid more, but at the same time, a principal should be able to fire bad teachers.  Bad teachers should not be allow to hide behind tenure.  The issue is not what's in the best interest of bad teachers, it's what's in the best interest for our children.

Proposition 75 - I love teachers, police officers, firefights and they deserve to be paid more.  Their unions on the other hand should represent their members.  If they did, there would have been no reason to even have this proposition on the ballot.  The unions spent $100 million on political campaign. If the liberals think the money on the Iraq war should have gone to inner cities, then money to political campaigns should go to the membership, instead of raising dues to pay for ads.

Proposition 76 - I love schools and it's important to educate children no matter race or economic position.  But at the same time you can not hamper a state's budget with guaranteed funds.  If the state is going through an economic crisis, the governor and legislature should be allowed to reallocate funds as necessary.  This makes sense to me.  Otherwise the only alternative is to raise taxes.

Proposition 77 - Who do I trust to draw district boundaries?  Politicians who want to keep their jobs or an independent council of judges and the people of California.  Think about it.

I feel better now.

Supreme Court Candidate Alito

So far so good on Bush's Nominee.  One Democrat senator from the Gang of 14 has complimented Judge Alito on his openmindedness and void of political agenda.

Here's an interest word from AP - In college, Samuel Alito led a student conference that urged legalization of sodomy and curbs on domestic intelligence, a sweeping defense of privacy rights he said were under threat by the government and the dawning computer age.

Three decades before the Supreme Court decriminalized gay sex, Alito declared on behalf of his group of fellow Princeton students that "no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden." Alito also called for an end to discrimination against homosexuals in hiring.

But they saw in the 1971 report a prescient thinker taking on issues ahead of their time, including the need for computer encryption, stronger oversight of domestic intelligence and curbs on the surveillance powers of states.

"The document itself is amazing," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "It is a dramatic statement in support of the right of privacy.

We'll see what's to come.

Prop 75 Impact

Will Prop 75 have an impact?  In Utah, they passed a similar law and found political participation drop from 68% to 7% and in Washington 80% to 11%.  The key point to notice is that again, union leadership did not speak for the constituents.

In California, the teachers' union spent 60 million between 2000 to 2004 on political campaigns for its 335,000.  That's $36,000 per member per year.  What do you think would happen to the quality of education and the happiness of teacher had the union put $36,000 in a retirement account for each member every year?

How about this?  What if they union took half $18,000 per member and placed that in a retirement account, and spent the rest on political causes?  I don't necessarily support that, but it's staggering to think about the possibilities.

Proposition 75 - Why Liberals Lie

I'm always frustrated during election times.  Mostly because of the lying sound bites you get from both sides of the aisle (although mostly from Democrats).  Today is Prop 75.

In a nutshell, Prop 75 requires written permission from union members to use a portion of their union dues for political use.  For example, union dues can be used for supporting or opposing propositions or candidates.

Under current law, a union member can opt out.  Under proposition 75, a union member must grant permission.

I obviously support this law.  Recently unions have raised union dues specifically to fund political campaigns.  It is not fair for a person to have their dues raised without their permission and then used to support a cause they don't believe in.  That's why the AFL-CIO lost some major unions recently - http://www.mypalal.com/blog/UnionsBolt.html. The AFL-CIO spent the majority of their time and money supporting political campaigns that they lost their membership base.

The reality is there would be no need for Proposition 75 if the unions spoke on behalf of their membership.  Then again, if the unions did actually represent their membership, they have nothing to fear from Proposition 75.

The Rebirth of the DNC

AP just did an interview with Howard Dean, former presidential candidate and governer.  He discusses the strategy of the DNC.

 

His goals are:

• Making Democrats the party of values, community and reform. Armed with extensive DNC polling, Dean is consulting with party leaders in Congress, mayors and governors to recast the public's image of Democrats with a unified message.
• Improving the party's "micro-targeting," the tactic of merging political information about voters with their consumer habits to figure out how to appeal to them.
• Building a 50-state grass-roots organization using Internet and community-building tools.

Let's sum up this strategy. The Democrats will poll America and that will decide what the Democrats believe.  The biggest problem that the Democrats have is that they believe in nothing and rely on polling to remain in power.  Get a backbone people.  Take a stand on something.

The Bush Master Plan

Could Bush be a genius?  He nominates a woman who is a complete mystery. He then gets conservatives to express concern.  Now Democrats will just sit back and vote in an unknown, just to "tick off" conservatives.  Time will tell.

Yet another example of Media Bias

From AP (10/3/05) Headline - Hispanics Upset Bush Passed on Them

"President Bush has again ignored highly qualified Latino judges, attorneys and law professors who could serve the nation ably on the United States Supreme Court," said Ann Marie Tallman, executive director of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, after Miers' nomination was announced Monday.

"The failure of this administration to nominate a Hispanic judge to the Supreme Court is a slap in the face to all those highly qualified Hispanic judges that dutifully serve on our federal courts across the nation," said Raul Yzaguirre, former president of the National Council of La Raza. "Our community continues to contribute to the greatness of this nation and yet, we are ignored for a vital role on our third branch of governance."

Here's how the media goes to liberal groups to get quotes about the President's Actions that are unwarranted. This story would have had some credence if the organization they interviewed were actual Bush supporting organizations.

If Bush had nominated a Hispanic, then the National Organization of Women would have been all over Bush's case for not replacing O'Conner with another women.  Either way you had two separate groups that the media was eager to get comments based on the nomination.  Bush should have picked a Hispanic Woman.

One last thing, we already know that the Democrats would have shot down two of Bush's Hispanic nominees because they were too conservative.

Example of Liberal Media Bias

Today, President Bush nominated attorney Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

One would think that an unbiased news organization would have a headline that might say:

"President Bush Nominates Miers to Supreme Court"

No, here's AP's headline (10/3/05):

"High Court Nominee Has Never Been a Judge"

Which headline reports the fact and which one offers opinion?

Judge Roberts is installed

What a great day for bi-partisanship.  Judge Roberts is confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  He was confirmed by all Republican Senators (no surprise), all Independent Senators (Jeffords) and half of the Democrats.

Let's hope that the next nomination goes smoothly.  My call is to nominate a person who is just like Roberts. A person with exemplary judicial qualifications.

I'm reading some of the reports from Democrats about the next nominations and they are like a broken records.  Democrats what Bush to nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court.  Maybe a moderate at best.  You know what?  Your party's not in power…too bad.

I could just scream sometimes.

Shining Hope for the Democratic Party

Based on a report from AP, there is disagreement within the Democratic Party…

"The Senate Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, announced his endorsement shortly after leaving the White House. That guaranteed bipartisan backing for Roberts in Thursday's scheduled vote by the committee."

Leahy, who has led filibuster fights against Bush's lower court nominees, said in a Senate speech, "I do not intend to lend my support to an effort by this president to move the Supreme Court and the law radically to the right."

But Roberts "is a man of integrity," said Leahy, who told Roberts over the telephone about his decision. "I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda."

Other Democrats, including Sens. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana, also have announced their support. Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana are leaning toward voting for Roberts. Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota is viewed as a possible vote for him, as well.

==================================

It appears that some Democrats are above partisanship.  It's interesting that no one ever called Clinton's nominee "Ginsberg" an ideologue.  She's hardly been a moderate open-minded justice.  But then again, that was Clinton's right as President, he was allowed to pick whoever would act appropriately as a justice, regardless of personal beliefs.

I still believe Democratic politicians are hypocrites, but some have been moved down the scale a little.  Let's see what happens with President Bush's next pick.

The Abortion Irony

As I continue to follow the Roberts Confirmation, it suddenly struck me.

The Democrats are afraid that Judge Roberts will with one stroke of the pen overturn Roe vs. Wade. At the same time, they applaud judges as courageous who will summarily give homosexual couples the same status of marriage.

It's clear to Democrats that the only judges who belong on the Supreme Court are judges who will pursue a liberal agenda but not conservative one.

The conservatives, on the other hand, believe that only judges who belong on the Supreme Court are those who interpret the Constitution based on the original intent of the Founding Fathers.  Abortion, homosexual rights are states-rights issues and it is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary.

The Roberts Game has Begun

I'm watching bits of the Roberts hearing and it is me or is this simply a game. Some experts seem to think so.

"He's obviously playing a game of dodgeball," said Ralph Neas, head of the liberal People of the American Way.

The game is whether or not the Democrats can make Roberts say something that media can blow up out of proportion. I'll be honest here, the Republicans did it to Clinton's nominees and yet still overwhelmingly voted for them.

I wish that I could say that the Democrats will afford the same courtesy, but they won't. We're already hearing a great deal of contentious response from Senators Kennedy and Feinstein. And before you accuse me of partisanship, please compare the tone of the Ginsburg confirmation and this one.

The Nomination of a Supreme Court Justice

Today is the day that the Senate Judiciary Committee begins its hearings on nominee John Roberts.  This is an important time because President Bush has opportunities to replace two justices.  Unfortunately, he will be replacing two relatively conservative justices.

The word right now is that the only way this nomination will get derailed is through filibuster by Democrats (which they may just do).

The Democrats are upset because the President refuses to nominate a liberal. Then again, why should he, he’s the President. The Democrats have used the filibuster to prevent the President from appointing a conservative judge, now the stakes are raised.

Something to look out for, when President Clinton nominated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Democrats encouraged her not to share her views on various issues and the response from the Democrats was that it was “fine by them.” This tactic is now known as the “Ginsburg rule.”

Senator Orrin Hatch says, “I was on this committee in 1993. Justice Ginsburg was not telling mythological tales when she refused to answer questions over 60 times.”

Will Democratic hypocrisy rear it’s ugly yet frequently shown head and will they demand that Roberts express his views?  5-to-1 says they do.

The Blaming of a Hurricane

I’m watching the weekend news programs and I find it sad a certain political party continues to blame the President for not only the hurricane but the results of the hurricane.

This article from Ben Stein has some more insight into the true problem. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8693

It truly is shameful that the Democrats have taken the worst natural disaster and politicized it. This is the same party that criticized the President for using his leadership during the 9/11 attacks in his campaign.