March 10th, 2006 9:30 pm

March 10th, 2006 2:35 pm
Not only is Jay Bennish an unhinged, America-hating liberal, but he’s a liar as well. Perhaps I’m just repeating myself. On March 7, 2006, trying to defend his idiotic anti-American rant on a Today Show lovefest, told Matt Lauer:
“My job as a social studies teacher is to argue alternative perspectives and viewpoints so that students are aware of those point of views. They do not necessarily reflect my own views. They are simply thrown out there to encourage critical thought.”
They don’t reflect his views? According to his lawyer, Bennish’s only regret is that, “He wished he’d picked a different dictator.” It’s obvious what his views are, and they were on full display in that classroom.
Despite claims by Bennish that he had presented a balance of information, his lawyer admitted he was lying:
From now on, however, “when he puts out something controversial, he’ll put the other side out right then and there,'’ Lane said.
But seriously, if you’re heard the tape or read the transcript, you can tell this was not a case of presenting a balanced lesson… he wanted to make sure the students believed the way he does. He wanted to convince them that his warped view of the world is the only view of the world. It’s blatantly obvious in just this one particular response to Sean Allen’s question:
“If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they’re concerned, we’re the terrorists. We’ve attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.”
So what balance did he provide earlier in class, or later in class, or at any moment in the history of the world to offset his claim that we intend to kill innocent people?

March 10th, 2006 1:04 pm
8 USC Sec. 1325: Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

March 9th, 2006 1:43 pm
So the UAE company Dubai World Ports has agreed with the port deal deciding, instead, to “transfer port operations to U.S. ‘entity’”.Wanna see Democrats go crazy? What if that “U.S. entity” is them?

March 9th, 2006 10:02 am
From Central Florida News 13:
Big NASA Announcement Today
NASA is planning to make a huge announcement today, about possible life in our own solar system.
Exact details of what we can expect to hear have not been released. We do know that evidence has been found that could point to life relatively close to the earth.
Official word is expected this afternoon at 2 p.m.
If it’s intelligent life, at least this would offset the lack of such in parts of our own planet, like Hollywood, San Francisco and much of New York City.
Update: Correction: Apparently there is no intelligent life to be found… and not just in Democrat strongholds.

March 8th, 2006 11:01 pm
Looks like the topic is surfacing again as a men’s rights group is launching a legal campaign under the equal protection clause. I wrote a paper about this in law school (and reposted it on this blog in October) and laid out the case under ethical aspects, legal aspects and religious aspects.If the pro-abortion lobby is going to argue it’s just a case of “a woman’s body” in lieu of recognzing the separate life within that body, then maybe it’s time men enjoyed the pro-choice life when it comes to any financial support for raising the “mass of tissues” that’s later delivered from that woman’s body.

March 8th, 2006 10:09 am
Data mining by politicians to track terrorists is bad, but data mining by politicians to track Democrat voters is good?
Ok, just so I’m clear on that.

March 7th, 2006 8:30 pm
The polls have now closed and there’s nothing left but the countin’. Here are the AP results via the Houston Chronicle.
Many are calling this primary a “referendum on Tom Delay“. I’m sure they’ll come up with something different if he wins… especially by a large margin.
As of 8:30pm central, only early voting is in and Delay has 66.5% of the vote and Campbell’s in second with 24.5%.
More to come…
9:30pm (10% reporting): Delay 63.8% - Campbell 26.3%10:00pm (14% reporting): Delay has been declared the winner. What does that say about the referendum?
Final Results: Delay 62% - Campbell 30%

March 7th, 2006 11:57 am
Then the author starts citing statistics about the number of soldiers deserting “since the Iraq war began” in an another bogus effort to show that troops disagree with the war and are fleeing in droves. Then the article cites the head of Citizen Soldier, an anti-war group that offers legal aid to deserters, and says
Some lawyers who represent deserters say the war in Iraq is driving more soldiers to question their service…
Since fall 2003, 4,387 Army soldiers, 3,454 Navy sailors and 82 Air Force personnel have deserted. The Marine Corps does not track the number of desertions each year but listed 1,455 Marines in desertion status last September, the end of fiscal 2005
The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001.
There were 9,581 deserters in 2001 alone… 2 years BEFORE the Iraq war began and then 2 years AFTER the start of the war, there were only 3,456.
To say nothing of this line buried near the end of the article:
Most deserters return within months, without coercion.
So, once again, I’ve read a MSM article and finished with the thought… “Where’s the story?”

March 7th, 2006 9:16 am
Such is the case this morning with Matt Lauer’s rendition of an unbiased Katie Couric interview. (Ian has the video) Instead of asking probing questions about the story of a geography teacher’s anti-American rant, Matt asks the teacher, Jay Bennish whether he has been set up. It’s the sort of question I’d expect Bennish’s lawyer to ask him during cross-examination to help bolster his client’s case before a jury.
Lauer: “The family here, the student’s family, didn’t go to the school board with this tape.”
Bennish: “They never contacted me.
Lauer:”They shopped it around to conservative media outlets and finally released it to one and created an uproar. On the tape you can hear Sean Allen [the student in question] asking you questions that seem to be egging you on a little bit. Do you feel you were set up?”
In addition, Lauer gives the appearance that Allen and his father conspired to tape this teacher for the purpose of going public. However, according to Sean Allen, he “frequently recorded his teachers to back up his notes.” So much for Lauer’s investigative journalism abilities.
On top of the biased questioning, Lauer blatantly lies to achieve his goal of portraying the teacher as the innocent victim and the student (and his father) as the offender. Lauer accused the student and his father of shopping the tape around to conservative media outlets before contacting the school officials with a complaint.
But according to a local paper:
After the student’s father complained to school officials, he took the recording to KOA radio talk show host Mike Rosen, who put it on the Internet and played parts of it on his radio program.
Sean Allen recorded about 20 minutes of Bennish’s class during a February 1 discussion about Bush’s State of the Union speech and gave the recording to his father, who complained to the principal, Amole said.
In addition, Amole also said:
“After listening to the tape, it’s evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view.”
Even the Superintendent of the school district said it appears “a breach of district policy” occurred. So where were Lauer’s questions about that? Why didn’t the Today Show interview Amole or Moses as well to inform viewers just what the school district policies are? Instead Lauer acted like Bennish’s defense attorney and tried to help him advocate his case before the public.
Looks like Lauer and Bennish are cut from the same cloth. Find yourself a captive audience, spew your liberal rhetoric and then ignore opposing viewpoints because they might expose your liberal bias.
Related:

Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes










