Here’s a frustrating story for your Friday. It appears that Corporations now have the ability to fire bloggers if their comments don’t conicide with company policy. The case has yet to be heard, but bloggers everywhere should be watching closely.

A former manager with Allstate has sued the insurance giant, alleging the company, which financially supports homosexual advocacy groups, fired him solely because he wrote a column posted on several websites that was critical of same-sex marriage and espoused his Christian beliefs.

I suspect many other Corporations are watching this case very closely.

Though the column in question was written and posted in December, it wasn’t until Jan. 31 that Barber was called into a meeting with two Human Resources officials, one of whom Barber says “slapped down” a printed copy of the column in front of him and asked if he had written it.

Recognizing the piece, Barber confirmed he had written it on his own time, at his home and on his own computer. Barber claims he was told, “Here at Allstate we have a very diverse community.”

Barber says the Human Resources assistant vice president told him the column didn’t reflect Allstate’s view and that he was suspended with pay. Barber was immediately ushered off company grounds – “which was humiliating,” the former employee said.

An escort huh? I know many Corporations probably have this policy, I guess they certainly wanted to be sure to get that filthy Christian off the premises.

“I explained to Allstate that the article was a reflection of my personal Christian beliefs, and that I had every right to both write it and to have it published,” Barber told WND. “I further explained that I had written the article while at home on my own time, that I never mentioned Allstate’s name and that I neither directly nor indirectly suggested that Allstate shared my Christian beliefs or my views on same-sex marriage.”

Three days later, on Feb. 3, Barber, who had worked for Allstate for five years, says he got a call informing him he was fired “for writing the article,” he said. Now, with the help of the Christian Law Association and David Gibbs III, who represented Terri Schiavo’s family in the final weeks of her life, Barber is challenging Allstate in federal court.

I’m hoping that Barber prevails in this case. I wonder if he had written an article that was pro-homosexual if this would be an issue? We’ll keep an eye on this one…from the Narrow>

This means you can get fired for your political beliefs. This is Bulls%@T!!! Do you not see the threat here? Send these clowns at ALLSTATE a message here>

thought I’d post this…..

“I am surprised to hear of all the anti-war demonstrations in the West. I wish that the demonstrators could spend just 24 hours in the place I have come from and see the reality of Iraq. Fourteen lost years of my life. Nothing but bread for food — darkness, filth, beatings, torture, killings, bitterness and humiliation.”
-Rafat Abdulmajeed Muhammad, jailed for selling a roll of film to an British journalist
link here>

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The vast majority of homicide attackers in Iraq are thought to be foreigners — mostly Saudis and other Gulf Arabs — and the trend has become more pronounced this year with North Africans also streaming in to carry out deadly missions, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.

The bombers are recruited from Sunni communities, smuggled into Iraq from Syria after receiving religious indoctrination, and then quickly bundled into cars or strapped with explosive vests and sent to their deaths, the officials told The Associated Press. The young men are not so much fighters as human bombs — a relatively small but deadly component of the Iraqi insurgency.

“The foreign fighters are the ones that most often are behind the wheel of suicide car bombs, or most often behind any suicide situation,” said U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for the Multinational Force in Iraq.

Officials have long believed that non-Iraqis infiltrating the country through its porous borders with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were behind most homicide missions, and the wave of bloody strikes in recent months has confirmed that thinking.

Authorities have found little evidence that Iraqis have been behind the near-daily stream of homicide attacks over the past six months, U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity.
from Fox>>

There goes another liberal myth, the Iraqi’s primarily are not rebelling. We are fighting terrorists led by Al-Queada, the men responsible for 9-11. So the question is, would you rather fight them on U.S. soil or on Iraqu soil?

The mainstream media continue their faux outrage over the link that President Bush drew between September 11 and the Iraq war in his speech Tuesday night; here is one of countless examples. This is, frankly, mystifying; as one of our readers pointed out yesterday, the connection between the Iraq war and September 11 was made explicit in the text of the Congressional resolution that authorized military action in Iraq. Here are some excerpts:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Note that the resolution puts the Iraq war in the context of September 11 without saying that Iraq was involved in those attacks; it recites what was indisputably true–that Iraq harbored members of al Qaeda.

One would think that administration critics like Joe Biden, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer would remember what was in the resolution, since they voted for it. I can understand why it would be convenient for the Democrats to forget that the resolution that authorized the Iraq war specifically and repeatedly linked the rationale for that war to the September 11 attacks. It is not so clear why mainstream reporters and commentators are so willing to share the Democrats’ amnesia.
from Powerline>

I think not only is the MSM destroying itself, but also, the similar message by the Dems is also having a negative impact. Powerline also stated that a poll by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.

“Republicans weakened in this poll … but it shows Democrats weakening more,” said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton’s pollster.

However, I am not happy. The Dems and the MSM might be hurting themselves, but their constant negative reporting is hurting our reputation abroad.

At the Huffington Post, Democratic adviser and Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff openly admits that turning Americans against the war is a goal of the Democrat party. (Hat tip: Model4.)

For a while last week, the Democrats were doing better at framing the issues. The poll numbers showed that Bush’s approval rating was down, that around 60% of the voters had turned against the Iraq War, that support for Bush on his handling of 911 and terrorism was lower, but still pretty high.

They correctly recognized in the numbers that the public had begun to separate Iraq from 911, and they recognized the relevance of the Downing Street memo in showing that Bush had betrayed the trust of the American people in sending troops into Iraq on false pretenses. They had begun to form an anti-Iraq-War caucus and to hammer home the consequences of these development. And even staunch Republicans were listening to their arguments and coming to Bush to suggest withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
from LGF>>

The Downing St. memo might be false, and Saddam did have ties to Al-Queada, but that would kind of ruin their message, wouldn’t it. Think this is just about Iraq? No, actually, the Dems have become the party of pacifists and appearers. Don’t believe me? Let me remind you.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): “‘The Time For Peace Is Now,’ [Kucinich] Declared Optimistically July 11, Two Months To The Day Before Terrorists Hit The Pentagon And The World Trade Center. … Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Kucinich: “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.” (Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,” Roll Call, 10/1/01)

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): “I Am Convinced That Military Action Will Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism Against The United States.” (Eddy Ramirez, “Calif. Congresswoman Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution,” [University Of California-Berkeley] Daily Californian, 9/17/01)

Al Sharpton (D-NY) Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are Evidence That “America Is Beginning To Reap What It Has Sown.” (Adam Nagourney, “Say It Loud,” The New York Times, 12/1/02)

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Claimed Osama Bin Laden Could Be Compared To “Revolutionaries That Helped To Cast Off The British Crown.” “‘One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown,’ Kaptur told an Ohio newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade.” (Malie Rulon, “Lawmaker Compares Osama, U.S. Patriots,” The Associated Press, 3/6/03)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Said The United States Would “Pay Every Single Hour, Ever Single Day” That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan. “‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’” (Miles A. Pomper, “Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)

“The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’” (Miles A. Pomper, “Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)

Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) Said Osama Bin Laden Not Guilty. Dean: “I Still Have This Old-Fashioned Notion That Even With People Like Osama, Who Is Very Likely To Be Found Guilty, We Should Do Our Best Not To, In Positions Of Executive Power, Not To Prejudge Jury Trials.” (“Dean Not Ready To Pronounce Osama Bin Laden Guilty,” The Associated Press, 12/26/03)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) To High School Students: “How Would [Muslims] Look At Us Today If We Had Been There Helping Them With Some Of That Rather Than Just Being The People Who Are Going To Bomb In Iraq And Go To Afghanistan? … War Is Expensive Too … Your Generation Ought To Be Thinking About Whether We Should Be Better Neighbors Out In Other Countries So That They Have A Different Vision Of Us.” (Gregg Herrington, “Senator Asks Students To Ponder,” The [Vancouver, WA] Columbian, 12/19/02)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement Operation.” (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)

Kerry: “[W]hat We’ve Learned Is That The War On Terror Is Much More Of An Intelligence Operation And A Law Enforcement Operation.” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Army, hard pressed to attract new soldiers amid the Iraq war, exceeded its monthly recruiting goal in June, ending four straight months of shortfalls, the top U.S. military officer said on Wednesday.

But the active-duty Army, three-quarters through fiscal 2005, remained 14 percent — about 7,800 recruits — behind its year-to-date target and was in danger of missing its first annual recruiting goal since 1999, officials said. Its goal for fiscal 2005, ending on Sept. 30, is 80,000 recruits.

“I will tell you that for the month of June, the United States Army active recruiting is over 100 percent of its goal, which is a turnaround from where they’ve been the last several months,” Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an audience of Pentagon employees.

“So there’s a bit of good news in here. We’ll see how it works out the rest of the year,” Myers added.

Army officials have been expressing optimism about a recruiting turnaround in the summer months after high school graduates begin to decide on careers.
from the Sun>
>

I heard this on WBAL yesterday, but I did not get a chance to comment on it last night. I admit, I am a bit surprised with the news. I wonder if all the military bashing by the MSM has created a backlash.

For the second time in three weeks, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. paid a visit yesterday to Baltimore’s police union, which gave him praise and two standing ovations but stopped short of an official endorsement for his re-election bid.

But the union did endorse Ehrlich’s lieutenant governor, Michael S. Steele, for his undeclared but anticipated candidacy for U.S. Senate.

“We wanted to be one of the first to show our support to him,” Lt. Frederick Roussey, president of the city’s Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 3, said of Steele, who was not at the meeting.

Officially, Roussey said, the lodge has not announced an endorsement of Ehrlich’s 2006 re-election campaign.

“We want to give the mayor [Martin O'Malley] a chance, to see what he has to offer,” Roussey said, “but I can tell you we love the governor.”

O’Malley is expected to be a candidate for the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial nomination.
from the Sun>

O’Malley could not resist getting a shot in by trying to blame Ehrlich for Baltimore’s rising crime rate. O’Malley’s campaign manager, Jonathan Epstein, said later: “Ever since Governor Ehrlich took office, he has undermined the efforts of Baltimore’s law enforcement as Mayor O’Malley has made public safety a central issue.” Pathetic.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday intervened again in a long-running fight over protests outside abortion clinics.

Justices said they will consider whether an anti-abortion group’s campaign against abortions, conducted outside these clinics 20 years ago, may have violated federal racketeering and extortion laws.

The court has already dealt with the same case several times before. Most recently justices ruled in 2003 that the laws were wrongly used against anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others.

That ruling, written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, lifted a nationwide ban on protests that interfere with abortion clinic business.

An appeals court, however, questioned whether the ban should be renewed on other legal grounds.

The announcement Tuesday came as justices resolved about 20 cases that were still pending from their term. The court met for the last time Monday before beginning a three-month break.
from Fox>

THis is just an excuse by the pro-abortionists to silence the pro-lifers. Rehnquist conceded in 2003 that some abortion protesters interfered with clinic operations and in some cases committed crimes. But he said because they did not extort money or valuables from the clinics, a lower court had wrongly imposed a ban on protests. I do not agree with those who block the clinics, but they have every right to protest.

This is almost as funny as the bit about Rather saying the US media is not biased. Here is the crystal ball folks. The dems. realize they are looking like a bunch of wusses and will try to appear pro-defense (despite all evidence to the contrary.) as the next election draws closer. Here is the article from LGF.

Democrats have been loathe to talk about Iraq, as their palpable fear get in the way of leadership on this increasingly important issue.

So here are two ways to talk about the war that don’t betray weakness:

Promoting a withdrawal

We have a lot to be proud of over the past three years. We have freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and given them their first taste of freedom. Iraq held successful presidential elections earlier this year, and the nation is now run by a democratic-elected government.

We have accomplished what we set out to do — bring freedom to Iraq and rid the region of the specter of Saddam’s terror.

But now it is time to let the Iraqis take charge of their own lives. The future belongs to a free democratic Iraq, but it is a future they must fight for themselves.

Afraid to call for withdrawal? Hammer on “accountability”.
We are facing a crisis in Iraq, and yet no one is being held accountable. Our troops don’t have enough men, equipment, or armor to effectively and safely do their job, yet those responsible for these deadly miscalculations remain at their jobs. They claim, as they always have, that Iraq is about to turn yet another corner, pass yet another milestone on the road to peace and prosperity. But the reality on the ground mocks those assertions.

We must have accountability in order to win this war. Those responsible for so many catastrophic mistakes must replaced by more competent, more effective, people.

This new direction, of course, comes after years of brittle screaming from Markos that “bringing democracy to Iraq” is nothing but a lie and a sham, and that we need to immediately cut and run. It’s a little glimpse into the utter moral bankruptcy of the modern left, as they twist, distort, and change their stories at will depending on the political wind.from LGF>

Here is the text of George Bush’s speech.>

Both By Dave Wissing

The United States Supreme Court declined yesterday to hear the cases of two reporters facing up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify about conversations with their confidential sources.

The case now returns to Federal District Court in Washington, where Judge Thomas F. Hogan will hear arguments on Wednesday about when and where the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, will begin to serve their time.

Great news. It is about time journalists start facing jail time for their cavalier use of anonymous sources. Frankly, there are not nearly enough journalists going to jail for using anonymous sources, especially when they use anonymous sources for the sole purpose of attacking and slandering public individuals (see Rather, Dan). If you or I smeared someone, we would not be able to attribute the smear to an “anonymous source” and get away with it. And in this particular case, the two journalists are in effect covering up a crime of who leaked the name of a CIA official by refusing to reveal their anonymous sources. To me, that is akin to being an accessory to a crime….

Also from the HedgeHog
Reporter Faked 43 Sources
As a follow up to the earlier post on two journalists going to jail for refusing to name their “anonymous sources”, here is one about The Sacramento Bee from The Washington Post/AP.

A newspaper investigation of a former columnist for The Sacramento Bee could not verify 43 sources she used in a sampling of 12 years of her work.

Diana Griego Erwin resigned May 11 as she came under scrutiny about the existence of people she quoted. She has denied making up information, but Executive Editor Rick Rodriguez said the Bee should have been able to locate the people named in the stories.
….
The discrepancies in Griego Erwin’s work were discovered after the Bee tightened its anonymous sources policy and questioned whether columnists were given too much latitude.

Griego Erwin declined to be interviewed for the Bee’s article but responded by e-mail.

“The story has been told and I am sad that The Bee continues to pursue this,” she wrote. “Surely there are more important stories out there than another about me. I know there are. Even now, I come across them every day.”

I at least give the newspaper credit for invetigating the story and publicly admitting to their lax effort in cracking down on the use of fabricated sources. But with her going 12 years without getting caught using at least 43 fabricated sources, it really does make you wonder how many other journalists are fabricating sources and just haven’t been caught yet….
from the HedgeHog>

Newsweek, Jordon, Rather, the list goes on…. More and more the news is becoming politicized, and some “journalists” are not above lying to achieve their political spin. I agree completely, stronger measures are needed. These bozos are threatening the credibility of journalism.

click here

A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses, but ruled a 6-foot granite replica on state government land in Texas is acceptable.

In the first ruling, McCreary County v. ACLU, the court said the Kentucky displays violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing or supporting one religion above others.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in court buildings or on government property. However, the Biblical laws could be displayed in an historical context, as they are in a frieze in the Supreme Court building. Notably, the first four commandments, which have to do with honoring God and the Sabbath, were obscured by the artist who designed the frieze.

“The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the ‘First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,’” Justice David H. Souter wrote in the majority opinion, citing previous court rulings.
from Fox>

Notice that the case was started by my old enemy, the ACLU. Why? It is difficult for me to believe that the ACLU really thinks the US is going to become a theocracy. What I really think is going on here is that the real goal by the progressives is to weaken Christianinity because Christian values is the biggest roadblock in furthering their progressive goals. They are intentionally misinterpreting the First Amendment for this purpose. Now lets go to the dissent.

Leading the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia railed against what he perceived as the majority opinion’s inconsistency.

Listing the various ways in which higher beings are invoked in public life — from “so help me God” in inaugural oaths to the prayer that opens the Supreme Court’s sessions — Scalia asked, “With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the court possibly assert that ‘the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality’ [on religion]?”

Scalia, who was joined in his dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, said the court’s majority opinion ought to be voided “because the court has not had the courage (or the foolhardiness) to apply the neutrality principle consistently.”

The government of Pakistan has released 17 men who were imprisoned in Lahore for some months after being freed from Guantanamo Bay:

The men were apparently released on the theory that they were innocent, but all six who were interviewed by the Associated Press acknowledged that “they were arrested in Afghanistan after going there to fight the U.S.-led coalition that ousted the hard-line Taliban regime in late 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network.” One said, “If I get a chance to fight jihad again, I will definitely go. I will not miss it.” Keep that in mind next time you read about those poor innocents who have been released from Guantanamo Bay because they had no connection to terrorism.
from Powerline>

China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.
U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.
China’s military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan.
“There’s a growing consensus that at some point in the mid-to-late ’90s, there was a fundamental shift in the sophistication, breadth and re-sorting of Chinese defense planning,” said Richard Lawless, a senior China-policy maker in the Pentagon. “And what we’re seeing now is a manifestation of that change in the number of new systems that are being deployed, the sophistication of those systems and the interoperability of the systems.”
China’s economy has been growing at a rate of at least 10 percent for each of the past 10 years, providing the country’s military with the needed funds for modernization.
The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what many defense officials view as a fascist state.
“We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production,” a senior defense official said.
For Pentagon officials, alarm bells have been going off for the past two years as China’s military began rapidly building and buying new troop- and weapon-carrying ships and submarines.
from The Washington Times>

Very disturbing. It appears MacArthur was right, after all. It appears we might be called on to defend democracy once again. The Chinese dragon is probably watching Iraq very closely, to see our resolve. Weakness undoubtedly only will encourage aggression. For as Trosky said, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

On Friday, New York’s Governor Pataki said he would do everything in his power to prevent anti-American exhibits at Ground Zero.

Today the New York Times comes out against Pataki, whose statement they find “alarming:” Freedom and Ground Zero. Here is what they said:

Gov. George Pataki’s decision to side with increasingly vocal critics of the cultural plans for the World Trade Center site is not surprising, but it is alarming. The governor has been deeply and rightly sensitive to the concerns of the families of the victims of 9/11. Like all of us, he honors their loss and their grief. But by bowing to some of the survivors’ growing hostility to any version of 9/11 except their own, Mr. Pataki is doing a disservice to history and to the very idea of freedom.

The protesters have objected to the proposed International Freedom Center, which they fear might someday sponsor discussions that cast America in a negative light, and to the Drawing Center, one of the cultural institutions invited to move to ground zero, which has displayed art that appears to criticize the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

The protesters – and the governor – seem to have little faith in the emotional power of the memorial to the victims, which will be the central focus of ground zero, emotionally, politically and architecturally. The memorial’s force will not be diminished by any other activities at the site, and it will inevitably serve as a locus of grief and remembrance for everyone who was touched by 9/11. But it is meant to remember something more than a day of tragedy. It’s meant to remember the lives of those who died there, lives that were rich, complex and politically and culturally divided.
from LGF>>

Amazing, they want to politicize ground zero! How low can they go?

Public attitudes toward the press, which have been on a downward track for years, have become more negative in several key areas. Growing numbers of people question the news media’s patriotism and fairness. Perceptions of political bias also have risen over the past two years.

Yet despite these criticisms, most Americans continue to say that they like mainstream news outlets. By wide margins, more Americans give favorable than unfavorable ratings to their daily newspaper (80%-20%), local TV news (79%-21%), and cable TV news networks (79%-21%), among those able to rate these organizations. The margin is only slightly smaller for network TV news (75%-25%).
from Yahoo News.
In fact, the favorable ratings for most categories of news organizations surpass positive ratings for President Bush and major political institutions ­ the Supreme Court, Congress, and the two major political parties. Favorable ratings for daily newspapers, local TV news and network TV news have all remained fairly stable since July 2001, even as public attitudes toward the news media have declined. The exception to this pattern are large, nationally influential newspapers, such as the Washington Post and New York Times, whose favorable ratings have declined markedly.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 8-12 among 1,464 Americans, shows increasing politicization of attitudes toward the news media. Republicans, already more critical than Democrats of the press, have become even more so. Growing numbers of Republicans see the press as too critical of America and hurting democracy. Still, even majorities of Republicans continue to express favorable views of most major news sources.

And I wonder if the reason for this poll could be the fact that the press has become a bunch of anti-military, anti-american, liars?

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s ultraconservative president-elect, at once defiant and at ease, vowed Sunday to restart the nation’s controversial nuclear program and warned European negotiators that building trust required a mutual effort.

Asked about relations with the United States during his first news conference since Friday’s election, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran “is taking the path of progress based on self-reliance. It doesn’t need the United States significantly on this path.”

In a sign of tensions likely ahead, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Ahmadinejad was “no friend of democracy” and dismissed the vote as a “mock election.”
from Fox>

Just to remind you, one Iranian diplomat, Rafsanjani, in a sermon at Tehran University on December 14, said that if the Islamic world ever obtains nuclear weapons Israel will cease to exist. link here So a man that is threatening genocide is a moderate, what then is a hard liner? And why would this be not relevent information to include in the article, unless the writer did not want to include these facts? I believe nothing the MSM says at face value anymore.

Also, again, this is from a country with one of the largest oil reserves. If you really believe they need a nuc. plant for power, I have a bridge to sell you. Since I don’t expect the MSM to investigate this further, here are some brief facts.

*Iran is OPEC’s second largest oil producer and holds 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. It also has the world’s second largest natural gas reserves (after Russia). According to the Oil and Gas Journal (1/1/05), Iran holds 125.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, roughly 10 percent of the world’s total, up from 90 billion barrels in 2003 (note: in July 2004, Iran’s oil minister had noted that the country’s proven oil reserves had increased to 132 billion barrels following discoveries in the Kushk and Hosseineih fields of Khuzestan province). The vast majority of Iran’s crude oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in the southwestern Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf. Iran has 32 producing oil fields, of which 25 are onshore and 7 offshore (see table below). Iran’s crude oil is generally medium in sulfur, with gravities mainly in the 28°-35° API range.

*A senior Iranian parliamentarian on Sunday urged the government to speed up efforts to exploit joint hydrocarbon reserves, stressing that some 80 percent of the country’s oil fields remains unexplored.

From the group that defends terrorists and child pornographers comes new fun from that bastion of values called the ACLU.

ACLU fights abstinence program
Claims federal funding is endorsement of religion

The ACLU is in federal court trying to strike down federal funding for an abstinence-based sex education program, calling it an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The program, by a group called the Silver Ring Thing, allows teens to sign a voluntary pledge to abstain from sexual activity until marriage and wear a ring as a reminder of the vow. The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund has filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Silver Ring Thing.

“Apparently, the ACLU would have us believe that abstinence is unconstitutional,” said ADF senior legal counsel Joel Oster.
from from World Net Daily.

and if that wasn’t low enough….

ACLU defends polygamy
Legal group backs ‘freedom of choice’

The president of the American Civil Liberties Union says polygamy is among the “fundamental rights” that her organization will continue to defend.

During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has “defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy,” reported AgapePress, noting that the comments cited by the Yale Daily News received little attention.

The student paper said Strossen was responding to a “student’s question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy.”

The ACLU chief said her organization defends “the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals,” making it “the guardian of liberty … defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people.”

Some opponents of same-sex marriage — including, notably, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. — have argued that its acceptance will create a slipperly slope, leading to the sanctioning of other types of relationships, including polygamy.

PLease do a search on my site for more info about the ACLU. It is difficult to think of a more anti-american, anti-catholic, immoral group of people.

The Arab TV news network criticized by the new Iraqi government and others for its anti-American bias and willingness to carry the messages of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, is headed for the U.S.-Mexico border to document how easy it is to enter America illegally.

Al-Jazeera has contacted Minuteman Civil Defense Corps leader Chris Simcox to try to arrange interviews. Simcox, who rejected the request for cooperation with the TV network, says al-Jazeera, seen by millions throughout the Arab world and elsewhere, is producing an hour-long documentary news special on lack of security at the U.S. southern border.

Al-Jazeera reporter Naisser Hssaini mentioned the increase in apprehensions of illegal aliens known as OTMs – other than Mexicans. These foreigners increasingly include Arabs, Muslims and others from the Middle East. The reporter also mentioned his familiarity with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement police of catching and releasing OTMS – particularly those not specifically known to be on any terrorist watch list.
from World Net Daily.

“The group has been denied requests for interviews by Minuteman Civil Defense Corps organizers but they still insist on filming the groups’ activities along with the rest of the media during a July 4th weekend mission near Arivaca, Arizona,” said Simcox.

Simcox has contacted the offices of Arizona’s two Republican U.S. senators – John McCain and Jon Kyl – to invite them to do interviews with al Jazeera, “so perhaps they can explain to the viewers of this news outlet just how secure America’s borders really are.”

This makes me beyong nervous. Why would they be so interested in our open borders? I sincerely hope this puts a bit more focus on this gaping hole in our defence. Every day, I am surprised some terrorists has not taken advantage of this fact and nuked one of our cities. This makes me angry. Next to the failure to stop illegal immigration and the growth of the size of the government, this is my biggest criticism of President Bush. (and Congress.)