By Warner Todd Huston
"Unless we in the West adapt more quickly than do canny Islamic terrorists in this constantly evolving war, cease our internecine fighting and stop forgetting what we've learned about our enemies---there will be disasters to come far worse than Sept. 11."
-Victor Davis Hanson
I can only imagine that many Americans don't really believe that we are at war with Islamofascism because they have not been hurt badly enough by the enemy to desire to answer the call to arms. Many Americans refuse even to admit that the threat we face in militant Islam is a fascist styled movement in the first place. Many don't see the damage already done or the damage that could be done in the future... the near future at that.
Unfortunately, we are faced with a serious flaw in human nature and that is explanation in and of itself as to why we just cannot yet get serious about this war. Rarely does man take steps to avoid catastrophe whether on an individual or societal basis, be they clashes of civilizations or natural disasters the effect of which could have been made less severe with but some few sensible policies.
While man rarely takes the steps needed to avert disaster, after a disaster there are all kinds of steps taken to prevent future recurrences of whatever that disaster might be -- it is then that finger pointing becomes epidemic. History shows that there are all kinds of instances where the dots lined up to disaster when we look into the past with our 20/20 hindsight employed. We plainly see, for instance, Hitler's lead up to WWII and all the obvious warnings that called out to the world, a call to which few paid any heed.
As many have pointed out, today we face 1938 all over again in that the world refuses to listen to the clarion call to war being made by the Hitler(s) of the 21st century. And, even after we lost nearly 3,000 every-day citizens in the World Trade Center destruction of 9/11/01, we have Americans doubting if we are, indeed, at war.
What will it take to make them take seriously our enemy's desires to make war on us? Many refuse even to listen to the overt claims of belligerence by our avowed enemies and the actions that back that sentiment up.
Perhaps only pressure from our fellow citizens will awaken those who are floating through life without a care in the world?
Perhaps it falls to us, those who realize we really face the same kind of world-wide danger faced by the generation of WWII, it falls to we, the descendants of Churchill and FDR, to urge our neighbors and countrymen to face this challenge. We cannot let up on our call to arms, to alert our fellows to the danger we all face.
That means that Islamists must be made as much an enemy as the "Hun", the "Jap", the "Nazi", whatever we called the enemy in the past, that was threatening the world.
Today, the enemy is Islam... yet not Islam. And therein lies another thing preventing many to understand this war. Being children of the reformation and enlightenment thinkers of the 1700's and before, the west -- America in particular -- is loath to denigrate an individual’s religion, so any condemnation of Islam in total makes us squirm. Of course, that is a good propensity, but in this case it is misguided to a dangerous degree.
Certainly we can allow Muslims their belief without desiring to kill them all. But, Islam today is not merely a religion, but is being used as the basis for government in every Islamic nation and this is what we fight. Westerners successfully separated church and state long ago, but Islam has accelerated the mixture.
We’ve faced this before. Many mistake Nazism for a simple system of government. But Hitler did not sell Nazism as a simple alternative to communism or capitalism. He sold it as a religion, a deep belief in the superiority of the German people. He sold it as if the Germans had a divine right to lead. The Japanese, with their Shintoism and ancestor worship, did the same thing. Japanese Imperialism was not just a “government” but a religiously ingrained belief in their divine rights as Asians.
So, any claims of attacking "Islam" makes a westerner shrink in discomfort, but it is a notion we must warm to or we will find ourselves oppressed, murdered, and impoverished by fascist Islam.
Now, what do we do?
Like in WWII, the only way to win this war Islam has brought upon us is to kill millions of them quite regardless of their individual "guilt". Sadly, that means lots of women, lots of babies, and lots of old men must die.
It isn't that we revel in their deaths. We certainly mourn it. It truly makes us angry. But they have brought this war and we must end it -- and if we don't everything we are and have is threatened with extinction by Islamists. Just as we killed millions of Japanese and Germans to end that threat we must kill millions of Islamists.
It truly is us versus them.
There ARE no "innocent" Islamists. We cannot allow the thought of "innocence" to invade our resolve. In this way, billions and a far-flung future of Muslims that might live in peace, observing their religion peacefully, will be free of the current dominance of Islamofascist horror and oppression.
So, if we must call them fascists, then we should do so. We must destroy this link between government and Islamism, attacking it until it becomes anathema to posterity for Muslims. The sooner this happens the better off posterity will be.
Let the leftists of the future write their tsk-tsking books 100 years hence on how horrible these days are, let them blindly excoriate our finishing this fight like our ivory tower historians do the use of the "A" Bomb at the tail end of WWII. But let them write their misreading of history in the comfort of a time when Islam is as dead as a guiding force for world wide terror as Nazism and Shintoism now is.
For that matter, let it be as dead as Christianity closely intermingled with government is now dead. After all, a thousand years ago Christianity was a worldwide threat to peace and the oppression that religion caused forced the west to shuck religion away from our forms of government. The only way for Islam to become peaceful is for so many Muslims to die now that the idea of using Islam as a governing ideal within government is anathema to Muslims forever more. Muslims must feel so injured by their former belief in Islam that they could never make themselves associate it with government again. Just like Nazism and Shintoism are now shunned, in that same way let Islam so be shunned.
I didn't start with this opinion years ago. When 9/11 happened, I thought that this was just the action of a few radical Muslim nuts. But it is not so. The actions of Islamofascists are a direct and logical extension of Islam. Just as Communism must, in the end, lead to collapse, Islam as a part of government must lead to worldwide war.
Islam is anti-capitalist, anti-modern, anti-freedom, anti-individualist, anti-human rights... it is AGAINST every single thing we stand for in the west and against every ideal that has brought real peace and prosperity to so many billions of mankind.
We must stop them from coming to our shores. We must stop their charities and organizations -- like CAIR -- from raising money or even existing in the west. We must make it very difficult for their Mosques to stay open. We must revoke all student visas for peoples who live in Muslim nations and profess a belief in Islam. We need to step up surveillance on Muslims in the west. They should be looked upon with suspicion for our own protection. Islam must be isolated and contained.
I am saddened that I have had to come to this conclusion. I'd much rather it had been true that only a few Muslims felt the hatred for everything western that they do. It would have been so much less distressing if it were true that there are only a few bad apples in Islam. I would have loved to live and let live.
But, they have revealed themselves over and over again, to be enemies to the world. Oppressors who wish to destroy everyone in their path. Warpers of religion, usurpers of truth, murderers, thieves, inhuman animals.
Let their blood flow in the streets like great rivers as penance for their evils.
This message must be drummed from sea to shining sea and in every part of Europe -- which is far more at risk than the USA, by the way -- or we will surely lose this war, diminish ourselves, and end the era of freedoms and liberties that so many have died to assure. And we will do it with a whimper unless we stand up and say NO, Islam IS the enemy.
Let us hope they do not write those history books 100 years from now asking why we sat idly by and did nothing as Islamic fascism spread throughout the world?
It’s time to fight.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Senator Stevens Stops Accountability Bill
-By Warner Todd Huston
A few days ago I wrote about a bill introduced by Senator Tom Coburn to make Federal Funding awards Public on the internet (Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act - S. 2590) being placed on hold by an unknown Senator.
Today it has been revealed that the "secret Senator" is Ted Stevens (R, Alaska). The claim from Stevens' office is that he has "concerns" about the bill so he requested the hold ... and he DIDN'T do it in secret.
That claim does not hold to the truth, however as many of us on the internet have been calling for the head of whatever senator did this for well over a week and no mention was ever made of who this "secret Senator" was until now.
The most vexing thing about this "hold" (see my previous piece for definition of hold) is that the bill is one of the few truly bipartisan, sensible bills being considered today and it is stymied!
But, the last lines in the CNN report about the revelation of Stevens' role in this pretty much explains it all.
So, there you have it. The REAL reason Stevens is blocking this common sense measure is so he can get even with Tom Coburn! It's mere piquant childishness on behalf of Stevens.
Stevens has about lost his mind recently and this temper tantrum is par for the course with him lately.
A few days ago I wrote about a bill introduced by Senator Tom Coburn to make Federal Funding awards Public on the internet (Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act - S. 2590) being placed on hold by an unknown Senator.
Today it has been revealed that the "secret Senator" is Ted Stevens (R, Alaska). The claim from Stevens' office is that he has "concerns" about the bill so he requested the hold ... and he DIDN'T do it in secret.
"Sen. Stevens has a series of concerns and questions about the bill. He wants a cost benefit analysis to make sure it doesn't create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and not meet its purpose," (Stevens spokesman) Saunders said.
"This wasn't in any way secretive," Saunders said. "We're baffled as to why it's been called a secret hold."
That claim does not hold to the truth, however as many of us on the internet have been calling for the head of whatever senator did this for well over a week and no mention was ever made of who this "secret Senator" was until now.
"This hold was a secret," Coburn spokesman John Hart said. "His office has ignored media and bloggers' calls about this issue for weeks. We had to ask Stevens if he was the hold. His staff has still not met with us."
The most vexing thing about this "hold" (see my previous piece for definition of hold) is that the bill is one of the few truly bipartisan, sensible bills being considered today and it is stymied!
But, the last lines in the CNN report about the revelation of Stevens' role in this pretty much explains it all.
Last year a proposed $223 million for a "bridge to nowhere" connecting Alaska's Gravina Island -- population 50 -- to the mainland caused a nationwide furor. The allocation was backed by Stevens and fellow Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska, the powerful chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The earmarked funding for the bridge was later rescinded by Congress. However, Alaska's overall allocation of federal transportation funds was not decreased, and the state is free to spend the federal dollars to build the bridge if it wishes.
When Coburn tried to block funds for the bridge, he was heavily denounced by Stevens on the Senate floor.
So, there you have it. The REAL reason Stevens is blocking this common sense measure is so he can get even with Tom Coburn! It's mere piquant childishness on behalf of Stevens.
Stevens has about lost his mind recently and this temper tantrum is par for the course with him lately.
Help a US Soldier Spread the TRUTH About Iraq
-By Joel A. Arends, US Army
Let me introduce myself. My name is Joel Arends and from 2003 – 2005 I served in Baghdad, Iraq with the 1st Cav Division as an Infantry Platoon Leader and eventually as Company Commander. I have read your site and am impressed with it. Since returning from Iraq I have also been performing the same type of mission which you have been executing through your website and other activities. I have been speaking at college campuses and service organizations about the successes our troops have accomplished in Iraq. I have also been working with a group called Families United Mission, of which I notice you are listed as an ally, to get the word out about supporting our troops and the mission. (www.familiesunitedmission.com)
To that end, I am planning a trip to Iraq through the DOD embed journalist program for the last part of August before law school starts. (Dates are flexible) I am in the initial planning stage and still gauging support at this point. My intent is to link up with a South Dakota National Guard Unit that has lost four guys and is due to demob in October. I would be providing daily stories to any national media, local media here in the Sioux Falls, SD area, blogging and live phone interviews, etc... I am also contemplating taking a cameraman from a local t.v. station who is interested. I will also be hooking up with a MITT team which I trained, after returning from Iraq, while working with the 91st at Ft. Carson. They have been training Iraqi soldiers and their progress is worth getting the word out about.
In all, the editorial content of my stories would focus on how successful these units have been in achieving their respective missions from the perspective of a combat vet who left country 16 months ago. Wade Zirkle from Vets for Freedom (see www.vetsforfreedom.org) and I recently spoke about his trip to Iraq and he gave me some good feedback which I am incorporating into my plan.
I want your help in two ways. I am seeking access to national conservative broadcast outlets and financing. I am seeking access to people who can hook me up with nationwide radio programs such as Laura Ingraham, G. Gordon Liddy, Hugh Hewitt, etc..., broadcasters who would be interested in interviewing me while I am there and linking to blog content. I would also do local radio in your area if you have outlets who want to hear about positive progress happening in Iraq. The trip will be no longer than two weeks and focused on getting the word out through friendly media organizations.
I am also asking if WarChick.com or any other groups or private donors you have access to would be willing to provide financial and logistical support for a mission like this. Zirkle's budget was around 2-3k per person, of which 90% was for airfare. If I took another person I am estimating I would need 5k. Your support would not have to be incredibly large. I am working to leverage contributions from similar organizations such as yours who have similar missions: supporting the troops and their mission.
My thoughts are that the mainstream media has their reporting with their perspective, now it's time for our side to send reports back home from our people with our perspective.
Thanks for your time and let me know your thoughts on this.
Joel A. Arends
jaarends@hotmail.com or joel.arends@us.army.mil
Let me introduce myself. My name is Joel Arends and from 2003 – 2005 I served in Baghdad, Iraq with the 1st Cav Division as an Infantry Platoon Leader and eventually as Company Commander. I have read your site and am impressed with it. Since returning from Iraq I have also been performing the same type of mission which you have been executing through your website and other activities. I have been speaking at college campuses and service organizations about the successes our troops have accomplished in Iraq. I have also been working with a group called Families United Mission, of which I notice you are listed as an ally, to get the word out about supporting our troops and the mission. (www.familiesunitedmission.com)
To that end, I am planning a trip to Iraq through the DOD embed journalist program for the last part of August before law school starts. (Dates are flexible) I am in the initial planning stage and still gauging support at this point. My intent is to link up with a South Dakota National Guard Unit that has lost four guys and is due to demob in October. I would be providing daily stories to any national media, local media here in the Sioux Falls, SD area, blogging and live phone interviews, etc... I am also contemplating taking a cameraman from a local t.v. station who is interested. I will also be hooking up with a MITT team which I trained, after returning from Iraq, while working with the 91st at Ft. Carson. They have been training Iraqi soldiers and their progress is worth getting the word out about.
In all, the editorial content of my stories would focus on how successful these units have been in achieving their respective missions from the perspective of a combat vet who left country 16 months ago. Wade Zirkle from Vets for Freedom (see www.vetsforfreedom.org) and I recently spoke about his trip to Iraq and he gave me some good feedback which I am incorporating into my plan.
I want your help in two ways. I am seeking access to national conservative broadcast outlets and financing. I am seeking access to people who can hook me up with nationwide radio programs such as Laura Ingraham, G. Gordon Liddy, Hugh Hewitt, etc..., broadcasters who would be interested in interviewing me while I am there and linking to blog content. I would also do local radio in your area if you have outlets who want to hear about positive progress happening in Iraq. The trip will be no longer than two weeks and focused on getting the word out through friendly media organizations.
I am also asking if WarChick.com or any other groups or private donors you have access to would be willing to provide financial and logistical support for a mission like this. Zirkle's budget was around 2-3k per person, of which 90% was for airfare. If I took another person I am estimating I would need 5k. Your support would not have to be incredibly large. I am working to leverage contributions from similar organizations such as yours who have similar missions: supporting the troops and their mission.
My thoughts are that the mainstream media has their reporting with their perspective, now it's time for our side to send reports back home from our people with our perspective.
Thanks for your time and let me know your thoughts on this.
Joel A. Arends
jaarends@hotmail.com or joel.arends@us.army.mil
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
American Tourism to Canada Dropping
-By Warner Todd Huston
According to the London Free Press, Americans visiting Canada is on the downward trend.
I say GOOD. Canada has been increasingly becoming American haters in their politics, entertainment, and news reporting. All the while they have become one of our biggest security problems with that giant, unprotected border we share.
After that big bust of Canadian terrorists a few months back, it became clearer just how lax the Canadians are where it concerns terrorism.
But, the incompetency of their security services aside, it is things like the following that many Americans are just sick and tired of hearing about...
Ontario university mocks Bush in new campaign
Americans should stay home and keep their money home, too. French wine has been losing millions since 9/11/01 and I hope the boycott continues to devastate their economy and we should tell Canada to jump in any one of their many lakes.
There is so much to see and do right here in the states, and in the US held territories. there just isn't any real REASON to go to a foreign country and spend our money. Spend US money at HOME!
According to the London Free Press, Americans visiting Canada is on the downward trend.
"A drop in American visitors to the lowest level ever recorded is being cushioned by more Canadians staying at home, London-area businesses and tourism officials say."
I say GOOD. Canada has been increasingly becoming American haters in their politics, entertainment, and news reporting. All the while they have become one of our biggest security problems with that giant, unprotected border we share.
After that big bust of Canadian terrorists a few months back, it became clearer just how lax the Canadians are where it concerns terrorism.
But, the incompetency of their security services aside, it is things like the following that many Americans are just sick and tired of hearing about...
Ontario university mocks Bush in new campaign
"A small northern Ontario university has sparked controversy by launching an edgy new recruitment campaign that mocks U.S. President George Bush and his Ivy League alma mater.
...Last month, simplyaudiobooks.ca, an audio book rental service, plastered posters and billboards around Toronto featuring a photograph of Bush and the words: 'Don't Read Enough? Rent 10,000 books on tape/CD.'"
Americans should stay home and keep their money home, too. French wine has been losing millions since 9/11/01 and I hope the boycott continues to devastate their economy and we should tell Canada to jump in any one of their many lakes.
There is so much to see and do right here in the states, and in the US held territories. there just isn't any real REASON to go to a foreign country and spend our money. Spend US money at HOME!
PLUTO RECLASSIFIED?
- By Vince Johnson
It is now "scientifically" official! Pluto is no longer a planet. Two paragraphs in the August 2006 issue of New Scientist Magazine provide a very concise explanation:
"Pluto is now only a dwarf planet, one of three in the solar system. The fate of Pluto was determined on Thursday (August 24, 2006) by a vote among members of the International Astronomical Union in Prague."
"They approved an initial resolution that requires a planet to dominate its neighborhood by clearing orbiting material out of its path. Dwarf planets, on the other hand, are large enough for gravity to make them round, but not big enough to clear out their orbits."
If my interpretation is correct, this could refer to a lot of celestial debris occupying the same orbit as Pluto. Since Pluto is not big enough to pull this material out of orbit, members of the International Astronomical Union decided to downgrade Pluto from "planet" to the status of "dwarf planet."................
Click HERE To Read On
It is now "scientifically" official! Pluto is no longer a planet. Two paragraphs in the August 2006 issue of New Scientist Magazine provide a very concise explanation:
"Pluto is now only a dwarf planet, one of three in the solar system. The fate of Pluto was determined on Thursday (August 24, 2006) by a vote among members of the International Astronomical Union in Prague."
"They approved an initial resolution that requires a planet to dominate its neighborhood by clearing orbiting material out of its path. Dwarf planets, on the other hand, are large enough for gravity to make them round, but not big enough to clear out their orbits."
If my interpretation is correct, this could refer to a lot of celestial debris occupying the same orbit as Pluto. Since Pluto is not big enough to pull this material out of orbit, members of the International Astronomical Union decided to downgrade Pluto from "planet" to the status of "dwarf planet."................
Click HERE To Read On
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
N.Y.Times- Connecting 'God Squad' With 'Overused' Health Care
-By Warner Todd Huston
The New York Times' article Choosing a ‘God Squad,’ When the Mind Has Faded is a perfect example of the editorial position of a newspaper misleading with a headline.
When headlines like this are chosen, one wonders what exactly is going through the mind of the headline writer (most should know that headline writers are often different people than the authors of the article). Regardless, though, the headlines reflect the policy and position of the paper, which may or may not be the same as that of the article's author.
This example of a headline that does not really fit the article comes to us from the August 29th edition of the New York Times topping what is billed as an "essay" about the efficacy or sense of giving dialysis, paid for by the tax payer, to a patient with brain damage.
Now, the headline would make one assume that a battle between religion and healthcare is the subject of the piece, but that is not really the case. The essay itself questions the sense of providing expensive procedures to people who Doctors determine really have no chance of getting better. The author, Doctor Barron H. Lerner, questions the practice of dialysis as it currently stands.
But Dr. Lerner makes no concerted attempt to bring religious views into question. The closest the essay gets to discussing principles outside of strict medical diagnosis is the following:
Perhaps an oblique reference to religious practices of the sanctity of life, but hardly a direct attack on religion.
Now, certainly Dr. Lerner's position could be cast into the "culture of death" category that many religious believers have identified that represents the views of too many of our ethically challenged medical establishment. but, all those arguments would count as follow up to this piece and NOT as its subject matter.
However, the editorial opinion of the paper is what drove this headline to be written, quite regardless of the piece it precedes. The New York Times has long ago staked out an anti-religious editorial position especially where it concerns health care. And even though this essay is not about religion versus health care, the headline immediately takes the reader to that supposition by interjecting "God Squad" into the discussion at the outset.
Just one more tiny example of bias in the New York Times and how they insist on infusing everything they print with that bias. Health care, sports, travel... they may as well all be on the Op Ed pages.
The New York Times' article Choosing a ‘God Squad,’ When the Mind Has Faded is a perfect example of the editorial position of a newspaper misleading with a headline.
When headlines like this are chosen, one wonders what exactly is going through the mind of the headline writer (most should know that headline writers are often different people than the authors of the article). Regardless, though, the headlines reflect the policy and position of the paper, which may or may not be the same as that of the article's author.
This example of a headline that does not really fit the article comes to us from the August 29th edition of the New York Times topping what is billed as an "essay" about the efficacy or sense of giving dialysis, paid for by the tax payer, to a patient with brain damage.
Now, the headline would make one assume that a battle between religion and healthcare is the subject of the piece, but that is not really the case. The essay itself questions the sense of providing expensive procedures to people who Doctors determine really have no chance of getting better. The author, Doctor Barron H. Lerner, questions the practice of dialysis as it currently stands.
"When patients went into kidney failure, dialysis was reflexively instituted. The fact that some of the patients had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, some other type of brain damage or a terminal disease received insufficient scrutiny.
Of course, aggressive care is hardly limited to dialysis. Throughout the United States, other potentially lifesaving technologies, like respirators and cancer chemotherapy, have been overused."
But Dr. Lerner makes no concerted attempt to bring religious views into question. The closest the essay gets to discussing principles outside of strict medical diagnosis is the following:
"But the fear of lawsuits continues to worry many nephrologists who believe that it is safer to provide dialysis. And there remains that old American unwillingness to let people die, even when it is surely their time."
Perhaps an oblique reference to religious practices of the sanctity of life, but hardly a direct attack on religion.
Now, certainly Dr. Lerner's position could be cast into the "culture of death" category that many religious believers have identified that represents the views of too many of our ethically challenged medical establishment. but, all those arguments would count as follow up to this piece and NOT as its subject matter.
However, the editorial opinion of the paper is what drove this headline to be written, quite regardless of the piece it precedes. The New York Times has long ago staked out an anti-religious editorial position especially where it concerns health care. And even though this essay is not about religion versus health care, the headline immediately takes the reader to that supposition by interjecting "God Squad" into the discussion at the outset.
Just one more tiny example of bias in the New York Times and how they insist on infusing everything they print with that bias. Health care, sports, travel... they may as well all be on the Op Ed pages.
Chgo Trib.- Cheney Always 'Hedging' - Is That Like Lying?
-By Warner Todd Huston
Not since Dan Quayle or Spiro Agnew has there been a vice president that the MSM loved to hate so much. Now, the Chicago Tribune is even going so far as to pick apart vice president Cheney's verbal ticks and making fun, or even assigning perfidy to them.
In an article titled, Cheney's usage of `if you will' is `like' hedging, Tribune "cultural critic" Julia Keller, assumes that Cheney's over usage of the phrase "if you will" amounts to him verbally pausing while he thinks up another lie to tell the people, or at the very least amounts to the VP trying to sound smarter than he relly is.
Her piece is filled with jabs at the VP over a simple phrase ... the type of thing nearly everybody does everyday of their lives. I am sure if you think about your own language usage, you'd realize that you, too, have some phrase you use far too often. From the common "Umm", to "like", "You Know" (and its sister phrase, "you know what I mean"), to "cool" or "dude", many of us have such verbal ticks.
Apparently, Mz. Keller, though, feels it isn't right for the VP to have one. It makes him a fuddy-duddy, effete, or "fusty", according to her. She also calls the usage of the phrase "if you will" a "hedge".
Now, she doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems to me that she is trying to hint that she means the interpretation of the word "hedge" to be "lie".
Well? Well, indeed? Keller ends her piece with the thought that Cheney's constant use of "if you will" amounts to his "hedging" because of his "options as a man in a suit are limited" and not because "it makes him sound smart and serious-minded".
In fact, Keller spends quite a bit of time reading a lack of "smarts" or serious mindedness into Cheney throughout her piece. All over a simple verbal tick.
I remember when Spiro Agnew was the favorite target of the News Media in a pre-Watergate Nixon administration. Spiro's most remembered phrase was "nattering nabobs of negativity". Perhaps Agnew's colorful phraseology was something it was easy and not too mean at which to poke, but it WAS, at least, colorful. Making fun of "if you will" as if it were a similar example of the over-the-top rhetoric as Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativity", however, reeks of the picayunish attacks of small minded reporters that simply hate the VP.
I think I like Spiro's colorful epithets. And I would cast them all at the MSM, those "pusillanimous pussyfooters" of the fourth estate, obsequious Cheney haters all.
Not since Dan Quayle or Spiro Agnew has there been a vice president that the MSM loved to hate so much. Now, the Chicago Tribune is even going so far as to pick apart vice president Cheney's verbal ticks and making fun, or even assigning perfidy to them.
In an article titled, Cheney's usage of `if you will' is `like' hedging, Tribune "cultural critic" Julia Keller, assumes that Cheney's over usage of the phrase "if you will" amounts to him verbally pausing while he thinks up another lie to tell the people, or at the very least amounts to the VP trying to sound smarter than he relly is.
Her piece is filled with jabs at the VP over a simple phrase ... the type of thing nearly everybody does everyday of their lives. I am sure if you think about your own language usage, you'd realize that you, too, have some phrase you use far too often. From the common "Umm", to "like", "You Know" (and its sister phrase, "you know what I mean"), to "cool" or "dude", many of us have such verbal ticks.
Apparently, Mz. Keller, though, feels it isn't right for the VP to have one. It makes him a fuddy-duddy, effete, or "fusty", according to her. She also calls the usage of the phrase "if you will" a "hedge".
Now, she doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems to me that she is trying to hint that she means the interpretation of the word "hedge" to be "lie".
Gregory Pullum, linguistics professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz and frequent contributor to the blog Language Log, has opined several times about "if you will," defining it as "a way to signal hedging about vocabulary choice -- a momentary uncertainty about whether the adjacent expression is exactly the right form of words or not."
Cheney, though, is not known for harboring uncertainties about anything, from foreign policy to phraseology. Thus there must be something else going on when he goes to the "if you will" well.
Well? Well, indeed? Keller ends her piece with the thought that Cheney's constant use of "if you will" amounts to his "hedging" because of his "options as a man in a suit are limited" and not because "it makes him sound smart and serious-minded".
In fact, Keller spends quite a bit of time reading a lack of "smarts" or serious mindedness into Cheney throughout her piece. All over a simple verbal tick.
I remember when Spiro Agnew was the favorite target of the News Media in a pre-Watergate Nixon administration. Spiro's most remembered phrase was "nattering nabobs of negativity". Perhaps Agnew's colorful phraseology was something it was easy and not too mean at which to poke, but it WAS, at least, colorful. Making fun of "if you will" as if it were a similar example of the over-the-top rhetoric as Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativity", however, reeks of the picayunish attacks of small minded reporters that simply hate the VP.
I think I like Spiro's colorful epithets. And I would cast them all at the MSM, those "pusillanimous pussyfooters" of the fourth estate, obsequious Cheney haters all.
Elites Endanger Humanities Position Atop The Food Chain
- By Frederick Meekins
For years, enemies of mankind such as Steve Irwin and Jeff Corwin have duped the American people into believing we have nothing to fear from allowing megafauna to trundle unimpeded across the face of the continent.
On these propaganda pieces disguised as informative educational programming, we are told that alligators and black bears wouldn't harm a hair on a human head.
However, three deaths at the mouths of ravenous reptiles and the report of a child being mauled to death by a black bear makes you stop and wonder if the wrong people weren't eaten for the sake of the gene pool.
The next time citizens hear of pleas by environmentalists to reintroduce extinct species, they would do well to think back to the tragedy befalling these individuals and their families............................
Click HERE To Read On
For years, enemies of mankind such as Steve Irwin and Jeff Corwin have duped the American people into believing we have nothing to fear from allowing megafauna to trundle unimpeded across the face of the continent.
On these propaganda pieces disguised as informative educational programming, we are told that alligators and black bears wouldn't harm a hair on a human head.
However, three deaths at the mouths of ravenous reptiles and the report of a child being mauled to death by a black bear makes you stop and wonder if the wrong people weren't eaten for the sake of the gene pool.
The next time citizens hear of pleas by environmentalists to reintroduce extinct species, they would do well to think back to the tragedy befalling these individuals and their families............................
Click HERE To Read On
Monday, August 28, 2006
When Politicians Are Ignorant of The Constitution...
-By Warner Todd Huston
It is a great line often used as a toss away by people who are interested in politics, I've used it myself a few times. When faced with a court ruling that seems absurd, or a politician that is proposing something that doesn't fit in the framework of our history and Constitution, it becomes easy to say that they know nothing of the Constitution.
Many times, that isn't as true as it is mere rhetoric with which one might beat an opponent about the head with. But, sometimes a politician will say something so blasted stupid that you just KNOW that the epithet fits them like a glove.
Such is true of a state senator from the State of Maryland, Lisa Gladden. A woman that has proven herself to be ignorant of the Constitution, not only of that in her own state but of the Federal government as well, along with other documents from our Founding era.
Currently, the Democrats in Maryland proposed a measure that directly violates their own state Constitution, according to the courts. They wanted to institute early voting days, arranged to occur before the general election day, yet the state Constitution directly and unequivocally states that state wide voting shall be held on one day a year only.
Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Ronald Silkworth shot down the change the state's Democratic Party machine tried to make to the voting procedures, fortunately -- angering his Party, of course. This rebuke of their efforts by the judge caused our intrepid, lump-head in the state capitol to say:
"A constitution is a living, breathing document. If you always literally interpret the Constitution you get strange results, like 'all men are created equal,' so what do you do with the women?"
Not only is there nothing in the Constitution about "all men being created equal" (because that happens to be in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution) but it is an indisputable fact that "men" was used as a description of mankind, all of humanity, not just humans of the male gender in the Founding era!
So, we have at least one REAL case of a woman so gut wrenchingly ignorant of history, law and the Constitution that we can correctly say she knows NOTHING about them all!
What a moron. But, someone VOTED for this moron, so the people get what they deserve.
It is a great line often used as a toss away by people who are interested in politics, I've used it myself a few times. When faced with a court ruling that seems absurd, or a politician that is proposing something that doesn't fit in the framework of our history and Constitution, it becomes easy to say that they know nothing of the Constitution.
Many times, that isn't as true as it is mere rhetoric with which one might beat an opponent about the head with. But, sometimes a politician will say something so blasted stupid that you just KNOW that the epithet fits them like a glove.
Such is true of a state senator from the State of Maryland, Lisa Gladden. A woman that has proven herself to be ignorant of the Constitution, not only of that in her own state but of the Federal government as well, along with other documents from our Founding era.
Currently, the Democrats in Maryland proposed a measure that directly violates their own state Constitution, according to the courts. They wanted to institute early voting days, arranged to occur before the general election day, yet the state Constitution directly and unequivocally states that state wide voting shall be held on one day a year only.
Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Ronald Silkworth shot down the change the state's Democratic Party machine tried to make to the voting procedures, fortunately -- angering his Party, of course. This rebuke of their efforts by the judge caused our intrepid, lump-head in the state capitol to say:
"A constitution is a living, breathing document. If you always literally interpret the Constitution you get strange results, like 'all men are created equal,' so what do you do with the women?"
Not only is there nothing in the Constitution about "all men being created equal" (because that happens to be in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution) but it is an indisputable fact that "men" was used as a description of mankind, all of humanity, not just humans of the male gender in the Founding era!
So, we have at least one REAL case of a woman so gut wrenchingly ignorant of history, law and the Constitution that we can correctly say she knows NOTHING about them all!
What a moron. But, someone VOTED for this moron, so the people get what they deserve.
Sturdy Polish Wives for EU Farmers
-By Warner Todd Huston
This is an interesting little report from UPI. It seems that middle and upper middle class farmers in small villages throughout the European Union are… importing Polish wives.
You may wonder why this might be? Don't women in the EU want to be married? It seems the answer to that is "no". We have seen a precipitous drop in birth rates in the old European countries to the point where replacement the rate is in doubt and certainly no growth is occurring.
Births in the United States stands at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76 ; Canada's at 1.5; Germany and Austria are at 1.3; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, that only about half replacement rate. According to Mark Steyn, "Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans."
So, farmers in the EU cannot find women that want to have kids or that want to live in small villages and live that placid, rural farm life. Too many European women want that "Sex in the City" life of big cities, sexual freedom, and self-centered lifestyles. Living in a small farming village is not appealing to folks with that mentality.
Apparently European farmers imagine that Polish women are "more traditional" and have been looking to that country for mates.
Now this stands to reason, such as it is. After all, Poland is one of the most conservative countries in Europe. If one were to ask a European what the most Catholic country is one might equally get the answers of Ireland and Poland.
Further, Poland has been one of the few staunch supporters of the Bush Doctrine in Iraq and has repeatedly supplied troops to assist the coalition forces there. And Poland has, likewise, been very close to the United States, most likely in thanks for the USA's strong support of them during the waning days of communist totalitarianism and the US fascination with Solidarinosc and Lech Walesa.
But, looking closer into the story, one finds the sad fact that even Polish women are displaying a falling birth rate.
According to the BBC (admittedly an often biased source):
So, if EU farmers are turning to Polish women because they cannot find women in their own countries, yet even Poland is finding a rapidly falling birth rate, we must all be alarmed for the future ... and an immediate one at that ... of the strength of the countries in Europe.
As Mark Steyn recently said in his aforementioned Op Ed, "It's the Demography, Stupid ", he warns that "Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries."
Perhaps a bit alarmist, but certainly a perfectly acceptable extrapolation of trends should they continue along the lines they are now headed.
Now contrast that with the birth rate of Muslims in Europe.
With this single factor, we can see why European countries so often side with terrorists and against the US and Israel. It isn’t out of any stand on principles; it is out of pure fear, fear of that immigrant population turning against them.
Unfortunately, this European appeasement to curry favor from extremists will not garner them much by way of safety (and has not already) and many feel it won’t be long before there are enough Muslims to forcibly and materially alter European traditions and forms of governments.
In any case, we wish those EU farmers luck in love but we hope that they soon find women closer to home ready to bring the next generation of people into the world, none-the-less. And if they do not, their entire civilization is in doubt.
This is an interesting little report from UPI. It seems that middle and upper middle class farmers in small villages throughout the European Union are… importing Polish wives.
"Well-to-do farmers, aged 25 to 40, from Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Spain, who would like to stay on their land, have a slim chance, if any, to marry girls from EU countries, the Polish Metro daily newspaper reported Monday."
You may wonder why this might be? Don't women in the EU want to be married? It seems the answer to that is "no". We have seen a precipitous drop in birth rates in the old European countries to the point where replacement the rate is in doubt and certainly no growth is occurring.
Births in the United States stands at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76 ; Canada's at 1.5; Germany and Austria are at 1.3; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, that only about half replacement rate. According to Mark Steyn, "Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans."
So, farmers in the EU cannot find women that want to have kids or that want to live in small villages and live that placid, rural farm life. Too many European women want that "Sex in the City" life of big cities, sexual freedom, and self-centered lifestyles. Living in a small farming village is not appealing to folks with that mentality.
Apparently European farmers imagine that Polish women are "more traditional" and have been looking to that country for mates.
"Polish girls and middle-aged women alike are conservative, not demanding and embrace traditional family life, and Frenchmen, Italians and Spaniards particularly want their would-be wives to be Roman Catholic, Belgrade's Beta news agency said.
Unlike many other Europeans, Polish women do not mind being farm wives, the Metro newspaper said."
Now this stands to reason, such as it is. After all, Poland is one of the most conservative countries in Europe. If one were to ask a European what the most Catholic country is one might equally get the answers of Ireland and Poland.
Further, Poland has been one of the few staunch supporters of the Bush Doctrine in Iraq and has repeatedly supplied troops to assist the coalition forces there. And Poland has, likewise, been very close to the United States, most likely in thanks for the USA's strong support of them during the waning days of communist totalitarianism and the US fascination with Solidarinosc and Lech Walesa.
But, looking closer into the story, one finds the sad fact that even Polish women are displaying a falling birth rate.
According to the BBC (admittedly an often biased source):
"But while birth rates have been falling steadily across the continent for decades, the fertility rate in Ireland is now 1.98, not too far off the population replacement level of 2.1. In Poland, it's just 1.23, among the bottom five in Europe. The country's population actually fell by almost half a million over the last six years. Estimates suggest there will be four million fewer Poles by 2030."
So, if EU farmers are turning to Polish women because they cannot find women in their own countries, yet even Poland is finding a rapidly falling birth rate, we must all be alarmed for the future ... and an immediate one at that ... of the strength of the countries in Europe.
As Mark Steyn recently said in his aforementioned Op Ed, "It's the Demography, Stupid ", he warns that "Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries."
Perhaps a bit alarmist, but certainly a perfectly acceptable extrapolation of trends should they continue along the lines they are now headed.
Now contrast that with the birth rate of Muslims in Europe.
"More are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent."
With this single factor, we can see why European countries so often side with terrorists and against the US and Israel. It isn’t out of any stand on principles; it is out of pure fear, fear of that immigrant population turning against them.
Unfortunately, this European appeasement to curry favor from extremists will not garner them much by way of safety (and has not already) and many feel it won’t be long before there are enough Muslims to forcibly and materially alter European traditions and forms of governments.
In any case, we wish those EU farmers luck in love but we hope that they soon find women closer to home ready to bring the next generation of people into the world, none-the-less. And if they do not, their entire civilization is in doubt.
for our Subscribers...
We have to apologize to some of you who did not get the feed for a few days. We are still adjusting and getting used to the new feed service.
I am hopeful that we are getting it fixed today.
I am hopeful that we are getting it fixed today.
A few days off...
Well, we took a few days off, but we are back on the job NOW!!
Thanks for checking back.
Publius
Thanks for checking back.
Publius
What to do when your'e bored
By Vince Johnson
I used to get extremely frustrated whenever I got bored. The cure was surprisingly simple. I started making a list of things to do in order to switch from boredom to something more stimulating. Here are some of the things on my list:
1. One of the things I've wanted to do for several years is write to NIKE about their slogan. "Just Do It!" I've wanted to ask them where they got the idea they have a right to tell me to "Just Do It?" I don't want to "Just Do It" and I don't have to "Just Do It." The word "it" will always remind me of NIKE, just like word "is" reminds me of Clinton. Neither one will tell what "it" and "is" stand for, so I'll stick with my Bass loafers, thank you.
2. Sometimes I take a famous slogan and think of ways to improve it. Like "Drivers Wanted!" for example. This slogan was used by Volkswagen. What they really meant was "Buyers Wanted!" If you don't believe me, stop by one of their showrooms. (Hmmm. Maybe NIKE should switch to "Do Be Do Be Do." Frank Sinatra did.)
3. How about this slogan? "Breakfast of Champions" Everybody knows this one. Wheaties of course. A lot of famous athletes have appeared on their boxes. Michael Jordan. Joe Dimaggio. Dizzy Dean. Tiger Woods. Etc. When I’m bored, I try to think of all the famous athletes we will NEVER see on a box of Wheaties: After thinking up Barry Bonds, Dennis Rodman, and Randy Moss, I move on..
4. During dinner conversations, finish all of your sentences with "in accordance with the prophecy!" I've never had enough brass to try that. So I think about sending this idea to Al Gore and George Bush. They both seem to get bored easily and they both make a lot of prophecies. This suggestion would be non-partisan. Wouldn't it?
5. Five days in advance, tell your friends you cannot attend their party because you're not in the mood. I don't know if I have enough brass to do that either, because no one asks me to their party five days in advance. Maybe I'll try it anyway. The imp in me gets a charge out of watching peoples jaw drop.
6. Park the car along the highway sometime. Put on some dark sunglasses and point a black hair dryer at passing traffic. Make a list of how many slow down. If a Trooper asks if you're having some sort of a problem, show him the list and offer to discuss the situation over a cup of coffee at Dunk'n Donuts. Sir!
7. Go to the local grocery store and check out the produce section. If approached by the manager, suggest that he pipe in sounds of thunder and the aroma of fresh rain just before the water sprays over all the veggies. Remind him that the idea works at some really cool supermarkets in Honolulu, so it ought to be worth a try. Be subtle. Don't push it. He’s probably read about this in one of the trade magazines.
8. Check out the dairy section and suggest he pipe in the sounds of cows mooing and the aroma of fresh cut hay. If he starts backing away, tell him to relax and think about his customers. They appreciate clever little surprises like hearing a cow moo and smelling the clean, natural odor of fresh cut hay when shopping in the Dairy Section.
9. After doing #7 and #8, you will have him set up for #9 which is the Big One. And what's the "Big One"? Go stand by the toilet paper. When the manager approaches, take a long deep breath and give a smiling glance toward the ceiling. If his jaw drops, take his picture and move on. If his jaw clinches hard, forget the picture and move on. Quickly.
For me, the process of reviewing my list of boredom breakers has always resulted in making the monotony go away. Maybe this technique will work for you.
If reading this again doesn't do it, try #6 above. I can absolutely guarantee that your boredom will vanish before you get your dark glasses on.
I used to get extremely frustrated whenever I got bored. The cure was surprisingly simple. I started making a list of things to do in order to switch from boredom to something more stimulating. Here are some of the things on my list:
1. One of the things I've wanted to do for several years is write to NIKE about their slogan. "Just Do It!" I've wanted to ask them where they got the idea they have a right to tell me to "Just Do It?" I don't want to "Just Do It" and I don't have to "Just Do It." The word "it" will always remind me of NIKE, just like word "is" reminds me of Clinton. Neither one will tell what "it" and "is" stand for, so I'll stick with my Bass loafers, thank you.
2. Sometimes I take a famous slogan and think of ways to improve it. Like "Drivers Wanted!" for example. This slogan was used by Volkswagen. What they really meant was "Buyers Wanted!" If you don't believe me, stop by one of their showrooms. (Hmmm. Maybe NIKE should switch to "Do Be Do Be Do." Frank Sinatra did.)
3. How about this slogan? "Breakfast of Champions" Everybody knows this one. Wheaties of course. A lot of famous athletes have appeared on their boxes. Michael Jordan. Joe Dimaggio. Dizzy Dean. Tiger Woods. Etc. When I’m bored, I try to think of all the famous athletes we will NEVER see on a box of Wheaties: After thinking up Barry Bonds, Dennis Rodman, and Randy Moss, I move on..
4. During dinner conversations, finish all of your sentences with "in accordance with the prophecy!" I've never had enough brass to try that. So I think about sending this idea to Al Gore and George Bush. They both seem to get bored easily and they both make a lot of prophecies. This suggestion would be non-partisan. Wouldn't it?
5. Five days in advance, tell your friends you cannot attend their party because you're not in the mood. I don't know if I have enough brass to do that either, because no one asks me to their party five days in advance. Maybe I'll try it anyway. The imp in me gets a charge out of watching peoples jaw drop.
6. Park the car along the highway sometime. Put on some dark sunglasses and point a black hair dryer at passing traffic. Make a list of how many slow down. If a Trooper asks if you're having some sort of a problem, show him the list and offer to discuss the situation over a cup of coffee at Dunk'n Donuts. Sir!
7. Go to the local grocery store and check out the produce section. If approached by the manager, suggest that he pipe in sounds of thunder and the aroma of fresh rain just before the water sprays over all the veggies. Remind him that the idea works at some really cool supermarkets in Honolulu, so it ought to be worth a try. Be subtle. Don't push it. He’s probably read about this in one of the trade magazines.
8. Check out the dairy section and suggest he pipe in the sounds of cows mooing and the aroma of fresh cut hay. If he starts backing away, tell him to relax and think about his customers. They appreciate clever little surprises like hearing a cow moo and smelling the clean, natural odor of fresh cut hay when shopping in the Dairy Section.
9. After doing #7 and #8, you will have him set up for #9 which is the Big One. And what's the "Big One"? Go stand by the toilet paper. When the manager approaches, take a long deep breath and give a smiling glance toward the ceiling. If his jaw drops, take his picture and move on. If his jaw clinches hard, forget the picture and move on. Quickly.
For me, the process of reviewing my list of boredom breakers has always resulted in making the monotony go away. Maybe this technique will work for you.
If reading this again doesn't do it, try #6 above. I can absolutely guarantee that your boredom will vanish before you get your dark glasses on.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Hillary may have to hide her brothers
- By Michael M. Bates
Billy Carter, registered foreign agent of the Libyan government and brother of President Jimmy, urinated in public at the Atlanta airport. Sam Houston Johnson, alcoholic and brother of President Lyndon, claimed he was virtually a hostage in the White House and was followed by the Secret Service when he went out. Donald Nixon, budding entrepreneur and brother of President Richard, used his fraternal connection in the late 1950s to secure a business loan.
You can choose your friends, but not your family. A number of politicians have found the axiom all too true.
Mrs. Clinton's brothers may yet play a role in her pursuit of the presidency. And she is indeed already in pursuit, if Time magazine's cover article this week is to be believed.
Mrs. Clinton is putting the machinery in place. Her husband is "'thinking about (her presidential prospects) all the time,' says one of Hillary's advisers. 'He's thinking about it and talking to a lot of people, promoting Hillary. This is something he is very focused on.'"
Time magazine wants to help. This is the tenth Time cover she's been on. Even Princess Diana didn't receive such royal treatment. .....................................
Click HERE To Read On
Billy Carter, registered foreign agent of the Libyan government and brother of President Jimmy, urinated in public at the Atlanta airport. Sam Houston Johnson, alcoholic and brother of President Lyndon, claimed he was virtually a hostage in the White House and was followed by the Secret Service when he went out. Donald Nixon, budding entrepreneur and brother of President Richard, used his fraternal connection in the late 1950s to secure a business loan.
You can choose your friends, but not your family. A number of politicians have found the axiom all too true.
Mrs. Clinton's brothers may yet play a role in her pursuit of the presidency. And she is indeed already in pursuit, if Time magazine's cover article this week is to be believed.
Mrs. Clinton is putting the machinery in place. Her husband is "'thinking about (her presidential prospects) all the time,' says one of Hillary's advisers. 'He's thinking about it and talking to a lot of people, promoting Hillary. This is something he is very focused on.'"
Time magazine wants to help. This is the tenth Time cover she's been on. Even Princess Diana didn't receive such royal treatment. .....................................
Click HERE To Read On
Thursday, August 24, 2006
U.S.Military Recruitment On Target - But War Unpopular?
-By Warner Todd Huston
What is it about the MSM that they have to get a shot or two in, even when the news being reported is positive?
On August 10th, Yahoo! News offered us an Agence France Presse story reporting the good news that the U.S. Military is meeting their recruitment goals for the most part. The news was rather good and a bit startling since most MSM news stories seem to allude to the feeling that things are universally bad for the Military.
So goes the first paragraph. Wow, you might think. Maybe things are doing well?
Then comes the second...
Oh, NO... it's REALLY bad after all?
A little further down the story you'll also see this little shot at the war effort...
Why, exactly, was it necessary to bring up last year's lower numbers unless to use it as an excuse to remind us all how the MSM imagines this war so "increasingly unpopular"?
Taking the whole story in and digesting the actual facts presented reveals that the Armed Forces are doing pretty well even in the face of war, despite the several shots the AFP takes against the war and military.
-Army and Marines are ahead of their goals
-Pentagon reports four percent over July's monthly goal
-Marines 12 percent over goals through July 31st
-Air Force and Navy met their goals
In fact, it seems the only service that is not doing so well is the Army National Guard and the Army Reserves recruiting efforts. But, tying this to the war being "unpopular" seems a little odd since the other services are not having the same problems meeting their goals.
Perhaps there are reasons other than the war being "unpopular"?
Not in the MSM's palybook there ain't!
What is it about the MSM that they have to get a shot or two in, even when the news being reported is positive?
On August 10th, Yahoo! News offered us an Agence France Presse story reporting the good news that the U.S. Military is meeting their recruitment goals for the most part. The news was rather good and a bit startling since most MSM news stories seem to allude to the feeling that things are universally bad for the Military.
Military recruiters either met or exceeded their goals in July, putting the US active duty force in a strong position to finish the year with the needed number of new recruits, Pentagon figures show.
So goes the first paragraph. Wow, you might think. Maybe things are doing well?
Then comes the second...
The monthly recruiting figures show, however, that the army's national guard and reserve components continue to struggle to meet recruiting goals.
Oh, NO... it's REALLY bad after all?
A little further down the story you'll also see this little shot at the war effort...
Last year, the army came in 8.3 percent short of the goal, raising alarms about its ability to replenish its ranks in the face of a difficult and increasingly unpopular war.
Why, exactly, was it necessary to bring up last year's lower numbers unless to use it as an excuse to remind us all how the MSM imagines this war so "increasingly unpopular"?
Taking the whole story in and digesting the actual facts presented reveals that the Armed Forces are doing pretty well even in the face of war, despite the several shots the AFP takes against the war and military.
-Army and Marines are ahead of their goals
-Pentagon reports four percent over July's monthly goal
-Marines 12 percent over goals through July 31st
-Air Force and Navy met their goals
In fact, it seems the only service that is not doing so well is the Army National Guard and the Army Reserves recruiting efforts. But, tying this to the war being "unpopular" seems a little odd since the other services are not having the same problems meeting their goals.
Perhaps there are reasons other than the war being "unpopular"?
Not in the MSM's palybook there ain't!
Anti-N.S.A. Ruling By Judge Connected to ACLU!
-By Warner Todd Huston
Imagine, if you will, a Conservative judge delivering a pro-gun ruling in a case brought by a pro-gun group of which he is a member? Would the left across the country just shrug their shoulders and utter a noncommittal "so what"? Or imagine the leftist outcry if a conservative judge who donated money to anti-abortion groups would have rendered a decision against abortion? Would the left simply move on without taking much notice? Or do you think there would be a tremendous wailing and gnashing of teeth by every leftist in the country?
Now, tell me. Have you heard a corresponding hew and cry about the leftist judge who belongs to a group that donates money to the ACLU and who was the Michigan judge who ruled against the Bush Administration's N.S.A. "wiretapping" program? Did you hear how she ruled in favor of that same ACLU when she belongs to a group that funds the ACLU?
Bet you wont see much about it. The New York Times published a piece about the story today, but spent more time pooh-poohing it than anything else.
Conflict of Interest Is Raised in N.S.A. Ruling
Not much outrage there. And they immediately followed that opening paragraph with one claiming that the story only came to light because of a "conservative organization" that dug it all up.
Now, it is a fact that judges often do not recuse themselves when they should. It is true that this judge who ruled in favor of a group she has intimate connections with is not acting too far outside common tolerances. But, the question I have is where is the faux outrage on behalf of the MSM?
You just KNOW they would be losing their minds had this judge been a conservative, ruling FOR a conservative issue and being as closely tied to the plaintiff as this leftist judge is to a leftist group.
Ah well, it just shows MSM's bias in a brighter light!
Imagine, if you will, a Conservative judge delivering a pro-gun ruling in a case brought by a pro-gun group of which he is a member? Would the left across the country just shrug their shoulders and utter a noncommittal "so what"? Or imagine the leftist outcry if a conservative judge who donated money to anti-abortion groups would have rendered a decision against abortion? Would the left simply move on without taking much notice? Or do you think there would be a tremendous wailing and gnashing of teeth by every leftist in the country?
Now, tell me. Have you heard a corresponding hew and cry about the leftist judge who belongs to a group that donates money to the ACLU and who was the Michigan judge who ruled against the Bush Administration's N.S.A. "wiretapping" program? Did you hear how she ruled in favor of that same ACLU when she belongs to a group that funds the ACLU?
Bet you wont see much about it. The New York Times published a piece about the story today, but spent more time pooh-poohing it than anything else.
Conflict of Interest Is Raised in N.S.A. Ruling
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — The federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush’s eavesdropping program was unconstitutional is a trustee and an officer of a group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, a watchdog group said Tuesday.
Not much outrage there. And they immediately followed that opening paragraph with one claiming that the story only came to light because of a "conservative organization" that dug it all up.
The group, Judicial Watch, a conservative organization here that found the connection, said the link posed a possible conflict for the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, and called for further investigation.
Now, it is a fact that judges often do not recuse themselves when they should. It is true that this judge who ruled in favor of a group she has intimate connections with is not acting too far outside common tolerances. But, the question I have is where is the faux outrage on behalf of the MSM?
You just KNOW they would be losing their minds had this judge been a conservative, ruling FOR a conservative issue and being as closely tied to the plaintiff as this leftist judge is to a leftist group.
Ah well, it just shows MSM's bias in a brighter light!
A Political Problem in Aisle 5
By Nathan Tabor
As anyone who lives in the ‘burbs knows, the all-American pastime on Saturdays isn’t necessarily a trip to the baseball diamond. For many of us, it’s a trip to the local Wal-Mart. This is particularly true as the back-to-school season is in full swing.
So, it’s a little bit disconcerting to know that, as families across the U.S. are loading up their shopping carts, the elite in the Democratic Party are scowling. While many of us are concerned about al Quaida, a number of Dems have identified Wal-Mart as public enemy number one this political season.
As far as I know, the CEO of Wal-Mart isn’t running for President, but don’t tell that to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. of Delaware, a presumed Presidential contender. In Iowa recently, Biden delivered what the New York Times described as a “blistering attack” against Wal-Mart.
In addition to serving America’s need for clothes, toothbrushes, and other luxuries, Wal-Mart happens to be the nation’s biggest private employer. In other words, the company now has more than a million people on its work force. This is a business that is giving jobs to folks—but, according to the bizarre calculations of Democratic leaders, Wal-Mart is bad news for the economy.
Senator Biden suggests that Wal-Mart doesn’t care about “the fate of middle-class people.” But Wal-Mart does business with middle-class people everyday. I don’t know how often the Washington elite shop at Wal-Mart, but the average-income families that I know shop there all the time, because that’s where they can get the best deals for their dollars.
Granted, chances are you won’t earn a six-figure salary at Wal-Mart. But you can earn a paycheck. And you can gain the type of experience that will help you apply for jobs in the future which require more responsibility and will earn you more money. That is, after all, the American way—to start out on the first floor of business and work your way up to the boardroom.
And, speaking of boardrooms, isn’t it curious that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board, returned a campaign contribution from the company to protest Wal-Mart’s health benefits? That, apparently, was the start of the unofficial Democratic campaign against the company.
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana has claimed that the anti-Wal-Mart effort is not anti-business. But, when you attack one of the nation’s biggest businesses, it stands to reason that people are really going to wonder whether you have the best interests of business at heart.
No one can be in favor of corporate corruption…bad management decisions…and mistreatment of employees. But the fact is that, without business, many of us would not have jobs. Of course, that concept is mystifying to career politicians who do not have to meet a weekly payroll or deal with constant competition. Their jobs may be safe—but the average taxpayer’s job isn’t.
I may not agree with every corporate decision made at Wal-Mart headquarters, but there can be little argument that the company is a business success story. If it were not so successful, it wouldn’t be under attack. In fact, a national poll showed that Americans generally support Wal-Mart—an attitude which seems to be borne out in the company’s sales. The company posted an $11 billion profit last year.
In a letter written to Iowa Wal-Mart workers, company officials said they “would never suggest to you how to vote, but we have an obligation to tell you when politicians are saying something about your company that isn’t true. After all, you are Wal-Mart.”
And a lot of us are Wal-Mart shoppers—whether we want to admit it or not.
As anyone who lives in the ‘burbs knows, the all-American pastime on Saturdays isn’t necessarily a trip to the baseball diamond. For many of us, it’s a trip to the local Wal-Mart. This is particularly true as the back-to-school season is in full swing.
So, it’s a little bit disconcerting to know that, as families across the U.S. are loading up their shopping carts, the elite in the Democratic Party are scowling. While many of us are concerned about al Quaida, a number of Dems have identified Wal-Mart as public enemy number one this political season.
As far as I know, the CEO of Wal-Mart isn’t running for President, but don’t tell that to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. of Delaware, a presumed Presidential contender. In Iowa recently, Biden delivered what the New York Times described as a “blistering attack” against Wal-Mart.
In addition to serving America’s need for clothes, toothbrushes, and other luxuries, Wal-Mart happens to be the nation’s biggest private employer. In other words, the company now has more than a million people on its work force. This is a business that is giving jobs to folks—but, according to the bizarre calculations of Democratic leaders, Wal-Mart is bad news for the economy.
Senator Biden suggests that Wal-Mart doesn’t care about “the fate of middle-class people.” But Wal-Mart does business with middle-class people everyday. I don’t know how often the Washington elite shop at Wal-Mart, but the average-income families that I know shop there all the time, because that’s where they can get the best deals for their dollars.
Granted, chances are you won’t earn a six-figure salary at Wal-Mart. But you can earn a paycheck. And you can gain the type of experience that will help you apply for jobs in the future which require more responsibility and will earn you more money. That is, after all, the American way—to start out on the first floor of business and work your way up to the boardroom.
And, speaking of boardrooms, isn’t it curious that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board, returned a campaign contribution from the company to protest Wal-Mart’s health benefits? That, apparently, was the start of the unofficial Democratic campaign against the company.
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana has claimed that the anti-Wal-Mart effort is not anti-business. But, when you attack one of the nation’s biggest businesses, it stands to reason that people are really going to wonder whether you have the best interests of business at heart.
No one can be in favor of corporate corruption…bad management decisions…and mistreatment of employees. But the fact is that, without business, many of us would not have jobs. Of course, that concept is mystifying to career politicians who do not have to meet a weekly payroll or deal with constant competition. Their jobs may be safe—but the average taxpayer’s job isn’t.
I may not agree with every corporate decision made at Wal-Mart headquarters, but there can be little argument that the company is a business success story. If it were not so successful, it wouldn’t be under attack. In fact, a national poll showed that Americans generally support Wal-Mart—an attitude which seems to be borne out in the company’s sales. The company posted an $11 billion profit last year.
In a letter written to Iowa Wal-Mart workers, company officials said they “would never suggest to you how to vote, but we have an obligation to tell you when politicians are saying something about your company that isn’t true. After all, you are Wal-Mart.”
And a lot of us are Wal-Mart shoppers—whether we want to admit it or not.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Making the ACLU Pay Through the Nose!
-By Warner Todd Huston
Finally, someone trying to put a curb on the widespread abuses of the law the ACLU is responsible for...
Senator Sam Brownback is trying to get a bill passed that would help cut down on these expensive, nuisance lawsuits that the communist ACLU is always annoying Americans with day in and day out.
Currently, it is a LAW that the ACLU can get the US government to pay for their lawyer's fees should they bring a court case that attempts to destroy religion in schools or government.
You heard that right, the US government -- that's you and ME, folks -- actually doles out money to the ACLU while they attempt to tear down our culture with their un-American, nuisance lawsuits!
Brownback points to the costs of such suits and says that the high price tag explains why so many cities and States just buckle to the ACLU's mere mention of bringing a lawsuit. It is proof of how out of control the ACLU's jihad against religion has gotten.
I hope maore and more people come to realize that the ACLU is NOT fighting for anyone's "rights" with their many and repeated attacks on religion in the USA. They couldn't care LESS about the Constitution and law. It's ALL about the money!
We'd soon see most of these anti-American lawsuits dropped if the ACLU had to pay their own lawyer's fees, I'll guarantee. Their free government cash would suddenly be cut off and all the efforts of tearing down our culture would suddenly seem far less interesting to them.
Call you representatives and urge them to support Brownback's efforts!
Finally, someone trying to put a curb on the widespread abuses of the law the ACLU is responsible for...
Sen. Brownback: ACLU -- Not Taxpayers -- Should Foot the Bill for Church-State Lawsuits Proposed Legislation Would Halt Lucrative Legal Attacks on Religious Freedom
The Public Expressions of Religion Act (PERA) (S. 3696) was the topic of discussion at hearings on Wednesday (August 2) before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. The U.S. House is considering similar legislation (H.R. 2679) that is sponsored by Indiana Congressman John Hostettler. Brownback has made it clear in recent weeks that if groups like the ACLU want to sue city after city for displays of religious images, it should be on their own dime -- not at taxpayers' expense.
Senator Sam Brownback is trying to get a bill passed that would help cut down on these expensive, nuisance lawsuits that the communist ACLU is always annoying Americans with day in and day out.
Some U.S. senators this week have heard testimony from both sides on a piece of legislation that would strip legal fees from church-state lawsuits. Such legal victories, often described as "Establishment Clause" cases, have provided the American Civil Liberties Union with millions of dollars in profits as it pursues numerous cases challenging public displays of religious belief in America.
Currently, it is a LAW that the ACLU can get the US government to pay for their lawyer's fees should they bring a court case that attempts to destroy religion in schools or government.
You heard that right, the US government -- that's you and ME, folks -- actually doles out money to the ACLU while they attempt to tear down our culture with their un-American, nuisance lawsuits!
Brownback points to the costs of such suits and says that the high price tag explains why so many cities and States just buckle to the ACLU's mere mention of bringing a lawsuit. It is proof of how out of control the ACLU's jihad against religion has gotten.
At yesterday's hearing, Brownback said attorneys fees should not be awarded to plaintiffs who file lawsuits alleging violation of separation of church and state. "Many jurisdictions simply acquiesce to the demands of the ACLU and prohibit all displays of religious faith in order to avoid the potential expense of litigation," the senator said. "Legal fees is the threat that the ACLU uses."
I hope maore and more people come to realize that the ACLU is NOT fighting for anyone's "rights" with their many and repeated attacks on religion in the USA. They couldn't care LESS about the Constitution and law. It's ALL about the money!
(Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council) calls the lucrative legal fees being won in lawsuits targeted expressions of religion a "perverse" incentive. PERA, he says, is needed to repeal a section of the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Act that gives groups like the ACLU "a financial incentive" to attack all public expressions of religion. "This perverse incentive also pressures embattled state and local authorities to capitulate rather than be forced into lengthy, costly litigation," says the FRC leader.
We'd soon see most of these anti-American lawsuits dropped if the ACLU had to pay their own lawyer's fees, I'll guarantee. Their free government cash would suddenly be cut off and all the efforts of tearing down our culture would suddenly seem far less interesting to them.
Call you representatives and urge them to support Brownback's efforts!
Tell A PETA Nut That Dolphins Are Stupid
-By Warner Todd Huston
Hold on there, sports fans. I am not casting aspersions on those venerable gladiators of the gridiron residing in Miami, here. No, I am talking about the fishes. You know, the ones in the seas?
Turns out that animal rights psychos and those who want to ridiculously anthropomorphize our smiling beasts of the oceans are wrong. Dolphins aren't smart because of a brain as "big as a Human's".
Now THAT makes sense!
I have always looked askance at this claim that Dolphins are so smart. I mean, what evidence have we ever really SEEN that they are supposed to be so smart?
Have they ever really spoken to us in all those experiments we hear about? They certainly have never built a McDonald's or Starbuck's down in the gloomy deep, have they? Heck, I'd settle for a short note letting us know that they are doing OK.
Them Dolphins just never write anymore.
Of course, we have been told that Dolphins have an intricate social structure. We are told that they communicate quite effectively. We are told that they act in concert. We are told that these are the reasons they simply must be intelligent. That and the big brain they are known to have, that one that is as big as a Human's.
So what? Ants exhibit almost all those same traits (minus the big thinker). We don't seem to want to fit an ant for a cap and gown to go to the head of the class, now do we?
There's worse news for misguided humans that want to make Dolphins the Einsteins of the waters, unfortunately. It appears they are dumber than Goldfish.
That's right. Goldfish. You know, the bright, shimmering little fishy into who's bowl you threw a ping pong ball in order to win him and take him home -- much to your Mother's consternation -- at the Summer carnival you went to when you were a child? Did you know that your prize was smarter than Neptune's sages?
OK, I have to admit that I don't understand that reasoning from the good Doctor, either. But it MUST say something about how stupid Dolphins are. After all, no Dolphin has yet come forward with high priced attorney in tow in order to sue the Doc for libel, right? Even if one did we could just throw him a dead Mackerel and he'd swim away forgetting all about his grievances. He IS an idiot, after all!
So, now we know. Dolphins are big nit-wits. Their big brains end up being like an insulated lunch bag keeping their tiny little intellect warm on those deep dives into the cold waters in which they live.
So, can we please stop with the Dolphins-are-so-smart blather we hear from animal rights extremists and Oceanographers so imbued with wishful thinking? Can we get beyond this claim that anything on the planet other than man has enough intelligence to make them rise above the brutish animal classes of our fair world? Can we stop pretending that animals deserve "rights" in the same way men do because they "feel" and "think" just like us?
... and can we stop having Sci-Fi novels with Dolphin characters thanking us for all the fish?
And, I am ready for any challenge on my stance should any upset Dolphin file suit. I am prepared to take my case to the highest courts in the land. I know some good attorneys should any upset Dolphin send a subpoena my way. I am sure they will come to my aid and blow away the arguments of any representative of the members of the Mensa of the deep. I might even hire a Goldfish.
But, just in case, I am going to put a bucket of dead Mackerel on ice.
Hold on there, sports fans. I am not casting aspersions on those venerable gladiators of the gridiron residing in Miami, here. No, I am talking about the fishes. You know, the ones in the seas?
Turns out that animal rights psychos and those who want to ridiculously anthropomorphize our smiling beasts of the oceans are wrong. Dolphins aren't smart because of a brain as "big as a Human's".
Paul Manger from Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand, however, says it is not intelligence that created the dolphin super-brain – it's the cold.
In order to survive underwater, these warm-blooded animals developed brains that have a lot of the insulating material – called glia – but not too many neurons, which is the grey stuff that counts for reasoned thinking.
Now THAT makes sense!
I have always looked askance at this claim that Dolphins are so smart. I mean, what evidence have we ever really SEEN that they are supposed to be so smart?
Have they ever really spoken to us in all those experiments we hear about? They certainly have never built a McDonald's or Starbuck's down in the gloomy deep, have they? Heck, I'd settle for a short note letting us know that they are doing OK.
Them Dolphins just never write anymore.
Of course, we have been told that Dolphins have an intricate social structure. We are told that they communicate quite effectively. We are told that they act in concert. We are told that these are the reasons they simply must be intelligent. That and the big brain they are known to have, that one that is as big as a Human's.
So what? Ants exhibit almost all those same traits (minus the big thinker). We don't seem to want to fit an ant for a cap and gown to go to the head of the class, now do we?
There's worse news for misguided humans that want to make Dolphins the Einsteins of the waters, unfortunately. It appears they are dumber than Goldfish.
That's right. Goldfish. You know, the bright, shimmering little fishy into who's bowl you threw a ping pong ball in order to win him and take him home -- much to your Mother's consternation -- at the Summer carnival you went to when you were a child? Did you know that your prize was smarter than Neptune's sages?
"Goldfish can solve problems that dolphins can't. When a goldfish jumps out of its bowl, it's thinking past its immediate environment. Dolphins don't have the cognitive leap," Mr. Manger said in a telephone interview Thursday.
OK, I have to admit that I don't understand that reasoning from the good Doctor, either. But it MUST say something about how stupid Dolphins are. After all, no Dolphin has yet come forward with high priced attorney in tow in order to sue the Doc for libel, right? Even if one did we could just throw him a dead Mackerel and he'd swim away forgetting all about his grievances. He IS an idiot, after all!
So, now we know. Dolphins are big nit-wits. Their big brains end up being like an insulated lunch bag keeping their tiny little intellect warm on those deep dives into the cold waters in which they live.
So, can we please stop with the Dolphins-are-so-smart blather we hear from animal rights extremists and Oceanographers so imbued with wishful thinking? Can we get beyond this claim that anything on the planet other than man has enough intelligence to make them rise above the brutish animal classes of our fair world? Can we stop pretending that animals deserve "rights" in the same way men do because they "feel" and "think" just like us?
... and can we stop having Sci-Fi novels with Dolphin characters thanking us for all the fish?
And, I am ready for any challenge on my stance should any upset Dolphin file suit. I am prepared to take my case to the highest courts in the land. I know some good attorneys should any upset Dolphin send a subpoena my way. I am sure they will come to my aid and blow away the arguments of any representative of the members of the Mensa of the deep. I might even hire a Goldfish.
But, just in case, I am going to put a bucket of dead Mackerel on ice.
Meaning of Lieberman’s Defeat to Gun Owners
by Larry Pratt
Both Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Ned Lamont who defeated him in the Connecticut Democrat primary are anti-gun. Nevertheless, gun owners should pay attention to the outcome of this race. Indeed, anyone interested in survival should pay attention.
From all that anyone can determine, the only issue that separated Lieberman and Lamont is the war against terrorists. Lieberman, although an enemy of personal self defense, was an unabashed supporter of defending America from Muslim crusaders intent on killing every man, woman and child on earth who does not proclaim themselves to be Muslim.
Fourteen hundred years of jihad is not enough evidence for the Democrat left. They are unconcerned about those who today proclaim jihad even while beheading and exploding as many people as possible in the name of their religion.
Since the left is typically unconcerned about religion, they seem to be incapable of accepting the reality that anybody else might be motivated by religious beliefs.
The students of the ‘60’s who lionized mass murderers such as Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung and Fidel Castro are now the professors, media elite and other Democrat party activists who still lionize their old heroes – and now also are apologists for Muslim terrorists.
The self-destructive view of the Democrat left goes well beyond the naïve mantra that “violence never solved anything.” Tell that to the people of the south of Sudan. They stopped the genocide of some 2,000,000 non-Muslims by the jihadi regime that illegitimately rules the country. The Sudanese People’s Liberation Army did not stop the jihad by talking. They did it by shooting and killing Muslim crusaders before they could kill any more.
The Democrat Left’s support of terrorists derives from self-hatred. They are convinced that Americans, and Westerners in general (but also including African Christians who were slaughtered without a peep from the Left), are the source of violence and resentment in the world. Because we have caused the problem, they believe, we deserve to be attacked. This belief is so deep set that the Left believes self defense and retaliation are morally unacceptable.
We should not think that the Democrat Left’s hatred is reserved for President Bush. They hate him because he is fighting back against terrorists. Thus, anyone connected with national defense – even a socialist such as Sen. Lieberman – gets treated to the same scathing hatred that has been directed toward President Bush.
If Lieberman’s defeat is a harbinger of future elections, any Democrat who believes in self defense, be it personal or national, can expect to get the same treatment. And of course, Republicans can expect to get more of the same as long as they support self defense.
The issue of our age is self defense. The Democrat Left has drawn a line in the sand in Connecticut. They are against survival.
Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151, (703) 321-8585.
Both Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Ned Lamont who defeated him in the Connecticut Democrat primary are anti-gun. Nevertheless, gun owners should pay attention to the outcome of this race. Indeed, anyone interested in survival should pay attention.
From all that anyone can determine, the only issue that separated Lieberman and Lamont is the war against terrorists. Lieberman, although an enemy of personal self defense, was an unabashed supporter of defending America from Muslim crusaders intent on killing every man, woman and child on earth who does not proclaim themselves to be Muslim.
Fourteen hundred years of jihad is not enough evidence for the Democrat left. They are unconcerned about those who today proclaim jihad even while beheading and exploding as many people as possible in the name of their religion.
Since the left is typically unconcerned about religion, they seem to be incapable of accepting the reality that anybody else might be motivated by religious beliefs.
The students of the ‘60’s who lionized mass murderers such as Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung and Fidel Castro are now the professors, media elite and other Democrat party activists who still lionize their old heroes – and now also are apologists for Muslim terrorists.
The self-destructive view of the Democrat left goes well beyond the naïve mantra that “violence never solved anything.” Tell that to the people of the south of Sudan. They stopped the genocide of some 2,000,000 non-Muslims by the jihadi regime that illegitimately rules the country. The Sudanese People’s Liberation Army did not stop the jihad by talking. They did it by shooting and killing Muslim crusaders before they could kill any more.
The Democrat Left’s support of terrorists derives from self-hatred. They are convinced that Americans, and Westerners in general (but also including African Christians who were slaughtered without a peep from the Left), are the source of violence and resentment in the world. Because we have caused the problem, they believe, we deserve to be attacked. This belief is so deep set that the Left believes self defense and retaliation are morally unacceptable.
We should not think that the Democrat Left’s hatred is reserved for President Bush. They hate him because he is fighting back against terrorists. Thus, anyone connected with national defense – even a socialist such as Sen. Lieberman – gets treated to the same scathing hatred that has been directed toward President Bush.
If Lieberman’s defeat is a harbinger of future elections, any Democrat who believes in self defense, be it personal or national, can expect to get the same treatment. And of course, Republicans can expect to get more of the same as long as they support self defense.
The issue of our age is self defense. The Democrat Left has drawn a line in the sand in Connecticut. They are against survival.
Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151, (703) 321-8585.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Our Culture... Your Culture... They Are All The Same!
-By Warner Todd Huston
Gather 'round, multiculturalists everywhere. I'll tell you a story guaranteed to prove to you that we are all really "just people", citizens of the world, after all. Why, this story will show you all that one culture is as good as another, one nation just like the next. Heck, fellers, we're all just the same and all cultures are as good as the next and this'll PROVE it ...
14 Indians, including kids, flogged in "Maya punishment"
There. Ya SEE? We ARE all the same, huh? Our American culture isn't any "better" than any other culture!
These "Mayans" were pretty cool folks, eh? I wonder how they invented bottle caps thousands of years before a bottle capping machine was invented though... I guess that is why they were so great!
One other thing, aren't natural drug plants sorta easy to get down there? I mean, they have drug cartels all OVER the place. Why did they need to sniff glue to get high when EVERY drug on the planet is easily within reach everywhere you go down there? I guess that Georgie Sorros' idea that if we make drugs legal, no one will want to break the law sort of fails to make sense in light of this one?
Anyway, it sure shows that our justice systems are so alike as to be scary, eh? I can't Tell you how many times I have seen drug dealers in the USA made to kneel on bottlecaps and have sand bags put on their shoulders. And they DESERVED it, too!
Yep, every culture is just like the next one. I just feel so warm and squishy inside...
Gather 'round, multiculturalists everywhere. I'll tell you a story guaranteed to prove to you that we are all really "just people", citizens of the world, after all. Why, this story will show you all that one culture is as good as another, one nation just like the next. Heck, fellers, we're all just the same and all cultures are as good as the next and this'll PROVE it ...
14 Indians, including kids, flogged in "Maya punishment"
Guatemala City, Aug 22 - Fourteen Guatemalan Indians were publicly flogged, forced to kneel on bottle caps and shorn of their hair after being convicted by a traditional assembly of various offenses, local media reported Tuesday.
The so-called "Maya punishment," provided for in traditional codes acknowledged by the modern nation-state, was applied Monday in the northwestern town of Nahuala, community leader Pascual Ixmata told the press.
The 14 accused - four of them women - were whipped and forced to kneel on bottle caps, and their hair was cut off.
The male miscreants, who were charged with sniffing glue, also had sacks of sand placed on their shoulders, Ixmata said.
The women scourged Monday had been accused of selling children to adoption brokers, the same crime for which 12 other Indians - eight men and four women - were subjected to the "Maya punishment" 10 days ago in the town of Pasajaquin.
There. Ya SEE? We ARE all the same, huh? Our American culture isn't any "better" than any other culture!
These "Mayans" were pretty cool folks, eh? I wonder how they invented bottle caps thousands of years before a bottle capping machine was invented though... I guess that is why they were so great!
One other thing, aren't natural drug plants sorta easy to get down there? I mean, they have drug cartels all OVER the place. Why did they need to sniff glue to get high when EVERY drug on the planet is easily within reach everywhere you go down there? I guess that Georgie Sorros' idea that if we make drugs legal, no one will want to break the law sort of fails to make sense in light of this one?
Anyway, it sure shows that our justice systems are so alike as to be scary, eh? I can't Tell you how many times I have seen drug dealers in the USA made to kneel on bottlecaps and have sand bags put on their shoulders. And they DESERVED it, too!
Yep, every culture is just like the next one. I just feel so warm and squishy inside...
ABC - Fetishizing "Minority" History
-By Warner Todd Huston
American history has been under attack since the 1920's when Communist and American historian, Charles Beard, made himself famous by pushing the claim that the Constitution was merely a document of hate and greed as opposed to one based on any sort of high principle. Needless to say, an ever-left leaning Academia loved him for it.
Now, what passes for "History" in our schools is repeated waves of fad history focusing on what is considered the latest minority who had been given short-shrift in our eeevil and racist past, crashing upon the eroding shoes of our schools decade after decade. Anymore, “history” is little more than successive waves washing away "America" and leaving in its wake, the flotsam and jetsam of the small incidents of the American shoreline while slowly tearing down the great rocks upon which it is built.
Enter ABC News to give us another story about how wonderful such a focus on minorities is for American students. Erin Texeira gives us a typical PC view of how American history should be taught to our children in her August 20th story, "Minorities Seek History Class Changes".
There is the typical PC view of traditional American history all wrapped up in one paragraph. Unfortunately, what she and all who bemoan our history don't understand is that we trace our country to that Jamestown settlement for a reason. The United States of America was not founded by Blacks, Asians, or "Latinos", even though each added to the flavor of the stew.
White, Anglo-Saxons where who won the battles to make the United States possible. That is why we focus on them. Yet, at the same time, any casual look at even those old, stuffy history books reveals the diversity that was the times. We all remember the American Indians, the French, the Spaniards and the blacks that fought alongside or against those Englishmen as they carved out these United States. It is impossible to read even old historical treatments and not see these "minorities" even if they lost the battle for supremacy.
But, because Whites are portrayed as the "winners" and some of these minorities as the "losers"... well, we MUST destroy that notion as far as the PC historical revisionists at ABC news are concerned.
The worst part of Texeira's story was her lamentations about how our nation does not have a "Latino" museum and her worries that all the many Asians in these ignorant United States are so unduly ignored.
Sadly for Ms. Texeira there is no such thing as a "Latino", historically. If you would have strode the byways of Spanish Florida in the early 1800's asking for all the "Latinos", for instance, you'd have gotten nothing but blank stares from the Spaniards, Indians and blacks living there at the time. "Latino" is a modern, made-up term to describe a demographic, not a term that describes a nationality or a "race".
So much for Texeira’s own "history" quotient! But, she doesn’t stop there.
Of course, few of the early Chinese immigrants that faced these discriminations wanted to become Americans initially. Many merely intended to make it rich in California's gold fields and go back to China with their riches in tow and many 49ers reacted to them along those lines. For that matter, few Asians even lived outside California for many years in our early Republic. They just weren't a factor in our founding and growth, railroad-building aside.
Early Asian history in the US is interesting, certainly, but it hardly classifies as a subject that we should waste time on with young students who don't know when the Civil War was fought, who our first president was, or what country we rebelled against in 1776. To waste time with all these "minority" views of history in our grade schools cheats our children out of learning the basics while they focus on the less important minutia.
Certainly in higher education it behooves us to expand the vision of subject matter, but why would a child NEED to know that the Chinese had a hard time of it in California at the expense of learning about the Monroe Doctrine? Why do we need to force young students to read umpteen accounts of "Latinos" in America before teaching them about the Declaration of Independence?
Of course, it is a good thing to have a full view of history. We need a well-rounded understanding of what our ancestors went through as it reveals a nation's character and can, in the best examples, help us understand why we are how we are. But, to focus on every small subject to the detriment of the big ones is a mistake. To people like Texeira, history should be about "diversity", not about presenting a program based on what is important and formative before presenting the minutia. After all, do we teach children algebra before we teach them subtraction?
Yes, it's all about "diversity" to those who make a fetish out of "minority" studies ...
As long as we can knock down those old dead white guys and all the "past horrors" they are responsible for, I guess that is of much higher importance. And, talking about those farther down the foodchain is more important than worrying about who wrote the Gettysburg Address... or what it even said.
If we enjoyed baseball, for instance, the way these people want us to learn history we'd be rooting for the groundskeepers, or excited to get the autograph of the lumberjack that cut the tree down that made Babe Ruth's bat.
In fact, who is Babe Ruth? What's HE ever done for the sport? But, do you know how important his COBBLER was??
American history has been under attack since the 1920's when Communist and American historian, Charles Beard, made himself famous by pushing the claim that the Constitution was merely a document of hate and greed as opposed to one based on any sort of high principle. Needless to say, an ever-left leaning Academia loved him for it.
Now, what passes for "History" in our schools is repeated waves of fad history focusing on what is considered the latest minority who had been given short-shrift in our eeevil and racist past, crashing upon the eroding shoes of our schools decade after decade. Anymore, “history” is little more than successive waves washing away "America" and leaving in its wake, the flotsam and jetsam of the small incidents of the American shoreline while slowly tearing down the great rocks upon which it is built.
Enter ABC News to give us another story about how wonderful such a focus on minorities is for American students. Erin Texeira gives us a typical PC view of how American history should be taught to our children in her August 20th story, "Minorities Seek History Class Changes".
American students often get the impression from history classes that the British got here first, settling Jamestown, Va., in 1607. They hear about how white Northerners freed the black slaves, how Asians came in the mid-1800s to build Western railroads. The lessons have left out a lot.
There is the typical PC view of traditional American history all wrapped up in one paragraph. Unfortunately, what she and all who bemoan our history don't understand is that we trace our country to that Jamestown settlement for a reason. The United States of America was not founded by Blacks, Asians, or "Latinos", even though each added to the flavor of the stew.
White, Anglo-Saxons where who won the battles to make the United States possible. That is why we focus on them. Yet, at the same time, any casual look at even those old, stuffy history books reveals the diversity that was the times. We all remember the American Indians, the French, the Spaniards and the blacks that fought alongside or against those Englishmen as they carved out these United States. It is impossible to read even old historical treatments and not see these "minorities" even if they lost the battle for supremacy.
But, because Whites are portrayed as the "winners" and some of these minorities as the "losers"... well, we MUST destroy that notion as far as the PC historical revisionists at ABC news are concerned.
The worst part of Texeira's story was her lamentations about how our nation does not have a "Latino" museum and her worries that all the many Asians in these ignorant United States are so unduly ignored.
The Mall has dozens of sites highlighting American culture and history, including the National Museum of the American Indian that opened in 2004, 20 years after it was authorized. Organizers in June settled on the future site of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, but its opening date is still years away. A Latino museum would be even further off.
Sadly for Ms. Texeira there is no such thing as a "Latino", historically. If you would have strode the byways of Spanish Florida in the early 1800's asking for all the "Latinos", for instance, you'd have gotten nothing but blank stares from the Spaniards, Indians and blacks living there at the time. "Latino" is a modern, made-up term to describe a demographic, not a term that describes a nationality or a "race".
So much for Texeira’s own "history" quotient! But, she doesn’t stop there.
Asian-Americans are the only immigrants in U.S. history to have faced laws explicitly written to bar their entry laws that were not overturned until immigration reform in the 1960s, said Dmae Roberts, whose eight-hour public radio program on Asian immigration, "Crossing East," airs on hundreds of stations.
"People know very little of this outside of California," she said.
Of course, few of the early Chinese immigrants that faced these discriminations wanted to become Americans initially. Many merely intended to make it rich in California's gold fields and go back to China with their riches in tow and many 49ers reacted to them along those lines. For that matter, few Asians even lived outside California for many years in our early Republic. They just weren't a factor in our founding and growth, railroad-building aside.
Early Asian history in the US is interesting, certainly, but it hardly classifies as a subject that we should waste time on with young students who don't know when the Civil War was fought, who our first president was, or what country we rebelled against in 1776. To waste time with all these "minority" views of history in our grade schools cheats our children out of learning the basics while they focus on the less important minutia.
Certainly in higher education it behooves us to expand the vision of subject matter, but why would a child NEED to know that the Chinese had a hard time of it in California at the expense of learning about the Monroe Doctrine? Why do we need to force young students to read umpteen accounts of "Latinos" in America before teaching them about the Declaration of Independence?
Of course, it is a good thing to have a full view of history. We need a well-rounded understanding of what our ancestors went through as it reveals a nation's character and can, in the best examples, help us understand why we are how we are. But, to focus on every small subject to the detriment of the big ones is a mistake. To people like Texeira, history should be about "diversity", not about presenting a program based on what is important and formative before presenting the minutia. After all, do we teach children algebra before we teach them subtraction?
Yes, it's all about "diversity" to those who make a fetish out of "minority" studies ...
Some tales have gone untold because, in the less-diverse America of the past, minorities didn't make the decisions on textbooks and other means of passing along history. And in many cases, minorities who had faced blatant discrimination wanted to discard evidence of past horrors.
As long as we can knock down those old dead white guys and all the "past horrors" they are responsible for, I guess that is of much higher importance. And, talking about those farther down the foodchain is more important than worrying about who wrote the Gettysburg Address... or what it even said.
If we enjoyed baseball, for instance, the way these people want us to learn history we'd be rooting for the groundskeepers, or excited to get the autograph of the lumberjack that cut the tree down that made Babe Ruth's bat.
In fact, who is Babe Ruth? What's HE ever done for the sport? But, do you know how important his COBBLER was??
This is a Religious War
- By Hans Zeiger
If there are doubts about the title of this article, perhaps it is because we have not thought of this war on Islamic terror as a religious war. But it must be a religious war.
Because the terrorists define it as a religious war. At a rally this week, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad declared, "On one side, it's corrupt powers of the criminal U.S. and Britain and the Zionists...with modern bombs and planes. And on the other side is a group of pious youth relying on God."
Ahmedinejad and his young thugs are men of faith. The Muslim devotees in England who would have blown up ten planes this week were young--ages 17 to 35--and they were faithful. One young man among the arrested terrorists gave up life as a slothful pothead to become a Muslim. These little groups of "pious youth" are are on a ji'had to take the West, and they will not stop because a postmodern, enlightened Westerner of the Left asks for tolerance and peace.................
Click HERE To Read On
If there are doubts about the title of this article, perhaps it is because we have not thought of this war on Islamic terror as a religious war. But it must be a religious war.
Because the terrorists define it as a religious war. At a rally this week, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad declared, "On one side, it's corrupt powers of the criminal U.S. and Britain and the Zionists...with modern bombs and planes. And on the other side is a group of pious youth relying on God."
Ahmedinejad and his young thugs are men of faith. The Muslim devotees in England who would have blown up ten planes this week were young--ages 17 to 35--and they were faithful. One young man among the arrested terrorists gave up life as a slothful pothead to become a Muslim. These little groups of "pious youth" are are on a ji'had to take the West, and they will not stop because a postmodern, enlightened Westerner of the Left asks for tolerance and peace.................
Click HERE To Read On
Monday, August 21, 2006
Trendy Village Seeks To Banish The Pleasingly Plump
- By Frederick Meekins
According to reports, a trendy Chicago suburb voted "the sexiest suburb in America" may be on the verge of banishing from its venues of commerce those not conforming to arbitrarily contrived body aesthetics.
Lane Bryant, a retailer known for marketing clothing to full-sized women, has been denied the opportunity to open a store in a development called "The Village Of Oak Park".
Before the hypercapitalists decide to slit my throat as they are wont to do whenever anyone dares to question a decision made by big business, it must be noted that the decision to deny Lane Bryant the retail space was not made by a private sector firm or entrepreneur but rather by the committee managing the village, an entity quasigovernmental in nature.
The bureaucratic mouthpiece for the community association told the press that, "Lane Bryant is not the kind or quality of shop that is desire for development," and, "We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market."
In other words, "Fat chicks, keep out." For unless the Village --- a term as almost as nauseating as COMMUNITY as it is usually invoked by an insular elite out to micromangage the lives of those residing in a particular locality --- is planning to open a Wal-Mart or a Target (places these Communitarian types despise even more than the overweight), by definition the retailer would otherwise serve a niche market...........................
Click HERE To Read On
According to reports, a trendy Chicago suburb voted "the sexiest suburb in America" may be on the verge of banishing from its venues of commerce those not conforming to arbitrarily contrived body aesthetics.
Lane Bryant, a retailer known for marketing clothing to full-sized women, has been denied the opportunity to open a store in a development called "The Village Of Oak Park".
Before the hypercapitalists decide to slit my throat as they are wont to do whenever anyone dares to question a decision made by big business, it must be noted that the decision to deny Lane Bryant the retail space was not made by a private sector firm or entrepreneur but rather by the committee managing the village, an entity quasigovernmental in nature.
The bureaucratic mouthpiece for the community association told the press that, "Lane Bryant is not the kind or quality of shop that is desire for development," and, "We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market."
In other words, "Fat chicks, keep out." For unless the Village --- a term as almost as nauseating as COMMUNITY as it is usually invoked by an insular elite out to micromangage the lives of those residing in a particular locality --- is planning to open a Wal-Mart or a Target (places these Communitarian types despise even more than the overweight), by definition the retailer would otherwise serve a niche market...........................
Click HERE To Read On
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Is Lieberman Loss Just a Republican Dirty Trick?
-By Warner Todd Huston
If the loony MSM were viewing Joe Lieberman's primary loss to leftist, Ned Lamont, in any more a convoluted manner, they would be crosseyed, tonguetied, and hogtied. I mean, the backflips they are making to explain this story are so magnificent that it'd make any Circ de Soleil acrobatic clown green with envy.
Our intrepid Time/CNN political analyst, Mike Allen, has tried on his colorful leotards to spin Joe's loss into the newest GOP dirty campaign trick for the 2006 midterms in his titled, "Why the Republicans Are Loving the Lieberman Loss".
It is amazing how every article about politics seem to start with the emotional underpinning that the Republicans are somehow merely scheming, or are just capitalizers, dirty tricksters or looking for "weapons" to get votes. Could it be that a Republican here or there might actually be serving his true principles by highlighting an issue? Nah, don't be ridiculous. It's sure to be just some kind of angle or trick!
The defeat of Joe Lieberman fits this MSM template perfectly, as does the article here mentioned by Mike Allen.
Here is the very first paragraph of Allen's story:
Notice the flavor of the story.
Lieberman's loss was only being "used" to reveal Democrat's "weakness" by that "ferocious" GOP even though those wascally Republicans should be down for the count because of "chaos abroad" and the president's "unpopularity". Even the statement that Lieberman is a "sensible, moralistic centrist" is coupled with Republican's weaponizing of the Senator's perceived status, casting that presumed centrism into a negative ... or even doubtful... light.
The story goes on to present the activity of the GOP election machine kicking into high gear to showcase this act of the Democrat's lurching wildly to the far left yet there is a curious lack of discussion in the story of what really happened in Connecticut to the Democratic Party itself.
The entire situation is cast in the light of the Republican spin machine without any focus on the fact that Lieberman is considered by many a "moderate"(but rarely by Republicans who have paid attention -- Lieberman's record is strictly liberal), and that his sudden and nearly complete purge from the Democratic Party by Party bigwigs such as DNC Chairman Howard Dean and veteran Party spokesman, Ted Kennedy, was so quick as to nearly prove the GOP's contention correct that the Democratic Party is dispensing with moderate views. The MSM are furiously downplaying the fact that the Democrats are trying to rid themselves of someone who might disagree with them in some few instances even as they offered that same candidate for the second highest office in the land but a few years ago.
No, it's worse than that. They are trying to rid themselves of a candidate who disagrees with them on only ONE issue; the war in Iraq! No one in the MSM seems to feel it is an interesting story that one issue is enough to get a former Vice-Presidential candidate mercilessly dumped from his own Party.
We have repeatedly seen this story in the MSM over the last week how Republicans are spinning Joe's loss, how GOP Party machine operatives are capitalizing on that loss, and how the MSM fears that the GOP is going to make it a winning election issue. But, where are the many stories about how the Democrats really HAVE begun to look like they intend to make a lurch to the left?
Where are the grave warnings that the "moderates" are being eliminated, marginalized, and forgotten by a Party that cares only about its extreme ideology?
If the GOP had suddenly made a corresponding lurch to the right, wouldn't the MSM be wailing and gnashing their teeth over how the Republicans had forsworn the voice of the vaunted "Moderate"?
So, what we have been repeatedly treated to are stories focusing on the GOP's spinning of Lieberman's loss, but precious little analysis of just what it means to the Democrats. This softens Lieberman's loss and truly whitewashes Lamont's far left ideology, giving cover to the Democratic Party's wild lurch to the left.
But, what would we expect from the MSM, wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, George Soros, CEO?
If the loony MSM were viewing Joe Lieberman's primary loss to leftist, Ned Lamont, in any more a convoluted manner, they would be crosseyed, tonguetied, and hogtied. I mean, the backflips they are making to explain this story are so magnificent that it'd make any Circ de Soleil acrobatic clown green with envy.
Our intrepid Time/CNN political analyst, Mike Allen, has tried on his colorful leotards to spin Joe's loss into the newest GOP dirty campaign trick for the 2006 midterms in his titled, "Why the Republicans Are Loving the Lieberman Loss".
It is amazing how every article about politics seem to start with the emotional underpinning that the Republicans are somehow merely scheming, or are just capitalizers, dirty tricksters or looking for "weapons" to get votes. Could it be that a Republican here or there might actually be serving his true principles by highlighting an issue? Nah, don't be ridiculous. It's sure to be just some kind of angle or trick!
The defeat of Joe Lieberman fits this MSM template perfectly, as does the article here mentioned by Mike Allen.
Here is the very first paragraph of Allen's story:
From Washington State to Missouri to Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates found themselves on the defensive Wednesday as the Republican Party worked ferociously at every level to try to use the primary defeat of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to portray the opposition as the party of weakness and isolation on national security and liberal leanings on domestic policy. Doleful Democrats bemoaned the irony: At a time when Republicans should be back on their heels because of chaos abroad and President Bush's unpopularity, the Democrats' rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of '06 and the big dance of '08.
Notice the flavor of the story.
Lieberman's loss was only being "used" to reveal Democrat's "weakness" by that "ferocious" GOP even though those wascally Republicans should be down for the count because of "chaos abroad" and the president's "unpopularity". Even the statement that Lieberman is a "sensible, moralistic centrist" is coupled with Republican's weaponizing of the Senator's perceived status, casting that presumed centrism into a negative ... or even doubtful... light.
The story goes on to present the activity of the GOP election machine kicking into high gear to showcase this act of the Democrat's lurching wildly to the far left yet there is a curious lack of discussion in the story of what really happened in Connecticut to the Democratic Party itself.
The entire situation is cast in the light of the Republican spin machine without any focus on the fact that Lieberman is considered by many a "moderate"(but rarely by Republicans who have paid attention -- Lieberman's record is strictly liberal), and that his sudden and nearly complete purge from the Democratic Party by Party bigwigs such as DNC Chairman Howard Dean and veteran Party spokesman, Ted Kennedy, was so quick as to nearly prove the GOP's contention correct that the Democratic Party is dispensing with moderate views. The MSM are furiously downplaying the fact that the Democrats are trying to rid themselves of someone who might disagree with them in some few instances even as they offered that same candidate for the second highest office in the land but a few years ago.
No, it's worse than that. They are trying to rid themselves of a candidate who disagrees with them on only ONE issue; the war in Iraq! No one in the MSM seems to feel it is an interesting story that one issue is enough to get a former Vice-Presidential candidate mercilessly dumped from his own Party.
We have repeatedly seen this story in the MSM over the last week how Republicans are spinning Joe's loss, how GOP Party machine operatives are capitalizing on that loss, and how the MSM fears that the GOP is going to make it a winning election issue. But, where are the many stories about how the Democrats really HAVE begun to look like they intend to make a lurch to the left?
Where are the grave warnings that the "moderates" are being eliminated, marginalized, and forgotten by a Party that cares only about its extreme ideology?
If the GOP had suddenly made a corresponding lurch to the right, wouldn't the MSM be wailing and gnashing their teeth over how the Republicans had forsworn the voice of the vaunted "Moderate"?
So, what we have been repeatedly treated to are stories focusing on the GOP's spinning of Lieberman's loss, but precious little analysis of just what it means to the Democrats. This softens Lieberman's loss and truly whitewashes Lamont's far left ideology, giving cover to the Democratic Party's wild lurch to the left.
But, what would we expect from the MSM, wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, George Soros, CEO?
Summertime and the politicos are prowling
- By Michael M. Bates
Presidential campaigns keep getting longer. They now begin while arguments about who in fact won the last election are still raging.
At least a dozen wannabes troll in Iowa this month. Some, such as Republicans Sam Brownback and Haley Barbour and Democrats Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack, aren't largely known. But they definitely want to be.
Others, like John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and John Kerry (I think he may have served in Vietnam) enjoy wider recognition, if not popularity.
Most of the boys make appearances at the Iowa State Fair. With more than a million fun-seekers in attendance, it's a great place for pols to demonstrate their camaraderie with the pee-pul. Pork chops on a stick are one of the culinary delights they can share with prospective constituents to show that at heart they're essentially just down home boys. .....................................
Click HERE To Read On
Presidential campaigns keep getting longer. They now begin while arguments about who in fact won the last election are still raging.
At least a dozen wannabes troll in Iowa this month. Some, such as Republicans Sam Brownback and Haley Barbour and Democrats Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack, aren't largely known. But they definitely want to be.
Others, like John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and John Kerry (I think he may have served in Vietnam) enjoy wider recognition, if not popularity.
Most of the boys make appearances at the Iowa State Fair. With more than a million fun-seekers in attendance, it's a great place for pols to demonstrate their camaraderie with the pee-pul. Pork chops on a stick are one of the culinary delights they can share with prospective constituents to show that at heart they're essentially just down home boys. .....................................
Click HERE To Read On
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Senate Bill to Create Website to Disclose Fed Funding Awards
-By Warner Todd Huston
LEGISLATION ACTION ALERT!!
Here is an interesting bill, introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R- OK), that should be encouraged to continue winding its way through the cogs of the Senate.
Senate bill - S2590
The "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006".
A creation of a searchable website, open for public use, that details a full disclosure of entities receiving Federal funding.
It has 29 co-sponsors that runs the gamut of a bipartisan effort. From John McCain and Virginia's George Allen, to Illinois's Dick Durbin and Minotiry leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, both sides are well represented.
However, I have learned that an undisclosed Senator has requested a "hold" on this bill. Here is the definition of a "hold" in Senate parlance:
Hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.
Well, that means SOME Senator is trying to stop us "little folk" in "fly over country" from being able to easily find out where our money is going!
And, in this day and age of technology, there should be no reason why we shouldn't be able to quickly and easily discover what agencies are getting milk from the government teat!
So, be sure and contact your Senator and tell him to get the hold off of this bill and get it PASSED!
LEGISLATION ACTION ALERT!!
Here is an interesting bill, introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R- OK), that should be encouraged to continue winding its way through the cogs of the Senate.
Senate bill - S2590
The "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006".
A creation of a searchable website, open for public use, that details a full disclosure of entities receiving Federal funding.
It has 29 co-sponsors that runs the gamut of a bipartisan effort. From John McCain and Virginia's George Allen, to Illinois's Dick Durbin and Minotiry leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, both sides are well represented.
However, I have learned that an undisclosed Senator has requested a "hold" on this bill. Here is the definition of a "hold" in Senate parlance:
Hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.
Well, that means SOME Senator is trying to stop us "little folk" in "fly over country" from being able to easily find out where our money is going!
And, in this day and age of technology, there should be no reason why we shouldn't be able to quickly and easily discover what agencies are getting milk from the government teat!
So, be sure and contact your Senator and tell him to get the hold off of this bill and get it PASSED!
Morning After Mania
By Nathan Tabor
Forget the threat of terrorism…the price of gas…or the struggle for families to make the monthly mortgage payments.
No, the issue on the minds of many newspaper editorial writers is whether women can get pills.
At a time when some medical experts are wondering whether our population is, in fact, over-medicated, a number of editorial boards are demanding that the so-called morning-after pill be offered over the counter to women who have regrets about their sexual encounters of the night before.
Even if you don’t buy the notion that the morning-after pill can end an innocent human life—or even if you don’t care if it does—you should at least care about what impact easy access to this post-coital pill could have on women’s health.
Any woman who has taken the traditional birth control pill knows that there are possible side effects—everything from the possibility of stroke to weight gain. The idea that it’s A-OK for women to ingest “Plan B” without ever expecting to encounter any negative health effects is ludicrous.
Planned Parenthood, the largest purveyor of abortions in America, issued a statement claiming that Plan B “holds the potential for improving women’s health if the FDA keeps its word this time” and permits over-the-counter access.
But the fact of the matter is that the morning-after pill is actually playing Russian Roulette with women’s health.
As Concerned Women for America—a group which has more female support than the radical National Organization for Women—has stated, “The prescription process protects women’s health.”
At a time when the Food and Drug Administration has been forced to re-examine the safety of the abortion pill RU-486, it seems odd to throw caution to the wind and remove some of the regulatory protections that could prevent women from being hurt by the morning-after pill.
A number of individuals have also pointed out that Plan B promotes promiscuity. Promiscuity leads to sexually-transmitted diseases which pose a serious threat to the health of young women. It is irresponsible for the leaders of the abortion lobby and the news media to promote non-prescription use of a drug that could conceivably cause our STD rates to soar.
And then there’s the key question of enforcement. You can say that the drug will only be marketed and sold to those women over age 18, but any clever teenager who knows how to lobby an older sibling or friend to buy cigarettes or booze for her will easily gain access to Plan B. And what’s to say that teen girls will not start binging on morning-after pills, once they become as common as KitKats on drug store shelves?
As Concerned Women’s Wendy Wright stated, “The person who buys the drug is not necessarily the person who will take the drug. What the FDA would have to consider is a foolproof plan to keep proxies from buying the drug and giving it to adolescents.”
And let’s be clear—those proxies could include sexual predators trying to exploit teenage girls.
And let’s be clear on another point: There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the drive for over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill are part of the abortion lobby’s propaganda campaign. The lobby knows that public support for contraception is much higher than public support of abortion—hence, its insistence on calling the morning-after pill “emergency contraception.”
But, one has to wonder—If groups such as Planned Parenthood are in the business of family planning, why would there be millions of emergencies requiring a pill to resolve? What Planned Parenthood is really promoting is irresponsibility, carelessness, and, in the end, surgical abortion.
Because, if a woman still finds herself pregnant after taking the morning-after pill, she’ll be lured into thinking that the only solution to her problem is to abort her baby the old-fashioned way.
And so the manipulation and exploitation of American women continue.
Forget the threat of terrorism…the price of gas…or the struggle for families to make the monthly mortgage payments.
No, the issue on the minds of many newspaper editorial writers is whether women can get pills.
At a time when some medical experts are wondering whether our population is, in fact, over-medicated, a number of editorial boards are demanding that the so-called morning-after pill be offered over the counter to women who have regrets about their sexual encounters of the night before.
Even if you don’t buy the notion that the morning-after pill can end an innocent human life—or even if you don’t care if it does—you should at least care about what impact easy access to this post-coital pill could have on women’s health.
Any woman who has taken the traditional birth control pill knows that there are possible side effects—everything from the possibility of stroke to weight gain. The idea that it’s A-OK for women to ingest “Plan B” without ever expecting to encounter any negative health effects is ludicrous.
Planned Parenthood, the largest purveyor of abortions in America, issued a statement claiming that Plan B “holds the potential for improving women’s health if the FDA keeps its word this time” and permits over-the-counter access.
But the fact of the matter is that the morning-after pill is actually playing Russian Roulette with women’s health.
As Concerned Women for America—a group which has more female support than the radical National Organization for Women—has stated, “The prescription process protects women’s health.”
At a time when the Food and Drug Administration has been forced to re-examine the safety of the abortion pill RU-486, it seems odd to throw caution to the wind and remove some of the regulatory protections that could prevent women from being hurt by the morning-after pill.
A number of individuals have also pointed out that Plan B promotes promiscuity. Promiscuity leads to sexually-transmitted diseases which pose a serious threat to the health of young women. It is irresponsible for the leaders of the abortion lobby and the news media to promote non-prescription use of a drug that could conceivably cause our STD rates to soar.
And then there’s the key question of enforcement. You can say that the drug will only be marketed and sold to those women over age 18, but any clever teenager who knows how to lobby an older sibling or friend to buy cigarettes or booze for her will easily gain access to Plan B. And what’s to say that teen girls will not start binging on morning-after pills, once they become as common as KitKats on drug store shelves?
As Concerned Women’s Wendy Wright stated, “The person who buys the drug is not necessarily the person who will take the drug. What the FDA would have to consider is a foolproof plan to keep proxies from buying the drug and giving it to adolescents.”
And let’s be clear—those proxies could include sexual predators trying to exploit teenage girls.
And let’s be clear on another point: There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the drive for over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill are part of the abortion lobby’s propaganda campaign. The lobby knows that public support for contraception is much higher than public support of abortion—hence, its insistence on calling the morning-after pill “emergency contraception.”
But, one has to wonder—If groups such as Planned Parenthood are in the business of family planning, why would there be millions of emergencies requiring a pill to resolve? What Planned Parenthood is really promoting is irresponsibility, carelessness, and, in the end, surgical abortion.
Because, if a woman still finds herself pregnant after taking the morning-after pill, she’ll be lured into thinking that the only solution to her problem is to abort her baby the old-fashioned way.
And so the manipulation and exploitation of American women continue.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Democracy is drowning in the US Supreme Quart
- By Vince Johnson
The traditional definition of democracy no longer applies to our present form of government. Consider the definition of "democracy" as currently stated in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
"1 a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
As any fool can plainly see, the "supreme power" in America has shifted from the people to what I refer to as the "Supreme Quart!"................
Click HERE To Read On
The traditional definition of democracy no longer applies to our present form of government. Consider the definition of "democracy" as currently stated in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
"1 a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
As any fool can plainly see, the "supreme power" in America has shifted from the people to what I refer to as the "Supreme Quart!"................
Click HERE To Read On
Thursday, August 17, 2006
LA Times - Hezbullah Propaganda In Form of Story On Funeral
-By Warner Todd Huston
After reading something like a recent story in the L.A. Times, one is struck with how little "news" or analysis is often included in the "news" paper, and how much evocative, emotive, fluff has replaced any attempt at informing the reader of what is really going on.
In the story titled, "His Heart Was Full for Lebanon and U.S.", writer ... or maybe I should say "story teller" as that seems more descriptive... Sam Quinones, gave us what amounts to a one sided, propagandistic account of the life of a man killed in Lebanon who so "loved" both the USA and Lebanon.
The subtitle pretty much tells the reader the direction of the story.
There you have it. An almost American murdered by an evil Jew bomb. A kindly fellow who just loved everyone and was needlessly killed by those militaristic Jews.
Quinones goes on quite a lot about the life of Mohamed Hammoudi who we are told "admired a lot about the United States". Of course, we aren't treated to any examples of this "admiration" just the writer's say so that it was true. Though, we do find later in the story that he enjoyed reading the works of "Bob Woodward ... and Noam Chomsky", so we can guess how much "love" he might have had from his appreciation of the works of authors commonly known to savage the US, its culture and its politics.
Certainly, it is sad when people who were not necessarily "guilty" are harmed in war. It truly is sad that kindly Mr. Hammoudi lost his life. But, there are reasons things happen and this story leaves the feeling that the Jews just started casually throwing American made bombs about the countryside indiscriminately as there is no real effort to set the attacks in context in any way.
Consequently, we are treated to the nice life of Mr. Hammoudi for many paragraphs coupled with digs at the USA and Israel all along the way.
Here are all the swipes at the US and Israel in the story...
Seems like the entire article reproduced there, doesn't it?
Well, it almost IS the whole article!
The lie that Israel "created Hezbullah" was especially egregious.
Now I will add here all the paragraphs that might be considered explicatory for the USA or Israel, sections that contain any hint of why the Israelis are doing the bombing in the first place and any support of that action.
Yep. That was it. One paragraph. 21 words in a sea of condemnation and vitriol.
Nope, what we have here is just another example of the L.A. Times supporting terrorists, making them seem softer, put-upon, and abused by those rotten Americans and Jews. Propaganda for terrorists, plain and simple.
And all that emanating from an American newspaper.
Thanks, L.A.Times, for aiding victory .... for Hezbullah.
After reading something like a recent story in the L.A. Times, one is struck with how little "news" or analysis is often included in the "news" paper, and how much evocative, emotive, fluff has replaced any attempt at informing the reader of what is really going on.
In the story titled, "His Heart Was Full for Lebanon and U.S.", writer ... or maybe I should say "story teller" as that seems more descriptive... Sam Quinones, gave us what amounts to a one sided, propagandistic account of the life of a man killed in Lebanon who so "loved" both the USA and Lebanon.
The subtitle pretty much tells the reader the direction of the story.
Mohamed Hammoudi lived in Los Angeles for years. He was enjoying his retirement in his homeland when an Israeli bomb struck.
There you have it. An almost American murdered by an evil Jew bomb. A kindly fellow who just loved everyone and was needlessly killed by those militaristic Jews.
Quinones goes on quite a lot about the life of Mohamed Hammoudi who we are told "admired a lot about the United States". Of course, we aren't treated to any examples of this "admiration" just the writer's say so that it was true. Though, we do find later in the story that he enjoyed reading the works of "Bob Woodward ... and Noam Chomsky", so we can guess how much "love" he might have had from his appreciation of the works of authors commonly known to savage the US, its culture and its politics.
Certainly, it is sad when people who were not necessarily "guilty" are harmed in war. It truly is sad that kindly Mr. Hammoudi lost his life. But, there are reasons things happen and this story leaves the feeling that the Jews just started casually throwing American made bombs about the countryside indiscriminately as there is no real effort to set the attacks in context in any way.
Consequently, we are treated to the nice life of Mr. Hammoudi for many paragraphs coupled with digs at the USA and Israel all along the way.
Here are all the swipes at the US and Israel in the story...
-He was enjoying his retirement in his homeland when an Israeli bomb struck.
-But two weeks ago, as Hammoudi sat down to a meal in the hilltop house in southern Lebanon that he had inherited after his father died, an Israeli bomb struck, destroying the stone structure and killing Hammoudi.
-"I've been crying from the first bomb landing, not only for my brother — for my whole family, for my whole country," said Hammoudi's sister Mariam
-When he died, "the United States lost more than what Lebanon lost," said Hassan Mansour, a lifelong friend who discovered Hammoudi's body.
-He was among a steady flow of Lebanese returning to vacation or live, repopulating a region largely deserted during Israel's occupation of Lebanon, which ended in 2000.
-Then both their houses were hit by Israeli bombs. No one saw Hammoudi after that.
-"After 30 years in the U.S., they sent you 'smart' bombs to get you killed," cried his sister Haniah.
-Most of Mansour's extended family has lost everything. Almost every house in Ainata is damaged, and many people are homeless.
-Perhaps the worst damage, Mansour said, has been to the esteem in which the Lebanese people held the United States.
-"People love Americans. Everybody wants to go to the United States," he said. "There is no need for this. You can easily have all these people on your side. I don't know why we have to go and make them our enemies."
-Hammoudi's family said Israel's attacks would only bolster Hezbollah, because the group — and not the U.S. or Israel — is most likely to care for those displaced by the bombing of villages such as Ainata.
-"Israel created Hezbollah," said Hammoudi's sister Mariam. "I am personally against Hezbollah. But when you have an enemy, you can create a devil to defeat the enemy."
-Meanwhile, bombs have silenced the voice of Mohamed Hammoudi.
Seems like the entire article reproduced there, doesn't it?
Well, it almost IS the whole article!
The lie that Israel "created Hezbullah" was especially egregious.
Now I will add here all the paragraphs that might be considered explicatory for the USA or Israel, sections that contain any hint of why the Israelis are doing the bombing in the first place and any support of that action.
-On July 12, Hezbollah fighters crossed into northern Israel and abducted two soldiers, sparking an Israeli bombing campaign in southern Lebanon.
Yep. That was it. One paragraph. 21 words in a sea of condemnation and vitriol.
Nope, what we have here is just another example of the L.A. Times supporting terrorists, making them seem softer, put-upon, and abused by those rotten Americans and Jews. Propaganda for terrorists, plain and simple.
And all that emanating from an American newspaper.
Thanks, L.A.Times, for aiding victory .... for Hezbullah.
One Step Closer for N. Orleans 2nd Amendment Supporters
-By Warner Todd Huston
We have a bit of good news on the 2nd Amendment front today...
This means that the city has been told that they cannot arbitrarily have dismissed a lawsuit brought against them by the National Rifle Association and the 2nd Amendment Foundation seeking to chastise the government for having confiscated guns from New Orleans' citizens in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
Because of this action some states already passed laws that would outlaw the confiscation of legal guns in time of crisis. But, this lawsuit against New Orleans is important in that it could set the precedent that it is truly illegal for a government to stormtroop across the landscape confiscating gun legally owned by 2nd Amendment abiding citizens.
But, this isn't the final battle in this. Now we can see this case proceed to the "discover phase". It could still end up a loss for Constitutional rights. But, at least it must continue and will not merely be thrown out of court.
We have a bit of good news on the 2nd Amendment front today...
"(CNSNews.com) - A federal judge on Wednesday rejected an attempt to dismiss a Second Amendment lawsuit against the City of New Orleans."
This means that the city has been told that they cannot arbitrarily have dismissed a lawsuit brought against them by the National Rifle Association and the 2nd Amendment Foundation seeking to chastise the government for having confiscated guns from New Orleans' citizens in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
"We're encouraged by this latest ruling," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "For almost a year, we've been fighting the city's delay tactics, which included outright lying by city officials that any firearms had been seized.
"Only when we threatened Mayor Nagin and Superintendent Riley with a motion for contempt did the city miraculously discover that they actually did have more than 1,000 firearms that had been taken from their owners."
Because of this action some states already passed laws that would outlaw the confiscation of legal guns in time of crisis. But, this lawsuit against New Orleans is important in that it could set the precedent that it is truly illegal for a government to stormtroop across the landscape confiscating gun legally owned by 2nd Amendment abiding citizens.
But, this isn't the final battle in this. Now we can see this case proceed to the "discover phase". It could still end up a loss for Constitutional rights. But, at least it must continue and will not merely be thrown out of court.
Publius' Forum A State of The Blog Address
Just a few words updating you all on what is going on to make your Publius' Forum experience a little better...
SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE UPGRADED
We have finally taken the step to transfer from Bloglet to Feedblitz.
This means that the subscription service has been upgraded and improved at long last. The old one, Bloglet, is no longer being supported and the new one, Feedblitz, replaces it from now on.
If you have not yet signed up to subscribe to Publius' Forum, be sure and look to the left in the side-bar, at the top of the Publius' Forum main page (and all branch pages) and you will see a fill-in field where you can add your email address. After you hit the enter this will take to to Feedblitz and they will then send you an email update every morning of the new posts on Publius' Forum.
This is a great service, it is free, and it is also free of other intrusive Spam emails. I do not make any money with this email list and it is not posted anywhere on the Web for others to see.
So, if you would like to get notices daily of our updates, be sure to sign up for our Feedblitz subscription service.
TTLB Ecosystem Improvement
If you are unfamiliar with the TTLB Ecosystem, it is a service that grades websites and awards them cute little titles depending on where they stand in their "ecosystem". They grade how many other sites link to yours and how many hits/visitors your site gets on a daily basis to award titles and levels.
The top three titles are "Higher Beings", "Mortal Humans", and "Playful Primates". to gain these titles you have to have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hits a month.
The fourth title is "Large Mammals" which means you have many thousands of hits per month and hundreds of other blogs that link to you.
I am proud to announce we have made the fourth category, "Large Mammals". This mean we rank about 750th out of all the blogs on the TTLB Ecosystem. And, I have to say that all the biggest blogs are in this Ecosystem, too. Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Andrew Sullivan and DailyKos as well as Powerline, Captain's Quarters, The Huffington Post and a host of other big name blogs belong to the TLB ecosystem.
That's right folks. Little old Publius' Forum is in the top 1,000 of the biggest blogs on the Internet!!
This is ALL due to your continued coming back. So, tell all your friends and make them come and visit us, too! I say, hold their arms behind their backs until they do. Hold your breath... SOMETHING.
Let's get Publius' Forum into one of the top three brackets in the TTLB Ecosystem!
Contributors holding Steady!
I'd like to thank our contributors who have been kind enough to make our blog an important part of their publishing outlets. We have been fortunate to have as regular and continuing Op Ed writers the following excellent writers (in alphabetical order):
Michael Bates
Chuck Busch
Justin Darr
R. A. Hawkins
Vince Johnson
Resa "Warchick" Kirkland
Frederick Meekins
Nathan Tabor
Eric Reikowski
Gregory Stewart
Thanks to these folks for enlivening our Publius' Forum Experience.
And, thanks to all our Publius' Readers. This site has grown by leaps and bounds thanks to your continued patronage.
Lastly ... the wind up... and the PITCH....
Remember, you may donate funds to keep the lights on here by clicking the DONATE banner at the top of the blog. This site is not paid for by advertising so that it does not intrude on your time here. We'd like to keep it that way, too.
Now, I said I'd make only a few words and you ALL know that is impossible for me. But, I shall leave you here, none-the-less.
Yours, Warner Todd Huston
Proprietor, Publius' Forum
A Second Look at the War on Terror
By Nathan Tabor
It was the headline seen on websites around the world—“Airlines Terror Plot Disrupted.”
Westerners awakened on August 10th to the news that a terrorist plot of possibly unprecedented proportions had been planned for planes from the U.K. heading to the U.S. Scotland Yard reported that the diabolical plan called for “mass murder on an unimaginable scale.”
Ironic, considering the fact that filmmaker Oliver Stone’s patriotic masterpiece on the World Trade Center attacks is just hitting theaters now.
In light of all this, one has to wonder: What are those Americans who respond to national public opinion polls thinking?
Consistently, poll respondents have been giving low marks to President George W. Bush, disapproving of the way he handles his job. But do these people ever really ponder what the top White House job entails in the era of Al Quaida?
There was a time when the biggest threat to the U.S. was the U.S.S.R. The specter of nuclear annihilation by the ruthless Communist regime sent American schoolchildren scurrying under their desks for duck-and-cover drills. Yet, it was a containable threat. Communism self-destructed, and the Soviet Union crumbled. President Ronald Reagan was understandably heralded as the forward-thinking leader who helped to bring down the Berlin Wall.
Yet, looking back, it seems that the days of the Cold War were a simpler time for a Commander-in-Chief. Today, the President must deal with a largely unseen enemy with no national boundaries. The soldiers of terrorism move stealthily across international borders, determined to kill massive numbers of Westerners. They try to strike innocent civilians where they feel most vulnerable—in the skies. Their vicious campaign is designed to send Westerners into retreat—to curtail their natural desire to reach across national boundaries…to explore distant lands…and to promote democracy around the world.
It is easy from the comfort of our cubicles to criticize President Bush. We think that there might be new strategies—or a new leader—who could dismantle the terrorist network once and for all. Pundits shine a spotlight on any Presidential misstep, broadcasting unfavorable poll results with venom. Late-night comedians entertain their audiences with the President’s latest peculiar facial expression or verbal gaffe.
And yet, as we go about our daily lives, it’s so easy to forget the fear that gripped the U.S. on September 11th, when the unthinkable happened. It is so easy to slip into complacency with our remote control in one hand and our frappucino in another. Many of us have been lulled into thinking that the War on Terror is a thing of the past.
Then we hear news of another terrorist plot being foiled, and we remember the anxiety which accompanied the demise of the World Trade Center. When those memories flood our minds, it’s important to recognize one indisputable fact: under Bush’s watch, there has been no repeat of September 11th. In fact, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil—or in the skies above—have been consistently prevented.
You may not agree with the President on Social Security, the oil crisis, or tax cuts. But there can be no disputing the fact that this Commander-in-Chief has kept us safe under the most trying of circumstances, against an enemy even more formidable than the one that President Reagan stared down.
President Bush has kept a cool head in the conflagration of international politics and appears to be resolved to fight terrorism with all the resources at his disposal. With a President Kerry or President Gore at the helm, would you and your family really feel any safer?
In the end, Bush may be remembered as the President who faced terrorism—and didn’t blink.
It was the headline seen on websites around the world—“Airlines Terror Plot Disrupted.”
Westerners awakened on August 10th to the news that a terrorist plot of possibly unprecedented proportions had been planned for planes from the U.K. heading to the U.S. Scotland Yard reported that the diabolical plan called for “mass murder on an unimaginable scale.”
Ironic, considering the fact that filmmaker Oliver Stone’s patriotic masterpiece on the World Trade Center attacks is just hitting theaters now.
In light of all this, one has to wonder: What are those Americans who respond to national public opinion polls thinking?
Consistently, poll respondents have been giving low marks to President George W. Bush, disapproving of the way he handles his job. But do these people ever really ponder what the top White House job entails in the era of Al Quaida?
There was a time when the biggest threat to the U.S. was the U.S.S.R. The specter of nuclear annihilation by the ruthless Communist regime sent American schoolchildren scurrying under their desks for duck-and-cover drills. Yet, it was a containable threat. Communism self-destructed, and the Soviet Union crumbled. President Ronald Reagan was understandably heralded as the forward-thinking leader who helped to bring down the Berlin Wall.
Yet, looking back, it seems that the days of the Cold War were a simpler time for a Commander-in-Chief. Today, the President must deal with a largely unseen enemy with no national boundaries. The soldiers of terrorism move stealthily across international borders, determined to kill massive numbers of Westerners. They try to strike innocent civilians where they feel most vulnerable—in the skies. Their vicious campaign is designed to send Westerners into retreat—to curtail their natural desire to reach across national boundaries…to explore distant lands…and to promote democracy around the world.
It is easy from the comfort of our cubicles to criticize President Bush. We think that there might be new strategies—or a new leader—who could dismantle the terrorist network once and for all. Pundits shine a spotlight on any Presidential misstep, broadcasting unfavorable poll results with venom. Late-night comedians entertain their audiences with the President’s latest peculiar facial expression or verbal gaffe.
And yet, as we go about our daily lives, it’s so easy to forget the fear that gripped the U.S. on September 11th, when the unthinkable happened. It is so easy to slip into complacency with our remote control in one hand and our frappucino in another. Many of us have been lulled into thinking that the War on Terror is a thing of the past.
Then we hear news of another terrorist plot being foiled, and we remember the anxiety which accompanied the demise of the World Trade Center. When those memories flood our minds, it’s important to recognize one indisputable fact: under Bush’s watch, there has been no repeat of September 11th. In fact, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil—or in the skies above—have been consistently prevented.
You may not agree with the President on Social Security, the oil crisis, or tax cuts. But there can be no disputing the fact that this Commander-in-Chief has kept us safe under the most trying of circumstances, against an enemy even more formidable than the one that President Reagan stared down.
President Bush has kept a cool head in the conflagration of international politics and appears to be resolved to fight terrorism with all the resources at his disposal. With a President Kerry or President Gore at the helm, would you and your family really feel any safer?
In the end, Bush may be remembered as the President who faced terrorism—and didn’t blink.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
US Army Recruiters' 'Misconduct' Over Reported By Media
-By Warner Todd Huston
It is all too common that the media publishes stories that denigrate the US military and this report will explore a classic MSM mistreatment of the US military. That it comes in the midst of war is distressing, but not unexpected from them, unfortunately.
The AP (it sure seems that they are more busy spinning than reporting stories these days, doesn't it?) has posted a story that The New York Times placed on their news feed today about how Military recruiters have "increasingly resorted to overly aggressive tactics" to get new recruits.
But, there is so much overblown rhetoric about the statistics and what they mean in the story that it obscures the fact that there really aren't that many abuses statistically. Certainly one abuse is too much (perfunctory exclamation over), but the tenor of the AP story is that there is some catastrophic rise in such abuse. The numbers, however, say differently, despite the overblown rhetoric.
Here are the first few paragraphs of the AP story:
Wow. Sure seems that we are on the verge of a crisis, eh?
But, there's more controversy-mongering to come
Seems like some kind of monstrous rise in abuse they way it is written. And the AP isn't the only one. This story hit the wires all over the place over night on the 15th of August and they all similarly overplay the alarmism.
But let us look at the stark numbers, numbers you don't find out until farther down in the story -- and then you have to put them together yourself, as the story does not present them clearly.
So here are the facts:
80,000 applicants were brought into the armed forces in 2005.
630 cases of recruiter abuse were reported.
Yes, you saw that correctly. That's 630 out of EIGHTY THOUSAND. A result of .7% of the recruits reported abuse somehow done them by recruiters.
Even closer to the point, there are 22,000 recruiters in the service according to the report. That means that less than 3% of those recruiters were involved in these cases.
Remember, "abuse" covers the whole range of human interaction, too. So, we are saying that recruiters only have a criminal or "mean spirited" element amongst them that caused abuse in less than 1% of their product! I'd hazard to say, that this is a pretty low number of ner-do-wells in the ranks of recruiters for our armed forces, wouldn't you? I wonder how that tracks with the amount of law breaking in the general public?
Suddenly it doesn't seem so horrific, does it?
But, it gets even muddier. Notice how the AP report claimed that the GAO said that "Military recruiters have increasingly resorted to overly aggressive tactics and even criminal activity to attract young troops to the battlefield, congressional investigators say."?
Here is what the GAO report REALLY said:
(bolded type mine)
The original "reportedly" became "increasingly" in the AP report. So, the GAO finds a small rise in these instances of some abuse in a time of war, in a time of increased pressures on recruiters, abuse that equals less than 1% of the total recruitment cases and it's some sort of calamity? Reading the alarmist rhetoric one would imagine that large numbers of recruits were abused and that this number is somehow exploding on an upward climb!
Naturally, we are also treated to a Democrat's blasting of the military for good measure, but no quotes of any real support of our folks in uniform.
Of COURSE Petey said that! It gives our military -- and by extension the Bush Administration -- a black eye.
You'll search in vain for any support of the military in the piece, of course.
Sadly, this story gives us just another example of the MSM doing anything to beat our government and troops down!
It is all too common that the media publishes stories that denigrate the US military and this report will explore a classic MSM mistreatment of the US military. That it comes in the midst of war is distressing, but not unexpected from them, unfortunately.
The AP (it sure seems that they are more busy spinning than reporting stories these days, doesn't it?) has posted a story that The New York Times placed on their news feed today about how Military recruiters have "increasingly resorted to overly aggressive tactics" to get new recruits.
But, there is so much overblown rhetoric about the statistics and what they mean in the story that it obscures the fact that there really aren't that many abuses statistically. Certainly one abuse is too much (perfunctory exclamation over), but the tenor of the AP story is that there is some catastrophic rise in such abuse. The numbers, however, say differently, despite the overblown rhetoric.
Here are the first few paragraphs of the AP story:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Military recruiters have increasingly resorted to overly aggressive tactics and even criminal activity to attract young troops to the battlefield, congressional investigators say.
Grueling combat conditions in Iraq, a decent commercial job market and tough monthly recruiting goals have made recruiters' jobs more difficult, the Government Accountability Office said Monday. This has probably prompted more recruiters to resort to strong-arm tactics, including harassment or criminal means such as falsifying documents, to satisfy demands, GAO states.
The report was done at the behest of lawmakers who were concerned that not enough was being done to curb aggressive recruitment practices."
Wow. Sure seems that we are on the verge of a crisis, eh?
But, there's more controversy-mongering to come
"According to service data provided to the GAO, substantiated cases of wrongdoing jumped by more than a third, from about 400 cases in 2004 to almost 630 in 2005. Meanwhile, criminal cases -- such as sexual harassment or falsifying medical records -- more than doubled in those years, jumping from 30 incidents to 70."
Seems like some kind of monstrous rise in abuse they way it is written. And the AP isn't the only one. This story hit the wires all over the place over night on the 15th of August and they all similarly overplay the alarmism.
But let us look at the stark numbers, numbers you don't find out until farther down in the story -- and then you have to put them together yourself, as the story does not present them clearly.
So here are the facts:
80,000 applicants were brought into the armed forces in 2005.
630 cases of recruiter abuse were reported.
Yes, you saw that correctly. That's 630 out of EIGHTY THOUSAND. A result of .7% of the recruits reported abuse somehow done them by recruiters.
Even closer to the point, there are 22,000 recruiters in the service according to the report. That means that less than 3% of those recruiters were involved in these cases.
Remember, "abuse" covers the whole range of human interaction, too. So, we are saying that recruiters only have a criminal or "mean spirited" element amongst them that caused abuse in less than 1% of their product! I'd hazard to say, that this is a pretty low number of ner-do-wells in the ranks of recruiters for our armed forces, wouldn't you? I wonder how that tracks with the amount of law breaking in the general public?
Suddenly it doesn't seem so horrific, does it?
But, it gets even muddier. Notice how the AP report claimed that the GAO said that "Military recruiters have increasingly resorted to overly aggressive tactics and even criminal activity to attract young troops to the battlefield, congressional investigators say."?
Here is what the GAO report REALLY said:
"Determined to find ways to succeed in a challenging recruiting environment, some recruiters, reportedly, have resorted to overly aggressive tactics, such as coercion and harassment."
(bolded type mine)
The original "reportedly" became "increasingly" in the AP report. So, the GAO finds a small rise in these instances of some abuse in a time of war, in a time of increased pressures on recruiters, abuse that equals less than 1% of the total recruitment cases and it's some sort of calamity? Reading the alarmist rhetoric one would imagine that large numbers of recruits were abused and that this number is somehow exploding on an upward climb!
Naturally, we are also treated to a Democrat's blasting of the military for good measure, but no quotes of any real support of our folks in uniform.
''America deserves better than a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for military recruiting violations,'' said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif.
Of COURSE Petey said that! It gives our military -- and by extension the Bush Administration -- a black eye.
You'll search in vain for any support of the military in the piece, of course.
Sadly, this story gives us just another example of the MSM doing anything to beat our government and troops down!
Bill Clinton Republicans
- By Rudy Takala
There are few desirable candidates seeking political offices this year, something we can attribute to the fact that monarchs within the party establishments chose who would be allowed to run in most elections. Our plight is hardly worth expounding on. As we peer into the future, however, we should realize that even worse candidates will be upon us in 2008.
Republicans appear hell bent on emulating every Democratic president the nation has had since 1940. The current president has managed to outspend LBJ, but he hasn't managed to act as a flamboyant moral degenerate. This is a flaw that some Republicans will attempt to rectify in the next election. Generally all of the names we see mentioned as potential candidates for president will disturb any person who is reasonably informed. However, I continue to see one name floated about that I find particularly atrocious.............
Click HERE To Read On
There are few desirable candidates seeking political offices this year, something we can attribute to the fact that monarchs within the party establishments chose who would be allowed to run in most elections. Our plight is hardly worth expounding on. As we peer into the future, however, we should realize that even worse candidates will be upon us in 2008.
Republicans appear hell bent on emulating every Democratic president the nation has had since 1940. The current president has managed to outspend LBJ, but he hasn't managed to act as a flamboyant moral degenerate. This is a flaw that some Republicans will attempt to rectify in the next election. Generally all of the names we see mentioned as potential candidates for president will disturb any person who is reasonably informed. However, I continue to see one name floated about that I find particularly atrocious.............
Click HERE To Read On
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?
From the PatriotPost.com
Thought I'd post an email I got from the Patriot Post. I don't usually post things like this, but this one is too good to pass up. I think the point is EXCELLENT and should be heard by all Americans...
To ensure we Americans never offend anyone -- particularly
fanatics intent on killing us -- law enforcement and security
screeners are not allowed to "profile" people in public places or
security checkpoints. However, they will continue to perform
random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots
with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members
of the President's security detail, 85-year-old congressmen with
metal hips and even Medal of Honor recipients. But targeting
Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40
constitutes "ethnic profiling."
Let's pause a moment and review....
In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: (a) A salesman from
Utah (b) An construction worker (c) A college student on Spring
Break (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.
In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the Munich Olympics
by: (a) Your grandmother (b) A Midwest auto-parts dealer (c) A
mom and her 6-year-old son visiting from Indiana (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by: (a) A
bluegrass band (b) Dallas Cowboy fans (c) A tour group of
80-year-old women (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the
ages of 17 and 40.
During the 1980's numerous Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon
by: (a) A family on their way to Disney World (b) Jesse Ventura
(c) A Boy Scout Troop (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between
the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: (a)
A pizza delivery boy (b) The UPS guy (c) Geraldo Rivera making up
for a slow news day (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the
ages of 17 and 40.
In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a
70-year-old disabled American passenger was murdered and thrown
overboard by: (a) A girls' choir (b) A hardware store owner (c) A
secretary (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of
17 and 40.
In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy
diver was murdered by: (a) A Marine officer with two weeks leave
(b) A plumber going to visit his mom (c) A Catholic nun (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: (a) A college-bound
freshman (b) A cardiac surgeon on his way to Houston (c) A
waitress (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.
In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by: (a) A starving
actress (b) A mom with a newborn (c) Twin six-year-old boys (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1995, a plot to blow up U.S.-bound international flights over
the Pacific was attempted by (a) Hawaiian school kids (b) An
decorated Vietnam Veteran (c) Twin sisters on their way to
Paducah (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.
In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) A local TV weatherman (b) A dad and his two sons on a ski
trip (c) A widower going to visit his grandchildren (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2000, 17 sailors died in an attack on the USS Cole (DDG 67) in
Yemen by: (a) A child in a stroller (b) A high school class on
their way to visit Washington, DC (c) Newlyweds on their way to
Miami (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.
On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked -- two flown into the
World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon and one into the
ground in rural Pennsylvania. They were hijacked by: (a) A
retired police officer on a mission trip to Haiti (b) A
firefighter going to Maryland for training (c) An paramedic on
his way to vacation in Hawaii (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males
between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2002 the United States liberated Afghanistan from: (a) USAID
relief workers (b) Jewish Pilgrims (c) Christian missionaries (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl and other Westerners were kidnapped
and beheaded by: (a) The Peace Corp (b) Scottish clansmen (c)
Cuban refugees (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.
In 2002, more than 330 hostages in Beslan and 130 hostages in
Moscow were murdered in sieges by: (a) Russian exchange students
(b) The Red Guard (c) Church planters (d) Middle Eastern Islamist
males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2003 the United States liberated Iraq from "The Butcher of
Baghdad," but most American military personnel were killed by:
(a) Iraqi school-girls (b) Street vegetable venders (c) Women
without burkas (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.
In 2004, more than 200 Spanish civilians were murdered on trains
by bombs in Madrid, detonated by: (a) Morning commuters (b) A
three-year-old Chinese girl (c) Flamenco dancers (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2005 more than 50 UK citizens were killed by bombs on trains
in London, detonated by: (a) Rail workers (b) Those unable to
hail taxis (c) Wheelchair-bound grandmothers (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2005, there were hundreds of casualties, men, women and
children, killed by bombs in Jerusalem, Riyadh and Amman. These
innocent civilians were murdered by: (a) Construction workers (b)
Farmers (c) Christian missionaries (d) Middle Eastern Islamist
males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2005, the city of Paris, and other European cities experienced
an extended period of riots and destruction. The unrest was led
by: (a) "Youth" (b) Soccer fans (c) Catholic nuns (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 2,500
Americans have been murdered by terrorists. 35,000 Iraqi men,
women and children have also been murdered by terrorists. Most of
the combat and civilians casualties were the result of bombs
detonated in civilian population centers by: (a) Fruit vendors in
Baghdad (b) Disgruntled transit union workers (c) Iraqi
schoolteachers (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.
In 2006, hundreds of Israeli civilians have been killed by
rockets launched by: (a) the Salvation Army (b) remnants of the
'Jackson Five' (c) the cast of 'Friends' (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2006, a plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound planes from the U.K. was
attempted by (a) members of the royal family (b) Japanese
tourists (c) groupies of the band 'Cream' (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
Since 2001, the FBI reports that there are major terrorist cells
still in U.S. urban centers. Several of these cells have been
uncovered and cell members arrested. In every case, the
terrorists cell members were: (a) Southern Baptists
Conventioneers (b) Lutheran Youth Groups (c) Presbyterian Elders
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
President George Bush said this week, "America is at war with
Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us
who love freedom, to hurt our nation." The Council on
American-Islamic Relations issued an immediate objection to the
President's reference to "Islamic fascists". Nihad Awad,
executive director of CAIR protested, "We have to isolate these
individuals because there is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic
faith that encourages people to be cruel or to be vicious or to
be criminal. Muslims world wide know that for sure." In light of
this objection, we are left to ponder why every Islamic leader in
the U.S., and the world, does not publicly condemn every terror
action being undertaken in the name of the god of Islam. Their
silence is deafening...
Between 1970 and present, there were more than 60 other notable
examples of terrorism perpetrated by Middle Eastern male
Islamists between the ages 17 and 40, but we think you get the
point. Singling out "Middle Eastern male Islamists between the
ages 17 and 40" is not "ethnic profiling," it's "terrorist
profiling" -- acting on prolific evidence.
Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?
Thought I'd post an email I got from the Patriot Post. I don't usually post things like this, but this one is too good to pass up. I think the point is EXCELLENT and should be heard by all Americans...
To ensure we Americans never offend anyone -- particularly
fanatics intent on killing us -- law enforcement and security
screeners are not allowed to "profile" people in public places or
security checkpoints. However, they will continue to perform
random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots
with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members
of the President's security detail, 85-year-old congressmen with
metal hips and even Medal of Honor recipients. But targeting
Middle Eastern male Islamists between the ages 17 and 40
constitutes "ethnic profiling."
Let's pause a moment and review....
In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: (a) A salesman from
Utah (b) An construction worker (c) A college student on Spring
Break (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.
In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the Munich Olympics
by: (a) Your grandmother (b) A Midwest auto-parts dealer (c) A
mom and her 6-year-old son visiting from Indiana (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by: (a) A
bluegrass band (b) Dallas Cowboy fans (c) A tour group of
80-year-old women (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the
ages of 17 and 40.
During the 1980's numerous Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon
by: (a) A family on their way to Disney World (b) Jesse Ventura
(c) A Boy Scout Troop (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between
the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: (a)
A pizza delivery boy (b) The UPS guy (c) Geraldo Rivera making up
for a slow news day (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the
ages of 17 and 40.
In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a
70-year-old disabled American passenger was murdered and thrown
overboard by: (a) A girls' choir (b) A hardware store owner (c) A
secretary (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of
17 and 40.
In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy
diver was murdered by: (a) A Marine officer with two weeks leave
(b) A plumber going to visit his mom (c) A Catholic nun (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: (a) A college-bound
freshman (b) A cardiac surgeon on his way to Houston (c) A
waitress (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.
In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by: (a) A starving
actress (b) A mom with a newborn (c) Twin six-year-old boys (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1995, a plot to blow up U.S.-bound international flights over
the Pacific was attempted by (a) Hawaiian school kids (b) An
decorated Vietnam Veteran (c) Twin sisters on their way to
Paducah (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.
In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) A local TV weatherman (b) A dad and his two sons on a ski
trip (c) A widower going to visit his grandchildren (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2000, 17 sailors died in an attack on the USS Cole (DDG 67) in
Yemen by: (a) A child in a stroller (b) A high school class on
their way to visit Washington, DC (c) Newlyweds on their way to
Miami (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17
and 40.
On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked -- two flown into the
World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon and one into the
ground in rural Pennsylvania. They were hijacked by: (a) A
retired police officer on a mission trip to Haiti (b) A
firefighter going to Maryland for training (c) An paramedic on
his way to vacation in Hawaii (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males
between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2002 the United States liberated Afghanistan from: (a) USAID
relief workers (b) Jewish Pilgrims (c) Christian missionaries (d)
Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl and other Westerners were kidnapped
and beheaded by: (a) The Peace Corp (b) Scottish clansmen (c)
Cuban refugees (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.
In 2002, more than 330 hostages in Beslan and 130 hostages in
Moscow were murdered in sieges by: (a) Russian exchange students
(b) The Red Guard (c) Church planters (d) Middle Eastern Islamist
males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2003 the United States liberated Iraq from "The Butcher of
Baghdad," but most American military personnel were killed by:
(a) Iraqi school-girls (b) Street vegetable venders (c) Women
without burkas (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.
In 2004, more than 200 Spanish civilians were murdered on trains
by bombs in Madrid, detonated by: (a) Morning commuters (b) A
three-year-old Chinese girl (c) Flamenco dancers (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2005 more than 50 UK citizens were killed by bombs on trains
in London, detonated by: (a) Rail workers (b) Those unable to
hail taxis (c) Wheelchair-bound grandmothers (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2005, there were hundreds of casualties, men, women and
children, killed by bombs in Jerusalem, Riyadh and Amman. These
innocent civilians were murdered by: (a) Construction workers (b)
Farmers (c) Christian missionaries (d) Middle Eastern Islamist
males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2005, the city of Paris, and other European cities experienced
an extended period of riots and destruction. The unrest was led
by: (a) "Youth" (b) Soccer fans (c) Catholic nuns (d) Middle
Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 2,500
Americans have been murdered by terrorists. 35,000 Iraqi men,
women and children have also been murdered by terrorists. Most of
the combat and civilians casualties were the result of bombs
detonated in civilian population centers by: (a) Fruit vendors in
Baghdad (b) Disgruntled transit union workers (c) Iraqi
schoolteachers (d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages
of 17 and 40.
In 2006, hundreds of Israeli civilians have been killed by
rockets launched by: (a) the Salvation Army (b) remnants of the
'Jackson Five' (c) the cast of 'Friends' (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 2006, a plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound planes from the U.K. was
attempted by (a) members of the royal family (b) Japanese
tourists (c) groupies of the band 'Cream' (d) Middle Eastern
Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
Since 2001, the FBI reports that there are major terrorist cells
still in U.S. urban centers. Several of these cells have been
uncovered and cell members arrested. In every case, the
terrorists cell members were: (a) Southern Baptists
Conventioneers (b) Lutheran Youth Groups (c) Presbyterian Elders
(d) Middle Eastern Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40.
President George Bush said this week, "America is at war with
Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us
who love freedom, to hurt our nation." The Council on
American-Islamic Relations issued an immediate objection to the
President's reference to "Islamic fascists". Nihad Awad,
executive director of CAIR protested, "We have to isolate these
individuals because there is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic
faith that encourages people to be cruel or to be vicious or to
be criminal. Muslims world wide know that for sure." In light of
this objection, we are left to ponder why every Islamic leader in
the U.S., and the world, does not publicly condemn every terror
action being undertaken in the name of the god of Islam. Their
silence is deafening...
Between 1970 and present, there were more than 60 other notable
examples of terrorism perpetrated by Middle Eastern male
Islamists between the ages 17 and 40, but we think you get the
point. Singling out "Middle Eastern male Islamists between the
ages 17 and 40" is not "ethnic profiling," it's "terrorist
profiling" -- acting on prolific evidence.
Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?
If Israel Agress, They Lose - Hizbullah Wins
-By Warner Todd Huston
If Israel agrees to the fetid UN's cease fire without making sure the complicit Lebanese actually ABIDE by that resolution, if Israel stops their actions BEFORE this is determined, then Israel has won the battle and not the war.
As the UN dithers and puffs themselves up as the saviors of "peace", the Lebanese government is negotiating a deal with Hizbullah that would allow them to be materially untouched and makes the ceasefire cost them nothing what-so-ever.
This from Haaretz.com...
Israel will fall back leaving Hizbullah in control of the area they had before, fully armed, still an accepted part of the Lebanese government and not forced to pay any price past the destruction wrought upon them already by the Israelis.
Meanwhile, Israel's government under Olmert will be disgraced, voted out of office and made to pay the ultimate price politically.
Hizbullah wins. Or, at least they get a reprieve and the time they need to fall back, lick their wounds and reform with no check on their activities.
This is a blow AGAINST the war against Islamofascism. Folks we are LOSING this war in the west and allowing Nazis hiding in Mosques to win.
If Israel agrees to the fetid UN's cease fire without making sure the complicit Lebanese actually ABIDE by that resolution, if Israel stops their actions BEFORE this is determined, then Israel has won the battle and not the war.
As the UN dithers and puffs themselves up as the saviors of "peace", the Lebanese government is negotiating a deal with Hizbullah that would allow them to be materially untouched and makes the ceasefire cost them nothing what-so-ever.
This from Haaretz.com...
Compromise would allow Hezbollah to keep guns
A compromise agreement now being hammered out between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government would allow the Shi'ite guerillas to keep hidden weapons in south Lebanon, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported on Tuesday.
While Hezbollah would need to keep the weapons it possesses south of the Litani River hidden, an agreement for areas north of the river would be "left to a long term solution," the paper reported.
If the proposed compromise is accepted Tuesday by the Lebanese government, it would violate the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 ending the war in Lebanon. The resolution rules that the Lebanese army and UNIFIL may be the only armed forces in the territory between the Litani River south to the Israeli border.
This compromise is also a violation of the "one weapon" principle that appears in Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's Seven Points Plan.
Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad said Tuesday that the region had changed "because of the achievements of the resistance [Hezbollah]."
Israel will fall back leaving Hizbullah in control of the area they had before, fully armed, still an accepted part of the Lebanese government and not forced to pay any price past the destruction wrought upon them already by the Israelis.
Meanwhile, Israel's government under Olmert will be disgraced, voted out of office and made to pay the ultimate price politically.
Hizbullah wins. Or, at least they get a reprieve and the time they need to fall back, lick their wounds and reform with no check on their activities.
This is a blow AGAINST the war against Islamofascism. Folks we are LOSING this war in the west and allowing Nazis hiding in Mosques to win.
CNN- GOP to 'Use Terrorism' to 'Win -- Again?'
-By Warner Todd Huston
Well, we have the MSM's drum beat slogan firmly established. It is increasingly being used time and again since the British uncovered their terror plot last week. Republicans are merely "using" this whole terror thing as a tactic to get votes.
It couldn't be that we REALLY face terrorism, that is is something to be worried about and discussed seriously, right?
Nah, it must just be a dirty GOP trick!
Today, CNN has posted a story from their senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, titled "Can the GOP use the terrorism issue to win -- again?, Suspected plot to blow up airliners puts issue front and center."
Um, no, your blather puts the "issue front and center", Mr. Schneider!
In fact, he immediately phrases with a negative connotation the possible impact on American politics of this British plot. The very first lines of his story calls an American reaction to what the Brits discovered as "political fallout". The word "fallout" is a negative terminology meaning upheaval and harkens back to the worrisome days of Mutually Assured Destruction and world wide nuclear war and the radiation fallout that would follow. It just isn't usually used positively, as in good "fallout".
So, according to Mr. Schneider, all this terrorism stuff must just be a political tactic, not a REAL and JUSTIFIED reaction to being repeatedly attacked by Islamofascist terrorists? And those stupid Americans who "become fearful" are just dupes to superior GOP propaganda?
After discussing various quotes by several Administration officials, Schneider wonders aloud "Will the issue work for Republicans this year?"
As the media and the Democrats continue to view terrorism as a mere tactic for vote getting, and continue to scoff at Republicans for their worries, it is no wonder that we look like the proverbial "weak horse" to those such as Osamma bin Laden who imagine we haven't the will to fight them.
After all, if a politician cannot even discuss the issue seriously without it imagined to be a mere political tactic, a virtual propagandistic ploy, how can anyone take them seriously when solutions are called for?
But, perhaps we get to Mr. Schneider's true worry a little farther down in the story? That this British plot announcement will upset the apple cart of the "anti-incumbent feeling" that he had hoped would clean Republicans from power.
So, as it turns out, the thought that the GOP is just using terrorism as a tactic might just work. And that is what Mr. Schneider is all worried about. That the throw-them-all-out sentiment might be scaled back and the GOP might retain power.
Regardless, it is the height of cynicism to assume that if a candidate focuses on security and winning the war against Islamofascist terror it is only evidence of a mere vote getting tactic and not a serious and responsible area of concern for that candidate or government official to discuss.
The MSM to the rescue once again, letting us all know to avoid that nasty GOP's propaganda, I guess?
Well, we have the MSM's drum beat slogan firmly established. It is increasingly being used time and again since the British uncovered their terror plot last week. Republicans are merely "using" this whole terror thing as a tactic to get votes.
It couldn't be that we REALLY face terrorism, that is is something to be worried about and discussed seriously, right?
Nah, it must just be a dirty GOP trick!
Today, CNN has posted a story from their senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, titled "Can the GOP use the terrorism issue to win -- again?, Suspected plot to blow up airliners puts issue front and center."
Um, no, your blather puts the "issue front and center", Mr. Schneider!
In fact, he immediately phrases with a negative connotation the possible impact on American politics of this British plot. The very first lines of his story calls an American reaction to what the Brits discovered as "political fallout". The word "fallout" is a negative terminology meaning upheaval and harkens back to the worrisome days of Mutually Assured Destruction and world wide nuclear war and the radiation fallout that would follow. It just isn't usually used positively, as in good "fallout".
"Could there be political fallout in the United States from the terror arrests in Britain?
Typically, when Americans become fearful their support for the president tends to go up. President Bush and the Republican Party used the security issue to their advantage in the previous two elections, when they portrayed Democrats as weak and vacillating. Republicans give every indication that they intend to run on the security issue again in 2006."
So, according to Mr. Schneider, all this terrorism stuff must just be a political tactic, not a REAL and JUSTIFIED reaction to being repeatedly attacked by Islamofascist terrorists? And those stupid Americans who "become fearful" are just dupes to superior GOP propaganda?
After discussing various quotes by several Administration officials, Schneider wonders aloud "Will the issue work for Republicans this year?"
As the media and the Democrats continue to view terrorism as a mere tactic for vote getting, and continue to scoff at Republicans for their worries, it is no wonder that we look like the proverbial "weak horse" to those such as Osamma bin Laden who imagine we haven't the will to fight them.
After all, if a politician cannot even discuss the issue seriously without it imagined to be a mere political tactic, a virtual propagandistic ploy, how can anyone take them seriously when solutions are called for?
But, perhaps we get to Mr. Schneider's true worry a little farther down in the story? That this British plot announcement will upset the apple cart of the "anti-incumbent feeling" that he had hoped would clean Republicans from power.
"But concern about terrorism threats could blunt that anti-incumbent mood and lead voters to place more value on experience. If news of the suspected plot had come out only a few days earlier, it might have helped Lieberman."
So, as it turns out, the thought that the GOP is just using terrorism as a tactic might just work. And that is what Mr. Schneider is all worried about. That the throw-them-all-out sentiment might be scaled back and the GOP might retain power.
Regardless, it is the height of cynicism to assume that if a candidate focuses on security and winning the war against Islamofascist terror it is only evidence of a mere vote getting tactic and not a serious and responsible area of concern for that candidate or government official to discuss.
The MSM to the rescue once again, letting us all know to avoid that nasty GOP's propaganda, I guess?
A Review Of Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
- By Frederick Meekins
Over the course of the modern era, whether fairly or not, orthodoxy has come to be associated with glumness and austerity. Thus, those coming across Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton might assume they are in for a dull and obtuse recitation of doctrine and dogma. They will, however, be delightfully surprised by Chesterton's wit, feistiness, and zest for life.
It is Chesterton's contention that, rather than stifling the individual, it is through orthodoxy that man is liberated to both accept and embrace the contradictions of this life for what they really are in all their wonder and horror. It is the heretic that is unable to rise to a level that would give him a perspective that would enable him to appreciate things as they actually are since the heretic is ultimately beholden unto these very forces of life. Chesterton muses, "Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true (22)."..........................
Click HERE To Read On
Over the course of the modern era, whether fairly or not, orthodoxy has come to be associated with glumness and austerity. Thus, those coming across Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton might assume they are in for a dull and obtuse recitation of doctrine and dogma. They will, however, be delightfully surprised by Chesterton's wit, feistiness, and zest for life.
It is Chesterton's contention that, rather than stifling the individual, it is through orthodoxy that man is liberated to both accept and embrace the contradictions of this life for what they really are in all their wonder and horror. It is the heretic that is unable to rise to a level that would give him a perspective that would enable him to appreciate things as they actually are since the heretic is ultimately beholden unto these very forces of life. Chesterton muses, "Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true (22)."..........................
Click HERE To Read On
Monday, August 14, 2006
Europe's Continued Moral Confusion
-By Warner Todd Huston
Post modernism has a such a death grip on Europe that it has opened the door for Islamofascism to take root in its ancient soils, to grow becoming one of Europe's most immanent internal threats raising the level of fear in the lives of Europe's most vulnerable minority; Jews.
For far too many in Europe, an everything-is-relative Chamberlainism has resurfaced as a virtue, moral turpitude acceptable, and any certitude of a moral code is to be shunned as somehow unseemly. Making a judgment is not PC enough … of course that depends on what that judgment is lodged against.
The recent plot to bomb airplanes in flight busted open by the British prompted William Kole, a writer for the AP, to say that this plot "points up a chilling trend across Europe: the rise of radical Islam, and with it, a willingness among a small but dangerous minority of young people to answer the call to jihad." And Kole isn't the only one to notice an increasing lack of a moral compass rising in Europe.
Mind you, one of Europe’s chief societal failings is the inability of immigrants to ever be considered citizens in good standing by the indigenous populations. Much of Europe’s current unrest can be explained by this alienation of immigrant populations. In Denmark, for instance, immigrants are sometimes still considered immigrants after even the third generation is born there. This emulation of a "separate but equal" mind set so discredited by the American experience further alienates young immigrants who never feel any connection to the land in which they were born, though they somehow feel an affiliation with lands of their ancestors, lands they themselves never knew. Hence the unrest in Paris as gangs of Muslim youth paraded through the streets in a lawless bacchanalia earlier this year, certainly.
As a result of all this, anti-Jewish sentiment is at a high point and quickly elevating still higher all across Europe and Britain and Islamist extremism is everywhere. But, this Islamofascist threat isn't the only example of Europe's inability to "get it" where it concerns a moral fight against violence, law breaking, and hatred as a recent example in Barcelona, Spain reveals.
In the 1940's, a Chicago street gang was born. It became called the "Latin Kings" and it terrorized various part of the City's Hispanic neighborhoods for decades. Several years ago, the gang spread to Spain, taken there by young South American immigrants with experience in the US who came to feel that they were excluded from becoming full citizens -- as discussed above -- in Spain, despite a common base language.
The Latin Kings and Queens are responsible for a rising tide of crime and gang violence across Spain. But Spain's 2nd biggest metropolis, Barcelona, imagines that they have solved the problem with the lawless Latin Kings by making them a legal community group and giving them support of the government.
Isn't that startling?
Legitimizing a street gang is their answer to crime?
Talk about a busted moral compass. Barcelona's is pointing to the hell at the end of that road paved with good intentions, for sure.
The city has even given them an exalted new official name. The gang will forthwith be called "Asociación Cultural de Reyes y Reinas Latinos de Cataluña" (Cultural Association of Latin Kings and Queens of Catalonia).
Very official sounding, eh?
Now, in case you are thinking that I am misreading the situation, I'll let the deputy mayor of Barcelona speak for himself. He said that the street gang would receive "the same treatment as other associations", would be eligible for local government grants, but who's final acceptance would depend "on the repercussion of their activities".
The acting mayor, Jordi Portabella, hailed the decision to legitimize a violent street gang was one that had "few precedents in Europe and the world".
Yeah, no doubt there, Jordi!
Portabella also revealed that they are looking into similarly legitimizing the Kings' main rival, the "Netas" (Newborns).
So, the good hearted citizens of Barcelona are positive that all them kids need is some lovin' and they will stop all that darn crime, violence, and anti-social behavior stuff.
It makes your heart go all aflutter and fill with warm and gushy thoughts, doesn’t it?
As the Jets, the street gang in the musical West Side Story, sang to their antagonist, Sgt. Krupke, -- "Gee, Officer Krupke, we're very upset; We never had the love that ev'ry child oughta get. We ain't no delinquents, We're misunderstood. Deep down inside us there is good!"
Looks like the city Fathers of Barcelona, Spain, have watched that segment of a Hollywood musical from 1961 a bit too often. Either that or their moral relativity has advanced beyond common sense if they imagine that a street gang can really be "good" deep down inside making them an honored part of the community.
It must be true, after all. Luis Barrios, a busybody Catholic priest from the Bronx in New York who has been "helping" Barcelona with this program said of the gang, "They decided they wanted to be more acceptable, more respected."
… and I'm sure they'll beat up whom ever refuses to comply with their "request".
In any case, the thugs in the Latin Kings come up the clear winners. Not only will they get legitimacy, but it is sure they won't feel any need to curb their practices. After all … they are PROTECTED by the cops, now.
Post modernism has a such a death grip on Europe that it has opened the door for Islamofascism to take root in its ancient soils, to grow becoming one of Europe's most immanent internal threats raising the level of fear in the lives of Europe's most vulnerable minority; Jews.
For far too many in Europe, an everything-is-relative Chamberlainism has resurfaced as a virtue, moral turpitude acceptable, and any certitude of a moral code is to be shunned as somehow unseemly. Making a judgment is not PC enough … of course that depends on what that judgment is lodged against.
The recent plot to bomb airplanes in flight busted open by the British prompted William Kole, a writer for the AP, to say that this plot "points up a chilling trend across Europe: the rise of radical Islam, and with it, a willingness among a small but dangerous minority of young people to answer the call to jihad." And Kole isn't the only one to notice an increasing lack of a moral compass rising in Europe.
Mind you, one of Europe’s chief societal failings is the inability of immigrants to ever be considered citizens in good standing by the indigenous populations. Much of Europe’s current unrest can be explained by this alienation of immigrant populations. In Denmark, for instance, immigrants are sometimes still considered immigrants after even the third generation is born there. This emulation of a "separate but equal" mind set so discredited by the American experience further alienates young immigrants who never feel any connection to the land in which they were born, though they somehow feel an affiliation with lands of their ancestors, lands they themselves never knew. Hence the unrest in Paris as gangs of Muslim youth paraded through the streets in a lawless bacchanalia earlier this year, certainly.
As a result of all this, anti-Jewish sentiment is at a high point and quickly elevating still higher all across Europe and Britain and Islamist extremism is everywhere. But, this Islamofascist threat isn't the only example of Europe's inability to "get it" where it concerns a moral fight against violence, law breaking, and hatred as a recent example in Barcelona, Spain reveals.
In the 1940's, a Chicago street gang was born. It became called the "Latin Kings" and it terrorized various part of the City's Hispanic neighborhoods for decades. Several years ago, the gang spread to Spain, taken there by young South American immigrants with experience in the US who came to feel that they were excluded from becoming full citizens -- as discussed above -- in Spain, despite a common base language.
The Latin Kings and Queens are responsible for a rising tide of crime and gang violence across Spain. But Spain's 2nd biggest metropolis, Barcelona, imagines that they have solved the problem with the lawless Latin Kings by making them a legal community group and giving them support of the government.
Isn't that startling?
Legitimizing a street gang is their answer to crime?
Talk about a busted moral compass. Barcelona's is pointing to the hell at the end of that road paved with good intentions, for sure.
The city has even given them an exalted new official name. The gang will forthwith be called "Asociación Cultural de Reyes y Reinas Latinos de Cataluña" (Cultural Association of Latin Kings and Queens of Catalonia).
Very official sounding, eh?
Now, in case you are thinking that I am misreading the situation, I'll let the deputy mayor of Barcelona speak for himself. He said that the street gang would receive "the same treatment as other associations", would be eligible for local government grants, but who's final acceptance would depend "on the repercussion of their activities".
The acting mayor, Jordi Portabella, hailed the decision to legitimize a violent street gang was one that had "few precedents in Europe and the world".
Yeah, no doubt there, Jordi!
Portabella also revealed that they are looking into similarly legitimizing the Kings' main rival, the "Netas" (Newborns).
So, the good hearted citizens of Barcelona are positive that all them kids need is some lovin' and they will stop all that darn crime, violence, and anti-social behavior stuff.
It makes your heart go all aflutter and fill with warm and gushy thoughts, doesn’t it?
As the Jets, the street gang in the musical West Side Story, sang to their antagonist, Sgt. Krupke, -- "Gee, Officer Krupke, we're very upset; We never had the love that ev'ry child oughta get. We ain't no delinquents, We're misunderstood. Deep down inside us there is good!"
Looks like the city Fathers of Barcelona, Spain, have watched that segment of a Hollywood musical from 1961 a bit too often. Either that or their moral relativity has advanced beyond common sense if they imagine that a street gang can really be "good" deep down inside making them an honored part of the community.
It must be true, after all. Luis Barrios, a busybody Catholic priest from the Bronx in New York who has been "helping" Barcelona with this program said of the gang, "They decided they wanted to be more acceptable, more respected."
… and I'm sure they'll beat up whom ever refuses to comply with their "request".
In any case, the thugs in the Latin Kings come up the clear winners. Not only will they get legitimacy, but it is sure they won't feel any need to curb their practices. After all … they are PROTECTED by the cops, now.
The Problem with John Bolton
-By Eric Reikowski
In August 2005, President Bush resorted to a recess appointment to overcome obstructionist tactics by Senate Democrats and install John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. A year later, as the end of Bolton's term draws nearer, the Democratic leadership is already entertaining thoughts of denying him a fair, up-or-down vote yet again.
Despite repeated assertions that he is rude to subordinates or that his confrontational style is unbecoming to a diplomat, it would appear to many that Bolton's unforgivable sin in international politics is his unwaivering commitment to U.S. national interests.
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) recently lamented that many ambassadors at the U.N. think Bolton hasn't done a good job there because he has "polarized the situation." In other words, he has dared to disagree with them on substantive international issues and has not been shy about criticizing their frequent displays of incompetence................
Click HERE To Read On
In August 2005, President Bush resorted to a recess appointment to overcome obstructionist tactics by Senate Democrats and install John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. A year later, as the end of Bolton's term draws nearer, the Democratic leadership is already entertaining thoughts of denying him a fair, up-or-down vote yet again.
Despite repeated assertions that he is rude to subordinates or that his confrontational style is unbecoming to a diplomat, it would appear to many that Bolton's unforgivable sin in international politics is his unwaivering commitment to U.S. national interests.
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) recently lamented that many ambassadors at the U.N. think Bolton hasn't done a good job there because he has "polarized the situation." In other words, he has dared to disagree with them on substantive international issues and has not been shy about criticizing their frequent displays of incompetence................
Click HERE To Read On
Sunday, August 13, 2006
THE LINE EVERYBODY FORGOT
- By Vince Johnson
While driving to town the other day I had to slow down as I neared a work crew painting a bright yellow line down the center of the highway. This made me realize how seldom we stop and think about the critical role lines play in our lives. I wondered what people would consider to be the most important line in history. Perhaps those cooing and wooing "lines" whispered by our ancestors would qualify. Without such persuasive "lines" we might never have been born!
Then I wondered about all those other lines in our lives. How could we live without Power lines? And Airlines? Gas lines? Sewer lines? Bus lines? Transit lines? Cruise lines? Product lines? Pipe lines? Shore lines? Time lines? Fishing lines?................
Click HERE To Read On
While driving to town the other day I had to slow down as I neared a work crew painting a bright yellow line down the center of the highway. This made me realize how seldom we stop and think about the critical role lines play in our lives. I wondered what people would consider to be the most important line in history. Perhaps those cooing and wooing "lines" whispered by our ancestors would qualify. Without such persuasive "lines" we might never have been born!
Then I wondered about all those other lines in our lives. How could we live without Power lines? And Airlines? Gas lines? Sewer lines? Bus lines? Transit lines? Cruise lines? Product lines? Pipe lines? Shore lines? Time lines? Fishing lines?................
Click HERE To Read On
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Passing of a friend
Bart McGloughlin, RIP
I'd like to take a minute from my usual subject of politics and societal critique to mention the passing of a co-worker and friend.
Bart was quite the bon vivant, as interesting as they come. Quirky, yet caring, thoughtful, yet oddly impulsive at times. Many was the night we spent ruminating about things strange, deep, important, and silly.
He was widely read and deeply spiritual... yet doubtful of "religion".
There was one thing he believed that I dearly hope he has just discovered is true with his passing from this life. Bart believed that this corporeal life was just a stage. That all energy went on and this life was not all there was.
So, I'll hoist a few with those who knew him. For those who did not, ya missed a doosie of a fellow!
Bon voyage, Bart. I look forward to catching up with you some day and finding out what you have already discovered.
-Warner Todd Huston
I'd like to take a minute from my usual subject of politics and societal critique to mention the passing of a co-worker and friend.
Bart was quite the bon vivant, as interesting as they come. Quirky, yet caring, thoughtful, yet oddly impulsive at times. Many was the night we spent ruminating about things strange, deep, important, and silly.
He was widely read and deeply spiritual... yet doubtful of "religion".
There was one thing he believed that I dearly hope he has just discovered is true with his passing from this life. Bart believed that this corporeal life was just a stage. That all energy went on and this life was not all there was.
So, I'll hoist a few with those who knew him. For those who did not, ya missed a doosie of a fellow!
Bon voyage, Bart. I look forward to catching up with you some day and finding out what you have already discovered.
-Warner Todd Huston
Lamont's 'Message' A 'Sour' Electorate – Conservative Message? Fuggidaboutit!
-By Warner Todd Huston
It is interesting how the MSM covered the primaries this year. Especially the Lieberman/Lamont fight in Connecticut, naturally. But, looking over the coverage I saw a strange difference in how the MSM treated the Connecticut race and one not so nationally known in Michigan.
To illustrate my point, I will use two Associated Press reports made on the very same night, Primary night, August 9th.
We all know what happened with the Lieberman/Lamont contest, of course. Lamont eeked by Lieberman with a spread of only 10,119 more votes (of 283,055 cast) than the 3 term Democratic Senator giving Lamont 52% to Lieberman's 48%. This is hardly a landslide by any honest reckoning. Yet, the MSM played this like a groundswell for Lamont. Here is how the AP reported it on election night...
So, AP has decided that this win by Lamont might bode a sort of national referendum for the Democratic Party. That this portends great "challenges" to the Democrats, that this is a groundswell of support for Lamont's position, if you will.
Perhaps it is. Closer analysis puts that in doubt. Regardless, the AP has decided that it is an anti-war "message" that the Democrats must listen to nation wide and that incumbents better pay attention.
That same night there was a race in Michigan that sort of ran to the polar opposite of that in Connecticut.
--Note-- the final totals in Michigan were: Walberg - 33,144 (53%) and Schwarz 29,349 (47%)
I'll bet few of you reading this ever heard of this race in Michigan even though it almost mirrors the Lieberman/Lamont race.
So, for a quick recap, we have Lieberman, the claimed moderate, being ousted by his Party over a win by a more ideologically extreme opponent in Connecticut. In Michigan, a moderate Representative is being told he is not going back to Washington by his Party due to the better showing of a more conservative opponent in the Primary there.
Curiously enough, the results in the Walberg/Schwarz race gave Walberg, the Conservative challenger, a tad larger win than the leftist Lamont's win over Lieberman with Walberg garnering 53% of the vote and Lamont getting only 52%.
Yet, notice the difference. As far as the AP was concerned, the win for the leftist Lamont meant a nation wide mandate from rank and file Democrats to lead a leftist revolution in the Party. Yet a Conservative win in Michigan was ... well, it was merely reported matter of fact, apparently signifying nothing all that earthshaking. No national "challenges" or widespread and important meaning for a GOP that has increasingly tended toward the moderate, middle of the road positions.
So, why is this win in Connecticut such a bell-weather, yet an almost identical situation (though in reverse) in Michigan is not? Why did the MSM treat the Lamont win as a "message" that all should heed, but the Walberg win was apparently not a "message" and is seemingly nothing to get all worked up over?
Could it be that the race in Connecticut gave the MSM the result that was on their Christmas wish list? Could it be that a leftist "message" being sent nation-wide is more interesting to them than a more conservative one? Could it be they have more invested in helping that leftist "message" get out?
The contrast is amazing, is it not?
It is interesting how the MSM covered the primaries this year. Especially the Lieberman/Lamont fight in Connecticut, naturally. But, looking over the coverage I saw a strange difference in how the MSM treated the Connecticut race and one not so nationally known in Michigan.
To illustrate my point, I will use two Associated Press reports made on the very same night, Primary night, August 9th.
We all know what happened with the Lieberman/Lamont contest, of course. Lamont eeked by Lieberman with a spread of only 10,119 more votes (of 283,055 cast) than the 3 term Democratic Senator giving Lamont 52% to Lieberman's 48%. This is hardly a landslide by any honest reckoning. Yet, the MSM played this like a groundswell for Lamont. Here is how the AP reported it on election night...
Lieberman's defeat poses opportunity and challenge for Democrats
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Lieberman's primary defeat Tuesday night came at the hands of Democratic voters angry over the war in Iraq and demanding that lawmakers stand up to President Bush rather than stand with him.
It wasn't a polite message they sent their three-term senator, a former vice presidential running mate who fell to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont. It was an eviction notice, served by an electorate that has grown remarkably sour about the course their country is on.
That makes the result both an opportunity and a challenge for Democrats nationally as they head into a fall campaign with control of the House and Senate at stake.
So, AP has decided that this win by Lamont might bode a sort of national referendum for the Democratic Party. That this portends great "challenges" to the Democrats, that this is a groundswell of support for Lamont's position, if you will.
Perhaps it is. Closer analysis puts that in doubt. Regardless, the AP has decided that it is an anti-war "message" that the Democrats must listen to nation wide and that incumbents better pay attention.
That same night there was a race in Michigan that sort of ran to the polar opposite of that in Connecticut.
Michigan Republican Loses Party’s Nomination
DETROIT (AP) -- Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz lost his party's nomination Tuesday, falling to a staunchly conservative challenger in a primary race dominated by a struggle over GOP principles that attracted more than $1 million in spending by outside groups.
Schwarz, a moderate who supported abortion rights, was defeated by former state lawmaker Tim Walberg. With 92 percent of precincts reporting, Walberg had 53 percent, or 31,869 votes, to 47 percent for Schwarz, or 28,168 votes.
--Note-- the final totals in Michigan were: Walberg - 33,144 (53%) and Schwarz 29,349 (47%)
I'll bet few of you reading this ever heard of this race in Michigan even though it almost mirrors the Lieberman/Lamont race.
So, for a quick recap, we have Lieberman, the claimed moderate, being ousted by his Party over a win by a more ideologically extreme opponent in Connecticut. In Michigan, a moderate Representative is being told he is not going back to Washington by his Party due to the better showing of a more conservative opponent in the Primary there.
Curiously enough, the results in the Walberg/Schwarz race gave Walberg, the Conservative challenger, a tad larger win than the leftist Lamont's win over Lieberman with Walberg garnering 53% of the vote and Lamont getting only 52%.
Yet, notice the difference. As far as the AP was concerned, the win for the leftist Lamont meant a nation wide mandate from rank and file Democrats to lead a leftist revolution in the Party. Yet a Conservative win in Michigan was ... well, it was merely reported matter of fact, apparently signifying nothing all that earthshaking. No national "challenges" or widespread and important meaning for a GOP that has increasingly tended toward the moderate, middle of the road positions.
So, why is this win in Connecticut such a bell-weather, yet an almost identical situation (though in reverse) in Michigan is not? Why did the MSM treat the Lamont win as a "message" that all should heed, but the Walberg win was apparently not a "message" and is seemingly nothing to get all worked up over?
Could it be that the race in Connecticut gave the MSM the result that was on their Christmas wish list? Could it be that a leftist "message" being sent nation-wide is more interesting to them than a more conservative one? Could it be they have more invested in helping that leftist "message" get out?
The contrast is amazing, is it not?
AP Hit Piece- 'Bush Staff' Nixing Bomb Detection?
-By Warner Todd Huston
The AP loves their hit piece reporting, don't they? Hot on the tail of the terror plot being stopped by the British, AP has let us all know of that nefarious "Bush staff" that wants to eliminate funds to develop bomb detection devices here in the USA.
In "Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved",AP writer, John Solomon, took what was a common request for a re-direction of funds from one thing to another and turned it into an over arching plot by the Bush administration to materially harm Homeland Security. Worse, he tried to contrast this everyday Washington budget activity to the terror plot in England to leave the reader with a feeling that Bush was trying to allow terrorists to get away with the kinds of plots that the Brits uncovered.
"While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot"? As if the Bush administration knew that these terrorists were "hatching their plot" as they went about the regular business of administering the government!
After that lose linking of the British terror plot to the funding diversion request of $6 million from the Homeland Security research arm -- called the Sciences & Technology Directorate -- the report briefly mentions that the department has $200 million it hasn't even spent and that Congress rescinded that amount because it wasn't spent.
We are left imagining that Bush wanted to take away all the funds for the kind of bomb detection devices that could stop a British type terror plot here. Yet, as the report continues it reveals how paltry that request of a $6 million diversion was by reporting how large that budget for detection devices is.
$6 million from $732 million does not seem too great a deficit. So, Bush wasn't trying to strip the bomb detection research of that much of its funding!
Worse still, we have to get nearly to the end of a long piece to find out what they wanted that $6 million diverted for in the first place.
Seems like a legitimate request to me. An extra $6 million to protect public buildings? $6 million from a budget of $732 million? That seems a tiny diversion for a purpose that isn't out of the ordinary. Couple that with the fact that money is moved from one place to another every single day in Washington and we end up with a big "ho-hum" story that is trumpeted as some sort of apocalyptic Bush failure.
Besides, the Senate's homeland appropriations committee and the House's committee rejected the request last month anyway, so it is a dead issue.
Finally, after reading the article, one realizes that most of the people quoted in the piece are Democrats. Of course they are against Bush's requests.
All in all, this was just an excuse for the AP to make Bush out as someone who doesn't really care about Homeland Security! A hit piece, plain and simple.
The AP loves their hit piece reporting, don't they? Hot on the tail of the terror plot being stopped by the British, AP has let us all know of that nefarious "Bush staff" that wants to eliminate funds to develop bomb detection devices here in the USA.
In "Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved",AP writer, John Solomon, took what was a common request for a re-direction of funds from one thing to another and turned it into an over arching plot by the Bush administration to materially harm Homeland Security. Worse, he tried to contrast this everyday Washington budget activity to the terror plot in England to leave the reader with a feeling that Bush was trying to allow terrorists to get away with the kinds of plots that the Brits uncovered.
"WASHINGTON - While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology."
"While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot"? As if the Bush administration knew that these terrorists were "hatching their plot" as they went about the regular business of administering the government!
After that lose linking of the British terror plot to the funding diversion request of $6 million from the Homeland Security research arm -- called the Sciences & Technology Directorate -- the report briefly mentions that the department has $200 million it hasn't even spent and that Congress rescinded that amount because it wasn't spent.
We are left imagining that Bush wanted to take away all the funds for the kind of bomb detection devices that could stop a British type terror plot here. Yet, as the report continues it reveals how paltry that request of a $6 million diversion was by reporting how large that budget for detection devices is.
"Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them."
$6 million from $732 million does not seem too great a deficit. So, Bush wasn't trying to strip the bomb detection research of that much of its funding!
Worse still, we have to get nearly to the end of a long piece to find out what they wanted that $6 million diverted for in the first place.
"It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget ... to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings."
Seems like a legitimate request to me. An extra $6 million to protect public buildings? $6 million from a budget of $732 million? That seems a tiny diversion for a purpose that isn't out of the ordinary. Couple that with the fact that money is moved from one place to another every single day in Washington and we end up with a big "ho-hum" story that is trumpeted as some sort of apocalyptic Bush failure.
Besides, the Senate's homeland appropriations committee and the House's committee rejected the request last month anyway, so it is a dead issue.
Finally, after reading the article, one realizes that most of the people quoted in the piece are Democrats. Of course they are against Bush's requests.
All in all, this was just an excuse for the AP to make Bush out as someone who doesn't really care about Homeland Security! A hit piece, plain and simple.
Democrats head for déjà vu all over again
- By Michael M. Bates
Joe Lieberman is a Democrat through and through. Three terms in the Senate have yielded a voting record that in some respects is as liberal as that of Teddy Kennedy. Mr. Lieberman was his party's vice presidential nominee in 2000.
Several party luminaries, including former President Clinton, have campaigned for him. Yet all that may not be good enough.
This is written before Tuesday's Connecticut primary. If the polls are right, Joe Lieberman will not win renomination. He may, of course, still squeak through. Opinion surveys don't vote; people do.....................................
Click HERE To Read On
Joe Lieberman is a Democrat through and through. Three terms in the Senate have yielded a voting record that in some respects is as liberal as that of Teddy Kennedy. Mr. Lieberman was his party's vice presidential nominee in 2000.
Several party luminaries, including former President Clinton, have campaigned for him. Yet all that may not be good enough.
This is written before Tuesday's Connecticut primary. If the polls are right, Joe Lieberman will not win renomination. He may, of course, still squeak through. Opinion surveys don't vote; people do.....................................
Click HERE To Read On
Friday, August 11, 2006
Brian Williams -- Our Seals and Special Forces As Brave As Jihadists
-By Warner Todd Huston
MSNBC talker Chris Matthews' "Hardball" had a visit from NBC news anchor Brian Williams tonight (8/10/06). In one off the cuff comment, Williams seemed to equate the bravery of members of our military and emergency services personnel to the presumed bravery of Jihadists all of whom are willing to die for their cause.
Matthews' point to Williams was the following:
Williams replied with:
It's always possible, of course, that Williams was only attempting to comment on the assumption that those on both sides have people who feel they are acting bravely, despite the relative causes, and that he didn't mean to directly compare the causes themselves and raise them to the same level of legitimacy and importance. To be fair, it wouldn't be too far out of the question to give Williams the benefit of the doubt on this one.
But, that he would so quickly wish to somehow prove that Jihadists are also "brave" in that they are willing to give their lives to their causes is, in itself, disturbingly close to also equalizing their cause to legitimacy and "goodness" -- whether he wanted to or not.
After all, how "brave" is it to give your life for an evil cause?
Let's face it, in our society one equates giving your life for your country to the highest form of bravery. And that bravery is used in a positive context, as opposed to a negative one. So, Williams' positively denoting a Jihadist's willingness to give his life for his cause would, in general parlayence, reflect that said Jihadists are also brave. This would lead one to an assumption that the cause that one is dying for is also worth being brave for!
So, sadly, Williams seems to see no difference between the bravery of our soldiers and emergency services personnel and that of those who would die for those 72 virgins. And, if he so quickly imagines that Jihadists are also brave enough to die for their cause then we cannot escape the conclusion that he either sees neither cause (the Jihadist's or ours) as any better one from the other, or he really DOES think both causes have the same legitimacy.
Either way, his sense of moral judgment is in doubt at this point.
MSNBC talker Chris Matthews' "Hardball" had a visit from NBC news anchor Brian Williams tonight (8/10/06). In one off the cuff comment, Williams seemed to equate the bravery of members of our military and emergency services personnel to the presumed bravery of Jihadists all of whom are willing to die for their cause.
Matthews' point to Williams was the following:
"Here we have maybe 24 people who have lived in London and England and the free world for all these years that become citizens, subjects of the Crown, and, yet, after having gotten to know us, they want to kill themselves to hurt us. Isn't that an even deeper conundrum here than the chemicals being used in these attacks?"
Williams replied with:
"And that, Chris, that last aspect, the willingness to take one's own life -- I always tell people there are guys on our team like that, too. They're called Army Rangers and Navy Seals and the Special Forces folks and the first responders on 9/11 who went into those buildings knowing, by the way, they weren't going to come out. So we have players like that on our team."
It's always possible, of course, that Williams was only attempting to comment on the assumption that those on both sides have people who feel they are acting bravely, despite the relative causes, and that he didn't mean to directly compare the causes themselves and raise them to the same level of legitimacy and importance. To be fair, it wouldn't be too far out of the question to give Williams the benefit of the doubt on this one.
But, that he would so quickly wish to somehow prove that Jihadists are also "brave" in that they are willing to give their lives to their causes is, in itself, disturbingly close to also equalizing their cause to legitimacy and "goodness" -- whether he wanted to or not.
After all, how "brave" is it to give your life for an evil cause?
Let's face it, in our society one equates giving your life for your country to the highest form of bravery. And that bravery is used in a positive context, as opposed to a negative one. So, Williams' positively denoting a Jihadist's willingness to give his life for his cause would, in general parlayence, reflect that said Jihadists are also brave. This would lead one to an assumption that the cause that one is dying for is also worth being brave for!
So, sadly, Williams seems to see no difference between the bravery of our soldiers and emergency services personnel and that of those who would die for those 72 virgins. And, if he so quickly imagines that Jihadists are also brave enough to die for their cause then we cannot escape the conclusion that he either sees neither cause (the Jihadist's or ours) as any better one from the other, or he really DOES think both causes have the same legitimacy.
Either way, his sense of moral judgment is in doubt at this point.
SPECIAL MESSAGE FOR ALL STATE GOVERNORS
- By Vince Johnson
Everyone on Internet receives a wide variety of jokes, oddities, tips, hints, and things like that. I recently received a message that, at first glance sounded like a joke. After I read it again, I realized there is a strong and very unfortunate possibility that it is 100% true.
If I knew who wrote this E-mail, I’d give him or her credit. In my view, this message is entitled to as much public exposure and discussion as possible, so here it is.
TEACHER APPLICANT
After being interviewed by the school administration, the eager teaching prospect said: Let me see if I've got this right. You want me to go into that room with all those kids, and fill their every waking moment with a love for learning, and I'm supposed to instill a sense of pride in their ethnicity, modify their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse and even censor their T-shirt messages and dress habits.
................
Click HERE To Read On
Everyone on Internet receives a wide variety of jokes, oddities, tips, hints, and things like that. I recently received a message that, at first glance sounded like a joke. After I read it again, I realized there is a strong and very unfortunate possibility that it is 100% true.
If I knew who wrote this E-mail, I’d give him or her credit. In my view, this message is entitled to as much public exposure and discussion as possible, so here it is.
TEACHER APPLICANT
After being interviewed by the school administration, the eager teaching prospect said: Let me see if I've got this right. You want me to go into that room with all those kids, and fill their every waking moment with a love for learning, and I'm supposed to instill a sense of pride in their ethnicity, modify their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse and even censor their T-shirt messages and dress habits.
................
Click HERE To Read On
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Say Hello to the Neo-McGovernites
By Nathan Tabor
I almost ignored anti-war Ned Lamont’s win over pro-war Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary last night until I got a load of two of Lamont’s cadre of celebrants. Directly behind a smiling Lamont were Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – two of the most divisive, opportunistic, and race-baiting individuals that contemporary politics has spawned. Somewhere in the distance, I could almost hear the faint whisper of Jackson’s “Hymietown” or Sharpton’s fixation on New York “diamond merchants.”
Welcome to the “new” 21st century Democratic Party, the political party that is starting to smell quite similar to the long-buried cadaver of the Democratic Party of the early 1970s – taken over at the time by the anti-Vietnam War McGovern Democrats. Last night has given us the neo-McGovernites.
Lamont’s primary victory puts the old guard of Democrats on a very slippery slope. While Bill Clinton came out in the final days of the campaign to support Joe Lieberman, Chris Dodd has already come out and endorsed Lamont. Maxine Waters
has backed Lamont from the beginning. Evan Bayh just signed on.
Who will follow? Kerry? Kennedy? Edwards? Feingold? Pelosi? Reid? Schumer? Rahm Emanuel? No doubt, all of them, and each time another prominent Democrat steps forward – under the banner of party unity – the Democratic Party will take one step further to the left. In an endorsement that might portend of things to come, Hillary has even thrown her (political) weight, plus $5,000, behind Lamont. With the neo-McGovernites already rallying against her and her (so far) pro-war stance, she’s in a political pickle.
“Look at me. I’m for the war but I’ve endorsed an anti-war senatorial candidate!” This from a potential presidential candidate who has been trying so hard to move to the center, using the political playbook of her husband. And with each step to the left, the Democratic Party will clarify itself as the “cut-and-run” party.
Somewhere in D.C., Karl Rove must be drooling.
I almost ignored anti-war Ned Lamont’s win over pro-war Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary last night until I got a load of two of Lamont’s cadre of celebrants. Directly behind a smiling Lamont were Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – two of the most divisive, opportunistic, and race-baiting individuals that contemporary politics has spawned. Somewhere in the distance, I could almost hear the faint whisper of Jackson’s “Hymietown” or Sharpton’s fixation on New York “diamond merchants.”
Welcome to the “new” 21st century Democratic Party, the political party that is starting to smell quite similar to the long-buried cadaver of the Democratic Party of the early 1970s – taken over at the time by the anti-Vietnam War McGovern Democrats. Last night has given us the neo-McGovernites.
Lamont’s primary victory puts the old guard of Democrats on a very slippery slope. While Bill Clinton came out in the final days of the campaign to support Joe Lieberman, Chris Dodd has already come out and endorsed Lamont. Maxine Waters
has backed Lamont from the beginning. Evan Bayh just signed on.
Who will follow? Kerry? Kennedy? Edwards? Feingold? Pelosi? Reid? Schumer? Rahm Emanuel? No doubt, all of them, and each time another prominent Democrat steps forward – under the banner of party unity – the Democratic Party will take one step further to the left. In an endorsement that might portend of things to come, Hillary has even thrown her (political) weight, plus $5,000, behind Lamont. With the neo-McGovernites already rallying against her and her (so far) pro-war stance, she’s in a political pickle.
“Look at me. I’m for the war but I’ve endorsed an anti-war senatorial candidate!” This from a potential presidential candidate who has been trying so hard to move to the center, using the political playbook of her husband. And with each step to the left, the Democratic Party will clarify itself as the “cut-and-run” party.
Somewhere in D.C., Karl Rove must be drooling.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Chicago - No Heroes Live Here
By Warner Todd Huston
The news of Chicago's newest statue was all over the TV and newspapers last week. As the Pantheon of the "famous" who have recieved the honor of a full sized, free standing statue in Chicago increased by one, the City stood in admiration of ... (drum roll, please) ...Irv Kupcinet.
You'd be forgiven if you'd have said "who??"
Local TV and newspaper personality, Kupcinet, often called "Mr. Chicago", was a long time Sun-Times newspaper columnist who's column consisted of pointless "mentions" of the famous, the not so famous, the infamous and the odd restaurant owner that old Irv wanted a free meal from who graced the night life in the Windy City.
In short, he wrote a gossip column. And not even a juicy one.
Certainly he led a long life, was quite well-known in the city's entertainment community, and his 60 year long association with the Sun-Times is interesting as part of Chicago's checkered history.
Still, you may ask what he did to get a statue?
It's a good question.
I ask the same thing, and I am a resident of the area.
This is the criterion for bronze monuments in Chicago, now, I wondered? Writing a gossip column makes one a high enough caliber of citizen to get a 9-foot tall statue raised in your honor? A lifetime of gratis meals in exchange for a "mention" in the daily paper is enough great works to be memorialized forever in bronze and on public display for all to see, ostensibly forever?
It got me to thinking about just who in the past has it been that received these full sized, sometimes outsized, monuments in this great city? Who were they, when did they get a statue, and what did they do that made them "worthy" of such a memorial. The investigation of this question led me to a disturbing fact.
There’s no Chicagoan left who’s worthy of the statues with which they are being honored. On second thought, maybe that isn't fair to say. Maybe it's that we are a society that no longer understands what makes one worthy of such an honor in the first place?
A quick perusal of the famous, important, and worthy people who have gotten full sized statues in years past in the city read like a veritable who's who of the famous and important not only of Chicago history, but the history of the state, the country, and the world. Unfortunately, recent ones read more like a who's who of the daily sports section of the newspaper or a TV guide listing.
The list of honorees previous to the current century in Chicago spans the history of the USA and other countries -- most notably Germany and Poland, reflecting the long-standing ethnic diversity of the city. It boasts of patriots, soldiers, philosophers, writers, great politicians and those who gave their lives in service to city, state, and country.
Patriot and Founding Father, Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), has been honored twice with one of them being placed in Lincoln Park in 1954. Czech patriot, Karel Havlicek (1820-1856), is honored on Solidarity drive after his statue was first erected in Douglas Park in 1910. A memorial to German patriot and writer, Franz Reuter (1810-1874), was raised in Humbolt Park in 1893. The Father of our country, George Washington (1732-1799), has several such statues across the city. Not to mention the many Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) statues that grace the Parks and byways of a great city in the state that calls itself the "Land of Lincoln".
There are also statues to the Haymarket Riots of 1886, Giuseppi Garibaldi, Christopher Columbus, Hippocrates, Scottish poet Robert Burns, Leif Ericson, William Shakespeare, Nathan Hale, Benjamin Franklin and a host of other notables who were consequential, important and inspiring people, people worthy of being remembered for their works of greatness.
Noticeably, all these statues were erected before the mid 1970s. With most of them being created in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Many dozens of great and honorable personages have been memorialized by these works of art and deservedly so.
Now, what have we seen erected in the last 20 years, or so? Who was so famous, that has offered the world so much, that we have forever cast their likeness in fine metals or expensive stones to be looked up to by succeeding generations of citizens as men worthy of remembering today?
- Basketball player, Michael Jordon, forever leaping to score that basket was unveiled in 1994. Heck, Mike is still even alive. Shouldn't a notable be dead when his giant statue is erected?
- Baseball player from the New York Yankees, Joe DiMaggio, got one in 1998. Joe was actually at the unveiling of his "honor".
- Harry Caray, A baseball announcer for the Cubs and White Sox baseball teams, had his dedicated in 1999. At least the man famous for saying "Holy Cow" had the good sense to be dead before his statue was revealed to the world.
- Another radio sports announcer, Jack Brickhouse, got dipped in bronze in 2000.
- And, not to be outdone, the whole Chicago Blackhawks hockey team got a gargantuan monument in the same year as did Jack "HEY! HEY!" Brickhouse.
So, there you have it. We now live in a society that has gone from memorializing and idealizing men like George Washington and William Shakespeare to looking with awe at men like Harry Caray and Irv Kupcinet! We've gone from wondering at the life and works of the "Father of our country" and the "Great Emancipator" to sports guys and gossip columnists who are famous for saying "Holy Cow" and mooching free meals for a living.
How we have fallen so and ended up celebrating men of entertainment as if they had realized great and consequential acts, or were high minded men of valor and learning is disheartening to say the least.
Harry Caray would have laughed himself silly over it all. That is, when he wasn't too drunk to notice.
The news of Chicago's newest statue was all over the TV and newspapers last week. As the Pantheon of the "famous" who have recieved the honor of a full sized, free standing statue in Chicago increased by one, the City stood in admiration of ... (drum roll, please) ...Irv Kupcinet.
You'd be forgiven if you'd have said "who??"
Local TV and newspaper personality, Kupcinet, often called "Mr. Chicago", was a long time Sun-Times newspaper columnist who's column consisted of pointless "mentions" of the famous, the not so famous, the infamous and the odd restaurant owner that old Irv wanted a free meal from who graced the night life in the Windy City.
In short, he wrote a gossip column. And not even a juicy one.
Certainly he led a long life, was quite well-known in the city's entertainment community, and his 60 year long association with the Sun-Times is interesting as part of Chicago's checkered history.
Still, you may ask what he did to get a statue?
It's a good question.
I ask the same thing, and I am a resident of the area.
This is the criterion for bronze monuments in Chicago, now, I wondered? Writing a gossip column makes one a high enough caliber of citizen to get a 9-foot tall statue raised in your honor? A lifetime of gratis meals in exchange for a "mention" in the daily paper is enough great works to be memorialized forever in bronze and on public display for all to see, ostensibly forever?
It got me to thinking about just who in the past has it been that received these full sized, sometimes outsized, monuments in this great city? Who were they, when did they get a statue, and what did they do that made them "worthy" of such a memorial. The investigation of this question led me to a disturbing fact.
There’s no Chicagoan left who’s worthy of the statues with which they are being honored. On second thought, maybe that isn't fair to say. Maybe it's that we are a society that no longer understands what makes one worthy of such an honor in the first place?
A quick perusal of the famous, important, and worthy people who have gotten full sized statues in years past in the city read like a veritable who's who of the famous and important not only of Chicago history, but the history of the state, the country, and the world. Unfortunately, recent ones read more like a who's who of the daily sports section of the newspaper or a TV guide listing.
The list of honorees previous to the current century in Chicago spans the history of the USA and other countries -- most notably Germany and Poland, reflecting the long-standing ethnic diversity of the city. It boasts of patriots, soldiers, philosophers, writers, great politicians and those who gave their lives in service to city, state, and country.
Patriot and Founding Father, Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), has been honored twice with one of them being placed in Lincoln Park in 1954. Czech patriot, Karel Havlicek (1820-1856), is honored on Solidarity drive after his statue was first erected in Douglas Park in 1910. A memorial to German patriot and writer, Franz Reuter (1810-1874), was raised in Humbolt Park in 1893. The Father of our country, George Washington (1732-1799), has several such statues across the city. Not to mention the many Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) statues that grace the Parks and byways of a great city in the state that calls itself the "Land of Lincoln".
There are also statues to the Haymarket Riots of 1886, Giuseppi Garibaldi, Christopher Columbus, Hippocrates, Scottish poet Robert Burns, Leif Ericson, William Shakespeare, Nathan Hale, Benjamin Franklin and a host of other notables who were consequential, important and inspiring people, people worthy of being remembered for their works of greatness.
Noticeably, all these statues were erected before the mid 1970s. With most of them being created in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Many dozens of great and honorable personages have been memorialized by these works of art and deservedly so.
Now, what have we seen erected in the last 20 years, or so? Who was so famous, that has offered the world so much, that we have forever cast their likeness in fine metals or expensive stones to be looked up to by succeeding generations of citizens as men worthy of remembering today?
- Basketball player, Michael Jordon, forever leaping to score that basket was unveiled in 1994. Heck, Mike is still even alive. Shouldn't a notable be dead when his giant statue is erected?
- Baseball player from the New York Yankees, Joe DiMaggio, got one in 1998. Joe was actually at the unveiling of his "honor".
- Harry Caray, A baseball announcer for the Cubs and White Sox baseball teams, had his dedicated in 1999. At least the man famous for saying "Holy Cow" had the good sense to be dead before his statue was revealed to the world.
- Another radio sports announcer, Jack Brickhouse, got dipped in bronze in 2000.
- And, not to be outdone, the whole Chicago Blackhawks hockey team got a gargantuan monument in the same year as did Jack "HEY! HEY!" Brickhouse.
So, there you have it. We now live in a society that has gone from memorializing and idealizing men like George Washington and William Shakespeare to looking with awe at men like Harry Caray and Irv Kupcinet! We've gone from wondering at the life and works of the "Father of our country" and the "Great Emancipator" to sports guys and gossip columnists who are famous for saying "Holy Cow" and mooching free meals for a living.
How we have fallen so and ended up celebrating men of entertainment as if they had realized great and consequential acts, or were high minded men of valor and learning is disheartening to say the least.
Harry Caray would have laughed himself silly over it all. That is, when he wasn't too drunk to notice.
Okay Then, Now What?
By Gregory Stewart
You have to be kidding. Yesterday, I watched the tail of end of a segment of on the Sunday Morning version of NBC Today show (unable to find video link, but here is the AP story (read). It was about alternate energy usage and the effects of it.
Apparently, this new (relatively) type of alternative energy is so obtrusive that it visually disturbs childhood memories, kills birds, and interferes with FAA radar. Oh, the energy alternative is clean and reusable--and virtually limitless. The harvest of the energy, nevertheless, is troublesome to the tree huggers and the nostalgic old timers at the same time.
For the environmentalist this energy alternative harmed the little animals, while for the old timers disturbed their view of beautiful vistas. So, what is this alternative energy resource that even had Don Quixote “tilting” at them—the windmill. However, these aren’t your great great great great great great great (is that enough?) granddaddy windmills. These can power whole cities with energy and is one of the cleanest resources of energy.
So, when I ask this question, if this type of energy alternative is unacceptable? Okay then, now what do we do? I am seriously confused in what type of renewable energy would be acceptable to any of these groups--hmph! Any opinions?
You have to be kidding. Yesterday, I watched the tail of end of a segment of on the Sunday Morning version of NBC Today show (unable to find video link, but here is the AP story (read). It was about alternate energy usage and the effects of it.
Apparently, this new (relatively) type of alternative energy is so obtrusive that it visually disturbs childhood memories, kills birds, and interferes with FAA radar. Oh, the energy alternative is clean and reusable--and virtually limitless. The harvest of the energy, nevertheless, is troublesome to the tree huggers and the nostalgic old timers at the same time.
For the environmentalist this energy alternative harmed the little animals, while for the old timers disturbed their view of beautiful vistas. So, what is this alternative energy resource that even had Don Quixote “tilting” at them—the windmill. However, these aren’t your great great great great great great great (is that enough?) granddaddy windmills. These can power whole cities with energy and is one of the cleanest resources of energy.
So, when I ask this question, if this type of energy alternative is unacceptable? Okay then, now what do we do? I am seriously confused in what type of renewable energy would be acceptable to any of these groups--hmph! Any opinions?
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
AP - 'Mourners' Attacked By Israeli Planes ... Or Not
By Warner Todd Huston
Talk about striking for pure emotion with headlines! The AP has proclaimed that an "Israeli Strike Kills 13 Near Mourners". But, what does "near mourners" mean? Did Israel strike a funeral procession or not.
Apparently NOT.
AP begins their report giving the reader the feeling that Israel attacked a funeral procession with the following:
Yet their very next paragraph proves that the strike was not only NOT upon that funeral procession, but came five minutes after the procession passed the scene of the attack.
Then, with the claims of innocent "mourners" being attacked fresh in the reader's mind, the report goes on to say that "Twelve more people were killed and 18 wounded in those strikes, according to tally from three area hospitals." Of course, this was 30 minutes after the initial strike mentioned above, so the connection to the mourners' funeral procession is absurd, yet the connection has already been set in the mind of the reader.
The funniest part of the report was the reaction some of those "mourners" displayed for the "reporters" on the scene ... if any reporters really were actually on the scene in the first place, and this report not just taken as fact by "stringers" taking the word of militants with an agenda.
If it was so unsafe, why did "others" continue on with their funeral procession? Shouldn't they all have scattered as bombs fell about them? Probably because those who were so upset as to break away from the procession were merely playing it up for effect. Anyone with just a little knowledge of "reporting" in the hot spots of the mid east understand that much of what is seen can be categorized as street theater as opposed to legitimate reactions of a war ravaged people.
Oh, and we must thank our intrepid AP "reporter", Ahmed Mantash, for helpfully translating "Allahu akbar!" to "God is great!" for us idiot westerners. (Does anyone really believe these "panicked" mourners were saying things in English?)
Just another example of the sad state of affairs of our "News" services and the lack of professionalism in their "reporting".
Talk about striking for pure emotion with headlines! The AP has proclaimed that an "Israeli Strike Kills 13 Near Mourners". But, what does "near mourners" mean? Did Israel strike a funeral procession or not.
Apparently NOT.
AP begins their report giving the reader the feeling that Israel attacked a funeral procession with the following:
"Mourners in a funeral procession for Israeli airstrike victims scattered in panic Tuesday as warplanes again unleashed missiles that hit buildings and killed 13 people, witnesses and officials said."
Yet their very next paragraph proves that the strike was not only NOT upon that funeral procession, but came five minutes after the procession passed the scene of the attack.
"The first missile struck a building about five minutes after the march by about 1,500 people had passed by, killing one person and wounding five."
Then, with the claims of innocent "mourners" being attacked fresh in the reader's mind, the report goes on to say that "Twelve more people were killed and 18 wounded in those strikes, according to tally from three area hospitals." Of course, this was 30 minutes after the initial strike mentioned above, so the connection to the mourners' funeral procession is absurd, yet the connection has already been set in the mind of the reader.
The funniest part of the report was the reaction some of those "mourners" displayed for the "reporters" on the scene ... if any reporters really were actually on the scene in the first place, and this report not just taken as fact by "stringers" taking the word of militants with an agenda.
"The blast was close enough to send mourners screaming, 'Allahu akbar!' or 'God is great!' Some broke away from the procession, while others continued on."
If it was so unsafe, why did "others" continue on with their funeral procession? Shouldn't they all have scattered as bombs fell about them? Probably because those who were so upset as to break away from the procession were merely playing it up for effect. Anyone with just a little knowledge of "reporting" in the hot spots of the mid east understand that much of what is seen can be categorized as street theater as opposed to legitimate reactions of a war ravaged people.
Oh, and we must thank our intrepid AP "reporter", Ahmed Mantash, for helpfully translating "Allahu akbar!" to "God is great!" for us idiot westerners. (Does anyone really believe these "panicked" mourners were saying things in English?)
Just another example of the sad state of affairs of our "News" services and the lack of professionalism in their "reporting".
The Other Israel (India: A Power Waiting To Happen Again)
- By R.A. Hawkins
China has always been a benign country when it is weak. When it becomes strong it becomes malevolent. On his deathbed Richard Nixon is purported to have said that he feared he had created a Frankenstein by opening relations with China. Carter wasn't one to be outdone in doing stupid things and told Taiwan it wasn't the cat's meow anymore. Of course Clinton wasn't to be outdone so he made China even worse. He capitulated to their threats and under him there was so much theft such as the nuke secrets at Los Alamos etc. and allowing the Chinese to take over both ends of the Panama Canal. China is now moving to create havoc in South America through Chavez with his hand on the oil spigot. China was also quite happy when the 911 terrorist attacks occurred and sold books and videos celebrating the attacks.
China is no longer a benign country. They have threatened nuclear attacks several times and nothing has been done about it. We just keep importing their slave-labor manufactured goods from the laogis. Along with that we’ve also exported our technology. It might appear that I'm primarily blaming the Democrats for this but that isn’t true. Both parties are guilty. It's just that the words 'stupid' and 'Carter' or 'Clinton' go together like 'Communist' and 'concentration camp'.
But there is a country that has a beef with the Chinese and their expansionist policies. That's because they are at times toe-to-toe with one of their allies Pakistan and then there was that little war China had with India. Like Israel India has a few problems but it has more advantages....................................
Click HERE To Read On
China has always been a benign country when it is weak. When it becomes strong it becomes malevolent. On his deathbed Richard Nixon is purported to have said that he feared he had created a Frankenstein by opening relations with China. Carter wasn't one to be outdone in doing stupid things and told Taiwan it wasn't the cat's meow anymore. Of course Clinton wasn't to be outdone so he made China even worse. He capitulated to their threats and under him there was so much theft such as the nuke secrets at Los Alamos etc. and allowing the Chinese to take over both ends of the Panama Canal. China is now moving to create havoc in South America through Chavez with his hand on the oil spigot. China was also quite happy when the 911 terrorist attacks occurred and sold books and videos celebrating the attacks.
China is no longer a benign country. They have threatened nuclear attacks several times and nothing has been done about it. We just keep importing their slave-labor manufactured goods from the laogis. Along with that we’ve also exported our technology. It might appear that I'm primarily blaming the Democrats for this but that isn’t true. Both parties are guilty. It's just that the words 'stupid' and 'Carter' or 'Clinton' go together like 'Communist' and 'concentration camp'.
But there is a country that has a beef with the Chinese and their expansionist policies. That's because they are at times toe-to-toe with one of their allies Pakistan and then there was that little war China had with India. Like Israel India has a few problems but it has more advantages....................................
Click HERE To Read On
Monday, August 07, 2006
Reuters News Services Caught Faking News
-By Warner Todd Huston
I am not going to get too far into all this mess from Reuters News service, but I just wanted Publius' readers to know of what is going on just to keep everyone up to date.
If you haven't caught it yet, Reuters News service has had to remove 900 some photos sold to them by a freelance "journalist" that they have employed for quite some time. It has come to light that this photographer has faked many of the photos of Middle East turmoil he has sold to American News services, chiefly Reuters.
Reuters has been having quite a time of it lately, keeping their integrity with this current unrest and stories about them are abound. They had an employee threaten a blogger (Little Green Footbals), have tried to eliminate the usage of the word "terror" in their reports and now this photo doctoring issue has come to light.
Newsbusters.us (Reuters' Pro-Terrorist Tilt: More than Dishonest Photos) , Drudge Report and a hundred other websites and radio personalities have been talking about it. This story further reveals the ingrown bias in the media today but it is for sure that without the internet and talk radio, no one would ever know that Reuters has been using faked photos to sell their stories of terrorist's woe.
So, while I don't have anything new to add to this Reuters story, I did want Publius' Forum readers to have notice of it if you all had not previously seen or heard of it all.
(By the way, if you go to Newsbusters, you'll see that I am a writer for them as well.)
I am not going to get too far into all this mess from Reuters News service, but I just wanted Publius' readers to know of what is going on just to keep everyone up to date.
If you haven't caught it yet, Reuters News service has had to remove 900 some photos sold to them by a freelance "journalist" that they have employed for quite some time. It has come to light that this photographer has faked many of the photos of Middle East turmoil he has sold to American News services, chiefly Reuters.
Reuters has been having quite a time of it lately, keeping their integrity with this current unrest and stories about them are abound. They had an employee threaten a blogger (Little Green Footbals), have tried to eliminate the usage of the word "terror" in their reports and now this photo doctoring issue has come to light.
Newsbusters.us (Reuters' Pro-Terrorist Tilt: More than Dishonest Photos) , Drudge Report and a hundred other websites and radio personalities have been talking about it. This story further reveals the ingrown bias in the media today but it is for sure that without the internet and talk radio, no one would ever know that Reuters has been using faked photos to sell their stories of terrorist's woe.
So, while I don't have anything new to add to this Reuters story, I did want Publius' Forum readers to have notice of it if you all had not previously seen or heard of it all.
(By the way, if you go to Newsbusters, you'll see that I am a writer for them as well.)
AP - 'Despite Image, Cheney a GOP Rock Star'
-By Warner Todd Huston
Who, exactly, does the AP imagine supports the Vice President? Democrats? Obviously they are amazed anyone does in their report on the Vice President's campaign stops for the 2006 midterms.
They certainly seem amazed that anyone could respect Dick Cheney since, according to them, "Cheney is favorably regarded by only about a third of Americans". This one third statistic is pretty normal for just about anyone who has any well known contention swirling about them. After all, it is well accepted by historians that only one third of the American colonists supported the Revolutionary war, too. People who take strong stands often find that they get the adoration of one third, the outright hatred of one third and no opinion out of the last third.
Still, it is amusing to see the shock with which the AP views support among GOP faithful for the man they elected to office, that same man the press was claiming added "gravitas" to the presidential ticket back in 2000.
And, while the AP loves to trumpet the "beating" Cheney's reputation has taken, every aspect of their story proves the opposite is true.
Even as they report how popular he is, they insist he is in the dumps with the country! An amazing disconnect, I'd say.
Over and over they try to berate the Vice President in this story. But, what we end up really learning is that it is the press that is the VP's enemy, more than the people.
There you have it. A Cheney visit spurs the press to attack him which, in turn, leads the public astray. Instead of "reporting" the press is inventing the story.
The fact is, the Vice President is one of the strongest advocates for the Global War on Terror in the entire administration and the press just hates that aspect. Yet, most of the rank and file members of the GOP love that in the VP.
That about explains his biggest appeal right there. He is not much of a dissembler nor is he an empty suit that spouts platitudes. He usually says what he means and means what he says in a tough, no-nonsense manner.
The press just isn't used to a man of principle, their hero being Bill Clinton, after all.
Who, exactly, does the AP imagine supports the Vice President? Democrats? Obviously they are amazed anyone does in their report on the Vice President's campaign stops for the 2006 midterms.
They certainly seem amazed that anyone could respect Dick Cheney since, according to them, "Cheney is favorably regarded by only about a third of Americans". This one third statistic is pretty normal for just about anyone who has any well known contention swirling about them. After all, it is well accepted by historians that only one third of the American colonists supported the Revolutionary war, too. People who take strong stands often find that they get the adoration of one third, the outright hatred of one third and no opinion out of the last third.
Still, it is amusing to see the shock with which the AP views support among GOP faithful for the man they elected to office, that same man the press was claiming added "gravitas" to the presidential ticket back in 2000.
And, while the AP loves to trumpet the "beating" Cheney's reputation has taken, every aspect of their story proves the opposite is true.
"Five and half years into the Bush presidency, Cheney's image may have taken a beating overall but 'he's still Elvis to a lot of the conservatives,' says Marshall Wittmann, a Democratic Leadership Council analyst. 'When he comes in, money and enthusiasm flow.""
Even as they report how popular he is, they insist he is in the dumps with the country! An amazing disconnect, I'd say.
Over and over they try to berate the Vice President in this story. But, what we end up really learning is that it is the press that is the VP's enemy, more than the people.
"Cheney may bring in a lot of cash, says Democratic consultant Dane Strother, but 'the problem is that when he races through town, he leaves a stack of headlines. And come mid-October, you tie the Republican candidate to the Bush-Cheney efforts and, boom, there are the headlines and the pictures.'"
There you have it. A Cheney visit spurs the press to attack him which, in turn, leads the public astray. Instead of "reporting" the press is inventing the story.
The fact is, the Vice President is one of the strongest advocates for the Global War on Terror in the entire administration and the press just hates that aspect. Yet, most of the rank and file members of the GOP love that in the VP.
"'He says what he means and he means what he says and he follows through,' she (Shari Kotsch) said. 'I love that in any man.'"
That about explains his biggest appeal right there. He is not much of a dissembler nor is he an empty suit that spouts platitudes. He usually says what he means and means what he says in a tough, no-nonsense manner.
The press just isn't used to a man of principle, their hero being Bill Clinton, after all.
NYTimes Helps Soften Hezbullah's Reputation
-By Warner Todd Huston
The New York Times has done it again. In their latest soft selling of the terror organization, Hezbullah, The Times is revealing the kinder, gentler side of the outlaw group to help us all better understand how wonderful they really are. Even the title almost seems nice...
"Holding a Gun, Hezbollah Lends a Hand", it read.
But wait! Apparently The New York Times thought even that title was too harsh. They later changed the name of the piece to "Charity Wins Deep Loyalty for Hezbollah". Best to get that nasty "gun" word out of there, I suppose. Why, we can't expect people in America to come to love Hezbullah like the TImes does if people think they are somehow connected to guns after all!
(If you want to see this amusing transformation, Google the original title and one of the top hits under the old title will take you to the newly titled piece)
Along with a nicer title than they started with, the piece details all the wonderful things that Hezbullah does so selflessly for the Lebanese people. From paying for groceries, to paying for health care ... why those nice Hezbullah fellers even helped a shop owner negotiate downward his electric bill that those greedy Syrians were trying to get him to pay.
They are a veritable army of Robin hoods, for sure.
The Times then goes on to try and link their presence straight to a faith in Islam itself and warns Israel that it cannot win against them.
In fact, little mention is made of the terrorism that Hezbullah is responsible for in the piece. Only one mention is made about attacks on Israel and that mention does not mention Hezbullah as being responsible for it.
Just some mysterious rockets that suddenly sprang from the ground like a budding flower in Spring Time, I suppose.
Worse, the Times furthers the fiction that Hezbullah's "social works" are separate and unconnected to the terrorism wing of the organization.
How absurd. There are no "separate" parts of Hezbullah. They are part and parcel an organization, funded by Syria and Iran, created solely for the purpose of killing Jews and has been on the USA's list of terrorist organizations for decades. These "social woks" are merely propaganda meant to further that aim. They are not mere charity meant to help fellow citizens.
The Times support of Hezbullah amounts to a support for terrorism and no American institution should offer such support. But, The Times sure makes a great propaganda arm of Hezbullah. Makes you wonder if they are "separate" from the terrorism wing of Hezbullah themselves?
The New York Times has done it again. In their latest soft selling of the terror organization, Hezbullah, The Times is revealing the kinder, gentler side of the outlaw group to help us all better understand how wonderful they really are. Even the title almost seems nice...
"Holding a Gun, Hezbollah Lends a Hand", it read.
But wait! Apparently The New York Times thought even that title was too harsh. They later changed the name of the piece to "Charity Wins Deep Loyalty for Hezbollah". Best to get that nasty "gun" word out of there, I suppose. Why, we can't expect people in America to come to love Hezbullah like the TImes does if people think they are somehow connected to guns after all!
(If you want to see this amusing transformation, Google the original title and one of the top hits under the old title will take you to the newly titled piece)
Along with a nicer title than they started with, the piece details all the wonderful things that Hezbullah does so selflessly for the Lebanese people. From paying for groceries, to paying for health care ... why those nice Hezbullah fellers even helped a shop owner negotiate downward his electric bill that those greedy Syrians were trying to get him to pay.
"TYRE, Lebanon, Aug. 5 — Hezbollah paid for his wife’s Caesarean section. It brought olive oil, sugar and nuts when he lost his job and even covered the cost of an operation on his broken nose.
Like many poor Shiites across southern Lebanon, Ahmed Awali, 41, a security guard at an apartment building in this southern city, has received charity from Hezbollah for years. He says he is not a member. He does not even know the names of those who helped him."
They are a veritable army of Robin hoods, for sure.
"They cover medical bills, offer health insurance, pay school fees and make seed money available for small businesses. They are invisible but omnipresent, providing essential services that the Lebanese government through years of war was incapable of offering."
The Times then goes on to try and link their presence straight to a faith in Islam itself and warns Israel that it cannot win against them.
"Their presence in southern Lebanon is so widespread that any Israeli military advance will do little to extricate the group, which is as much a part of society as its Shiite faith."
In fact, little mention is made of the terrorism that Hezbullah is responsible for in the piece. Only one mention is made about attacks on Israel and that mention does not mention Hezbullah as being responsible for it.
"On Wednesday, a mass funeral was canceled. Authorities cited the security situation. Minutes later, the sound of rockets being launched swooshed from an area near where the burial was to have been held."
Just some mysterious rockets that suddenly sprang from the ground like a budding flower in Spring Time, I suppose.
Worse, the Times furthers the fiction that Hezbullah's "social works" are separate and unconnected to the terrorism wing of the organization.
"Now, Hezbollah’s military branch is separate from its social works, but in its early days it began together, organizing water delivery for people in Dahiya, the Shiite area in south Beirut, the scene of some of some of the most complete destruction in this war."
How absurd. There are no "separate" parts of Hezbullah. They are part and parcel an organization, funded by Syria and Iran, created solely for the purpose of killing Jews and has been on the USA's list of terrorist organizations for decades. These "social woks" are merely propaganda meant to further that aim. They are not mere charity meant to help fellow citizens.
The Times support of Hezbullah amounts to a support for terrorism and no American institution should offer such support. But, The Times sure makes a great propaganda arm of Hezbullah. Makes you wonder if they are "separate" from the terrorism wing of Hezbullah themselves?
Filed in: hezbullah, New York times, terrorism, Israel
Hints Revealed Why Border Left Wide Open
- By Frederick Meekins
Ben Franklin is attributed with saying that those desiring safety above liberty deserve neither safety nor liberty. If one particular proposal being suggested as a potential solution to the seemingly insurmountable immigration problem is implemented, those living in the United States --- both those with the right to be here as well as those that should be tossed back over the border --- will have neither safety nor liberty.
Both the chairman of Verichip and the President of Columbia are on record as suggesting that the vaunted guest workers heralded as the future backbone of the U.S. economy could be implanted with radio frequency identification chips in order to ease security concerns by tracking the movements of migrants and reliably confirming their identities.
Citizens might respond, "So? This doesn't concern us. This only applies to those that want to come here in compliance with the law and the first thing any law-abiding person does is always comply with the law no matter what." You know, a variation of the old why-are-you-so-concerned-about-privacy-if-you- haven't-got-anything-to-hide thing..........................
Click HERE To Read On
Ben Franklin is attributed with saying that those desiring safety above liberty deserve neither safety nor liberty. If one particular proposal being suggested as a potential solution to the seemingly insurmountable immigration problem is implemented, those living in the United States --- both those with the right to be here as well as those that should be tossed back over the border --- will have neither safety nor liberty.
Both the chairman of Verichip and the President of Columbia are on record as suggesting that the vaunted guest workers heralded as the future backbone of the U.S. economy could be implanted with radio frequency identification chips in order to ease security concerns by tracking the movements of migrants and reliably confirming their identities.
Citizens might respond, "So? This doesn't concern us. This only applies to those that want to come here in compliance with the law and the first thing any law-abiding person does is always comply with the law no matter what." You know, a variation of the old why-are-you-so-concerned-about-privacy-if-you- haven't-got-anything-to-hide thing..........................
Click HERE To Read On
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Liberal Lojic (Double Take On a Double Standard)
- By R.A. Hawkins
I've watched for years as many of the other parents in the mid-east have been interviewed. Most of them are pretty darn consistent in what they have to say. "I'm going to have more children and raise them up to kill Jews." Until we shut off the cash valve some of them were getting money from Saddam for sending their kids over to Israel to blow themselves up. I guess if I had parents like that I'd be inclined to blow myself up too. But I'd be more inclined to do it next to them not someone I've never met before.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The hatred in the region towards Jews is as boundless as Ted Kennedy's and Bill Clinton's ability to screw up an anvil with a rubber hammer. Right now the Shiite group Hezbollah has managed to capture the love of the Sunni Moslems because of what they're doing to Israel now. This is amazing to me because the two don't see eye to eye on anything. In Iraq they are seeing eye to eye at the moment but there is a bit of a problem. The moment they are eye to eye one of them pulls the trigger first and the slow one dies. (Darwin at work) At least those people know how to live the proper mid-eastern life style...................................
Click HERE To Read On
I've watched for years as many of the other parents in the mid-east have been interviewed. Most of them are pretty darn consistent in what they have to say. "I'm going to have more children and raise them up to kill Jews." Until we shut off the cash valve some of them were getting money from Saddam for sending their kids over to Israel to blow themselves up. I guess if I had parents like that I'd be inclined to blow myself up too. But I'd be more inclined to do it next to them not someone I've never met before.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The hatred in the region towards Jews is as boundless as Ted Kennedy's and Bill Clinton's ability to screw up an anvil with a rubber hammer. Right now the Shiite group Hezbollah has managed to capture the love of the Sunni Moslems because of what they're doing to Israel now. This is amazing to me because the two don't see eye to eye on anything. In Iraq they are seeing eye to eye at the moment but there is a bit of a problem. The moment they are eye to eye one of them pulls the trigger first and the slow one dies. (Darwin at work) At least those people know how to live the proper mid-eastern life style...................................
Click HERE To Read On
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Rove to 'Further Neuter Reporters'
-By Warner Todd Huston
In a classic example of self-pity, Editor and Publisher writer David S. Hirschman's latest article is so full of whining, moaning, assumption and gnashing of teeth that one would think the world is about to end. All this wringing of hands is over the revamping of the White House Press Room.
As many of you know the press room in the White House, the place where countless spokesmen for the President have held innumerable briefings on issues important and not so important, is being shut down and a new one is being built to better fulfill the needs of a more modern era. The creation of this new press room is Hirschman’s excuse to attack Karl Rove and the Administration who he imagines wishes to "weaken the press corps".
Hirschman is all aghast over his vague feeling that Karl Rove has somehow "neutered" the press "much of the time" in the old White House Press Room. And he wonders what new ways Rove will "Inspire (Even More) Fear and Loathing in the Press Room".
What does Hirschman imagine here? That Bush will install ejection chairs, to be used when some wayward reporter asks a question Bush or Presidential Spokesman Tony Snow don't like, flinging the hapless reporter into the parking lot?
It is merely a revamp of a decaying, old facility that has been avoided for a long time by other administrations, not some Machiavellian scheme to make the press irrelevant.
Certainly, the press needs no help from the president on that measure as they are doing a great job of making themselves irrelevant already.
But, Hirschman goes off on all kinds of ruminations of the schemes of Rove and the president to make the press uncomfortable and to hasten their irrelevancy. Of course, much of what Hirschman wrote is in jest, which is obvious to see, but the underlying sentiment is self-pity and a desire to foist the blame for the press' poor reputation -- one that is getting worse all the time -- on someone, ANYONE, else other than themselves.
Hiding behind the "humor" is just another reporter who is finding that the vaunted Washington Press Corps is consider a pack of jackals without the slightest bit of common sense or patriotism and who are actual enemies to the country with their desire to assist terrorists. Hirschman may have given a comic twist to the self-pity and lamentations, but it is one we see in the press on a daily basis these days.
My Mother used to scoff at us kids when we got all whiney about not wanting to do something she asked us to do. She used to say, "Do you want me to throw you a pity party?" Well, Editor and Publisher just threw themselves a pity party and David S. Hirschman was the party master!
In a classic example of self-pity, Editor and Publisher writer David S. Hirschman's latest article is so full of whining, moaning, assumption and gnashing of teeth that one would think the world is about to end. All this wringing of hands is over the revamping of the White House Press Room.
As many of you know the press room in the White House, the place where countless spokesmen for the President have held innumerable briefings on issues important and not so important, is being shut down and a new one is being built to better fulfill the needs of a more modern era. The creation of this new press room is Hirschman’s excuse to attack Karl Rove and the Administration who he imagines wishes to "weaken the press corps".
Hirschman is all aghast over his vague feeling that Karl Rove has somehow "neutered" the press "much of the time" in the old White House Press Room. And he wonders what new ways Rove will "Inspire (Even More) Fear and Loathing in the Press Room".
"It's hard not to be somewhat skeptical of the Bush Administration's move to revamp the White House Press Room. Yes, the old one was clearly decrepit and out-of-date, but one can't help but suspect that Karl Rove is already in a super-secret bunker in Bethesda scheming with GOP architects -- and interior designers -- about ways to use the new room's design to further neuter the Washington reporters the administration has so successfully managed, spun, and blamed for the past five-and-a-half years."
What does Hirschman imagine here? That Bush will install ejection chairs, to be used when some wayward reporter asks a question Bush or Presidential Spokesman Tony Snow don't like, flinging the hapless reporter into the parking lot?
It is merely a revamp of a decaying, old facility that has been avoided for a long time by other administrations, not some Machiavellian scheme to make the press irrelevant.
Certainly, the press needs no help from the president on that measure as they are doing a great job of making themselves irrelevant already.
But, Hirschman goes off on all kinds of ruminations of the schemes of Rove and the president to make the press uncomfortable and to hasten their irrelevancy. Of course, much of what Hirschman wrote is in jest, which is obvious to see, but the underlying sentiment is self-pity and a desire to foist the blame for the press' poor reputation -- one that is getting worse all the time -- on someone, ANYONE, else other than themselves.
Hiding behind the "humor" is just another reporter who is finding that the vaunted Washington Press Corps is consider a pack of jackals without the slightest bit of common sense or patriotism and who are actual enemies to the country with their desire to assist terrorists. Hirschman may have given a comic twist to the self-pity and lamentations, but it is one we see in the press on a daily basis these days.
My Mother used to scoff at us kids when we got all whiney about not wanting to do something she asked us to do. She used to say, "Do you want me to throw you a pity party?" Well, Editor and Publisher just threw themselves a pity party and David S. Hirschman was the party master!
Israel, Doing What US Would Do (And HAS Done), After All
We see it daily in the anti-Israeli press; Israel should call a "cease fire" and stop the "killing of civilians" so that a "diplomatic solution" can be found.
This castigation of israel would be well founded if they had attacked Lebanese territory to get rid of Hizbullah all of a sudden, with no precursor causation. If they had launched a blitzkrieg of attacks on their neighboring state, it would make sense for the international community to be claiming foul and to be working for a cease fire in the interests of "peace".
But, Israel did not launch this incursion into Lebanese territory on a whim. Israel has not been left alone to live and work in peace by her neighbors only to leap to war without cause. Israel has been losing thousands of citizens for decades to state sponsored terror attacks by her neighbors and has, for the most part, not responded in kind.
Here are some numbers of just the last few years to ponder. Between the beginning of the year 2000 and November of 2005, 1,074 Israelis have been killed by terrorists and 7,520 have been injured.
The population of Israel is currently 6,276,883. The number of deaths is .017% of that small nation's population.
Now, if the USA had lost the same percentage to terrorism as Israel has, that would be over 5,000 American citizens dead. (The population of the USA is 295,734,134. .017% of that is 5,0601)
So, my question to you is this: do you think that we would be sitting around doing nothing if we lost over 5,000 citizens to terrorism as many are expecting Israel to do?
We had just under 3,000 die in the attacks on 9/11 and we deposed the governments of two nations, invading them and occupying them with our troops in response. Yet now, after Israel losing so many, we expect them to sit quietly after that loss and do nothing while the UN twiddles its thumbs and pretends to "diplomacy"?
Would WE sit by quietly and wait for the UN to pretend to diplomacy if we were in the Israeli's position?
We have already shown we would not. We have shown that we WILL not.
So, why do we expect the Israelis to do so?
If Israel calls a cease fire only one thing will result. Hizbullah will slink away like the rodent it is. It will burrow into the rubble to lick its wounds. It will then propagate and come back stronger at a later time. Israel is RIGHT to attempt to utterly destroy Hizbullah. And we should not stand in her way.
This castigation of israel would be well founded if they had attacked Lebanese territory to get rid of Hizbullah all of a sudden, with no precursor causation. If they had launched a blitzkrieg of attacks on their neighboring state, it would make sense for the international community to be claiming foul and to be working for a cease fire in the interests of "peace".
But, Israel did not launch this incursion into Lebanese territory on a whim. Israel has not been left alone to live and work in peace by her neighbors only to leap to war without cause. Israel has been losing thousands of citizens for decades to state sponsored terror attacks by her neighbors and has, for the most part, not responded in kind.
Here are some numbers of just the last few years to ponder. Between the beginning of the year 2000 and November of 2005, 1,074 Israelis have been killed by terrorists and 7,520 have been injured.
The population of Israel is currently 6,276,883. The number of deaths is .017% of that small nation's population.
Now, if the USA had lost the same percentage to terrorism as Israel has, that would be over 5,000 American citizens dead. (The population of the USA is 295,734,134. .017% of that is 5,0601)
So, my question to you is this: do you think that we would be sitting around doing nothing if we lost over 5,000 citizens to terrorism as many are expecting Israel to do?
We had just under 3,000 die in the attacks on 9/11 and we deposed the governments of two nations, invading them and occupying them with our troops in response. Yet now, after Israel losing so many, we expect them to sit quietly after that loss and do nothing while the UN twiddles its thumbs and pretends to "diplomacy"?
Would WE sit by quietly and wait for the UN to pretend to diplomacy if we were in the Israeli's position?
We have already shown we would not. We have shown that we WILL not.
So, why do we expect the Israelis to do so?
If Israel calls a cease fire only one thing will result. Hizbullah will slink away like the rodent it is. It will burrow into the rubble to lick its wounds. It will then propagate and come back stronger at a later time. Israel is RIGHT to attempt to utterly destroy Hizbullah. And we should not stand in her way.
Filed in: terrorism, israel, hizbullah, hezbullah
The Islamic Deception
- By Nathan Tabor
Google the phrase "Muslim violence," and more than 29 million entries pop up. Granted, some of these citations represent violence committed against Muslims, but, unfortunately, quite a few represent violence committed in the name of Islam.
This makes me wonder: What does Islam really stand for? I hear a great deal about Muslims who do not believe in violence. Yet, it seems that this is a troubling form of faith that rewards people for committing acts of violence.
Imagine if Klansman David Duke claimed he was part of the Ku Klux Klan but was not a racist--that he just liked wearing sheets. Wouldn't that be a little hard to accept as a credible concept?..........................
Click HERE To Read On
Google the phrase "Muslim violence," and more than 29 million entries pop up. Granted, some of these citations represent violence committed against Muslims, but, unfortunately, quite a few represent violence committed in the name of Islam.
This makes me wonder: What does Islam really stand for? I hear a great deal about Muslims who do not believe in violence. Yet, it seems that this is a troubling form of faith that rewards people for committing acts of violence.
Imagine if Klansman David Duke claimed he was part of the Ku Klux Klan but was not a racist--that he just liked wearing sheets. Wouldn't that be a little hard to accept as a credible concept?..........................
Click HERE To Read On
Friday, August 04, 2006
The 'N-Word' Double Standard
-by Warner Todd Huston
Isn't it about time we dispensed with the idea that the "N-Word" is offensive to black Americans? I know that African American "leaders" want to proffer this claim that the word is the epitome of evil and that its use reveals the inherent racism that constantly abuses them everywhere they go. Yet, this stance seems increasingly disingenuous by those same "leaders", especially when they use it themselves.
This claim of how bad the N-word is often times rings hollow to me when time after time I hear blacks use the word as a "term of endearment" with each other in daily conversation. Black comedians constantly use it on stage in their acts yet no one seems to bat an eye over it. One hears it in movies quite often from one black character to another. No outrage is seen.
Since blacks use the word about blacks at an alarmingly common rate, isn't it the proper conclusion to come to that it isn't the word they are mad at but who uses it? If a white person were to come to use the word it instantly goes from "term of endearment" to "proof of racism everywhere". This transformation reveals the black community's confusion far more than anything else.
Let's face it. The word IS offensive. It was used for generations explicitly to demean black people. So, it should be the word itself that blacks should get angry over. It is a word loaded with racist history and its use should absolutely be banished from conversation. And black's usage of it to describe each other should be just as offensive as white's usage of it.
But, even black lawmakers are excused for using it. On July 28th, a black state senator from the Illinois General Assembly used the word on Chicago television and then defended its usage with that ridiculous "term of endearment" excuse, and no one raised the slightest concern over it. He isn't just any black senator, either. He is a high profile leader in the black community, a possible contender for Mayor of Chicago, and -- more shockingly -- an ordained minister and firebrand preacher.
The Reverend James Meeks of Chicago's South Side, a senator in the state government, gave a rousing "sermon" where he called blacks that do not follow his personal ideas of government "House Niggers". The "sermon" was broadcast on Chicago TV.
Channel 2 News Reporter, Mike Flannery, called Meeks on his usage of the word and asked why he used the word to describe fellow African Americans in government?
Amazing gymnastics, there, Rev. Meeks.
But, Flannery went on to point out that Meeks was absolutely not using the word as a "term of endearment" but as a way of name calling to show that blacks in government not toeing Meeks’ ideological line were traitors to their people.
If you thought the above was an example of Meeks' gymnastics, his next reply to Flannery's question would have turned Olga Corbett herself into a human pretzel.
So, it is a "term of endearment" ... unless it "applies to" someone who should then be offended?
Wow!
Of course, this is all politics and not niceties. Meeks is a hypocrite using his bully pulpit to advance his political career and must do these back flips to justify his bellicose rhetoric and his name-calling.
Earlier in his "sermon" Meeks stampeded straight for the race card by equating white government officials to "slave masters".
So, what we have is another "reverend" taking the low road, stirring his people with hatred, and vitriol and hiding behind the pulpit while doing it.
Still, his prosaic usage of Nigger is as offensive as it gets. In fact, any usage of the word should be termed offensive.
The word Nigger is NO term of endearment, no matter who uses it.
Isn't it about time we dispensed with the idea that the "N-Word" is offensive to black Americans? I know that African American "leaders" want to proffer this claim that the word is the epitome of evil and that its use reveals the inherent racism that constantly abuses them everywhere they go. Yet, this stance seems increasingly disingenuous by those same "leaders", especially when they use it themselves.
This claim of how bad the N-word is often times rings hollow to me when time after time I hear blacks use the word as a "term of endearment" with each other in daily conversation. Black comedians constantly use it on stage in their acts yet no one seems to bat an eye over it. One hears it in movies quite often from one black character to another. No outrage is seen.
Since blacks use the word about blacks at an alarmingly common rate, isn't it the proper conclusion to come to that it isn't the word they are mad at but who uses it? If a white person were to come to use the word it instantly goes from "term of endearment" to "proof of racism everywhere". This transformation reveals the black community's confusion far more than anything else.
Let's face it. The word IS offensive. It was used for generations explicitly to demean black people. So, it should be the word itself that blacks should get angry over. It is a word loaded with racist history and its use should absolutely be banished from conversation. And black's usage of it to describe each other should be just as offensive as white's usage of it.
But, even black lawmakers are excused for using it. On July 28th, a black state senator from the Illinois General Assembly used the word on Chicago television and then defended its usage with that ridiculous "term of endearment" excuse, and no one raised the slightest concern over it. He isn't just any black senator, either. He is a high profile leader in the black community, a possible contender for Mayor of Chicago, and -- more shockingly -- an ordained minister and firebrand preacher.
The Reverend James Meeks of Chicago's South Side, a senator in the state government, gave a rousing "sermon" where he called blacks that do not follow his personal ideas of government "House Niggers". The "sermon" was broadcast on Chicago TV.
"...we've got some preachers that are house niggers, you got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather then them trying to break this up they gonna fight you to protect that white man!"
Channel 2 News Reporter, Mike Flannery, called Meeks on his usage of the word and asked why he used the word to describe fellow African Americans in government?
"The word nigger is not in the African community a bad word. It's a term of endearment and I don't see it as derogatory or offensive."
Amazing gymnastics, there, Rev. Meeks.
But, Flannery went on to point out that Meeks was absolutely not using the word as a "term of endearment" but as a way of name calling to show that blacks in government not toeing Meeks’ ideological line were traitors to their people.
If you thought the above was an example of Meeks' gymnastics, his next reply to Flannery's question would have turned Olga Corbett herself into a human pretzel.
"No body will be offended by it except for an individual it applies to."
So, it is a "term of endearment" ... unless it "applies to" someone who should then be offended?
Wow!
Of course, this is all politics and not niceties. Meeks is a hypocrite using his bully pulpit to advance his political career and must do these back flips to justify his bellicose rhetoric and his name-calling.
Earlier in his "sermon" Meeks stampeded straight for the race card by equating white government officials to "slave masters".
"…we don't have slave masters, we got mayors but they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able … to be educated"
So, what we have is another "reverend" taking the low road, stirring his people with hatred, and vitriol and hiding behind the pulpit while doing it.
Still, his prosaic usage of Nigger is as offensive as it gets. In fact, any usage of the word should be termed offensive.
The word Nigger is NO term of endearment, no matter who uses it.
So many sensitivities, so little time
- By Michael M. Bates
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who wants to be president, made a big mistake the other day. No, I'm not referring to his use of the term "tar baby" in front of Iowa Republicans last weekend. I'm referring to his subsequent apology.
Romney was talking about the disastrous Big Dig in his home state and said politically it'd be best for him to "just get as far away from that tar baby as I possibly can."....................................
Click HERE To Read On
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who wants to be president, made a big mistake the other day. No, I'm not referring to his use of the term "tar baby" in front of Iowa Republicans last weekend. I'm referring to his subsequent apology.
Romney was talking about the disastrous Big Dig in his home state and said politically it'd be best for him to "just get as far away from that tar baby as I possibly can."....................................
Click HERE To Read On
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Human Fetus A "Parasite" - The State News, Mich. State Univ.
-By Warner Todd Huston
What are they teaching our children at MSU in East Lansing, Michigan? It appears to be that a human fetus is no different than a "tapeworm" or a "parasitical creature". They are also teaching that a newspaper is the proper place for devaluing human life as a recent article by Shane Krouse in The State News proves.
Shane Krouse, a sophomore and State News columnist, directly and unequivocally equates the human fetus, which he rather unscientifically describes as "a wad of cells", to parasites. He doesn’t stop with parasites, but goes much further than that, of course, as he lambastes the right to lifers, Catholics and "fundamentalists" and God, as well, over the abortion issue.
But, there seems to be a lot of illogic in the youngster's "reasoning". And, his entire stance is one that easily leads to a devaluing of life outside the womb as well as that inside. Nor does he adequately determine when that fetus magically goes from the "wad of cells" stage to human status.
To begin with, Mr. Krouse maintains that abortion cannot be considered "murder" because the fetus, that "wad of cells", is "not yet living". So destruction of it through abortion is a lifestyle choice as opposed to the ending of the life of a baby.
Krouse attempts to give logical reasons for his devaluing of the fetus.
A prosaic argument that many in the pro-abortion crowd commonly make, how ever logically unsound. To fully accept this "nutriment" argument it could easily be observed that an infant STILL "cannot survive independently" even after birth. I don't know of many babies that can get up out of their cradle and make their own bottle, so this means they are still 100% reliant on getting their "nutriment" from Mother. Taken to the logical end, the "nutriment" argument does not stand up.
After saying the fetus is not a living human, he goes on to claim that this same "wad of cells" is no different than a dog or cat in that those creatures are considered "property".
Correct me if I am wrong, but is this youngster claiming that a baby should be considered "property" in the same way we do pets? It seems to me that we once had a law in this great nation where certain people were considered "property". We called that concept "slavery". A war was fought over it if I recall. Is Mr. Krouse hoping we might return to a day where we consider certain classes of humans "property"? If so, what rights do children really have? And, I am curious if Mr. Krouse's studies are being paid for by his Mommy and Daddy? Mightn't we still apply the "property" tag to Mr. Krouse since he might possibly not be able to "exist" on his own without his Parent's support?
I suppose this is why we send children to college, to learn, but Mr. Krouse doesn't seem as far along as one might hope in that process.
In fairness to young Mr. Krouse, he does attempt to keep his discussion in relations to that "wad of cells" and not the born child. However, all his reasons devastate his arbitrary time line.
What 2 month-old infant has the "ability to choose for itself", after all? His criteria continues to be this "ability to chose" or think, or react, or help itself. But no baby has that ability for years after birth. So, logic dictates that his criteria for bestowing "life" can easily be extended past birth and on into the first few years of life. And some University Professors have propounded upon just such a theory.
Mr. Krouse's next line of attack is the aforementioned comparison of the fetus to a tapeworm.
But, here his logic also breaks down. He has claimed that a fetus is not "alive", not able to move, or think, or carry on like the "live" mother that houses the fetus and should, therefore, be killed off at will with no compunctions or consideration. Yet, his example of the tapeworm or other parasite is ill fitting because a tapeworm is fully able to exhibit all the various levels of "life" while inside or outside the human. And, since Mr. Krouse is using the criteria of being fully functional as one to bestow "life" then he should be incensed that we humans might try to kill off a tapeworm or other parasite. After all, those creatures are "alive" in the very sense that Mr. Krouse is claiming that a fetus is not, yet he seems to have no problem with killing a tapeworm.
Might we suspect that, if he has no interest in the life of the tapeworm using his own criteria, he has none for the life of the baby? If he is willing to ignore his criteria for life in the killing of the tapeworm, why should we assume that his criteria should suddenly mean anything to him where it concerns a baby?
His inconsistency is alarming.
God is Krouse's next target. Hope the big guy doesn't get too mad at our former little "wad of cells" in Michigan. Krouse veers into the field of in vitro fertilization and the "tragic fate of many fertilized eggs" he is shocked to see all around him.
He fails to understand that an embryo that fails to implant into the uterus walls is a natural failure. That would be considered an "act of God" to right to life advocates. However, a Doctor vacuuming the mangled limbs of a baby in the womb after having cut it to pieces is far from such an act of God, far from a natural occurrence.
Religious people leave the choice of when life may be bestowed to God and should God decide that a fetus should be aborted, they accept that fate, even when saddened about it. There is no inconsistency about there. What is God’s area of responsibility -- who lives and who dies via natural selection -- is not questioned by man. (And for his knowledge, many right to lifers do, indeed, dislike in vitro fertilization for the very reason that it is man deciding to a great degree.)
Of course, that does not stop our little Mr. Krouse from resorting to hyperbole about his feelings about God's decisions.
Krouse sums up his entire argument with the following:
If "freeloading" is to be a criterion to exclude the status of "life" then perhaps we might "abort" everyone on welfare and anyone who is not wholly subsisting by his own efforts? Perhaps the aged and infirm should be eliminated in an "abortion". Maybe the mentally unfit, or those in a coma fit Mr. Krouse's criteria of not truly being "alive"? As we are slaughtering them, we can let them know they have Shane Krouse to thank for ending their useless, unalive existence. And we can let them know that Michigan State University seems to think such an idea is perfectly reasonable.
What are they teaching our children at MSU in East Lansing, Michigan? It appears to be that a human fetus is no different than a "tapeworm" or a "parasitical creature". They are also teaching that a newspaper is the proper place for devaluing human life as a recent article by Shane Krouse in The State News proves.
Shane Krouse, a sophomore and State News columnist, directly and unequivocally equates the human fetus, which he rather unscientifically describes as "a wad of cells", to parasites. He doesn’t stop with parasites, but goes much further than that, of course, as he lambastes the right to lifers, Catholics and "fundamentalists" and God, as well, over the abortion issue.
But, there seems to be a lot of illogic in the youngster's "reasoning". And, his entire stance is one that easily leads to a devaluing of life outside the womb as well as that inside. Nor does he adequately determine when that fetus magically goes from the "wad of cells" stage to human status.
To begin with, Mr. Krouse maintains that abortion cannot be considered "murder" because the fetus, that "wad of cells", is "not yet living". So destruction of it through abortion is a lifestyle choice as opposed to the ending of the life of a baby.
Krouse attempts to give logical reasons for his devaluing of the fetus.
"During the first trimester of the pregnancy, the fetus is merely a wad of cells. A mere wad of cells doesn't equate to a fully functioning, living human being. A wad of cells cannot make its own cognitive decisions. A wad of cells doesn't have the capability to inhale or exhale with its lungs. A wad of cells cannot survive independently, as it relies completely on its mother for all its nutriment."
A prosaic argument that many in the pro-abortion crowd commonly make, how ever logically unsound. To fully accept this "nutriment" argument it could easily be observed that an infant STILL "cannot survive independently" even after birth. I don't know of many babies that can get up out of their cradle and make their own bottle, so this means they are still 100% reliant on getting their "nutriment" from Mother. Taken to the logical end, the "nutriment" argument does not stand up.
After saying the fetus is not a living human, he goes on to claim that this same "wad of cells" is no different than a dog or cat in that those creatures are considered "property".
"The mother deserves every right to make a decision to abort her fetus. The supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, guarantees Americans have the right to their property. Are pets not considered the property of a human? Humans provide pets with food, water and a habitat, just as a mother provides a fetus a habitat inside of the womb, along with food and oxygen."
Correct me if I am wrong, but is this youngster claiming that a baby should be considered "property" in the same way we do pets? It seems to me that we once had a law in this great nation where certain people were considered "property". We called that concept "slavery". A war was fought over it if I recall. Is Mr. Krouse hoping we might return to a day where we consider certain classes of humans "property"? If so, what rights do children really have? And, I am curious if Mr. Krouse's studies are being paid for by his Mommy and Daddy? Mightn't we still apply the "property" tag to Mr. Krouse since he might possibly not be able to "exist" on his own without his Parent's support?
I suppose this is why we send children to college, to learn, but Mr. Krouse doesn't seem as far along as one might hope in that process.
In fairness to young Mr. Krouse, he does attempt to keep his discussion in relations to that "wad of cells" and not the born child. However, all his reasons devastate his arbitrary time line.
"...the fetus should be considered property of its mother. Not to mention, the wad of cells inside her doesn't have the ability to choose for itself."
What 2 month-old infant has the "ability to choose for itself", after all? His criteria continues to be this "ability to chose" or think, or react, or help itself. But no baby has that ability for years after birth. So, logic dictates that his criteria for bestowing "life" can easily be extended past birth and on into the first few years of life. And some University Professors have propounded upon just such a theory.
Mr. Krouse's next line of attack is the aforementioned comparison of the fetus to a tapeworm.
"If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.
Tapeworms are parasites that house themselves in the intestinal tracts of humans, feeding off the food the host consumes. Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?"
But, here his logic also breaks down. He has claimed that a fetus is not "alive", not able to move, or think, or carry on like the "live" mother that houses the fetus and should, therefore, be killed off at will with no compunctions or consideration. Yet, his example of the tapeworm or other parasite is ill fitting because a tapeworm is fully able to exhibit all the various levels of "life" while inside or outside the human. And, since Mr. Krouse is using the criteria of being fully functional as one to bestow "life" then he should be incensed that we humans might try to kill off a tapeworm or other parasite. After all, those creatures are "alive" in the very sense that Mr. Krouse is claiming that a fetus is not, yet he seems to have no problem with killing a tapeworm.
Might we suspect that, if he has no interest in the life of the tapeworm using his own criteria, he has none for the life of the baby? If he is willing to ignore his criteria for life in the killing of the tapeworm, why should we assume that his criteria should suddenly mean anything to him where it concerns a baby?
His inconsistency is alarming.
God is Krouse's next target. Hope the big guy doesn't get too mad at our former little "wad of cells" in Michigan. Krouse veers into the field of in vitro fertilization and the "tragic fate of many fertilized eggs" he is shocked to see all around him.
"Fundamentalists fiercely oppose abortion because they believe it is murder. They often recognize those who are "slaughtered" by holding vigils and other ceremonies.
Do any of these individuals realize that according to the National Institutes of Health, 25 percent of conceived embryos perish within the first six weeks due to complications such as failure to implant to the uterus wall? That's right -- a quarter of all "humans" conceived end up 'dying.'"
He fails to understand that an embryo that fails to implant into the uterus walls is a natural failure. That would be considered an "act of God" to right to life advocates. However, a Doctor vacuuming the mangled limbs of a baby in the womb after having cut it to pieces is far from such an act of God, far from a natural occurrence.
Religious people leave the choice of when life may be bestowed to God and should God decide that a fetus should be aborted, they accept that fate, even when saddened about it. There is no inconsistency about there. What is God’s area of responsibility -- who lives and who dies via natural selection -- is not questioned by man. (And for his knowledge, many right to lifers do, indeed, dislike in vitro fertilization for the very reason that it is man deciding to a great degree.)
Of course, that does not stop our little Mr. Krouse from resorting to hyperbole about his feelings about God's decisions.
"It would appear that the 'loving' God of these fundamentalists is many more times guilty of murder than all the human race's abortionists combined."
Krouse sums up his entire argument with the following:
"Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy."
If "freeloading" is to be a criterion to exclude the status of "life" then perhaps we might "abort" everyone on welfare and anyone who is not wholly subsisting by his own efforts? Perhaps the aged and infirm should be eliminated in an "abortion". Maybe the mentally unfit, or those in a coma fit Mr. Krouse's criteria of not truly being "alive"? As we are slaughtering them, we can let them know they have Shane Krouse to thank for ending their useless, unalive existence. And we can let them know that Michigan State University seems to think such an idea is perfectly reasonable.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
(Submitted by Nathan Tabor)
Letter to the Editor
This question was forwarded someone who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his forwarded reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran)
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very mindful of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.
Pass it on Fellow Americans. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
Letter to the Editor
This question was forwarded someone who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his forwarded reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran)
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very mindful of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.
Pass it on Fellow Americans. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
LA Times - Minutemen Think Immigrants Aren't Humans
-By Warner Todd Huston
"When Immigrants Become Humans" is an interesting, if not acerbic, title of a recent L. A. Times piece on the latest episode of Morgan Spurlock’s TV show, "30 days".
The Times obviously is of the opinion that the Minutemen, the organization that has taken upon itself the job of patrolling our borders, don't think that Immigrants are human if the story is any indication. In fact, the Times is saying that those against illegal immigration "...too often compare a class of mostly decent human beings (illegal immigrants) to rodents or insects."
Funny, but I have never seen any official Minuteman communication that does this at all. In fact, there are very few people in these activist organizations that have said such things publicly.
Perhaps the Times can read people's minds?
This isn't the 1890s when anti-Chinese immigration activists said things about the Chinses in those days like what the Times alleged the Minutemen have said today. Nor are we in the days when the anti-Irish discounted the humanity of Irishmen or those days when other immigrant populations were attacked by fearful nativeists.
The Times also seems shocked that anti-illegal immigration activists can come to feel that immigrants. "... can be noble, hardworking, funny, angry, God-fearing, sassy, patriotic ... and, well, human."
Wow. Immigrants can be human? Imagine that?
Naturally, they aren't just attaching this harsh sentiment to the Minutemen. Representative Steven King from Iowa comes in for a backhanded slap, too.
Anyway, the Times piece is about how wonderful Supurlock's new episode is. In this episode a member of the Minutemen named Frank Jorge is filmed as he lives for 30 days with an illegal immigrant family. It seems to present a man transformed by his experience living with these "real humans" and coming to soften his anti-illegal immigration stance.
Of course, it turns out the show is all a hack job, misrepresenting Mr. Jorge's real positions after his experience with the show. Mr. Jorge himself is denouncing the lies of Spurlock's fantasy hit-piece, that he has posted on the web, titled Letter From Frank Jorge.
Jorge says in his public statement that Spurlock twisted things badly.
Now, most people know that TV is a land of fantasy, and no one should be surprised that Spurlock is creating his own fantasy land with his little show, there. Still, Jorge has a right to set the record straight.
Mr. Jorge goes on for quite a while about the misleading TV episode. But, I don't suppose it should be too surprising that Spurlock has done this to his subject. Twisting and warping, falsifying and misleading ... that is Spurlock's game. He is an entertainer after all. "Truth" is the first casualty of the story-teller.
But, what is the Times' excuse? The Times sure isn't entertaining, I'll tell ya' that much.
"When Immigrants Become Humans" is an interesting, if not acerbic, title of a recent L. A. Times piece on the latest episode of Morgan Spurlock’s TV show, "30 days".
The Times obviously is of the opinion that the Minutemen, the organization that has taken upon itself the job of patrolling our borders, don't think that Immigrants are human if the story is any indication. In fact, the Times is saying that those against illegal immigration "...too often compare a class of mostly decent human beings (illegal immigrants) to rodents or insects."
Funny, but I have never seen any official Minuteman communication that does this at all. In fact, there are very few people in these activist organizations that have said such things publicly.
Perhaps the Times can read people's minds?
This isn't the 1890s when anti-Chinese immigration activists said things about the Chinses in those days like what the Times alleged the Minutemen have said today. Nor are we in the days when the anti-Irish discounted the humanity of Irishmen or those days when other immigrant populations were attacked by fearful nativeists.
The Times also seems shocked that anti-illegal immigration activists can come to feel that immigrants. "... can be noble, hardworking, funny, angry, God-fearing, sassy, patriotic ... and, well, human."
Wow. Immigrants can be human? Imagine that?
Naturally, they aren't just attaching this harsh sentiment to the Minutemen. Representative Steven King from Iowa comes in for a backhanded slap, too.
Anyway, the Times piece is about how wonderful Supurlock's new episode is. In this episode a member of the Minutemen named Frank Jorge is filmed as he lives for 30 days with an illegal immigrant family. It seems to present a man transformed by his experience living with these "real humans" and coming to soften his anti-illegal immigration stance.
Of course, it turns out the show is all a hack job, misrepresenting Mr. Jorge's real positions after his experience with the show. Mr. Jorge himself is denouncing the lies of Spurlock's fantasy hit-piece, that he has posted on the web, titled Letter From Frank Jorge.
Jorge says in his public statement that Spurlock twisted things badly.
"In these last few minutes the editing crew had a field day putting together a sequence that to someone who is as sensitive as myself and my wife over this issue of illegal immigration appeared to twist things to make it appear as if I had changed my mind and am in fact in favor of the illegal immigration family of seven staying here and allowing more in."
Now, most people know that TV is a land of fantasy, and no one should be surprised that Spurlock is creating his own fantasy land with his little show, there. Still, Jorge has a right to set the record straight.
"I told the producers that they had purposefully twisted the story and they said that I had actually said those things and I replied that they had taken it out of context from the 300 hours of video that they had shot."
Mr. Jorge goes on for quite a while about the misleading TV episode. But, I don't suppose it should be too surprising that Spurlock has done this to his subject. Twisting and warping, falsifying and misleading ... that is Spurlock's game. He is an entertainer after all. "Truth" is the first casualty of the story-teller.
But, what is the Times' excuse? The Times sure isn't entertaining, I'll tell ya' that much.
Filed in: LA Times, minutemen, spurlock, immigrants, immigration
Thoughts on Lebanon
- By John H. Cox, Republican candidate for President 2008
The crisis in Lebanon is a manifestation of years of appeasement instead of principled confrontation against the evils of Islamic radicalism. The people of Lebanon as well as the people of Iran and Syria and other countries in the region want what you and I want – peace, freedom, opportunity and the ability to house and feed their children.
Unfortunately, there are leaders among them who are interested in cementing their own power by creating division, war and conflict. We can see that in Iran where a group of Mullahs have a tight hold on that country’s oil wealth while the people have little voice.
The United States is supporting Israel’s right of defense, and that is the right thing to do because every sovereign nation has the right of self-defense. I definitely believe it is incumbent upon the U.S. to use this crisis as an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that the taking of innocent human life is never appropriate. We must demonstrate to the world that the will of the people should prevail above the will of a small group of leaders bent on power seeking. That is why the effort in Iraq is so very important; to demonstrate that democracy can take hold in this region.............
Click HERE To Read On
The crisis in Lebanon is a manifestation of years of appeasement instead of principled confrontation against the evils of Islamic radicalism. The people of Lebanon as well as the people of Iran and Syria and other countries in the region want what you and I want – peace, freedom, opportunity and the ability to house and feed their children.
Unfortunately, there are leaders among them who are interested in cementing their own power by creating division, war and conflict. We can see that in Iran where a group of Mullahs have a tight hold on that country’s oil wealth while the people have little voice.
The United States is supporting Israel’s right of defense, and that is the right thing to do because every sovereign nation has the right of self-defense. I definitely believe it is incumbent upon the U.S. to use this crisis as an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that the taking of innocent human life is never appropriate. We must demonstrate to the world that the will of the people should prevail above the will of a small group of leaders bent on power seeking. That is why the effort in Iraq is so very important; to demonstrate that democracy can take hold in this region.............
Click HERE To Read On
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Reading Minds, Divining Emotions CNN's Speciality
-By Warner Todd Huston
Did you know that Senator Mel Martinez is "almost giddy" over the impending death of Cuba's brutal dictator, Fidel Castro? CNN sure did. It seems that CNN has mystically divined Senator Martinez' emotions and revealed their amazing mind reading abilities for all of us to enjoy.
Right there on their web page linking us to their story it blares. "Lawmakers almost giddy over Castro's illness", the headline trumpets. Later in their story they repeat the negligently emotive rhetoric.
Did that all sound "giddy" to CNN? A hope that the Cuban people at last find democracy and an end to oppression is a reason to belittle Senator Martinez' statements with the word "giddy"?
This usage of a novelist's convention to denote an emotional state seems so improper on a "News" site, wouldn't you think? I mean, if we can claim people's emotions that we really have no solid proof of as a part of a story, mightn't we say things like "Natalie Maines of Dixie Chicks Loathes American People"? Maybe we can say something like, "Bill Clinton lusts after intern", or maybe "Michael Moore bereft after pizza runs out"?
No, it seems that CNN is merely trying to spin the reader into feeling that "Lawmakers" are jumping up and down with glee that someone (in this case Castro) lay dying somewhere. And we ALL know how low-down that sort of "giddiness" would be. After all, who wants to celebrate a man's death, eh, CNN?
Well, if it's Castro's death... I would.
Call me "giddy" over it.
Did you know that Senator Mel Martinez is "almost giddy" over the impending death of Cuba's brutal dictator, Fidel Castro? CNN sure did. It seems that CNN has mystically divined Senator Martinez' emotions and revealed their amazing mind reading abilities for all of us to enjoy.
Right there on their web page linking us to their story it blares. "Lawmakers almost giddy over Castro's illness", the headline trumpets. Later in their story they repeat the negligently emotive rhetoric.
Another Cuban-born U.S. politician, Sen. Mel Martinez, was almost giddy over the report of Castro's surgery.
"My hope is that there will be an opportunity for voices of freedom to be heard in Cuba, that this could begin a moment of transformation and transition to a better life and a better day," the Republican from Florida told reporters.
Martinez described his reaction to Monday's report that Castro is ill as "intensely emotional."
Did that all sound "giddy" to CNN? A hope that the Cuban people at last find democracy and an end to oppression is a reason to belittle Senator Martinez' statements with the word "giddy"?
This usage of a novelist's convention to denote an emotional state seems so improper on a "News" site, wouldn't you think? I mean, if we can claim people's emotions that we really have no solid proof of as a part of a story, mightn't we say things like "Natalie Maines of Dixie Chicks Loathes American People"? Maybe we can say something like, "Bill Clinton lusts after intern", or maybe "Michael Moore bereft after pizza runs out"?
No, it seems that CNN is merely trying to spin the reader into feeling that "Lawmakers" are jumping up and down with glee that someone (in this case Castro) lay dying somewhere. And we ALL know how low-down that sort of "giddiness" would be. After all, who wants to celebrate a man's death, eh, CNN?
Well, if it's Castro's death... I would.
Call me "giddy" over it.
Republican Presidential Contenders
- By Nathan Tabor
George Bush is NOT running for a third term, although to read some of the comments over at KOS, you'd think he was:
Senator John McCain: I almost put his name with the Democrats above. Looking at this man's record of subverting the conservative cause, it's no wonder that some people think his full name is McCain-Feingold.
Rudy Giuliani: The "America's Mayor" mantle is getting real old. A gun-grabber and pro-abortionist. With the Republican base up in arms with Bush and his stand on immigration, nothing more than a true conservative will do. It ain't Rudy..........................
Click HERE To Read On
George Bush is NOT running for a third term, although to read some of the comments over at KOS, you'd think he was:
Senator John McCain: I almost put his name with the Democrats above. Looking at this man's record of subverting the conservative cause, it's no wonder that some people think his full name is McCain-Feingold.
Rudy Giuliani: The "America's Mayor" mantle is getting real old. A gun-grabber and pro-abortionist. With the Republican base up in arms with Bush and his stand on immigration, nothing more than a true conservative will do. It ain't Rudy..........................
Click HERE To Read On
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
