Chuck's Blog

Feminists Are Only Liberal Feminists

What is it about Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin that has put the liberal feminist’s panties in a wad? Why are they disassociating, criticizing, mocking and chastising her lifestyle, her faith, her children, her status as mother and even her hair?

Sarah Palin represents what the feminists claim to admire in women and demand from society: respect for independent, strong, self-confident women who may choose to balance motherhood with a professional career. However, several feminists have suggested that Palin can't afford her children their needed attention if she's a Vice President. Yet, they remain silent on weather Barack Obama can fulfill his duties as a father for two young daughters while acting as President. Ah, the double standard.

Hold on, could it be that she is less of a woman and less deserving of feminists values and support if she is a conservative Republican? It is clear the liberal feminists hate Sarah Palin for commanding and exemplifying the values and characteristics they have preached for so many years - simply because she is not liberal. It is clear that words "liberal feminists" must be used in together, for apart, they have no representation or meaning.

Liberal feminists are appalled that Palin would keep a Down Syndrome child when she could have aborted him. They are infuriated when she speaks of God as if she knows Him, as their only acquaintance with the name is as a curse word, followed by “damn.” They are even disgusted that she has five beautiful children, as they think one (or two if you are Barack Obama) is sufficient.

Sarah Palin is to the liberal feminists what sunlight is to a vampire. This is not to say there are not feminists who fight the good fight, who seek respect irrespective of one's political ideals or who are open minded to views other than their own. However, when the truly unbiased feminists fail to be heard, their silence speaks volumes and gives way to the one voice that is clearly heard from this liberal-only organization.

Posted: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 in Liberal Media | Permalink

The Shame of the Games

While China has been largely successful in using intimidation and incarceration in silencing its critics at home, a broad and international coalition of activists and concerned citizens are interrupting the around the world journey of the olympic flame in order to bring attention to China's human rights atrocities against Tibetan monks and its citizens.

Two key differences with this current movement include its organized social media utilization and the high number of never before seen groups upset with China's disregard for human rights. Several protest groups are using well structured and organized online forums that include the big three social networking sites of Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. The sites have also developed an array of widgets, podcasts and other web-based gadgets in order to spread their networking across the Web.

While long-time China critics such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Free Tibet Campaign continue their long fight, many previously less recognized groups and many first time groups are gaining attention in their anti-Beijing causes. The common aim is drown out China's attempts to broadcast the Olympics as a celebration of its coming of age as a modern economic powerhouse and refocus international attention on China's many human rights atrocities.

Now that the Olympic torch is has begun a four-month, 19-nation tour of the world, before returning to Beijing for the opening ceremony on August 8th, expect to see the symbols of the Games come under sustained attack.

I hope organized protesters also direct their outrage toward the olympic committee which granted China the opportunity to present a farce and facade to the world. What the hell were they thinking when granting the olympics to the world's largest prison?

Posted: Monday, April 7, 2008 in China Policy | Permalink

UN Meteorologists Cite Lower Global Temperatures

In an interesting twist that may suggest counter argument or even balance to the global warming phenomenon, United Nations meteorologists have determined that the average global temperature has lowered in 2008 and has not risen since 1998. Michael Jarraud, secretary-general of The World Meteorological Organisation, indicated that a La Nina effect in the Pacific ocean is the most likely single cause for current temperature decline. La Nina is the periodic cooling of ocean surface temperatures.

This new information may spur debate that global warming has peaked or that the planet is proving more resilient to greenhouse gases. However, when considering a much longer period for evaluation, it is critical to recognize that the 1998 global temperature was well above the average for the century.

As Michael Jarraud points out, "La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up."

Posted: Friday, April 4, 2008 in Global Warming | Permalink

Barack Obama's Troubling Pattern

Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator
Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin during the national anthem.

Why would a candidate running for President of the United States choose not to wear a US flag lapel pin; a standard symbol and tradition displayed by countless generations of political servants? On the surface not a big deal, however, when connecting the dots which demonstrate a pattern, why would this same presidential candidate avoid saying the words to the pledge of allegiance and even choose not to place his hand on his heart during the national anthem?

Is it coincidence that this is the presidential candidate who's wife, Michelle Obama, publicly stated February 18, 2008 "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country." Why was she not proud of her country before her husband campaigned to be its President?

Is it coincidence that this is the presidential candidate who's spiritual advisor for the last 20 years, and the man who married him to his wife, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., is anti-semitic and claims that America supports terrorism, invited the 9/11 attack, invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color, suggests the Jews cause the world's problems and seemingly enjoys the repeated rant of "God Damn America"? Is it coincidence that this is the presidential candidate endorsed by Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party and other anti-white and anti-Semitic hate groups?

Is it reasonable that this is the presidential candidate who uses the phrase "typical white person" without repercussion, knowing that if John McCain, Hillary Clinton or any other non-African American recast the same phrase in the form of 'typical black person' they would themselves be cast a racist and their resignation demanded?

Are these behaviors that the American people can trust to their Commander-in-Chief? These are difficult questions that when posed individually can be easily explained away, however, when posed collectively give appearance of a pattern which is clearly not in the best interest of America.

Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2008 | Permalink.

Global Warming to Face Legal Challenge as a Fraud?

Meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, suggests suing proponents of global warming, including Al Gore and corporations that sell carbon credits, for fraud.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Coleman claims that the mainstream media sensationalizes global warming for publicity value and self interests and buries the other side of the argument which suggests a lack of facts and evidence to support the proposed climate change.

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," said Coleman. "I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global warming thing." Similarly, other scientists have noted that while recent global temperature has shown a slight increase, there is insufficient history to know whether a cycle exists whereby slight temperature increases are later offset by cycles of temperature decreases.

John Coleman has been a long-time skeptic of global warming and references carbon dioxide as a primary linchpin to his argument. "Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said. However, Coleman cites that the compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere. "That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature? "My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

Posted: Thursday, March 14, 2008 | Permalink.

Teacher Tenure Challenged

The reluctance and inability to terminate poor and inept teachers backed by labor unions has spurred the Washington DC based group, The Center for Union Facts, to introduce a program which effectively pays bad teachers to leave the profession.

The group proposes severance packages for the Top 10 Worst Teachers in America. While the motive and program are clearly controversial, it is also clear that when teacher unions carry more clout than parents of students, bad teachers are the winners, all students are the losers, the reputation of teachers is scarred by the minority, and the public school system continues its undeniable downward spiral.

Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2008 | Permalink.

New York Times Slimes John McCain

In an article without facts, without named sources and without verification, the New York Times slimed John McCain with a front page story suggesting that he had a sexual relationship with a female lobbyist in 2000. McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman reject the New York Times unsupported accusations and inflammatory innuendos in their entirety.

The only substantive article content claims that there may have been an "appearance" of a "close bond". The only unnamed sources for the story, who indicate they wish to remain unnamed, are two anonymous former staffers, neither of whom allege that the relationship actually became romantic, and who describe themselves as disgruntled. Since the story, current and prior McCain’s aides have defended the Arizona senator in droves and respond that the newspaper published a deliberate smear of the GOP Senator.

While the article was no less fit to print when the newspaper learned of the unfounded rumor from a disgruntled source years ago, the New York Times liberal media agenda chose to hold onto the rumor until just before McCain was officially named the GOP presidential nominee. With nothing more than suggested anecdotal descriptions from two anonymous sources and no evidence whatsoever of an improper relationship, focus has shifted from suggestions of McCain’s unsupported improprieties to questions over why the Times ran the story.

I believe Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center best categorized the journalistic integrity of this story with his comment,

“The New York Times is giving the National Enquirer a bad name ... The New York Times story today is all that about a story that is 10 years old. I have never seen anything like it in my life.”

 

Similarly, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis puts the Times liberal position into perspective, “The New York Times — the newspaper that gave MoveOn.org a sweetheart deal to run advertisements attacking General Petraeus — has shown once again that it cannot exercise good journalistic judgment when it comes to dealing with a conservative Republican."

The Times article content and timing clearly speak for themselves and support a pattern of smear tactics and liberalism as well as a continuation of slimes at the Times. The baseless article appears to be nothing more than a smear campaign in search of a scandal. Possibly most disturbing is that the newspaper itself is willing to act as the nucleus for a nonevent and be the source for the propagation of an unfounded scandal.

McCain adviser Charlie Black also highlights the New York Times underlying motives and agenda with his comment, "All I can conclude is that this is the largest liberal newspaper in America trying to unfairly attack the integrity of the new conservative Republican nominee for president. There is no other good explanation for it.”

Hmmm... I wonder who the New York Slimes will endorse for 2008 President?

Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2008