Justified Right

Justified Right Quoted In The NY Daily News

Along with Newt Gingrich and Tom Friedman!!!

Read it here.

Palin and Shatner - Sure To Be Classic TV!

Obama's Jekyll and Hyde Nobel Speech

Just prior to President Obama’s arrival in Oslo to accept the Nobel Prize, millions of Norwegians were captivated by an unexplained spiraling halo in the sky. While the president’s most fanatical supporters will herald the light as a messianic celestial event comparable to the star of Bethlehem, his detractors will be equally sure that it is the beginning of the apocalyptic black hole the next three years of Obama’s presidency are sure to bring.

Some scientists are beginning to assure us that the light was generated by a wayward Russian missile -- as if wayward Russian missiles are reassuring.

President Obama did not have time for sky-watching. As a wartime President receiving a Peace Prize, The president had, as Ricky used to say to Lucy, “some ‘splainin' to do.”

He began his speech by admitting his award was not for any achievement toward peace, but his “aspiration” to obtain peace. Upon hearing that, my 12-year-old asked me if he could receive an A on his math test not because he passed it, but because he aspired to pass it. 

Having better sense than a Nobel committee member, I told him no.

The Peace Prize winner then launched into a commercial for war, albeit a “just war.” He wavered between a peaceful Dr. Jekyll and a rapacious Mr. Hyde: He called for “international standards” for the use of force but in the same sentence cancelled that out with a “unilateral right” for a country to defend herself.

It has been noted by some that over the last decade the Peace Prize is lately been given to people for “not being George Bush” (see Carter, Gore and El-Baradei). Yet on the issue of war, the Nobel Committee was hoping for “Bush minus” not “Bush squared.”

Obama has proved to be “Bush on steroids” when it comes to war. Since winning the Peace Prize he has not created any peace but he's tripled the amount of troops in Afghanistan that Bush left him with. In his speech today Obama noted that those soldiers will both “kill and be killed.” One has to wonder if Gandhi, mentioned by Obama in his speech (who never won the Peace Prize himself) would disagree about killing being in any way “peaceful.”

Obama then went all in as Mr. Hyde, and adopted “The Bush Doctrine” in his speech. He noted that sometimes “the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense.” The president sees it as moral to protect people from their own governments, even if America is not at risk (as in the Balkans). That thinking creates a moral groundwork to rescue the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction or no.

It appeared Obama was just about to praise military men like or Patton or MacArthur, but then he slipped back into Dr. Jekyll mode and honored Dr. King.

That this award can even be given to a man who thus far has created no peace but governs two wars confirms that the Nobel Peace Prize is now nothing more than the “Norwegian People’s Choice Award” and carries the same gravitas as having a Hollywood Star in front of Mann’s Chinese Theater.

DALTON FURY. WHY WE SHOULD HAVE HAD MORE TROOPS IN TORA BORA

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld had a rather human approach to war.  The kind of approach that I image those who oppose war would have taken if they were forced to go.

Bush and Rumsfeld tried to use as few troops as possible in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The thinking was that the fewer men they used, the fewer Americans who would be killed, the fewer of the enemy who would be killed and the fewer civilians who would accidentally be killed.

A kinder and gentler war.

Unfortunately, war doesn't work that way.  Wars are won by overwhelming force (see WWII) and not by being small and surgical (see Vietnam).

While I usually deplore all things CBS, particularly 60 Minutes (in high school I had a social studies teacher and self-described socialist named Russ Leidy who made us watch a tape of 60 Minutes every Monday morning), but I have to give props to this interview with Delta Force Commander Dalton Fury (pseudonym).

This is fascinating:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Rooting For The White House Party Crashers

 

In the little town where I’m from, Asbury Park NJ, there were no less than 3 men who billed themselves as celebrity party crashers.  And they were good at it.  People would go to their homes to ogle at the hundreds of photographs of these guys standing with every celebrity imaginable, from New York parties they snuck into.

 

Did they get their picture with Presidents?  Easy peasy. They all had pictures with Presidents.  The best “get” I ever heard about was from the master of celebrity party crashers – a cop named Billy Dello.  Billy once crashed a birthday party for Dean Martin that was attended by only 12 people, and he sat right at their table and had dinner.

 

Would these guys be impressed with Tareq and Michaele Salahi, who party crashed the White House state dinner?  No they wouldn’t, for this reason:  The Salahis got caught.  Their party crashing days are over.  One of the secrets to being a successful celebrity party crasher is to be a familiar face and nothing more – when they learn your name and background is when the host throws you out. 

 

I’ve watched supposed legal pundit after supposed legal pundit on TV address whether the Salahis should be charged with an offense.  I laugh at the experts who say “yes” then watch them struggle to say exactly what the Salahis should be charged with. 

 

No crimes were committed by the Salahis.  These people didn’t sneak into the building.  They didn’t break a window and jump in.  They walked right up to the front door and asked to be let in.  Then they were let in.  The people in control of the property eventually INVITED them in.

 

Did they lie at the door about having a previous invitation?  Probably, but here’s a newsflash:  Lying isn’t a crime unless you do it under oath or you are giving a statement to a criminal investigator, and neither was the case here. 

 

Trespass? Give me a break.  They were eventually invited in by the people in control of the property. 

 

If some overzealous prosecutor charges them with anything, I dub that person the dumbest prosecutor on the planet.  They only way a prosecutor will get a conviction is to play the “overcharge game”  - by telling the Salahis, “You can go to trial on Count 1 and risk 10 years in jail, or plead guilty to Count 2 and pay a $50 fine.”  Everybody chooses Count 2.

 

America loves an underdog, and that’s what these people were when they went to the White House door with no invitation, and they beat the system.  Let’s not forget the White House is the people’s house, so I’m not going to get upset that two non-celebrities got to party with the President.   

 

It’s also hysterical to watch political and media mucky mucks be so appalled about mere commoners having eaten at their table, that they would spend the next week discussing whether to arrest them.  Royalty much?

 

I understand the safety implications for the President and the fear of copycats.  The fault there lies not with the Salahis  - that’s the Secret Service’s problem.  Embarrassing the Secret Service or the Administration is not a crime. 

 

The party crashers may have done the Secret Service a favor by making them reassess their procedures.  The Administration is promising to keep New Yorkers safe during the upcoming terror trials, but they can’t keep that pretty blonde lady from sneaking into a party?

 

This story is nothing but fun.  The Congressional hearings today (good grief!) over the incident are a waste of my tax money.  I think it would be hysterical if the Salahis donned disguises and sneaked in!

 

Peace Prize Winner to Muster 30,000 Troops

It was an oration of tight-rope walking rhetoric straight talk on foreign policy.

 

President Obama’s inarticulation speech last night made clear that he has no intention of being bullied by the far left wing of his party terrorists.  He will deliver 75% of General McChrystal’s request for 40,000 30,000 troops to fight in Afghanistan.

 

This is the first time the President has shown real commitment to fighting the war on terror Overseas Contingency Operations. 

 

As a presidential candidate Obama identified Afghanistan as the good talking point war, compared to Iraq, which he labeled a Republican weak point distraction.

 

In his speech, the President’s justification for fighting in Afhganistan was to ask Americans to recall that on September 11, 2001, nineteen jihadists from the religion of peace men hijacked four airplanes and used them to kill nearly 3,000 people commit “a man-caused disaster.”

 

In addition to al-Qaeda, President Obama identified another enemy disputant as The Taliban, who he promised to fight until America achieves victory for a maximum of 18 months.

 

Moving forward, Obama announced a committed to a pander to partner with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust nuclear weapons.

 

Yet in a proclamation of bowing to foreign powers American world leadership, Obama also noted that American’s Afghan war was supported by his daddy the UN Security Council.

 

The speech showed President Obama is a man who makes decisions with a speed and commitment that rivals President Bush Brett Favre.

Guido Goes To College Too, MTV

 

Now comes MTV, in the bigoted footsteps of a show like the Sopranos, with a new show called “Jersey Shore.” It will exploit the worst and most mythological stereotypes about Italians in New Jersey, produced no doubt by people who or neither Italian nor from the Jersey Shore.  

One of the last stereotypes our American pop-culture still believes it is OK to exploit is that of the Italian American – if he’s rich he’s a mobster, if he’s poor he’s too stupid to be a mobster, but in a lovable, illiterate, Joey Tribbiano from “Friends” sort of way. In the movies, Guido never goes to college.  

Why are stereotypes and wiping them out important? Because a stereotype impedes assimilation.  

What is most important to any ethnic group, Italians included, is to assimilate into America – to be thought of as Americans first and our ethnicity second.  That being true, each ethnic group has to obliterate old stereotypes. Culturally you can master the language, clothing, education, business and politics, but a stereotype will be the last lock on the door to assimilation if you can’t pick it.  There will always be something that says “outsider” about a group with a widely accepted stereotype.  

Unfortunately in Pop Culture, it’s Ok to stereotype Italians, because our “identifier” has changed.  We are no longer branded with real names like Galileo and Da Vinci; instead we are identified with fake names like Corleone and Soprano.  

What caused this shift in identifier for Italian Americans?  The movie The Godfather.  

In real life, organized crime had many ethnicities: Dutch Shultz, Bugsy Segal and Meyer Lansky were Jews.  Dion O’Bannion and Bugs Moran were Irish.  Of the Midwest Crime wave including John Dillanger, “Pretty Boy” Floyd, “Baby Face” Nelson, “Ma” Barker, Bonnie & Clyde and “Machine Gun” Kelly, none were Italian. Movies reflected that.  

Then came The Godfather. So successful was it that everyone tried to copy the genre.  After The Godfather more than 400 feature films have been made where the mobsters are JUST Italian, despite the historical inaccuracy.                         

Add to that the TV shows and endless parade of advertisements showing Italians as criminals and clods, and suddenly people forget Marconi invented radio telegraph but remember Moltisanti on the Sopranos fenced radios.  

This stereotype is still “OK” in Hollywood. No other ethnicity suffers from their hurtful stereotype being politically correct.  Imagine an HBO series today about a Step ‘n Fetchit Black family, a drunken Irish family, cheap Jews or dumb Poles.  Those wrong stereotypes haven’t been wiped out, but they are universally reviled and controlled by making a pariah of anyone who uses them.  Yet portraying Italians as murderous, awful, immoral criminals will get you an Emmy.  MTV is counting on that bigotry for their new show.  

I’m not saying other ethnicities don’t take it on the chin – they do.  But when we catch someone being insensitive to Blacks, Jews, Gays, etc., we make them pay for it.   

Don Imus got punished heavily for his “nappy headed hos” joke.  Here’s something no one considered:  

At that year’s Academy Awards, the song that won was called, “It’s Hard Out Here For A Pimp.”  The song uses the word “Hos” 4 times, “Bitches” 8 times and the word “Niggaz” too.  

America awarded that song an Oscar.  Not one girl’s basketball team complained about it.  

Since we are giving lyrics of such “creative genius” as “Bitches, Hos & Niggaz” the Academy Award, the highest accolades we give in American Popular Culture, are we really going to pretend to be surprised when a 60 year old man says it  on the radio, or worse yet, a 6^th grader on a school bus?  

His own remarks were not Don Imus’ fault – they were our fault for lavishing praise on that song.  

Will stereotypes like we will see in “Jersey Shore” really hurt Italians? Is it just “fun” (you know, like white people used to think Step n Fetchit was fun)? It’s not our stars like Scalia and Giuliani who are at risk; it’s ordinary Italians who have to use the Court system who will get hurt by the stereotype.  

Twenty years ago when I was in law school, three students were in the booth next to me at a campus restaurant.  One said, “In criminal law we’re studying a case where all the defendants had these looooong Italian names…they were sooooo guilty!”  I wonder where that student is today – a judge? A prosecutor bringing charges against Italians because their long names make them soooooo guilty?  

There was a criminal indictment in New Jersey a few years back where several Italians were arrested, and they all had nicknames in “quotes” between their first and last names.  The problem?  The Defendants didn’t really have those nicknames.  The prosecution invented them and put them in the indictment, in an attempt to sway the jury who likely believe, as that law student from 20 years ago did, that Italian = guilty.  

Press reporters won’t help the Italian American in Court either, with newspapers insisting that all Italians must have a middle name in quotes.  Locally where I live there was a trial involving a man the Press called James “Jimmy” (last name).   Is “Jimmy” such an unusual aberration of the name James that it requires quotation marks, or are the marks just a media signal to the jurors that the defendant must be guilty because he’s “mobbed up?”  

That the characters on MTV’s “Jersey Shore” are Italian themselves, as were many actors on the Sopranos, only highlights the depth of the problem.  Hollywood has so engrained in the minds of America that there is a sexiness to the murderous, killing gangster or the dumb lovable “Guido” that it’s easy to recruit such useful idiots from our own ranks.  That the actors are Italian doesn’t make it OK – it makes it worse.  

Let’s just hope the show doesn’t win an Emmy, further solidifying the bigoted Italian stereotype into American Pop Culture.

The Church's Association With Kennedy, Or Not

Ask the average person what their First Amendment rights are, and they are quick to list Speech, Religion, Press, Assembly and Petition the Government.  Those are specifically expressed in the language of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that within the right to Assemble is another right, equally as important as the other First Amendment Rights:  The “Right to Associate.”

The cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Freedom to Associate was in NAACP vs Alabama (the state could not subpoena the group’s list of members) and The Boy Scouts of America v Dale (the Boy Scouts do not have to admit Gay and Lesbian members).

The right to Associate exists because it is understood that political progress and even enjoyment of life can be tied to a person’s association.  To split like-minded people apart is to divide their power (divide and conquer).

This is the proper background to view Bishop Thomas Tobin’s decision to not let Congressman Patrick Kennedy receive communion because of the Democratic lawmaker's support for abortion rights.

Kennedy does not share the belief system of the Catholic Church on either the moral front or the political front.  Why Kennedy would want to belong to a religion he disagrees with is a mystery anyway.

The Church not only has the right to suspend Kennedy form communion (a form of minor excommunication), they could have, and should have, gone further and ex-communicated him completely.

History Lesson for Chris Matthews

While Chris Matthews doesn’t make my leg tingle (sorry Chris – you won’t live that down until President O is out of office), he’s not completely objectionable like other hosts on MSNBC.  Chris is the only one who routinely has on guests who disagree with him.

 

On yesterday’s show he made a mistake - a mistake of omission for not telling all the facts. 

 

There’s a 40 year old chestnut on the left that they love to tell – that Democrats were the ones who championed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law, over Republican opposition.

 

That wrong fact was challenged on the floor of Congress yesterday when Representative Virginia Foxx (R North Carolina) said this:

 

The GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country, just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the sixties, without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle.

 

By the way if you’re wonder what environmental programs were started by Republicans, look up “Environmental Protection Agency” which was proposed and signed into law by President Nixon.

 

Chris Matthews, seeing truth finally entering into the civil rights debate, took exception to Representative Foxx claiming it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act.  Chris put forth this fact in response:

 

Well here are the facts. 46 Democratic senators voted for the Civil Rights bill, 46 and 27 Republican senators. Well that's the numbers.

 

Uh, that’s not quite all the numbers Chris, is it?  Chris didn’t tell you how many members each party had in the Senate back then.  If you think that’s not important, let me play the same trick on you Chris did by telling you how many Senators voted “No” on the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

 

23 Democrats voted no, 6 Republicans voted no.

 

Nearly 4x as many Democrats opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act as did Republicans!  But don’t let me play the same trick on you that Chris did.  His numbers and my numbers don’t tell you the real story.  The percentages do.  Let’s look at the percentages to see which party was united in passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and which party had a huge bloc who wanted to kill the bill.

 

In the Senate, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while only 69% of Democrats did.

 

In the House, these were the Republican votes for and against:  136 for (80%), 35 against (20%).

 

The House Democrat votes were 165 for (63%) and 91 against (37%).

 

You have to wonder how Democrats have traditionally been credited with passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act when 80% of Republicans were for it compared to only 63% of Democrats.  I blame bad media and bad school teachers.

 

If Chris Matthews still isn’t convinced the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a Republican accomplishment, he should consider these facts:

 

·        Senate Democrats filibustered the bill.  The left leaning Wikipedia calls it a “brief filibuster.”   If by “brief” Wiki means 3 months and the longest filibuster in Senate history, then yeah, you can call it “brief.”

 

·         Senator Richard Russell, (D-Ga) led the filibuster, and he said:  "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our states."

 

·        Senator Robert Byrd, the Democrat who was a recruiter for the KKK, talked for 14 straight hours against the bill.

 

·        Republican Everett McKinley Dirksen championed the cause to break the Democrat filibuster, with 82% of Republican voting to break it and only 66% of Democrats.

 

Immediately after Rep. Foxx made her comments yesterday, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Ca) either made a blunder or proved that Democrats intentionally revise history.  He said:

 

"It was over the objections of people like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman's state that we passed that civil rights legislation."

 

Civil Rights legislation was passed in 1964 and 1965.  Jesse Helms took office in 1973.

 

Another reason people black and white associate the Civil Rights Act with Democrats is because President Johnson was a Democrat, and in America we tend to credit/blame presidents for everything while ignoring the work of Congress.

 

For a more recent example of the crediting/blaming presidents instead of Congress, see President Obama’s endless complaints about the economy over “the last 8 years.”  He, the media, and many people fail to consider that in January, the Democrats will enter their 4^th straight year of control of Congress, and it’s Congress who spends the money, not the President.

 

Hasan - A Muslim of Convenience

Have you ever heard of a “cafeteria Catholic?” It is one who does not follow all of the Church’s stated doctrines, instead picking and choosing which doctrines to follow or not, as if deciding which foods he likes while standing in line at a cafeteria.

 

Muslims come in the “cafeteria” variety too. 

 

Surely there are Muslims who are genuine and put great effort into following their religion correctly.  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar seems to be a shining example of Muslim sincerity.   However, as with other religions, there are some who use certain elements of Islam as a political tool rather than a spiritual way of life. 

 

The most famous “cafeteria Muslim” is the boxer Muhammad Ali.  Modern day “pop history” romantically paints Ali as a man who stood for his religious beliefs in refusing to fight in Vietnam.  If you believe that, you’re allowing the left make up history as they go along (as usual).

 

Ali was not standing for strong religious conviction; rather, he was cowering behind mere religious affiliation to avoid the inconvenience of going to war.  In the 1960’s, Ali was a “Muslim of Convenience.”

 

Cheating on his wife and boxing for the white man’s money were also things forboden by Muhammad Ali’s religion in the sect of the Nation of Islam.

 

Yet because Ali found cheating on his wife and boxing so much more enjoyable than going to war or Islam, he kept doing them.  That prompted Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad to kick Ali out of the Nation and strip him of the name Muhammad Ali for his transgressions, retuning him to the name Cassius Clay.

 

Even that didn’t stop Ali from committing those sins against his religion.  Got sincerity?

 

The only truth one can divine from Ali’s actions is that he wasn’t a true follower in the Nation of Islam  – he hid behind Islam to avoid fighting for America, but cast it aside rather than give up sexual promiscuity and boxing for money.  He was a “cafeteria Muslim” to the Nation of Islam.

 

As it turns out, Ft. Hood terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan may be a “cafeteria Muslim” too.

 

Reports indicate that he spent plenty of time in a strip club called Starz, complete with drinking and raunchy lap dances.  The radical jihadist form of Islam outlaws these things.  The general manager of Starz relates that Hassan stayed at the strip club for as much as 7 hours straight.   That’s not a casual brush with debauchery – 7 hours is a Larry Flynt sized commitment to sexual immorality.

 

How are we to reconcile Hasan’s supposedly ultimate act of loyalty to Islam through martyrdom with that deed being preceded by sins against Islam? (We have to label his martyrdom attempt “epic fail” since he is still alive.)

 

Hasan isn’t the first to lust in strip clubs before yelling “Allahu Akhbar” and committing mass killings.  Reports from all over the country indicate the September 11 hijackers spent a great deal of time at strip clubs, buying pornography and sleeping with prostitutes before September 11.

 

One theory suggests that since Islamic Jihadist believe that if they die while killing infidels (meaning you and me) all of their sins are washed away, so they can go ahead and sin with impunity.  Jihadist plenary indulgence = prostitutes are fun!

 

Another theory suggests that since Jihadist believe that God will reward their martyrdom with 72 virgins in heaven, they’re just getting themselves in shape for heaven’s orgy.  Jihadist plenary indulgence = prostitutes are practice!

 

What is clear is that Islamic Jihadists are political, not religious.  They pretend a rigorous religious commitment to incite others to fanaticism, but in reality they are religious fakers.  Saddam Hussein epitomized this practice.  Who could forget his rallying his sons to fight to the death, but when he crawled from his rat hole he announced, “I am willing to negotiate.”  What a faker.

 

Some of America’s politically correct insanity may have let Hassan slip through the cracks because the Military was afraid to offend his “Muslim faith.”  That thinking has to end.  Guys like Hassan have no genuine Muslim faith – only Jihadist political aggression.

 

Profiling a Muslim for Jihadist beliefs is not targeting Islam or any sect of the religion.  It’s targeting someone who is doing Islam all wrong.  It’s targeting him for the misuse of Islam for political gain at the expense of American lives, which has nothing to do with religion.  Investigating Jihadism insults no religion, but is a warranted investigation into the murderous bastardization of Islam into a political tool, which all good Muslins should applaud. To remain vigilant, America must target and investigate “Muslims of Convenience.”