02/05 Morning Report

Did you know it isn’t enough to talk about overcoming racism? Now days, at schools, you also have to support the anti-family agenda of the left.

You may know Ken Hutcherson's name from his pro football days or, more recently, his pro-family activism in defense of traditional marriage. But Hutcherson's daughter was introducing her father at her high school to talk about how he overcame racism thanks to the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"And then she says, 'But the most important thing is, this is my Dad.' I stood up to walk up to the microphone and there were some boos. They started booing."

Hutcherson, senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington, ignored the hecklers and gave his presentation, which never mentioned homosexuality. But the homosexual activists who booed Hutcherson were not finished. After his speech, they challenged him directly in front of the entire assembly.

"The sponsor of the Gay Straight Alliance stood up and yelled out, 'I know that I am not on the program, but why is this man here when he doesn’t believe in equal rights for everybody?'" says Hutcherson.

The woman accusing Hutcherson was Kit McCormick, his daughter's favorite teacher. "And I felt like I couldn't sit and not say anything," says the teacher. "I felt like this was a moment that I had to stand up and say something."

McCormick told KING-TV that Hutcherson was misrepresenting himself. "He is not about equality for everyone," she asserts. "He's about equality for some people."

Hutcherson says the teachers' behavior was inappropriate and [the behavior] would never have been tolerated if they had been pro-family activists criticizing a pro-homosexual speaker.

It’s obvious that Hutcherson is right. Those on the left are just as exclusive towards their conservative opponents as they claim conservatives are towards them. It’s immaterial the crux of the disagreement is whether homosexuality is natural or not. It only matters that those on the left want their way, and they will intimidate and shout down anyone who opposes them…all in the name of “equality”, of course.

(…I guess that makes the left just as wrong as the right, unless your on the left…or teaching our children…not that this is anything new…)


Islam is having it’s own public image problems lately. Wikkipedia’s entry on Islam is causing quite a stir. Why? It shows images of the Prophet Muhammed. Supposedly there is a prohibition about showing people’s pictures in Islam. But…

Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, “Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent.” He added, “Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.”

The ban actually dates only to the 20th Century. There was an on-line petition with some 80,000 signatures sent to Wikipedia, and a lot of emails. One interesting point about the uproar…

The petition has more than 80,000 “signatures,” though many who submitted them to ThePetitionSite.com, remained anonymous.

“We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January,” said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco.”

(…hhhmmm…sounds like Islamists have learned how to use SPAM to intimidate…)


Not to be outdone by possibly fictitious rules, requirements and actions, the French bank Société Générale is facing some more problems. It seems bank policies may have let the rogue trader get as deep into trouble as he did. There are apparently several holes in the argument that Mr Kerviel is the supervillain he is portrayed as. Us authorities are investigating the bank as well. Specifically, they are looking at bank board member transactions in the days before the scandal broke. Meanwhile, Agence France press reports that while French trader Jerome is saving any substantial statements for the judges, he is refusing to be a scapegoat for the bank.

(…another rousing success for the French…)

12/3 Morning Report

What does the media tell you? And what does it leave out? Well, let’s consider sex education for a moment. The Associated Press reported on a study showing two-thirds of adults think giving out condoms aat school is a good thing. But, there seem to be quite a few inconsistencies in the report—and the survey. For example, a large majority of those surveyed were not parents, and only 30% who were survey in that poll thought condoms from school was good. So, abstinence supporters did another poll. And,, the results no surprise. But, since this occurred a couple of weeks ago, and the pro-contraceptive survey got big media play, is it any surprise that this one got nothing? Just like Jamal Hussein, faked photos from Lebanon, and a few other instances, the media does not like to have their errors pointed out.

(…sometimes, you have to find truth on your own…contrary to the MSM and most journalists…)


Meanwhile, in Venezuela, Chavez lost out on ”president for life”. The numbers indicate some 56% of registered people voted. And, Chavez’s socialistic proposals were rejected by 51% of the voters. Several explanations are mentioned, most involved fear of reprisals for voting against the referendums or confusion over them. But, buried in the story is the growing evidence of dictatorial qualities in Chavez:

In the days before the referendum, Mr. Chávez recalled his ambassador from Colombia and threatened to nationalize the Venezuelan operations of Spanish banks after Spain’s king told him to shut up during a meeting. Mr. Chávez said he would cut off oil exports to the United States in the event of American interference in the vote.

The Times however, doesn’t go as far as this AFP report that said:

A fiercely anti-US leader who has nurtured ties with Iran and China, Chavez has repeatedly accused Washington of setting up resistance in the country, without advancing any evidence.

(snip)

Chavez has dismissed those ranked against him as "traitors" acting to further US "imperialism."

Still the media darling, however, Chavez’s actions are not being denounced.


And, at home, the political arena is providing some interesting information. Did you know, for example, that Guliani and Clinton are both facing problems over secrecy? It plagues both of their campaigns.

Neither Clinton nor Giuliani was seen as particularly honest or ethical. Just 38 percent viewed Clinton as honest, while just 40 percent called her ethical. Forty-two percent called Giuliani honest, 40 percent ethical.

People don’t think they are ethical or honest? But, as it stands right now, one of them could end up in the White House.

(…and, of course, the right wing candidate gets most of the bad press…are you surprised?...)