CNN Reporter Shows True Colors at Chicago Tea Party

Direct proof that CNN, "The Most Trusted Name in News?," is biased and will stop at nothing to support President Obama:



Congrats to the Chicago Tea Party folks! Susan Roesgen of CNN clearly needs to go back to school and learn how to be a reporter.

The only thing better is Shep's response to the whole ordeal. Check it out and "You Decide!"

Pelosi's Treasonous Actions Must Be Halted

For all of the guff that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has levied against President George W. Bush for his alleged mismanagement of foreign affairs, maybe it is in fact Nancy Pelosi who needs to take a serious look in the mirror.

Over the past ten months, world leader pretend Pelosi has engaged in a mammoth grandstanding effort to thwart U.S. interests abroad. First, disregarding a State Department request, she visited Syria where her actions could be construed as nothing short of legitimizing the rule of Syrian leader and renowned terror sponsor, Bashar al-Assad, who continues to engage in the systematic murder of pro-Western Lebanese members of parliament while he simultaneously increases his support for Hezbollah.

Next, Pelosi joined forces with the blathering imbecile Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and sent an open letter to the Costa Rican Ambassador to the U.S., F. Tomás Dueñas, just nine days prior to a national referendum, in an effort to quash a free trade agreement with the U.S. Luckily for the U.S., the trade pact narrowly passed in Costa Rica.

Though these two aforementioned instances lead one to question Pelosi’s competency as Speaker of the House and her general understanding of foreign affairs, her latest tussle with the White House over the Armenian genocide resolution has led some, including this blogger, to question her patriotism.

On Oct. 10, H.R. 106, the Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide, introduced by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and strongly supported by Pelosi, was approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, 27 to 21. The resolution, if enacted, would recognize as “genocide” the deaths of more than one million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during and immediately after World War I.

The following day, infuriated by the committee’s actions, Turkey recalled its ambassador to the U.S., and the country’s leader, President Abdullah Gul, publicly denounced the resolution as “‘not [being] worthy of the respect of the Turkish people.’”

Instead of heeding these warning signs and the candid advice of all eight living former secretaries of state, Pelosi decided to further rattle the cage of the Turkish government by stating that the resolution would come up for a vote in the House before Thanksgiving. It was at this point that Pelosi seriously crossed the line and demonstrated the extent to which she will go to sabotage the U.S. war effort in Iraq.

Why? Put simply, H.R. 106 is ill-timed and ill-suited for a country at war. If the measure actually passes the House, Turkey has threatened to cut off our use of Incirlik Air Base in Southern Turkey, which serves as a transfer point for 70 percent of U.S. cargo headed for Iraq, a slow withdrawal from NATO and a revamped partnership with Iran. All three actions would prove catastrophic for the U.S. effort in Iraq, not to mention its potential future dealings in the Middle East and in the War on Terror.

For those who may be inclined to think that Turkey is pulling a Daniel Negreanu and bluffing, think again. In 2006, the French National Assembly attempted to call Turkey’s bluff when it voted to criminalize the denial of Armenian Genocide. Turkey responded swiftly and forcefully by cutting contacts with the French military and terminating defense contracts between the two countries under negotiation at that time. Their threats are credible, in other words.

Genocide is certainly a heinous crime, one that the U.S. should work tirelessly to stamp out throughout the world, but this country’s efforts to eradicate genocide should not simultaneously jeopardize the lives of U.S. troops who are currently at war.

So what on earth is Pelosi trying to accomplish by furthering the passage of H.R. 106? Clearly, Pelosi is seeking to pass this resolution in order to curry favor with her constituents back home, given that her district contains a sizeable portion of Armenian-Americans. And while it is understandable that the horrors associated with this historical moment burn within Pelosi’s Armenian constituents, what is the resolution really going to accomplish for them? Other than political recognition, the answer may be very little. As Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post notes, these atrocities were committed 90 years ago by an empire that no longer exists, and there is not a single Turk under the age of 102 who is in any way culpable. Further, Mesrob Mutafyan, patriarch of the Armenian community in Turkey, has acknowledged that his community is against this resolution.

On several occasions, Pelosi has said that she is serious about eliminating genocide, “‘Genocide exists, and we saw it in Rwanda; we see it now in Darfur.’” Well if this is indeed the case, she should not risk jeopardizing the lives of our troops by taking a position on an atrocity committed 90 years ago by an empire that ceases to exist. Rather, Pelosi should stop wasting the taxpayers’ time and money and turn her attention to the present by focusing on Darfur. So what exactly is Pelosi doing about the situation in Darfur? Not a damn thing.

Bollinger's Columbia: An Absurd Double Standard

Citing the need to promote free speech and the unfettered exchange of conflicting ideas, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger hosted Iranian presidential figurehead Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week. Though the appearance of the most glorified press secretary in modern history brought much ballyhooed fanfare to the University’s Morningside campus, the event itself underscored the hypocrisy of Bollinger’s leadership at Columbia since he took the reigns in 2002.

As president of a private institution of higher education, Bollinger should be seeking to encourage free speech and the exchange of differing ideas, even those of an offensive and odious nature like Ahmadinejad’s. But as the head of Columbia, “PrezBo” must also remember that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Dinesh D’Souza of the Hoover Institute note that Columbia, under Bollinger’s stewardship, has not always been true to these stated mores.

In 2003, a majority of Columbia students said they wanted the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), which had been banished in 1969, reinstated on campus. Two years later, the Columbia faculty took up the issue. Citing the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and contrary to the wishes of its student body, the faculty rejected returning ROTC to campus. Now here is the kicker; Bollinger cast the deciding vote in this matter.

For those who are inclined to think that the ROTC incident was Bollinger’s only philosophical slip as president, think again. As Alison Aldrich of the Collegiate Times notes, Bollinger also failed to provide a safe forum for Jim Gilchrist, president of the Minuteman Project.

In 2006, Mr. Gilchrist was invited to take part in an on campus discussion concerning immigration. During the event, several students stormed the stage thereby putting an end to Mr. Gilchrist’s speech. Event organizers moved to bring Mr. Gilchrist back for another speaking engagement this year, but that invitation has since been rescinded. The reason: an open and honest discussion on immigration has since been deemed “not appropriate” for Columbia.

Given Bollinger’s duplicitous actions as president, Columbia’s Board of Trustees should be calling for his resignation - not because Bollinger knowingly provided a forum for a propagandist whose country is killing American soldiers in Iraq and who is bent on ridding the world of homosexuals and Jews, but because Bollinger’s actions, taken as a whole, have forever disgraced a once proud institution of higher learning. An institution of higher learning that is today, and because of Bollinger, more sympathetic to a genocidal despot than it is to the U.S. military and those who wish to secure this country’s borders. Apparently, “free speech” is valuable to Columbia only when it is high profile and contrarian.

GOP Looking to Split California Electoral Baby

With GOP frontrunners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney floundering in the debates and with the new queen of mean greatly outdistancing her liberal competition, the likelihood of a Republican capturing the White House in 2008 seems about as great as that of the Notre Dame football team making a bowl game.

But before we, as Republicans, gouge out our eyeballs and slit our wrists in anticipation of the longest four years of our lives, might I suggest that we turn our attention to California for a moment.

In late July, the law firm of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, acting under the direction of its managing partner Thomas W. Hiltachk, filed California ballot Initiative No. 07-0032—the Presidential Election Reform Act—which is aimed at ending the practice of granting all fifty-five of California’s electoral votes to the statewide winner.

Under the initiative, should it pass, California would apportion two electoral votes to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner of each of its 53 congressional districts. This would mean that the 2008 Republican nominee would now have a shot at picking up in the neighborhood of 20 electoral votes in California in 2008 rather than zero. Such an electoral pickup would be roughly the equivalent of winning Ohio in 2004.

For those of you out there who might be inclined to argue that California Republicans are engaging in a Fantasia-like powerplay and that this initiative will never pass muster once California voters get wind of this, think again. Recent polling indicates that a sizeable portion of Californians are in favor of the initiative.

But wait a minute; wouldn’t it be unconstitutional if the California Election Code was altered so as to require that congressional votes be counted by congressional district? No, because, as The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg rightly notes, California would join Maine and Nebraska as the only other states who do not follow the winner-take-all policy of allocating electoral votes. The systems in place in those two states have yet to be successfully challenged.

Hey Democrats, don’t you just hate states’ rights? Not really, because you are currently trying to pull the same shenanigans in Republican controlled North Carolina after you failed miserably with a similarly tailored ballot initiative in Colorado in 2004.

So what’s next? Now that the California offices of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General have approved the language of the initiative, there is still a lot of work to be done before The Presidential Reform Act reaches California voters. First, the bill’s sponsors, Californians for Equal Representation, will have to collect the necessary 434,000 signatures from registered voters by February 4th in order for the measure to be placed on the ballot. Second, once on the ballot, California voters will then have a chance to vote the measure up or down next June 3rd.

Although the endeavor of collecting the needed signatures is going to cost Californians for Equal Representation a pretty penny, chances are it will be done. Why? Because the firm of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk has been involved in many well-financed ballot initiatives and public relations campaigns including the Swiftboaters. Once on the ballot, national attention will shift to California and things are likely to get ugly, as California law places no restrictions on the amount of money donors can spend on initiatives. In fact, opposition against this initiative has already started to mount. Liberal California moguls, such as Thomas F. Steyer of Farallon Capital Management, have already vowed to oppose it.

So stay tuned, because the fight for the White House in 2008 just got interesting, and it has nothing to do with the candidates.

Sen. Larry Craig: A Lesson In Stupidity

By now we have all heard the news of Sen. Larry Craig’s (R-ID) questionable actions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport bathroom, and regardless of whether Sen. Craig was actually trying to show his Mr. Potato Head to the officer, the man should be removed from office because he just doesn’t get it.

As a veteran member of Congress, you would think that Sen. Craig would have been capable of demonstrating a certain level of competency as the situation unfolded. But if anything, Sen. Craig’s actions following his arrest have risen to nothing short of painfully stupid.

Let’s rehash the situation. According to the police report, following his arrest, Mr. Craig was taken to the police operations center at the airport. Because he didn’t have his driver’s license on his person, he showed the officer his business card and pompously stated, “‘What do you think about that?’” This was not a very wise move but it was certainly one that he could have recovered from. Lesson #1: Immediately following your arrest, regardless of your social stature, don’t try to intimidate law enforcement because you will only inflame the situation.

Next, without counsel, Sen. Craig agreed to a post-Miranda interview. During this interview, Sen. Craig stated that “his foot may have touched” the officer, and that he had “reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper on the floor.” Honestly Senator Craig, are you that incompetent? Have you not seen Law & Order within the past century? All you did during that interview was further incriminate yourself, because it appears that you might have lied to the officer, as his report specifically stated that there was no piece of paper on the floor. Congratulations, your credibility is now at zero. Lesson #2: You have the right to remain silent; giving up that right will only hasten your demise.

Earlier this month, Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. Apparently, Sen. Craig entered his plea, because he wanted the situation “to go away.” Now I don’t know if Sen. Craig sought out legal counsel before he entered his plea, because if he didn’t he is an idiot. On the other hand, if Sen. Craig sought out legal counsel and they advised him to enter the guilty plea, they should be disbarred for stupidity. Look, Sen. Craig, did you really think this situation was not going to come to light given that every two bit Woodward and Bernstein with a liberal agenda monitors criminal records on a daily basis hoping for their next bring break? Honestly, Sen. Craig, if you didn’t, I am amazed that you have gotten this far in life. With regard to the legality of the alleged situation in question, I find myself in agreement with Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters, although Sen. Craig’s actions are reprehensible, I don’t know that they actually constitute a crime, save a possible battery violation for touching the officer’s foot. Lesson #3: Under all circumstances, never plead guilty to a crime until you have sought out sufficient legal counsel and you are out of options.

Now let’s fast forward to this week’s news conference. Here, Sen. Craig had one final chance to set the record straight. Instead of engaging in damage control, he made the situation worse. First, he bellowed that “I am not gay” as if he were a Jehovah’s Witness delivering his testimony at a religious revival. Then he proceeded to lash out at his local newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, claiming the publication was partially responsible for his situation. Given these two statements, I can’t help but wonder who is running the senator’s press shop? Either Sen. Craig has the worst press shop on Capitol Hill or he blew off his press advisors. Regardless, his handling of the news conference was a lesson in political self-destruction. Lesson #4: Don’t feed into media frenzy and certainly don’t bash your hometown paper, because every good politician knows that you need to have an amicable relationship with hometown publications. They serve as a direct line to your constituents. You know, the people that actually vote for you and give you money?

Given that Senator’s Craig’s political career is all but finished, conservatives have to hope that all Republican members of Congress are listening. Repeat after me: Perception is everything in politics and the best way to damage your image is by being caught up in scandal. Even if Sen. Craig is able to clear his name, it doesn’t matter because he will always be perceived as being guilty. There is no coming back from this one. How do I know? Because I just saw it on television, heard it on the radio and read it in the paper.

Rove Hatred Could Cost Dems In '08

Karl Rove is at it again, and I love it. Taking a page right from his 2004 championship playbook, the “Boy Genius” began spinning a web of treachery during his recent Hillary bashing tour, a web of treachery that if left unchecked could cost the Democrats the White House in 2008.

As I watch the beginning stages of Rove’s plan for 2008 unfold, I have to wonder: are Democrats really this stupid? With exactly one year until the Democratic National Convention, I will gleefully say that the answer appears to be yes. To understand the present state of Democratic idiocy, it is important to revisit 2004.

For four years, I have been arguing that if Democrats had selected Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina on “Super Tuesday” instead of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, they would have won the presidency. Democrats in 2004 were shortsighted because they picked who they wanted to win, rather than who could actually win. Of course as a conservative, Democrats have been informing me ever since that I am the one who is in fact myopic.

Well Democrats, say hello to former Rove associate and lieutenant Matthew Dowd. According to Peter Wallsten in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, Mr. Dowd, during a post-mortem conference on the 2004 election at Harvard University held one month after that election, confirmed my suspicion.

For Republican strategists, Edwards was seen as the real threat to Bush 43 because of “his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message.” Therefore, to make sure Edwards did not receive the Democratic nomination, they chose to attack Kerry. By attacking Kerry, Rove and his cronies rightfully believed that Democrats would rally around him and make him the party’s nominee. Obviously, Rove and company were right on the money in 2004.

Now the question becomes, why attack Senator Clinton? Three reasons come to mind.

First, by attacking Sen. Clinton, Rove is hoping that Democratic hatred for him will translate into a Clinton nomination in much the same fashion it did for Kerry in 2004. As it currently stands, Democrats certainly appear to be taking the bait.

Second, Sen. Clinton has chinks in her armor that Republicans can exploit. As Mr. Rove recently noted, “‘[Clinton] enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll.’”

Finally, as Republicans scurry to reinvent themselves for 2008, Rove rightfully knows that attacking Sen. Obama and Citizen Edwards will only strengthen their respective candidacies to the detriment of Republicans. Let us remember that Obama did not assume office until after Iraq was voted on, and until the picture in Iraq becomes clearer, this is not a road that Republicans want to travel down at this juncture. With regard to Edwards, he is dangerous to any potential Republican candidate because he is a Southerner who touts a populist message, no matter how “nutty” that message may appear at times.

Will a Clinton nomination alone secure a Republican victory in 2008? Of course not, but it is a step in the right direction. Republicans still have a lot of reinventing to do to overcome their present quagmire. They have to hope that Iraq takes a turn for the better, they have to sever ties to current Republican congressional members embedded in scandal, President Bush has to prove that he is tough on bills containing earmarks and finally, Republicans have to hope that the nation’s disgust for Congress continues to outdistance its disgust for Bush 43. But if Republicans can overcome these obstacles, then the web that Mr. Rove started spinning this past week could translate into a Republican presidential victory in 2008.

Karl Rove: Doing It His Way

At the end of August, Karl Rove will be stepping down as White House deputy chief of staff, and whether you view him as the antichrist or a loyal Republican soldier, his mark on contemporary presidential politics is undeniable.

So, how did a man who lacks a college degree become one of the most influential White House aides and successful political strategists of modern times? By utilizing unconventional and often polarizing tactics, he made the system work for him.

Decades from now, pundits may dispute the pivotal moment that permitted Rove to burst onto the political scene. Some may argue this occurred when he overcame controversy to become chairman of the College Republicans because this allowed him to form a close personal friendship with George H.W. Bush and in turn George W. Bush. Others may argue that it occurred when he formed Rove and Co. and he became one of the first to demonstrate the effectiveness of direct mail as a campaign tool, thereby cementing his name as one of the preeminent campaign consultants. Either way, Karl Rove became a household name in the late 1990s when he sold his company and devoted his time to George W. Bush’s presidential bid.

For a good portion of the 2000 Republican primary season, the prospects of a Bush 43 presidency were bordering on doubtful. All then frontrunner, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, needed to do was secure the South Carolina primary, and the current president’s fate would have been sealed. Under Rove’s guidance, the Bush campaign machine went into overdrive and turned the tables on McCain in South Carolina.

How did Rove achieve this result? By painting McCain as being “too liberal,” while simultaneously marketing Bush as a “compassionate conservative.” This brash and allegedly sleazy tactic not only secured victory for Bush in South Carolina, it also led to his earning the nomination long before the Republican convention.

Next on Rove’s campaign docket was the 2000 presidential election. The Democratic candidate, Vice President Al Gore, proved to be a formidable opponent for Bush 43. Instead of focusing on Gore, Rove focused on Gore’s former boss, President Bill Clinton. As Paul A. Gigot of the Wall Street Journal notes, Rove successfully chipped away at Gore’s candidacy by marketing Bush 43 as “both an alternative to Bill Clinton’s scandalous behavior and “a different kind of Republican.” Of course, the Supreme Court also played a crucial role in the 2000 election when it declared Bush the winner in Florida.

Some would argue that Rove’s greatest accomplishments as a political strategist came in 2002 and 2004. In 2002, the president’s party gained seats in both houses of Congress in a first midterm election; a feat last witnessed in 1934. Not to be outdone in 2004, the “Boy Genius” helped to orchestrate a feat that had only been accomplished one other time in history, the president not only won reelection but he helped his party gain seats in both houses of Congress.

Though Rove’s achievements as a political strategist are unparalleled, the 2006 midterm elections proved to be a nightmare. The GOP lost control of both houses of Congress. Should Rove shoulder all of the blame for the 2006 midterm mishap? No, but at the same time, because he operates in a “what have you done for me lately” environment, the 2006 midterm election did deliver a crippling blow to his legacy.

With 14 months until the 2008 presidential election, Karl Rove says he is stepping down because it is in the best interest of his family, the typical, cliché refrain of those whose time in the spotlight has ended for reasons beyond their control. Do I buy it? Of course not. This is the same man who, upon taking the office in the White House once occupied by Hillary Clinton, allegedly invited priests to perform an exorcism to drive her evil spirits away. Karl Rove clearly wants one more bite at the proverbial political apple. He wants to atone for 2006. Unfortunately, Karl Rove recognizes that it is in his party’s best interest to just retreat quietly into retirement. For this reason, we as Republicans have to thank Karl Rove for putting the party and president before himself. Just maybe, this noble deed on his part will pave the way to a Republican victory in 2008.