Archive for May 23rd, 2006

Pat Boone rips Dixie Chicks for Bush bash

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006

The Dixie Chicks just can’t get it through their heads that nobody cares what they think about President Bush.

Music legend Pat Boone is ripping into the Dixie Chicks for withdrawing their apology for a previous attack on President Bush.

“I have four daughters, and I taught them to respect their elders, even if they weren’t president of the United States,” Boone told Fox News host Neil Cavuto today. “I think it’s outrageous for any of these performers to be bashing our president the way they are.”

At a London concert in 2003, Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines sparked controversy by stating, “Just so you know, we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.”

She later apologized for the remark, but is now taking her apology back.

“I don’t feel that way anymore,” Maines told Time magazine for its issue hitting newsstands this week. “I don’t feel he is owed any respect whatsoever.”

Boone, who is also a columnist for WorldNetDaily, says what seemed like a momentary misstep by Maines now begins to look like a flaw in her character.

“If I were the president of Iran, if I were Osama bin Laden or any of the terrorist organizers and I could have my wish list totally,” Boone said, “I couldn’t ask for anything better than for America’s entertainers to bash their president, denigrate him, make him seem like an idiot and a self-serving fool, and then have the media go along with it and promote it like crazy and try to undermine the whole war effort.”

He continued, “We are at war, and you don’t tell even a quarterback in a football game that he’s nuts and you don’t respect him. You try to pull for a win, and that’s what we should be trying to do. … You can disagree. You can express your disagreement, but don’t attack the man who is your elected leader and say he’s not owed any respect at all.”

Original Article

Google dumps news sites that criticize radical Islam

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006

No media bias here…Yeah Right!

Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam – the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered.

Frank Salvato, who began the agreement with Google News last September, said he received a reply from the company’s help desk Friday indicating there had been complaints of “hate speech” on his site, as first reported by media watchdog
The e-mail, which cited three articles that dealt with radical Islam and its relationship to terrorism, read:
Hi Frank,
Thanks for writing.
We received numerous reports about hate content on your site, and after reviewing these reports, decided to remove your site from Google News.
We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google News (although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable).
For example, a number of the complaints we looked at on your site were found to be hate content:
We hope this helps you understand our position.
The Google Team

Newsbusters says it has observed a pattern of intolerance toward conservative sites that deal with radical Islam and terrorism.
Rusty Shackleford, owner of The Jawa Report, received a similar e-mail message March 29 informing him: “Upon recent review, we’ve found that your site contains hate speech, and we will no longer be including it in Google News.”
Two weeks later, Jim Sesi’s was cut off, with Google providing three examples of “hate speech” by conservative writer J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Newsbusters commented: “At first blush, one can easily ignore such business decisions by the most powerful company on the Internet as being routine. However, on closer examination, such behavior could give one relatively small technological corporation (when measured by the size of its workforce) a degree of political might that frankly dwarfs its current financial prowess.”
The media watchdog noted columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin wrote in February 2005 her difficulties in becoming part of Google News. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs had a similar complaint. 

When Google News launched its beta site in April 2002, it said its mission was to construct an unbiased news engine free of human intervention using new methods of aggregating news from sources worldwide.
According to the April Nielsen/NetRatings report, 49 percent of all searches conducted in the U.S. in March 2006 were carried out on Google.
Along with the dropping of conservative news providers, Google has received other complaints of liberal bias.
Last June, a conservative book publisher said Google rejected his ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes. Eric Jackson, CEO of World Ahead, said his ads for “Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine” were rejected, without further explanation, due to “unacceptable content.”
As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats.
CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean. Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton, whose role in helping her husband intimidate his female accusers is addressed in the new book.
In May 2005, Google rejected an attempt by the conservative activist group to run ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against besieged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Also, Google agreed to allow the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block “objectionable” search terms such as “democracy.”
In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision to rank news articles in search results by “quality,” giving preferential placement to large and predominately liberal media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over conservative news sources, even if they are more recent or pertinent.

Original Link

Idaho Resident: Remove Sexually Graphic Books from Children’s View

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006

I really don’t see the problem with this. The Idaho residents aren’t asking the library to remove the books from circulation, only to remove them so that children cannot see them. Doesn’t seem like a big request, but then again, we are dealing with liberal librarians.

(AgapePress) – Parents in an Idaho city want their local public library to remove from the shelves several books containing graphic images of heterosexual and homosexual sex and place them out of the eyesight of children.

 At question are nine books in the non-fiction section of the Nampa Public Library, including titles such as The New Joy of Sex, The Joy of Sex Toys, and The Joy of Gay Sex.

Nampa resident Randy Jackson filled out a complaint form at the library and even addressed the library’s board of directors in January, but the board said the books would remain so that the needs of the whole community would be represented. Jackson, who recently brought his concerns before the Nampa City Council, says parents are especially horrified with the book The Joy of Gay Sex. “There’s a chapter entitled ‘Daddy-Son Sexual Fantasies’ where it talks about two people having sex while pretending that they’re father and son,” the local resident explains. Another chapter in the book that he finds disturbing teaches teens how to surf the internet for homosexual sex — and then cover their tracks. “They have a chapter entitled ‘Teenagers,'” he continues. “It explains to teenagers how they can go into online chat rooms on the Internet and how to meet people for sex in online chat rooms. It encourages them to learn to [delete] their web browser history so their parents won’t be able to find out where they’ve been to on the Internet.”

Jackson says the presence of the sexually explicit books is even more troubling given the recent rash of child enticement cases in the western Idaho community. He adds that a city council member plans to meet with the library board in June in hopes of resolving the issue of the books’ accessibility to children.

Now what really bothers me is that the book is not only passing off the gay lifestyle as normal and good, but also teaching teens how to be liars and deceivers against their parents.  Somehow this is supposed to be considered normal and good?  I have a feeling that even non-religious parents will have a problem with this.

Original Link