Let's set some things straight

I am no Bush cheerleader. He spends too much, he is not protecting our Southern Border and government is getting too big under his watch. I cannot, however, stand the idiots in the national media - who get most of their direction from DNC talking points - attacking the President all the time.

Katrina's failure was a State and Local issue. Bush's problem was he trusted his FEMA director and did not break the law and assume Federal control sooner.

His current NSA issues have not been against any US to US phone calls or correspondence despite what the DNC is trying to spin. It was never a secret ( both parties have been briefed 14 times since 9-11). The Clinton White House spied on an American on US soil, contacting other Americans without telling anyone. The outcome was good (a spying arrest) but it was as legal or illegal as Bush's situation depending on your point of view. You cannot have it both ways.

Body armor is not his issue. The same technology was available when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia. It was not an issue then and it was not thought to be an issue now - except a political one. Soldiers say they don't want all the armor - it slows them down and makes them easier targets. Ask one.

In regard to Alito, if you take anything Kerry or Kennedy have to say- I am afraid you may have pre-alzheimers. Their threat to filibuster a justice who, not 5-8 years ago, would have received an almost 100% vote, is ludicrous. Alito's fellow judges ALL support him as a fair jurist and not an activist judge. You also know that even if Roe V Wade is over turned abortion is not illegal, it simply reverts back to the states where the rulings ought to lie. I am much more worried by the 9th circuit who in the last term granted sentient being status to a frigging dolphin and slided with the ACLU that the North American Man-Boy Love Association and a live sex club in Washington should be allowed to use or exhibit minors. If I have to choose between the life of an unborn child or Ted Kennedy I pick the kid.

For your kids, if your daughter got pregnant would you not want to know? Are you not still her guardian? Kennedy, Feinstein and others want a child as young AT ANY AGE to have the right to an abortion WITHOUT notifying a parent or guardian. What about your wife? If she was pregnant,would you not want a say in whether you kill the embryo of you child in your wife of 20+ years? Not according to Kennedy and Feinstein. For them a "women's right to choose" means no consequences. It means that it is non of your business what your daughter or your wife does. I'd say that says alot about the DNC's position in regard to the sanctity of marriage and of family.

I could go on, but if you don't get what I am saying with this then you are a lost cause. I am a Libertarian - not a Republican. I think what you do in your own home is fine as long as you do not hurt another. Abortion, euthanasia, the Death Penalty all hurt others for the benefit of another. If I am not breaking the law the "Google" issue or the Patriot act is not an issue to me. I believe many of the controls the Feds have should be state issues. As evidenced by the last election where 98% of the counties in America voted for Bush, yet that 2% of the counties who voted for Kerry represent a disproportionate population. If we, as the founders intended, allowed states to represent their constituencies then we would not have issued such as the ones before the Supreme Court.

It Takes One to Know One

I am not a lemming for any party. I think of myself as an independent. Perhaps I am more Libertarian than Republican or Democrat, but my roots are planted deep in conservative values.

I am sickened by the partisanship being shown so long before the fall elections. There is nothing being done in Washington except political gamesmanship, and frankly, it is creating an inept, and inert government. To the issues:

Spying:
The US has used electronic surveillance since the advent of electronic communication. Prior to that it intercepted the mail, horsemen, even pigeons. This is not new and it is not illegal. Ask the Clinton administration officials spouting off like that national disgrace Al Gore. (Who could believe him anyway? He is a consummate liar. Remember he claimed to invent the internet and he and Tipper's relationship were the supposed to be the subject of the movie "Love Story". He is a liar and a fraud. As Scott McClellan said it best "if you are not a member of al-Qaida or are not speaking to members of al-Qaida then you have nothing to worry about." The attorneys of inmates at Gitmo are complaining the US eavesdropped on their phone and mail - welcome to being in prison. Everything in a prison in the US is fair game and is censored. The hypocrisy" of the Clinton Administration is evident in their attacks. Clinton and Gore spied on a US Citizen on US soil (this is different from the Bush issue despite what you are reading and hearing in the mainstream press) and it was applauded when an espionage agent was arrested. I agreed with their efforts then and do now because it was the best thing for the country. As a libertarians, I am cautious about losing personal rights, but I am not a dissident or a radical so I am not too worried.

In regard to lobbyists, it is incredible that on every level the idea of ethics is just now becoming an issue. The finger pointing of both sides claiming the other is not ethical is rampant. Today's display at the Library of Congress by the democrats harkens back to Newt's "Contract with America." It is all laughable because as soon as no one is looking the bribes and "additional benefits" will continue. The Dems want a scapegoat for this election cycle but it won't surface. 99% of the counties in America voted Republican in the last election. The Democrats have shown illegalities and unethical behavior going back decades and it will not end here. I expect the Republicans to hold all the seats except perhaps for Ohio.

it is interesting the Dems know who to blame - I guess when you look at corruption and illegal activity it takes one to know one.

Rushing to judgment - The Coal Disaster and the Media an unsavory mix.

The victims of the coal disaster this week in the Sago Mine in West Virgina were first injured by the blast itself, then by the long wait for rescue, last and perhaps most egregiously well into the future, by the media.

The race by the media has become more harried and more reckless in the last several years. Many will recall the incorrect reporting that Dewey beat Truman, in 1972, the erroneous printing that all Israeli athletes had survived the hostage taking in Munich, and then again erroneously reporting Bush had won the Whitehouse in 2000 before the fruitless Gore challenge. We live in a 24 hour cycle for news and each network is trying to best the other quickly nipped at the heels by the news services and papers.

Al Tompkins, a former colleague of mine and now a faculty member at the Poynter Institute a journalism think-tank in Florida (of which I am also an alumni), said in an AP report that "we took what appeared to be good information... And added a level of certainty that it did not warrant." He continued, saying that some of the papers covered themselves appropriately by saying and using the term "reportedly" when relaying the information that the folks in the mine had been rescued.

When I read that in an AP article, I almost dropped my coffee this morning. "Reportedly" is a cheap J school "out" for someone who did not do his or her homework and did not get attribution. I learned in school, as did Al, the old journalist's adage "if your mother says she loves you check it out." They did not have corroborating sources. They (AP) made it up.

AP says they relied on "credible sources" who apparently included family members and the Governor who had spoken to the families. There was jubilation, but during the celebration and the rush to beat he other guy, no one apparently wondered "why wasn't the coal company in front of the cameras and reporters basking in the glow of the rescue?" They relied on hearsay and not fact.

Not everyone took the bait however. To my surprises, Nightline stayed above board. Correspondent John Donovan had apparenlty been skeptical of the early news that the miners had been found alive. James Goldston, executive producer of ABC's "Nightline," which reported the apparent rescue for East Coast viewers and broke in live to announce the deaths to West Coast viewers at 2:59 a.m. Eastern time, said, "We refused to run it until we had specific confirmation that was double, triple, quadruple sourced," Goldston said.

Have no doubt, this debacle lays solely on the shoulders of the AP. They were lazy, took hearsay and made it fact. Facts that may have sold hundreds of thousands of papers across the country in the morning, but caused thousands of tears in the small community in West Virginia where, tragically, a dozen cola miners lost their lives. What has me baffled is that the coal company is now backing off saying there was a "breakdown in communication." There was no breakdown in communication. The media broke their number one rule and fell back on the journalist's adage of the 1990's and now " don"t let the truth get in the way of a good story (or in the NY Times style book, in the way of an agenda item."

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said that though she sympathized with reporters who were dealing with a fast-breaking story and deadlines, the erroneous accounts were a "failure of skepticism" on the part of reporters.

"The reporter has an obligation to say to the governor, 'How do you know?' and to the family members, 'Who told you?' " Preach on Sister!

The Times they are a Changin'

One of my favorite sites on the internet is a site dedicated to outing the NY Times and its liberal agenda. This week they have a bottom 10 lowlights from 2005. They are incredible.

From the outright lies against President Bush and the War in Iraq to simple omissions and falsehoods created by reports and columnists to fit their agenda.

What is incredible to me is that they seem to get away with it... or do they? The Times stock has fallen by nearly half since its attacks on President Bush began. No correllation you say? Each time the voices become more shrill their stock seems to fall faster. Hmmm... the Times they are a changin'