Sep

30

2004

And the winner of the debate is…

Filed Under Politics | 8 Comments

The Mainstream Media!

[hushed voice:] The Mainstream Media could not be here tonight to pick up their award. Accepting the award for them is veteran PBS News Patsy Jim Lehrer.

Doe-eyed sweet leftist Lehrer lost. How many of his questions to the candidates addressed Kerry’s 20-year Senate voting record on foreign policy, the military and intell? Fifty percent? Ten percent? Or zilch? – charlotte @ allahpundit (comment #6)
Lehrer: Thank you very much, Senator Kerry. You couldn’t really have gotten through it without me.

Sep

30

2004

Window to the World of John Kerry

Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments

As a public service to both our readers, The Black Republican will include below a feed from the RNC debunking all of John Kerry’s missteps during tonight’s debate. Unfortunately, the accompanying background music we expected to excerpt from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory had to be shelved for copyright reasons. Otherwise… enjoy!

UPDATE: Now that the debate is over, I’m linking to the campaign site – the javascript for that box is a hog.

Sep

29

2004

Right Man at the Right Time

Filed Under Foreign Affairs | Comments Off

A few weeks ago, the Democrats were screaming that we had to keep politics out of the CIA. As they say in the movies, great idea in theory.

Keep in mind that none of these CIA officials were ever elected to anything, and that they are employed to provide accurate information to officials who present their policy choices for voter judgment. Yet what the CIA insurgents are essentially doing here, with their leaks and insubordination, is engaging in a policy debate. Given the timing of the latest leaks so close to an election, they are now clearly trying to defeat President Bush and elect John Kerry. Yet somehow the White House stands accused of “politicizing” intelligence?
I’ve long believed that anything coming out of the CIA is either a lie or a truth meant to distract or deceive you, so contradictory news coming from the CIA means a bad brew is stinking up the halls of Langley. The selection of Goss for DCI now seems to be especially fortuitous, and explains why Bush made the selection (beyond the obvious credentials we knew about). Who better to get to the bottom of who the political partisans are inside the CIA (and excise them from the organization) but a former agent-turned-Congressman everyone is accusing of being too political?

For anyone but a conspiracy nutcase, Goss seems to be just what we need right now at the CIA. (Unless you’re part of the Bush Cabal, like me – then we never had this conversation, understand?)

Sep

28

2004

FOS11 Update: “Controversial” House version strengthens borders, police powers

Filed Under Politics, War and Terrorism | Comments Off

The Washington Post, in an article from Saturday, reports that the House version of a bill to enact portions of the 9/11 Commission’s final recommendations includes extra border security and improved police powers to combat terrorism.

The House’s 335-page bill would make it easier to deport immigrants who have run afoul of the law and to secretly monitor terrorist suspects who have no known affiliation with hostile groups or governments. It would increase penalties for making false statements in terrorist investigations and for failing to secure airplane cockpit doors, and it would make the FBI’s mandatory retirement age 65 instead of 60.
These are the recommendations the Democrats are having a cow over: they aren’t interested in really improving security, just in enacting whatever the 9/11 Commission says they should do (without Congress actually reviewing the recommendations to find out if they’re really necessary on the one hand or sufficient on the other) and beating the Republicans over the head if they dare to do anything but write out the blank check.
But Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the measure was loaded with controversial items likely to sink it unless they are removed during committee meetings next week or on the House floor. “There are some folks out to kill the whole thing,” she said.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the bill was “written behind closed doors” and “goes far outside the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.”

(my emphasis)

They’re “controversial” because the Democrats don’t want them to be anything less – besides, it’d be so easy to restyle “border security” as “anti-impoverished Mexican immigrant bigotry” and “secretly monitor terrorist suspects” as “Big Brother tearing apart the Bill of Rights”. Why bother doing what’s best for America, when you can gain a few polling points with key constituencies before an election?

Let’s face it: the House leaders wrote this “behind closed doors” because there’s no way to get through writing a 335-page bill when the minority runs out to the steps to hold a press conference every time a staffer dots the i’s in “illegal alien”. What’s so friggin’ wrong with going outside the 9/11 Commission recommendations to add more teeth to the dogs of war?

The chance that FOS11 is anything but a bunch of Democratic shills cloaked in the appearance of 9/11 self-pity is diminishing rapidly.

Sep

28

2004

An open letter to Dan Rather

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | 1 Comment

This past Sunday, my wife drew my attention to the inside back page of section A in our local newspaper, the Naples Daily News. There, encompassing the entire page, was the following advertisement, taken out by a local businessman.

An open letter to Dan Rather:

Dear Mr. Rather:

My grandfather served in the U.S. Army during World War I. My Father served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. I served in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War. Now my son, a 2002 graduate (with distinction) of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis is serving as a jet fighter pilot at a time when our nation is once again at war, against an enemy that is both ruthless and cowardly. An enemy like no other in the history of our country.

According to your published biography, Mr. Rather, you have never served in the armed forces. You went straight from college into journalism. However, you did cover the Vietnam War for a period of time. To that extent, I am totally amazed by your recent actions to discredit our nation

Sep

27

2004

FOS11 “Action Alert” makes full-court press to enact legislation

Filed Under War and Terrorism | Comments Off

Several months ago, I became an official member of Families of September 11th (FOS11). People like Kristen Breitweiser (who I have not been able to confirm has ever officially spoken for the organization) have been all over television for the last few years purporting to speak for me and my family, so it seemed only prudent to become a member so I can keep tabs on the organization, their methods and goals. As an actual family member of a 9/11 casualty, I figured I might have more access to information about what’s going on inside the organization, information mere “supporters” might not receive.

Today, I received a mailing related to legislation currently being fast-tracked through Congress to enact portions of the 9/11 Commission report. It’s somewhat instructive of how the organization works, and what their intentions are. It takes the form of an “Action Alert”, complete with “Talking Points” to be used when members call their Representative in Congress. Several curious references seem to insinuate the opinion of the organization that the USA Patriot Act (enacted immediately following the terrorist attacks of 2001) has little connection to the War on Terror, and are not vital to making America safer – one reference even suggests that the Patriot Act “deserves separate debate”. Contrary to this stance, the organization is intent on pushing through the legislation based solely on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Reform Legislation should be clean and straightforward, based on the 41 core recommendations of the 9/11 Commission with no extraneous, unrelated provisions such as those closely aligned with the Patriot Act.
Other references in the “Talking Points” suggest that too much time has passed without Congress taking any action, despite the fact that the Commission itself was created at the insistence of the FOS11, and Congress was forced to wait 18 months for it to finish its work. That the elected legislature – a lumbering bureaucracy in its own right – has only had the report for two months and only has 13 days left in its session, seems not to greatly concern FOS11.
Nearly 3,000 people are dead as a result of systemic failures in our security network. Today, September 26, it has been 1,110 days since 9/11; 634 days since the release of the JICI Report; 65 days since the release of the 9/11 Commission Report. There are 13 days left for the 108th Congress to act in a responsible manner to correct the failures identified by the Commission.
Isn’t it odd that we’re supposed to wait 18 months for an unelected and unaccountable extra-governmental organization to write a huge report, but the elected legislature is supposed to act immediately to produce legislation? Isn’t it peculiar that this should be pushed through without any reconsideration of the already-controversial legislation that was written in record time immediately following the attacks, that has been allowed to be used as a political football ever since, and that may be adversely affected by this related legislation?

Last but not least, what are we to think of this:

PLEASE NOTE: The Family Steering Committee will compile and post on its website a “Report Card” on each Member’s position on these urgent matters. We will provide you with this valuable link.
Am I paranoid to think that perhaps FOS11 might try to use its status as representing the families of the 3,000 casualties of the attacks to blacklist any legislator who even suggests we slow down this runaway train?

Please note that I haven’t studied the situation or the legislation in detail yet, so it may be possible that I’m going against my own party on this one. Regardless, it usually smells like a bad deal when you ask Congress to sign the check someone else has written.

The full text of the letter is contained in the extended entry of this article.

Read more

Sep

27

2004

Amazing resemblance

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

AlphaPatriot links to a fun quiz that figures out what NYT columnist you’re most like.

David Brooks
You are David Brooks! You’re exceedingly smart, but
your writing is as compelling as wallpaper. You
are a thoughtful though hard-line conservative,
but lack any of Safire’s verbal pyrotechnics.
In addition, you dress like you’re colorblind.
Fall down, juvenile.

Which New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Amazing resemblance, isn’t it?

Sep

27

2004

The Negroconservative

Filed Under Liberty and Democracy | 6 Comments

I’ve been thinking for the last few days, both about my previous post starting the “Black Republicanism” dialogue, and about the Julia Gorin column Richard highlighted on Friday. I’ve never been very taken of the “neocon” label myself, both because of the negative stereotypes the label has been used to evoke by it’s detractors, and because of some stark differences I have with some of the positions of the faction.

This is my second attempt at writing out this particular post, the first falling apart when I couldn’t quite identify how I wanted to trace the roots of the various conservative factions, respectively. The cornerstone of my first attempt wondered aloud if the neoconservatives, who to a large extent trace their political ancestry back to their days in the Democratic Party, actually first departed from the Republican tradition when FDR moved his party to the left of the Radical and Progressive Republicans of earlier days. The next question, of course, would be to ask if paleoconservatives are actually dominated by the “classical” conservatives who moved right just before and during FDR’s move left, or who finally fled the Democratic Party after the Dixiecrat Rebellion failed. I’ve since found several pieces of evidence here, here, and here that suggest that those are more than random thoughts.

I must say, the more I look into the paleo mindset, the more disgusted I am by it, and the more distasteful I find the label “conservative” that we are saddled with, associating our cause with theirs. Still, I don’t find my revulsion so severe that I am willing to adopt the “neo” label to oppose them – there ought be a name for the ideology I support that will align myself with the ancient Republican traditions of Lincoln and TR, and without the racial and political baggage now impugning the neocons.

“Black Republicanism” is too awkward, but the word I’m looking for should be just as much a repudiation of racial stereotyping as the name of this blog. What term will finally identify me, and throw into their own faces the prejudices of the race-baiters and racist apologists on the right and left alike? What term could simultaneously act as a rallying cry against the historical amnesia The Black Republican was founded to heal?

Thus, the negroconservatives are born.

I find the word euphonic (pronounced with a short “e” sound), and so similar to “neoconservative” as to fool the ear of any who might not be listening carefully enough. And rightfully so, because the connotation so justifiably disputed by Gorin (“It’s those weathy JOOOOOS!”) is turned on its head when the prefix turns out to be the archaic definition of “racial underclass”. Close enough to be equally despised, but unique enough to make a sharp distinction within the varied ranks of Reaganism. And most of all, it’s practically a transliteration of “Black Republican”.

What does a negroconservative believe?

That freedom is God’s gift to humanity, and cannot be separated from us by arbitrary force or illicit persuasion short of the extinguishment of our very lives;

That the Founders’ contention that “all men are created equal” is just as true today as the day it was written, even though the modern definitions of both “men” and “equal” are perceived to be different, and that this fact should not diminish the profound nature of their endeavor, or our devotion to living this basic principle and conveying its message to all mankind;

That the right to secure property was as much a foundation of the settlement of this land as the right to practice one’s religion in peace, but that neither of these rights is mutually exclusive with the principles of majority rule, or with one another;

That the right to communicate in public on matters of importance, and to influence one’s neighbors to follow a particular course of political action, is not reserved to a few by class, method, or content, but is available to all citizens through whatever means of communication is most practical for them and available to them in the market;

That only a form of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is properly constituted to guard against behavior destructive of these rights, and that this concept is not limited to one race, ethnicity, or nationality;

That the most equitable form of government is not defined by that which protects all these values equally, but that defends them all unequivocally from itself;

That it is the obligation of government to protect its citizens from both external agression and internal strife, and to administer justice through due process of law;

That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

That we will be free only so long as the borders of the United States are open to immigration and trade, closed to invasion and corruption, and securely defended by policies maintaining our national sovereignty and traditional identity;

That the forces of international terrorism and their despotic benefactors are, at present, the greatest threat to these liberties; but

That the forces of international Communism, while having been largely discredited, are not eradicated, and they have learned that “social democracy” is a better vehicle for their goals than the Revolution;

That the United States should stress victory over, rather than sufference with both of these menaces; and

That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States, holding “the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends,” and in all things under God, Brothers as Free Men?

Sep

26

2004

Tammy Bruce

Filed Under Politics | 8 Comments

If you don’t know who Tammy Bruce is, then please follow that link and read up. What her site doesn’t tell you is that she as level-headed as anyone you likely know.

She is also fond of using the phrase “projection by malignant narcissists”, because it so accurately describes a certain malicious element of our society. Example.

With Soros pouring tens of millions into what he has declared a life and death effort to defeat the president, there is also another possible answer to the depraved and vile nature of this

Sep

26

2004

“Rumble In The Jungle” of Vietnam?

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

I have often suggested to my compatriots that Rove, Card and the Bush campaign have employed a rope-a-dope strategy with the Donks, much like Ali did with George Forman in the “Rumble In The Jungle.” Oblivious to him at the time, every punch George Forman threw in that fight was actually taking him further into ruin, just like every attack that has been pressed against President George W. Bush has taken the Donks in general, and Kerry campaign in particular, further and further into ruin. There are a whole host of examples of this strategy, but the latest may be the best. The big question is, will this story make it out of the blogosphere?

John F. Kerry is an opponent who has built his entire campaign world around his claim that he is a war hero. The Bush team did nothing to dissuade their opponents from taking this tact and, I propose, actually goaded the Dems into that effort by making it seem that such efforts might actually hurt Bush. It now seems evident that, through his own actions, Kerry has not only exposed to the world that he manipulated events to allow him to get out early, but then actually met with the enemy and lead the attack against the war and those fighting it. Can you think of anything better than having that “war hero” candidate and his political machine repeatedly attach their opponent on his seeming lack of effort toward that war, only to have it totally backfire by having it come out that not only did the man they are attacking serve honorably, but may have even volunteered to go into theater and into harms way?

Perhaps someone can look into which service in 1968 one was more likely to be harmed, as a Swift Boat Captain patrolling mainly along the southern coast of Vietnam, or a F-102 Fighter Pilot who would have flown almost exclusively over enemy territory in the north. It seems the first was so dangerous one candidate did not want to stay, and the other was not dangerous enough to keep the other candidate from trying to get there! And who do you think the American people would look at more favorably, a man who got there but did everything he could to get out, or a man who tried to get there but was denied the chance to go?

(As an aside, what’s with all the 4 letter names? Rice, Page, Rove, Card, Bush. It warms my heart to know that those 4 letter people have caused the Donks to utter a multitude of 4 letter expletives! ;-D)

(Hat tip to Ace of Spades!)

Sep

25

2004

TO: gary.gardner@winktv.com

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

As the gentleman from Rathergate.com says in the AP article that also quoted you, “The buck has to stop.” And I regret to say, it seems Mr. Rather – by first his stalling, and now his dissembling – has asked you to stop it from getting up to him.

I can understand that as a CBS affiliate for many years, your station is limited in the power it has to disassociate itself from particular shows and specific personalities carried by the network. So if I said that I’m not going to watch the CBS Evening News while Dan Rather continues his employment at CBS, I could understand that you’d take my word with a grain of salt. Besides which, from his ratings you’d probably assume (correctly) that I don’t really watch CBS News very much anyway.

However, a strange thing happened last night. As much as I am opposed to formal boycotts, I was amazed to find that I received absolutely no enjoyment from watching the season premiere of two of my favorite TV series: “Joan of Arcadia” and “JAG”. I expect from the visceral reaction I felt, I would probably sense the same feelings from watching “NCIS” when it debuts on Tuesday. But it also occurred to me that I may avoid these reactions and their unintended by-products (the benefit to you through your advertisers) if I simply refrained from watching each of these shows and waited a year for them to arrive in the store on DVD – when I can see them without commercials and without enriching you or your network.

Expect that I will continue to avoid these shows, and any others broadcast by your station, as long as my stomach can’t handle the revulsion of rewarding by association Dan Rather’s breach of journalistic standards, professional ethics, and common decency. As long as you are not effective in forcing a correction upon your associates at the network level, I guess the buck will remain with you.

By the way… don’t assume that I’m incapable of fulfilling my threat. Being more tuned to the computer these days, I don’t watch much TV anyway, so losing these few hours should not be too much of a hardship. And if I find myself bored and weakening in my resolve, there are less reputable ways I know of that I can use to satisfy my craving for series television, ways that I tend to shy away from because I prefer to remain true to my own ethics and my respect for copyright law. I may just decide to follow Mr. Rather’s example and bend a few of those ethical prohibitions for the duration.

I hope you will not tolerate the network’s disloyalty to you, their viewers, and the truth any longer than necessary.

UPDATE: It appears Mr. Gardner is in the office, working his way through the hurricane.

Dear Mr. O’Conor,

Thank you for your recent email. I will be forwarding your comments to CBS
Affiliate Relations along with my own
thoughts and suggestions pertaining to Dan Rather and the 60 Minutes story
on President Bush’s National Guard service.

I am strongly recommending that the investigation into the internal
practices of CBS News be conducted in a matter of weeks;
that the complete findings and report be made public; and that CBS take the
necessary corrective measures, including swift disciplinary action, required
to restore the credibility of CBS News with mainstream America.

I can assure you that WINK-TV will continue to provide you with local news
and weather that is accurate, fair, and balanced.

We take great pride in being voted “The Best” TV Station here in Southwest
Florida, as well as being one of the most respected local news operations in
the state of Florida.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

We very much value you as a viewer.

Sincerely,

Gary Gardner
General Manager
WINK-TV

Sep

25

2004

“He’s kind of ’skippy,’ all over the place”

Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments

Professor Stanley Fish is voting for Kerry – after he voted against him.

Sep

25

2004

Listen up, locals!

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | Comments Off

I don’t do a whole lot of reporting on local activities or events because, frankly, most of the time it bores me. But when a national issue comes close enough, I’m ready to jump on it like… well, like a frisky mountain lion lookin’ for another… (well, you can guess what Dan Rather would say).

So here’s a local alert for my readers from the Southwest Florida area: WINK wants to hear from you.

The mass email gripe, which basically says lose Rather or lose viewers, seems to have gotten its start as a blog on the Website www.Rathergate.com.

“The buck has to stop,” Rathergate.com founder Mike Krempasky told the wire service. “He’s certainly the face of the story. He’s the one who sneered at anyone who dared criticize him on the story for 10 days. He’s the one who put his credibility on the line when he said he believed in the story.”

Station managers are worried, to say the least. “To be honest, I’m most concerned when the email is coming from a local viewer,” Fort Meyers, Florida-based WINK-TV vice president and general manager Gary Gardner told the AP.

Mr. Gardner can be contacted through the WINK-TV website, or right here.

(If you would, make sure to mention who sent you his way.)

Sep

24

2004

VDH Nails It

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

I love this piece. No, really, I LOVE IT!

Mr. Hanson insightfully explains the ramifications of Memogate as it relates to the death of liberalism. This is just what many of us have believed would come of the Left, and the rest of the current truth bandits that control the DNC. Their show is closing, and Rather’s over-reaching partisanship is the death knell.

[Allah led me here too, stovepipe hat tip)

Sep

24

2004

Did You Call Me A Neo? What Do You Mean By That?

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

I freely admit that the term neo-conservative puzzles me. If I ask what makes a neo new, I get a response that they are new because these conservatives wish to spread democracy as a strategy to thwart the world’s evils, (something like that, I don’t think I’ve corrupted the basics), that they are proactive about it rather than isolationist. I then frustrate my tutors with a statement like; they are just paleo-conservatives, they didn’t change, the world has gotten smaller, thus what they believe in just gets a wider audience. If your eyes just rolled back into head, well, I am getting used to witnessing that reaction.

So, given that I am such a pain, I expect that my friends will be just as grateful for this explanation as I am. For Julia Gorin covers the term from its origins, its current uses, including its use as a slur, and it is a surprising perspective as well. Witness this:

As a new staple of mainstream American vocabulary, “neoconservative” warrants a reminder of the term’s beginnings, before it became chic newspeak. It originally referred to a movement of largely Jewish liberals who gave leftism an honest and protracted effort, who dutifully reviled every Republican president through Eisenhower, who did their time in inner cities, and who gave peace and social engineering a chance, until the real-world consequences of their good will forced them to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn’t working but in fact backfiring.

And this note on the poignant evolution of words.

For a while, I couldn’t tell whether the word was a euphemism or a slur, but from the resentful tone with which it was being employed by certain contingents (“pushy neocons” is another popular one), I could discern that the term’s usage was undergoing a transition. After all, ethnic slurs can start out as euphemisms (meant to avoid identifying anyone blatantly by nationality) before evolving into derogations. “Colored” was a way to avoid the N-word, but today it doesn’t go over very well itself. And a century ago Jews jokingly called one another by their Ellis Island designation “keikle” (Yiddish for “circle”)–until the joke was co-opted by those hostile to Jews.

[I tip my Stove Pipe hat to Allah]

Next Page →

  • Featured Sponsor

  • Recent Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories