LIES!!

As all of you know, the Partial Birth Abortion act was signed into law by President Bush, then quickly halted earlier this month. When I wrote about it, I mentioned the distortions being told about the bill, that it didn’t have any protection for the health of the mother. Most liberals are willing to run with that distortion, always speaking about “health” of the mother, never saying it has no protections for the “life” of the mother.

Not Tammy Watts in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. In a rallying cry for the annual “March for Choice” on Washington, DC, she tells the story of eight years ago finding out the child she was carrying suffered from a terrible syndrome known as Trisomy-13. The child would be born terribly deformed, die very quickly if it lived at all and perhaps even:

“..could conceivably die inside my womb, poisoning my system with the toxins released into my bloodstream”

A terrible and heart-wrenching situation no one deserves to be in. They decided to “terminate the pregnancy” and no one can blame them. But Ms. Watts then goes on to say:

“It was the right decision for us, given our particular set of circumstances, and we are forever grateful to our doctor, who performed a procedure that allowed us to hold her, love her and say goodbye. We named her Mackenzie Blaine.

But if the legislation that Bush signed into law earlier this month had been in place, I would have been prevented from making the decision that protected Mackenzie from further suffering and protected my own life.”

LIES!!! LIES!!! LIES!!!!

The pregnancy put her life at risk, not just the babies. Because of that, she would have been allowed to have a partial-birth abortion. The law reads:

“This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.”

Yet, people like Tammy Watts prattle on like she, as the mother, would have had no recourse to save her own life. It’s vile vermin like this cause so many raging, fist-shaking fits on the pro-life side. No matter how much we try to spell it out to the great unwashed out there, morons still go on, lying and cheating, all in an effort to assure that 3,200 babies a day are killed in abortion clinics across the United States and not even a tiny reduction to that number will occur.

MAYBE THE COMPUTERS NEED SENSITIVITY TRAINING...

Sensitivity can go way too far and our touchy-feely, make-sure-no-one’s-feelings-are-hurt society has hit that point and no where more than in California. The Los Angeles County division manager of purchasing and contract services has sent a memo out to all vendors to stop using the common terms “master” and “slave” as identifiers on their equipment sold to the County.

It seems some panty-waste of an employee saw a video machine with those labels on it and filed a complaint with the LA County Department of Hurt Feelings and Bruised Sensibilities, or something like that, complaining that he was offended. According to Mr. Sandoval, head of purchasing, concerning the master/slave identifiers:

"Based on the cultural diversity and sensitivity of Los Angeles County, this is not an acceptable identification label"

I sure hope the County doesn’t have any steam boilers in their buildings, because every boiler has a “retarder” in it and so does photographic developing systems. And what about all of the County vehicles? They all have “dipsticks” in them to measure oil levels and such.

Would primates have a case against plumbers because of “monkey wrenches”? They would in L.A.

"THOSE NASTY CONSERVATIVES...."

Most conservatives I know are good people who try to be fair and considerate. We get the unfair rap of being cold and unsympathetic to those who “haven’t won in life’s lottery”. We get those knowing glances whenever we say anything against welfare mothers, endless extensions of unemployment benefits, leaching off the system, etc. We are whispered about (or sometimes shouted at) that we are heartless S.O.B.’s who just want to put the screws to the less unfortunate and give breaks to the corporate fat cats.

But, then we get stories like this and all of the liberals just close their eyes and start whistling aimlessly.

From the New Orleans Times-Picayune, we hear about poor Edrina. At 32, she’s about to have baby number ten. Now, having baby number ten tends to bring the sympathy out in everyone, I mean, how many diapers is that!?! Then we discover the story is a pity-piece about how unfair the system is, that she’s a single mom with no job and her welfare benefits are about to run out. Reading on in the story, we find NO MENTION of where the father(s) are, like the men don’t even exist.

This is when the sense of practicality and self-responsibility bubbles over the edge of we conservatives and we start raging about how natural selection doesn’t work in humans; the best and the brightest aren’t having kids while high school drop-outs are have schools worth. We moan about people being paid to have kids they can’t support and what an utter failure the Great Society is.

And the cycle starts all over again…

SOCIAL NORMS

In a continued spiral downward in morality, we have an inevitable pit stop on the roadtrip to Hell I call “reality television”. It seems on the Danish version of Big Brother, two contestants the Danish enjoyed voyeuring during there “romantic moments” (uninhibited sex) have conceived a child.

According to the shows website, the two parents:

“…have no immediate plans to marry but are excited about becoming parents.”

Great. I hate where our civilization has gone. I hate it that sex is just something you do together, like watch a movie or homework. I hate it that sleeping together right after you meet somebody is not only OK, it’s “easier” because you get that pressure over sex out of the way. I hate it that people do this on TV. I hate it that having children out of wedlock is just ducky.

The collapse of “social norms” in our society has caused absolute havoc. The “I’m OK, you’re OK, Peace, Love, nobody’s wrong, It’s all relative, Who are you to judge?” thought process we got from the 60’s generations has done more damage to our society than can possibly be explained in a silly little blog like Mel’s Diner. Social Norms are those little “givens” we all used to have, like getting pregnant when you’re not married is bad, swearing in public is bad, talking back to adults when you’re a kid is bad, wearing those clothes makes you look like a hussy or a thug, and that is bad. Those are social norms, little rules that everyone accepted to keep society civil and moving forward. They weren’t against the law or anything like that, but they were generally accepted as things you didn’t do.

Then came the “Me” generation. Their, “who are you to tell me what to do?” and shock value attitudes threw thousands of years worth of good into the garbage disposal. They wrote books on how being individual and unique was so wonderful in all that you do and then wrote more books on how to deal with feeling isolated. They invented crybaby shows for television where feelings were the most important thing and then lamented the loss of “real men”. Having eviscerated the social norms of our world, they sit back in shock and awe at the out of control drug use, abortion rates that make Pol Pot envious and statistics like 70% of black children born to single mothers. What do they expect? WHAT IN GOD’S NAME DO THEY EXPECT!?!

"YOUR AD MAKES ME FEEL BAD"

Hey, thanks for the vacation. It wasn’t all just sittin’ around, complaining about liberals like I hoped it would be.

Anyway, isn’t it HILARIOUS what the Democrats are doing over the RNC ad running in Iowa? Tom Daschle called it, “repulsive and outrageous”. As the leader of the Senators who feel the need to block judicial nominees from getting a vote, he would understand what “repulsive and outrageous” is. The nine dwarves are just wetting their pants, claiming that the President wants to stifle dissent with his ad.

Stifle dissent? You mean by giving an alternate opinion from the Democrat campaigns universal, “Bush is the Devil” ads is somehow stifling dissent? Only in a liberal mind would the airing of two differing opinions be a stifling of dissent. Anyway, what do the Democrats want the RNC to do to assure all opinions are heard?

“Stop running the ad, because when less opinions are voiced, than all opinions can be heard, I mean… well…..your opinion sucks anyway, you war monger!!!”

You can’t make this stuff up.

GAY MARRIAGE, AND I'M NOT TALKING THE "HAPPY" KIND, EITHER

I’ve been on vacation this week and I thought I’d get a lot of writing done at The Diner. That being said, Molly and I also have had an electrician in updating the power in our house and for reasons I don’t understand, I offered to help.

My body hurts.

I’m so out of shape, my butt hurts – both cheeks. Now that’s sad.

So, I’ve been doing a lot of sitting, discovering muscles I didn’t know I had and have not done any writing. But, with the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts yesterday, I got out of my chair and fired up the laptop.

On my very first day of blogging, I said gay marriage was coming and would be the news of the decade. I went back to that entry and re-read the wonderful essay by John O’Sullivan I mentioned. I believe he is correct when he says various churches will no longer require civil marriages for the religious ceremonies.

And I think that’s the way to go.

Look, to much government intervention in marriage has made gay marriage not only possible, but right. I say that because government has been micromanaging our lives more and more, and has hung all kinds of legal rights and prohibitions on what should be a religious matter. Spouses can make all kinds of decisions for their spouses (I’m talking to you, Michael Schiavo), they can legally bind their spouse to debts, they have the right of material succession at death, etc. Why should other couples, be they gay or whatever, not have these rights? So, once again, the nanny state has screwed everything up.

So, religious marriage will be separated from the State and perhaps will begin to mean something again, as strange as that sounds. Let the gays, the polygamists, etc. have their civil marriage. We will still keep our union in the eyes of God and that’s what’s really important anyway.

"LIES, TRUTH, WHATEVER"

The Senate is in the midst of a thirty-hour debate, the Republicans discussing the unconscionable filibustering of judicial nominees and the Democrats discussing anything but that. I knew the Old Media would gear up for this on the editorial pages, and sure enough, they did. But here’s an even BIGGER surprise – I didn’t got to the Font!

The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune has a perfect encapsulation of the liberal argument. Check out the lead paragraph:

“Most U.S. senators talk too much as it is. The last thing they should want is a chance to reinforce their reputations as windbags. Yet even as you read this, Senate Republicans are staging a 30-hour gabfest to make a silly point. What are they bleating about? The simple fact that, out of the scores of judicial nominees President Bush has submitted for Senate confirmation, Democrats have rejected four.”

Lie number one – the Democrats have not rejected four. They have refused Republican and Democrats (and let’s not forget Mr. Independent, Jim Jeffords) the CHANCE to reject or approve four. That’s what this whole thirty-hour debate about!! So the whole editorial starts out with a huge lie!!

The editorial then goes into the Democrat talking points of “168 have been approved, only 4 have been blocked, so what’s the big deal?” Well, Senator Bennett this morning stood up and gave a great analogy for that. He said it’s like saying, “We only hung four without a trial, we let 168 go before a jury, what’s the big deal?” I think that quite appropriate; the Democrats are convicting these four (refusing them their judgeships) without a trial (an up or down vote in the Senate).

The Tribune then picks up another talking point:

“That Democrats have objected to four nominees is hardly worth mentioning when you consider what the Republicans did during the Clinton years: They refused to approve 60 judicial candidates -- often without citing any reason at all.”

I’ll let our friends from the Committee of Justice handle this:

“Here is what happened to the 56 Clinton nominees that did not get confirmed those 8 years. Three were left at the end of the 103rd Congress, when the Democrats were in control, so those 3 cannot count against the Republicans. That leaves 53. Nine were nominated too late in a Congress for the Committee to feasibly act on them or were lacking paperwork. That leaves 44. Seventeen of those lacked home-state support, which often resulted from the Clinton White House s failure to consult home-state senators. There was no way to confirm those nominations without completely ignoring the senatorial courtesy generally afforded to home state-senators in the nominations process. That leaves 27. One nominee was defeated on the Senate floor, which leaves 26 remaining nominees. Of those, a number had issues in their backgrounds that made them impeachable. Out of decent regard for their personal and professional reputations, those reasons were never disclosed publicly, though it is worth noting that, in a number of cases, the White House privately agreed with the decision not to move forward on them.

Bottom line: in all 6 years that Chairman Hatch chaired the Judiciary Committee while President Clinton was in office, there were fewer than 26 nominations left in Committee.

Compare this treatment to that accorded George H.W. Bush's nominees, when Democrats were in the majority and controlled the Judiciary Committee. Then, the Democrats failed to confirm 58 nominees over the course of only 4 years.”

I won’t bother going into the rest of the editorial, it’s the same lies we’ve been hearing about the four judges being denied their rights.

I think this editorial is a perfect representation of all the editorials that will be out there today – it starts with a lie and continues with lying through the whole thing, hoping that the common American still believes the drivel he gets from Old Media.

NANNY STATE, NORWAY

The nanny state in Europe strikes again. A Norwegian court has ruled in favor of a 22 year old man who claims the state should buy him a car. He needs a car because he claims if he rode the public transit system, he'll be picked on because he's short.

Picked on. Because he's short. Let that sink in a bit.

He IS short, only about 4' 2" because of radiation treatments he had as an infant to save his life, but he wants a specially modified car, bought and paid for by the state, because he's afraid he'll be picked on? And the courts agreed? Suck it up and be a man, you loser!!

This is the nanny state run amok. The government is no longer around just to protect a free society, it's here to make us feel better. I wrote about the European wet-nurses a few posts ago and I thought that was bad.

This is where the United States is headed with our indefinite unemployment benefits, hate crime laws, affirmative action, banning of God in public life, anti-smoking, seat belt laws, helmet laws, the Great Society, etc.

NANNY STATE, USA

Ah, the New York Times, you can always count on them. They have an editorial today that’s silly two-fold. They begin by making fun of the Republicans planning a 30-hour filibuster to protest the Democrats unconscionable filibuster on President Bush’s judicial nominees. The Times refers to these as, “extremist judicial appointees”, as if the Times would call Democratic appointees that have received sterling marks from the AMA as “extremist”.

They then call for the Republicans to instead extend unemployment benefits for 26 weeks. I feel for people who are unemployed, but you shouldn’t become a ward of the state because you lost your job. The Times doesn’t explicitly mention it, but these “emergency” benefits have been extended for so long , they are becoming an entitlement. The Times tries to pretend that these are really just kind of a one-time thing, but unable to forgo a chance to slam the Republicans, they give up their game by confessing:

“But out there in real life, federal emergency unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31 with no sign of notice from the Republicans in Congress. A year ago, they blithely quit the Capitol and let the unemployed stew through the holidays before retroactively approving a benefit extension that was far too modest.”

A year ago? They were extended a year ago, which means these people have been collecting for almost a year and a half already. No wonder they’re not getting jobs, they don’t have to. I remember back to my summer of love, 1989, when I was collecting unemployment every two weeks and loving my time off.

Look, time to be a bit blunt. Having a job is not a right. You are not guaranteed a job. We’ve become such a country of whiners, that we expect a job doing something we like, making the money we want, where we want to live and when we don’t get it, we expect Big Government to take care of us.

Bull.

Sometimes we need to make choices – like doing something we don’t like, or having to room with Mom & Dad if we insist on staying in a certain place. Or, we get the job we want, but it requires us to move – sometimes thousands of miles away. Sitting in the bars in Gary, IN, waiting for US Steel to open back up is stupid. And expecting me, who did move a half-a-country away for jobs, to pay you to do it is insulting and not fair.

VETERANS' DAY

Because today is Veterans’ Day, I’d like to honor all of our troops. These are some of the bravest, nicest people in the world and worthy of much more love and respect that they are getting from us right now. The American soldier has always acted with bravery in battle and shown mercy unheard of in victory.

One of the ways I will try to honor our men and women is to remind us all, AGAIN, why we fight. Remember September 11, 2001? Remember the people jumping from one hundred floors up? Remember almost 15% of the people dying in the towers ran INTO the building, trying to help? Remember the hole in the Pentagon? The couple hundred people who died there? The hole in the ground in Pennsylvania, where true heroes saved hundreds of lives by sacrificing their own? And the people on the planes, the forgotten victims of the attacks, remember them? Remember the families holding each other on the airliners, crying as they died? The people holding hands as they jumped?

That’s why we fight.

We fight not JUST to catch the people responsible for this, because we’ve already done that. We fight to remove the WHOLE terrorist threat that makes nightmares like 9/11 happen. We fight to bring the killing to THEIR backyards, not ours, and to do the killing, too boot.

But Iraq? Why Iraq? Sure, they were a terrorist threat, but, as President pointed out, not an IMMINENT threat, so why do Iraq?

Well, for a few reasons. Mostly because Saddam was giving everyone strong indications that he had WMD’s. Maybe he didn’t, but he sure acted like he did. You know, the guy who holds up a liquor store with a toy gun in his pocket? He may not have been able to hurt anyone, but he sure acted like he could and that’s why Elmer behind the counter blew him away.

Secondly, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out, the United States had to kick some butt. Not to feed our own egos, but to deflate everyone else’s egos. Because of our actions over the past twenty years, we gave the impression that we were a bunch of wimps. W-H-Y-M-P-E-S wimps. In Beirut, we fled like a bunch of girls. Refusing to get into Kosovo and then only from the air and high up at that. We fled from Somalia – from a freekin’ Domino’s pizza delivery mission! The World Trade Center has a bomb go off under it – nothing. We did nothing about the USS Cole and the embassy bombings. We looked like easy targets. We needed to remind the world WE are the big dog in the yard and attacking someone would do that. Because Iraq was run by a despotic murderer and had WMD’s (probably), it was an obvious choice for attack. We kick some butt, change world opinion on the manliness of the the United States and make several million Iraqi lives better – a winner all around.

So, that’s why we fight. We need to remind ourselves of this over and over. We fight because we need to. We fight because it’s the RIGHT thing to do.

HOWARD DEAN

David Tell has an article in the Weekly Spectator that people should read. It concerns Ho-Ho and a particular incident from his past; the kind of incident that shows the true character of the man.

Howie likes to tell the story of when he was in the Vermont legislature and still a practicing doctor, he was approached by a 12 year old girl who was pregnant. Dean says after some consultation, he felt the father of the baby was probably the girls own father. Later on, the girls father was proven not to be, but the real rapist was convicted and punished.

Now, depending on the audience, like when he’s fawning for NOW and NARAL votes, he stops the story at the “I felt her own father had done this to her” part and uses it as a reason to be against parental notification. At other times, he will tell the whole story.

Well, maybe not the whole story. You see, Tell, Jake Tapper at Slate and others have tried to verify the story and can find NO evidence of a statutory rape conviction during the alleged time frame. Dean himself confesses to not reporting the incident to anyone, claiming there were no laws on the books, which, of course, is poppycock, because statutory rape was always illegal.

So, what do we have here? Dean’s been telling this story for a very long time, even when he was Governor the story raised concerns from Republican lawmakers in Vermont that there were 12 year olds getting pregnant in the close knit state of Vermont. So, it’s not like something that he just SAID for effect, it sounds very real. If that’s true, then The Man Who Would Be President had a case of statutory rape, perhaps incest, and did NOTHING about it. He, at the very least, was an enabler for child molesters. That’s a character flaw of huge proportions and a criminal one at that.

Or maybe it’s all a lie. Maybe the story is pure fabrication. That would explain no evidence found when various people looked for it. But, this is an outrageous story – this plays upon the natural human desire to protect children. A lie this big shows a definite character flaw that finds truth VERY inconvenient.

So, Dean is either a liar or without morals. Maybe both. He’s a perfect candidate for the Democrats.

BUSH=WAR MONGER

There’s a story in today’s New York Times that isn’t getting much press except on the left. According to the Paper of Left Record, BUSHCO ignored pleas from Saddam Hussein “for a deal” and instead attacked and killed!!

It seems as obscure Lebanese–American businessman was contacted by various Iraqi’s, including high-level members of Iraqi intelligence, offering ever changing deals from guaranteeing American dibs on oil and contracting up to democratic election two years in the future. According to the article, the CIA and other agencies said, “Thanks, but we have our own talks going on” and then we attacked!! Well, in short, all of this has the liberals loosing their minds. To them, it looks like BUSHCO wanted war and nothing was going to stop them, even if Saddam wanted peace.

Bull.

Aside from all of the options leaving Saddam in power (like he would ever have elections), there are several things that stick out in my mind:

1. Why in the world would Saddam go through one obscure, businessman when he had the worlds press in his capitol everyday? It seems to me if Saddam REALLY wanted to deal, he would have called CNN over for a chat.

2. What about these “other channels” we hear about? Hage asked why they were talking to him and they said, "We have talks with people." The CIA blew him off because they had their own channels open in Baghdad. It seems to me this guy wasn’t the great white hope the Times hold him out to be.

This is my take. This guy MAY have been contacted, but I bet it was not by people working in Saddam’s behalf. They may have been loose cannons who saw the writing on the wall. Either way, I doubt this dud was a serious contender in avoiding the war. If he was, I think we would have heard of him earlier.

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, I MEAN "A CERTAIN LATE-TERM PROCEDURE"

Well, George W. Bush, our fair President, ONCE AGAIN, showed his commitment to the most helpless of all Americans, those with NO voice, the unborn. On Wednesday, he signed into law the Partial Birth Abortion Bill. It took just about half an hour until a judge in Nebraska laid an injunction against the bill, saying it was most likely unconstitutional. A New York judge today jumped on the bandwagon, citing the same concerns.

Of course, this is a lot of clap-trap. The Supreme Court shot down a Nebraska law a few years ago because it contained no provision for the “health of the mother” and that’s exactly what you are hearing about this ban. IT”S NOT TRUE!!!! I say it’s not true if you believe this quote from the law cover’s the “health of the mother”:

“This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.”

The difference is this makes a PBA legal to protect the LIFE of the mother, not the HEALTH. See the difference? The health of the mother can cover such esoteric things as she would be “depressed” if she had this baby. The party of DEATH and their willing executioners in the Judiciary puts making someone fell good about themselves over the life of a baby.

NEVER FORGET – it’s the Democrats and the liberals that are doing this. It’s the Democrats and the liberals who feel human life is worthless. If your candidate supports infanticide like this (“all nine Democrat candidate, call your office”) and you don’t, you need to think about exactly who is on your side. If you’re in the womb, it certainly isn’t the Democrats.

'THE LEFT IS BETTER THAN THE RIGHT!!" - HOWARD DEAN AND HIS FEET

What is going on with Howard Dean? The front-runner seems to opening his mouth only to switch feet. Earlier this week he said the Democrats should be going for the guys with “Confederate flags on their trucks.” Of course, the Stars and Bars is akin to a Swastika or RNC logo to Democrats, so they piled on top of Dean like a fumbled football. At first, Ho-Ho held his ground and Karl Rove stirred in his sleep at the thought of a Democrat with a backbone. By the next day, Karl was able to sleep well again because Dean-O had called the flag a “racist symbol” and apologized for any hurt feelings.

Then on Tuesday, he climbs up on his soapbox and proceeds to tell a Florida audience that the South needs to learn how to vote. Well, he didn’t use those words exactly, but that’s sure what came out. He said the South needs to stop voting based on,

"...race, guns, God and gays."

Ah, certainly wouldn’t want God to influence anything, maybe that’s why the Dems collectively wet their pants when G.W. Bush said Jesus was the philosopher that influenced him the most. As for gays, what’s morality got to do with anything? Look at Bill Clinton. And don’t these hicks know only Big Government should have guns? As for race, he’s definitely reaching here, it’s the liberals that hold race out as a “special consideration” in everything.

So, with this week, Howard Dean has managed to call the south a bunch of racists and morons who need some learnin’ on how to vote.

Right now, Karl Rove is sleeping like a baby.

BUSH=DELUSIONAL

Well, it’s been a while since I went to the Font, so I thought I’d drift on over and hold out my hands. Sure enough, it fell right into my lap. Nick Kristoff has a screed up and it’s packed full of fun stuff.

Nick started the whole thing off with a story patting himself on the back about an article he wrote about Saddam Hussein and catching Hell for it from the big man himself. He claimed Saddam was fed bad information and it was this false optimism that led to the downfall of the regime.

It seems Nick thinks the Administration also deluded themselves in Iraq. He thinks BUSHCO (as those “inclusive, caring, non-offensive” liberals call the Administration) convinced themselves Iraq was going to be a cakewalk and now they’ve had a rude awakening. Of course, this conveniently forgets all of the times President Bush said in was going to be a long, hard struggle, but, when has a New York Times columnist let pesky thing like truth get in the way?

“Evidence suggests that Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney may have actually believed that our troops would be, as Mr. Cheney predicted, "greeted as liberators." The administration chose to rely not on intelligence but on wishful thinking, and it became intoxicated by the siren calls of Ahmad Chalabi, a silver-tongued charlatan.”

Nicky, reports I have read tend to back up the “greeted as liberators” assertion. Almost the entire country is at peace, Iraqi’s are clamoring to join the security forces, utilities are on (for the most part) and the streets are bustling. Didn’t I also see pictures of cheering crowds during the fighting when the Allies moved in an area? Oh, and maybe that statue fell over during a hurricane.

And what would a NYT editorial be without comparing George Bush to Saddam Hussein?

“So the scary thing is, Mr. Bush and his aides may not be lying when they look at Iraq and boast of a cheering population that a Western press sourly refuses to acknowledge. There's a precedent: Saddam Hussein.”

"BWING ME A COOKIE AND WARM MILK, TOO!"

We conservatives have often referred to Europe as a “nanny state”, usually because the Governments want to make all of your decisions for you. Two stories out today lend credence to that theory.

In Great Britain, a Glasgow MP and 9 fellow MP’s filed an Early Day Motion, kind of a Congressional resolution, calling Simon Cowell and the others on Pop Idol (Britain’s version of American Idol) cruel. The motion read,

“This House believes that pressurising young people to fit the mould sends out the wrong message, not only to the participants but to other talented youngsters who may also have aspirations to progress in the music industry”

The MP said,

“Simon Cowell has seen his earnings increase to £33.5million a year — is that just from crushing kids?”

The House of Commons spent time calling Simon Cowell a nasty-pants? Is this where our democratic form of government is going? Trying to keep a TV star from being mean to people? Oy.

As you may have heard, last week a poll was done in Europe and 59 percent of those polled thought ISRAEL was biggest threat to world peace. I wasn’t the least bit surprised by the results considering the anti-Semitism that is sweeping the world, especially Europe and it’s growing Arab population. What we need to remember is that this was a poll of citizens, not elected officials, so the results, as sad as they may be, are PERSONAL OPINIONS of, allegedly, free people.

Keeping in mind that comma laden sentence, we find that European Commission has APOLOGIZED to Israel for the findings of that poll. It makes no sense for super-governmental entity apologizing for the personal opinions of it’s citizens. Well, it makes no sense in this universe, but in some kind of super nanny-state where the purpose of government is to make people fell good about themselves it makes perfect sense.

MAKE LAWS, NOT WAR

Yale Law School has their dresses up over their heads because in return for the estimated $300 million dollars in Federal funds Yale receives, the Army would like to come and recruit. In fact, the Solomon amendment REQUIRES schools receiving Federal largesse to allow the military to come to the schools and offer opportunities to the (allegedly) best and the brightest.

But, Noooooo, Yale doesn’t like the stupid “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy over homosexuality and therefore wants to deny the recruiters access because the Army hates gays, or something. In reality, hyper-liberal higher education hates the military and these “bastions of tolerance” have no tolerance for those that keep them free. So, 44 Yale professors have sued the Federal Government over the Solomon amendment, hoping to get it overturned.

I find it pretty funny that these professors feel that Yale doesn’t have to comply with Federal regulations, even though the school receives so much money from the public trough. Where were all of these outraged professors back in the 80’s when colleges like Hillsdale and Grove City were fighting the government over federal regulations. Both colleges refused any Federal money to relieve themselves from the burdensome regulations imposed. Upset that these colleges would have the temerity to NOT be regulated, the Feds went into contortions saying if these colleges accepted students who paid tuition with federally guaranteed loans, the colleges had just received federal money and were now regulated. Did these same Yale professors leap to Grove City’s defense? I’m sure not. As long as “those right-wingers” are getting the shaft, then that’s good – but let the Navy near the law school and the world crumbles.

Make no mistake, college is about the WORST place you can send an impressionable kid. They are dens of leftist ideologues who HATE America, no matter how much Noam Chomsky says he likes it.