Venezuela is planning to sue CNN for some broadcast mistakes that accidentally connected its leader, Hugo Chavez, to Al Qaeda. Not a smart move on Chavez's part. The MSM hasn't exactly extolled Chavez for his anti-Americanism and his plans to nationalize everything, but they certainly haven't been critical. If Chavez sues them, he might lose his best cheerleaders in the US.
--Red
In Old Testament days, God had several times instructed the Israelites to build a memorial after significant events occurred in their journeys. It was His reminder to not forget their history.
Today marks a similar chance for us to remember those who paid for our freedom. As quoted often, the phrase "Freedom is never free" rings so true.
May we remember those who have fallen for our freedom.
-Colonel Steve
No matter what your leanings are, or even which party (democrat or republican), take time on Tuesday to cast your vote in the Kentucky primary.
-Colonel Steve
As a XM Radio customer myself, I found today's announcement of their POTUS '08 channel rather interesting. It's plan is to be a mixture of C-SPAN plus content from "Non-traditional media outlets, such as bloggers and podcasters". I'm already wondering which bloggers they plan on including in their mix.
They are planning on previewing the channel next month (June 2007), with an official run from September 2007 through November 2008. Those with a xm radio can tune in on channel 130.
-Colonel Steve
"Partisan? But, isn't this a bi-partisan bill, supported by both Republicans and Democrats?" That may be what you are thinking. Well, yes it is true that a significant number of Republicans and Democrats in Washington are both working to pass the proposed bill. What's partisan about it, though, is that it is not Republican versus Democrat, but Washington versus the people.
I've been reading the analysis by Hugh Hewitt. There are some good things in the bill. However, it also sounds like it could be full of bureaucratic double-speak with a lot of loopholes.
I'm not going to read the bill. It is 600+ pages long and I'm a computer guy not a lawyer. But the size and complexity worries me. Why is it that complicated? Why not craft a bill that the people can understand? Or do they really not want the people to understand?
I've heard it said this is the last chance they may have to pass an immigration bill. I'd rather they miss this chance than have them pass a bad bill that doesn't solve any problems.
--Red
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Tony Snow yesterday on his show concerning the recent Senate immigration bill. Here's one snippet of the interview, as noted in Hugh's post of parts of the interview:
HH: Are young men who entered this country illegally, or who overstayed their visas illegally, whose country of origin was either in Central Asia or an Arab country eligible for regularization under this bill?
TS: Well, they would be eligible for regularization only if they met a whole series of standards. If they have broken the law while they’re here, they’re not eligible. If they do not remain continuously employed, they’re not eligible for regularization. If they do not provide, do not present themselves for a tamper-proof ID that has biometric information, submit themselves to background checks, they are not eligible for regularization. If they do not master the English language and culture, they’re not eligible for regularization.
Wow, this bit of twisted logic almost makes my brain hurt thinking about it. "If they have broken the law while they’re
here, they’re not eligible." Lemme see.....let's start with the statement "illegal immigrant". Doesn't that mean they've "broken the law"? Isn't that occurring "while they're here"?
Bad defense, Tony.
-Colonel Steve
Well, I have to say that I am now leaning a little towards Harper in the Kentucky governor's race, but that is not a certainty.
I have to admit I haven't been following the governor's race very closely. I knew I didn't want Fletcher because of his ethical baggage. Harper was reputed to be conservative but was little known. So, I just kind of assumed I would vote for Northup. She did a decent job as my representative to the U.S. Congress, although I thought she voted for too much pork.
Then came the odd thing about the campaign signs and the questions that she didn't answer from the Courier-Journal. I began to get concerned about her. And then when she finally did answer the questions, some of her responses made me wonder about her leadership ability.
Her gambling responses were tepid. "...the governor has no control over constitutional amendments," she wrote. Come on, Anne, lead! If you really do oppose gambling, say you will work to prevent the passage of such an amendment!
She did a better job on some of the other questions, especially in education. I think she should have left off the potshots against Fletcher, though, and been more positive in her responses.
I like many of Harper's positions and he articulates them well. It's a shame he is not very well known, I think he would do a better job as governor than either Fletcher or Northup or any Democrat currently running. If I vote for him, though, I may as well vote for Fletcher. Sigh.
--Red
As noted in the American Spectator this morning, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are pursuing bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. They're rather nostalgic for the days when radio had but two things....music and liberally-slated news. Now that we have stuff that actually sells (say, conservative talk radio) they want to silence it by legislation.
Personally, I'll be letting them know what I think.
(HT: Hugh Hewitt)
-Colonel Steve
As mentioned before, Anne Northup had chosen to be the only candidate of either party not to respond to the CJ's questions on campaign issues. Now she is answering the questions.
Some might say better late than never. I'm rather thinking she's placed herself in a no-win situation, where answering after the fact just draws attention to the previous non-answers.
-Colonel Steve
Glad to see John Yarmuth as one of the cosponsors of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. At least now there would be recognition that bloggers who engage in journalism would be given the same protections as the MSM.
In reading the linked article, one can sure sense some animosity from the author about what might be called "untrained bloggers".
-Colonel Steve
Recent Comments