Michael Jackson media coverage out paces African Genocide 55-1

Estimates of Between 100,000 and 400,000 people have been killed so far in Darfur and the Sudanese government has done nothing to stop it. Many in the left leaning media have criticized President Bush for not being as aggressive in stopping this atrocity as he has been in prosecuting the war in Iraq.

To call these accusations hypocritical would be an understatement coming from an American median that instead of covering the most blatant act of genocide in modern time chooses plaster the airwaves with Michael Jackson, steroids in sports, Martha Stewart and other meaningless Hollywood gossip.

Well at least one New York Times columnist is willing to take his colleagues to task. Nicholas Kristof wrote:

The real failure has been television's. According to monitoring by the Tyndall Report, ABC News had a total of 18 minutes of the Darfur genocide in its nightly newscasts all last year - and that turns out to be a credit to Peter Jennings. NBC had only 5 minutes of coverage all last year, and CBS only 3 minutes - about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths. In contrast, Martha Stewart received 130 minutes of coverage by the three networks.

This explains why Martha Stewart got locked up and the murders in the Sudan remain free to kill at will. What happened to the day when network news coverage was seen as a service to the viewing public? When ratings took a backseat to informing society about the important issues and events of the day? I’ll tell you what happened… We did!

Like a parent who feeds their kids junk food all the time, simply because they want it, modern day median has chosen to appeal to the lowest common denominator in society in order to increase viewer-ship. They don’t report on Darfur because they think we don’t want to know about Darfur. They believe that the tawdry tales surrounding Michael Jackson are of greater interest.

If only Michael Jackson's trial had been held in Darfur. Last month, CNN, Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS collectively ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson as they ran about genocide in Darfur.

And the saddest part about this whole story is that they are probably right. We don’t want to hear about Darfur. Just like we didn’t want to hear about the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 when 800,000 people were massacred or the mass genocide against Blacks right here in America called abortion. WE DON’T WANT TO KNOW!

So should we really blame the media for running weekly pieces on Survivor and American Idol instead of shining their light on the tragedy taking place in the Sudan? Not unless we are willing to tell them that we have done our part and let them know that we expect more from them. Well here’s your chance to do something!

Below are the email addresses of all the above mentioned news organizations:

Fox News
CNN
NBC
MSNBC
ABC
CBS

Let them know that you would appreciate them reconsidering their priorities when it comes to what is worthy of reporting and what is not. And please ask them to make this mass genocide a priority news item.

That is of course if you think Genocide is more important than Michael Jackson. And if you don’t… At least you can thank them for providing your daily dose of Trash TV.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Join the Western Alliance for An Evening with Congressman John Doolittle

When:
Wednesday, August 3rd.

Where:
At the home of Clay and Dorothy Thomas
Granite Bay, CA (Call For Directions)

Time:
5:30PM-7:30PM

Cost:
Donations to cover cost of Refreshments Only.

Come meet and greet our Congressman!

Sponsored by:
The Placer County Young Republican Federation
The Placer County Republican Assembly
The Western Alliance

Please call 916-316-9570 for more information or log onto Roseville Conservative Blog

Please email placercra@yahoo.com to confirm attendance.

Air America Under Investigation- Possibly funded with Non-Profit Grant Money

Evidently the Former CEO of Air America, Evan Cohen took almost half a million dollars in grant money earmarked for the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club in Bronx, New York to help start up the failing liberal talk radio network.

And needless to say the mainstream media is saying nothing about it!

The Radio Equalizer, Bob Maloney and conservative commentator Michelle Malkin are pursuing the story that was origionally reported in a local newspaper, The Bronx News:

The Bronx News has learned, through informed sources, that the diversion of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club in Co-op City to the liberal Air America Radio is at the center of the city’s probe of corruption at the local club.

The money, which was reportedly paid to Air America as a loan, was supposed to be paid back with interest, two unidentified informed sources told the News. One source added that Air America officials, led by an official of the Gloria Wise Club, agreed to help the local club by publicizing its activities.

To date, there is no evidence that this money was ever repaid. But what is even worse is that this money may have been diverted from government grant money earmarked to benefit the community.

The city’s DOI is pursuing the probe because the Gloria Wise Club depends heavily on city funding for its operations. These funds are subject to extensive audits, as are funds received through the state and federal governments.

The Co-op City-based club, which Rosen has built into an empire in the Co-op City community, reportedly has 19 contracts and at least one grant with the city, worth a total of $9.7 million.

Over the last year, Rep. Joseph Crowley has secured two major federal grants for the Gloria Wise Club, one for a day-care program for Alzheimer’s patients and their caregivers and the other for the community’s NORC program for senior citizens. The grant for the program for Alzheimer’s patients and their caregivers was for $250,000, while the grant for the NORC program was for $99,410.

In 2003, Crowley secured a $218,500 grant for a mentoring program that the Gloria Wise Club runs.

So let me get this…

A Non-Profit 501c(3), tax-exempt organization which is funded by Federal, state and local grant monies invested almost half a million dollars into a failed, politically driven radio talk network.

And the mainstream media doesn’t think there is a story worth reporting? Figures!

Thank you Bob Maloney and Michelle Malkin for holding their feet to the fire.

**For Free Republic readers who are looking for the Al & Jessie Connection I inadvertantly linked to an older article. (Click Here)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

This is Just Wrong! But it does puts things in perspective.

I got the following letter in my email today. I know you folks would love it!

_________________________________

A mother passing her daughter's bedroom was astonished to see the bed was made and everything was cleaned up. Then she saw an envelope on the bed. It was addressed, "Mom." With the worst premonition, she opened the letter and read it with trembling hands.

Dear Mom,

It is with great sorrow that I'm writing you. I had to elope with my new boyfriend because I wanted to avoid a scene with you and Dad. I've been finding real passion with Ahmed, and he is so nice, even with all his piercings, tattoos, beard, and motorcycle clothes. But it's not only the passion, Mom. I'm pregnant, and Ahmed said that we will be very happy. He already owns a trailer in the woods and has a stack of firewood for the whole winter.

He wants to have many more children with me, and that's now one of my dreams, too. Ahmed taught me that marijuana doesn't really hurt anyone, and we'll be growing it for ourselves and trading it with his friends for all the cocaine and Ecstasy we want. In the meantime, we'll pray that science will find a cure for AIDS so Ahmed can get better. He sure deserves it! Don't worry about me, Mom. I'm 15, and I know how to take care of myself. Someday I'm sure we'll be back so you can get to know your grandchildren.

Your daughter,

Judith

PS: Mom, none of the above is true. I'm over at the neighbors' house. I just wanted to remind you that there are worse things in life than my report card, which is in the center drawer of my desk. I love you. Please call when it is safe to come home.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Battling with Half a Brain!

I am learning that the issues surrounding daytime curfews are vast and complex. And that the issue is hardly one that is as simple as black and white. After yesterday’s post “Some Conservatives See Value in Daytime Curfews”, a friend decided to post his responses to my arguments.

Now normally my policy is not to provide detailed analysis of posted comments. It tends to take a lot of time and does very little to change people’s mind. But I am making an exception in this case because I know him and like him; and also because I think his comments and my subsequent answers demonstrate the complexity of this issue. So let’s begin!

John said:

First, you are conflating arrests with crime. Of course there will be more arrests if you start arresting people for truancy or daytime curfew violations. It is a logical fallacy to use arrest data for proof of crime data. If you arrested people for wearing yellow shirts, there would be an increased number of arrests. However, you would not assume that yellow shirts cause crime. Simply put, there are more arrests because you have created a new crime for which to arrest people. Increased arrests does not mean decreased crime.

First of all, if you had bothered to even read the study, you would have seen that the arrest numbers do not include curfew related arrests. So the numbers only represent youthful criminal arrests. And you are right that increased arrests does not necessarily mean decreased crime. It also doesn’t mean that crime has gone up. It is all in how you interpret the data. So to say that studies show that daytime curfews don’t work is not necessarily true either.

John said:

Police focusing on youth daytime curfew violators likely INCREASES violent crime. Policing daytime curfew violators distracts the police from rapists, drug dealers, murderers, child molesters etc. Law enforcement has a fixed amount of resources. Every hour spent writing tickets for daytime curfew violators is time not spent policing our streets for more serious crimes.

Do you have any facts to back this statement up? No! To say that, “Policing daytime curfew violators distracts the police from rapists, drug dealers, murderers, child molesters etc. ”, without any facts to back it up is nothing more than baseless fear mongering. The truth is that this measure as offered by the city will not have police out looking for truants. They will simply be able to enforce already existing truancy laws while in the performance of their regular duties.

John said:

It is wrong to grant the government the authority to stop people in the first place. Government should only limit personal liberty when it is absolutely necessary. There must be a clear government interest in taking away personal autonomy.

If someone is suspected of being in the commission of a crime, police do have a right to stop them. If a twelve year old is driving a car, should the police simply turn their head? If someone is smoking a substance in a hand-rolled cigarette that smells like marijuana, should law enforcement stop to see if it is an illegal substance? According to California law, if a minor is not in school during school hours (without parental permission) they are breaking the law. The problem is, there is no enforcement measure in place. And as for a public interest… I suppose it is in the public interest in allowing children to run the streets, without adult supervision?

John said:

Your arguments are nonresponsive to the statement that daytime curfews presume guilt over innocence. If a minor must now proactively provide proof that they are innocent, until they provide that proof they are guilty. In other words, if I do not show my homeschool slip, I will get a ticket, even if I have done nothing wrong.

If I don’t have my drivers license while driving a car, I will get at ticket and probably have my car towed, even though I am a licensed driver and have done nothing wrong. If I can’t find my auto registration, I will get a ticket even though I have done nothing wrong. I can come up with numerous other examples. But what you have forgotten is that in the case of the Roseville ordinance, it is little more than a fixit ticket. As with every example I have given, if you forgot your home school slip, you can show proof at a later time to be released from the ticket.

John said:

I fail to see why minors deserve special laws that restrict their rights and personal freedoms. I can understand the motivation to protect children from child labor, child abuse, child molestation; however, I do not understand why we should limit the rights of children.

Are you saying that we should eliminate child labor laws? Or even better, that we should allow 12 year old children to be able to consent to sexual relations with adults? Sounds to me like an argument that PBS did a piece on Yurgelun-Todd who is the Director of Neuropsychology and Cognitive Neuroimaging at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts. She recently studied the differences between how adults and teens make decisions.

Her study shows that adults are more likely to use the pre-frontal part of their brain, which has been known to underlie thought and anticipation and planning and goal-directed behavior. In teens the anterior part of their brain which is the more emotional region or that gut response region has more activation compared to the adult. Meaning that teens tend to make decisions based on emotion, where as adults tend to make decisions more based on logic and reasoning. Which explains why adults tend to make better decisions.

I did not need a neuropsychological study to tell me what wisdom and experience as a father and teacher has already demonstrated. Teenagers tend to be emotional and as such are not the best at making potentially life altering decisions. That is why we have parents! And in the absence of parents, we have laws that protect children from harming themselves.

You know, the study also points out that a human’s brain is not fully developed until they are in their mid-20’s. This clearly explains the absurdity of your statement. So do yourself a favor, if you can’t declarations like this to yourself, it would be best to keep your mouth shut until you have use of a fully functional brain.

Just kidding! I appreciate the challenge!

Also read my origional post on this issue "Is Roseville's Day Time Curfew a Bad Idea?"

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

The Rise and Fall of the Religious Left...Man that was fast!

It would be hysterically funny if it weren’t so sad. The immoral minority continues their quest to define moral values that are devoid of morality.

The San Francisco Chronicle published an article last week on conference in Berkeley, CA to discuss “Liberal Spirituality”:

Liberals have complained for two decades that conservatives misuse religion for political gain, but it wasn't until well-organized evangelicals powered President Bush's election in November that some decided that they had to do more than gripe.

The latest post-election attempt at transforming the spiritual energy of the left into political clout began Wednesday at UC Berkeley, where 1,200 people attended the opening of a conference on "Spiritual Activism."

Democrats seem to think that they can win if they talk the talk, without walking the walk. What they constantly refuse to accept is that you cannot say you love children, then kill millions before they are even born. You cannot claim to stand up for religious freedom, while silencing those who practice the religion upon which our nation was founded. You cannot say that you value marriage and the family, then undermine societies most fundamental institution with same-sex marriage.These are just a few of the basic moral underpinnings of just about every relgion on earth.

The goal of the four-day conference is to create a spirituality-based platform to counter the religious right, but organizers are also intending to connect with "religio-phobic" liberals through seminars such as, "I Don't Believe in God, But I Know America Needs a Spiritual Left."

I believe that there are many in the Democrat Party who support traditional moral values and will not be fooled by this new found “Spirituality” of the left. If Democrats want to truly attract these, as well as other “Values Voters” they are going to have to come to grips with one simple truth:

"Moral Values" absent Morality have no Value!


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Some Conservatives See Value in Daytime Curfews

Daytime Curfews are still in the news and the talk doesn’t appear to be slowing. Interestingly, Eric Hogue, CA High School Conservative and I (Click Here) apparently find ourselves on the communist, big-brother government supporting end of this debate. (Does that make us liberal squishes? Ok, maybe Eric anyway! Just kidding!)

Anyway, I think that civil libertarians have some legitimate concerns about the implementation of daytime curfew ordinances. But many of their talking points just don’t hold up under direct scrutiny.

Take for example the following arguments given by The Home School Legal Defense Association.

1. Daytime curfews do not deter juvenile crime. Actually, the studies that have been done demonstrate an increase in youth arrests. A study done by the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice states:

Greater curfew enforcement was associated with significantly higher absolute rates of misdemeanor arrest for whites, Hispanics, Asians, and all youth in aggregate.

Please note that just because there is an increase in arrests that does not necessarily mean that there is an increase in crime. It could mean that law enforcement is doing a better job of catching youthful criminal offenders. Which in turn means that the increased emphasis on youth is working.

2. Daytime curfews allow searches without probable cause. This is a broad generalization of daytime curfews and does not speak to individual laws. And like any law, daytime curfews can be subject to abuse. But it is important to note that the same studies that say there is no proof that these laws work, state that there is also no statistical data supporting accusations that these laws have resulted in the widespread violation of civil liberties. As a matter of fact, little more that anecdotal data can be offered by curfew opponents.

3. Daytime curfews assume a person is guilty until proven innocent. Without speaking to every daytime curfew ordinance, I can say that the law offered up in Roseville does no such thing. Youth are offered the opportunity to provide proof to law enforcement that they are out of school legally. And if they fail to do so, they are given the opportunity to challenge the ticket in court. Isn’t this how we currently treat speeding tickets? Don’t these citations include a disclaimer stating that signing the document does not constitute an admission of guilt?

4. Daytime curfews punish all juveniles indiscriminately. First of all, since when did having a police ask you a question amount to punishment? The only students being punished are those who do not have a valid reason for not being in school. So how exactly is that being indiscriminant?

5. Daytime curfews preempt existing truancy laws. They do not preempt existing laws, they provide an enforcement mechanism. The problem with existing truancy laws is that they are long on rhetoric and short on action. Daytime curfews do little more that empower law enforcement to enforce these laws while in the daily performance of their law enforcement duties.

6. Daytime curfews are over broad & too vague. Another broad and vague generalization. I would encourage those interested in protecting civil liberties to spend time working with the authors of these ordinances to make sure they are more specific.


Additionally, much is left out of their arguments. For example:

1. We are talking about CHILDREN!!!!!!! There are reasons why we have special laws protecting minors; often times from themselves. I ask you to realize that just because you are the perfect parent and your little angel can do no wrong, does not mean that we should not have laws limiting the ability of non-emancipated minors to make grown up decisions. Otherwise we should rethink our position on issues like parental consent; the ability of a minor to consent to sex with adults; and age limits for drinking, smoking and access to adult material. Eric Hogue offers up some great arguments on this point.

2. School attendance figures are not addressed in available studies. They don’t address in these studies is the affect these laws have had in. I would be interested in knowing how this increased enforcement affected the average daily attendance in corresponding school districts.

3. This is not about new laws, but enforcement of existing truancy laws. In California, it is illegal for a minor, who has not graduated from high school or received their GED to not be in school. The problem is there are no enforcement measures or penalties offered in state law. The City of Roseville is simply offering and enforcement mechanism and penalties for offenders.

Even the Home School Legal Defense Association admits, “The solution to crime—juvenile and otherwise—is swift and severe penalties for breaking the law.” That is exactly what the Roseville ordinance does.

Having said all that, I am glad to see that the Roseville City Council has postponed their proposed curfew. I hope that groups like the Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) will work with them to produce a policy that addresses the truancy issue while making resident of Roseville feel that their civil liberties are in tact.

I would love to hear what you think. Please comment below.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Bill Lockyer to Host Conservative Art Exhibit?

I call this piece "Welcome Home Bill!"

I tried to avoid the whole “Steve Percy- Tanks to Mr. Bush” controversy. But after seeing the entire art exhibit, I had to chime in.

That’s right! Today I visited the display at the California Attorney General’s Office and saw it for myself. And to make a long story short, there was very little art. But a whole lot of political speech. So I figured; since the AG is open to the idea of hosting artistic displays of political free speech maybe he will consider some of these pieces:

Clinton the Early Years

The Evolution of Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton Getting Tough on Crime!

For real though…

Move America Forward really is trying to put together an “I Love America” art exhibition to be displayed outside the AG’s offices. Click here for more details!

Also, sign the petion Asking Bill Lockyer to take down the display. Click here!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

The Vast Center Wing Conspiracy

Roseville Conservative, a fellow member of the Western Alliance was right! RINOs are gathering to conspire against us. And I have found their home!

Here is the mission of the The Vast Center Wing Conspiracy:

We will starve the elderly, but only after we make sure they have a nice, hot meal. You know, maybe a nice piece fish; a glass tea; two tasty side orders; a nice big piece apple pie for dessert.

We will privatize Social Security. Well, not all of it. Just a few parts. Maybe not even that much, just give you the option to invest it yourself. If that's okay with you.

We will kick puppies, but only while we have really soft, large pillows strapped to our feet.

We support school vouchers. Unless you think we shouldn't.

We will cut government spending. Okay, not really, but it sounds nice. We want our pork too. Except those of us who are kosher. But we promise not to increase it any more than it already is. Unless somebody really wants us to.

Be afraid!.... BE VERY AFRAID!!!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

He's Seen the Light!

Like many of us who were Democrats at one time in our lives, Callimachus (a Republican moderate Blogger) shares his thoughts as he observes his liberal friends through his new found perspective.

My Left Behind III is a great read!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Beware of Charging RINOs

As 2006 campaigns begin to take shape RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are taking aim, not at Democrats, but fellow Republicans. While this is nothing new, what is different is their willingness to use talking points provided by the liberal mass media.

On June 28th Carl Burton, President of the California Congress of Republicans (CCR) broadcast emailed “Blindly Fighting For the Right to Loose” by a liberal columnist with the Los Angeles Times. Then the very next day, GOP candidate for State Treasurer and Assemblyman Keith Richman sent out a similar article by Jill Stewart of the San Francisco Chronicle entitled “Why Dems Dominate State”. Both of these commentaries were published in liberal rags, by liberal columnists and blame conservative Republicans for the Democrat majority in the California legislature. No surprise here. But what is disturbing is that they are being circulated by leaders in the California Republican Party.

In the introduction to his email Richman comments:

Most Californians think political parties are established to win elections for their members. Yet the attached San Francisco Chronicle column, Why Dems dominate state by Jill Stewart, details how some of the most conservative members of the California Republican Party work against the mainstream candidates best positioned to beat Democrats.

First of all, let’s not confuse RINOs with ideological moderates. I have no problem with ideological moderates. While I may not always agree with them, these are individuals who’s positions on the issues are based on what they truly believe to be right. Contrary to Richman's assertion, political parties are established by like-minded individuals to promote a common political philosophy. If he can't support that philophy, then maybe he is in the wrong party.

But this attack on conservatives is not based on the merit of their principles. Rather, it is based on the RINO theory that compromising on our party’s principles is the only way we win elections in California.

…instead of drafting non-ideologues capable of winning statewide races and rebuilding the party, GOP activists are doing what they do best: taking position in the circular firing squad.

What is a non-ideologue? It is someone who does not advocate for an ideology or specific set of principles. The National and State platforms for the Republican Party are clearly Pro-family and Pro-life. There is no denying it.

So, is Mr. Richman saying that in order for Republicans to win, we must sacrifice our principles? Does he truly believe that it is more important that our candidates win than that they represent the principles of our Party?

…the most conservative members of the California Republican Party work against the mainstream candidates best positioned to beat Democrats.

If moderates want to promote their centrist ideology, they should feel free to go right ahead. Heck! That’s what primary elections are supposed to be about, an opportunity for candidates to share their values and their vision with GOP voters in an effort to win their support. But I wonder if moderates ever considered the fact that maybe they reason they aren't winning these Republican primaries is because their views are not truly mainstream?

For example: How are Republicans supposed to take seriously candidates like Steve Poizner. This GOP candidate for Insurance Commissioner gave $10,000 to the 2000 Democrat recount effort and $2000 to John Kerry. As a matter of fact, I am not even sure he endorsed George W. Bush for President in 2004. Even if we look past his pro-abortion, anti-marriage, anti-war views there is very little about Mr. Poizner that would cause one to confuse him an actual Republican. He is as close to being a Democrat as one can get without actually being one. He is a RINO in the truest sense of the word.

Then there is Keith Richman. Although not quite as out there as Poizner, has established a liberal enough record to be dubbed “RINO of The Year” by TV and Radio commentator Larry Elder. He has supported tax increases when not other Republican was willing to do so (Not exactly smart for a guy running for State Treasurer) and was the only Republican to support a 2003 Father’s Day resolution by homosexual assembly members which was meant to trounce traditional marriage The sad part was, he was the deciding vote (41-21 with 17 abstentions). But even worse than his liberal positions on the issues is his insistence that the only way for Republicans to win is to be like him. And groups like the California Congress of Republicans are falling into this same mindset.

CCR has plenty of ideological moderates who believe in core Republican prinicples, but differ with conservatives on some high profile policy matters. I know this because I was once an active member with this group, as a board member and editor of the newsletter for the Sacramento Chapter. During that time, I felt at home amongst moderates and conservatives who believed in the organization's big tent mission. But today is a different story.

Many in the leadership of this group see conservative Republicans as the enemy. I encourage the members of CCR to beware of charging RINOs in their mitst. Lest they become like the New Majority, the California Republican League and the Log Cabin Republicans; groups that seek to undermine the core values of the Republican Party... All in the name of winning!

Memo to “non-ideological” moderates (aka RINOs): The battle cry of “Vote for me if you want to win!” doesn’t inspire anyone (Just ask Dick Riordan). Winning for the sake of winning is worthless, especially if you have to give up your principles in the process.

P.S. This strategy of quoting far left columnists in order to endear yourselves to those of us who DO support Republican principles….Bad Idea!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Bush Chooses Federal Appeals Judge Roberts

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock-solid conservative who has won broad support from both parties but still faces what could be a contentious battle over the direction of the nation's highest court.

Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. as he was hosting a luncheon for the prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation.

His selection was somewhat of a surprise since there had been some expectations that he would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman or minority.

Roberts has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being picked for that seat by Bush.

Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts, while deputy solicitor general during former President Bush's administration, is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

While he doesn't have national name recognition, Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked over the years at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice.

In the Reagan administration, Roberts was special assistant to the attorney general and associate counsel to the president. Between 1989 and 1993, he was principal deputy solicitor general, the government's second highest lawyer, who argues cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the early 1980s, Roberts was a clerk for Rehnquist before Reagan elevated the retiring jurist to the top chair in 1986.

It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia. It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003.

Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sites of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved.

"He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Abortion Supporters agree that Abortion is Mostly about Convenience

Today’s Washington Post is reporting:

A new analysis of the most recent abortion data shows that the number of U.S. women having the procedure is continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976.

In the year 2002, about 1.29 million women in the U.S. had abortions. In 1990, that number was 1.61 million.

But as usual the mainstream media has left out much of the story. For example, this study, which was conducted by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health® (PRCH) and The Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that 96% if all abortions are performed as a matter of convenience for the expectant mothers.

Less than 3 % of all abortions are performed to protect the health of the mother and less than 1 percent of abortions were to terminate pregnancies due to rape or incest. The most common reasons given by mothers for killing their unborn children are as follows:

• 21% Inadequate finances
• 21% Not ready for responsibility
• 16% Woman’s life would be changed too much
• 12% Problems with relationship; unmarried
• 11% Too young; not mature enough
• 8% Children are grown; woman has all she wants

So, in regards to abortion, what we are truly weighing is a woman’s right not to be inconvenienced vs. a child’s right to live. The health of the mother is barely a factor in the abortion decision.

Other untold stories:

• Amongst Industrialized nations, America is second only to Australia in the rate of unborn children put to death. They must use the word “industrialized” because even subconsciously they agree that there is nothing civilized about killing children.

• Almost 50% of those having abortions have had previous abortions. And yet they insist that that women aren’t using abortion as a form of birth control?

• Black and Hispanic women together make up more than half (51.8%) of women having abortions. “This proportion is greater than their proportion in the population because they have a higher rate of unintended pregnancy, and, among black women, because they are more likely to resolve an unintended pregnancy through abortion.” Black women make up less than 12% of the US female population, but according to the CDC they make up nearly 35% of all those receiving abortions. (see Abortion! Because Lynching is for Amateurs!)

• 71% of all abortions are performed in abortion clinics. These are not impartial hospitals or doctor’s offices where a woman has access to objective information on the risks of abortion or the availability of abortion alternatives. These folks have a huge financial interest in the expansion of the abortion industry.

• 52.4% of those who have abortions are 24 years old or younger; almost 20% are teenagers. These are young women and teenagers who are too young to understand the psychological and physical damage that can be caused by abortion.

Although the report declares abortion to be safe, only mortality statistics are given. There are no statistics acknowledging the number women who have suffered physical complications or psychological trauma as a result of abortions.

Here are just a few that I found:

• 1 in 4 (24.3%) - Complications in future pregnancies (may include excessive bleeding, premature delivery, cervical damage, and sterility). Acta/Obstetrics and Gynecology Scandinavia 1979; 58:491-4

• 1 in 2 (CA 50%) - Emotional and psychological disturbances lasting for months (may include depression, insomnia, nervousness, guilt, and regret). McGovern, Celeste, "Hag-Ridden by Post-Abortion Guilt," British Columbia Report, 10/18/93; British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 1980; 87:1115-22

• Approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland have identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records based study Gissler, Hemminki & Lonnqvist, "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine 313:1431-4, 1996.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Is Roseville's Daytime Curfew a Bad Idea?

Eric Hogue has really stepped in it! He is supporting a Daytime Curfew being proposed in the city of Roseville. (News 10 Video Here) I may be stepping in it as well, but I have to agree with the Hoguester. What is wrong with putting teeth in the law?

Currently, schools do not have the resources to enforce truancy laws beyond their own school sites. Additionally, this ordinance would place some common sense penalties on the student’s who ditch school not just empty threats to parents (threats I think should actually be enforce). And it would allow law enforcement to be involved in truancy enforcement while in the process of performing their everyday duties.

Are concerns about abuse warranted? Yes. That is why such a law should be well thought out and monitored. But unless we distrust our law enforcement officials, these concerns should not keep us from putting in place a measure that aids in law enforcement.

I have been a teacher and am a parent. And I realize that the number one problem in education today is the lack of accountability by parents and students. As pathetic as they are, current laws attempt to hold parents accountable. This daytime curfew attempts to hold students accountable. Neither is perfect, but they are steps in the right direction.

And as a parent, let me say this; if my child were not in school, where he/she should be, I would have no problem with a police officer questioning them about why they are not in school. We should encourage our young people to feel confident and assured; not scared when dealing with law enforcement. They are not the enemy. Their job is to serve and protect.

We must raise up our young people without fear of accountability or scrutiny. A wise man once told me that “Integrity invites Scrutiny.”

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

The Black Community Deserves Better “Love” -By Assemblyman Tim Leslie

California Assemblyman Tim Leslie has been one of the most active legislators when it comes to addressing issues in urban communities. Though his work, he has demonstrated a heartfelt concern for California’s urban, underserved communities. There are few conservatives who is as respected on both sides of the isle.

In his piece The Black Community Deserves Better “Love” he questions the blind love affair the blacks have with the Democrat party.

There’s no question that the Democrat party machine loves black voters at election time. From city council contenders to presidential nominees, the candidates parade through black neighborhoods and churches, backslapping and misquoting Bible verses. In front of cheering crowds they thunder out sweet nothings.

But when the politicians sit down to do real business, it is clear who holds the Democrat Party’s heart: big labor bosses, trial lawyers, and pro-abortion, homosexual, and other liberal activists. Like the collegiate boyfriend who imagines his hometown girl will never be the wiser, the Democrat Party has a hard time staying faithful when other attractive voices come calling.

This one of the best articles I have read by a white republican as to why blacks should question the commitment of the Democrat party to the Black community. It is so good in fact, that most of the liberal media refused to run it.

Check it out!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Morality and logic are mutually exclusive…This according to Dan Walters

“Logically, it would be difficult to deny same-sex couples the right to have their relationships officially recognized through marriage.”

These are the words of Dan Walters in his political column for the Sacramento Bee. But apparently, little “objective” logic was used in the writing of this piece. Like many amoral political pragmatists, he clearly ignores the facts.

Homosexuality has been part of the human experience for countless centuries, even though only rarely acknowledged, and contemporary science has amassed considerable evidence that a substantial number of people are simply wired by genetics to prefer those of the same gender.

True, homosexuality has always been apart of the human experience. But at no time in history has it ever been honored and celebrated as it is today. As a matter of fact, it speaks against centuries of religious tradition, moral beliefs, human anatomy, and societal foundations. But I guess they are all wrong.

And for every study that says that homosexuality is genetic, I find it interesting that Mr. Walters does not site any of these studies. So in the interest of intelectual honesty, I will.

The most prominent study sighted as proof of the “gay gene” was done in 1995 by Dean Hamer of the U.S. National Institute of Health. But this study would later be refuted by Dr. Alan Sanders, also from the National Institute of Health. He replicated Hamer’s study in order to verify his conclusions, and Dr. Sanders found no evidence to validate Hamer’s findings or his theory. The study by Dr. Sanders did not reproduce Hamer’s results. It’s a well-known scientific law that a finding must be replicated by other researchers before it can be considered valid. And on this one, Hamer’s claim was not replicated.

In addition to Dr. Sanders findings, another study at the University of Western Ontario by neurologist Dr. George Rice has been published in the April 1999 edition of the Canadian Journal of Science. Dr. Rice also tried to reproduce Hamer’s study and researched homosexual brothers from 48 families. He found that they were no more likely to share similar genetic patterns than would have been the odds from pure chance.

Walters continues:

It is, however, not an issue that lends itself to rationality or logic. Those who oppose gay marriage see it in religious, or at least moral, terms.

Is he saying that religion and morality are devoid of rationality and logic? As hard as it is for me to believe that a usually thoughtful writer would make such an assertion, that is exactly what he is saying; at least as far as the argument over same-sex marriage. Clearly Walters made no attempt to even look into arguments made by Pro-marriage advocates. Instead, he chooses to get his information from press releases.

I would encourage Mr. Walters to read an article published in the January 2004 edition of Crisis Magazine entitled, “The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage” by California Assemblyman Tim Leslie. This is a well reasoned, factually based argument for protecting traditional marriage. It is not a religious diatribe and sites numerous academic and sociological studies.

California has been edging toward gay marriage for several years. A number of recent laws recognize "domestic partnerships" and the like, and most governmental and corporate employers offer full family benefits to same-sex couples - along with employees' partners of the opposite gender.

…California has moved so far in its recognition of same-sex relationships, in fact, that no other partial steps may be possible, and full marriage may be the only remaining barrier. A San Francisco judge has ruled against California laws barring same-sex marriages, which means the issue will make its way to a state Supreme Court…

Don’t you love the way he completely dismisses the fact that voters overwhelmingly chose to protect marriage? As a matter of fact there is no other hot button issue that has received such a wide array of support. 59% of Asians, 63% of Blacks, 65% of Latinos all voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Almost every county in California voted for traditional marriage, even the ultra-liberal Los Angeles County. The people have been resolute and clear about their opposition to redefining marriage. It is the liberal legislature and out of control courts that have sought to undermine marriage.

It is the ultra-left legislature that passed AB 205, creating counterfeit marriage by another name. They did so in an obvious effort to get around Prop. 22, and the will of the people. This measure gave all the rights and benefits of marriage to domestic partners. And it was signed into law by a desperate Governor Gray Davis who was trying to shore up his liberal base to stave off being recalled.

In San Francisco Judge Kramer ruled that AB 205 created an institution so like marriage, that there was no rational reason not to legalize same-sex marriage. On the other hand, Jude McMaster in Sacramento ruled that AB 205 did not make domestic partnerships significantly like marriage, therefore it doesn’t violate Prop. 22 and doesn’t need to go before the voters. HOW CAN BOTH OF THESE AGRUEMENTS BE TRUE?! In a rational and logical court system they couldn’t.

Dan Walters is however, right on one point.

Gay marriage is likely to be a burning political issue for years to come - unless, of course, the Supreme Court does the unexpected.

_________________________

Dan Walters Can be reached via email at dwalters@sacbee.com or by phone at (916) 321-1195. I encourage you to let him know what you thought of his “rational and logical” analysis of those of us to support traditional marriage.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Albertans Cry for Independence from Canada

It looks like American Conservatives are not the only ones who think Canada’s Government is out of touch. Some in the Canadian Province of Alberta are calling for their national government to get their act together or they are walking.

Link Byfield of the Calgary Sun writes:

A University of Alberta professor I know sent me a lengthy article he's trying to get published, entitled: "Let's get while the getting's good."

In it, Leon Craig, professor emeritus of political science, lays out a case for Alberta to declare unilateral independence. And he lays it out well.

Craig makes no bones about it.

Alberta, he says, should go it alone.

Almost overnight, we would become one of the most prosperous nations in the world.

Craig (What a cool name) insists that by freeing itself from the control of liberal socialist government that has destroyed the rest of their nation, Alberta could once again get back to the traditional values upon which their nation was founded.

Our social policies -- marriage and family matters, medicare, civil and religious freedoms, etc. -- would no longer be imposed by the Supreme Court and a handful of Ottawa mandarins.

We could establish our own laws to deal with crime and punishment, and our own separate relationship with the Americans.

If we don't do these things now, he says, we'll sink with the Canadian ship.


Where have I heard this before?

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Assisted Suicide is Dead For Now

AB 651 has been put to death for the second time in as many months. Assemblymembers Lloyd Levine and Patty Berg chose to pull the bill after realizing that they lacked enough votes to get it out of the State Senate. AB 654 was a reincarnated version of AB 654 which died a very similar death in the Assembly.

The Sacramento Bee is reporting:

Legislation to make California the second state to allow doctor-assisted suicide has been shelved for this year.

Assembly Democrats Lloyd Levine and Patty Berg, who proposed the measure, said they lacked the votes necessary to pass it.

But don’t think that the war has been won. These folks have committed to bringing this bill up again next session and if necessary, every session thereafter until it passes.

We're certainly not giving up," Berg said.

"I really believe, with all my heart, that once people sit down and think it through, calmly and rationally, they'll come to the conclusion that people have the right to make up their own mind (about life-ending medication)," she said.

Public support for the concept could push the Legislature to approve it in 2006, even though it's an election year, Levine said.

If this is an issue of concern to you (and it should be) I encourage you to visit Californians Against Assisted Suicide and get on their email alert.


In and interesting side not, the Bee leaves out one very important group that is opposed to Assisted Suicide. See if you can guess who they are:

Opponents include the California Catholic Conference, the Scholl Institute of Bio Ethics, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and the Alliance of Catholic Healthcare.

Give up? Where’s the California Medical Association? You know…. the doctors who are going to have to prescribe and issue these life ending drugs. They are opposed to the idea of being forced to kill their patients. But the leave it to liberals to ignore the advice of those who might actually know what they are talking about.


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Entitlement Propaganda Productions Presents: ANOTHER DAY ANOTHER LIE

TIRED OF BEING PERSECUTED BY THE MAN

Staring:

Julian Bond

as
Agent “Double O’ Sell out”

Also Staring

Bill Clinton as....Bubba- aka “The First Black President”

Robert Byrd as...Under Cover Brotha (representing the brotherhood of the KKK)

George W. Bush as... The Man

and The American People as... The Imperialist White Establishment

*This film is rated NRT for bearing No Resemblance to the Truth.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Has Uncommon Sense Crossed The Line?

A recent post “Report Says SF Homosexual Community Discriminates against Blacks” drew the ire of JakeDocketer of The Line / Fragment Blog.

And like many on the left, he proves that common sense is not that common. Here is my response.

Dear Jake,

Thank you for visiting my site. Your questions were insightful, but definitely loaded. If you had read other posts on my blog, the answers to your quandaries would have been self evident. But let me save you the time.

In your blog you declared:

The frustrating thing is that conservatives, typified by Deluz will run to the defense of a black man beign discriminated against, but not to help a gay man. It's ok to disctiminate homsexuals, we don't hear outcries against this.

First of all, let me be clear. Hate and violence against anyone is wrong. But, we will never legislate hate out of existence. Even if you don’t call me a “Nigger, darkie, or coon” to my face, you will call me that when I am not around. Those who use these terms are demonstrating what is in their heart. And I know that no law can be passed that will change that. The same is true for homosexuals. We will not be able to stop people from thinking of them as "FAGS! QUEERS! DYKES!" unless we want to become the thought police.

You also stated:

You don't have to support homosexuality to support their civil rights. Just like we support the civil right for gossipers, liars, and adulterers. I see this as hypocrisy. you can't claim discrimination for part of the person.

Do we have laws outlawing housing discrimination against liars? Are violent acts against adulterers counted as hate crimes? How about affirmative action programs for gossipers? The truth is, while these behaviors are not illegal, we do not have laws protecting, honoring or providing special rights and benefits to people based on them being gossipers, liars or adulterers. As a matter of fact, we have laws in place that punishes these individuals if their behavior goes too far. Gossipers can be sued for liable or slander. Liars can do time in prison for perjury. And in most states, adulterers can wind up on the financial losing end of a divorce settlement if their infidelity is proven. The same cannot be said for homosexuals. We have honored this type of sin with special protections under the law. Homosexuals should have the same civil rights that I do. They are entitled to no more or no less than the full protection under the law.

In your closing you commented:

its as if saying the important part is the black part, i care for part of you, not the gay part, i will stand up for your black part but not all of you. i know you wont respond. but think about it." let me know what you think. it irks me.

This kind of hypocrisy irks me too! The whole point of this piece was not a cry for civil rights for blacks, but to demonstrate the obvious double standard that exists in the homosexual community when it comes to black people. On one hand they pimp civil rights groups like the NAACP to fight for them to get special benefits under the law, while on the other hand openly discriminating against blacks. In reporting on this issue, it was my desire to point out how the supposed advocates of “tolerance and acceptance” being selective in who they believed should be tolerated and accepted. Apparently, for many in the homosexual community, Blacks are deserving of neither.

Finally, let me be clear, I have never said or written that I hate or even don’t care for homosexuals. As a Christian, I care for all people and am concerned about the well being of all God’s children. However, I am also obligated to speak out against the idea of condoning sinful behavior and treating it as normal and acceptable. This is my right as a citizen and my duty as a Christian. And as a supposed Christian, it is your duty as well!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

No More Aid, Without Accountability

The only thing more disappointing than young people ignoring the important world events that are happening all around them is to know that what little they do hear about these issues comes from completely ignorant pop entertainment icons. Did someone say, "Live 8"?

This week NPR interviewed George Ayittey, a professor of economics at American University on the issue of aid to Africa. He clearly states that no more aid should be provided without holding African governments accountable for the money they have already been given.

(Click Here to Listen to the Interview)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Senator Reid Declares the Filibuster back on the Table?

Senate Minority Leader (and supposed prolife democrat) Harry Reid from Nevada tells AP :

...the Senate Democratic leader says the nature of the confirmation proceedings ultimately will depend on whether Bush taps a "mainstream conservative" or someone further to the right of the political spectrum to fill the high court vacancy.

In his words, "whether or not there's a knockdown, drag-out fight on this is up to the president."

Them sounds like fightin words to me!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

****Here's the entire AP Wire Story****

RENO, Nev. (AP) Sen. Harry Reid said Thursday he hopes to avoid prolonged political battle over a Supreme Court nominee and is encouraged by President Bush's efforts to reach out to Democrats for advice.

But the Senate Democratic leader said the nature of the confirmation proceedings ultimately will depend on whether Bush taps a ``mainstream conservative'' or someone further to the right of the political spectrum to fill the high court vacancy.

``The president has started a consultive process,'' Reid said in an interview Thursday.

``Constitutionally that's the right thing to do. I appreciate his having done this,'' he told The Associated Press.

``As to whether or not there's a knockdown, drag-out fight on this is up to the president,'' Reid said before giving a keynote address at a Reno conference on aging.

``I think we're headed in the right direction,'' he said, stopping short of ruling out a filibuster.

Bush has said there would be no litmus test for his nominee on issues such as abortion or gay rights.

``I'll pick people who, one, can do the job, people who are honest, people who are bright and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from,'' the president said earlier this week.

But liberal and conservative groups are already mounting intense public relations campaigns, hoping for a justice who will sway the direction of the court their way in the years to come.

Reid said he's met with the president twice about the Supreme Court and was encouraged by those meetings. ``The president, we know, will pick a conservative lawyer,'' Reid said. ``We need a mainstream conservative. We're not going to get somebody that's our choice. It's his choice, and I look forward to working with him.

``I'm glad the process has started as it has and I hope it continues.''

Bush was to meet Monday with congressional leaders of both parties to discuss prospective candidates to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a pivotal swing vote on the closely divided court.

Reid has recommended the president look outside the judicial branch, suggesting Republican Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina for the nation's highest court.

``I've already given those names to the president,'' Reid said. ``The names that he gives us are the important ones.''

Reid himself has been targeted in a critical advertising campaign by Fidelis, a conservative Catholic-based organization, over the upcoming nomination.

``As minority leader, Sen. Reid is in a unique position to ensure the confirmation hearings must follow nothing less than the threefold high standard of being responsible, civil and
constitutional,'' the group said in a newspaper advertisement.

``Catholics and all people of faith must join together and defend Supreme Court nominees who will likely be attacked because of the faith and deeply held beliefs.''

Reid quipped that his endorsement of the Republican senators will likely doom their consideration.

``It probably did those people more harm than good,'' he said, adding the right wing will ``rise up and say there must be something wrong with that person if Reid likes him.''

AP-WS-07-07-05 1738EDT

They'll Like Us When We Win!

Last night I was watching a rerun of the West Wing when I heard words that caught my attention. But as I awoke this morning to the terrorist attacks in London, these same words sounded out like a clarion bell in my mind.

The speech was by the make believe President’s Communications Director, Toby Ziegler played by Richard Schiff. He was responding to a Democrat congresswoman (who also happened to be his ex-wife) who was upset about comments included in a speech he prepared for the President to give at the United Nations.

The statement said:

"The world will be free when there is freedom to worship for everyone. The world will be free when we finally shake off the rusted chains of tyranny, whether in the guise of fascist dictatorships or economic slavery, or ethnic hostility, or the crushing yoke of Islamic fanaticism.

This play congresswoman like so many real life liberal politicians was upset because the President would take a stand against Islamic fanaticism. She would rather they take a more diplomatic approach toward dealing with the Islamic holy war against the west.

…this one moment in time, you have to get off your horse and just... simply put - be nice to the Arab world.

The response by this hardcore liberal character was as on point as any I have heard from any real life conservative. Toby replies:

Well... How about when we, instead of blowing Iraq back to the seventh century for harboring terrorists and trying to develop nuclear weapons, we just imposed economic sanctions and were reviled by the Arab world for not giving them a global charge card and a free trade treaty? How about when we pushed Israel to give up land for peace?

How about when we sent American soldiers to protect Saudi Arabia, and the Arab world told us we were desecrating their holy land? We'll ignore the fact that we were invited. How about two weeks ago, in the State of the Union when the President praised the Islamic people as faithful and hardworking only to be denounced in the Arab press as knowing nothing about Islam? But none of that is the point.

In other words, we have been as nice as we can be to the Muslim world and look what got us… 9/11. The time has come for us to take a stand against those in the world who have determined in their minds to destroy us and our way of life. This does not mean all Muslims are against us. Nor does it mean that all who are against us are Muslim.

Our goal in this war on terror is not to be liked, but to protect the innocent from the evil of terrorism. We have taken a stand! And if you don’t like that we have taken a stand….Tough!

I don't remember having to explain to Italians that our problem wasn't with them, but with Mussolini! Why does the U.S. have to take every Arab country out for an ice cream cone? They'll like us when we win!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

University of California on the Road to Mediocrity?

University of California Chancellors are a small step away from terminating their participation in the National Merit Scholarship program. And once again, testing is at the center of this move toward mediocrity.

According to the San Diego Union Tribune:

The chief concern, said UC San Diego Chancellor Marye Anne Fox, is that the competition is based on a single standardized test, which doesn't match UC's broader definition of merit.

"All our admissions and eligibility decisions are based on several criteria and this is a one-time, high-stakes test," Fox said. "Many students aren't even aware that the PSAT is the basis for the competition."

And of course the test MUST BE FLAWED, because there is not enough diversity amongst the winners.

…the program tends to award more whites, Asians and upper-income students who demonstrate less financial need.

Among last year's National Merit Scholars at UC, 3 percent were black, Latino or American Indian, according to UC research.

If barely half of Black, Latino and Native American students are graduating from high school in California, doesn’t stand to reason that there would be fewer of these students available to compete for these scholarships?

Once again, liberals and educrats are trying subvert the pursuit of excellence in and effort to make students feel better about themselves and create diversity. This year alone California policy makers have tried to eliminate the high school exit exam, include race as a factor for admission to college and limit textbook size to 200 pages. None of this does anything to promote academic excellence. And we wonder why our schools are the worst in the nation.

I want students to boost student confidence. And diversity is always a good goal. But promoting mediocrity is not the way to do it. I have an Idea…let’s prepare all students to compete on a level playing field. But I guess this is out of the realm of possibility.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Mexican Stamp Is Bad, But U.S. Rappers Have It Licked

While the NAACP, Jessie Jackson and a host of other supposed black advocates condemn the Mexican government for issuing a collection of stamps that portray blacks in a negative light, they say noting about XXL Magazine which just released their “Jail Issue” dedicated to “Hip-Hop’s Incarcerated Soldiers”

Gregory Kane writes in the Baltimore Sun:

Fiddy -- as 50 Cent, born Curtis Jackson, is known to his adoring legion of addle-brained fans -- stands wearing a sleeveless T-shirt, black pants and a black doo-rag. His hands appear to be clasped behind his back.

To his left stands Yayo in an orange prison jumpsuit. He has his hands behind his back. The caption tells us that Fiddy and Yayo are "G-Unit's convicted felons." G-Unit is Fiddy's clique. It stands for either "Gorilla Unit" or "Guerrilla Unit." Or at one time stood for "Guerrilla Unit" and now stands for "Gorilla Unit." It depends on which Web site you access.

But if you think the cover is bad, the content is even worse.

Potential buyers who've been weirded out by the cover and the theme will open the magazine and read what some of "hip-hop's incarcerated soldiers" have to say at their own risk. But they'll learn one of the "soldiers" is Antron "Big Lurch" Singleton. "Big Lurch" is serving life without parole for murdering a woman and eating part of her lung.

If there was ever any doubt that there is a problem in the hip hop music industry, this should clear that right up. As a fan of this musical art form, it saddens me to see these degenerates drag it down this destructive path.

How can we criticize the Mexican government over some stamps when right here in America we have built an entire industry based on the denigration of the black woman and the violent, immoral and self-destructive stereotype of the black man?

Also see my commentary “Hip Hop Turns 30... What a Waste!”

(Hat tip to Booker Rising)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Get out of Jail Free Card provided to Potential Terrorists

It is bad enough that we have millions of illegal immigrants entering the country undetected. But I could not believe it when I read that thousands of individuals who have been apprehended entering the country illegally are being set free in the US. Basically the government is giving them a “Get Out of Jail Fee Card.”

On Sunday AP reported:

Several times a day, a chain-link gate rolls open and dozens of illegal immigrants stroll out of the U.S. Border Patrol station here, blinking into the hot Texas sun as they look for taxis to the bus station and a ticket out of town.

Each holds a piece of paper that Spanish-speakers call a "permiso" - permission, courtesy of the U.S. government, to roam the country freely.

Now these are not Mexican nationals. But they are from countries that are suspected of supporting terrorism.

They were from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil. But also Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen - among 35 countries of "special interest" because of alleged sponsorship or support of terrorism.

These are the so-called OTM, or "Other Than Mexican," migrants too far from their homelands to be shipped right back. More than 70,000 have hit U.S. streets just since this past October.

Someone please explain this to me. If I want to fly from Sacramento to Los Angeles, I have to show twelve forms of ID or face being striped down to my underwear; and maybe then I will be allowed on the plane. But potential terrorists simply need to walk across the boarder, speak with a boarder patrol agent and they are off to the races.

Am I the only one why thinks that this is taking term “Catch and Release” a little too far?

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Ralph... You my Nader!

In and interview with NPR’s Ed Gordon former presidential candidate Ralph Nader stands behind his claim that he felt like Ni**er as Democrats fought to keep him off the ballot during the 2004 presidential election.

In the Ed Gordon Interview, Nader states:

“… that the Nader Camello ticket had, not just in the southern states but in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio, with the democrats openly assaulting our candidacy...” was a lot like what the “Political Bigots” did to Black voters prior to the 1960’s.

I guess he can “feel our pain” seeing as how it is Democrats who have repeatedly enacted policies that have been instrumental in keeping Blacks down for years.

Anyway, since folks don’t like me using the N-word in my posts (despite the fact that is was the word he in fact used) So, I decided to coin a phrase that originated at the New Leadership Blog (See Comments).

I figure we can use his oppression as a symbol of modern day subjugation by the Democrats…oops… I mean the man! You know what I mean?

They’re just trying to keep a Nader Down!

Hat tip to Robert George!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com