I hope that all of you will click on the link for an IMPORTANT message about my blog on Townhall.

CLICK HERE FOR IMPORTANT MESSAGE
+
+
+
+

Barack Obama has just taken the next step towards a complete disregard for America's foreign policy by back slapping self-professed enemy to the "great Satan," tin pot dictator and oppressor, Hugo Chavez. As Obama grins and associates with such low-end characters, treating them as worthy members of the international community, he drags down both the United States and any country that strives to treat its people with the dignity they deserve as human beings.

But, Obama is, at least, fulfilling a campaign promise to treat all foreign leaders as equals no matter how evil, oppressive, and murderous they are. His compatriots on the left agree with this sort of engagement claiming that such "diplomacy" can only be a good thing. Despite this, though, this basic engagement-is-good ideal is not a principle held consistently by the left proving that situational ethics are the only ethics that the left can muster.

Think back to the late presidential campaign where candidate Barack Obama showed his unpreparedness for leading American foreign policy by saying that he'd meet just any old murderous foreign dictator "without preconditions." You'll recall that the leftist spin on that statement was that Obama was right to rely on diplomacy and that meeting and talking was a good idea no matter what. Diplomacy was the cure to anything went the mantra from the left.

Those realists on the right, however, said that meeting with every tinpot dictator the world has to offer lowers the president and the United States and lifts up those dictators supplying them with undeserved legitimacy. Naturally the left decried this claim and said engagement does nothing of the kind.

 

Yet the left's engagement-is-good concept took a turn in the opposite direction when now President Obama launched his ill-considered war with radio talker Rush Limbaugh. Suddenly, lefties all across the country were decrying the administration's attack on Limbaugh saying that it is beneath the dignity of the White House to engage Limbaugh and saying that doing so lifts Limbaugh up to undeserved legitimacy.

So, as far as the left is concerned it's OK to "legitimize" murderous dictators that terrorize their own people by engaging with the White House but it's not OK to legitimize a talk show host? What is wrong with this picture?

Amazingly, it didn't occur to these lefties that they were making the lie to their previous position supposedly dearly held. If by engaging him the White House legitimizes Limbaugh then what does it do for foreign dictators and strongmen that are beneath a legitimate place on the international stage? The illogic of their position, of course, doesn't faze them it appears.

Well, to be sure, what is wrong is that the left has no principles, no logic and nothing but spin in their political positions. They have situational ethics that change with the winds.

During the 2008 campaign for the presidency, Obama made what many considered the major gaffe of saying he'd talk to America's enemies "without preconditions." In March of 2008, for instance, Foreign Policy In Focus, a foreign policy think-tank, posted a Howard Salter piece discussing the issues. In that piece, Salter compared the candidate's views on foreign policy and diplomacy.

Obama has consistently said, "We need to rediscover the power of diplomacy. So I said very early on in this campaign that I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies, not just the leaders I like, but leaders I don't."

Meanwhile, Clinton is opposed to Obama's idea. "We simply cannot legitimize rogue regimes or weaken American prestige by impulsively agreeing to presidential-level talks with no preconditions," she said. "It may sound good, but it doesn't meet the real world test of foreign policy."

Obama believes that, "Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support."

He feels that this type of direct diplomacy will help restablish our nation's image and credibility around the world. Echoing President John F. Kennedy, he has said, "And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, ‘You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

In reply to Obama during the campaign John McCain said that talking to terrorists and dictators only strengthens them. In September 2008, CNN reported that, "McCain is saying that if you meet without preconditions you are legitimizing them."

Recently, Frank Gaffney in the Washington Times agreed with McCain's worries from last year.

Can there be any doubt what America's adversaries make of all this? Great grief will come our way if they conclude, as Mr. Alinsky surely would, that our power is waning and that they can exercise theirs with impunity against our interests - and those of whatever friends we have left.

There were then many other voices in praise of Obama on the issue, of course.

On July 2, 2008, the World Policy Institute -- publisher of World Policy Journal -- posted a blog by Benjamin Pauker that more or less came down on Obama's side. Pauker's general conclusion was that it can't hurt. "It's hard to see how it would hurt" to have direct diplomacy with murderers and thug dictators he decided.

Leftwing bloggers also quickly got into the game. On November 2nd, 2008, one blogger said of Obama's claim to want to talk to our enemies that his, "willingness to engage his enemies will help reduce the future potential for warfare."

Another Obama supporter praised his desire to talk to dictators back in December of 2008.

President-elect Barack Obama has espoused his philosophy of talking with the enemy, of the importance that diplomacy would play in his administration and, more specifically, that he would engage in talks with Iran or with President Ahmadinedjad. He made it clear that he would not invite him over to the White House for tea one day. But that this would be a well-prepared meeting, yet without pre-conditions. President-elect Obama also espoused that he stands for tough diplomacy but wants normal diplomatic relations with Iran. And President Ahmadinedjad has wanted to enter into conversation with the U.S. for a very long time. Luckily, both are ready and willing to engage in this dialogue.

Yet at the same time, after the recent Somali pirate standoff ended, Gloria Borger of CNN defended Obama for not engaging the pirates. Borger praised Obama for not negotiating with the Somali pirates that held Captain Philips on April 12 saying, "Would it have been better if the president of the United States had publicly engaged with a bunch of teenage thug pirates? It's beneath Obama's pay grade and dignity -- not to mention how it would have added fuel to an already incendiary situation."

Is there a difference between engaging "thug pirates" and engaging thug dictators? Apparently Borger thinks so, but this is in direct refutation of the campaign spin that the left supplied to Obama in 2008. Curiously, during the campaign, Borger herself tried to cover for Obama by claiming that he didn't really say he'd meet foreign terrorists and dictators without preconditions. On CNN she said that meeting without preconditions would be bad, but claimed that Obama was "making that distinction." She went on to say, "He's saying with preconditions, perhaps you could eventually get around to talking." This is quite a stretch from what Obama actually said during the campaign but it does comport the the left's attempt to cover for him.

Naturally, folks on the right disagreed, even to the rank-and-file. In February of 2008, for instance, one commenter on a blog said that it is a bad idea to meet with dictators. "A U.S. Presidential meeting further legitimizes a dictator inside his own country. By meeting with the dictator, a U.S. President thus discourages the success of internal dissenters who are risking their lives to oppose the dictator."

But as I said, that was then. Now we have the White House engaging Rush Limbaugh and suddenly the left has flip flopped on the concept of what "legitimizes" enemies and what doesn't.

Witness the blathering of one Earl Ofari Hutchinson the purported Political Analyst and Social Issues Commentator for the Huffington Post. On March 28 Mr. Hutchinson was quite exercised over the Limbaugh issue.

The gabber instantly snatched at the quip and turned it into a multi show bonanza. No matter what topic Limbaugh gassed on, he managed to slide in a reference to Obama's prop up of him as the Democrat's prize punching bag. This did three things. It gave him an even bigger pile of fodder to puff himself up as the emperor of talk radio, claim to be the real kingmaker in the GOP, and in a perverse way paint himself as a credible and thoughtful political critic. It snapped many shell shocked Congressional Republicans out of their post election funk. Now suddenly feisty and combative, they draw a deep line in the sand against any and everything that Obama proposed. And it stiffened the spines of many timid Republicans and made them determined not to be bullied, or at least appear not to be bullied, by a mere talk show host into standing up to Obama.

Any other time this might be fun and games stuff, a side show distraction that bored reporters and TV talking heads used to fill up column space or a talk cast on off a slow news day, but the Democrats just couldn't let it go. And that insured that the Limbaugh as Democrat's foil ploy would continue to have shelf life.

Limbaugh in a phony self-deprecating moment mockingly minimized his importance as a radio talk show host, feigning puzzlement at why the Democrats were so obsessed with him. He was right.

Who cannot see that this is a direct refutation of the engagement-is-good spin that the left offered Obama to excuse his foreign policy gaffe during the late campaign?

Another Huffington Poster, Peter Daou, scolded the White House for taking on Limbaugh. Daou said that Democrats are "legitimizing and empowering" Limbaugh by engaging him.

There's precious little benefit in making Limbaugh more of a central player, in engaging him directly from the White House podium, in raising his stature, in stamping, sealing and approving the years he's spent bashing his political opponents.

Many liberal commenters on various blogs were also upset that the Obama administration launched the anti-Limbaugh war. One commenter by the name of Sandy, for instance, said referring to Rush that "Obama would be even a bigger fool to engage the jerk."

But at some point, even Obama Press Spokesman Robert Gibbs said it was "counterproductive" to engage Limbaugh.

So, what can we learn from this comparison? We see that the left uses arguments only in such a way as to excuse their behavior and that they will take the same argument and turn it on its head for the next situation. So logic and consistency is obviously not a concern for them.

But, worse than that, what we see from the left is a major disregard for the safety of this country. The same people that said it was a bad idea to engage a mere radio talk show host -- and a fellow American to boot -- the same people that found it disgusting to engage in the arena of ideas on matters of American domestic policy with other Americans thought it was perfectly fine to engage murderous dictators that stand as self-professed enemies to this country.

It seems obvious that a sense of priorities is wholly lacking on the American left today.

HHS pushes "Health Reform This Year"

Where is the Obama administration's sense of propriety? Apparently it's wrapped up in victory-at-any-cost mode if the website for the federal government's Health and Human Services is concerned. For, if you go to the HHS.gov website, you'll see a banner that advertises for a political issue, instead of a legitimate government "service."

There you'll see a banner/button pushing the political cause of nationalized health care. Worse, clicking on that button takes you to a faux petition style email page where you can "state your support" to the president for his "commitment to health care reform." This is basically the president giving the public a fake place to tell him to support his own cause. There is also a link to healthreform.gov which is little else but an Obama issue advocacy campaign website and not really a legitimate government site at all.

In fact, the whole deal smacks of the Obama permanent campaign and dangerously mixes political rhetoric and an actual, official government service website. In truth, what we have here is an official government website turned into a political issue advocacy site for an issue that has neither been written into law, or even debated in Congress as of yet.

So, the questions become these: should a citizen go to an official government website and see issue advocacy? Or, rather, should one go to a government website and see what the government is currently, legally offering as services to the public? Aren't Americans being mislead here? Aren't Americans being massaged into accepting that a government agency should be allowed to become an actual player in advocating for new policies instead of just following what they are currently, legally allowed to offer?

In truth a government agency should restrict itself to what is currently in its legal purview instead of actively advocating for new powers.

Finally, how high would the din of outrage be from the left if a government agency during the Bush administration had been turned into his own private lobbying agency to the American people? The whole thing is shady in the extreme and proof that the Obama administration has no idea where to draw the line between government and mere politics.

Here is a screen shot of the site:

(H/T AllanF)

So let's review: what happens when you are an average citizen that skips out on paying late fees? You get your car repossessed, your home foreclosed upon, or your utilities shut off. If it is a government fee you refuse to pay, you will likely end up in jail for not paying. But, whatever late fee you aren't paying, it bodes major trouble if you're a regular citizen.

Now what happens if you are a Democrat politician that finds a late fee assessed to you for whatever reason? Naturally, you decide you are exempt from paying such piffle because, after all, YOU are an important politician. Even if you are just a local state perfunctory, you are above being bothered by having to pay a late fee on anything. What do people think you are, anyway? A lowly VOTER!? Perish the thought.

To serve as just another example of this truism, we present to you Colorado Representative Jack Pommer of the 11th District who has run up a two-year-long, $20,000 late fee tab for refusing to file his campaign-finance report.

What is Pommer's excuse?

"I screwed up a lot of paperwork."

And, worse, he already had his pals at the state house forgive his first few violations as soon as he was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives.

But, see, Pommer has even more excuses. "I had a great business partner, who was really good at paperwork, which is why we didn't go out of business."

Well iddn’t that nice? I mean, it explains everything! So, gosh Representative Pommer, I guess all is forgiven, then!

So this got me to thinking, where do I call the IRS and let them know that I am "bad at paperwork" and should not be assessed any late fees? Maybe I can get my electric provider to waive any future late fees because I don't have a good "paperwork guy" in my employ? Perhaps my mortgage and car-loan guys can forget any late fees because I just suck at paperwork?

Oh, but wait. I am not a self-important, low-level politician of the Democratic Party. I am actually expected to PAY my obligations!

Sorry. I forgot.

Well, there is one consolation for our pal Rep. Pommer. At least with all his problems living up to his legal obligations he now qualifies for a spot in the Obama administration!

Are "the suits" looking for Rick Santelli's head?

General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt, thought to be one of Keith Olbermann's biggest supporters, and NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker are reported to have called some of CNBC's on-air talent to a secret meeting at least if the The New York Post's Page Six column for April 16 has it right. The meeting was called to scold the cable yackers for being too harsh on the Obammessiah, with the duo ala Jeffs warning that CNBC is turning into "the Obama bashing network" and that the cable outlet is becoming "too conservative."

OK... now how did that lefty mantra go again? Doesn't it go that the media couldn't possibly be lefitwing because "the suits" that own the media are conservative corporate types? Once again it looks like the truth is a different animal than the leftist trope pretends.

After all, Immelt and Zucker can hardly be considered in the any way conservative yet they do happen to be corporate bigwigs. And in true leftwing fashion, they are trying to push CNBC even further left.

"It was an intensive, three-hour dinner at 30 Rock which Zucker himself was behind," a source familiar with the powwow told us. "There was a long discussion about whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much. There's great concern that CNBC is now the anti-Obama network. The whole meeting was really kind of creepy."

Don't be surprised if conservative hero Rick Santelli is soon to find himself looking for a job. It was Santelli whose comments earlier this year help spur the anti-tax enthusiasm that recently resulted in nearly one million Americans turning out at tax day tea parties all across the country. Apparently the Boss Jeffies weren't too happy with Santelli's new found celebrity as a result of his tea party comments.

One topic under the microscope, our insider said, was on-air CNBC editor Rick Santelli's rant two months ago about staging a "Chicago Tea Party" to protest the president's bailout programs -- an idea that spawned tax protest tea parties in other big cities, infuriating the White House. Oddly, Santelli was not at the meeting, while Jim Cramer was, noted our source, who added that no edict was ultimately handed down by the network chieftains.

Were I Rick Santelli, I'd be polishing up my resume before my more tolerant, more caring bosses decided that my services are no longer required.

(Photo credit: jossip.com)

In an outrageous calumny, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg has decided that the nearly one million Americans that attended the tax day tea party protests all across the country must not care about our military veterans. Considering a large number of these very same protesters were military vets, I'd bet that Steinberg's blinkered figuring would come as quite a surprise to them.

In his April 17 column Steinberg insists that tax protesters are in reality "speaking out against our military and our vets." Ridiculously, he also tries to make it seem like our founding fathers would be unhappy with the tea party movement because he thinks the founders were big government folks. The backflips, illogic, and the obviously illiterate historical analysis by which he arrives at these absurd notions is an act of liberal pretzel logic that is a wonder to behold.

In an effort to call the tax protesters stupid, Steinberg breaks every bone in his body to twist himself into the claim that the tea party goers are against our military:

Of course, they didn't think they were speaking out against our military and our vets -- they hadn't really thought it through at all. They were under the impression they were condemning federal taxes.

Gee, Neil. How'd ya get to that eyerolling conclusion?

But where do federal tax dollars go? By far the largest chunk -- more than a quarter -- supports our military and takes care of aging vets.

Steinberg is purposefully misleading, here. "More than a quarter" of our budget does not go to taking care of aging vets. According to numbers supplied by the U.S. government, the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs took up just 9% of the 2008 budget. If you add that to the 16.6% that the Department of Defense got, then we see that "more than a quarter" in question. But Steinberg deliberately invoked "aging vets" as if to say that all tax protesters want to see our elderly military veterans harmed.

Of course, it simply does not follow that tax protesters want taxes lowered to hurt our veterans. In fact, no one at any tea party mentioned a thing about lowering military spending. Chances are most tea party goers want to see military spending raised and spending on about everything else cut! Steinberg's mistake here is to assume that falling taxes must mean less spending on the military. In other words, Steinberg is the one suggesting that the military be starved of funds because of falling tax revenue, not the protesters.

Steinberg sums up his nonsense saying that "it is a little surprising, however, to hear them denounce their own nation and seek to withdraw their support from its brave soldiers and honorable vets."

Yes, Neil Steinberg wants us to know he cares about people more than others. I wonder what his wife thinks of that sentiment? After all, Steinberg was arrested for domestic battery for striking his wife in October of 2005, so she might not think he's as caring as he wants us to think he is.

Steinberg didn't only twist himself into a pretzel to accuse tax protesters of hating the military.

I know reason is useless against righteous anger, but I can't help myself. How accurate is it to say that the founding fathers were for "limited government"?

But if you look at what they actually did -- create a federal government where none existed before -- then they were for an enormous expansion of central control.

Apparently Steinberg has no clue about what the words "limited government" means because even as he raises the question he never really defines the phrase. He leaps from asking what "limited government" is, to the fact that the founders wanted "no taxation without representation," then to that they created a new national government where there was none previously, and then says that we should all be quite fine with Obama's wild spending because he won the election. There. Problem solved, the founders love Barack's big government. You'd be excused if you wanted to charge Steinberg with a hit-and-run there!

Of course, any informed student of the founding can see a lot wrong with Steinberg's facile analysis. Steinberg's main mistake is to assume that just any stampede for big government meets with the founder's approval. Notice Steinberg skips over defining what "limited government" even means for to define the concept defeats his empty pontificating.

One other thing makes a farce of his ill-informed rumination. He starts out scolding the tea party goers as being against the military and then uses the founder's supposed love of big government to prove his point. Yet the founders themselves were "against" the military to a large extent. The founders refused to create a permanent standing army and forced the military to constantly return to Congress for a new budget instead of having its budget included as an automatic expense. In fact, many of the founders openly feared a strong military force.

So, Steinberg uses men that were openly hostile to a large, permanent military as an excuse to scold people for "standing against the military." The irony is rich.... and Steinberg's logic is poor by comparison as is his knowledge of American history.

Unions try to steal credit for the efforts of the American crew hijacked by Somali pirates.

Unions had nothing at all to do with this situation. Yet they are trying to steal the spotlight. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. After all, union theft is common, isn't it?

Jennifer Harper of the Washington Times gave me a shout out in an article about the bashing that the Old Media continues to dole out to Sarah Palin and her family.

She quoted my piece titled, "McClatchy Headline: ‘Those Crazy Palins’."

Here's the excerpt that mentions me:

Warner Todd Huston, a media analyst at Newsbusters.com, questions the nation's third-largest newspaper chain.

"Has McClatchy ever had any headlines like this: 'Those Crazy Kennedys'? Or since we recently had Obama's half brother denied a visa to England over his rape charges — not to mention his illegal immigrant aunt — how about a headline like this: 'Those Crazy Obamas?'" Mr. Huston asks.

So, thanks to the WaTimes, once again.

A wrap up...

We conservatives have two major problems. I've said it dozens of times before but one of those problems is that we don't do "join" well. The left, on the other hand, does "join" exceedingly well. They gather together, share resources, and help each other very, very well. The other problem we have is cash.

Again, the left funds as well as it joins. The left supports its side very handsomely with generous and constant donations. The left also has a bevy of deep pocketed supporters that target the new media with their money. Media Matters, George Soros, DailyKos, MoveOn.org, these people and entities flood the left-O-sphere with much need cash to further their message. Their tendrils reach far and wide and they control the message well with their cash.

Unfortunately, on the right we neither "join" well in coordinated efforts, nor do we have very many people or entities that help fund us directly. Nor do we even see organizations on the right that try to engage in efforts to help train and organize the conservative new media to disseminate the conservative, free market message via the New Media.

But the Sam Adams Alliance has stepped up to the plate to do just that and this is why the Second Annual Sammies, has come about. The Second Annual Award ceremony was held on April 18, 2009 in Northbrook, Illinois, just north of Chicago, at the Renaissance Chicago North Shore Hotel. So, with the cash prizes awarded to worthy bloggers at the Sammies, we find the Sam Adams Alliance fulfilling at least in some ways the effort to encourage conservative voices in the New Media as well as vote fraud watchdogs and good government activists. Money is always in short supply on the right, for sure, so this is a help. But even more importantly are the things that Sam Adams does behind the scenes to help coordinate bloggers, train them, and offer resources to further the message.

So, along with the big names -- Michelle Malkin, Joe the Plumber, John Fund, et al -- are the hard working bloggers and those new media worker bees that are bringing the conservative message to a country so inundated with leftist trope and propaganda.

Three cheers for Sam Adams Alliance. May more conservatives groups like this realize what the New Media can do for the conservative cause. And here's wishing Sam Adams many years of continued support of the conservative New Media community.

Congratulations to the following award winners:

Melissa Coulthier - Microblogger of the Year

Ruth Bendl - Voter Watchdog Award

Seth Cooper, Fred Baldwin, and John Wynne - Wikiteer Award

James Bell - Tea Party Award

Elizabeth Crum - Blogivist of the Year

Chad Everson - Blogger of the Year

Austin Bragg and Caleb Brown of the CATO Institute- Best Video

William Carlin Walker - Sunshine Award

Ari Armstrong - Modern-Day Sam Adams Award

Paul Jacob - Lifetime Achievement Award

Visit Sam Adam’s Alliance

Photo Highlights

The Dining Room

The Lovely Mary Katherine Ham of the Weekly Standard

Me and Joe Wurzelebacher (Joe the Plumber)

Me and Michelle Malkin

Winning Video: The ABC's of Virginia Alcohol Law

Andrew Bolt has a fine takedown of The Age newspaper in Australia's Herald Sun today, April 17. It details quite nicely that not just the U.S. media is wallowing in leftwing “group think”. His is headlined "Picture is kiss of death for George Bush prejudice" and lays out the complete lack of historical research of even recent events perpetrated by The Age newspaper in its unthinking assumptions of what President Bush did or didn't do over the last eight years re foreign policy. Naturally, The Age falls all over itself in support of the leftist messiah, Obama.

Bolt details the erroneous claims by The Age and refutes them with the facts. The Age claimed it was "unimaginable" that Bush could ever have "kissed" any Muslim foreign leaders, as Obama recently did to the Turkish leader, appearing to imagine that such an intimate gesture would have solved all the world's problems. Bolt points to the photo of Bush kissing the current King of Saudi Arabia to prove The Age wrong.

SEE this picture? That's odd, because the Sunday Age's editor can't. Unimaginable, she calls it.

Bolt recounts that The Age said it was "unimaginable" that Bush could ever have teated a Muslim leader as grandly as Obama did noting that The Age said, "Imagine if, only a year ago, the President of the United States had visited Turkey, addressed its parliament, then kissed the Prime Minister on both cheeks.

The Age went on...

"That might have been considered far-fetched, but so, too, would have been the President's affirmation that his country was not at war with Islam and that being Muslim in the US is part of the fabric of life.

"It is indeed unimaginable that George Bush would have embraced such thoughts, words and deeds."

"Pardon?," Bolt asks before going on to remind The Age that Bush kissed Prince Abdullah, now King of Saudi Arabia back in 2002. Bolt also wonders how The Age came up with this "fantasy" it was offering as foreign policy analysis? Of this policy history, Bolt notes that The Age said:

"(Bush's) arms-length policy, bred out of a certain conservative caution and suspicion, certainly applied to being seen to be in too close a contact with Islamic nations, let alone within kissing distance of their leaders."

Bolt gently reminds The Age that there is photographic proof that refutes its claims that Bush would never do such a thing.

Bolt also wondered how The Age could have missed the many times that Bush said that the U.S. and the west is not at war with Islam itself?

And how is it also "unimaginable" that Bush could have said that his country was "not at war with Islam"?

Here he is in 2002 doing just that:

"Because this great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam, or against faith practised by the Muslim people."

How is it "unimaginable" that Bush could have insisted Islam was part of American life? Here, again, is Bush:

"There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know -- that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion."

Bolt goes on to list several more times that The Age newspaper refused to check recent history and actually look up what Bush said when it recounted Obama's words as if no U.S. president had ever spoken in such a way.

Next Bolt reveals to his readers that an editor's editorials are rarely written by the editor himself and are often finished by a staff writer from the editor's notes. Then the finished copy is checked by a sub-editor or newsroom executive. Bolt is astonished that The Age piece went through three professional newsmen and not one of them checked the facts or were aware enough of recent history to raise a red flag on the garbled history presented in the piece.

"That's some astonishing group-think," Bolt declared.

Bolt ends with some prescient remarks:

So what do we conclude from all this? That all humans tend to see only what reinforces their prejudices. That even newspaper editors are no better. That given this, debate is essential if we are to learn all sides of any argument.

And that's why you should fear a media with no debate, like an Age or Sunday Age with not a single on-staff, conservative columnist. An ABC with wall-to-wall presenters of the Left.

See what you then get from people who find the facts "unimaginable": almost no debate on the global warming that has actually stopped, the "stolen generations" no one can actually find and the kissy new redeemer Obama who actually sounds just like old George Bush.

So, once again we can see that it isn't just the bulk of the U.S. media that have abandoned real journalistic standards only to become ideological advocates instead of reporters. Sadly, Bolt demonstrates that this woeful propensity for leftwing “group think” has infected media outlets in Australia, as well.

Most lefties claim that "no" means "no," but not where it concerns unions that have lost the organizing argument over and over again. We can see that refusal to listen to the workers in the case of Unions vs. Wal-Mart. Repeatedly Wal-Mart workers have generally refused to unionize, yet instead of taking that as an answer, the unions continue to push. And they are at it again.

The United Food and Commercial Workers is stepping up its efforts to organize Wal-Mart workers yet again.

Since February, about 60 UFCW organizers have been dispatched to more than 100 Wal-Mart stores in 15 states to get workers to sign union-authorization cards. The cards are attached to flyers that feature a photograph of President Barack Obama and a quote from a 2007 speech he gave to UFCW activists in Chicago. "I don't mind standing up for workers and letting Wal-Mart know they need to pay a decent wage and let folks organize," Mr. Obama said in 2007. A White House spokesman said Thursday that the president stands by the statement.

The union is also flying several pro-union Wal-Mart employees to Washington to agitate before members of Congress to force the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) on the country.

But here is a telling statistic:

At a Duncanville, Texas, Wal-Mart, the union has signed up 58 employees, representing a little more than 10% of the store's 500 employees.

This is a common union result at Wal-Marts all across the country. The unions just can't get traction and that is why they want the iron boot heel of Congress to force the matter with the EFCA.

Like I said above, to unions "no" does not mean "no." The unions don't care what workers want. They want to win by force of law.

Seven Republican Senators have this week signed a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for the proof upon which the Department of Homeland Security based its outrageously accusatory report on so-called rightwing extremism in the Untied States.

The seven scold the DHS and the Obama administration for its over-broad generalizations that seem to assume that nearly half the electorate is prone to becoming terrorists merely because they hold right of center political views.

The letter alludes to the central point in this whole episode: that the U.S. government has now determined that the traditional American beliefs of small government and adherence to the Constitution is now suddenly a determinant in forming citizens into homegrown terrorist groups. After 200 years, all of a sudden believing in run-of-the-mill American beliefs makes you a terrorist! These seven Senators want to know why.

Text of the Letter:

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

We write today regarding the release of the Department of homeland Security (DHS) report entitled "Rightwing Extremism Current Economic and Policial Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" and prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.

While we agree that extremists of all varieties represent a potential threat to the United States, we are troubled by some of the statements included as fact in the report titled above.

First, your report states that "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat." Using the DHS rationale, do you also believe that weapons familiarity and tactical training means local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel, and members of the National Guard, are also being recruited? To suggest that a soldier returning from a combat tour is more prone to join an extremist group is unconscionable and insulting to our brave men and women who risk their lives protecting our freedom.

Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that the law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups? If so, please present us with DHS's independent data.

Third, the report identifies those individuals who believe in such issues as pro-life legislation, limited government, legal versus illegal immigration and limited federal government as potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliations and sex, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better way to describe them is as citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Also, you listed those who bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are no potential terror threats, but rather, honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck. Once again, to classify Americans who have lost their jobs as potential terror threats does a disservice to millions of Americans.

In closing, we support the mission of the DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make it possible, in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution, and that you provide us with the data that supports the claims listed in the report titled above.

Sincerely,

David Vitter (R, Louis.) Sam Brownback (R, Kansas) Jim Demint (R, So Car.) Tom Cobrun (R, Oklahoma) Richard Burr (R, No. Car.) Lisa Murkowski (R, Alaska) James Inhofe (R, Oklahoma)

Let's hope that far more than a mere seven Congressmen find this "report" more than a little distasteful.

(A pdf file of the letter can be downloaded here)

Most people imagine that our schools are to be institutes of higher learning. Apparently the ACLU has a little different conception of what "higher learning" means because it is demanding that public schools in Nashville, Tennessee allow gay advocacy sites to go unblocked at library Internet stations throughout the Metro Nashville District.

The porn peddlers of the ACLU have given the Metro schools a "deadline" of April 29 to reverse its Internet policies or they take the issue before the courts.

The ACLU, of course, pretends that it is "helping" kids "understand" gay issues, but that would presuppose that homosexual issues are to be taught in schools, naturally. The central issue is just that: what should we be teaching in our schools?

Further, how far do we go in allowing these aberrant lifestyle sites to go unblocked? What sort of "normal" is the next "normal"? Are we to go as far as to allow NAMBLA sites that advocate for the active molestation of children to go unblocked in schools? If we are continually revising downward the moral standards we apply to our schools upon what basis do we claim any standards at all?

In any case, the ACLU doesn't care about culture, morality or standards. They only want what will tear down our culture the most.

Once again The New York Times unleashes a not-so-hidden agenda on its reading public. Here the Times is regurgitating the debunked claim that "90%" of Mexico's recovered guns used in crime south of the border are from U.S. gun dealers. There is a lot of misdirection in this piece against gun dealers and gun shows, as well. Contradictory claims are made with no proof offered but the say so of The Times.

The Times begins its tall tale by talking about Mexican gun smugglers that find it easy to buy "military style" weapons at U.S. gun shops to be smuggled into Mexico. The story talks of these "lightly regulated" gun dealers and blames them for the smuggling apparently because no records are kept or buyer's identities ascertained. And near the top half of the story is the debunked "90%" claim.

Federal agents say about 90 percent of the 12,000 pistols and rifles the Mexican authorities recovered from drug dealers last year and asked to be traced came from dealers in the United States, most of them in Texas and Arizona.

This false claim was debunked weeks ago by William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott in a piece titled, "The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S."

Lott and La Jeuesse gave us the facts of this false stat:

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

In truth most of the guns that the billionaires in the drug cartels import into Mexico come through Mexico's southern border and are from China and Russia. I emphasize the simple fact that these drug dealers have billions of dollars at their disposal. They don't need to hire little folks here and there to sneak across the U.S. border and spend months buying single guns from hundreds of different American gun dealers. These drug cartels have the money to go directly to international arms dealers and buy all they want. And they do so.

The Times piece also claims that Mexican drug cartels are buying "military style" guns in the U.S. then sneaking them across the border to "convert" them to fully automatic machine guns. This is also an absurd claim leading people to imagine that this is going on routinely. Again, these drug cartels have more money than the Catholic Church. They can buy guns already made fully automatic from the manufacturer when they buy them from Russia and China. They do not need to waste the time and effort to buy semi-auto guns, then buy parts, and finally spend the man hours to convert these semi-auto guns to fully automatic machine guns.

Then the Times turns to a quote from National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre and presents his quote without context, an effort that makes his quote seem a bit of a non sequitur.

With billions in profits from illegal drugs, the cartels can easily obtain weapons on the black market in other countries, Mr. LaPierre and many gun dealers argue. “The cartels have the money to get guns wherever they want,” said Charles Fredien, the owner of Chuck’s Gun in Brownsville, Tex., on the border “They have grenades, don’t they? They don’t buy grenades here.” No one knows how large the cross-border trade in arms is. In 2008, the Mexican government seized more than 20,000 weapons from suspected drug dealers.

What the Times neglects to mention is that Mexican drug cartels have been using rocket propelled grenades and other heavy ordnance all of which have come from overseas and NONE of it from the U.S. But, with that fact left out of this Times story, LaPierre's grenade comment seems odd and off-topic.

And then comes the first contradictory part of the Times' story. After spending over half the story making American gun shop owners out to be the bad guy, the Times suddenly says that the A.T.F.'s best source of tips and intel actually comes from U.S. gun dealers.

“The dealers are an important source of information to them and very cooperative with the A.T.F.,” Mr. Keane said.

So, which is it, New York Times? Are U.S. gun dealers scofflaws that form a major part of the problem or are they helping law enforcement agencies deal with this mess?

Then the Times gets to "scare" tactics by using a straw man argument to claim that anyone can buy "military style" guns by the dozens without any legal requirements.

At a recent show in Pharr, Tex., another border town, a college freshman with a wispy beard arrived with two AR-15 rifles strapped to his body, spidery black guns designed for combat, tricked out with features that soldiers prize: collapsible stocks, pistol grips, extra long magazines.

The student, who asked to be identified only as Shane, was asking $1,900 for one of his rifles. As for paper work, he wanted only a handwritten receipt with the buyer’s name and address. He was not worried, he said, about the gun’s falling into the hands of drug cartels in Mexico.

This is certainly a straw man that the Times points to as a grave warning of a source for illegal guns in Mexico. Sure there are always a few guys walking around at gun shows trying to sell off parts of their private collections. Sure the paper trail for such sales might be sparse or non-existent. But, so what? These drug cartels are buying weapons by the truck load. Taking the time and personnel to attend random gun shows in the U.S. in the hopes that some guy with a "wispy beard" is going to be walking around selling his privately owned guns is NO reliable source of guns to supply gun hungry drug cartels with!

In the final analysis, this New York Times piece is filled with misconceptions based on misleading, shadowy claims as well as outright lies about what is going on in both Mexico and U.S. gun culture. And it's all for the singular purpose of denigrating Second Amendment rights in the U.S. and not in informing the public of a real problem in Mexico or any real part the U.S. might play in that problem.

So, we are all well aware of the so-called "reporter" from CNN, Susan Roesgen whose on-air haranguing of those she was ostensibly reporting on made obvious her anti-Republican bias. Well, for the past day Americans have been emailing her to let her know how they feel about her unprofessional attitude. Apparently, CNN does not appreciate hearing from its viewers, though, because all of a sudden anyone that sends an email to Roesgen's CNN email address will have it returned as address unknown!

Conservative New Media reported on Roesgan's outrageous "interviews" from the Chicago Tea Party later that evening and since the airing of her debating those she was supposed to be reporting on, folks have been jamming CNN's email boxes with complaints.

It is pretty telling that on-air "reporter" Roesgen's email address suddenly returns as address unknown, isn't it? Why is CNN so afraid of hearing from its viewers?

If you'd like to email CNN about its unprofessional "journalists" try these other email addresses:

CNN Executive Vice President Ken Jautz: ken.jautz@cnn.com

Philip Kent, the Chairman & CEO of CNN: phil.kent@turner.com