Monthly Archives: October 2006

>OUTRAGE: Corruption’s Double Standard

>I still can’t get over the extent of news media bias against Republicans when it comes to scandal. I think it is worth repeating the most recent glaring example. GOP Congressman Mark Foley vs. the late Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds.

Foley sends out salacious emails to underage male pages (certainly outrageous, but so far no one is saying illegal). He immediately resigns in the face of certain censure and getting booted out of Congress. He apologizes and seeks treatment. (Granted, the latter is probably a public relations ploy.) He is scorned in the national press. Front page headlines demonize him, stirring up a public frenzy of disdain. There even are calls for the Speaker of the House to resign. Foley is grist for the talk show mills. Pundits pick at the bones of his political career.

Gerry Studds actually f&#ks (sorry for the not-so-disguised word, but his action deserves no euphemism) a 17 year old male page when times were even less tolerant of gayness. He refuses to apologize, and claims he did nothing wrong. His Massachusetts colleague, Barney Frank, also gay, makes minimizing jokes of his behavior. The Democrat party leadership (in control of Congress at the time) does nothing — not even a note home to his parents. Instead he goes on to being an “honorable member” of the House for 16 more years.

Oh … were this just a rare example.

>OP ED: Senator Reid lucky to be a Democrat

>You may have missed the latest example of media bias, or how Democrats get away with murder. (Okay, only Senator Kennedy really gets away with murder, but you get the idea).

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been found ethically challenged, and perhaps criminally culpable, for a very large real estate transaction in his home state. Seem “Dirty Harry,” as he is aptly named, invested $400,000 in a land deal in 1998. He then turn around and sold it off to a lobbyist friend three years later. Now this could raise some eyebrows. Was the transaction a real market deal, of was there some hidden profits from his lobbyist friend for “services rendered?”

But wait! THAT is not the deal.

Seems like three years AFTER Dirty Harry dumped the land, the lobbyist sold it for $1.1 million. That must have made the lobbyist really happy, and Dirty Harry sorry he did not hold on to the land. But nooooooo. Because Dirty Harry got the money.

Confused? Let me repeat. Three years AFTER he sold the real estate, the Democrat leader of the U.S. Senate was gifted with $700,000 in “profit” by a lobbyist.

The Senate did not investigate his behavior because Dirty Harry, who was a member of the ETHICS COMMITTEE at the time, did not note the transaction on his ethics statement. Yep! Forget. An honest mistake. Anyone can forget $700,000 here and there. Besides, we was very busy holding press conferences accusing Republicans of corruption.

Sure there was s small drivel of publicity about this outrageous, unethical and arguably illegal behavior. But not enough to suggest anything close to balanced reporting. Not enough to create a public outcry. Not enough to motivate an investigation.

So, where are the media calls for an investigation? Where are the headlines and editorials demanding explanation? Where is the demand for a Senate internal investigation? What was the land deal that turned $400,000 to $1.1 million in so short a time?

Once again Democrats show an extraordinary immunity to scandal. Maybe it is because the public sees Democrat corruption as normal. God knows, there is enough of it. And someone besides God would know if there were balanced responses.

>REACT: Madonna and Child (and not the Christmas story)

>Pop Singer Madonna and her hubbie, Guy Ritchie, recently adopted a child through some sort of African express lane. It was more like picking a child off the shelf than a traditional adoption process.

Now it is all shaping up to be a scandal. While other potential parents wait years for sluggish bureaucrats to run a kid through the process, Madonna was able to get instant results based on her celebrity. Ergo, the scandal.

Well, this is surly a first class scandal. Shocking. Disgusting.

Oh! I am not condemning Madonna. No … no … no! What is scandalous, shocking and disgusting is “the normal process” that can delay an adoption many months (years), while anxious patents wait and needy children languish.

I am not speaking theoretically. My own adopted daughter was determined to adopt her Jamaican nephew after the separate tragic deaths of her brother-in-law, then sister. It was an uncontroversial adoption. Troy was 13 at the time and more than willing to be with his aunt. No other relatives objected. There were no estate issues. There were no official problems. Just a needy kid and a loving aunt.

Just following normal bureaucratic procedures delayed his happy arrive into our family by four years. Troy was 17 when he strode across our threshold for the first time. He had been denied 4 years of loving security and stability by “the normal process.”

Aren’t these public official and bureaucrats aware of time? This was a maturing teenager in need of his family. He was denied this by nothing more than “the normal procedure.”

Many worry that prospective parents are finding ways … legal and illegal … to short cut the system. Well, if the “system” was not so damned heartless and obstructionist, there would be no need to bypass it.

So let’s keep the horror of scandal where it belongs, on the heads of those who find ways to slow down adoptions — and not those who find ways to speed them up. I am so weary of the so-called do-gooders claiming the system is there to protect the child. That is utter nonsense. One reason children remain institutionalized is that they are little money magnets for the institution.

I say, good for Madonna. I don’t care if she went around … under … or over … “the normal procedures” because “the normal procedures” suck.

>LMAO: Obama, say what?

>In view of the Congressman Mark Foley’s emails to young male pages, and remembering former Congressman Dan Crane’s and the (as of late) late Congressman Gerry Studs’ turning over a page or two, themselves, I had to laugh when I read Senator Barak Obama’s evaluation of a run for president. He said, “We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I’ll be confident that I’ll be run through the pages pretty well.”

Someone should tell the Senator that pages are not a presidential perquisite. They are CONGRESSIONAL fringe benefits. INTERNS are presidential job benefits. You would think he would know this stuff.

>OP ED: Iraqi: Violence for Votes

>As the election closes in, the level of Iraqi violence against Americans and American partisans increases. American military deaths and injuries peak. Innocent Iraqis are rounded up by the scores and beheaded by maniacal butchers. Bombs bursting at public gathering places.

The coming U.S. election and the increase in violence is no coincidence. It only takes a little common sense to know that the international terrorist want to put Democrats in control of Congress. They want to undermine Bush’s determination to destroy the cabal of international murderers. They want the soft policies of the left wing appeasers to gain favor. They want the national media to continue to propagandize against the White House. They want the American people to surrender to world terrorism.

Killing soldiers and innocent men, women and children is the Jihadists’ way of campaigning for a Democrat victory. They are doing their part of convince the American electorate to abandon the war by abandoning the President.

As we lose our resolve to defend ourselves, and the free world, the sadistic killers increase their determination to destroy us. They are now winning the most important battle of the war – the very will to win.

>REACT: Greeley off the mark


Andrew Greeley’s animosity toward Republicans overcomes his theology and intellectual integrity. He recently explained why the GOP is likely to retain both the U.S. House and Senate. Most notable of his flawed rationales was his contention that scandals impact harder on Democrats than Republicans.

Hmmmm. GOPer Jack Ryan was forced out of a Senate race merely for having salacious thoughts. Mark Foley recently resigned in disgrace though there is no current evidence that he had sex with underage pages. So far, no one can even tell whether his obnoxious and offensive behavior is illegal.

Now consider the recently departed Gerry Studds. As a Democrat congressman, he had sex with an underage male page. Refusing to apologize, he continued to serve many more years as a “respected member” of Congress. About that same time, Republican Congressmen Dan Crane had sex with an underage female page, and his political career ended.

Consider Democrat Barney Frank. He placed his male prostitute friend on the payroll as an “aide” while his paramour was running tricks out of the congressman’s apartment. He is still serving as a “respected member” of Congress.

Then there is the granddaddy of them all, the “respected” Senator Ted Kennedy. He caused the death of a young lady in a late-night, post-party accident, fled the scene (some medical evidence suggest he left her to die), and produced a Kennedy-scale cover up. Later on, tabloids exposed his bloated naked body on the deck of a yacht during a “pleasure cruise.” He remained a “respected” colleague among his Democrat peers and the press.

Of course, Nixon was forced from office for his cover up – which did NOT include perjury. Media coverage forced him into seclusion. Clinton remains the darling of press and the Dems after endless indiscretions, felons and cover-ups. He could even wind up back in the White House.

Following a term in jail, Illinois Republican Attorney General William Scott was sent off to oblivion. Former Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski is released from prison to be a “respected” television commentator, press pundit and a “must invite” on the social register.

And the list goes on. Whatever one’s partisan position might be, or one’s opinion of any of these guys, the record is clear. The GOP takes a much harder hit on scandals than the Democrats. Greeley needs to relay more on grey matter than bile.

>OP ED: Obama: Boom or Bomb


Poor Barak Obama.

It would appear that I am the only one in America … in the world … who feels sorry for Illinois’ junior Senator Barak Obama.

One would have to have been in a coma for the past couple years not to know of the guy. His every action is the subject of ubiquitous uncritical media hype. From the recent cover of Time magazine to the daily reports of his every breath. His omnipresence in virtually every media outlet – from national news providers, Internet blogs, gossip columns, trade publications, society pages, to the most local weekly newspaper – is devoid of even the modest criticism. He is the most renowned and flattered political figure of his day. (He even gets more publicity than the camera crazy Jesse Jackson – which must be a source of great pain to the good reverend.)

What makes Obama’s “coverage” so remarkable is that it surpasses his office, his accomplishments, his power, his almost anything. He has not broken any racial barriers. He is not the first black senator in modern times. That feat goes to former Senator Ted Brooke of Massachusetts. Obama is not even the first black senator from the Land of Lincoln. Carol Mosely Brown gets that honor.

He seems to generate endless puffy publicity because the press loves him. He is lionized and canonized by the leaders of the fifth estate. He is catapulted into the national limelight for things others do without notice. He is reported simply because he is. In that, he is the Paris Hilton of politics – only with a lot more charm and brains.

To be sure, Obama seems to be a very fine person. Maybe THAT is the news angle … a “very fine person” in politics. Hmmmmm. Not something you see every day. He is charismatic to be sure. I sense he is a very honest person – intellectually, morally and ethically. (Another political departure?) You cannot help but like and admire the guy.

So, why the pity for Obama?

Because, there will come a time in the future when the highly inflated and over exposed senator will have to re-enter the real world. As he gets more serious about a future in the White House, it will take more than a fab smile and charming talk to carry the day. In fact, the bigger than life image will turn into a detriment, as it has for those who traveled the rarified air of unbridled publicity before him.

I recall another senator from Illinois who machetted the path now being taken by Obama. Charles Percy, a very ambitious presidential aspirant, was a 29-year-old corporate wunderkind with the looks of a movie star. He too gave a speech at the national convention of his party (Republican, in his case) that set the political world abuzz. He was the most talked about “future president” in America. The likes of Senator Ev Dirksen flatly predicted that “just call me Chuck” Percy most certainly would be sitting in the Oval Office one day – and not as a guest.

Percy was grist for the media mill on a daily basis – and yes, there was even that September 18, 1964 Time magazine cover. He too had a picture perfect family – bright and beautiful. (His one twin daughter is now the wife of Senator Jay Rockefeller. Sadly, the other twin was tragically murdered.)

Percy was young enough to be a presidential prospect for maybe six or seven quadrennial national elections. He had it made, but he never made it. He never got close to being president. Not even a nomination – not even for vice president.

If history repeats itself, the intense exposure that highlights all Obama’s fine points will eventually draw attention to the chinks in his armor. Interest in his personality will give way to interest in his political views. The universality of his appeal will wane. He will find it impossible to live up to his glorified reputation. Disappointment will set in — disappointment proportionate to the level of past adoration.

Then there is the nature of presidential politics. It is not a process that appreciates those who gain early favor. Initial front-runners almost always fail. There are too many vicissitudes to ensure that ambition and careful planning will result in success. At the moment he is universally beloved by his Democrat peers – largely because his only current role is to raise money. Once he starts to stand in the way of the ambitions of other titans of the donkey party, even his partisan choir will start singing a different tune.

Obama should enjoy the media joy ride for its ego satisfaction. But, if he is serious about the presidency, he should to into hiding for a while. Cool down the klieg lights. Of course, to tell a politician to withdraw from such fawning publicity is like telling an alcoholic to close his lips while submerged in a barrel of beer.

My prediction. Obama gets to the Oval Office only as a guest.