The New York Tabloid Times

The motto of the New York Times is officially "All the news that is fit to print". What it should say is "All the news that fits, we print".

Its recent tabloid job of journalism linking John McCain to a ten year old piece of gossip -- an alleged inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist -- with absolutely no evidence to support it is nothing short of astounding for the once great "paper of record". Not only is this report not worthy of a front page story, but it relies solely on anonymous sources and conveniently ignores a number of mitigating facts that serve to debunk the story's main accusations. To call it a shoddy piece of journalism is giving it too much credit.

Worse yet, the story's timing is suspicious at best; the Times apparently had been working on the story last year, but chose to hold it until it was clear that McCain was going to be the Republican nominee. And this from the same paper who had actually endorsed McCain prior to the Super Tuesday! If the Times had such information about McCain's behavior -- which they clearly characterize as unethical -- what does it say about the integrity of the Times that they endorsed him anyway?

Predictably, the Times stands behind its story -- which only goes to show the depths it will go to support its obvious ideological bias.

Another Cautionary Tale

This past Saturday night the six month extension to the Protect America Act expired. The Act -- designed to allow US intelligence agencies to monitor foreigner-to-foreigner communications without a warrant -- has been a central component of our defensive net against Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. Its expiration tells you all you need to know about how the Democrats in Congress see the fight against Islamic extremism and how willing they are to play politics with our security. Its shameless and disturbing and should serve as a cautionary tale to everyone in this election year.

Here are the facts: Last week the US Senate voted overwhelmingly -- with bipartisan support -- to approve an extension of the Act so that it would not lapse. So far, so good. When the vote reached the House for approval, however, the wheels came off. Why? Because the House Democratic leadership, led by Speaker Pelosi, refused to allow a vote. This led to a House GOP walk out led by Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio), who said with great accuracy:

"We will not stand idly by and watch the floor of the United States House of Representatives be abused for pure, political grandstanding at the expense of our national security."

Why did Pelosi not allow a vote on the bill? Because the House Democrats are in the pockets of the trial bar -- who opposes this bill because it includes a grant of immunity to the telecom companies which cooperate with the government to provide access to their networks. The telecoms represent the kind of deep pockets that the trial lawyers salivate over, and they have been busy filing suit against them over the past several years, hoping to extort big settlements to line their greedy pockets. Pelosi and her cohorts in Congress understand that the trial lawyers are one of the single biggest contributors to democratic campaign coffers, and that they don't intend -- in this election year -- to bite the hand that feeds them. Its an example of political expediency at its worst.

And for those of you who may believe that the threat is not real or the cooperation of the private sector is not necessary to keep us safe, here's Michael McConnel, the Director of National Intelligence:

"Our situation now, when the terrorist threat is increasing because they've achieved -- al Qaeda's achieved de facto safe haven in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan -- the threat is going up.

"And therefore, we do not have the agility and the speed that we had before to be able to move and try to capture their communications to thwart their planning.

"...[Our country is in] increased danger, and it will increase more and more as time goes on. And the key is the -- if you think about the private sector global communications, many people think the government operates that.

"Ninety-eight percent of it is owned and operated by the private sector. We cannot do this mission without help and support from the private sector. And the private sector, although willingly helped us in the past, are now saying, 'You can't protect me. Why should I help you?'"

Mike McConnell is no political hack and is not one prone to posturing. He's a Vice Admiral in the US Navy and a career intelligence official. Yet, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders in Congress have criticized President Bush for "fear mongering" and for attempting to shield American telecom companies from liability -- another way of saying that Bush cares more about big business than he does civil liberties. Hogwash. Like many issues that we face as a nation, the Democrats in the House care more about pandering to their base than they do about our safety -- a fact they've proven time and time again.

Another Sign that Europe Has Gone Mad

I've written previously on the perils of Britain's multiculturalism ("Barbarians at the Gate" and "Britain's Homeless"), which I believe has contributed to the rise of radical Islam in Europe. Now from London's "Sunday Telegraph" newpaper comes further proof that the Brits have gone off the deep end in the race to appease Islam:

"Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review. Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal".

"The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record".

Right. So, if you are a Muslim man with four wives and move from Pakistan to London, you can not only legally keep the four wives but you can have the British tax payers subsidize it as well! And, to add insult to injury, the new rules allow the welfare payment for each wife to be put directly into the husband's bank account. This is completely nonsensical -- unless you are more interested in appealing to the hyper-sensitivities of Britain's massive Islamic community than you are in the Western rule of law. Score another victory for political correctness over the maintenance of Judeo-Christian culture.

One interesting question is: where are the feminists on this? Since when is one man having four wives not an glaring example of male-domination and chauvinism? Or, are the rights of Muslim men more important than that of women? Where is the consistency on this issue from the Left? It's much like the free pass that NOW and other women's groups gave Bill Clinton when he was sexually harrassing intern Monica Lewinsky in the White House. Can you imagine if he had been a Republican president? Feminist groups would have torn Washington apart in defense of Lewinsky. Instead, Bill got a pat on the back. Why? Because hypocrisy reigns within the so-called "progressive" movement.

In any event, Britain is now in danger of so weakening itself from within that it may collapse upon itself. And with it will go the rest of Europe.

Bay Area Left Strikes Again

Following up on my earlier piece about how the San Francisco Bay Area is becoming increasingly intolerant ("Facism's New Left: http://kennethgdavenport.blogspot.com/2007/10/facisms-new-left.html), the city of Berkeley has decided to run the United States Marine Corps out of town. In a 6-3 vote, the Berkeley city council has decided to tell the Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders." Imagine that -- the Marines officially labeled intruders in a US city!

And it gets worse. In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink -- a group protesting the Marines' presence -- a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m. So, not only is the council asking the Marines to leave town, they are also subsidizing the left-wing group that is demonstrating against them. "I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said after votes were cast. Now, that's democracy at work!

This is yet another sterling example of Leftist politics run amok in an area that once was a proud part of the US military's history. It is unbelievable to me that any city council -- even one as intolerant as Berkeley's -- would legislate against the US military at a time when our nation is at war. It is unconscionable.

No doubt, the Marines manning this recruiting office would risk their own lives to defend the rights of the city council, mayor and protesters if called upon to do so -- proving again that their honor and duty make these people look very small, indeed.

Why I Support McCain

After reading through countless articles and blog posts about how someone who is really a conservative could never support John McCain, I thought I'd make my case -- in a simple straightforward way. Agree or disagree -- it's my considered view on the subject of the 2008 election, which I consider to be the most important of the last 20 years.

Though liberals and moderates can grouse all they want about the economy, health care, global warming and a wide variety of problems we face domestically, the most important issue we face as a nation is the pervasive and growing threat of radical Islam. And whether you supported or opposed the war in Iraq in the beginning, Iraq itself is now a central part of the battle against these extremists. The horrific attacks of 9/11/2001 was the most spectacular in a long line of attacks against American and Western interests: The bombing of the Beirut baracks in 1983, the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, the bombing of US embassies in Africa in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. Since 9/11 we've had the train bombing in Madrid in 2004 that killed 191 people, and the bombings in London in July, 2005 that killed 52. In the reletive calm here in the US since 9/11, we've been lulled into a false sense of security. But we are at war with an enemy that seeks to destroy our way of life and will stop at nothing to destroy us, Europe and Israel.

The above detail is important because fighting and winning against Islamic terrorism is the principle criteria with which I evaluate the candidates. And winning in Iraq is a core component of this. It is clear that our tepid response to attacks during the 1990s had emboldened Al Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups, telling them essentially that we were weak and could be beaten. Islamic radicalism feeds on our weakness; if we lose in Iraq we will be in retreat and on the defensive, with far reaching effects for our strategic interests world-wide. We must win in Iraq. It is just too critical to gamble on.

Given this the choice becomes simple. Forget about Obama and Clinton -- who are on record as opposing the war, the surge and will remove US troops precipitously if elected. They also don't believe we are really at "war" with Islamic extremists -- which I think is idealistic nonsense and shows just how removed from reality they are. Romney seems to be on the right side of these issues, but he has virtually no national security experience -- unless you consider his stint heading up the Olympics. Romney is a novice on foreign policy, and the stakes are just too high to take a chance on an unknown quantity.

John McCain is a known quantity on the war: he supported the surge when it threatened to sink his political career -- and he has been steadfast in his support of our efforts in Iraq. He has vast experience in foreign policy and national security, and favors a strong and resolute prosecution of the war against Islamic terrorism. He's a man of great courage and conviction, has been tested in war as few others have, and can be counted on to defend America without regard to polls, pundits or politics.

Yes, McCain is on record as opposing waterboarding, which he views as a form of torture. Perhaps we should give McCain, who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton being tortured by the North Vietnamese, the benefit of the doubt on that issue. And, he supports the idea of closing Gitmo -- because he understands that ideals matter, and the presense of Guantanamo hurts our moral standing in the world for a country that is promoting democracy and the rule of law in the Middle East. He doesn't support trying terrorists in American courts, however, and wants to see some form of military tribunal instead. While I may not agree on all the specifics, I do understand that Guantanamo is not a long-term solution and that we must have some process in place to deal with terrorists caught in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere over the next 20 years.

I also understand that conservatives have issues with his stand on immigration, his support for campaign finance reform and his unwillingess to support the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. But he is a proven fiscal conservative who has been one of the Senate hawks on spending -- which he sees as a necessary element of any economic plan. He's now on record as having made a mistake in opposing the Bush tax cuts, and has the support of noneother than Jack Kemp -- a noted supply-sider.

In the end, we need a president who will be resolute in dealing with our sworn enemies, and who will ensure success in Iraq while standing up to Iran, Syria and others who wish to destroy us. All other issues pale in comparison; if Islamic radicals are able to set off a nuclear or biological device in New York City, all this talk about healthcare reform, the economy and the environment will seem silly in the extreme.

Of the candidates we have to choose from now, John McCain is the best prepared to protect us from these threats.

Return of the Oral Fixation?

Dick Morris has a great article today on Bill Clinton that is a must read for anyone who hasn't yet pondered the return of Bill to the White House. You can access the full article here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/bill_clinton_rogue_copresident.html

Morris has no love loss for the Clinton's to be sure -- but its a fascinating read nonetheless. Is anyone surprised that Clinton's sleaziness as president (sex in the oval office with an intern, pardoning Marc Rich and other criminals, renting out the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder, etc.) has continued now that he's out of office? Morris outlines how Clinton has carefully crafted his "elder statesman/philanthropist" image as an ex-president, but has used his position to make money from a variety of sources that are unsavory to say the least. Its part of a pattern of arrogance and narcissism that has marked Clinton's entire life. Morris puts is beautifully when he writes:

"At the core of Bill Clinton is a bold recklessness that cannot be harnessed. That inherent quality about him, combined with his arrogance and certitude leads him to test all boundaries. As a result, he involves himself in questionable financial deals, partners with inappropriate businesses and ignores blatant conflicts of interest."

Bill Clinton is like a tornado with an insatiable appetite to consume -- whether it be information, opportunity, women or money. He's a prototypical narcissist. In fact, the definition for narcissist fits Bill perfectly: "erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development".

Come to think of it, that pretty much sums up Bill Clinton perfectly: a child-like figure who throws tantrums, seeks constant affirmation, attention and love, and who suffers from an insatiable, undeniable oral fixation.

Jack Bauer Wimps Out

As some of you know I've been a big fan of the television show "24" and have written about it previously (http://kennethgdavenport.blogspot.com/2005/12/reality-tv.html). Last season, however, I began to notice a subtle political shift in the tone of the show, particularly embodied in the characters of Wayne Palmer's sister (working for an ACLU-type organization) and National Security Advisor Karen Hayes, whose moral prosteltyzing in the face of a nuclear attack seemed like a script written by Susan Sarandon. While Jack himself retained his resolve to protect America at all costs, those around him were clearly getting wobbly.

Now, we know why. The WSJ recounts today in an article how Fox is caving to pressure in attempting to make Jack more palatable to the Left. You can read the full article here at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120189888101136151.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone. Apparently, the program's willingness to show Jack doing whatever was necessary to protect and defend America -- including torture -- offends certain liberal sensibilities. David Danzig, director of the Primetime Torture Project (an effort to sanitize media sponsored by the New York-based Human Rights First) is quoted saying "24 is effectively an ad for torture. In almost every episode, the good guys use torture. And when they use torture, it almost always works." Of course, such statements reflect two core assumptions of the Left: 1). We aren't really in a war with enemies who routinely mutilate and behead their captives, and 2). torture never actually works in getting valuable, actionable information. How they actually know that torture doesn't work is beyond me -- but then again, the left never lets a few facts get in the way of their convictions.

At the core, it is really the Left's guilty conscience for our supposed misdeads in the war on terror at work here. This comes through pretty clearly in the outageous statements in the article made by the show's head writer, Howard Gordon:

"For five years, this was a wish fulfillment show," Mr. Gordon said. "At the beginning, when everybody's fear was more acute, people's tolerance for violence, their own rage, seemed to make Jack's tactics more acceptable. But in the wake of our own abuses in prosecuting this so-called War on Terror, we feel Jack is getting a bum rap."

In the wake of our "own abuses" prosecuting this "so-called" war on terror? Just what abuses are those? Outside of the rogue actions of a few enlisted personnel at Abu Graib, where is there proof that the US has sanctioned or conducted any form of abuse on detainees -- particularly of the type that Jack Bauer uses in the show? This is typical of the Left -- make statements to bolster your position without regard to the facts. "24" had been a show that understood that we face terrorists who are willing to do anything to destroy us -- and that Jack Bauer's actions, though extreme, were understandable with innocent lives hanging in the balance. For those of us who believe that this threat is still real and present, it was refreshing to have a show that understood that in this fight the means sometimes do justify the ends. What a pity that Jack Bauer has now wimped out.