Williams vs. Fasula

No, this is not the next big pay per view heavyweight fight. It is the latest example of bias in the Main Stream Media. This one involves the abuse of privledge by two journalists, but the MSM focus upon only one, the conservative one.
If you have had your head in the sand you may not have seen the uproar about Armstrong Williams , an opinion journalist, who was paid a huge amount (250K) to write, speak and opine favorably about the Bush Administrations Education policies. However, the story you would have to be dectective to find is the one related to Linda Fasula, an NBC UN Corespondent, who was paid 25K to write a favorable book about the UN. I am not sure who has the residual rights to the books profits, but i suspect she has them.
The issue is why is it news when an opinion journalist/commentator (Williams) has a favorable opinion on the Bush Administration but not when a News Journalist has one about a body and individual she is paid to cover?
Armstrong Williams has never hidden nor denied his affinity to the conservative policies advanced by the current Administration, however, Linda Fasula should have a different standard as a News Journalist for the body and people she covers.
I understand the standard set forth by Dan Rather is hard to ignore, but she should be better than a hack like Dan. I understand it is hard to impossible to ignore your real opinions and beliefs when covering news, but that is what is expected.
I am not sure what bothers me most, the hypocrisy of her duality as a News Journalist doing the PR for the UN or the fact the MSM ignores this story but acts so indignent when Armstrong Williams is doing a similar thing, but from the vantage point of an opinion commentator?

The unpatriotic left

So enough of all the bellyaching by the left about 'we are as patriotic as those on the right', the facts would prove otherwise. I will conceed for the sack of argument that most on the left may be as pro America as I am, but too many who do not have our best interests at hart find a cozy home in the Democratic Party of today.

As it seems, many on the left do root agaisnt the US at times. As former Clinton National Security Council member revealed to John Stewart last week.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/5/65606.shtml

The Democratic foreign-policy expert who served as chief foreign advisor to both Sen. Ted Kennedy and former Vice President Mondale was Stewart’s guest the other night. Nancy Soderberg, tried to ease his concerns, pointing out that the fledgling democratic revolutions in the Middle East still might fail: “There’s always hope that this might not work.”

Soderberg added: “There’s still Iran and North Korea, don’t forget. There’s hope” continuing, liberals “will always have Iran and North Korea.” Hearing a former advisor to Senator Kennedy, and former Clinton Administration advisor state such clearly anti-American rhetoric is substanication of what many have been saying about the left.
This week, Kurt Anderson in the New York Magazine stated a similar point admitting to a guilty pleasure (by Liberals) in seeing bad news emit from Iraq. He also offered that it is hard to the point of hating to see success in Iraq and having it attributed to Bush and his team.
Even the NYTIMES editorial page found it necessary to admit that what is occuring is hard not to give at least some credit to Bush. The undeniable truth is that the hardline policy that guided this President has shown great success around the world which infuriates many on the left.

It would not take long to gather a long list of quotes from all the democratic candidates for President who talked down the ecnoomy. Nor would it take long to gather the long list of MSM and liberals who blasted Bush time and again to find out he, at least so far, is right.

The chief financier of the lefts favorite causes even gave 20 thousand to the defense fund of Lynn Stewart who knownly and willingly became the go between for a terrorist in prison and the Terror network he instructed. Soros gave this money after the facts had been aledged and nearly proven. He willingly supported a traitor in our midst. This would be shocking if not for the former Clintonite admitting her ill feelings when the US succeeds (when the GOP is in office).

How can you balance this belief structure against the greater good? Benjamin Netenyahu (sp) said, peace can not come to Palistine until Palistinian mothers love their children more than they hate Israel. I would offer an corelary, will will not lose this political rancor in this country until liberals love this country more than they hate republicans. It was DNC chair Dean who said "Republicans are evil".

It is time for all Americans to support America, it does not require all American's supporting the President's policy, but it does require all American's rooting for America.

the BELTWAY 5...

The High Court is seemingly acting as the name implies. How else could one explain the arogance and ignorance displayed by the Beltway 5?
Justice Scalia offers an smart if not Consitutional look at the decision
when he wrote...

In a scathing dissent, Scalia found it curious that the court would overrule the will of the American people in 19 states, but lean heavily on the opinions of foreigners.

"Though the views of our own citizens are essentially irrelevant to the Court's decision today, the views of other countries and the so-called international community take center stage," he wrote.

The majority begins its ruling by noting that "Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, entered into force Sept. 2, 1990, which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18."

The court also mentioned the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the U.S. Senate, Scalia pointed out, ratified he Senate "only subject to a reservation that reads: 'The United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional restraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crime committed by persons below eighteen years of age."

"Unless the Court has added to its arsenal the power to join and ratify treaties on behalf of the United States, I cannot see how this evidence favors, rather than refutes, its position," wrote Scalia. "That the Senate and the President – those actors our Constitution empowers to enter into treaties ... have declined to join and ratify treaties prohibiting execution of under-18 offenders can only suggest that our country has either not reached a national consensus on the question, or has reached a consensus contrary to what the Court announces.

Perhaps it is time for concern by all Americans to the ursurping of power by the Beltway 5. Acting against the Constitution and the laws that govern and siding with international law and norms over the will, and legal requirements of our founding Constitution!

The Supreme Hypocrites

The Supreme Court ruled this week that Capital Punishment is a violation of the 8th amendment if it is extended to juveniles. In a 5-4 decision, a split down international socialist verse reasonable justices, the court ruled that government sanctioned killing is only acceptable between the ages of 18 and above.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that we are the only nation that allowed this practice. His penchant for citing International norms and law is troubling and getting worse. Justice Kennedy should spend a bit more time understanding his own Constitution and the authority granted from the people through the document to the court. It is either his stupidity or naivety but either way he is miles off base on his decision-making.
Yet, besides the fact the majority has ignored our own Constitution on a regular basis the bigger problem with this latest decision is the pure hypocrisy of it. Either the death penalty is just or is not just, either it is legal or it is not. Age is irrelevant to the condition of it's practice, yet arbitrarily they found that 18 is a demarcation between just and unjust, legal and illegal.
I am an extreme opponent of the death penalty, but that withstanding, i find it rather simple to believe we can be so trival about it's application and use.
If it is just and legal, then it should follow that it too should be equally applied and used, not discriminately used applied and used. To put it more simply if we are going to say killing someone by caveat of the government sanction, we should be judicious and fair in it's use. Rather, by declaring it illegal to kill by government caveat a person who commits a crime that otherwise would qualify the sentence for a death penalty, simply because of age is ludicrous. It is arbitrary, it is wrong.
Justice Kennedy also pointed out, wrongly i might add, that we are the only country in the world that sanctions executions for juvenile crimes. What he should have said is we may be the only nation that sanctions the executions for crimes committed by juveniles, not a minor distinction (excuse the pun). Yet this man still serves on the highest court in the land, do you begin to see the problem.
First, he is charged with honoring and obeying our U.S. Constitution, not international norms or laws.
Second, the purpose of punishment in our system is not retribution, rather it is protection of society. As such, we require a fairness that is clear and present.
Thirdly, if justices show absurdity by being arbitrary it undermines our entire Constitutional government.
What it might require is a base knowledge of the US CONSTITUTION and perhaps a regular refresher course for those charged with "upholding" the document and all it stands for.
Ironically, as an opponent of the Death Penalty I find myself equally upset with the gross malfeasance expressly shown by the majority in this recent decision. I would, both logically and constitutionally, prefer that the majority ultimately finds the action of a death penalty to be Unconstitutional. It can be done on so many levels, it violates the founding principal of Liberty and the protection against "cruel" punishment, but not the least of which is the racial bias that is statistically present in the application of the policy.
Finally, our entire system will be eroded if the cadre of internationalists continues to set Constitutional precedent by virtue of a mere majority in numbers while having a gross disregard for our Constitution.