**Update: TV’s Alan Colmes Says Palin’s Neglect Caused Down’s Syndrome Birth Stress!!**

**Update #2 Below the Fold- Palin’s Pregnancy Confirmed**

As I reported earlier, the scurrilous claim that McCain vice presidential pick Governor Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with a Down’s Syndrome child is beginning to spread among the lowest of the nutrooters. Now, the unhinged, smear site DemocraticUnderground.com has boosted this lie to their front pages. Naturally, since these hate sites feed into each other, the spurious source of the DU story is another DailyKos story like the one I earlier reported upon.

Of course, this whole meme is nothing but a lie. Are we expected to believe an entire state, its hospitals, doctors and media establishment helped cover up this pregnancy story? And they all did this for a Republican, to boot? It makes little logical sense to believe a word of this black helicopter conspiracy theory. Next thing we know, the Kossacks and DUers are going to expect us to believe that Big Foot and some gray aliens were the attendants at the birth!

But, here is the thing. This hateful story about the birth of a child with Down’s Syndrome is exactly the sort of lowest, gutter ideas that float through the empty space in the voluminous heads of our friends at the lowest depths of the Democratic Party and the lefty movement. There are some sick, sick people over there and stories like this prove it.

Pile this on top of the low blow from TV’s Alan Colmes who claims that Palin didn’t practice proper prenatal care before she had the baby with Down’s Syndrome, blaming the Mother for her disabled child. Well, the lefties don’t know a low road they won’t take. (Colmes’ site has crashed right now, but this is the address if it ever comes back: http://www.alan.com/2008/08/30/did-palin-take-proper-pre-natal-care/)

Now, let’s take a looks at some of the replies on the DU garbage thread:

WARNING — As is common on leftist sites, some of the language that follows is profane. (Not to mention filled with bad spelling and grammar)

bobd0: It’s not an “accusation” and it isn’t “awful” Teenagers get pregnant. It isn’t awful. It just happens. It happens all the time. I’m not making accusations. I’m just looking at all the angles. You know, like those Republicans do. Look at that “breakaway” sect of Mormons in Texas. Who would have thought that sort of thing was going on in their backyard? And we’re talking Alaska here. Those long winters must get very boring. And Sarah is all for drilling in Alaska

DaLittle Kitty: That IS a little bastard christian grandchild… WITHOUT QUESTION! IGHT! It’s Da LYING STUPID! Da LYING!!! AllCFhristianed Out +LY’N DER ASS OFF! Why Was this same standard of which you speak NOT in play re: JOHN EDWARDS? The bulshite is unbelievable!!!!

Demeter: It Doesn’t Have to Be an Issue–Just a Rumor or Legend on the Internet. Like Obama is a Muslim==tit for tat.

enough already: Screw ‘em all! It’s time we started fighting back. We always show up at gun fights with knives. Knock Palin’s teeth out on this one. No backing down, no mercy.

marylanddem: I think this IS a an important issue. And commend Daily Kos for focusing on it. Fuck Sarah Palin if she’s the lying hypocrite she appears to be, the sooner this shit hits the fan the better.

progressivebydesign: How can she be the arbiter of all things HOLY and PURE if her daughter gets knocked up?? How would that play in Palin’s little circle of believers? Guess that shoots her ‘abstinence only’ stance, doesn’t it?

scarface2004: fuck that right wing piece of shit..if it belonged to her daughter and she covered it up to avoid embarrasment then fuck that piece of shit! republicans have asked for this…and now they are gonna get it. this is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND goddammit, not mr rogers neighborhood!! its time to fuck them over with every rumor speculation bald faced lie whatever. reap what you sow assholes!!

Well, there’s more, of course, many more that are even more profane. Granted there are a few somewhat saner souls saying that they should leave this horrible story alone. But they are being widely abused and ignored.

This is the sort of hate that has developed into a pathology for the far left, folks. As distasteful as it is, we need to be aware of how low they will go.

Update- One Woman’s Eyewitness Account of Pregnant Palin

Earlier I posted a few stories on the wild speculation and hatemongering going on in the seedy web world of Democratic extremists. They were trying to pass the fake story that McCain VP pick Governor Sarah Palin was never pregnant, that she was a liar about the pregnancy. They claimed that she was covering for her own daughter’s teenaged pregnancy, trying to hide the truth and passing her daughter’s baby off as her own.

Well, now we have even more reason to understand how depraved these Democrats are, because a website posting by a teacher has been found to confirm that at least one person saw a pregnant Palin earlier this year.

All the speculation on whether Governor Palin was pregnant is easily put to rest by the eyewitness account of Elizabeth Eubanks from April 29 of this year. Eubanks was in an airport in Fairbanks waiting for a flight when she unexpectedly saw Governor Palin in the airport also waiting for a flight.

Eubanks reports that she found Palin to be a wonderful person.

Of course I had to check out the “Hottest Governor in the US” and quickly turned to see her pregnant (she has since had her baby) with bags and daughter in tote. Then it struck me as odd. Why is the Governor of Alaska in the airport and preparing to get onto my commercial flight?

Well, why WAS the Governor waiting for a commercial flight? It seems as a cost cutting measure, Governor Palin sold the state jet on Ebay for 2.1 million dollars.

So, not only was she pregnant despite the claim of the jackasses in the Democratic Party, but we get to see another example of how fiscally responsible she is! Go ON with your bad self, Governor Palin!

(Photo Credit: PCBoomradio.com)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Well, we keep seeing the Old Media blasting (or trying to) John McCain’s bold choice for his vice president, Sarah Palin. They keep pretending that Palin has no “experience.” Of course, they refuse to say a word about Barry Hussein Obama’s thin resume, but hey… THAT’S why they are the Media. To take the side of the far left.

Still, I thought it might be interesting to see Barry’s record next to Sarah’s. Now, remember, Barry is the guy that the extremists on the left say is “qualified” to be the actual president and Palin is only running for vice president.

Barack Obama:

Age: 47

Family:

• Wife: Michelle
• 2 Children: Malia, Sasha.

Education:

• B.A. Political Science/International Relations, Columbia University, 1983
• J.D. Harvard Law School, 1991
• Editor of Harvard Law Review

Political Experience:

• State Senator, Illinois, 1996-2004
• No initiatives or legislation of notice, many non-votes and little by way of a record
• U.S. Senator, Illinois, 2005-present
• No initiatives or legislation of notice, little time spent in Washington as he’s been running for president since 2004

Professional Experience:

• Senior Lecturer, Constitutional Law, University of Chicago, 1992-2004
• Never tenured and wrote no scholarly papers
• Attorney, Miner Barnhill & Galland, 1993-2004
• Never became a partner
• “Community Organizer”
• Responsible for no major initiatives or programs

Summary:

Never achieved any major accomplishment after Harvard. Was not a leader of extraordinary courage, did not reach across the aisle, and was responsible for no major initiatives that changed the corrupt Chicago way of business. Never owned a business, has no executive experience at all.

Sarah Palin

Age: 44

Family:

• Husband: Todd
• 5 Children: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig

Education:

• B.S. Journalism, Minor Political Science University of Idaho, 1987

Political Experience:

• Former Council Member of Wasilla City Council, Alaska
• Fought wasteful spending and high taxes
• Former Mayor of Wasilla City, Alaska
• Led the fight against cronyism and wasteful spending
• Candidate, Lieutenant Governor, Alaska, 2002 (Came in 2nd)
• Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2003 - 2004
• Rooted out major corruption and fought party bosses (and won)
• Governor of Alaska, 2006-present
• Beat party bosses and incumbent Gov of her own Party, ran on an anti-corruption platform
• 2008, Negotiated Alaska natural gas pipeline deal between Canada and Alaska

Professional Experience:

• First Place, Miss Wasilla Beauty Contest, 1984
• Second Place, Miss Alaska Pageant, 1984
• Television Sports Reporter, 1987-1989
• Owns commercial fishing business with husband

Summary:

Achieved much in her family life. Took on corrupt party bosses in several capacities and won. Became Governor and gained executive experience. She’s had time to achieve all this before she is 50-years-old AND have 5 children! Simply astounding.

Obviously, I’d stack Palin’s far more extensive experience against Barry Hussein Obama’s any time. At LEAST Palin’s done something. Unlike Barry who has thus far wasted his potential.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

On CNN’s extremist leftist show “The Situation Room,” Jack Cafferty had his little cage shaken again to do his poor man’s impression of Keith Olbermann yesterday.

He took after Sarah Palin to desperately try and defame her. All he ended up doing, though, was to show that he is a complete fool by using something against her that can be used against his OWN favorite pick as VP, Slow Joe Biden.

Cafferty says of the state of Alaska: “Sarah Palin is in her first term as governor of Alaska that’s a state that has 13 people and some caribou.”

Well, isn’t that nice? To slam Alaska like that? But, wait. What about Cafferty’s pick? Joe Biden, Senator for… uh… what state? Why it’s that giant state, that land of towering population, the center of American Metropolises Delaware.

Delaware MUST be HUGE, right Cafferty?

Alaska population as of 2006: 670,053
Delaware population as of 2006: 853,904

Oops.

Yeah that’s a BIG difference there, Cafferty!!

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Some how, the Old Media has missed the good news on Iraq. On August 27, the Rasmussen polling organization published a poll that showed American confidence is at its highest level ever in support of the War on Terror since they’ve begun tracking in January of 2004. This poll got little notice by the Old Media, of course, but it illustrates an issue that McCain should exploit to his benefit — especially after Obama’s acceptance speech last night.

Rasmussen found that Fifty-four percent of American voters now think that the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq and forty-eight percent think the situation will get even better in the next six months. Further, Rasmussen reports that this turn around in public opinion has been sharp when just last year only twenty-seven percent thought things were going to get better in Iraq.

Ominously for the Obama campaign, the poll also found that sixty-two percent of men agree that the U.S. is winning the War on Terror while forty-six percent of women do. Less than a quarter of women now think the terrorists are winning with just fourteen percent of men feel that way.This growing support augers against Obama’s continued anti-war stance.

It all points to two salient facts: the surge worked and we’ve won the war in Iraq. And people are starting to notice… not that the media is.

Yet, what did Obama say concerning Iraq just the other night in his acceptance speech?

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats that we face.

…And today, today, as my call for a timeframe to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration, even after we learned that Iraq has $79 billion in surplus while we are wallowing in deficit, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

…You don’t defeat — you don’t defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries by occupying Iraq. You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can’t truly stand up for Georgia when you’ve strained our oldest alliances.

Clearly, according to this Rasmussen poll, John McCain does not “stand alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.” The American people are by increasing numbers standing next to him in support of this effort, sensing its success.

Barack Obama is placing himself on the losing side of the Iraq war, giving succor to the enemy and clearly showing himself to misunderstand the mood of the American people. America is turning the page from its anti-war pessimism and beginning to see that George Bush’s “stubbornness” was the right path to victory. Yet Obama continues down his anti-war path.

Despite the lack of reporting by the Old Media of this fact, the McCain camp should exploit this growing gap between Obama’s defeatist stance and the public’s growing support of the War on Terror.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Taking a look at the stories in the Old Media will show that the Media is turning attack dog ASAP on McCain’s choice for vice president, Sarah Palin. Notice the main meme is her supposed “inexperience.” Funny how Palin was the VP pick for about 15 seconds before the Old Media went after her “inexperience” while they have yet to hit Barry Obama on HIS inexperience at all and he’s been running for president since 2004. We should also note that Palin didn’t get the honeymoon that Biden got when his announcement was made. But, the worst is yet to come and the Daily Kos is doing its level best to mine the lowest of lows. In a Kos diary today, it is being alleged that Sarah Palin “faked” the pregnancy of her last child, a baby born with Down’s Syndrome. The claim is that it was her teenaged daughter’s child, not hers. And, true to form, the Kossacks took that absurd calumny and hate even further in the comments.

With all the pseudo gravity the Kos diarist could muster, this ridiculous story of a “cover-up” was floated for the foolish Kossacks to lap up. Inky99 gave us the scurrilous diary headlined “Palin’s faked ‘pregnancy’? Covering for teen daughter?,” in which the Kossacks posit that Governor Palin covered up her own teenage daughter’s teen pregnancy by pretending it is her own child instead of her daughter’s.

But it appears that Pallin’s last child, a baby with Down’s syndrome, may not be hers. It may be that of her teenage daughter.

Actually, “it appears” in no way to be true. The diarist gives a story from the Anchoage Daily News that does not in any way prove the diarist’s claim — nor even broach the subject of a faked pregnancy, for that matter.

The Kos diarist then goes on to claim that the “proof” of this claim is that Palin’s teenage daughter was sick and out of public eye for a few months earlier in the year.

Apparently her teenage daughter was out of school, unseen, for months, because she “had mono”.

And, even if this story is true, why is it one worth pursuing? Why it’s because Palin is pro-life, you see…

… seeing as how she’s quite willing to butt into the private lives of every other American woman, I think it’s fair game.

Yeah. Stay classy Daily Kos.

And the diary entry isn’t the worst of it. The comments get more vicious as each one passes. Here are a few:

Commenter psilocynic posted, “Ethics violations out the ass. And she covered for her unwed prego teen! this keeps getting better! History, my dear kossacks. We are watching the death of the rethugican party!”

Next concernedamerican posted a slam on Palin’s commitment to her baby. “She decided not to take maternity leave with this pregnancy!!!! What’s up with that? With a special needs baby?” And then went on to accept the claims without proof saying, “Kind of hypocritical to push abstinence programs in schools and then cover up your own teenage daughter’s pregnancy with a lie that you had the baby yourself, dontcha think?”

Not4bushwa also assumed it was all true merely because it was posted on DailyKos, saying: “If Palin had come clean about her daughter or if McCain had vetted her more carefully and not chosen her, this would not be a story. But she didn’t and he didn’t. Tough luck, poor judgment, another right-wing hypocrite scandal.” And later wrote, “This is a big lie. Why the excessive secrecy? So much shame for a fairly common predicament–teenage pregnancy? I wonder: Who’s the father?”

Obviously, since a Kos diarist posted this garbage story, many Kossacks will simply believe it is true despite that there is no proof at all for even a single word of the accusations.

Poster sailmaker finds Motherhood so disgusting that he can’t imagine a vice president doing it, posting that his “mind boggles at the idea of a lactating VP.” That’s classy, isn’t it?

Poster Subversive really went for the gutter with, “The only thing missing from this story is that the baby wasn’t Black.”

Not content just to indulge in this conspiracy theory, poster TrentinaNE really went for the black helicopters. “Maybe it’s a set-up to get rid of McCain. The story(ies) about Palin come out, he looks like a doofus and withdraws from the race, the Rethugs nominate Romney. Sounds implausible, I know, but I wouldn’t write off anything in Roveland.”

I think someone forgot their meds that morning. What a nutcase theory that was!

These are just a few of the over-the-top posts on DailyKos concerning the lies that Palin faked her pregnancy. This is the sort of garbage we see everyday from the haters and rumormongers on extremist leftist sites like Kos and the Democratic Underground, even Huffington Post, for that matter.

(Photo credit: vanityfair.com)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

For Immediate Release

John McCain Selects Alaska Governor Sarah Palin As Vice Presidential Running Mate

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain today announced that he has selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate and to serve as his vice president.

Governor Palin is a tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president. She has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington.

Governor Palin has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources. She leads a state that matters to every one of us — Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent.

In Alaska, Governor Palin challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill. She has actually used her veto and cut budgetary spending. She put a stop to the “bridge to nowhere” that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.

As the head of Alaska’s National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.

Governor Palin has the record of reform and bipartisanship that others can only speak of. Her experience in shaking up the status quo is exactly what is needed in Washington today.

In New York, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein has ordered the release of eight more grand jury transcripts from the famous 1951 spy case that led to the conviction of the husband and wife pro-Soviet spy team of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Reuters reports this story as if there is some cloud of doubt still hanging over the Rosenberg’s conviction despite that their guilt is no longer debatable. Yet here is Reuters giving cover to those who stubbornly wish to cast doubt on the U.S. prosecution of the Rosenbergs. It also gives Reuters and U.S. detractors the opportunity once again smear America by raising their favorite Cold War boogie man, Joe McCarthy.

Reuters sternly tells us that,

The Rosenbergs were convicted in 1951 of passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union and executed in 1953. Rosenberg supporters describe the case as a frame-up amid anti-communist McCarthyism hysteria and Cold War fear.

It is amazing to see Reuters use every U.S. bash they could in one little paragraph. The Rosenbergs were victims of a “frame-up” because of “McCarthyism hysteria and Cold War fear.” Notice how Reuters seems to forget to mention that there is no longer any doubt that the Rosenbergs were guilty, though?

In the aftermath of the 1951 trial, the Rosenberg’s fellow traveling supporters always maintained that Julius and Ethel were innocent and that the era of McCarthyism railroaded these innocents to their execution in 1953. This conception casts the U.S. in the role of evil oppressor and the Soviet spies as victims. Granted, for many years the explicit guilt of the Rosenbergs was in some doubt as U.S. evidence was secreted in the grand jury testimony and other sources remained classified.

However, as time rolled on, the Rosenberg’s guilt became steadily more assured as sources began to emerge to convincingly prove that Julius passed nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, his wife serving as a willing accomplice. By the 1980s information of the FBI’s project Venona emerged in which declassified coded messages from the Soviet Union from the Rosenberg’s era proved their guilt. Nikita Krushchev even admitted to their guilt in his posthumous 1990 autobiography.

And yet… Reuters seems to have forgotten this whole history. The fact that the Rosenbergs really were guilty seems to have been ignored in this Reuters story even as the specter of McCarthysim was used to its fullest.

So, why did Reuters leave the real, proven guilt of the Rosenbergs out of this story even as they found ample room to bring up “McCarthyism” and “Cold War fears”? Why else but to continue the myth that the Rosenbergs might have been innocent so that their prosecution and execution can continue to be used as manufactured proof that the U.S. is evil?

Instead of a proper news story, what we end up with here is Reuters once again adding its voice to continued anti-Americanism.

(Photo credit: Virginia Western Community College)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Jay Mariotti, a firebrand sports columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, announced he is quitting the print biz loudly proclaiming that newspapers are “dying” and that he didn’t want to go down with the ship of the struggling industry. Naturally, the management of the Sun-Times is not amused.

Mariotti told Chicago’s CBS 2 news that newspapers are in serious trouble and he wanted out before he was forced out. “It’s been a tremendous experience, but I’m going to be honest with you, the profession is dying,” Mariotti told CBS 2, “I don’t think either paper [Sun-Times or Chicago Tribune] is going to survive.

“To showcase your work … you need a stellar Web site and if a newspaper doesn’t have that, you can’t be stuck in the 20th century with your old newspaper.”

Jay Mariotti is one of those columnists that one either loves or hates, it seems. I hear this all the time from Chicago sports fans (among whom I do not include myself), so it isn’t surprising that his quitting should be as obnoxious and loud as his writing career has thus far been. He even blamed former top execs for “looting” the Sun-Times in his CBS 2 interview.

Mariotti effectively burned his bridges, though.

Sun-Times Editor Michael Cooke said in an e-mail to CBS 2: “That’s Jay’s opinion. He has plenty of them. But the facts, of course, say something different. I’m going with the facts. Well, it’s turning nasty … and that’s typical of Jay to throw a bomb on the way out of a place that cared for him, nurtured him, paid him well for 17 years.

Editor Cooke also threw his own dig Marittoi’s way saying that he hadn’t heard from any “grief-stricken fans” upon Mariotti’s leaving.

Mariotti intends to focus on new web outlets and also will continue his ESPN appearances.

This incident is just one more example of the on going evolution of the news industry. Many think the print business will be left in the past and will go the way of the buggy whip. Others think that they will adapt. What ever the case, we will continue to see these growing pains as the Internet takes on more and more responsibilities of the news vending business.

(Photo credit: ESPN.com)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Members of Barack Obama’s campaign HQ in Chicago tried to shut down a local radio show on the City’s most powerful radio signal, WGN 720, because they didn’t like a conservative guest that was on going on the air to discuss Senator Barack Obama’s ties to local terrorist William Ayers. This is a shocking attempt at stifling political free speech and a bald attempt to quash debate by the office of the Democratic Party’s nominee. The funny thing is, WGN is the most liberal station in the City with every host but one slavishly supporting the junior Senator from Illinois.

Show host Milt Rosenberg, the station’s only conservative leaning host (probably to be considered more libertarian than Republican), had on short notice asked conservative writer Stanley Kurtz to come on the air to discuss his work on uncovering Obama’s ties to terrorist Wiliam Ayres and the Annenberg Challenge project. Kurtz was just in Chicago for his investigation and Rosenberg contacted Kurtz only that morning to appear. At the same time, Rosenberg’s producer contacted the Obama campaign’s HQ — which is but blocks from the radio station in downtown Chicago — to offer some time on the air with Kurtz to debate Kurtz’ claims about Obama and Ayres. The campaign, however, flatly refused the offer of the equal air time and instead tried to drum up via email a protest of the show, trying to get it stopped.

After the refusal of host Rosenberg’s offer to appear on the air with Kurtz, the Obama campaign issued an extensive email (The Chicago Tribune has the full text) to drum up protests of the radio station, which said in part…

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He’s currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

The email gave the Rosenberg show contact info and told people to call and protest Kurtz’ appearance. The email also lied to its supporters by acting as if the Obama campaign was not offered fair rebuttal time.

It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies.

I happen to live in Chicago and by chance was listening to the Milt Rosenberg show and heard for myself the host assure listeners that he offered the air time to the Obama campaign, an offer that was refused. Rosenberg even went so far as to offer any other show date for the Obama campaign’s rebuttal to Kurtz’ work.

Then, in compliance with the Obama campaign’s email instructions, a parade of callers was aired all telling Rosenberg to shut down the Kurtz interview. Each caller was quite insensible to the unAmerican reaction in which they were indulging and each one was entirely unreasonable and uninformed on the facts. Sadly, this anti-American attitude seems typical of Obama supporters nation wide.

Now, Dr. Rosenberg’s show is one of the most intelligent, even high brow, shows on the radio, so schmaltzy, exploitation radio is as far from his style as one can get. Rosenberg interviews authors of the highest standing and show topics range from philosophy, to Opera, to physics and political science. He even does a delightful yearly show on the misuse of the English language as well as one on the year’s best literary offerings. Like I said, exploitation radio he ain’t.

So, for the Obama campaign to act as if this particular show is an affront to reasoned debate is an outrageous charge. Just as outrageous is the Obama campaign’s obvious desire to destroy free political speech. It makes one quake to wonder what sort of oppressive climate an Obama presidency would impose on the country?

Audio from WGN Radio:

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

More bad news for the newspaper industry. Anyone paying attention to the current state of financial distress in the print news industry will realize that saving money is the order of the day industry wide. Yet, not long ago the Associated Press announced that it was to raise its prices to the print news industry causing consternation everywhere. This new rate structure has caused quite a few newspapers to begin the process of dropping AP content giving pause to consider what the future of the AP might become?

Several papers have already announced that they are preparing to drop the AP, the latest of which appears to be the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The Minnesota paper has announced it will cease using AP content by 2010. The Star-Trib joins The Bakersfield Californian, and two papers from Washington State, The Yakima Herald-Republic and Wenatchee World. Also The Post Register of Idaho Falls informed the AP that they were going to drop their service in early August.

And according to a June 26 article in The Wall Street Journal, the eight largest papers in Ohio are banding together to create their own news service.

Some newspapers have attempted to reduce their reliance on the AP. This past spring, prompted by unhappiness with the AP’s fees and reduced coverage of state and local news, the eight largest newspapers in Ohio created a cooperative called the Ohio News Organization, or OHNO, which allows its members to sidestep the AP by sharing stories. Five Montana newspapers owned by the newspaper concern Lee Enterprises Inc. have also begun sharing more content. And editors in Texas, Pennsylvania and Indiana have quietly inquired about how the Ohio cooperative works.

The same Wall Street Journal article reports that the AP has seen its income nearly triple from new customers on the Internet and that the AP is investing in sports, entertainment and business news to service those outlets. All this reveals an AP that seems to be making their product harder for print media to justify purchasing and papers are getting the message.

There is another thing that the print industry is bemoaning; the loss of APs local coverage. The agreement that the AP has with these papers is that if the AP does not send a reporter to a local story but the paper does, the AP can then take the local paper’s story, do a rewrite, and sell it as its own. It appears that the AP is sending its reporters less and less and rewriting local paper’s stories more often causing the print outlets to cry foul.

For its part, though, the AP is emerging stronger than ever by adapting to the electronic media on the double but it all goes to highlight the ever darkening future of print media as the news industry struggles to adjust to a changing world.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Chris Redfern, the Democratic Party Chairman of Ohio, apparently thinks that Americans are so stingy and selfish that the only way charity work gets done is if government taxes the people to make it happen. In a recent radio interview, Redfern expressed the assumption that “unfortunately most Americans would not” help out the poor. Even worse, Redfern honestly believes that freebies and charity work is just as much the proper role of government as funding the “military, law enforcement, and fire protection,” proving he hasn’t a clue what the proper role should be of the government America’s founders created.

In an interview with Toledo radio station 1370 WSPD, Redfern made the outrageous comments on how selfish Americans are and how we need government to force us all to care for, as he put it, “the least among us.”

Radio host LeFebvre, however, wondered why people making subsistence pay should be forced to pay the way of those who refuse to work? Using the situation of his board operator, Don Zellars, LeFebvre asked Democratic Party Chair Redfern why the lower middle classes should be expected to float the indigent? Close to the end of the interview, this exchange took place:

Fred LeFebvre: Don’s question was more about, you know, he’s struggling to pay his mortgage — he’s a brand new home owner here in Toledo — his wife has to work, he’s gotta pay for his own helathcare coverage here at the radio station, he wants… his questions is: how is it fair that he has to pay for other people before he gets his own money? How is it fair?

Chris Redfern: Well, if you’re applying the same logic to those kinds of programs or projects or initiatives, you have to be consistent. Why does it make people uncomfortable when I point out law enforcement, fire protection, the military should be treated the same as the environment, or helping out the least among us? You know, Don was taught early on that it’s his obligation as a human just to look out for the next guy. That doesn’t mean you have to… ya pay for everything, it means the least among us…

LeFebvre: But I think Don would do that if he had a chance to on his own. Because he is a charitable guy.

Redfern: Ha, ha.

LeFebvre: I mean seriously, he would do it if he had a choice.

Redfern: Well, I suspect Don would, but unfortunately most Americans would not and if we remove that kind of support stratagem then you remove the entire reason for having any kind of projects, programs or initiatives including the military, law enforcement, fire protection.

First of all, let us consider the arrogance of the rhetoric Redfern uses to describe the poor. I don’t know about you, but I don’t view the poor as “the least among us.” Talk about condescension!

Secondly, it is clear that Redfern neither has an understanding of, nor any interest in, the Constitution of the United States. Someone needs to inform this addled pol that the “the military” is mandated by the Constitution. Charity work is not. The role of police and fire protection is truly a legitimate role of government. Charity is not. Contrary to Redfern’s bald faced claims, there is NO “logic” or “consistency” that mandates charity work be done by government to the same extent as the military, police and fire protection. In fact, it is just a cynical warping of the truth used by Redfern to excuse his socialist theories and big government, nanny state policies. Our government was never intended to indulge in charity work. In fact, several presidents have been quoted exactly to that effect since the founding up until the socialist reengineering of government undertaken by FDR.

To quote a few…

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread which it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”–Thomas Jefferson

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and
unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” –James Madison

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents….” –James Madison

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity, [such spending] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” –President Franklin Pierce

“Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.” - Grover Cleveland

“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. .. I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.”–President Grover Cleveland

“We must always ask: Is government working to liberate and empower the individual? Is it creating incentives for people to produce, save, invest, and profit from legitimate risks and honest toil? Is it encouraging all of us to reach for the stars? Or does it seek to compel, command, and coerce people into submission and dependence? Ask these questions, because no matter where you look today, you will see that development depends on economic freedom.” –Ronald Reagan

Finally, Redfern’s claim that American’s are too selfish to give charity is an outright lie. At least it is an outright lie where it concerns conservative Americans. For instance, ABC’s John Stossel found that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. Of course, based on Stossel’s work, perhaps it is expected that leftist Redfern never met an American that cares much to indulge in charity? After all, if he only hangs around other leftists when would he ever meet a generous American? Maybe he at least has an excuse to think so ill about his fellow Americans? Seriously though, it is only his illogical, uninformed personal experience as opposed to an opinion based on any fact that would make him think so.

But, even that aside, Americans over all, liberal or conservative, are far more generous than other peoples across the globe. As I wrote in 2007, according to CAF International, Americans individually give 1.67% of GDP whereas the UK gives only .73% while Canada gives only .72%. From there the bottom drops out with Australia giving only .69% and the rest at 40% or less. Unsurprisingly, France brings up the tail with .14% of GDP.

In the end, all we have here is a politician who does not have the first clue about the Constitution or the proper role of government. Not only that, but he doesn’t care and that is to the shame of Democrats everywhere in Ohio that have supported this sort of unAmerican thinking.

(H/T Maggie Thurber of Thurber’s Thoughts)

(Photo credit: The Columbus Dispatch)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

On August 25 Patrick Donahue of Bloomberg breathlessly informed us that a recent poll showed that Germans love Barack Obama. In a week where Obama’s soft polling numbers with Americans who will do the actual voting, you’d be excused if you wondered who cared, but apparently Bloomberg thinks this Obama puffing “news” is worth reporting. It’s more reason to be suspicious that the Old Media is in the tank for Barack Obama, in any case.

This particular Bloomberg story has little substance and is centered on a population that cannot even vote for Obama in the first place. Interestingly, however, this story makes no effort to contrast high polling numbers in Germany with the much softer support Obama finds in the U.S.A. At least such a comparison might have served a more newsworthy purpose.

Germans overwhelmingly back Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over Republican contender John McCain, a poll showed, though a majority said the U.S. election outcome won’t affect relations with Europe.

Among Germans under 30 years old, 84 percent said they back the Democratic senator from Illinois.

Once again… who cares what the 1,009 Germans polled think about our election? Why is this news?

Still, maybe the reason this is getting reported as news is because Obama has been seeing very soft support, even losing ground to McCain here among people that, unlike their German counterparts, will actually have the opportunity to vote for president of the U.S.A.? Perhaps Bloomberg is looking for good news to support Obama in any place they can find it?

For instance, as late as August 20, Zogby reported that McCain had not only closed the gap, with Obama but earned a 5 point-lead over the candidate of “hopenchange.” McCain was enjoying a 46 percent to 41 percent lead over Obama by the 20th. The coverage by USA Today shows an August 21 Gallup poll with the candidates tied at 45 percent each and an August 23 CNN poll also proves a tie at 47 percent each.

Conventional wisdom claims that Obama should be running away with this election but polls simply have not backed up this assumption. Naturally, Democrats are charging the nation with racism for Obama’s polling deficit.

So, if Bloomberg can’t find polls to support the conventional wisdom among the actual voters, Germany comes to the rescue to shore up a feeling that an Obama win is the popular choice.

Not much in the tank, eh?

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Read it and weep, Dixie Chicks. Shove it Bruce Springsteen. Put a sock in it Johnny Cougar Mellencamp. Because, in a refreshing change of pace for the entertainment industry, Kid Rock is telling CMT Insider via People Magazine that entertainers should stay quiet on matters political.

How many times have you seen the uninformed blather of some goof from Hollywood, or some crank from the music industry filling your TV screen or oozing from your radio? How many low brow maestros have had your eyes rolling when they imagine themselves to have some prescient insight into matters of politics? Apparently rock singer Kid Rock is signing onto your piquancy because he has said that singers should just shut up about politics.

“I truly believe that people like myself, who are in a position of entertainers in the limelight, should keep their mouth shut on politics,” the rap-rock musician, 37, tells CMT Insider.

“Because at the end of the day,” he goes on to say, “I’m good at writing songs and singing. What I’m not educated in is the field of political science. And so for me to be sharing my views and influencing people of who I think they should be voting for … I think would be very irresponsible on my part.”

That is quite an intelligent point of view. After all, a man needs to know his limitations. For instance, I don’t talk about physics because I have absolutely no knowledge of the field. Similarly, these Hollyweird types should avoid talking about things they obviously have no idea about.

What is more pathetic than a Meryl Streep “testifying” before Congress concerning something she has no clue whatsoever about, for instance? Remember her self-assuredness about the chemical Alar on apples in the 1980s? turned out that whole thing was a scam. But she was so sure she was right… even though she had no personal knowledge upon which to base her conclusions. Revealing ignorance is not very flattering.

Naturally, these “beautiful people” spend their days being fawned over and they must grow to imagine that they are the height of human achievement, believing that they can do no wrong and that their every pronouncement should be looked upon as words from Mount Olympus.

So, it is certainly refreshing to see an entertainer admit that they have no expertise in politics. Good on Kid Rock for realizing his limitations.

(Photo Credit: Frank Micelotta/ FOX/Getty)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

This just gets better and better. You’ll recall our recent focus on the abuse of funds and influence peddling by California Service Employee International Union (SEIU) head Tyrone Freeman being investigated in depth by the L.A.Times and how Mr. Freeman has been funneling union contracts to his family members. Now a related investigation in Michigan has revealed that one of Freeman’s former associates has had to step down from a Michigan SEIU post because of similar financial misdeeds there.

Once again the L.A. Times is the source for this sad tale of union bosses abusing the power so blindly handed them by the rank and file.

It appears that Rickman Jackson, former chief of staff for the California organization headed by Tyrone Freeman, had to step down from a Michigan SEIU local when it was discovered that he and Freeman had set up a shady housing corporation that was improperly getting business from Freeman’s California organization.

Both departures followed reports in The Times that the local and a related charity paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to firms owned by the wife and mother-in-law of its president, Tyrone Freeman, and spent similar sums on a Four Seasons Resorts golf tournament, restaurants such as Morton’s steakhouse, a Beverly Hills cigar lounge and a Hollywood talent agency.

The Times also disclosed that a housing corporation Freeman helped launch used the address of a Bell Gardens home that property records show is owned by Jackson. Freeman, Jackson and housing corporation representatives have declined to say whether Jackson was paid for any use of his residence.

This scandal is getting bigger by the week.

For his part, SEIU President Andy Stern claims to be shocked by all these illicit actions of his protege, Freeman and his web of corruption.

Stern has used the cover of this scandal to move against one of his chief rivals in his own union by announcing that the officers under Sal Rosselli will be dismissed and his local put in trusteeship by the SEIU’s national offices.

The president of the Oakland organization, Sal Rosselli, denied the allegations Monday. He said the trusteeship move was an attempt to deflect attention from the spending inquiry in Los Angeles and now Michigan, and to punish him for fighting the 2-year-old proposal to transfer his members to Freeman’s local.

So, on top of exposing the corruption of Freeman and his associates and relatives, we find Andy Stern indulging in his favorite pass time as iron-fisted SEIU ruler from the top down.

Scandals to the right of me, scandals to the left of me, into the valley of tyrants rides the president of the SEIU!

Go on over to the L.A. Times for all the dirt.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Reuters thinks that tax breaks and loopholes “costs” government its tax receipts. This is a perfect example of class hatred ginned up by the media to further class warfare between Americans. The absolute truth is that if people use the tax code to limit their tax burden they are not costing the government anything, but are using legal means to avoid a higher tax burden. Further, our money is NOT the government’s property in the first place so a lower tax take is in no way “costing” the government anything. Yet, Reuters still uses this class warfare rhetoric to report its story revealing its attack-the-rich agenda.

The Reuters headline employs the class warfare rhetoric right off the top screaming, Tax loopholes seen costing billions annually. “Costing”? No, if tax receipts are lower it isn’t because people are depriving government of due receipts. Again, it is because taxpayers are obeying the law and properly using the tax code as crated by Congress. If there are loopholes in the tax code they were placed there by Congress, whether wittingly or unwittingly, but still it’s the fault of Congress not “the rich.”

The first paragraph gins up the class warfare rhetoric to an even higher level.

Tax and accounting loopholes that largely benefit rich taxpayers and companies cost the government $20 billion a year even as the pay gap between chief executives and employees has widened, two groups said on Monday.

Ah, so it “benefits the rich”? You mean, the eeeevil, eeeevil rich Reuters? Yet the “rich” and their accountants somehow get this blame? Again, if there are such loopholes, it is the fault of those who wrote the code, not those forced to abide by it.

The rest of this Reuters agenda driven piece is filled with even more examples of class warfare rhetoric aimed to make those in the lower classes hate those Americans who make more. Here are some examples: (bold emphasis mine)

• The biggest loss comes from a “stock option accounting double standard”…
• That practice alone costs the U.S. government $10 billion a year…
• A practice known as deferred compensation… costs the government $80.6 million a year…

Lastly, Reuters gave us a quote from an author of the report they are quoting.

“It’s outrageous that our tax dollars are inflating executive paychecks,” said Sarah Anderson, an author of the report. “Surely in these troubled economic times we can find better ways to spend our nation’s wealth.”

Sorry, Miss Anderson, but our tax dollars are not “inflating executive paychecks.” These corporate leaders are using legal means to lower their own tax burden, something all of us do when we can.

If Miss Anderson and her pals at Reuters want to see corporate leaders pay more taxes, then the burden is on Congress to change the laws. No finger wagging should be aimed at the taxpayers legally observing the tax codes, “rich” or not.

But, then, we wouldn’t have that wonderful opportunity for Reuters and their ilk to gin up class warfare between Americans, then, would we? Yes, if the truth were reported, then there would be a “cost” to it. It would “cost” Reuters one of their favorite divisive tactics to stir hatred between Americans.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

The kids at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill feel like they’ve been used and discarded by Andy Stern’s Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and they aren’t happy about it. They are so upset they’ve issued an open letter to the SEIU to air their grievances… not that it’ll matter much.

It seems that the SEIU swooped onto several college campuses and encouraged student activists to organize college foodservice workers and then, assuring the kiddies that all their work was a worthy effort, quietly worked with the colleges NOT to organize the same workers that the kids thought they were enrolling in a union.

At that point the student groups got a tad upset that all their energies went for nothing and who can blame them? After all, they thought that they were striking a blow for “the workers” against those evil “corporate slave masters” in their typically naive, young idealistic enthusiasm.

Some of you readers out there may be a tad confused at this point. Why would the SEIU, one of the most powerful unions in the county, seem to mislead these naive kids and refuse to organize supposedly willing new members? Well, its all a piece with SEIU President Andy Stern’s newest tactic wherein the union works closer with the employer to determine who will be “allowed’ to organize and who will not.

Stern’s process has been to act a little less antagonistic with potential new corporations that might find their employees come under the SEIU’s wing. The SEIU has made many closed door, back room deals with potential corporate members, deals that few of their potential or existing members are allowed to be a part of because these deals are made at the highest level of the SEIU.

The deal is that the SEIU will organize a certain section of a corporation’s workforce, but agree with the corporation not to organize others. The SEIU also agrees not to allow the local unions to enter into scorched earth, vitriolic campaigns against the corporate heads.

What’s in it for the union? Well, for one thing new membership has greatly enlarged for the SEIU. It has also made organizing quite a bit easier and less contentious. The union grows with less pain, the employers seem to feel more a member of the union team and are less antagonistic… seems like a win, win, right?

Wrong. See, to complete these secret back room deals, the locals are completely cut out of the negotiations. And this is what happened to the kids. They were not included in the back room deals that assured several college campuses that their workers would not be included in the new membership enrollments.

So, all the kid’s efforts were left ignored causing these young activists to feel used and abused. This is the same feeling that union locals all across the country have been feeling as the SEIU national office in Washington D.C. has undercut their efforts and swept in behind the scenes to cut secret deals as per Andy Stern’s agenda.

It turns out that these kids are learning a rough lesson that politics isn’t beanbag. They are also finding that there is no pure ideology in activism and compromise will happen no matter how “righteous” they think their little cause is.

Of course, it is quite amusing that a union has forged ahead with a top down, iron-fisted mode of leadership, completely cutting out the local organizations. This tactic seems to be a reflection of the top down, corporate leadership that unions constantly claim makes the business sector so anti-worker, doesn’t it?

Stern’s action rightfully seem heretical to most rank and file union members. But, in the end, if the SEIU gets as powerful as Andy Stern imagines in his wildest dreams they mights, who doesn’t realize that all these tender tactics will be thrown in the dustbin and the usual, thuggish, union behavior will once again become de rigueur.

In other words, Stern is playing for chumps every corporation that works with him under these delicate new rules. They are laying the groundwork for their own demise as Stern slyly builds his trap.

Still, Stern’s is a cynical and anti-intuitive agenda and it is worrying most union rank and file organizers. Stern’s gambit could reap a bounty or the whirlwind. I’m rootin’ for the later.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

With more on the card check battle, we have a rally against Unions set up in Portland, Maine where members of the SEIU and the AFL-CIO confronted the pro-choice advocates in a typically uncivil, even threatening, union manner. One union thug even turned over a display table, trying to prevent the pro-choice folks from setting up their displays.

From reports from the scene (video here), the union thugs spat upon the pro-choicers, swore at them and generally impeded their ability to engage in free and fair debate.

John Henke, From a participant at the rally, described what was endured.

I just came from a press conference held by the US Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with the Maine State Chamber of Commerce. It was held in Portland and dealt with the EFCA [Employee Free Choice Act - i.e., Card Check]. …

After the news conference we went on the US Chambers special bus to Monument Square in the center of Portland. There were at least 75 union members holding a protest rally against the Chamber and in support of the EFCA. The interesting thing is the protest was organized by the Maine Democratic Party.

There were about 15 of us on the bus and nobody wanted to get off, so I led the way. We were heckled, swore at, and called some names. One of the young ladies from the chamber tried to set up some tables and put leaflets and information on it and the protesters kicked the tables over on the lady who was not hurt. …

[T]his protest is exactly why businesses have to work to defeat this bill. When you disagree with organized labor they resort to bullying, intimidation, and peer pressure. Why would any business want to subject their employees to that type of intimidation and bullying …

All, in all, pretty much what we expect from violence prone unions. And the fact that it was the Maine Democratic Party that organized the union thugs must not go without notice. If this sort of behavior isn’t a perfect example of why unions and their lapdogs in the Democratic Party are against democracy and our business community (you know, that business community that makes this country one of the strongest economies in the world?) then nothing does. It also shows what will happen to people who want the American freedom of being able to chose for themselves should unions get even more power.

Again, I remind one and all, that Barack Obama is in favor of giving unions untrammeled power to intimidate workers, eliminate the ages old democratic process of the secret ballot, and cause our businesses to further fall behind the rest of the world in competitiveness. And from the thuggish behavior we’ve seen in Portland, we can see what is in store for us should Obama win the White House.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

The L.A. Times’ Rosa Brooks has done it again, taken a serious subject and made an uninformed romp of it. One wonders how the old Georgian lady seen in news photos standing wounded among the ruins of her apartment building, or the Georgian Mother running down the street, infant in her arms, trying to escape Russian tanks might feel about the humor with which Brooks brings to bear upon their plight? But, there it is for all to see in Brooks’ “The Cold War, reheated” wherein Brooks puts the funny back in war. It’s been too serious for too long for Brooks, apparently. We need the sunny side of ethnic cleansing, brutal invasion, and crushing occupation, don’t we?

Oh, and let’s not forget the skewed history, incorrect conclusions, and partisan inanities that Brooks blurted out with her little attempt at “Springtime for Gorbachev.” Only with this production, Brooks is seriously trying to absolve the U.S.S.R.

After some hackneyed recounting of the 1980s, Brooks gives us the claim that “Cold War nostalgia” is “widespread” among “neocons” lately.

Among neocons and assorted righties, Cold War nostalgia has been widespread lately. And no wonder: Just compare the Cold War with the Global War on Terror. “Cold War” had a real ring to it. But “Global War on Terror”? Clumsy, and what a crummy acronym — GWOT.

(The left’s favorite boogy man, neocons, able to rewrite history, cause wars with the flick of a pen, and steal oil revenues with the raise of an eyebrow. I’d be surprised if Brooks could even name a “neocon.”)

But, what real evidence there is of “Cold War nostalgia” in Brooks’ estimation is anyone’s guess. It looked like to me that the Old Media was the one lapsing back into Cold War reverie as they called out of obscurity all their favorite 80’s Russian “experts” and Soviet spokesmen once the re-Sovietized Russia ramped up its obviously long planned invasion of democratic Georgia.

Brooks next displays her utter lack of knowledge of even current events.

The GWOT got off to a decent start, with Al Qaeda and the “axis of evil” to go after, but it turned out to be a dud. Maybe it was because having a “war” on “terror” never made much sense. Maybe it was because we quickly ran out of targets in Afghanistan and then became targets in Iraq (and now in Afghanistan too). Maybe it’s because Osama bin Laden, who seemed like an excellent candidate for arch-fiend, vanished. Maybe it’s because U.S.-sponsored torture didn’t sit well with most Americans, who had actually taken to heart all that stuff about how we won the Cold War through the “power of our values.”

A dud, she says? We win the war in Iraq and she calls it a “dud”? And the “targets” she claims we are, with violence down by many magnitudes and no further attacks on the homeland nor any important American assets in foreign lands since 2003, what “target” is she saying we’ve become? And, how exactly does Brooks think we won the Cold War, anyway? With her remark that some felt we won it by the “power of our values,” does she think we just sat about and dared Russia to ignore our “values” at their peril? Or does she understand that, along with our values, it was our military and economic might that beat the Soviets down? Obviously she hasn’t the slightest notion.

Next Brooks goes on to intimate that WE are responsible for Putin’s avarice.

Regrettably, we instead helped plunge Russia into an economic catastrophe. This annoyed the Russians. But we continued to help by treating Russian officials as washed-up has-beens and by expanding NATO to include most of Russia’s former satellites.

Like a typical, hand wringing leftist, Brooks blames everyone but the responsible party. I would agree that our policies weren’t perfect with the new Russia, but we are the last in line for blame to be handed out. Boris Yelstin, who Brooks might find on Wikipedia was the leader of Russia after the Soviet system collapsed, bears a lot of the blame — a heckuv-a-lot more than do we. And we cannot let Vlad “the Invader” Putin off the hook, either. But, Brooks only sees the U.S. at fault. Now that really is a replay of the Cold War, a time when the American left ignored the Russian Gulags, aggression, and oppression to forever place all blame squarely and only on the shoulders of the U.S.A.

And why in Brooks’ eyes is it such a bad thing that we offered NATO membership to the nascent democratic countries in the formerly Soviet satellite areas? Does she not realize we floated the same offer to Russia? Should not democracies attempt to stick together, assist each other, support each other?

Yes, with the offhanded treatment and sardonic humor that Brooks doles out with her fabulist version of reality, one wonders at how little she seems care about the poor people of the struggling democracy named Georgia? Why is their plight something of which to make light?

Yes, if anyone is replaying the Cold War, it is Brooks with her failed ideology and a rebirth of the self-loathing blame game once so popular with pointy-heads everywhere. Rosa Brooks, Come on Down and welcome to the 1980s.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Forced unionism is one of the issues that galls right to work advocates the most. How can we, as a free people, be forced by state laws to join a union just to keep a job? Worse, how can one be forced to pay union dues without even joining a union just to keep a job? Is this not America where one has free choice?

Well, the National Right to Work organization has been asking that question for some time and is now attempting to put the question to the courts. At UPS facilities in Dayton, Ohio and Louisville, Kentucky, NRTW is assisting several drivers for the United Parcel Service to sue the Teamsters and UPS for having been forced to pay dues to a union they do not wish to support.

Louisville, Kentucky, and Dayton, Ohio (August 19, 2008) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, three UPS employees in Kentucky and two UPS employees in Ohio filed federal lawsuits Friday and Monday, respectively, against national and local Teamsters officials for illegal extraction of forced union dues.

In the lawsuits, the nonmember employees claim that the national and local unions breached their duty of fair representation and violated the employees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights by charging and collecting fees used for organizing nonunion workers throughout the United States and financing a members-only “Strike and Defense Fund.”

This is a situation where these drivers are forced to pay union dues and are also forced to be represented by the Teamsters despite their personal wishes, preventing these employees from being able to represent themselves before their employers.

The fees paid by these drivers also seem to have violated Federal laws.

Since March 2006, the union charged and collected from the nonmembers compulsory fees greater than 80 percent of the full dues and fees paid by union members. Union bosses failed to provide a required notice of Beck rights and disclosure detailing the basis of the fees until this year. The financial disclosure reveals that Teamsters’ compulsory fees include disallowed expenditures for the national union’s efforts to help organize nonunion employees in both the private and public sectors nationwide. The employees have also been forced to contribute to the “Strike and Defense Fund,” which bars benefits flowing to nonmembers.

“It’s bad enough that employees who exercise their right to refrain from union membership are forced to pay fees to a union they do not want,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “But Teamsters bosses are violating the law by compelling nonmembers to fund strikes and organizing activities which seek to corral even more workers into forced unionism.”

Good luck to these brave drivers for taking on the Teamsters, well known for their violent tendencies.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

A new independent study shows that deaths from terrorism have actually declined by more than 40 percent since 2001. This flies in the face of the constant Democrat mantra that states the opposite, that terrorism has increased since Bush initiated the War on Terror. It is a mantra that the media have helpfully spread for their friends at the DNC.

We’ve heard it again and again from the left in this country; deaths by terror have increased under George W. Bush and his War on Terror has failed. Along with so many on the left side of the aisle in the U.S., Barack Obama has said this several times in the past, too. At the Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College on Jun 3, 2007, for instance, Obama said that Bush’s war has failed. “We live in a more dangerous world,” Obama said on that stage, “partly as a consequence of Bush’s actions…”

Of course, this talking point ignores one small bit of common sense. When a battle is joined, casualties are sure to rise until an end is declared. After all, when both sides are joined in battle (as opposed to but one), deaths are sure to rise before they fall, it being always darkest before the dawn, and all.

But that bit of common sense aside, the Democrats have been fond of using a study by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law, to prove that terrorism is worse under Bush. In fact, this study appears right on Obama’s own website in an entry by one of his bloggers, Deb Henry.

Bergen and Cruickshank claimed to have found a 607 percent increase in terrorism since 2003. They defined terrorism as an act of violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. They didn’t just count actual deaths and attacks, but added threats to their statistics. Who cannot see that such a method would wildly inflate the numbers?

But the new study by Simon Fraser University in Canada tells a far different tale than the favorite lefty study.

First of all, they found a major flaw in past studies.

The reason that the NCTC, MIPT, and START global fatality tolls rise so dramatically after 2003 is because all three datasets are counting a large percentage of all civilian fatalities from intentional violence in Iraq’s civil war as deaths from“terrorism.” For example, NCTC’s estimate for fatalities from terrorism in Iraq in 2006 is 13,343. This is nearly 80 percent of the total Iraqi civilian fatality toll of 16,657 for that year as estimated by the independent US organization, icasualties.org.

…But they are unusual because counting the intentional killing of civilians in civil wars as terrorism,” as all three datasets do, is a sharp departure from customary practice. As Ohio State University’s John Mueller has noted: “When terrorism becomes really extensive in an area we generally no longer call it terrorism, but rather war or insurgency.” Moreover, as a July 2007 US Congressional Research Service report noted, NCTC’s Iraq data are “largely the product of sectarian violence, rampant criminal activity, and home-grown insurgency–[and therefore] grossly distort the global terrorism picture.”

As reported by the Moblie Press-Register, Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria wrote in praise of the study that “it ‘makes no sense’ to count civilian casualties in a war zone as deaths caused by terrorism, Mr. Zakaria wrote. Since the mid-1990s, thousands of civilians have been killed in war zones in other countries around the world, and those victims weren’t counted as casualties related to terrorism.”

Other polls also support the claim that the world is not “more dangerous” since the war on terror began.

A 2002 Pew Research Center poll of Muslim countries found alarming levels of support for al-Qaida and its tactics. In Lebanon, for instance, 74 percent of the respondents said they believed suicide bombing was justified.

Four years later, Pew polled again in Muslim nations and discovered very different attitudes. The percentage of people in Lebanon who said they thought suicide bombing was justified had fallen to 34 percent. In Jordan, support for suicide bombing plummeted 20 points between 2002 and 2007.

Such polls show a sharp decline for support of terrorism in the Muslim world since the invasion of Iraq. “Obviously, the war didn’t fuel extremist views in Muslim countries,” as the Press-Register notes.

Even more amazingly, this new study finds a 65 percent decline in terrorist attacks since 2004.

Also…

There has been an “extraordinary, but largely unnoticed, positive change” in the sub-Saharan African security landscape, with the number of conflicts being waged reduced by more than half between 1999 and 2006, and the combat toll dropping by 98 per cent.

A decline in the total number of armed conflicts and combat deaths around the world also continues.

All this seems to explode that old the-world-is-more-dangerous myth that the Democrats have promulgated for the last six or seven years. Chances are the media will not talk much about this study, the Democrats will continue on as if it never happened, and Bush Derangement Syndrome will continue unabated.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

(Photo credit: abcnews.com)