Global Warming
January 29, 2006
There was a long article today in the Washington Post about global warming entitled, “Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change” [http://tinyurl.com/dkyts], screaming that the sky is falling, once again. They use the term “most scientist agree” as though that means anything at all, which it doesn’t. There are actually a small minority of so-called scientists that agree with the position stated in this article. First of all, is global warming happening; and if so, what is causing it?
It does seem as though some of the worlds largest and oldest glaciers are receding. Weather patterns also seem to be changing, insofar as we can tell what a normal weather pattern is. So, perhaps there is some reason to think that the Earth is going through some change. OK, so what? The Earth has been going through changes for eons and probably will continue to do so for eons to come. It’s done that before people walked the Earth and has done it several times since. In fact, change seems to be the norm for the climate if the Earth. Why would people start thinking that we have anything to do with it now; and why do they think we can do anything about it at all? Greenhouse emissions are down considerably (at least in this and other Western industrial countries) since the sixties, yet whatever is changing continues unabated.
The first thing we need to understand about all these changes is that it is the sun that drives them. Our sun, Sol, goes through all sorts of changes, sometimes involving cycles that last tens, even hundreds of thousands of years. We cannot possibly do anything to affect the cycles of the sun. Only the severest megalomaniac would think otherwise. That this (possible) current climatic change is originating from the sun is evidenced by the fact that even Mars is experiencing the same phenomenon. NASA has reported that, since measurements started some decades ago, the Martian ice-caps have been receding by 10-20 meters per Martian year (about two Earth years). Are the ‘Chicken Littles’ of the Washington Times intimating that the greenhouse gasses produced here also affecting the Martian climate? That is blatantly preposterous!
While it is true that a continued warming trend here on Earth would be catastrophic, especially for the coastal regions of the world; it is simply silly to say that we, or any group of countries, are to blame. Were we to discontinue the burning of any fuels and huddle in caves, the sun would continue to cycle through its current phase and the world will, or will not, continue to get warmer depending on the length of the solar cycle. The glaciers would continue to melt and the coasts will be flooded if the sun continues to warm. What would be gained but ceasing to be warm and mobil?
What we need to do is get realistic about what is happening, and especially why it’s happening, and make plans to salvage what can be salvaged from the threatened areas. Plans for evacuating the coastal cities of the world should be made now, before it’s too late. The task will be monumental and costly beyond anything ever undertaken by mankind since Noah built his ark. So monumental, in fact, that people are refusing to see the obvious and will continue to blame the industrial Nations of the world until it’s too late and millions of people are displaced, drowned, and/or world-wide panic ensues.
Going around saying that the sky is falling will be as effective as it was for Chicken Little.
That's what I think; and I'm Ichabod Crane!
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Friday, October 28, 2005
If you are Stuck on Stupid, get help and get off it.
[Excerpts from President Bush’s address to Congress (in 2003) requesting authorization for invading Iraq, and some comments by yours truly at the end. Highlights are mine.]
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.1 He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. [See Note 1]
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm2. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He’s not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming3. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations4. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda5. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option6. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning7. (Applause.) [See Note 2]
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi’s legal -- Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)
Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.
We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)
And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.) [See Note 3]
---End of Excerpt---
-----------------------
Note 1 - [In fact, the Oil for Food kickbacks were supporting his efforts.]
Note 2 - [Put that in perspective of the abuses at Abu Ghraib and ‘Gitmo.’]
Note 3 - [Mission accomplished and continuing!]
-----------------------
I counted 7 independently sufficient reasons for invading Iraq in this speach, and all the left can say is, “We didn’t find WMDs.” I’ll say two things about this:
First, we still need to find many of them. He had them and not all of them have been accounted for.
(From the Federalist 05-43 Digest:
As for those still “Stuck on Stupid”, insisting that there were no WMD found in Iraq, here’s a partial list of what didn’t make it out of Iraq before the invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, thousands of radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc.
As The Patriot noted in October, 2002, our well-placed sources in the region and intelligence sources with the NSA and NRO estimated that the UN Security Council’s foot-dragging provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his deadliest WMD materials and components. At that time, we reported that Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover Iraq’s WMD stores, noting, “Our sources estimate that Iraq has shipped some or all of its biological stockpiles and nuclear WMD components through Syria to southern Lebanon’s heavily fortified Bekaa Valley.”
In December of 2002, our senior-level intelligence sources re-confirmed estimates that some of Iraq’s biological and nuclear WMD material and components had, in fact, been moved into Syria and Iran. That movement continued until President Bush finally pulled the plug on the UN’s ruse.
---end of Federalist comments---
Just how many WMDs and their components did we need to find before the pro-Islamist faction here in America realize that we found them?
Second, there are still six valid reasons for going there, so get over it and start supporting the troops by rooting for America, instead of for the terrorists, to win.
If we’d all been doing that from the beginning, especially the Main Stream Media, there wouldn’t be 2000 KIA’s there now. Instead of being emboldened to ‘stay the course to victory’ the terrorists would be cowering in their caves, being systematically routed out one-by-one. Now they think that they’ll win once the Main Stream Media and the liberal-left force us to surrender in defeat (like they did in Vietnam), so the fight goes on, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Don’t let those 2000 heros’ lives be lost for nothing, their sacrifice needs to stand for something; it needs to be for winning the War on Terror! America needs to win this one, the stakes are too high; the stakes are for the existence of the civilized world to prevail over this insane Jihad!
Wanting us to lose just because you hate Bush is totally and simply insane, and proves that you are indeed, Stuck on Stupid! Get help, get off of Stupid! Bush will be gone in three years, but the terrorists and Jihadists will still be here! -IC
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.1 He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. [See Note 1]
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm2. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He’s not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming3. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations4. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda5. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option6. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning7. (Applause.) [See Note 2]
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi’s legal -- Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)
Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.
We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)
And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.) [See Note 3]
---End of Excerpt---
-----------------------
Note 1 - [In fact, the Oil for Food kickbacks were supporting his efforts.]
Note 2 - [Put that in perspective of the abuses at Abu Ghraib and ‘Gitmo.’]
Note 3 - [Mission accomplished and continuing!]
-----------------------
I counted 7 independently sufficient reasons for invading Iraq in this speach, and all the left can say is, “We didn’t find WMDs.” I’ll say two things about this:
First, we still need to find many of them. He had them and not all of them have been accounted for.
(From the Federalist 05-43 Digest:
As for those still “Stuck on Stupid”, insisting that there were no WMD found in Iraq, here’s a partial list of what didn’t make it out of Iraq before the invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, thousands of radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc.
As The Patriot noted in October, 2002, our well-placed sources in the region and intelligence sources with the NSA and NRO estimated that the UN Security Council’s foot-dragging provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his deadliest WMD materials and components. At that time, we reported that Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover Iraq’s WMD stores, noting, “Our sources estimate that Iraq has shipped some or all of its biological stockpiles and nuclear WMD components through Syria to southern Lebanon’s heavily fortified Bekaa Valley.”
In December of 2002, our senior-level intelligence sources re-confirmed estimates that some of Iraq’s biological and nuclear WMD material and components had, in fact, been moved into Syria and Iran. That movement continued until President Bush finally pulled the plug on the UN’s ruse.
---end of Federalist comments---
Just how many WMDs and their components did we need to find before the pro-Islamist faction here in America realize that we found them?
Second, there are still six valid reasons for going there, so get over it and start supporting the troops by rooting for America, instead of for the terrorists, to win.
If we’d all been doing that from the beginning, especially the Main Stream Media, there wouldn’t be 2000 KIA’s there now. Instead of being emboldened to ‘stay the course to victory’ the terrorists would be cowering in their caves, being systematically routed out one-by-one. Now they think that they’ll win once the Main Stream Media and the liberal-left force us to surrender in defeat (like they did in Vietnam), so the fight goes on, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Don’t let those 2000 heros’ lives be lost for nothing, their sacrifice needs to stand for something; it needs to be for winning the War on Terror! America needs to win this one, the stakes are too high; the stakes are for the existence of the civilized world to prevail over this insane Jihad!
Wanting us to lose just because you hate Bush is totally and simply insane, and proves that you are indeed, Stuck on Stupid! Get help, get off of Stupid! Bush will be gone in three years, but the terrorists and Jihadists will still be here! -IC
Sunday, September 25, 2005
The Katrina Debacle - by Ichobod Crane & edited by Steve Saltsman
The Katrina Debacle Department of the Interior Secretary Gale Norton
Department of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of the Army Dr. Harvey
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response Michael D. Brown (Head of FEMA)
The Senate of the
President of the
… And those who figured prominently in it.
The players:
Local Authorities:
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin
Although he had twenty-four hour advance notice of the region being declared a disaster area, he failed to dispatch any buses to evacuate the people who had no transportation, nor did he give notice of his lack of intent to provide any assistance in their evacuation. His reckless indifference left the city buses for public transportation and the city school buses to be destroyed or damaged in their parking lots, rather than having them used to evacuate the citizens of
His further response to Rita showed him to be criminally incompetent and badly in need of being replaced.
Louisiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco
She failed to oversee the evacuation of the populated regions in the path of the storm. After the President declared the region a disaster area, she should have dispatched the National Guard under her control to assist in the evacuations. At the very least they could have driven the buses and urged people to leave. She showed a level of incompetence on a par with Mayor Ray Nagin and should suffer the same fate with him.
She also, again, failed to control the situation in
Federal Agencies in the loop:
Department of the Interior Secretary Gale Norton
Along with:
Department of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
And through the:
Secretary of the Army Dr. Harvey
Control the:
US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District
Executive Office:
Col. Richard P. Wagenaar, District Engineer
Maj. Murray Starkel, Deputy District Engineer
Gregory Breerwood, Deputy District Engineer for Project Management
This agency had been prohibited from building stronger flood defenses for
The LA Senators have consistently diverted funds from levee work for other ‘pet’ projects as well. What can be done about these Senators?
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
He has a case of arrogance of the first order. His most poignant statements were “I’ve got this down,” …and… “There’ll be plenty of time,” Chertoff told Tim Russert, “to do the after-action analysis.” …and… “After- action analysis should not interfere with current recovery operations.” … and repetitions ad infinitum. His complete inattention to his undersecretary’s lack of performance is astounding. He is guilty, at the very least, of lack of leadership and total disregard of the entire situation. This man should resign immediately, or be fired by the President if he fails to do so. Otherwise he should be impeached by the Congress.
Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response Michael D. Brown (Head of FEMA)
His lack of experience was painfully obvious in his lack of leadership and preparedness in the wake of the disaster. He utterly failed to provide even the minimum response from FEMA. Subsequently, he also showed great arrogance in disavowing any responsibilities. This man should also resign immediately, or be fired by the President if he fails to do so. Otherwise he too, should be impeached by the Congress.
Thank God he resigned; but criminal charges should be considered against him notwithstanding.
The Senate of the United States of America
This body was totally and completely negligent in its duties of ‘advice and consent’ in allowing either Michael Chertoff or Michael Brown to be approved to their current positions. These men’s absolute lack of qualifications demanded that they not be elevated into these critical roles. Undoubtedly they will pass this off onto the President, although it was their duty to stop this appointment.
Of course many liberals in the Senate made a fuss about them; however, with the current political climate, where every move the President makes raises a fuss, they were discounted as yet again crying wolf. Here is a prime reason that this heretofore August Body badly needs to regain some semblance of dignity and stop all the caterwauling from both sides. All of them share blame in this political crisis.
The current leaders of both parties who have been engaging in such juvenile antics should be reprimanded and removed from their current leadership roles; they have shown no leadership whatsoever. The time for such behavior, if there is any such time, is prior to elections and other important votes, not after the fact. This only serves to obfuscate current and more important business; like engaging in level-headed debate on candidates’ qualifications for important positions, not on what their political affiliations are. We know their affiliations simply by them being appointed by a President, be he a Democrat or Republican.
President of the United States
In appointing Michael Brown to be promoted as the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response (Head of FEMA), and Michael Chertoff, the President made the most grievous errors of his Presidency; however, it was still the responsibility of the Senate to disqualify the appointments. That is their role; they are the ones who do the investigations. Nevertheless, the President will suffer politically for having nominated this unqualified man, and his clueless boss, in the first place. These positions should be promoted from within the ranks of FEMA, the Coast Guard, or even from the Pentagon, where people have the needed experience and skills with handling emergency management. These two appointments will cast serious doubts on all subsequent Presidential appointments, particularly now, with the Supreme Court vacancies, as well as other lower court appointments. Hopefully, the Senate will look very hard indeed on all Presidential appointments.
I can’t see how the President can be impeached for these appointments, however, unless all the Senators who approved of them resign first. When that happens, then perhaps the other should as well. After all, a President might appoint an unqualified person who feels he is owed an appointment by helping the President get elected; but then, when the Senate rejects them the President has been cleared of any further obligation to that person. Politics are messy, and these things happen in the course of things, hence the Senate’s role in the process. From that perspective, the Senate was even more remiss in their duty to the country than the President, who has political obligations that need paying. That is the purpose behind the Founder’s reasoning for the Senate’s “advice and consent” clause. Such has always been the way of politics.
The President’s initial response was timely in declaring the parts of the Gulf region (that were threatened by Katrina), a disaster area over a day prior to its making landfall. This should have been time enough to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people had the local government simply followed their existing plans that had been in place for just such an emergency.
It isn’t understood what more he, personally, could have done subsequent to the storm. The entire chain of government had broken down under him, particularly at the local level. Federal agencies that should have acted after the Executive Order of the declaration of the disaster area, acted as though stunned by the magnitude of the event, especially with the local governments doing nothing to help themselves.
The President’s perceived lack of action after the disaster manifested was no doubt, not due to the scope of the devastation, but to the massive incompetence at the state and local levels. Indeed what could he do in the face of that disaster? The federal government can only do its job when the local governments do theirs; ours is a bottom up governmental organization on the home front. This breakdown should be addressed by a conference of the Governors from all of the States to formulate local contingency plans for the Federal Government’s involvement when the local structure breaks down. Should Martial Law have been declared? That is a most extreme response, but perhaps necessary for the situation in
In previous disasters, like the four hurricanes that hit in
Clearly, the Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin and the Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, should be removed from office and prosecuted criminally for the deaths that resulted due to their incompetence and indifference. Under Secretary Michael D. Brown [who has resigned while this was being written] should also be prosecuted criminally, although on what charge(s) is questionable. His first act of incompetence was in accepting an appointment for which he was severely under-qualified. The Senators who voted for his appointment should receive an official censure at the very least.
The courts that prohibited the Army Corps of Engineers should be investigated and their judgments reviewed for judicial malfeasance. Any judge found guilty of said malfeasance should be removed and prosecuted as required.
Hurricane Rita found a country more ready because of Katrina, but the
The biggest difference between the two states might be seen by their ‘entitlement mentality’ – LA seems to thrive of it; TX seems well off without it. This has been a great study in “less is more” for all to learn from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some great thoughts to ponder from The Federalist. (www.federalist.com)
SELECT READER COMMENTS:
(Our servers automatically delete "Reply" messages to this e-mail. Submit comments for publication or to view reader comments: http://FederalistPatriot.US/comments.asp Join the debate at the Patriot Blog: http://PatriotPostBlog.US/ )
"So Junior Sen. Hillary Clinton and House Mini Leader Nancy Pelosi say they want a commission to investigate what went wrong in New Orleans—in other words, an open and extended forum to blame Republicans. Last week, Republicans proposed a review board for this purpose and Democrats balked. Pelosi now says Democrats should boycott this review, and claims it will lead to a whitewash of the facts. I guess that, as more facts are now becoming available, Pelosi and Clinton are less anxious for a review."—
Editor's Reply: Democrats don't really want anyone looking that closely at the Demo machinations in the Big Easy. As Patriot No. 05-36 noted Friday, "Indeed, Democrats may get their 'inquisition commission,' hoping for colorful headlines trumpeting 'Republican failures' in the upcoming election year, but they had best take care what they ask for, lest they get it. Inquiring too deeply into factual communication, material distribution and evacuation failures after Katrina will likely yield answers that sink Louisiana Democrats—from New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to Governor Kathleen Blanco. Sen. Mary Landrieu, who diverted Corps of Engineer funding from NOLA levees to her pet projects, just might need to pack her bags." Republicans called Pelosi's bluff, but you have to hand it to her, the "boycott protest" tactic is a clever dodge. Fact is, Republicans should go on the offensive now, and insist on a review. Let the Demos wiggle out of this one.
"'Natural Disaster'? Natural: for all but
------------------------------------------
Opinions:
"A republican form of government presupposes self-government—the capacity of citizens to govern themselves according to reason—and does not, if it intends to survive, champion them as 'victims' when they don't." —George Neumayr ++ "Ours is a federal system. The President is sworn to uphold and support the Constitution. He is not a dictator. And not to be blamed for failing to act like one. The problem was not the Constitution or the President, but
"The worst thing the federal government could do is to increase the size, reach and cost of government. If government failed in its response to the hurricane, the answer is not more inefficient government." —Cal Thomas
"No fall of a sparrow on this planet is not attributed to sin and human perfidy. The three current favorites are: (1) global warming, (2) the war in
"What we are witnessing is a well-honed black political public-relations operation geared to obfuscation, stoking hatred and fear, and nurturing helplessness and dependence among black citizens. Such efforts keep black politicians powerful, diversity businesses prosperous and blacks poor." —Star Parker
"[A]rtificial [gas] price caps will work no better now than they did in the 1970s. They won't get petroleum refined faster. They won't reduce motorists' demand for gasoline. All they will create is shortages—the one thing price controls always bring in their wake." —Jeff Jacoby
Monday, August 22, 2005
FDR Proposed Private Accounts - By Rod D. Martin
It is amazing how many people are listening to our underhanded politicians (from both parties) about this issue. All these rich bastards want is the money that would go into your account, where they would no longer be able to get their hands on it to spend on pork projects that get them reelected if this plan goes into effect.
This is the only way to go, this way empowers the people and disempowers the politicians. Who should own your money, you or Congress? Who worked for it?
-----------
FDR Proposed Private Accounts
By Rod D. Martin
August 22, 2005
To hear today's Democrats talk, Franklin Roosevelt would be spinning in his grave if he heard today's debate about Social Security private accounts.
They're only half right. He'd be spinning if he heard today's Democrats.
Roosevelt was many things, but he was no fool, not on this point. The man who gave us the New Deal understood perfectly the limitations of Social Security. In honest moments, politicians correctly note that "Social Security was never meant to pay for 100% of your retirement." And to pay for the part a government pension scheme couldn't, FDR had a very modern-sounding idea.
Announcing his plan on January 17, 1935, Social Security's founder said: "in the important field of security for old people, it seems necessary to adopt ... voluntary contribution annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."
In other words, private accounts.
Seventy years later, Roosevelt's words ring truer than ever. Social Security taxes -- just 1% back then -- now consume between 12 and 15% of most Americans' income. They effectively eliminate any possibility of separate retirement savings without serious sacrifice.
And for what? Social Security checks remain a pittance, certainly nothing anyone should have to depend on as a monthly income; and with a $255 death benefit, they don't even pay enough to bury you.
Worst of all, you don't own your own money. You can't pass it on to your wife, you can't pass it on to your kids. And since government spends every dollar as soon as it comes in -- the trust fund is a myth -- there's not even any guarantee you'll get to keep your money yourself.
But as President Roosevelt taught us, there really is a better way.
Under President Bush's plan, Social Security could finally fulfill its promise. Private account-holders could look forward to between three and five times the monthly check available under the current system. Most Americans would retire on a higher monthly income than they had when they were working.
And they wouldn't have to invest in anything risky to achieve this, or give up the safety net of government Social Security, or even obtain any specialized knowledge of investing. The tens of millions in (incredibly successful) private accounts around the world -- from Chile to Britain to Australia to the public employees in Galveston, Texas -- have already shown us the way.
Some pundits have pronounced the President's plan dead; but the rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated. Social Security reform can still happen, and happen this fall once Congress returns.
The best bill before Congress -- by a wide margin -- is Ryan-Sununu. It proposes placing half of your Social Security tax money in an account which you alone control: you will own it just like your IRA or 401(k). This would not only give every American a much higher retirement income than any other bill before Congress, it would also solve the problem of Social Security's impending bankruptcy: as more Americans use their private accounts instead of burdening the current system, the Ryan-Sununu plan would create an ongoing multi-trillion dollar surplus roughly twenty years out.
This would completely eliminate the solvency crisis. More than that, it would give the current generation of retirees a huge benefit increase, and everyone else an enormous tax cut.
President Roosevelt understood: Americans need the right to contribute their hard-earned money to their own voluntary personal retirement accounts. These PRAs will let every American -- even our very poorest -- accumulate real assets, real nest eggs for retirement, and real inheritances for their children.
No one will benefit from this more than the lower and middle income working-class, who can never quite get out of poverty because the current system taxes away too much for them to save. No one, that is, except black Americans, whose lower life expectancy means they frequently die before ever receiving Social Security at all, and aren't allowed to pass anything on.
IRAs and 401(k)s have sparked an enormous capitalist revolution, transforming millions of regular Americans from ordinary workers into investors. It's time to complete that revolution. Let's help every American participate in this very American dream. It's time the poorest among us had the same benefits from our free market system that most of us take for granted.
It's the least we can do, for their sake, and for President Roosevelt's vision.
-----------
Rod D. Martin is Founder and Chairman of Vanguard PAC. A former policy director to Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Special Counsel to PayPal.com Founder Peter Thiel, he is a member of the Board of Governors of the Council for National Policy, a Vice President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), and editor and co-author of Thank You President Bush, the definitive handbook to the second term.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
The Long War or the Short Surrender - from The Federalist
This, IMHO, is the finest publication on the web or anywhere. I'm posting this here, now, to remind those who have lapsed in their memories of what we're fighting for and why. The cause never changes, just the enemy and the place. this is a fundamental battle for the right to exist.
The following is an excerpt from the 29 July 2005 Federalist Patriot No. 05-30 Friday Digest
-- Ichabod Crane
The following is an excerpt from the 29 July 2005 Federalist Patriot No. 05-30 Friday Digest
-- Ichabod Crane
-----------------------------------------------
__----********O********----______
THE FOUNDATION
"[I]t is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." --Benjamin Franklin
_____----********O********----______
THE PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
Top of the fold --
In the 1990's, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was a new sense of security in the West, particularly in the
That false sense of security terminated abruptly on 11 September 2001, when one of this enemy's brigades attacked the
This was a new kind of war, but it was war nonetheless.
Unlike symmetric threats emanating from clearly defined nation states like
Perhaps the most difficult of these challenges is the task of keeping Americans focused on why this asymmetric threat must be engaged (short of periodic catastrophic wake-up calls). Unfortunately, in deference to sensitivity and diversity, the Bush administration has yet to use the words "Muslim" or "Islamic" when attempting to define or, dare we say, "profile" this enemy. But the Bush administration, and the administrations of our Allies, depend on public support to prosecute the Long War ahead with Islamists.
Targeting al-Qa'ida and its Saudi protagonist Osama bin Laden may have initially precluded diminishing public support for the so-called "War on Terror," but protests against operations in
The latter is assured if the former fails.
President Bush must rightly define this enemy as Islamist zealots of Jihadistan, a borderless nation of Islamic extremists constituted by al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups, calling for jihad, or "holy war," against "all the enemies of Allah." (If you're reading this, you are likely a non adherent -- and an enemy of Allah.) These Jihadis seek to disable the
The President must also convince our countrymen of the certainty that against Jihadistan, there is no neat Cold War doctrine like Mutually Assured Destruction to stay offensive measures. In this war, the only doctrine that can keep the enemy at bay is that of preemption -- and it must be maintained as long as there are Islamists capable of doing the West harm.
President Bush told the nation, "This is a long war, and we have a comprehensive strategy to win it. We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad, so we don't have to face them here at home. We're denying our enemies sanctuary, by making it clear that
Indeed, it will be a long war, and his Doctrine of Pre-emption is the best directive for strategy. But short of clear public comprehension of what constitutes "the enemy," which is a prerequisite to sustained public support, this essential war will be short-circuited, and Jihadis will, once again, move the warfront to our homeland.
There are plenty of domestic enemies who would undermine public support for the war against Jihadistan for purely political reasons. After all, there are midterm elections in 2006 and a presidential election in 2008. Rep. Nancy Pelosi claims, "The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of September 11, knowing that there is no connection between September 11 and the war in
Sen. Harry Reid (who voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom) says, "The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in
John Kerry alleges that President Bush has fabricated a "third rationale" for the war: "The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And now...it's to combat the hotbed of terrorism."
The President, in the national interest, must take the offensive against these opportunistic detractors in order to restore public support and confidence in the Long War. For we can be certain that this war will last beyond his presidency. Just how long might it last? That depends, in part, on how one defines its origin.
If the war began in 627 AD, five years after Islam's founding, when Mohammed committed his first genocide against a Jewish tribe, then the war is an epic struggle between Islam and other religions, especially against Jews and Christians, which is to say its conclusion is not foreseeable. If the war is an extension of the middle-age invasions of the West by rapacious Islam, whether the start date is the victory of Charles Martel at Tours (732 AD), the back and forth of Crusades (1095-1669) or defeats like Constantinople (1453 AD), the siege of Vienna (1529 AD), the fleet at Lepanto (1571 AD), or the gates Venice (1683 AD), then the war is a clash of civilizations which likely has centuries of conflict yet ahead.
But if the war against Jihadistan began, as suggested here, on 11 September 2001, taking into account that Jihadi attacks on Western targets date back to the 1960s, then it will likely continue for decades. After all, it took 70 years to topple the Evil Empire.
"Our generational commitment to the advancement of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in
The Long War may yet end on a day when the West and its beacon of liberty, these
For the duration, pray that our capability to defend the
Quote of the week...
"September 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again." --British Prime Minister Tony Blair
On cross-examination...
"Thousands of innocent civilians such as [Theo] van Gogh have been murdered by Islamic extremists -- in Darfur, Gaza, India, Israel, Lebanon, London, Madrid, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States. The carnage gives credence to the adage that while the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, the vast majority of global terrorists most certainly are Muslims. The killers always allege particular gripes -- Australian troops in Iraq, Christian proselytizing, Hindu intolerance, occupation of the West Bank, theft of Arab petroleum, the Jews, attacks on the Taliban, the 15th-century reconquest of Spain, and, of course, the Crusades. But in most cases -- from Mohamed Atta, who crashed into the
Open query...
"British citizens, who happen to be Muslim, murdered over 50 people, including themselves. Or, was it Islamists, who happen to be British, killed innocent people? It makes a difference. Brits today, Americans tomorrow, must know who their domestic enemies are and what kind of war they are fighting to win. Assuming Brits or Americans have the will to win. This World War is between a totalitarian ideology, born of a relatively barbaric culture, against all humankind." --James Atticus Bowden, military futurist (Does anyone think these bloody attacks will cease because we wish it were so?)
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Spreading Hate - By Linda Chavez
The real question is why are the leaders of the Black Community doing this? The Republicans seem to be all about extending the clause that is about to expire, after all; and, no one that I’ve heard, on either side, have spoken out against it. The most egregious abuses have been fixed, and are a permanent part of The Voter Rights Act of 1965; the part that is scheduled to expire are those things that southern democrats originally balked at, saying they were ‘unconstitutional’, leading to the compromise to put a sunset clause on them.
-----
Spreading Hate
By Linda Chavez
August 11, 2005
Passage of the Voting Rights Act in August 1965 was a proud moment in
On Saturday, thousands of activists gathered in
There was much talk of “stolen” elections. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said, “The last two elections were stolen. They were stolen and so we will not rest until we reclaim our democracy, and this is what today is all about.” Judge Mathis referred to the 2000 elections as “the biggest election crime in history.” He told the enthusiastic crowd that the “thieves” in the Republican Party “need to be locked up.” Harry Belafonte warned, “We must stand vigilant, as there are those among us who would steal our liberty and steal our souls.”
Belafonte referred to blacks serving in the Bush administration as “black tyrants,” and went even farther in an interview with Marc Morano of CNSNews.com. “Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich,” Belafonte told Morano, an anti-Semitic canard meant to smear as neo-Nazi both the Bush administration and the African Americans who serve in it.
You’d think by the vicious rhetoric at the march that President Bush was trying to revoke the Act. Nothing of the sort is true. Most sections of the landmark legislation are permanent, including the ban on literacy tests, once a favorite method to keep qualified black voters from exercising their right to vote. Certain provisions of the Act -- most notably Section 5, which requires covered jurisdictions to submit even the most minor changes in voting procedures to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance -- will expire in 2007, but they were always meant to be temporary. Indeed, these provisions might have been declared unconstitutional, despite the incredible recalcitrance of Southern politicians in 1965, but for the promise that they would expire after a time.
Congress should drop the pre-clearance provision of the Voting Rights Act and another section enacted in 1975 requiring non-English ballots to be provided in some jurisdictions. The pre-clearance provision makes little sense today. There is no evidence that jurisdictions covered by Section 5 -- many of them now governed by African-American politicians -- would try to disenfranchise black voters.
And non-English ballots were a bad idea in 1975 and an even worse one today. The Hispanic population in 1975 was predominantly U.S.-born and English-speaking. Today, there are virtually no U.S.-born Hispanics or other minorities who do not speak, read and write English. Although an increasing proportion of the Hispanic population is foreign-born -- about half of adults in this group -- English proficiency is and should remain a requirement for citizenship. As for the relatively small number of eligible voters who can’t read an English ballot well enough to make an informed decision, letting such voters bring someone into the ballot booth to assist them would be far more efficient than printing up millions of ballots in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Tagalog, and other languages.
The irony is that no prominent Republican politician is even suggesting that Section 5 or the bilingual ballot provisions of the Voting Rights Act not be extended when they expire in 2007. To the contrary, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader Tom Delay and Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner want these provisions extended another 25 years. But that won’t stop some demagogues from spewing hate and spreading lies.
-----------
For more information on how unions spend their members’ money, see www.usuw.org. Linda Chavez’s latest book, “Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down their Members and Corrupt American Politics,” is now available in paperback.
COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Our Tratorous Press, by me and several others (credits included)
I’ve made mention of this before:
Where was the story about the only woman to win a Silver Star since WWII? You’d think that the liberal media (and their love of all things feminine) would have kept this story in the headlines for days. Did you see it? …at all? What was her name? It is: Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, of the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit out of Richmond, Ky. Remember her, you’ll hear her name again from me, at least, no one else seems to have the balls to mention her! (Item #1, below.)
There was also a Congressional Medal Of Honor recipient, did you know that? What was his name? PAUL R. SMITH Sergeant First Class, United States Army (Item #2, below.)
Where is our fucking press? It would seem that they are to busy pushing an agenda to report the fucking news! I am so fucking pissed (even in the British meaning), I could just spit!
The traitorous press, at least during Vietnam, gave the enemy ‘body count’ back then; today there is only the daily drone of American casualties and stories about their families. I call that 20 minute segment of the news, “the anti-conservative, anti-war, anti-American news segment.” What else can it be called?
The press is showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are in charge of the liberal agenda. Hopefully, with the help of me, and others, it will be their entire undoing!
I am so incensed I can hardly contain myself. See item 3. below as well, for what got me going (again).
---
There is a virtuous fear which is the effect of faith, and a vicious fear which is the product of doubt and distrust. The former leads to hope as relying on God, in whom we believe; the latter inclines to despair, as not relying on God, in whom we do not believe.Persons of the one character fear to lose God; those of the other character fear to find him.--Pascal
Veritas vos Liberabit!God Bless America!
---
First:
Woman Soldier Receives Silver Star for Valor in Iraq
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 16, 2005 – For the first time since World War II, a woman soldier was awarded the Silver Star Medal today in Iraq.
Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, vehicle commander, 617th Military Police Company, Richmond, Ky., stands at attention before receiving the Silver Star at an awards ceremony at Camp Liberty, Iraq, June 16. Hester is the first woman soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star.
Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester of the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit out of Richmond, Ky., received the Silver Star, along with two other members of her unit, Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein and Spc. Jason Mike, for their actions during an enemy ambush on their convoy. Other members of the unit also received awards.
Hester’s squad was shadowing a supply convoy March 20 when anti-Iraqi fighters ambushed the convoy. The squad moved to the side of the road, flanking the insurgents and cutting off their escape route. Hester led her team through the “kill zone” and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds. She and Nein, her squad leader, then cleared two trenchs, at which time she killed three insurgents with her rifle.
When the fight was over, 27 insurgents were dead, six were wounded, and one was captured.
Hester, 23, who was born in Bowling Green, Ky., and later moved to Nashville, Tenn., said she was surprised when she heard she was being considered for the Silver Star.
“I’m honored to even be considered, much less awarded, the medal,” she said.
Being the first woman soldier since World War II to receive the medal is significant to Hester. But, she said, she doesn’t dwell on the fact. “It really doesn’t have anything to do with being a female,” she said. “It’s about the duties I performed that day as a soldier.”
Hester, who has been in the National Guard since April 2001, said she didn’t have time to be scared when the fight started, and she didn’t realize the impact of what had happened until much later.
“Your training kicks in and the soldier kicks in,” she said. “It’s your life or theirs. ... You’ve got a job to do -- protecting yourself and your fellow comrades.”
Nein, who is on his second deployment to Iraq, praised Hester and his other soldiers for their actions that day. “It’s due to their dedication and their ability to stay there and back me up that we were able to do what we did that day,” he said.
Hester and her fellow soldiers were awarded their medals at Camp Liberty, Iraq, by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, Multinational Corps Iraq commanding general. In his speech, Vines commended the soldiers for their bravery and their contribution to the international war on terror.
“My heroes don’t play in the (National Basketball Association) and don’t play in the U.S. Open (golf tournament) at Pinehurst,” Vines said. “They’re standing in front of me today. These are American heroes.”
Three soldiers of the 617th were wounded in the ambush. Hester said she and the other squad members are thinking about them, and she is very thankful to have made it through unscathed. The firefight, along with the entire deployment, has had a lasting effect on her, Hester said.
“I think about it every day, and probably will for the rest of my life,” she said.
Second:
News Archive http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2005/20050616_1745.html
Our first Medal Of Honor Recipient from Iraq-
PAUL R. SMITH
Rank and Organization: Sergeant First Class, United States Army
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:
Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003.
On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers.
As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round.
Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier.
In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded.
His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers.
Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.
Third:
Trashing our history: troops in Iraq
www.townhall.com
Thomas Sowell (back to web version)
August 10, 2005
Back in June, this column pointed out that it is impossible to fight a war without heroism -- but that you would never know that from the mainstream media. Nothing heroic done by American troops in Iraq is likely to make headlines in the New York Times or be featured on the big three broadcast network news programs.
That fact has now been belatedly recognized in a New York Times opinion piece, but with a strange twist.
After briefly mentioning a few acts of bravery in Iraq -- including a Marine who smothered an enemy grenade with his own body, saving the lives of his fellow Marines at the cost of his own -- the Times’ writer said, “the military, the White House and the culture at large have not publicized their actions with the zeal that was lavished on the heroes of World War I and World War II.”
Think about that spin: The reason we don’t hear about such things is because of the Pentagon, Bush and “the culture at large.”
Neither the Pentagon, the White House or “the culture at large” can stop the newspapers or the televisions networks from publicizing whatever they want to publicize. They all have reporters on the scene but what they choose to feature in their reports are all the negative things they can find.
The very issue of the New York Times in which this essay appeared -- August 7th -- featured a front-page picture of a funeral for a Marine killed in Iraq. If you judged by the front page of this and many other newspapers, our troops in Iraq don’t do anything except get killed.
The plain fact is that the mainstream media have been too busy depicting our troops as victims to have much time left to tell about the heroic things they have done, the far greater casualties which they have inflicted on their enemies, or their attempts to restore some basic services and basic decencies to this country that has been torn apart for years by internal and external wars -- even before the first American troops arrived on the scene.
The unrelenting quest for stories depicting American troops as victims -- including even front-page stories about the financial problems of some National Guardsmen called to active duty -- has created a virtual reality in the media that has no place for heroes.
Senator John Kerry has called the activation of reservists and National Guardsmen “a backdoor draft,” as if joining the reserves or the National Guard is supposed to mean an exemption from ever having to fight. The theme of troops as victims has been a steady drumbeat in the media, because of the way the media have chosen to filter the news, filtering out heroes, among other things.
This virtual reality can become more important than any facts. Even a young lady interviewer on Fox News Channel -- of all places -- recently asked a guest how long the American people will be able to continue supporting the war in Iraq with all the casualties.
All the American deaths in Iraq since the war began are not even half of the deaths of U.S. Marines taking the one island of Iwo Jima in a couple of months of fighting. And Iwo Jima was just one battle in a war that was raging on other fronts around the world simultaneously and continuing for nearly four long years.
It is not the casualties which are unprecedented but the media filtering and the gullibility of those who accept the virtual reality created by the media.
This is a re-creation of the media’s role in the Vietnam war, where American victories on the battlefield were turned into defeat on the home front by the filtering and spin of the media.
Even the current Communist rulers of Vietnam have admitted that they lost militarily in Vietnam but hung on because they expected to win politically in the United States -- as they did, with the help of the Jane Fondas, the Walter Cronkhites and a cast of thousands in the streets and on campuses across the country.
The very people who have been anti-military for years, who filter out American heroes in battle, are now proclaiming that they are “honoring” our troops by publicizing every death by name, day in and day out.
Has the dumbed-down education in our schools left us so ill-equipped that we cannot see through even the most blatant hypocrisy?
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Contact Thomas Sowell Read Sowell’s biography
townhall.com QUICK LINKS: HOME NEWS OPINION MEETUP C-LOG ISSUES
Where was the story about the only woman to win a Silver Star since WWII? You’d think that the liberal media (and their love of all things feminine) would have kept this story in the headlines for days. Did you see it? …at all? What was her name? It is: Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, of the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit out of Richmond, Ky. Remember her, you’ll hear her name again from me, at least, no one else seems to have the balls to mention her! (Item #1, below.)
There was also a Congressional Medal Of Honor recipient, did you know that? What was his name? PAUL R. SMITH Sergeant First Class, United States Army (Item #2, below.)
Where is our fucking press? It would seem that they are to busy pushing an agenda to report the fucking news! I am so fucking pissed (even in the British meaning), I could just spit!
The traitorous press, at least during Vietnam, gave the enemy ‘body count’ back then; today there is only the daily drone of American casualties and stories about their families. I call that 20 minute segment of the news, “the anti-conservative, anti-war, anti-American news segment.” What else can it be called?
The press is showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are in charge of the liberal agenda. Hopefully, with the help of me, and others, it will be their entire undoing!
I am so incensed I can hardly contain myself. See item 3. below as well, for what got me going (again).
---
There is a virtuous fear which is the effect of faith, and a vicious fear which is the product of doubt and distrust. The former leads to hope as relying on God, in whom we believe; the latter inclines to despair, as not relying on God, in whom we do not believe.Persons of the one character fear to lose God; those of the other character fear to find him.--Pascal
Veritas vos Liberabit!God Bless America!
---
First:
Woman Soldier Receives Silver Star for Valor in Iraq
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 16, 2005 – For the first time since World War II, a woman soldier was awarded the Silver Star Medal today in Iraq.
Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, vehicle commander, 617th Military Police Company, Richmond, Ky., stands at attention before receiving the Silver Star at an awards ceremony at Camp Liberty, Iraq, June 16. Hester is the first woman soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star.
Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester of the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit out of Richmond, Ky., received the Silver Star, along with two other members of her unit, Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein and Spc. Jason Mike, for their actions during an enemy ambush on their convoy. Other members of the unit also received awards.
Hester’s squad was shadowing a supply convoy March 20 when anti-Iraqi fighters ambushed the convoy. The squad moved to the side of the road, flanking the insurgents and cutting off their escape route. Hester led her team through the “kill zone” and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds. She and Nein, her squad leader, then cleared two trenchs, at which time she killed three insurgents with her rifle.
When the fight was over, 27 insurgents were dead, six were wounded, and one was captured.
Hester, 23, who was born in Bowling Green, Ky., and later moved to Nashville, Tenn., said she was surprised when she heard she was being considered for the Silver Star.
“I’m honored to even be considered, much less awarded, the medal,” she said.
Being the first woman soldier since World War II to receive the medal is significant to Hester. But, she said, she doesn’t dwell on the fact. “It really doesn’t have anything to do with being a female,” she said. “It’s about the duties I performed that day as a soldier.”
Hester, who has been in the National Guard since April 2001, said she didn’t have time to be scared when the fight started, and she didn’t realize the impact of what had happened until much later.
“Your training kicks in and the soldier kicks in,” she said. “It’s your life or theirs. ... You’ve got a job to do -- protecting yourself and your fellow comrades.”
Nein, who is on his second deployment to Iraq, praised Hester and his other soldiers for their actions that day. “It’s due to their dedication and their ability to stay there and back me up that we were able to do what we did that day,” he said.
Hester and her fellow soldiers were awarded their medals at Camp Liberty, Iraq, by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, Multinational Corps Iraq commanding general. In his speech, Vines commended the soldiers for their bravery and their contribution to the international war on terror.
“My heroes don’t play in the (National Basketball Association) and don’t play in the U.S. Open (golf tournament) at Pinehurst,” Vines said. “They’re standing in front of me today. These are American heroes.”
Three soldiers of the 617th were wounded in the ambush. Hester said she and the other squad members are thinking about them, and she is very thankful to have made it through unscathed. The firefight, along with the entire deployment, has had a lasting effect on her, Hester said.
“I think about it every day, and probably will for the rest of my life,” she said.
Second:
News Archive http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2005/20050616_1745.html
Our first Medal Of Honor Recipient from Iraq-
PAUL R. SMITH
Rank and Organization: Sergeant First Class, United States Army
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:
Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003.
On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers.
As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round.
Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier.
In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded.
His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers.
Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.
Third:
Trashing our history: troops in Iraq
www.townhall.com
Thomas Sowell (back to web version)
August 10, 2005
Back in June, this column pointed out that it is impossible to fight a war without heroism -- but that you would never know that from the mainstream media. Nothing heroic done by American troops in Iraq is likely to make headlines in the New York Times or be featured on the big three broadcast network news programs.
That fact has now been belatedly recognized in a New York Times opinion piece, but with a strange twist.
After briefly mentioning a few acts of bravery in Iraq -- including a Marine who smothered an enemy grenade with his own body, saving the lives of his fellow Marines at the cost of his own -- the Times’ writer said, “the military, the White House and the culture at large have not publicized their actions with the zeal that was lavished on the heroes of World War I and World War II.”
Think about that spin: The reason we don’t hear about such things is because of the Pentagon, Bush and “the culture at large.”
Neither the Pentagon, the White House or “the culture at large” can stop the newspapers or the televisions networks from publicizing whatever they want to publicize. They all have reporters on the scene but what they choose to feature in their reports are all the negative things they can find.
The very issue of the New York Times in which this essay appeared -- August 7th -- featured a front-page picture of a funeral for a Marine killed in Iraq. If you judged by the front page of this and many other newspapers, our troops in Iraq don’t do anything except get killed.
The plain fact is that the mainstream media have been too busy depicting our troops as victims to have much time left to tell about the heroic things they have done, the far greater casualties which they have inflicted on their enemies, or their attempts to restore some basic services and basic decencies to this country that has been torn apart for years by internal and external wars -- even before the first American troops arrived on the scene.
The unrelenting quest for stories depicting American troops as victims -- including even front-page stories about the financial problems of some National Guardsmen called to active duty -- has created a virtual reality in the media that has no place for heroes.
Senator John Kerry has called the activation of reservists and National Guardsmen “a backdoor draft,” as if joining the reserves or the National Guard is supposed to mean an exemption from ever having to fight. The theme of troops as victims has been a steady drumbeat in the media, because of the way the media have chosen to filter the news, filtering out heroes, among other things.
This virtual reality can become more important than any facts. Even a young lady interviewer on Fox News Channel -- of all places -- recently asked a guest how long the American people will be able to continue supporting the war in Iraq with all the casualties.
All the American deaths in Iraq since the war began are not even half of the deaths of U.S. Marines taking the one island of Iwo Jima in a couple of months of fighting. And Iwo Jima was just one battle in a war that was raging on other fronts around the world simultaneously and continuing for nearly four long years.
It is not the casualties which are unprecedented but the media filtering and the gullibility of those who accept the virtual reality created by the media.
This is a re-creation of the media’s role in the Vietnam war, where American victories on the battlefield were turned into defeat on the home front by the filtering and spin of the media.
Even the current Communist rulers of Vietnam have admitted that they lost militarily in Vietnam but hung on because they expected to win politically in the United States -- as they did, with the help of the Jane Fondas, the Walter Cronkhites and a cast of thousands in the streets and on campuses across the country.
The very people who have been anti-military for years, who filter out American heroes in battle, are now proclaiming that they are “honoring” our troops by publicizing every death by name, day in and day out.
Has the dumbed-down education in our schools left us so ill-equipped that we cannot see through even the most blatant hypocrisy?
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Contact Thomas Sowell Read Sowell’s biography
townhall.com QUICK LINKS: HOME NEWS OPINION MEETUP C-LOG ISSUES
Friday, August 05, 2005
Advice For Ambassador Bolton - By Oliver North
This needs no further verbiage, except, perhaps, to say "Well said, Ollie!" -Ichabod Crane
------
Advice For Ambassador Bolton
By Oliver North
August 5, 2005
Congratulations, John, on your new assignment as the
He, of course, had to divert the waters of the Peneius and
First, look under every rock. The corruption at the U.N. didn’t begin with the Oil for Food scandal and it certainly doesn’t end there. The United Nations is nothing more than bureaucracy piled atop waste, wrapped in fraud, covered with abuse -- all of it funded by American taxpayers who foot 22 percent of U.N. dues -- more than any other nation. We also pour billions of dollars more into the coffers of its related agencies.
As with the Oil for Food rip-off, these entities have no accountability. Lord only knows what the U.N.’s unelected globo-crats are doing with our money. Since Kofi refuses to hold his cronies accountable, John, you must.
Second, use the carrot and stick approach. The U.N. is run by people who wander through life like Rodney King, wondering, “Can’t we all just get along?”
Remind your new “colleagues” that last month the U.S. House of Representatives voted 221 to 184 to withhold 50 percent of
By now, you’ve seen Kofi’s plan to expand the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). John, we don’t need more of these characters weighing in on
On June 27, 1950, the council adopted a resolution to “furnish such assistance to the
In 1990-1991, George H.W. Bush convinced the Security Council to endorse the coalition he had built to turn back Saddam Hussein’s aggression in
And in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the Security Council agreed to help the
The U.N. “Human Rights Commission” is a sick joke. If your “fellow ambassadors” don’t fix it or finish it next month, tell ‘em that the American taxpayers are going to cut off the cash and stop underwriting dictatorial makeovers for the likes of Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro and Muammar Qaddafi.
The same thing goes for the U.N.’s so-called “peacekeepers,” who have been accused of child rape in the
Don’t be afraid to stick it to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), either. The Iranians are building nuclear weapons, the North Koreans are making more of them, and the IAEA can’t decide what to do about either rogue dictatorship. Let Mohamed El-Baradei know that we’re blowing the whistle on his Keystone Cops -- and the Russian, Chinese, French and German firms that provide the nuclear weapons know-how and technology.
John, because this is a family-friendly publication, let me put this next piece of advice in Latin: Non illegitemi carborundum est. Hate to put it this way, John, but Kofi and his cronies really don’t like you any more than the liberals in the U.S. Senate do. You’re not going to be invited to the all-night cocktail parties at
Take these as compliments. You no longer have to travel halfway around the world just to have a maniacal dictator like
After the treatment you received at the hands of Senate liberals, the striped pants set at the
Finally, John, try to bring a little humor to the place. U.N. bureaucrats are the most uptight, self-righteous group of pompous, incompetent airheads to gather in one place since Jimmy Carter’s last Cabinet meeting. Before your first meeting in the Security Council, go over and say hello to the French ambassador and, just before he sits down, slip a whoopee cushion on his chair.
The Chinese communists secretly love that kind of humor. The Brits will be appalled at the flatulent nature of the joke, but will endorse the target. If anyone complains, tell ‘em it’s
Oh, and one more thing. When speaking with Kofi and his cronies, try to avoid using words like “sovereignty,” “national security” or “integrity.” You can tell by the corneal glaze-over -- those words only confuse him.
------------
COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Erasing a Century of Civil Rights
Look at the two articles then the comments that follow. This gets twisted, naturally, it’s about liberals! -Ichabod Crane
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Sen. Clinton: GOP Erasing Century of Civil Rights Progress
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 29, 2005
Washington (CNSNews.com) -- New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton Thursday warned that Republican conservatives were on the verge of erasing a century of “progress” on civil rights, feminist and worker-related issues.
“So much of what we built in the 20th century is at risk,” Clinton said at the National Urban League’s annual conference in Washington D.C. She spoke to a crowd of several hundred at a panel discussion entitled “The Black Male: Endangered Species or Hope for the Future?”
“There are people -- unfortunately too many of them in this town -- who believe the progress that we celebrate -- that the Urban League was part of creating in the 20th century -- was not in the best interests of Americans,” Clinton said, apparently referring to Republican-elected officials.
“I don’t know who they’re talking about because it sure was in the best interests of women and of African Americans and of Latinos and Asian Americans. It sure was in the interests of workers and people who wanted a fair shake and a better life,” Clinton said.
“I think it’s fair to say that your government is not holding up its part of the bargain right now,” she added.
Clinton accused the Bush administration of budget “cuts” in a variety of federal programs, including food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, Pell Grants, higher education, and Head Start.
She also called for “racial justice empowerment” and asserted that the “promise of America” was “still missing for millions of our fellow Americans.
“We still have too many of our children who are being left behind ...You know, I do think it takes a village to raise a child. A village needs strong families, it needs good schools,” she said to applause.
Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Wow, I am (nearly) speechless. Where to begin with this stinking pile of skunk feces? OK, the ‘cuts’ – absolutely none of these budget items are smaller this year than they were last year, which were larger than the year before, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Every year huge allotments are proposed and, when a teensy-weensy, itty-bitty bit of reason enters and the PROPOSALS are reduced, that’s called a cut; even if the final figure is 100% larger than the previous year, if it is smaller than what was proposed, it is a cut, get it?
Then there is the “…we built…” comment, like she, or her ilk, had anything to do with it. It was the Democrats, lead by ‘sheets’ Byrd, who attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Bill in the sixties. It was Richard Nixon who signed it, once a way was found to shut the southern Democrats up.
Let’s see, when he was a Southern Democrat (Dixicrat, as it was called), Strom Thurmond was a segragationalist; then he changed parties and his stance on Civil Rights. Once you scratch the surface, it looks like the Democrats talk the talk, but are short legged when it came to walking the walk. They do a great job of slandering the Republicans, though, so that it’s easy to forget that it was those Republicans who made the great strides in Civil Rights legislation.
Lincoln was the first Republican President and he certainly made the first great efforts at Civil Rights, didn’t he? John Wilkes Booth was a Southern Democrat; he prevented the reconstruction that Lincoln wanted – simple amnesty, forgiveness and education for the freed slaves.
After the Civil War, southern whites uniformly voted Democrat and when the 15th Amendment was passed, they ‘urged’ blacks to vote along those same lines. Blacks were largely illiterate back then and pretty much did what they were told. Old habits die hard (that is, the habit of voting Democrat, not subservience; they overcame that soon enough) and for no other reason than habit, southern blacks vote democrat. It’s like licking the boot that kicks them.
Don’t just listen to me, here’s what the Reverend Al Sharpton (I never thought he’d be agreeing to anything I said) has to say about it all: -Ichabod Crane
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Sharpton Slams Blacks for Blindly Supporting Clinton, Democrats
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 29, 2005
Washington (CNSNews.com) -- Former Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton blasted blacks Thursday for what he described as their blind support of the Democratic Party without demanding anything in return.
Sharpton, during his remarks at the National Urban League’s annual conference in Washington, noted that his fellow Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton, have taken African-American voters for granted and failed to act in the best interests of the black community.
“The whole network of incarceration (of African-American men) happened under this president and the last president. So it wasn’t just George Bush. Bill Clinton -- I wish Hillary had hung around -- Bill Clinton built a lot of jails and passed the omnibus crime bill,” Sharpton said shortly after Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) had addressed the same panel discussion, entitled “The Black Male: Endangered Species or Hope for the Future?”
Sharpton noted that African-American men make up 6 percent of the U.S. population but 44 percent of the nation’s prison population.
“And just because Bill can sing “Amazing Grace” well doesn’t mean the omnibus crime bill was not a bill that hurt our people,” Sharpton told the several hundred people gathered at the Washington Convention Center.
Clinton enjoyed significant African-American support and was affectionately referred to by many in the black community as America’s “first black president.”
“We must stop allowing people to gain politically from us if they’re not reciprocating when dealing and being held accountable,” said Sharpton, referring to the allegiance that African-American voters maintain to the Democratic Party.
Sharpton said many politicians who court the black vote “come by and get our votes ‘cause they wave at us on Sunday morning while the choir’s singing. And we act like that is reaching out.”
The problem is these same politicians “never addressed why they sit here in Washington with an epidemic proportion of HIV AIDS in our (black) community, unemployment in our community and they do nothing to deal with eliminating those problems,” Sharpton explained.
“Imagine me going to a convention of whites who half of them were unemployed and I smiled, waved, sing a hymn and leave. They would whip me in the parking lot before [I left],” he said to laughter and applause.
“As long as we allow people to get elected off of us and deliver nothing to us, then part of our problem is that we have such low political self esteem,” he said. “Every time we give them support for no support, we add to the marginalization of black men.”
Sharpton said the situation has “gotten so bad that we hold black leaders accountable and give white leaders a pass.”
‘People emulate what they see’
Sharpton also took aim at black popular culture. Noting that in some U.S. cities, black male unemployment exceeds 50 percent, Sharpton said black music and movies only aggravate the situation.
“We come out in response to that with movies like (the 2005) “Hustle and Flow” and tell our kids that the personification of black men is a black pimp of a white prostitute that wants to be a rapper who shoots the rapper and at the end of the movie, [a] black woman he had as his prostitute has his baby and the white prostitute becomes the head of the record company and makes the money while he’s in jail. That don’t make sense,” Sharpton said to applause.
“People emulate what they see ...We cannot succumb to a generation that acts like it’s all right to celebrate being down. It’s one thing to be down, it’s another thing to celebrate being down,” he explained.
Referring to gangster rappers, Sharpton said, “We’ve gone from ‘black and proud’ to groups now calling themselves “Niggers with an attitude.”
Sharpton told the panel discussion of how he has confronted rappers about their lyrics only to be told that the rappers simply “reflect the times.” Sharpton said black art and culture used to project its “hopes for the future.”
“In slavery we wasn’t singing, ‘you a low down cotton pickin ho.’ That would’ve reflected the times,” he said to more laughter and applause.
“In the civil rights era, we sang “We shall overcome” we didn’t sing ‘You in the back of the bus, got gum on your show, no good MF.’ I mean we’ve been down before. We never romanticized it and put melody to it and acted like it was all right,” he added.
Sharpton concluded his discussion with a call for the black community to help itself and return churches to “the center of our community.”
“Even if we [are] not responsible for being down, we [are] responsible for getting up,” he said. “And if we wait on those who knocked us down to lift us up we’ll never get up ‘cause if they wanted us up we would have never been down,” he said.
Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
You Democrats out there who think that the nice words and good intentions of the Democrat’s leadership is enough, you are the problem, or at least a good part of it. Why do you never demand the results that are never forthcoming from that party?
All that seems to come from the democrats is good intention and failed social programs. Then you accuse the Republicans of ‘mean spiritedness’ when we try to patch your debacles. Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Welfare Society” is a prime example. This piece of crap caused generations of blacks and other poor people to be enslaved to the system that offered no way out, no hope, nothing but the prospect that having more kids was the way to make more money. I personally knew a woman who was third generation welfare recipient and her mother and grandmother were still drawing checks along with her.
Fixing the system to prevent that hopelessness is not mean-spirited; it is a way to instill self-respect back into those people.
Oh, on the twisted logic front, why are liberals so adamant about Judge Roberts’ views on Roe v Wade? If, as they say it is, the Constitution is a moving target, a living document, changing with the times, why would Roe v Wade be the only part cast in stone? Wouldn’t that be just as malleable as the rest of it?
Then, Ted Kennedy, the Senate’s most famous drunkard, wants to know who’s side Judge Roberts is on. Huh? Walter E. Williams compared that question to a baseball organization hiring a new umpire and asking him who’s side he would be on? (I saw that in an editorial cartoon as well, but I don’t have it and can’t remember who created it.) All you need to know about an umpire (or judge) is if he knows the rules, will adhere to them, and how much experience he has doing his job. It would be correct to look into his record and see what complaints he’d had against him and how they were resolved. (With a judge you might want to see how many of his decisions were overturned as well.) The rest, with any judge, especially with a lifetime appointment, is a crapshoot; seven of the current justices were appointed by Republicans and only two of them are staunch conservatives. By that tally, I would think that the liberals would just shut up and let the President pick another ringer for them.
Ah, but I digress somewhat, although the court has been very activist in Civil Rights as well. Consider affirmative action and forced bussing. (Why didn’t they just bus the teachers? That would have been way cheaper and just as effective - that is, not at all.)
I think I’ll leave it at this and let Rich feed me some fuel in the name of a rebuttal.
-Ichabod Crane
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Sen. Clinton: GOP Erasing Century of Civil Rights Progress
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 29, 2005
Washington (CNSNews.com) -- New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton Thursday warned that Republican conservatives were on the verge of erasing a century of “progress” on civil rights, feminist and worker-related issues.
“So much of what we built in the 20th century is at risk,” Clinton said at the National Urban League’s annual conference in Washington D.C. She spoke to a crowd of several hundred at a panel discussion entitled “The Black Male: Endangered Species or Hope for the Future?”
“There are people -- unfortunately too many of them in this town -- who believe the progress that we celebrate -- that the Urban League was part of creating in the 20th century -- was not in the best interests of Americans,” Clinton said, apparently referring to Republican-elected officials.
“I don’t know who they’re talking about because it sure was in the best interests of women and of African Americans and of Latinos and Asian Americans. It sure was in the interests of workers and people who wanted a fair shake and a better life,” Clinton said.
“I think it’s fair to say that your government is not holding up its part of the bargain right now,” she added.
Clinton accused the Bush administration of budget “cuts” in a variety of federal programs, including food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, Pell Grants, higher education, and Head Start.
She also called for “racial justice empowerment” and asserted that the “promise of America” was “still missing for millions of our fellow Americans.
“We still have too many of our children who are being left behind ...You know, I do think it takes a village to raise a child. A village needs strong families, it needs good schools,” she said to applause.
Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Wow, I am (nearly) speechless. Where to begin with this stinking pile of skunk feces? OK, the ‘cuts’ – absolutely none of these budget items are smaller this year than they were last year, which were larger than the year before, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Every year huge allotments are proposed and, when a teensy-weensy, itty-bitty bit of reason enters and the PROPOSALS are reduced, that’s called a cut; even if the final figure is 100% larger than the previous year, if it is smaller than what was proposed, it is a cut, get it?
Then there is the “…we built…” comment, like she, or her ilk, had anything to do with it. It was the Democrats, lead by ‘sheets’ Byrd, who attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Bill in the sixties. It was Richard Nixon who signed it, once a way was found to shut the southern Democrats up.
Let’s see, when he was a Southern Democrat (Dixicrat, as it was called), Strom Thurmond was a segragationalist; then he changed parties and his stance on Civil Rights. Once you scratch the surface, it looks like the Democrats talk the talk, but are short legged when it came to walking the walk. They do a great job of slandering the Republicans, though, so that it’s easy to forget that it was those Republicans who made the great strides in Civil Rights legislation.
Lincoln was the first Republican President and he certainly made the first great efforts at Civil Rights, didn’t he? John Wilkes Booth was a Southern Democrat; he prevented the reconstruction that Lincoln wanted – simple amnesty, forgiveness and education for the freed slaves.
After the Civil War, southern whites uniformly voted Democrat and when the 15th Amendment was passed, they ‘urged’ blacks to vote along those same lines. Blacks were largely illiterate back then and pretty much did what they were told. Old habits die hard (that is, the habit of voting Democrat, not subservience; they overcame that soon enough) and for no other reason than habit, southern blacks vote democrat. It’s like licking the boot that kicks them.
Don’t just listen to me, here’s what the Reverend Al Sharpton (I never thought he’d be agreeing to anything I said) has to say about it all: -Ichabod Crane
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Sharpton Slams Blacks for Blindly Supporting Clinton, Democrats
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 29, 2005
Washington (CNSNews.com) -- Former Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton blasted blacks Thursday for what he described as their blind support of the Democratic Party without demanding anything in return.
Sharpton, during his remarks at the National Urban League’s annual conference in Washington, noted that his fellow Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton, have taken African-American voters for granted and failed to act in the best interests of the black community.
“The whole network of incarceration (of African-American men) happened under this president and the last president. So it wasn’t just George Bush. Bill Clinton -- I wish Hillary had hung around -- Bill Clinton built a lot of jails and passed the omnibus crime bill,” Sharpton said shortly after Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) had addressed the same panel discussion, entitled “The Black Male: Endangered Species or Hope for the Future?”
Sharpton noted that African-American men make up 6 percent of the U.S. population but 44 percent of the nation’s prison population.
“And just because Bill can sing “Amazing Grace” well doesn’t mean the omnibus crime bill was not a bill that hurt our people,” Sharpton told the several hundred people gathered at the Washington Convention Center.
Clinton enjoyed significant African-American support and was affectionately referred to by many in the black community as America’s “first black president.”
“We must stop allowing people to gain politically from us if they’re not reciprocating when dealing and being held accountable,” said Sharpton, referring to the allegiance that African-American voters maintain to the Democratic Party.
Sharpton said many politicians who court the black vote “come by and get our votes ‘cause they wave at us on Sunday morning while the choir’s singing. And we act like that is reaching out.”
The problem is these same politicians “never addressed why they sit here in Washington with an epidemic proportion of HIV AIDS in our (black) community, unemployment in our community and they do nothing to deal with eliminating those problems,” Sharpton explained.
“Imagine me going to a convention of whites who half of them were unemployed and I smiled, waved, sing a hymn and leave. They would whip me in the parking lot before [I left],” he said to laughter and applause.
“As long as we allow people to get elected off of us and deliver nothing to us, then part of our problem is that we have such low political self esteem,” he said. “Every time we give them support for no support, we add to the marginalization of black men.”
Sharpton said the situation has “gotten so bad that we hold black leaders accountable and give white leaders a pass.”
‘People emulate what they see’
Sharpton also took aim at black popular culture. Noting that in some U.S. cities, black male unemployment exceeds 50 percent, Sharpton said black music and movies only aggravate the situation.
“We come out in response to that with movies like (the 2005) “Hustle and Flow” and tell our kids that the personification of black men is a black pimp of a white prostitute that wants to be a rapper who shoots the rapper and at the end of the movie, [a] black woman he had as his prostitute has his baby and the white prostitute becomes the head of the record company and makes the money while he’s in jail. That don’t make sense,” Sharpton said to applause.
“People emulate what they see ...We cannot succumb to a generation that acts like it’s all right to celebrate being down. It’s one thing to be down, it’s another thing to celebrate being down,” he explained.
Referring to gangster rappers, Sharpton said, “We’ve gone from ‘black and proud’ to groups now calling themselves “Niggers with an attitude.”
Sharpton told the panel discussion of how he has confronted rappers about their lyrics only to be told that the rappers simply “reflect the times.” Sharpton said black art and culture used to project its “hopes for the future.”
“In slavery we wasn’t singing, ‘you a low down cotton pickin ho.’ That would’ve reflected the times,” he said to more laughter and applause.
“In the civil rights era, we sang “We shall overcome” we didn’t sing ‘You in the back of the bus, got gum on your show, no good MF.’ I mean we’ve been down before. We never romanticized it and put melody to it and acted like it was all right,” he added.
Sharpton concluded his discussion with a call for the black community to help itself and return churches to “the center of our community.”
“Even if we [are] not responsible for being down, we [are] responsible for getting up,” he said. “And if we wait on those who knocked us down to lift us up we’ll never get up ‘cause if they wanted us up we would have never been down,” he said.
Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
You Democrats out there who think that the nice words and good intentions of the Democrat’s leadership is enough, you are the problem, or at least a good part of it. Why do you never demand the results that are never forthcoming from that party?
All that seems to come from the democrats is good intention and failed social programs. Then you accuse the Republicans of ‘mean spiritedness’ when we try to patch your debacles. Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Welfare Society” is a prime example. This piece of crap caused generations of blacks and other poor people to be enslaved to the system that offered no way out, no hope, nothing but the prospect that having more kids was the way to make more money. I personally knew a woman who was third generation welfare recipient and her mother and grandmother were still drawing checks along with her.
Fixing the system to prevent that hopelessness is not mean-spirited; it is a way to instill self-respect back into those people.
Oh, on the twisted logic front, why are liberals so adamant about Judge Roberts’ views on Roe v Wade? If, as they say it is, the Constitution is a moving target, a living document, changing with the times, why would Roe v Wade be the only part cast in stone? Wouldn’t that be just as malleable as the rest of it?
Then, Ted Kennedy, the Senate’s most famous drunkard, wants to know who’s side Judge Roberts is on. Huh? Walter E. Williams compared that question to a baseball organization hiring a new umpire and asking him who’s side he would be on? (I saw that in an editorial cartoon as well, but I don’t have it and can’t remember who created it.) All you need to know about an umpire (or judge) is if he knows the rules, will adhere to them, and how much experience he has doing his job. It would be correct to look into his record and see what complaints he’d had against him and how they were resolved. (With a judge you might want to see how many of his decisions were overturned as well.) The rest, with any judge, especially with a lifetime appointment, is a crapshoot; seven of the current justices were appointed by Republicans and only two of them are staunch conservatives. By that tally, I would think that the liberals would just shut up and let the President pick another ringer for them.
Ah, but I digress somewhat, although the court has been very activist in Civil Rights as well. Consider affirmative action and forced bussing. (Why didn’t they just bus the teachers? That would have been way cheaper and just as effective - that is, not at all.)
I think I’ll leave it at this and let Rich feed me some fuel in the name of a rebuttal.
-Ichabod Crane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)