Mar
29
2007
Give ‘Em Hill
Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments
Give ‘Em Hill
Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments
As much as I’d like to ‘chat’ with Hillary, my job and the rest of my life prevents me from doing so. Would someone else please tell her that I don’t believe in Universal Heatlhcare? Please?
Mar
21
2007
Indoctrinate U! A new school of thought?
Filed Under Education | Leave a Comment
Indoctrinate U! A new school of thought?
Filed Under Education | Leave a Comment
Do you believe yourself to be an enlightened, free thinking individual, willing and able to speak your mind on any number of topics and allow others to do the same? Do you believe that in this country everyone has the right to speak their mind and voice their opinions? Do you consider yourself to be a champion for the First Amendment? Are you willing to lend your name to an effort to ensure that everyone – no matter their beliefs or opinions – continue to have the protections that the First Amendment them?
If your answer to any one of those questions is “Yes”, then you need to watch this video…
Now that you have watched the video, visit the Indoctrinate U web site and help the filmmakers get their message out and get the film into theaters.
If you don’t really feel like doing that, for whatever reason, then you lied to yourself on the first set of questions.
If you scoff at the notion that you have lied to yourself but think this film is somehow wrong and should not be promoted, yet continue to believe yourself to be an enlightened, free thinking individual, willing and able to speak your mind on any number of topics and allow others to do the same, then you are wrong – and you are the perfect example of a hypocrite!
Mar
19
2007
Obama Panacea For White Guilt. Really?
Filed Under History, Politics, Race and Prejudice | 1 Comment
Obama Panacea For White Guilt. Really?
Filed Under History, Politics, Race and Prejudice | 1 Comment
A liberal journalist invokes the other “N” word in a column in the LA Times. I think it is an important development, but I am not yet sure why. So, I’ll leave it to the reader to witness the remarks of David Ehrenstein.
“But it’s clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the “Magic Negro.”
The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. “He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,” reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .
He’s there to assuage white “guilt” (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.”
And I’ll also give you access to Rush’s take on Ehrenstein’s essay.
“So, those of you white people out there who are supporting Barack Obama, you are racists. That is the point that David Ehrenstein is making. You’re attempting to assuage all of your white guilt by supporting Obama, is worthless, because you’re just exhibiting racism because you know he’s not a “real black.” “
I will also remind you of what Juan Williams and Brit Hume had to say about how being black affects Obama’s chances at election.
Lastly, I must say that I just now learning that the M.N. term exists, and I am not happy to have it as part of the American lexicon.
Mar
19
2007
A short time ago I challenged the global warming hyperbole by asking what the temperature norm is, and when did that condition actually exist. Now I find an interesting challenge to the concept of there being a “global temperature”.
” Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility,”
Well, if it is impossible then the left will claim a right to have it and will tax everyone to make themselves feel better about themselves it possible.
Mar
19
2007
Valerie Plame finally spoke in public, and while under oath she contradicts the CIA’s version of how Plame’s husband became involved in WMD discussion.
“Plame said she did not select her husband for a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger. Wilson later wrote in a newspaper column that his trip debunked the administration’s prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa.
“I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority,” she said.
That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby’s trial and told Congress that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.”
One has to wonder what authority is required to make a suggestion. Sounds like doublespeak to me. A family trait perhaps, as it is now known that while Mr. Wilson’s op-ed column had purported that his finding in Niger had debunked the pre-war intelligence it had actually contradicted his oral reporting’s to the CIA which had reinforced the prevailing belief that Iraq had been seeking uranium. Wilson’s assertion that Vice President Cheney had sent him to Niger has also been shown to be in error. One has to wonder if the truth is ever in these two, Wilson and Plame.
PLAME COVER BLOWN YEARS BEFORE
Wilson has also made a big deal out of his assertion that his wife’s cover was blown as a way to punish him, and that such exposure of her CIA employment put her at risk. But, those too are lies, and ones which she must have known as lies. For her cover had been blown twice before Novak reported it, once during the Clinton administration. You can’t blame Bush for that one, (though we certainly expect the nut job Bush haters to try.). This revelation, that she was a known spy, may explain one part of this story which always bothered me. Why send the diplomat husband to spy and yet leave the spy wife (and WMD expert) at home when she was decidedly more qualified for the mission? The obvious answer now is that she could no long spy, her cover was already blown!
And, there is no evidence to support his paranoid accusation that the White house was out to get him as retribution. That is just partisan paranoia on his part.
Her exposure as a spy within the intelligence community created far greater danger, to her and the nation, than did her exposure to the public. Keeping her spy status secret from the public is only valuable when it helps to keep it secret from the intelligence community. A spy is in danger from the other spies, not from the public. The other spies already knew about her.
INDICT PLAME ON PERJURY
I don’t buy her lame explanation on how her husband was chosen for the mission. Her own bosses say that she was the one who got his name in the mix. So, she just perjured herself. Time for a special prosecutor? No, just have AG Gonzales fire back with an indictment charging her with lying to Congress. I know it is not a crime when a Congressman lies, but surely it is a chargeable offense when a sworn witness lies to Congress.
Her appearance and testimony at this late date is no mistake either. This was a staged event, her testimony a manufactured and no doubt practiced parcel of deceit. Fitzgerald would have her in irons if she was a Republican. Ask Libby. He is convicted and she is walking around free; as long as that is the case don’t talk to me about equal justice.
Mar
17
2007
If the liberals really support our military, why do they never do or say anything to promote recruitment?
Mar
16
2007
Of course there are no universals; but doesn’t it seem that the contemporary Democrats are only willing to fight against their fellow Americans, while the contemporary Republicans are ready to fight any adversary except those found upon American soil?
The Democrats see no evil abroad, and only evil in every action taken by a Republican. And, if an evil doer, such as the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, is captured; they attack the American captors not the terrorist. When terrorists attack our soldiers in Iraq the Dems attack the U.S. administration and ignore those who perpetrated the conflict, the terrorists. And so on, and so on.
The Republicans rightfully understand and attempt to eliminate the foreign based threats; but rhetorically and strategically roll up into the fetal position when the liberal blame America crowd begins yet another attack on their fellow Americans.
Why it that Republicans understand that we can’t win with the foreign threat by being nice and hoping they like us, but use that same tactic to no good effect when dealing with the domestic threat?
Mar
12
2007
The white woman married to the second “Black” President has a penchant for inventing her own history. She once exclaimed that her first name was given to her because her parents were so impressed by the exploits of the British explorer, and first European to summit Mount Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary that they wanted their child to carry his name. Having actually been born seven years before Hillary’s accomplishment, she has never explained whether she went without a name for that interim, or if her parents were prescient and knew ahead of time that he would succeed where so many others had failed and thus were able to beat the rush of those parents naming their offspring Edmund, Hillary, or Sir. The latter explanation seems unlikely since if they could see the future their little girl would not have needed to accept an illegal favor in order to turn one thousand dollars into 100 grand in the futures market. They would have had the market corned on futures.
The first possibility similarly seems unlikely, though if it is possible to let the wife of the second “Black” President go without a name for a number of years I would welcome the relief of not hearing her name called for whatever period is manageable.
The truth is she made up the whole thing. She lied. And now she has done it again. Fabricating her history, this time she has attached herself to the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in order to pump up her image with the black population. Robert Novak has the story.
“Speaking at Selma’s First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the “bloody Sunday” freedom march there, Sen. Clinton declared: “As a young girl [age 16], I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.”
Young Hillary Rodham answered that challenge the next year as the 17-year-old class president at Maine East High School in the Chicago suburbs. She described herself in her memoirs as “an active Young Republican” and “a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.” As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. “
So, after hearing Dr King speak, (if she even attended that speech), she chose to join a faction opposed to the cause for which Dr. King labored. And now she wants credit for being on the right side, when in fact she was in league with those were on the wrong side of the issue. The pattern of behavior seems familiar. No wonder their former friend David Geffen said of the Clinton’s, ““Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”.
Geffen is no friend to American conservatives either. He contributed to Bill Clinton’s campaigns. And, he is an activist seeking the release of jailed FBI Agent killer Leonard Peltier. In many ways Geffen is an unsavory character himself. But his description of his former friends rings true. Truth being something one never gets when listening to the wife of the second “Black” President. Or, the second “Black” President himself for that matter, as Kudlow demonstrates when he asks us to Google the phrase “Bill Clinton lies”. Try it for your self below.
And remember what Bill said during his first Presidential campaign, elect him and get two for one.
Mar
11
2007
I’ve just finished watching The Great Global Warming Swindle, a program produced by Channel 4 in Great Britain (
Ace), which is a fantastic rebuttal of Al Gore and his environmental propaganda opus, An Inconvenient Truth. It explains, in excruciating detail, how corrupt bureaucrats and activists have managed to buy off a few scientists, intimidate most of their otherwise-sensible colleagues, and perpetuate one of the biggest lies in human history, mainly by feeding the insatiable appetite of the dinosaur media for reality-TV melodrama.
After detailing the real science that disputes most of the manufactured disaster scenarios peddled by the likes of Gore, one of the soon-to-be-pariah scientists interviewed for the program summed up the politics driving the whole affair.
The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two very distinct reasons. The first reason was because, by the mid-80’s, a majority of people now agreed with all of the reasonable things we in the environmental movement were saying they should do. Now, when a majority of people agree with you, it’s pretty hard to remain confrontational with them. And so the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions….Who is this radical anti-environmentalist? It’s Dr. Patrick Moore, a founding member and former prominent leader of Greenpeace. Expectedly, his former friends are saying some rather nasty things about him these days.When I left… it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. Like, I said, “You guys – this is one of the elements in the periodic table, you know? I mean, I’m not sure if that’s in our jurisdiction – to be banning a whole element.”
The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because world communism failed, the (Berlin) Wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them, and learned to use “green” language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than they do anything with ecology or science.
Dr. Moore and the others appearing in the special – each of whom speaks directly to the science related to his field – finish off the discussion by highlighting the effect anti-capitalist and anti-globalization efforts are having on the poorest of the poor in Africa and other developing regions. The producers point out the brutal fact that even the most basic amenities we take for granted in the West today are built upon our use of energy, especially electricity. Without it, there is no heat, no air conditioning, only open fires to cook with, barbaric medical care, and no modern industry to lift the populace out of poverty. As James Shikwati, a Kenyan economist and the Director of the Inter Region Economic Network, points out, “I don’t see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel… is going to power some railway train network.”
One would expect that the liberal bleeding hearts who continuously tell us we need to feed the hungry around the world, and who tell us the reason we aren’t doing enough is because of our racism and bigotry, would take the side of the downtrodden peasant folk in the African bush, and that they would endorse doing whatever it takes to improve their lot. But these same liberals insist on promulgating the global warming agenda that dictates the use of expensive “clean” forms of energy instead of the relatively cheap and plentiful coal and oil reserves found in Africa. This mandate prevents the great majority of Africa from advancing out of poverty the way the rest of the world has. “Let me make one thing perfectly clear,” says Paul Driessen, author of the book Green Power, Black Death. “If we’re telling the Third World that they can only have wind and solar power, what we are really telling them is, ‘You cannot have electricity.’”
A forceful and persuasive discussion, cutting back and forth between interviews with Shikwati and Moore, is equally clear about the fate of the African people if the liberals have their way.
Moore: I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is this romanticization of peasant life, and the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world.Welcome back to sanity, Dr. Moore. And welcome to the Republican Party, Mr. Shikwati.
Shikwati: One clear thing… is the point that there is somebody keen to kill the African Dream. And the African Dream is to develop.
Moore: The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries.
Shikwati: We’re being told, “Don’t touch your resources. Don’t touch your oil. Don’t touch your coal.” That is suicide.
Moore: I think it’s legitimate for me to call them anti-human. Like, “Okay, you don’t have to think humans are better than whales, or better than owls, or whatever, if you don’t want to. Right? But surely, it is not a good idea to think of humans as sort of being scum… That it’s okay to have hundreds of millions of them go blind or die or whatever.” I just can’t relate to that.
UPDATE: One of the scientists appearing in the program has been told he “won’t live to see further global warming” if he doesn’t shut up. Is this what the Left means by “Academic Freedom”? ( Laura at the HQ)
Mar
9
2007
A Gathering of Eagles
Filed Under Liberty and Democracy | Leave a Comment
A Gathering of Eagles
Filed Under Liberty and Democracy | Leave a Comment
A while back, several hundred anti-war activists marched on the Capitol in Washington D.C. and decided that it was within their rights to paint propagandizing messages upon the Capitol building steps. These same people have planned another event for March 17th, but this time they have chosen to gather at the Vietnam Memorial Wall to begin a march to protest America’s involvement in the Iraq war. In reaction to this, an organization has been formed to ensure that these “protesters” don’t feel inclined to vandalize (desecrate) the Vietnam Memorial (or any of the other War Memorials in and around the D.C. area) the same way they did the Capitol steps. This group is called A Gathering of Eagles and they are inviting all Americans to join them:
Gathering of Eagles is an act of love by thousands of veterans who choose to honor the sacrifice of the fallen by guarding the memorials from those who would desecrate them on March 17th in a “peaceful” anti-war rally in Washington D.C.It is also an act of war, a call to action for every American who chooses to stand and say “No more!” to those who would spit on our veterans and ridicule their service to our nation.
Every one of us are eagles, symbols, clutching both olive branch and arrow, peace and war. To do less – to embrace the power of one without balancing it with the power of the other – is to deny the very principals upon which this country was founded.
This is the problem I have with these “anti-war” activists. They are completely ignorant to the fact that the peace and freedom they enjoy – the peace and freedom that allows them to be “anti-war” activists and march on the Capitol – was purchased with the blood of heroes and the fighting resolve of Veterans. There is no one on earth who desires peace more than the Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine or Guardsman during wartime, but these brave volunteers accept the hard fact that they may have to fight, and possibly die, to achieve that peace. They also understand that there is no better way to ensure a lasting peace than to make yourself so strong that none would dare try take that peace from you.
There is something we can do here on the home front to help those who are fighting abroad achieve the peace we all desire – we can fight the insidious enemies that would undermine the efforts and besmirch sacrifices of our military. If you, like I, cannot join the Gathering of Eagles physically in Washington on the 17th, but still wish to lend them your moral support, please sign their petition.
Mar
6
2007
Lewis Libby found guilty
Filed Under Law and Ethics | 2 Comments
Lewis Libby found guilty
Filed Under Law and Ethics | 2 Comments
The jury in the case of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was on trial for various offenses related to the CIA leak investigation surrounding Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his CIA-operative wife Valerie Plame, has reached a verdict of guilty on several counts. Earlier today, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced the prosecution strategy while juror Denis Collins explained the jury’s reasoning to reporters outside the courthouse.
UPDATE: James Taranto points out the truth of the matter in the Libby case by utilizing an interesting turn of phrase one does not hear too much anymore. “We won’t gainsay the jury’s verdict,” he writes, “But it remains a travesty that Libby was ever prosecuted to begin with.”
If you want to be convinced that LIbby lied to investigators, and his lies were part of a massive conspiracy in the Bush Administration to discredit Joe Wilson, fine by me. Frankly, I don’t know how much of that is true, and how much is Democratic hyperventilation. But the point for me is that I just don’t care either way. Because Joe Wilson is a proven liar himself, and he and his wife were partisan hacks actively trying to undermine administration policy. The whole affair has nothing to do with spying, or national security, and everything to do with the ordinary, everyday sausage factory of Washington politics, reputation-building, and lucrative book deals.
An apolitical cynic might say the travesty is that only one of them is looking at a prison sentence. But as a partisan and a political blogger, I fear for the Republic when politics itself becomes the crime.
Mar
3
2007
“The uproar stems from a new documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” which airs tomorrow night on the Discovery Channel — and makes claims that challenge the traditional Christian belief in the Resurrection.
But Trafton notes that most archaeologists have largely rejected the claims. “
“The uproar stems from a new documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” which airs tomorrow night on the Discovery Channel — and makes claims that challenge the traditional Christian belief in the Resurrection.
But Trafton notes that most archaeologists have largely rejected the claims. “
Cameron’s documentary will do nothing to change the beliefs of those who accept Jesus as divine. Amen.
And, transcendent of what either side in the debate believes either Jesus was divine, or he wasn’t; talking about it won’t change that reality. For, even if the secularists succeed in converting the entire population of the planet to their point of view, Jesus’ divinity status will not change along with the people’s minds. Divinity is not a matter of consensus. And, it probably is not something science can ever prove, or disprove. Once again, amen.