June 11, 2007 was the sixth anniversary of the execution of the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. Despite the claims of capital punishment opponents that executions do not deter murders, McVeigh has not killed anyone else since his execution.

Those who [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/15/debunking-myths-about-capital-punishment/feed/ 18 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/21/the-danger-of-liberalism/ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/21/the-danger-of-liberalism/#comments Tue, 22 May 2007 00:46:36 +0000 Michael P. Tremoglie http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/21/the-danger-of-liberalism/ Liberals, aided by their political representatives, the leftwing of the Democratic Party, have made Americans so self-conscious about being careful not to be racist or even appear to think racist thoughts or to even think of possibly violating someone’s civil rights, that the average American might ignore evidence of a terrorist plot simply to [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/21/the-danger-of-liberalism/feed/ 0 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/14/good-limbaugh-hunting/ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/14/good-limbaugh-hunting/#comments Mon, 14 May 2007 11:00:25 +0000 Michael P. Tremoglie http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/14/good-limbaugh-hunting/ Rush Limbaugh is the next target of Media Matters for America.

Chicago Tribune reporter Christi Parsons wrote a piece for the Sunday, May 6 edition titled, “Parody targets role of race in Obama candidacy.” Parsons wrote, “Weeks after radio personality Rush Limbaugh began airing a parody titled Barack the Magic Negro, the song about [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/14/good-limbaugh-hunting/feed/ 0 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/07/the-gop-debate/ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/07/the-gop-debate/#comments Mon, 07 May 2007 11:55:57 +0000 Michael P. Tremoglie http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/07/the-gop-debate/ The media is starting notice Duncan Hunter. The rest of the electorate will as well.

If any of the Republican presidential candidates who participated in the debate sponsored by MSNBC and Politico.com illustrated that he has inherited the mantle of Ronald Reagan, it was Congressman Duncan Hunter.

Moderator Chris Matthews said that everybody knew [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/05/07/the-gop-debate/feed/ 3 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/04/10/democrats-%e2%80%9cdeclassified%e2%80%9d-means-%e2%80%9cclassified%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-acquire-means-not-acquire/ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/04/10/democrats-%e2%80%9cdeclassified%e2%80%9d-means-%e2%80%9cclassified%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-acquire-means-not-acquire/#comments Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:50:27 +0000 Michael P. Tremoglie http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/democrats-%e2%80%9cdeclassified%e2%80%9d-means-%e2%80%9cclassified%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-acquire-means-not-acquire/ The most important thing is whether Scooter Libby’s actions were legal.

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s April 6 article about the Libby court papers pretty much follows the Democratic Party talking points – i.e. Bush leaked classified information.

The article states, "President Bush authorized Vice President Cheney's former top aide to divulge classified intelligence information to a reporter in an [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/04/10/democrats-%e2%80%9cdeclassified%e2%80%9d-means-%e2%80%9cclassified%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-acquire-means-not-acquire/feed/ 0 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/03/01/librarians-are-constitutional-experts-too/ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/03/01/librarians-are-constitutional-experts-too/#comments Wed, 01 Mar 2006 13:00:23 +0000 Michael P. Tremoglie http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/librarians-are-constitutional-experts-too/ The American Library Association campaigns against the USA’s PATRIOT Act, even as it provides justification for Castro’s persecution of Cuban librarians.

Dom Giordano, talk show host for Philadelphia’s radio station WPHT 1210-AM, interviewed American Library Association (ALA) president Michael Gorman on February 9. One of the issues addressed concerned the ALA’s policy towards governmental investigation of library patron’s reading materials. The interview was enlightening to say the least.

I learned from this interview that librarians are advised to ensure that any search warrants they receive from the FBI regarding records are legal. One has to wonder� — when were librarians assigned the responsibility to determine the legality of a search by law enforcement authorities?�

A review of the Constitution, Barron’s Law Dictionary, the Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, a textbook about criminal procedure, and the internet, did not locate one reference that librarians were part of the approval process for determining the reasonableness of searches. Nor did it reveal that librarians were considered independent or impartial judges, or magistrates, who determined if probable cause for a search warrant was appropriate.

Apparently, the American Library Association is the self-appointed sentinel of American civil liberties. Indeed, Mr. Gorman made the specious comment that totalitarian societies were those who investigated and determined what people were reading. He implied that the ALA’s policy was preventing totalitarian behavior by the government.

Gorman conveniently omitted that totalitarian societies investigated the political nature of someone’s reading material. Totalitarian societies policed the thoughts of its citizens.

The ALA policy concerns whether a librarian should comply with a search warrant� — issued by a genuine neutral magistrate, not a self-appointed one� — for authorities who want to determine if an individual is some fanatic who wants to plan or participate in a homicidal terrorist plot. This is not an investigation of an individual’s politics.�

The rationale for the ALA’s policy is more akin to the political correctness and thought police of some college campuses, where expressions of anti-abortion ideas or capitalism are not welcome. Furthermore, the ALA is rather selective about what they consider “intellectual freedom” and “protecting First Amendment rights.” For example, when it comes to pornography and minors in the library, the ALA policy is: “The primary responsibility for rearing children rests with parents. Governmental institutions cannot be expected to usurp or interfere with parental obligations and responsibilities when it comes to deciding what a child may read or view.”[1]

The ALA then states, “Parents who believe that the current state of society and communications make it difficult to shield their children must nevertheless find a way to cope with what they see as that reality within the context of their own family.”[2]

So the ALA feels it is the responsibility of individuals to protect their� children from pornography. However, it is the responsibility of librarians to protect citizens from laws enacted by their representatives?

Is this why the ALA opposed the Child Internet Protection Act?

If the soi-disants civil liberty centurions of the ALA believe they should be removed from determining what is pornography and what should be available to minors, then they should be consistent and remove librarians from terrorist investigations as well.

However, the ALA does not feel this way. Their resolution concerning the USA PATRIOT Act is very assertive. It states, “The American Library Association (ALA) opposes any use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information or to intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry…ALA considers that sections of the USA PATRIOT ACT are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users.”

From their webpage concerning the library and the PATRIOT Act they announce, “The USA PATRIOT Act…. expanded the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and law enforcement to gain access to…library records, including stored electronic data and communications. ….These enhanced surveillance procedures pose the greatest challenge to privacy and confidentiality in the library.”[3]

Not only do they express their disapproval of legislation enacted by the freely and lawfully elected representatives of the people of the United States of America, they drafted a policy, which states that they intend to resist enforcement of this law if they feel it is inappropriate.

Point number three of the ALA “Policy on Confidentiality of Library Records” recommends that librarians, “Resist the issuance of enforcement of any such process, order, or subpoena until such time as a proper showing of good cause has been made in a court of competent jurisdiction.” They then qualify this by stating, “….the library’s officers will consult with their legal counsel to determine if such process, order, or subpoena is in proper form and if there is a showing of good cause for its issuance…”

By definition, a search warrant has been issued by an impartial and independent magistrate. Why is the ALA instructing their people to not comply with such warrants?

Another very pertinent question is: who are the “legal counsel” the ALA instructs librarians to consult? Are they Constitutional authorities or are they seeking advice regarding search warrants from� personal-injury attorneys?

The ALA also refers their members to the Library Bill of Rights, a policy adopted by the adopted in 1948 by the ALA Council. What is the ALA Council?

If librarians want to be the Fourth Branch of the federal government, does not the American public have the right to know who these unelected people are?�

Apparently, First Amendment activist, Nat Hentoff, a writer for the Village Voice, is not too happy with the ALA Council. Hentoff, who supports the ALA ‘s campaign against the PATRIOT Act, apparently believes the ALA Council� is comprised of� hypocrites. Hentoff wrote this for the March 4, 2004 edition of the Village Voice:

…while I am impressed by this assembly of mass indignation (about the PATRIOT Act)… there’s something missing. So far as I know, in this congregation of freedom-to-read activists, not one on the list — except for PEN — has said or done anything about the torment that 10 independent librarians in Cuba are undergoing in Fidel Castro’s gulag, along with 65 other pro-democracy dissidents rounded up in the dictator’s crackdown in April last year. …The governing council of the American Library Association, an organization on the list, disgraced itself in January when it overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to a final report at its mid-winter meeting telling Castro to let the librarians out. Apparently there are members of the council who romanticize Fidel, as do some Hollywood celebrities.� [4]

Hentoff also wrote for the December 19, 2003 Village Voice that directors of the ALA and some members believe that independent Cuban librarians are lackeys of the US government. He also quotes one of the ALA’s governing council, Mark Rosenzweig, as saying, “we cannot presume that all countries are capable of the same level of intellectual freedom that we have in the U.S. Cuba is caught in an extremely sharp conflict with the U.S. . . . I don’t think [Cuba] is a dictatorship. It’s a republic.”[5]

Ironically, Rosenzweig is the Director of the Reference Center for Marxist Studies. Somehow, a Marxist civil libertarian seems like an oxymoron to me.

A January 2001 report by the ALA’s International Relations Caribbean Subcommittee incredibly concluded that, “While the civil oppression of individuals (Cuban independent librarians) ….appears to be documented by Amnesty International and other observers, it is not conclusive whether these conditions result from the denial of intellectual freedom or from anti-government activities by the persons involved.”

So if one is to understand this correctly, the ALA deems it permissible for the “civil oppression of individuals” to occur if it is the result of “anti-government activities” by those individuals.[6] Yet, the FBI investigating whether someone who reads Muslim terrorist publications, or books describing bomb making, or communicating with suspected terrorists is a threat to the Republic?

This report also quoted Ann Sparanese of the Englewood (N.J.) Public Library as saying, “Almost all the individuals operating these “libraries” identify themselves as dissidents and members of anti-Castro political parties. …she has seen no evidence of censorship or confiscation of books in her many visits to Cuba.”[7]

This is a revelation. Someone from the ALA claims that a communist dictatorship does not engage in censorship.

Others have criticized ALA’s hypocrisy. Only a few weeks ago, January 25, 2006, at the ALA midwinter meeting, author and National Public Radio commentator Andrei Codrescu, who was an invited speaker, chided the ALA for not condemning the imprisonment of Cuban librarians. Maine librarian Walter Skold is a co-founder of FREADOM, a coalition of — one might say — libertarian librarians who have campaigned for freeing the Cuban librarians. Skold has written for Front Page Magazine how some of the ALA membership sympathizes with Castro.

How can Americans believe that the ALA’s campaign against the PATRIOT Act is a product of its love of American� civil liberties, when many of the ALA membership admire one of the most terrible violators of civil liberties extant? The ALA has no credibility.

Is it that the ALA is not concerned about American civil liberties so much as they are making a political statement about Republicans, President Bush and the conservative value of Americans defending themselves from all threats foreign and domestic.

The ALA should heed the words of Franklin that so many of their members often misquote. Someone from the ALA needs to do an exegesis of Franklin’s words� reaffirming intellectual freedom, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

For it is not essential liberty that is being sacrificed, nor is it temporary safety. There is nothing temporary about being killed by a terrorist.

From November 10-12, 2003, the National Constitution Center conducted a poll in association with the Gallup organization. One of the questions concerned the PATRIOT Act. The question was “Do you think the PATRIOT Act goes too far, is about right, or does not go far enough in restricting people’s civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?” 45% said it was about right, while 20% said it did not go far enough. Only 25% said it goes too far.�

The ALA does not seem to have public opinion on its side. Of course, the liberal intelligentsia does not have much interest in the opinion of those they consider the hoi polloi anyway.

Maybe the ALA should heed the words of the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, who wrote in Federalist Number 3, “Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. … At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes.”

Endnotes

� [1] Ret fm w/s http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htm#ifpoint11 2-12-06

[2] ibid

[3] ret fm w/s http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotactlibrary.htm 2-12-06

[4] ret fm w/s http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0410,hentoff,51627,6.html 2-12-06

[5] ret f/m w/s http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0352,hentoff,49664,6.html 2-12-06

[6] ret fm w/s http://www.ala.org/ala/iro/iroactivities/alacubanlibrariesreportcuban.htm 2-12-06

[7] ibid

The Washington Post headline sounds the clarion call that Arabs are “poised to take over significant operations at six American ports.”

A New York City television station polled its viewers to answer the question, “Should Dubai Ports World be allowed to take over six major US ports?”

An AP report stated, “….Arab company given permission to take over operations at six major U.S. ports.”

This was all very confusing to me. As a Philadelphian who used to live near the waterfront, knew people who worked there, and who would occasionally watch ships dock and unload cargo, I knew that the port was controlled by the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA)� — not by any one company.

So what were these people talking about? Why was the purchase of the operations of a British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company of London (P&O), by Dubai Ports World (DPW), going to result in Arab control of� the Port of Philadelphia. I wanted to learn — what exactly did the Associated Press, Washington Post, a New York City Television station, conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity, and other media mean when they said “control” of our ports would be ceded to Arabs.

It seems the facts are quite different than the hysteria.

I asked the PRPA to explain what will happen after DPW buys P&O. According to, Joe Menta, Communications Director for the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, what this sale means to Philadelphia is that DPW will acquire half interest in a firm that loads and unloads ships at one terminal –� Tioga Marine. Little or no containerized cargo passes through this terminal, which is primarily used for the fruit trade.

Menta explained the infrastructure of the Port of Philadelphia. The port is controlled by the PRPA, which is an independent entity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. PRPA owns several terminals on the waterfront. It leases these terminals to private operators who are primarily responsible for arranging the loading and unloading of cargo, as well as the marketing of the facility.

The lessee of Tioga Marine Terminal is Delaware River Stevedores, Inc. (DRS), a company formed after the merger of Stevedoring Services of America (Seattle, Washington), and P&O Ports Ltd., a subsidiary of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., of London. Because of the sale, P&O Ports’ share of Delaware River Stevedores will now be owned by Dubai Ports World.

Tioga Marine Terminal will still be owned by the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority and leased to DRS, who will be responsible for operating it. Arabs will not own or control the Port of Philadelphia. The most substantial� Arab influence� with regard to the appointment of some of the Board of Directors of DRS.

This is quite different from the image –� conjured by some –� of Arabs controlling the port. The idea that Dubai Ports World will be determining who comes, who goes, the number and type of ships, how and where they are unloaded and loaded, who is hired, what kind of cargo, and the security for the entire Port of Philadelphia, is simply not true.

Ever since 9-11, Democrats have been chiding Americans in general and the Bush administration specifically to be careful about stereotyping all Arabs and Muslims as terrorists. Even as recently as last week, Democratic Party leader Al Gore ranted, while speaking in Saudi Arabia, that the Bush Administration mistreated Arabs.

Ironically, these same Democrats are now stereotyping Arabs. Senators Schumer, Melendez, Clinton and other Democrat politicians� — along with some Republicans� — are practically xenophobic about Arabs. Democrats� — with the notable exception of Jimmy Carter� — and some Republicans, as well as some “conservative” radio talk show hosts, are taking a “tough on terrorism” stance. They do not want Arabs “taking control of our ports.”

No one does� — and they are not, at least not in Philadelphia.

There are reasons to object to this sale. The exact nature of what will occur and why should be investigated. However, let us dispense with the hysteria and bogus reporting and make objections derived from the facts — not political propaganda.

Democrats went from demanding Constitutional rights for Arab terrorists in court to opposing Arab business owners buying a share of some terminals. The most alarming aspect of this whole affair is the cluelessness of our elected leaders, both Democrat and Republican, about port operations and security. Even more of a concern is their willingness to play politics with our security.

Many people are outraged by the sanctimonious criticism of Bill O’Reilly by David Letterman after O’Reilly’s recent guest appearance.

However, what is more outrageous is how so many people are just realizing that David Letterman is a liberal. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Does anyone recall Limbaugh’s appearance with Letterman in 1993? He was just as critical of Limbaugh then as he was ten years later when Limbaugh’s addiction was made public.

What� should anyone expect of a multimillionaire entertainer who lives in New York City? Of course he is going to be a liberal. Even if he is not really a liberal, he will do what liberals tell him to do so he can maintain a career and ingratiate himself with the liberal media.

Did anyone think O’Reilly� –ho has been very critical of CBS News� — was going to welcomed by Letterman? CBS has learned that many young adults get their news about politics from late night comedians such as Letterman. Obviously, they will use Letterman’s show to propagate their beliefs –- although they really do not have� much persuading to do so. It is almost an absolute certainty that the Letterman show production and writing staff are all liberals.

So when O’Reilly appears with Letterman, you know he is going to be asked about criticizing Cindy Sheehan. You know Letterman is going to state the liberal mantra that Phil Donahue and others spout, which is, “ if you don’t have a loved one in Iraq or if you don’t have a loved one who is a casualty of the Iraq war, you can’t criticize anti-war protesters and you cannot promote the Iraq war.”

Donahue said this to O’Reilly when he was a guest on O’Reilly’s show. Letterman said almost the same thing. Letterman asked O’Reilly about criticizing Sheehan and then said, “Have you lost family members in armed conflict?” When O’Reilly responded no, Letterman’s retort was, “Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?”

I don’t think O’Reilly was speaking for Sheehan. I think he was criticizing her for some of her statements. I guess Letterman does not believe she should be criticized because her kid was killed in action in Iraq.

This is understandable. However, what would Letterman say to someone whose kid was killed in action in Iraq who was in favor of the war in Iraq, someone who made controversial statements similar to Sheehan’s yet advocated the war; someone who might say Jack Murtha is a traitor, or John Kerry is lying; someone like that.

Would Letterman refrain from criticizing such a person? Of course, he would not. He might not mock such a person. He would criticize though.�

As is usually the case with liberals, they feel free speech is only for them. They feel that they can call people traitors, and say they lie, yet do not dare criticize them. You are a hater or you are mean spirited if you do.

Liberal lackeys like David Letterman never mention the hypocrisy of the anti-war crowd.

For example, there are two things important to note about the allegation made by antiwar liberals that if one does not have a loved one in the war or a loved one who was a casualty of the war,� one cannot be in favor of the war.

One is that nobody mentions how so few people who protest the war have loved ones in the war or who were killed in action. If the liberal antiwar crowd is to be believed, then� the converse is also true –- you cannot oppose the war if you have not served in it or do not have a loved one in it.

This means that most (if not all) of those people who are protesting the war — such as Ed Asner, Sean Penn and David Letterman, all those politicians like Howard Dean –- by their own logic� should keep quiet, because� by their own rationale, they have no right to criticize the war.

Most who I know who are, or were, in Iraq or who were killed in action believe the war is justified. Yet the Hollywood/Manhattan crowd does not seem to mention them.

Another important point about the antiwar protesters is their racism. Sean Penn, and other antiwar protesters, claimed the Iraq war is racist because white Americans want to kill brown Iraqis.

Let me provide another perspective –- the converse of Sean Penn’s.

One could just as easily argue that the� anti-war protesters are racist because they do not think the liberation of brown Iraqis is worth the lives of white American military personnel.

The perspectives I have just provided about the racism and hypocrisy of the antiwar crowd — using their own arguments – are viewpoints that will not be represented by the David Lettermans.

One day after notorious gang leader and vicious killer Tookie Williams was executed in California — despite weeks of very vocal, vociferous, protests by Hollywood stars, political and civil rights leaders — another man was [...]]]> http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/12/15/a-tale-of-two-executions/feed/ 1