The Manifest Destiny of President George W. Bush

A Worldwide Freedom Fighter Reversing a Pattern of Military Compromise – Guided by Principle

By Sara Pentz

In 1845, John O'Sullivan, editor of the influential publication, Democratic Review, coined the phrase Manifest Destiny to describe this vision of a United States stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The phrase was used at that time to explain a revitalized sense of ‘mission’ or a national destiny for Americans. It was our destiny, Sullivan wrote, to spread the idea of freedom and, therefore, take the opportunities made from that freedom to increase one’s wealth, self-sufficiency and self-advancement.

One hundred sixty years later, President George W. Bush has taken the soul of that document and made it a reality. He has led the world in the spread of freedom to Afghanistan, Iraq, and now into an emerging democracy in the Middle East. It is a tribute to his understanding of justice and liberty that he understands that sacred document and has made it his own.

In his January 20, 2005 inaugural address, President Bush spoke to this issue:

“The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value…. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

Of course, it is critical to understand that President Bush believed, based on intelligence sources, that there were weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussain possessed. His decision was based on that premise.

Many attribute the early successes of his secondary mission into Iraq to the principled leadership of President Ronald Reagan in the l980s or to the success of Newt Gingrich’s ‘Contract with America’ in the l990s. Certainly, by standing steadfastly for democracy, freedom and the rights of man, President Reagan was instrumental in the demise of communism in the Soviet Union. That achievement opened much of Eastern Europe to freedom––making possible the right to own property and speak freely––each concept today’s political leftists loath.

Mr. Gingrich led the Republican House of Representatives in a promise of fiscal responsibility, cuts in social spending, a focus on personal responsibility, legal reform, greater national security, and the so-called restoration of the ‘American Dream’ for the people of this nation. While not all of this has become a reality, at least, Mr. Gingrich brought the issues to the attention of an American public that––for the most part––longed for such reforms. More concepts loathed by political leftists.

In fact, these two leaders––Reagan and Gingrich––were simply advocating the principles of Ancient Greece, as outlined by Victor David Hanson in an April 2005 article published at National Review Online. Because, he writes, it was in Greece where economic freedom and consensual government had taken root. Freedom grew through the centuries wherever these concepts were alive. “The revolution that started in 1776, we sometimes forget,” explains Hanson, “was possible because of nearly two prior centuries of English relatively liberal colonial rule, under which small landowners and shopkeepers enjoyed property rights and participated in local councils despite a distant king.”

But more than anything, it was the concept of Manifest Destiny that confirmed the commitment by Mr. Bush to take the lead in opening new and dark frontiers to democracy. The Manifest Destiny document eloquently states the inherent right of man to spread the destiny of freedom around the world:

“It is so destined, because the principle upon which a nation is organized fixes its destiny, and that of equality is perfect, is universal.

…the self-evident dictates of morality…accurately define the duty of man to man, and consequently man's rights as man. Besides, the truthful annals of any nation furnish abundant evidence, that its happiness, its greatness, its duration, were always proportionate to the democratic equality in its system of government…

Yes, we are the nation of progress, of individual freedom, of universal enfranchisement. Equality of rights is the cynosure of our union of States, the grand exemplar of the correlative equality of individuals; and while truth sheds its effulgence, we cannot retrograde, without dissolving the one and subverting the other.”

No other leader in this country’s history has furthered the concept of Manifest Destiny than the 43^rd President. After September 11, 2001, in which terrorists from the Arab Middle East unilaterally and with no provocation attacked this country, it was incumbent upon President Bush to demonstrate with force that this county would not tolerate such an infringement upon the rights of man as the death and destruction caused by these horrendous attackers. It was his duty to defend America. There can be no disagreement about this fact. Even Democrats agree––reluctantly.

Mr. Bush, however, retaliated not so much for the sake of revenge as for the principle that freedom is the correct and only foundation for humanity. Retaliation to this initiation of force was our right. Mr. Hanson, a military historian and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, makes this clear in that same article:

“… the dilemma was an exclusively autocratic Arab Middle East. It was a mess where every bankrupt and murderous notion — Soviet-style Communism, crack-pot Baathism, radical pan-Arabism, lunatic Khadafism, "moderate" monarchy, old-style dictatorship, and eighth-century theocracy — had been tried and had failed, with terrible consequences well before September 11.

Only democracy was new. And only democracy — and its twin of open-market capitalism — offered any hope to end the plague of tribalism, gender apartheid, human-rights abuses, religious fanaticism, and patriarchy that so flourished within such closed societies.”

In a brilliant article by Jamie Glazov for FrontPageMagazine.com, April 8, 2005, Mr. Glazov outlines how President Bush differs from other leaders who throughout history were reluctant to fight inexorably for freedom:

“In the Vietnam War the United States had undertaken to support a dictatorship in South Vietnam on the grounds that the dictatorship was also anti-Communist, and therefore a lesser evil than a unified Communist Vietnam. Some on the left supported the Communist totalitarians. But many “New Leftists” were self-declared “anti-totalitarians” who believed that Communism was a flawed attempt to create just societies. Moreover, they did not believe that the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam was a Communist pawn (as it was) but a quasi independent socialist and/or nationalist force. Their argument for opposing the United States defense of the South Vietnamese regime was that a victory for the NLF would mean the emergence of an independent Vietnam committed to the principles of equality and justice. This was an incentive to see that America was defeated. And this indeed is the delusional vision that motivated people like Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda and other anti-war activists, who worked to cut off all aid to the regime in South Vietnam (and Cambodia as well) that was fighting for its life against the Communists.

But in Iraq, America did not set out to defend a dictatorship for whatever reasons. It set out to overthrow one. In Iraq the United States overthrew a monster regime, and liberated women and Iraq’s minorities -- and the left did everything in its power to prevent this. The practical actions of the left were to save the regime of Saddam Hussein. But what could saving Saddam Hussein mean but more corpses shoveled into mass graves, more human beings stuffed into plastic shredders, more terror for the Iraqi people, and further deferment of the rights of women and other minorities.

Even after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the left’s agendas were primarily to bring down the Bush Administration, not to help American forces to consolidate the peace or establish an Iraqi democratic state.”

Even in the Korean War politicians refused to allow a clear cut military victory over the North Korean and Chinese communists––a plan that would have overpowered the communists and ended in a victory. They chose to protect a corrupt regime in South Korea in the same way that those in political power supported the corrupt regime in South Vietnam. And by cooperating with corruption in both military instances, the concept of ‘winning’ a war––and ‘defeating’ dictators––was impossible. And the leftists won a political victory by default.

However, the leftists are not winning a philosophical battle in Iraq. Mr. Bush’s crystal clear goal to eradicate the horrors of Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq should be applauded––even if for solid reasons we do not agree with many of his other international, domestic, religious and political policies and practices. These flaws do not undermine his military successes and political courage.

Mr. Bush’s principled leadership in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan will not be lost in history––despite strident criticism from his enemies, name-calling by miscreants, shrill attacks by apologists, compromisers, bureaucratic career diplomats, politically motivated leftists, and the bashing diatribes of effete university and self-professed intellectuals who are bent on coloring future historical documents with the cloud of their partisanship.

For President Bush the commitment is to freedom and individual rights. These are the principles that are manifest in the victories of Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether there are confusions in other areas of his presidency or not, he deserves the kudos of his brethren––both friend and foe. Even now a very small number of his avowed enemies are coming forth with cautious acknowledgement of his successes––while eating lightly baked crow at the same time, most assuredly.

Leave it to a TV game show host to make the following point. Political commentator Pat Sajak has written an article for Human Events opining about a few prominent, decidedly leftwing pundits who are now beginning to accept Mr. Bush’s initial successes in the Middle East:

“It’s difficult to pin down the exact genesis of epochal world events such as the demise of The Soviet Union. It’s harder still to look at small, isolated events and accurately predict they will lead to major developments. But an extraordinary column by Martin Peretz, the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic may be one of those small events which could lead to a major shift in American political discourse.

The New Republic is a Liberal magazine which has been tough on Conservatives in general and George W. Bush in particular. And, yet, here comes Mr. Peretz with an article for the April 11 issue of his magazine… in which he thoroughly and thoughtfully looks at events in the Middle East and judges them to be positive and, what’s more, gives full and ungrudging credit to President Bush.

At the same time he chides Democrats for their unrelenting negativity and suggests they had better stop ignoring the tides of history out of distaste for the President. (Indeed, the article is called The Politics of Churlishness.) As Mr. Peretz puts it, “If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others.”

Martin Peretz is leading the pact toward an acknowledgement of President Bush’s successes in Iraq. Whether or not other Liberals and Democrats ever acknowledge what Mr. Peretz so boldly states is not the issue. They may be too steeped in their belief that America is wrong––no matter what. Despite all their anti-Bush speechifying, the rest of the country is acknowledging that this president is a freedom fighter––as he continues to draw his personalized map for manifest destiny throughout the world.

This article was written April 2005.

Term Limits to Quell Corrupt Career Politicians
Are They a Solution?

By Sara Pentz

When novelist Vince Flynn wrote his best-selling book “Term Limits” he captured the essence of one of the stickiest issues in the American electoral process. Essentially, his story centers around three powerful and unscrupulous politicians who are brutally murdered by a group of assassins in a new twist on the concept of term limits. A seemingly rogue band of US patriots threatens to take down the US government one politician at a time unless the government stops politics as usual.

Flynn’s solution is, naturally, dramatized in exaggerated fashion in order to make his point that without term limits politicians can become professionals without scruples, hopeless fools, power mongers and dangerous demagogues. His theme demonstrates the reality that much of the frustration with Washington politics today is the power elected officials hold without being obligated to the principles of limited government as outlined in the US Constitution.

Certainly, no one would call for Mr. Flynn’s chilling plot to become a reality, but it strikes a nerve that has been under discussion for many years. That there is waste and corruption at the highest levels of government; that politicians too often make and then break campaign promises for the expediency of reelection; that they often ignore moral principles; that they use relationships to advance their own agendas; that they spend the taxpayers money on programs that curry special-interest favor; that they certainly ignore the mandate of the US Constitution about a limited government; and that there are gross inconsistencies in the politics exhibited by many of them.

Many blame a system that - they say - has no way to stop the bloating of government by these elected officials who have become obligated to the special interests that make possible their continued election to Congress. And so they opt for term limits.

One example of the enormous betrayal by politicians is the behavior of Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who has been embroiled in accusations left and right about his ethics, and his use of power and money to influence. In a Wall Street Journal Online article, March 28, 2005, the editors write about this.

“By now you have surely read about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics

troubles. Probably, too, you aren't entirely clear as to what those troubles are--something to do with questionable junkets, Indian casino money, funny business on the House Ethics Committee, stuff down in Texas.”

In summary, Mr. Delay has allegedly endorsed candidates providing they vote his way. He has participated in junkets allegedly violating House rules about who pays for such expenses. And he is battling the Democrat Texas Attorney General regarding some campaign finance issues and indictments of his associates - although, take note, the Attorney General is a Democrat who has an ongoing battle with Sen. DeLay.

The Wall Street Journals editors write:

“Taken separately, and on present evidence, none of the latest charges directly touch Mr. DeLay; at worst, they paint a picture of a man who makes enemies by playing political hardball and loses admirers by resorting to politics-as-usual.”

“The problem… is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of

revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits.”

“Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.”

Term Limits or Not

Some 22 states have adopted term limits. US Senators and members of the House of Representatives do not have term limits, while the President of the United States does. The US Constitution does not call for term limits, in part, because the authors, those gentlemen who had left behind government tyrannies, could not fathom the idea of a career politician. They opted for what they called rotation in the service of government. It was a gentleman’s agreement.

Those who favor term limits believe that restricting congressional terms would create more competitive elections and increase the diversity of those who are elected. They believe that so-called fresh blood would enliven and even shake up the bureaucracies of a bloated government structure. Most important, they maintain, term limits would end politics as a career goal.

The question remains for those who believe in term limits: Why would any newly elected novice, by virtue of his ‘newness,’ be any more or less intelligent or courageous than an incumbent in addressing such problems as protecting individual rights and property ownership? These are matters of principle that are stuck hard and fast into the structure of the Constitution upon which our government is based.

Those not in favor of term limits say such a law would force many good men out of office solely because of their longevity. These men are thought to be wise to the workings of government and understanding of the processes. Novices to elected offices, they say, are generally less informed. They would push to reinstitute the idea of citizen-legislators who would come to and go from the seat of government voluntarily. They also contend that free elections are the better way to rid Congress of ineffective and immoral politicians. And that to force an elected official out of office based on an artificial standard (of four or six years) is to eliminate free choice by the citizens who elected him.

Of course, this philosophy means that some people will choose a politician to return to Washington whom others think should not be reelected. But that’s the consequence of free choice - another principle upon which our country was founded.

The actual issue at the heart of the squabble over term limits is that the purpose of government has been lost in the squishy redefinition of the institution. Truth be said that many elected officials, today, no longer share the core values of our Founding Fathers; those of honesty, integrity, pride, responsibility, dignity, honor, justice, truth and patriotism. Furthermore, they are no longer guided by the principles of life, liberty, economic freedom and the pursuit of happiness as outlined in the US Constitution.

At the heart of this is the question: Is the purpose of government to be a caretaker or is the purpose to protect our rights as citizens? There is no doubt that the question is at odds in the halls of Congress.

The fundamental issue, of course, is whether one should accept the Constitution as a valid document or allow men to rewrite it over time according to their political interpretations, and the whims and uncertainties of the moment. The answer would seem self-evident if it weren’t for the erratic behavior of so many politicians in Washington.

A Minor Miracle

On March 17, 2005, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal Online, referencing the 2006 budget process in Congress, made note of an unusual occurrence in the House of Representatives that may shed some light on the issue of term limits and the rotation of gentlemen politicians.

The article explains that the current Congressional budget process was designed by Democrats…expressly to disguise how much Congress spends.

“An annual budget resolution is passed each spring but it lacks the force of law and the Members routinely exceed it when they pass individual spending bills.”

“Republicans deplored all of this when they were in the minority, and "budget process reform" was a rallying cry through the 1980s. But now that they're running the asylum, they don't want spending accountability either. Last year they exceeded their budget limit by $500 million, and the leadership bitterly fought any reform.”

“Mark it down as a minor miracle: Congress has finally agreed to a little enforcement discipline against runaway spending, thanks to a band of Republican House Members who stared down their leadership.”

“They wanted some guarantee that the spending limits they approve at the beginning of the year -- which are announced with great fanfare -- will be enforced at the end when fewer Americans are watching.”

These 25 Republicans are young conservative backbenchers who have less power than other representatives. They are generally newly elected and thus are not thought to be knowledgeable players. But in this particular case they stood nose to nose with their ‘elders’ and their ‘elders’ blinked. They actually demanded that members of their own party, i.e., other Republicans, should mean what they say when they pass a budget. Said one young leader: "This is precisely the time to institutionalize the discipline that they have only begun to practice."

It was a courageous encounter. And it might just be the first clear demonstration that new blood in Congress could stem the tide of those who dictate - according to their own political prejudices - the law, the battles and the ideology of the country.

But more important than their high noon victory, these young Republicans are conservatives who, for the most part, stand for stopping a special interest-controlled Congress. And if they are encouraged by their successes, and they continue to be strong and determined, the future of politics may focus once again on principles rather than politics -- and term limits will not be necessary.

Clarifying The Geneva Conventions
Torture, As An Issue of Politics

By Sara Pentz

There has been much said in the past few weeks—and for several years before that—about the roll of torture in modern day warfare. This issue was publicly resurrected in the January 2005 Senate confirmation hearings for Albert Gonzales as President George W. Bush’s nominee for attorney general. It was clear from the beginning that Senate Democrats planed to turn the confirmation hearings into an attack on President Bush and his nominee. In fact, they were quite specific about their intentions even prior to the hearings—as was reported in some of the media.

It was the liberal Democrats’ political agenda to allege that President Bush conspired with his former legal counsel, Mr. Gonzales, to rewrite the Geneva Contentions—a document adopted in August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War. Their intent was to attack both the President and Mr. Gonzales for trying to clarify the concept of torture as defined in The Conventions.

For their purposes the Democrats consider the Geneva Conventions sacrosanct and tamper-proof. While, ironically, they do not consider the Constitution of the United States as such. Nevertheless, they took this stand because they were determined to slur the character of Mr. Gonzoles and President Bush. This and this alone constituted their goals and tactics throughout the hearings.

The Democrats focused on two memos written by Mr. Gonzales each of which sought to clarify the Conventions’ concept of prisoner interrogation with regard to the changing modes of contemporary warfare. One memo written by Gonzales in January 2002 asserted that terrorists captured overseas by Americans do not merit the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The other, addressed to him in August 2002, argued for a more narrow definition of torture as "excruciating and agonizing pain."

Henry Mark Holzer, a constitutional and appellate lawyer, and Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, www.henrymarkholzer.com, addresses this subject in his recent article “In Defense of Torture.” Observe his reasoning:

Some of the commentators, in their analysis and discussion of the phenomenon of torture, admit being deeply troubled by how a democracy deals with the question of torture generally, let alone in the extreme example of the so-called “ticking time bomb” situation.

Until recently the question was hypothetical. It no longer is. There are variations on the ticking time bomb situation, but the essence is in this plausible scenario: A known terrorist in FBI custody, whose information is credible, won’t disclose where in Washington, DC, he has secreted a “weapon of mass destruction” – a nuclear bomb – set to detonate in two hours. The Bureau is certain that the terrorist will never voluntarily reveal the bomb’s location. In two hours our nation’s capital could be wiped from the face of the earth, our government decimated, surrounding areas irredeemably contaminated, and the United States laid defenseless to unimaginable predation by our enemies.

What to do?

Accepting these facts for the sake of argument, we have only two choices. Do nothing, and suffer the unimaginable consequences, or torture the information out of the terrorist.

There are many people among us – Jimmy Carter-like pacifists and Ramsey Clark-type America haters come to mind – who would probably stand by idly and endure an atomic holocaust. But most people would doubtless opt for torture, albeit reluctantly. These realists would be correct. They would be entitled to be free of even a scintilla of moral guilt, because torture – of whatever kind, and no matter how brutal – in defense of legitimate self-preservation is not only not immoral, it is a moral imperative. (Emphasis added)

In this last sentence, Mr. Holzer, speaks to the justification for torture as used in a war setting. His examination of the issue is thorough, logical, legally documented and perfectly crafted.

The Democrat’s Real Purpose

The Democrats used smear tactics to create the big lie about Mr. Gonzalez’s motives, actions and behavior. They sought to divert attention from the real issue—the necessity of reexamining the morality of torture. They hoped to profit from these tactics. They wanted to increase their political currency and decrease the good will of Mr. Gonzales and President Bush. But, this kind of twisted political maneuvering did not work because Mr. Gonzales was confirmed as Attorney General on February 3, 2005. In fact, it was openly stated that his confirmation was assured prior to the hearings. Clearly the hearings were prolonged as a disguise for attacking the President.

Liberals use these tactics whenever they can, no matter what the context, in order to punish Mr. Bush and whomever he nominates for a position in the government—even when those nominated are imminently qualified beyond question.

Witness the harangue they generated throughout the confirmation hearings for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who was vilified for her so-called false reasoning involving the U.S. in the Iraq. Her patriotism, her judgment, her loyalty, her intellect were all attacked with impunity. It was a sordid circus. This behavior from less than honorable, politically partisan people like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator John Kerry, defeated presidential candidate, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, was shameful. Their defamatory wailings do not sit well in the once revered institution of the United State Senate. They only do damage to themselves.

When we evaluate the actions and behavior of people we must look at the motives, as best we can determine them. When the motives seem unclear or confusing we can look outside the circumstances to a broader cause or reason. It is always circumspect when people scream, call others nasty names, change the subject, use flawed logic or run away from the issue. That’s when we must question their motives. If these same people refuse to discuss logically the reason for their ideas, thoughts, values, behavior and actions, it is time to stop talking to them.

Why is it Important to reevaluate The Geneva Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions document was written specifically to address the issue of prisoners of war and their status in a conventional war. It was a civilized and appropriate document for its time. However, it applied only to conventional warfare in which armies were dressed in military uniforms and fought in the open—one side against another in a declared war.

The Iraqi war has changed the way men of opposite ideas fight each other. The terrorists’ purpose is to deliberately kill civilians and cause havoc. The terrorist does not value life in principle. The sole intent of these terrorists is to wipe out the American way of life. Their purpose is to destroy democracy and freedom—the foundations of a civilized life. Human life is not sacrosanct for them—anyone’s life, the enemy’s or even their own.

We act on the principle that even the terrorists have a right to live a life of their choosing. We do not force people to behave contrary to their wishes. We are fighting in Iraq for everyone’s freedom. The terrorists are fighting to deny freedom to all.

The Geneva Conventions must be clarified to define terrorists outside the concept of prisoner of war protection. We must re-codify in what way terrorists can be held incommunicado and how they can be tortured during interrogation. The Conventions must include some carefully written steps that would legally and morally allow men of honor to obtain information that will protect us from the chaos inflicted by terrorists. As Mr. Holzer clearly states: “…(torture) in defense of legitimate self-preservation … is a moral imperative.”

This is the kind of morality to which noble men aspire. The next time you see the mutilated body of an 18 year-old U.S. Marine carried to his grave—the victim of a terrorist bomb—or watch his parents weep at his coffin, think carefully about whether you want these terrorist sipping tea at Guantanamo after a nap in the sun—while plotting the ruination for the rest of the world.

The article was written February 4, 2005.

The Mechanics of The Media
Our Responsibility To Question and Object

By Sara Pentz

“Maureen Dowd at the New York Times opines, "when you combine limited government with incompetent government, lethal stuff happens."

The Washington Post's Harold Meyerson belches, "more than anything else," it is the president's "economic libertarianism . . . that has transformed a great city into an immense morgue."”

Will Wilkinson, The Cato Institute

Mr. Wilkinson identifies these remarks as leftist diatribes. He understands the need to point the finger at those in the media who have a Liberal mantra they sing like an atonal refrain. That kind of journalism from the two largest newspapers in the country is disgraceful. It is stacked with loaded words––phrases that can only be called propaganda.

While it is inappropriate to call for censorship of this kind of journalism, it is critical for readers to name it as editorializing. It is not news reporting. That’s the distinction.

While it is your choice to read these writers, the consequences will be left wing indoctrination. If you do not want to be blinded by Liberal rhetoric you need to ask and answer the kinds of questions that allow you to understand how the elitist media is manipulating the news.

There are certain rules in journalism that mandates the writing of news. These rules are being flagrantly disregarded. It’s time that is changed.

Let the Public Beware

The media brainwashing machine is so much a part of the elitist media that most people do not know they are being feed propaganda. Even if they did recognize the bias, they do not know where or how to find a rebuttal. It takes a massive amount of research and a major allegiance to truth, to identify what and how this media machine automatically feeds us biased news.

There are many ways to get to the facts of the news. The most important way is to know that the major media outlets are manipulating information. If you understand this premise, it is incumbent upon you to find a way to refute the assertions and premises that are part and parcel of today’s news reports.

One way to do this is to search through the Internet where there are multitudes of places to find alternative options to left wing bias. By the way, this is one of the reasons bureaucrats want to hobble and tax the Internet. Another, of course, is slapping a tax on this new technology to raise more money for government projects.

Observe the collectivist countries that do not allow their citizens free access to the Internet––China, Iran, etc. Exam their fear of this tool. Ask why some journalists who are faced with transgressions call Internet bloggers derogatory names such as––pajama clad (fill in the blank)––see Dan Rather, formerly anchor of CBS News. It was just such bloggers who searched for the truth, found it and revealed the facts of Rather’s forgery fraud. It was they who caused the ruination of Rather.

Furthermore, it is precisely the bloggers on the Internet who have set the scene for challenges to misinformation. They dig for the facts and come up with scoops the elitist print and network media do not choose to report––or even identify as news. These bloggers have caught politicians in contradictions (see Hillary Clinton on immigration), exposed and uncovered liars, cheats and disreputable men. They are the budding journalists of the 21^st Century. Go to the Internet for information you will never find on the nightly news.

Here are some places to venture: www.mediaresearch.org, www.freemarketproject.org, www.capmag.com, www.honestreporting.com, http://frontpagemag.com, http://nationalreview.com, www.weeklystandard.com, www.hermancain.com, www.theconservativevoice.com, and www.fed-soc.org, to name only a few. There are scores more. At any one of these websites one can find another facts that contradict the left wing media.

One of the most visited websites is The Drudge Report. Here you can find news stories and writers who represent all aspects of our society. A recent story reported by Matt Drudge is one very good example why Americans interested in fact–based news turn to the Internet.

CNN PRODUCERS TOLD ON-AIR GUESTS: GET ANGRY
Mon Sep 12 2005 12:42:11 ET www.drudgereport.com

“After weeks of intense Katrina coverage from the main press, LA TIMES guru and former CNN host Michael Kinsley divulges that CNN was coaching guests to artificially enhance emotions!

“Kinsley writes: "The TV news networks, which only a few months ago were piously suppressing emotional fireworks by their pundits, are now piously encouraging their news anchors to break out of the emotional straitjackets and express outrage. A Los Angeles Times colleague of mine, appearing on CNN last week to talk about Katrina, was told by a producer to 'get angry.'"

If you find these unethical manipulations by CNN are shocking, you are naïve. I can personally attest to admonitions by a television news directors years ago, ‘get them to cry on camera, Sara.’ This is precisely the mind think of the mechanics that are in charge of the media today.

Identifying Media Mind Think

Take a look at your TV screen and watch the misfortunes of those who suffered from such disasters as Hurricane Katrina. Most sound bits featured them tearing–up or haranguing on camera. Of course, their pain was understandable. But where were the sound bites from people who weathered the storm with great heroism? What about those success stories? Surely these people are as much a part of the news story or those who suffered.

Those good news sound bites are not in evidence because most news producers think them boring or non–essential to the story. It is a mind think that is repulsive and lopsided. It is not the total news picture.

www.newsmax.com, a respected Internet magazine, recently reported an astonishing fact. Add this to your opinion of the mainstream media. This revealing report about how the NY Times fabricated news is worth reading in its entirety in order to understand the mechanics of the media.

Sunday, Sept. 25, 2005 10:45 a.m. EDT

NY Times Admits Fabricating News - Again

“The mainstream media's newspaper of record admitted late Saturday that one of its reporters fabricated part of a news story on Hurricane Katrina relief.

Saying his paper "flunked" the test of basic journalistic fairness, New York Times public editor Byron Calame said Alessandra Stanley's Sept. 5 report claiming that the Fox News Channel's Geraldo Rivera "nudged" an Air Force relief worker out of the way so he could film himself rescuing a Katrina victim had been made up out of whole cloth.

"Since Ms. Stanley based her comments on what she saw on the screen Sept. 4, the videotape of that segment means everyone involved is looking at exactly the same evidence," Calame noted.

"My viewings of the videotape - at least a dozen times, including one time frame by frame - simply doesn't show me any 'nudge' of any Air Force rescuer by Mr. Rivera," the Times internal watchdog said, adding, "Ms. Stanley declined my invitation to watch the tape with me."

Times editor Bill Keller, however, is still standing by Ms. Stanley's bogus report. He told Calame that she was "writing as a critic, with the license that title brings - [and] was within bounds in her judgment."

"Ms. Stanley's point was that Mr. Rivera was show-boating - that he was being pushy, if not literally pushing - and I think an impartial viewer of the footage will see it that way," Keller insisted.

But Calame countered: "Ms. Stanley certainly would have been entitled to opine that Mr. Rivera's actions were showboating or pushy. But a 'nudge' is a fact, not an opinion. And even critics need to keep facts distinct from opinions."

Stanley's bogus report continues a pattern at the Old Gray Lady of making up the news.

Two weeks ago, columnist Paul Krugman was forced to admit that he falsely claimed media recounts in Florida showed Al Gore winning the 2000 presidential election.

In August, a Times profile of Hillary Clinton changed a quote first reported by NewsMax where Clinton said she was "adamantly opposed to illegal immigrants." In the toned down Times version, Clinton's opposition was to "illegal immigration" rather than the immigrants themselves.”

Notice that when The Times’ own public editor, the internal Times watchdog, identified the forgeries, The Times editor refused to admit the sham. In the face of the facts, the editor arbitrarily changed Ms. Stanley’s status as journalist from news reporter to critic––after the publication of her story. The dishonesty of this act is undeniable. And, the very act identifies him as a newsman with no respect for facts. It is a flagrant act of evasion of his duties as a chief journalist at ‘the most respected newspaper in the world’. He apparently feels that no one will notice. But we did.

Take note, this is not a one–time example of the left wing mainstream media. It is, in fact, the rule not the exception. And, it is our responsibility to make note and fight for truth in our media.

###

Comedian Bill Cosby’s Courageous Crusade
Not Politically Correct – But Right On

By Sara Pentz

Most people know actor Bill Cosby as a comedian. His humor has captivated TV and film audiences. He has written books and is known for his humorous Jell-O television commercials. He has even recorded jazz albums and dubbed cartoon voices.

The man has simply resonated throughout the culture for the past 50 years because of his talent. And while he is very funny, he seems always to be deeply concerned with projecting positive images of African Americans. It is a noble cause.

For the most part Cosby’s comedy centers on giving insight into parenting. Life Magazine once described his famous sitcom “The Bill Cosby Show” in the following way: “What Cosby offered…was a gentle, whimsical, warm-hearted sitcom about family life that found humor in the little things that happen in every home and everlasting value in the love and trust that exist between parents and children.”

Most people don’t know that Cosby had to repeat the tenth grade because his study habits gave way to his love of athletics. He dropped out shortly thereafter and joined the Navy. He finished high school via a correspondence course while still in the service. When he was discharged, he enrolled at Temple University as the result of an athletic scholarship, where he earned academic honors. In addition, Cosby completed his Masters Degree and his Doctorate in Education.

Imagine the pride of this man whose son, Ennis William Cosby, overcame learning disabilities to earn a master's degree in special education at Columbia University's Teachers College. He was studying for his doctorate when in l997 he was shot to death. He was changing a tire on his car in the remote area of the San Diego Freeway—about 15 miles from downtown Los Angeles—when he was murdered. He was Bill Cosby’s only son. “He was my hero,” the comedian said.

Ennis Cosby had spent his last day tutoring a young boy who had learning disabilities. Tragic as the death was, Cosby returned immediately to work and to carry on his passion for education, self-improvement and teaching young black men how to be independent and productive members of society.

In a way it should not have come as a shock when in the late spring of 2004, Cosby took aim at blacks who don't take responsibility for their economic status, blame police for incarcerations and teach their kids poor speaking habits. What was shocking was how and where this comedian chose to make his very serious comments—at a NAACP event in Washington D.C. commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision which paved the way for integrating schools.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids – $500 sneakers for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.'

"They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"

"These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, [saying] 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"

Criticizing African-Americans for wearing saggy pants, speaking improper English and giving children names like "…Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap," Cosby said,

"I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange [prison] suit.” "Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol? And where is the father?

NAACP President Kweisi Mfume, Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert, NAACP legal defense fund head Theodore Shaw and other national African-American leaders sat stone-faced throughout Cosby’s remarks. The audience rang out with laughter and applause.

Perhaps Mr. Cosby had read a book called "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America," by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. In it Peterson reports that “…increasing numbers of Americans have come to regard Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other establishment "black leaders" as con artists, gaining money and power by promoting racial tension and class warfare.” It is a bold book written by a successful entrepreneur, motivational speaker, author, and founder/president of a nonprofit organization, the Los Angeles-based Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny or B.O.N.D.–whose purpose is "rebuilding the family by rebuilding the man."

In the book Peterson shows “…how the civil-rights establishment has made a lucrative career out of keeping racial strife alive in America.” He reveals how “…establishment black leaders endlessly promise solutions to the problems of America's inner cities, but deliver only ineffective Band-Aids…from the dismal failure of the welfare system, to the farce of the slavery-reparations movement, to the problems within black churches and the hypocrisy and corruption of current black leaders…”

Whether or not Cosby read the book, he continued his crusade throughout 2004 telling parents they must work to educate their children before they wind up teenage moms, jail inmates, drug dealers—or dead. Cosby stressed that it is the parents—not just the schools themselves—who need to step up. "Parents are 99 percent," he told the San Francisco Chronicle. "School districts don't parent. They teach… It's time for people to just stop seeing themselves so much as victims, so much in poverty, and realize what education does and fight for it like you're fighting for your life..."

Bill Cosby is himself fighting for his own life metaphorically by taking on this courageous crusade. The roots of it seem to be deeply embedded in his soul going back to his childhood. Remarkably, he appears not to care one whit what his black compatriots say about him. It is utterly refreshing to hear this black man speak out without concern for being politically correct.

Bill Cosby, MA, PhD, may always be remembered for his humor, but that alone is not the mark of the man. He is insightful and heroic—and every American should be indebted to him for his new crusade to raise black children up to be educated, to be free and to take responsibility for their actions. And maybe some of that will rub off on all the other children in the world who believe they are owed something by someone else.

The Blogosphere Rising
By Sara Pentz

In a recent news report people were asked what they would do without the Internet. Most said they would not be able to ‘survive;’ some said they would ‘die.’ While certainly they used hyperbole to describe their distress at that thought, their sentiments were a small indication of how the Internet is becoming more of a major influence in our everyday lives.

Evidence of this comes from the rise of the Internet blog. A blog is basically a journal that is available on the web. The activity of updating a blog is called blogging and someone who keeps a blog is a blogger. Therefore, the term blogosphere is the space on the Internet where one can read or write blogs.

Events happen that underscore this inescapable trend toward blogging on the blogosphere. For example, the recent discrediting of CBS’s “60 Minutes Wednesday’ report, about faked National Guard memos used to impugn the character of President George W. Bush, represents a glowing example of this paradigm shift.

Here was an example of a mainstream media outlet presenting a dishonest report to the American people where facts, research and contradictory testimony would not allow the CBS team to waver from its political agenda; where partisans with an ax to grind carried the thrust of the story. Worse than that, the CBS team had to—in some way—understand the deception, because the thesis was openly rejected in advance of the report by a number of noted experts. It was an ugly example of dishonesty in journalism too often repeated in today’s mainstream media.

But the jig was up when, only a few hours after the report aired, a legion of legitimate legal and political experts showed up on the web to expose the deception. In one of the great moments in Internet history, a collage of remote souls collectively did what CBS News had failed to do. They sought the truth. They were specialists in a multitude of areas such as documents, handwriting, copy machines, typewriters, computers, software programs, typefaces, military technology and Texas National Guard history. Together, within less than two days, they sank the CBS report, countering it with documented data in a manner never before witnessed—to which by the way CBS thumbed its nose.

It was a technological feat that suddenly gave the blogosphere official credibility and celebrity. While it is certainly known how fast the Internet can give access to and deliver information, this kind of counter attack had never before been displayed with such speedy and devastating results. The revelations emerging throughout the sphere were forcing the mainstream to address the incident—albeit with its usual unwillingness.

Writing esoterically about the explosion of the blogosphere, University of Dallas professor Frederick Turner of TechCenterStation.com, explains: “What we saw was an extraordinary example of what chaos and complexity theorists call spontaneous self-organization. Out of a highly communicative but apparently chaotic medium…a perfectly-matched team of specialists had self-assembled out of the ether.” He adds, “The dazzling speed and monstrous bandwidth of the information flow had crossed some kind of threshold, in which thousands of minds could act as…an intelligence with not merely cognitive, but moral characteristics.”

The power of the blogosphere had coalesced morality—truth, justice, responsibility—and overpowered the mainstream media with its force. Just as basic research, fact checking and critical editing has begun to erode in newspapers, magazines, and TV news around the world, these basic journalistic endeavors found a solid and impeccably obvious place on the Internet.

A new journalism was emerging—a journalism with smarts as well as courage. This is the kind of courage that takes responsibility for actions and behavior in the face of hard moral choices. Here lies the bravery to distill information with independent thinking and without biased editing. It is the free and plucky thinking that is so absent in other spheres where hack redundancy has found its ground.

This was, then, a supreme and sublime reallocation of power. The blogosphere was rising up to take over where the mainstream media had failed. Bloggers began to understand the magnitude of their importance. They had thrust aside the media elite and taken over the role of the arbiter of truth. And the very act became a nod to the new journalism that is going to quickly permeate the culture. No longer can the media elite falsify, fake, lie and cheat with impunity because they will be ‘outed’ by bloggers around the world.

Perhaps, that is why these media elitists fear, despise and ridicule bloggers. In the midst of CBS attempts to cover up the faked memo report, a quote by one senior CBSer united the bloggers. He attacked and attempted to ridicule them by pejoratively calling them, “…some guys sitting in their living rooms in their pajamas.” The insult was a bomb; backfiring as only it could into the laps of the arrogant. The quote whizzed through the blogosphere tap-dancing from website to website; careening through chat rooms and strings; and into the words of think-tank pundits—all at a speed of this new lightening-fast technology. As it did, the insult was caricatured in cartoons, jokes and puns. The bloggers loved it. They had found their identity and gloried in it. They laughed at the pettiness of the elites because it was all so untrue.

From Townhall.com John Leo writes, “Dan Rather associated them (bloggers) with rumor and propaganda. This seems to mean that many in the mainstream press still don’t understand bloggers…the kind of self-made journalists who make their case with hyperlinks to primary sources and other data. Arguments without authority count for nothing, and softheaded analyses and hoaxes are quickly exposed. As RealClear Politics.com said, it’s a fast-moving, “very transparent, self-correcting environment ultimately based on facts.”

Here’s a succinct comment from Brent Bozell, President of Media Research Center. “The conservative counterculture buzzes daily about the misinformation the liberal media tries to feed the people. Media accountability to their audience is now coming directly from the audience.”

It seems inevitable that these stalwart bloggers will gain more and more respectability—while marching in their formal tuxedos to the cadence of the truthseeker. The more they each come forward with non-partisan information, the more they will inflate their ranks and sink the mainstream Liberally-biased media.

Bloggers will multiply exponentially with respect to the masses of people who write honestly with facts, objectivity and the truth. And the blogosphere will rise just like the phoenix—that mythical bird, a symbol of virtue, power and prosperity, that flies far ahead in the lead scanning the landscape and distant space with its intense and perfect vision. And, like the legendary phoenix, the blogosphere will lead the dawn of a new and brighter day.

Mr. Chrenkoff’s Blog
Witnessing Two Revolutions
By Sara Pentz

In an article written for Opinionjournal.com, the online version of the Wall Street Journal, on Monday, November 8, 2004, there is an excellent behind-the-news summary accounting of the war—and the peace—in Iraq. It is an amazing read for two reasons.

First, Mr. Chrenkoff’s blog details the good news from Iraq that the mainstream media has disgracefully refused to report. This blogger has given us a look at Democracy in progress. His accounts show us how a once subjugated people are taking control of their lives. How the American soldier, American free enterprise, humanitarian help from around the world, and freedom itself have had an impact on these so recently tyrannized people.

Second, in an unprecedented move a major media outlet has published an Internet blog written by Arthur Chrenkoff, an Australian blogger. It is a deserved sanction made by one of the world’s more influential newspapers. It demonstrates the vital importance of bloggers and their Internet writings. The blog itself, http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/, proves that bloggers can be intelligent, impartial, honest and observant—and that some of the best are here to stay.

We are, in fact, witnessing two revolutions—the rise of the credibility of the blogger, and the building of a free society in the face of undeniably appalling odds. The American mainstream press has subjugated both of these revolutions until now.

The Stuff of Mr. Chrenkoff’s Blog

Mr. Chrenkoff’s blog focuses a bright white light on a country evolving in a way we cannot quite imagine. It is not a report about failures, beheadings, murderers and the carnage of war. Mr. Chrenkoff takes us behind the scenes to look at how Democracy is working in this ruined country.

It is an inspiring journey as Mr. Chrenkoff documents details, and quotes Iraqis who are experiencing their freedom at work. He shows us how they express and demonstrate their courage and resourcefulness as they rebuild Iraq with the help of people who understand their plight. It is a story of heros and hope.

He writes about the emergence of political parties and voter registration—about the development of precinct organization and the upcoming election. He writes about the small triumphs of such things as successful local city council elections.

He writes about shops filled with brand-new refrigerators, televisions and air conditioners. He writes about a northern Iraqi governor who talks about promoting tourism, and about local residents who shrug off questions of violence and kidnappings as they emerge from the chaos.

He writes about an Iraqi economy celebrating the first anniversary of the introduction of the new dinar—about how the Iraqi Central Bank will soon license foreign banks. This is the same central bank, he writes, that auctioned Treasury bills from the beginning of July 2004 for the first time in years.

Mr. Chrenkoff writes about how construction work is thriving throughout the country and the infrastructure is being rebuilt. About how water quality is improving as water-treatment plants appear, and new electricity plants that will provide air conditioning for the summer of 2005. And he tells us about how ChevronTexaco Corp. signed a memorandum of understanding recently with Iraq's Oil Ministry to provide free technical assistance to upgrade the country's exploration and production industry.

He writes about teacher’s salaries raised from $5 to an average of $300 a month—about a new Minister of Education who quickly assembled a senior staff after some 12,000 teachers and administrators who had been members of the now-banned Ba'ath Party were fired. UNICEF and USAID, he writes, distributed school supplies to more than five million students and reprinted textbooks, after removing much of the propaganda of the previous regime. Then he talks about the boxes full of medical textbooks donated by a textbook company, and the need for more books of every kind.

He writes about how a company will shortly provide Internet services to universities and educational institutions in Iraq using advanced digital satellite telecommunications equipment for data, voice and video applications. It is one of the most effective technologies used today to meet a diverse set of communications needs and to provide remote area connectivity.

He writes about how the Iraqi medical system is being rebuilt. About how Iraqi physicians now arrange medical conferences in collaboration with American military physicians. Together they discuss blood diseases, chest trauma and the future of emergency medical services. Gunfights near conference sites and terrorist threats have failed to deter invited American physicians and more than 300 Iraqi physicians from participating in these conference. He writes about how medical centers, dental clinics, hospitals and drugstores are being rebuilt—sometimes from the ground up.

He tells us that museum officials recently began to study, catalog and reconcile scattered but priceless collections and how they plan to create a digital catalog of more than 100,000 artifacts. The catalog will be made available in English and Arabic, on the Internet and in print.

He writes about a small group of young men who recently gathered on a patchy grass field behind Baghdad University's College of Sports Education. They were there to organizer Iraq's fledgling national baseball team. He writes about how humor is on the rise throughout the population because people are feeling in control of their lives. He tells us that toys are streaming in from all over so that little boys and girls are given a chance for a happy childhood.

The Meaning of Mr. Chrenkoff’s Blog

Mr. Chrenkoff’s blog is informative, comprehensive and objective. It is the kind of report not available in newspapers or on television in any country in the world. As such it is an embarrassment—especially to the American mainstream media (as it should be) because this country boasts a high regard for non-partisan reporting. If anything, Mr. Chrenkoff’s blog proves the dismal failure of the American media to honor that tradition.

That Mr. Chrenkoff’s blog can be read only on the Internet is shamefully underscoring the refusal of the American media to tell the other story of Iraq. No wonder media elites are smearing bloggers. They are terrified of these people who can outperform them across the spectrum.

Mr. Chrekoff’s blog is a clear testimony to the certainty of freedom of the press. When the void for objective reporting occurred and the technology became available, the bloggers stepped forth with a kind of passion to counter and correct the misinformation campaigns of the mainstream media elite.

It is a sad fact that most people accept the news they read in mainstream media, day after day, as if it were the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We have been, often unwittingly, brainwashed by this current gang of elite East and West Coast American reporters. We have accepted the word of news anchors and pundits who twist the facts, compound partisan reports and perpetrate the big lie.

But no longer. These bloggers can take well-deserved credit for their efforts to expose the media’s bias. They laid bare CBS’s Dan Rather for his slanderous attack in a CBS Reports TV show on President Bush during the election campaign. They offered a very different view of Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam record—partially accounting for his election defeat.

With a few exceptions, bloggers are focused on one principle—the emergence of truth through facts. And they can do that because they have the knowledge and the incentive. They come from every profession, opinion and philosophy to rip through the falsehoods, dishonesty and revisionism of the elite media. It’s as if these bloggers have collectively risen up to say, “We’re not going to take it any more.” This is their revolution.

The Revolutionary

Mr. Chenkoff’s blog offers a very different view of Iraq than we learn from the American media every day.

“Judging by the response to this now almost regular column,” he says, “I would venture a guess that part of the explanation why the American involvement in Iraq continues to enjoy a majority popular support is that a significant number of people throughout the country (America) have stopped relying on the mainstream media for all the news from Iraq.”

This is the story of two revolutions. Neither involves guns. Instead they are more intangible and far more important. They use the power of ideas—that individual freedoms create a better life and that freedom of the press demands honesty and a reverence for the truth.

The Racist Liberal Exposed
It's Not an Aberration

By Sara Pentz

"MADISON, Wis. - A radio talk show host who called Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima" issued an apology Friday (Nov. 18, 2004), but not to Rice. “It is with a heavy heart that I apologize this morning to Aunt Jemima,” John "Sly" Sylvester said on WTDY-AM in Madison (Nov. 16, 2004). "She wasn't a self-serving hack politician who got up in front of Congress and lied. Aunt Jemima didn't kowtow to Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney.” “Aunt Jemima never lied about yellow cake uranium, she just makes a damn good pancake.”
- Associated Press

“Sylvester, who is white, said he called Rice "Aunt Jemima" on Wednesday's show to describe her and other black officials as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration. He also referred to Secretary of State Colin Powell as an "Uncle Tom" – a contemptuous term for black people whose behavior toward whites is regarded as fawning or servile.”
– Associated Press

To most civilized human beings these comments broadcast by John Sylvester are so shockingly out of order that it is beyond comprehension why they were said. They represent the height of bottom-feeder slurs. They characterize Dr. Condoleezza Rice as a lackey of the Bush Administration. They seek to belittle her as a dunce, a yes-man, a liar and incapable of filling Colin Powell's shoes. Dr. Rice is the object of scorn and racist charges because she is not considered authentically black—that is, she is not seen as a black in the political tradition of liberalism. That's the meaning behind the euphemistic use of the word ‘authentic' when used in this context.

Dr. Rice is the main object of attack. The difference between Rice and Powell is a distinctly liberal politic. Powell is depicted as a man of immense integrity and stature because he's to the left of many in the Bush White House. He is portrayed by the left as an authentic African American precisely because of his views, not because of his remarkable record of accomplishments. Conversely, in spite of her own extraordinary resume, Rice is, according to the leftists, the one who sold-out to the conservative politic, and, therefore, is fair game as the object of vulgar contempt.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice’s resume is clearly outstanding. She became the National Security Advisor to President Bush in 2001. She was Provost of Stanford University, and as a professor of political science there, she won two of the highest teaching honors. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow of the Hoover Institution.

Her books include “Germany Unified and Europe Transformed” (1995) with Philip Zelikow, “The Gorbachev Er”a (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and “Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army” (1984).

She served in the elder Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.

She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.

Dr. Rice earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver; her master's from the University of Notre Dame; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College, the University of Alabama, the University of Notre Dame, the National Defense University, the Mississippi College School of Law, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University.

Quite clearly, she cannot be criticized for her intellect!

It is critical to mention here that such outrageous comments as those made by John Sylvester, and others, are allowed to be stated in the United States because we adhere to the principle that anyone can say anything they want—except to advocate the intended overthrow of the government. Our freedoms protect us from prison when we speak insults such as those made by liberal radio personality Sylvester. This is what makes our country great. In many other countries you would be a dead duck within a matter of seconds if you criticized a governmental official in such a manner.

Liberal political cartoonists have joined the rush to denigrate Dr. Rice in a series of cartoons too vile to show here. They have produced drawings of her that can only be characterized as racist, patronizing, and grotesque. It is naked bigotry.

One such is Universal Press Syndicate cartoonist Ted Rall who has created a cartoon that depicts Ms. Rice proclaiming herself Bush's "House Nigga." A black man demands that Rice, "Hand over her hair straightener.” His t-shirt reads, "You're not white, stupid.” The Washington Post newspaper, among others, actually published this cartoon.

Conservative columnist (and minority) Michelle Malkin calls Rall “a very useful idiot,” saying, “…most on the Left attempt to conceal their liberal racism in the drapery of diversity and multiculturalism but not Rall…(he) is not the far Left fringe. He…reflects the closet thinking of mainstream media editors across the country and their mainstream liberal audiences. His work is reportedly carried in 140 newspapers.”

Sane men will ask, what provokes this kind of gutter language and graphic insult against the minorities of President Bush's cabinet? And why is there such an outpouring of deathly silence from black leaders and so-called principled Democrats across the country in response?

The people who write and speak these kinds of insults are incapable of arguing intellectually. They scream. They don't explain. They shriek. They don't debate. They disrupt. They don't listen. They are out of control in the same way the terrible two-year-old can be. But they demand we listen to them. They call it censorship when we don't care to do so. Theirs is the kind of language heard repeatedly from the lefties and the liberals, from Senator Kerry and the European press, throughout the recent presidential campaign. It is all unintelligible gibberish devoid of meaning.

This kind of trash is now gushing out of the mouths of American liberals and is passed on from liberal website to liberal website, newspaper-to-newspaper, without repudiation or remorse. It is prompted by the other half of the country who voted for Kerry as a vote against Bush. When they didn't win, they threw a tantrum, went into a deep blue funk and became so infuriated they allowed their emotions of hate to overrule sane argument. Their unchecked rage filled those who revel in it with a kind of perverse pleasure and, therefore, a false sense of power and security. But it has all backfired—as it has allowed the liberal's politics of racist hate to surface.

These rabid attacks come basically from these racists because they feel their ideas are threatened. Their slander is meant to be malicious and malevolent—intended to do harm to the object of their spitting and hissing. And while they miss that mark, the intent of the authors must be addressed.

For years, we have been told by liberals that this kind of hate is the sole province of the good ‘ol Southern white boys and a few dimwitted truckers. Their condescension was always so transparent. And while it may be the case that some folks have spewed their fair share of bigotry, the current denigrating epitaphs come straight out of the mouths of elitist liberals who consider themselves secular, sophisticated and superior—above the fray, so to speak. These are the same liberals who have for, at least, sixty years proclaimed themselves to be the protectors of minorities in this country.

Now the ugly truth is out.

These people don't care one whit about supporting minorities. They only care about manipulating the black vote to suit their liberal ends. And they care more about the power this gives them than they do the power a legitimate support might give to a black minority. Notice that blacks who voted for President Bush also came from regions of the country where they were freer from taxes and governmental regulations, allowing them to build a productive and secure life on their own.

It is quite clear that individual black leaders have also sold out their communities in order to amass their own kind of personal power. This is the real source of opposition to Dr. Rice. White Democrats know that she will not be a functionary for these racist Democrats. She is one tough principled cookie and a strong supporter of her President—one reason why she might be a Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

It's hardly news that liberal elites depict liberal blacks as paragons of virtue. Black conservatives, however, are portrayed as traitors to their race—Uncle Toms, backsliders and ingrates. Liberal blacks are feted and honored—the Jesse Jacksons of the world are coddled and praised by white liberals. No one dare challenge their statements, thinking or behavior. By promulgating this pattern, naming it politically correct, liberals have been able to manipulate blacks over the years in order to solidify their control over them—as well as control over conservatives of every color.

To understand this phenomenon think 1960s Black Panthers—Huey Newton, Eldridge Cleaver— who became honored guests at a cultural phenomenon of the 1970s that seriously impacted the course of black civil rights history. It was labeled ‘radical chic,’ this single event. It was a cocktail party held at the Manhattan home of classical music composer Leonard Bernstein, who invited members of the quasi-military group of black nationalists—called the Black Panthers—to be his guests where they mingled with the effete society matrons and hackneyed socialists of the day.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s it became fashionable for these so-called elites to delve into the more radical aspects of American politics. Extremists, especially those on the far left, were glamorized in the press. Even the most revolutionary blacks who had plotted the bombings of police buildings in New York City, were placed on white marble pedestals. With that, it became politically incorrect to criticize the blacks, even the revolutionary ones—and nary a disparaging word was said of their masters.

The event gave sanction to the association between liberals and their alliance with many blacks and whites who eventually became criminals in the radical civil rights movement. It was a move to capture the alliance of the black radicals and solidify an allegiance. Beneath it was the utter contempt by these liberals for their black counterparts. The chic socializing was a gimmick used to disguise the liberal's motives. This ‘radical chic' party was wrapped in an air of sophistication, but it was pompous pretension at it lowest.

Today, the slurs, instigated by Sylvester, Rall and their ilk against Dr. Rice and other conservative blacks, are so blatantly over-the-top that they miss their mark and become meaningless vulgarities—impotent at their core. Ms. Malkin has an interesting answer to this perverse and open hostility toward Rice and Powell. She posits that liberals deride them because, they say, the two cabinet members do not support the real interests and values of the black community.

But this is utter nonsense as the statistics demonstrate. In fact, Rice stands for the same values that are currently emerging from the black community—as seen also in new voting patterns for this year's presidential election. Statistics show that 53% of the black community opposes gay marriage. 60% support school vouchers. 56% of blacks oppose abortion. These views place blacks directly in the political sphere of mainstream conservative thought.

Compare the actual values of the black community with the values of black political leaders and it becomes clear that they are diametrically opposed to the values of the larger black community. However, these same black leaders do hold values that are in perfect accord with white Democrats who support abortion and gay marriage while opposing school vouchers.

Look closely and it is evident that racist-thinking liberals have inadvertently outed themselves. They have created their own magnificent implosion. Look closely and it becomes evident that these liberals are allowing black people to be verbally and graphically assaulted by liberal white people and no one—absolutely none of them—is taking issue. It is the height of hypocrisy and it is appalling.

Based on their actions of the last few decades, the left's words and deeds are now revealing the contempt and hatred they have always had for blacks—many of whom are now escaping the liberals' grasp. This is not an aberration. It is a trend. As well, it is the shocking truth that might just offer blacks their rightful status as individuals of intelligence and promise in a society that is open to people of all colors.