Don Gets Dumped: The Bitter End of Don Imus

America's original shock jock falls amid an outrage that spawned from his choice of words, directed at the women's basketball team at Rutgers University. MSNBC, which ran Imus' radio simulcast, was the first to act by cancelling their simulcast and was followed days later by CBS radio. The story started off small, but grew in intensity as more and more outlets became involved in the story: namely Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who called for Don Imus to be fired for his comments. The popular show, which was able to bring many high-profile individuals in the political and journalism domains onto its airwaves, has been known to originate other controversial statements in the past. One of the interesting points to this story is the selective outrage by many of the people who have recently commented on this story, and especially Reverends Sharpton and Jackson. The people who went on the Don Imus show knew what had been said in the past by Imus and his crew, but only now called for him to be fired. Others I have heard claim a kind of ignorance which I find laughable. This attempt at a plausible denial is implausible. I think what Imus said was over the line especially when you look at who he was directing it at. These were young women who had achieved a great deal of success and were caught in Imus' cross-hair. But I also think we should look at how this story gained steam like it did. We had Sharpton and Jackson involved, like they always are in situations like this. These are two men who have not met soapbox they would not stand on to spout their opinions. These self-declared spokesmen for all African-Americans called for the head of Don Imus. This, at the time that the Rutgers' women had met with Imus and accepted his apology. But it was too late for Don Imus as sponsor after sponsor pulled out and the executives got scared and reacted. This reaction of course was not immediate, but after a few days when I guess Imus' words had gotten worse over time. The main point of my diatribe is focused on Sharpton and Jackson. These are two men who hardly have the moral authority to be denouncing anyone's words. I am sick of these two men constantly inserting themselves into every issue or event. I am really sick of the selective moral outrage shown by these two men. They condemn people like Imus but refuse to focus their attention on the music industry where such degrading speech is a constant presence. It seems they are blind to the real crises that the African-American community is confronted with like teenage pregnancy and school drop-outs. But individuals like Sharpton and Jackson have an agenda and instead look for easy prey that they can target and exploit for their own personal gain.

Pelosi Does Damascus: Nancy's Middle East Quest For Peace

Despite being told to keep out of Syria, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would not be denied the opportunity to speak with the state sponsors of terrorism. In doing so, Mrs. Pelosi may have violated a U.S. law against such actions.The Democrats want us to remember the elections of last fall, but it is they who should remember who was elected president. The constitution provides the House of Representatives with many responsibilites, but setting U.S. foreign policy is not one of them. The president is given this responsibility, and the Democrats seem to want to forget that.In fact, the House has no real foreign responsibility given to them. The Senate is the legislative body that is in charge of foreign treaties. It is bad policy and setting a bad precedent for the Democrats to provide competing foreign policies, especially to nations whose Hezbollah party is a major terrorist organization.Speaker Pelosi has turned herself into a propaganda tool that can be used by these evil actors to claim some right of legitimacy.I know some people have complained about the focus being solely put on Mrs. Pelosi and not on the Republican congressman that accompanied her. In answer: First of all, Mrs. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and being of such a high office, should realize the credibility that title carries to nations like Syria. I will concede that these congressman from the right side of the aisle should not have made the trip into Syria either. By meeting with individuals like Syrian President Assad, they condone a country who is a state sponser of terrorism and wants to destroy Israel.How do we rationally talk with people who will not recognize the right to exist of our greatest regional ally? Besides, what has the talking of the past decades gotten us? The answer to that, in my opinion, is nowhere.It seems to me that Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats think they have some grand design to bring about peace in a region marred by war and destruction. I, personally, doubt it. The Democrats appear to have this perspective about the entire Middle East. How can we negotiate with nations like Iran, who have repeatedly denied the Holocaust, or Israel's right to exist? To me that kind of mindset is a deal breaker at the negotiation table. Democrats preach diplomacy. But unless that diplomacy is backed up with the threat of force it has no power.

Dems Defund Threat Continues

I now see the current Democratic leadership as more pathetic creatures then I ever had previously. Recently Senator Harry Reid has ratcheted up the threat to cut off funding to the troops. Not only is this a completely idle threat many Democrats have stated as much recently. One such individual is congressman Charles Rangel who made the comments that the Democrats have no real chance of cutting funding for the troops nor does the majority want to. I mean after all Democrats had to load up the Iraq war supplemental bill with peanut storage and spinach subsidy pork that totalled billions. Never mind that this is an egregious use of taxpayer money but to include it in an emergency war bill to bribe congress members for votes is frankly criminal. Meanwhile the president has clearly stated that he will veto any bill with time lines for retreat that the radical activists who control the Democrat party call for. I guess the Democrats skipped the part of the constitution where it said that the president was commander in chief and not the members of the House and Senate. Where congress does have power is in the purse. Congress does have the power to defund the war and should if they are so opposed to our mission in Iraq. What is it that we constantly confronted with by Democrats? They repeatedly point back to the elections of last fall and Americans displeasure with the war as a reason to cut and run from Iraq. My answer to this is o.k. so defund the war. I am frankly sick of hearing this from Democrats. If they have such a mandate given to them by the American people why do they not cut the funding and bring our troops home now. Democrats are so worried about polls and how they will look if they give up on the military that they are scared and too cowardly to stand up for what they purport to believe. Obviously they fear a backlash from simply cutting the funding as opposed to their slow bleed plan of arbitrary timetables. I point to this as the reason the Democrats will not hold on to their power. They are fine sitting in the backseat calling the shots but when given control of the wheel they either get lost or drive the car into a telephone poll.