The Black Republican

Michelle Malkin had been asking where all the celebrities are, who love to organize for other worthy causes. Is the Deep South not worthy now? Slublog has at least one answer:

WKIT-FM 100.3 here in Bangor, Maine is a radio station owned by Stephen and Tabitha King. They're holding a pay for play day on the station - call with a request and a pledge, and they'll play any song you desire. All donations are going to the American Red Cross, with the Kings matching all donations dollar for dollar.

It's nice to see.

Hear, hear! What are other radio stations and networks doing? Hello, ahem, Air America????? (On second thought, better keep Air America away from charities. You know how that goes.)

HISD officials contacted the Texas Education Agency Tuesday about guidelines for temporarily accepting the storm refugees as students. Students living in temporary living arrangements due to loss of housing will most likely qualify as “homeless” students and may enroll in the school district where they are physically present without proof of residence. Parents temporarily housed within HISD’s borders can go to the school nearest their temporary residence to enroll their school-age children.

For the record, both The Black Republican and The Black Madonna plan to join the Hurricane Katrina Blog Relief Day fundraiser tomorrow, Sept. 1. I'll be working on our respective posts later today.

I have to say I agree with Neil Cavuto, the silence is deafening in regard to other countries response to our national disaster of hurricane Katrina. We seem to get a ration of shit any time the world perceives that we are not giving or doing enough for other countries in times of need, but where is the world when we have troubles? Not that we cannot handle this ourselves - we can and will - but at least an offer of assistance, from any country, would be welcomed and appreciated! I equate it to going to a funeral for a friend, or an acquaintance: there's nothing you can really do for the family of the departed to ease their grief or pain, but the least you can do is show up and offer support. The family will probably never call on you to actually do anything, but I guarantee they appreciate that you at least showed up. I guess we'll see who our real international friends are, and who are just posers.

As a bit of positive reinforcement, I suggest that we suspend all foreign aid money for those countries that don't at least "show up" and offer assistance, send that money to the areas hardest hit by this disaster, and then send a note to the Ambassador, Prime Minister, or President of those countries thanking them for their donation to the relief effort. And as a bit of added reinforcement, we can tell them that the aid money will not resume until their country treats the United States and her citizens more like friends who are lending them money and less like a welfare office that owes them a check.

Update: Well it seems some of our friends have shown up...

Countries such as Great Britain and Germany have also offered assistance.

"Our thoughts are with the people in the states affected by Katrina and our condolences to the relatives of those who have lost their lives," a spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair told FOX News. "We have not received any requests for assistance but we stand ready to help if asked."

Hat tip to Sue for a heads up on both articles.

This storm has been so awful. Devastation. A huge task for recovery. The big stuff will take a long time to accomplish, there are some little things that could happen now to ease those impacted. One small idea follows.

There has been noticed a strong, and natural, desire by those who left to see what damage was done to their homes by this most horrible hurricane. The leaders in the affected areas, correctly, say that it isn't safe for them to return, yet. I have a solution which could satisfy but needs, remote viewing.

And the technology already exists. It is called, Google Earth. This program, free by the way, allows the user to see the earth from a collection of satellite images. While some pictures are fuzzier than others, generally, one can input his address and the program will take you to a satellite picture of your property. The picture is taken from space, and perhaps intentionally, lacks the resolution to be considered an invasion of privacy. But, with a few adjustments, could be a tool for the unfortunate people who fled Katrina, and now are prohibited from returning to see the fate of their property.

One change, the photos must be refreshed from their current age to show the real time conditions. Secondly, a sharper resolution could be allowed, if only temporarily, to allow the viewer a clearer perspective. Thirdly, I would like to have the technology allow the user to view a time lapse of images, which would be important, for example, to the residents of New Orleans who were spared yesterday, but are in peril because of post storm flooding today.

I believe such a use of Google's technology would be of great benefit to the victims, the authorities currently undertaking rescue and appraisal, and could be a financial windfall for Google (if their advertising revenue is based on viewership). It would be nice if they donated the increased revenue, if there be such, to the relief effort, of course.

Update: Our satellites are taking a look.

Another way to make money from this tragedy, which I would approve, came to mind today. Have you, and surely you have, seen those "Terrorist Hunting Permit" bumper stickers; someone needs to start printing 'Looter Hunting Permits' in response to the scavenger's who always take advantage in times like these. One change should be made though, where the "Terrorist Hunting Permit"s are taken as political statements, and not actual permits, I would have the Looter permits endorsed as to actually allow one to shoot a looter dead on sight. I expect this would have multiple beneficial effects. One, it would serve as a deterent to looters. Two, it would prevent those who are not deterred, and caught, from procreating, (in case there is a genetic component to looting), thus thinning the herd by de-selection. Third, it would be a great way for victims and recovery workers to blow off some steam, and regain a sense of control over things. Of course, I chose the word, allow them to shoot dead, because some looters today are taking only the things they need to survive, food, water,... And, those people would not need to be shot, some discretion is always necessary. The asshats animals who are stealing, they need to be shot, accurately and well.

I do wonder why so many stayed behind. Just as I wonder why the weather people keep going to these storms, (and I especially wonder why they think it a good idea to go outside during the storm, they never really show us anything for we only learn the entire impact when it is possible to see the overview). If you ever find yourself in the way of one these storms, if at all possible, leave sooner rather than later, and go far away.

A final note; one man has called this disaster, "our Tsunami", how many countries do you suppose will send relief to the USA?

The other day I mentioned that while most of the time parody is of the funny sort, sometimes it's far more serious. Well life teaches us that reality is often times funnier and more illustrative than the best parody could ever hope to be!

First, the tableau set for media consumption...

... and then the parody of the entire real life tableau!

This is a great lesson about life and the MSM. Like a horse with blinders on, the MSM want the public to see only the portions of life they want us to see.

Isn't it amazing what you notice when you get the whole picture!

little green footballs

I strongly suggest this piece by Star Parker as "Recommended Reading".

As I've mentioned before, I have a Civil War desk calendar with interesting quotes and anecdotes for each day of the year. This was the entry over the weekend:

I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. - William Tecumseh Sherman

I strongly suggest this piece by Stephen F. Hayes as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Daniel Henninger as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Boston Herald editorial staff as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Sgt. Joe Roche as "Recommended Reading".

You know, most of the time parody is funny, helping to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. But sometimes parody is not at all funny, but brilliantly illustrates the truth by stating aloud things which those who should be saying them will not, cannot, or should not say.

Hat tip to Dean Esmay for the link, and a big doff of the ol Stovepipe to Scott Ott for saying so elegantly what so many of us have been trying to express.

I strongly suggest this piece by David Brooks as "Recommended Reading".

Media bias? What Media bias?

Michelle Malkin

Anyone concerned that "the United States seems ready to walk away from its fine words about helping the Iraqis create a beacon of freedom, harmony and democracy for the Middle East" because of this language or that in the new Iraqi constitution absolutely MUST READ Best of the Web Today.

Two hundred and twenty-nine years ago, the radical liberals in America proposed a violently leftist proposition: lords and ladies would be severed from their lands, royalty and caste structures would be outlawed, and a new nation would be based on a proposition declaring that "all men are created equal". With those words, they formally declared war on the rightful ruler of the land, deposed his reign, defeated and expelled his armies, and installed a popular junta in his place. Four years after winning their radical revolution, the most prominent men of the land locked themselves in a room for four months to set up a new government. The final document they produced guaranteed all citizens the right to live under a republican form of government, where their fellow citizens were designated to rule in fixed terms of two, four, and six years respectively (depending on the specific office) after popular elections. The rule of law - rather than royal fiat - was the supreme governing principle, and no religious test would bar any man from serving in any office of government. And all of this was published in a written contract between all citizens of the land, who - outside of three notable exceptions - were constrained by no caste structure whatsoever.

It is impossible to express to today's citizenry how radical and scandalous these ideas were to most of the nobility and gentry of the 18th century. And yet that first government did not guarantee the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to bear arms, or to be free from unreasonable searches or self-incrimination. Black men and women could be bought and sold as slaves, women were second-class citizens who could not vote, and the state could impose a poll tax that shut out the poor and ensured that only men of modest wealth could decide who ran the government.

Over time, all of these ideas and ideals were corrected in the United States Constitution, but interestingly, some are not so fundamental as some might think. Women's suffrage is less than 100 years old. The right of the people to vote, regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" was guaranteed by the 15th Amendment, passed in 1870 - almost 83 years after the Constitution was written. But it was not enforced by the President and Congress "by appropriate legislation" until 1965 - just 40 short years ago this month. The 40th anniversary of the amendment that guarantees that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged... by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" is yet two years away.

Why should we be so strident in questioning the validity of an Iraqi Constitution that doesn't quite match up on its first day to our own Constitution after its 66,000th? And why the difference in attitudes between the Iraqi and Afghan attempts? There's only one reason, and it's completely irrational: because Iraq is George Bush's war, and nothing good will be allowed to come of it if the socialists in the Democratic Party and their willing accomplices in the media have anything to say about it.

Krumm makes the case that two people die with every abortion.

I see his point, clearly.

Hobbs

Note commenter "Mary", who proclaims that women who abort make a "difficult decision", but can't see the difference between a woman killing her baby and men fighting in war. Makes me wonder if the baby killers, as a culture, are reformable.

I strongly suggest this piece by John Fund as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by David Limbaugh as "Recommended Reading".

Suggesting that Trent Lott is, "more delusional than we knew," Jeff Jacoby, writing in today's Boston Globe takes a stand on the former Republican leader's book (which we discussed last week) that a Black Republican could be proud of.

Who but a racist or a witless clod would claim more than 50 years later that America's problems were caused by integration and civil rights? Not even Thurmond, who had long since recanted his segregationist views, would have said such a thing.

If the Republican Party's conservative base had rallied behind Lott, he might have survived the storm. But it was precisely the base that was most upset by his words. Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, told The New York Times that the outrage on the right was "a product of decades of hard work that conservatives have done on racially charged issues out of idealism and principle. To have those positions tarred, even inadvertently, with this backwardness on race is extremely distressing."

What Lott really believes none of us can know for sure. But anyone who proclaims that "all these problems over all these years" could have been averted if a segregationist had been elected president - that America would be better off, in other words, if Mississippi's bathrooms were still marked "white" and "colored" and its black citizens barred from voting - has obviously got a problem of his own.

An intriguing article that could have been posted at either The Black Republican or The Black Madonna, Mystery Achievement suggests that the improving relationship between Catholics and Jews still has a long way to go. I ended up posting this here, rather than at TBM, because of the extensive exerpt of an article in the Jeruselem Post, describing the extensive ties between the first jihadis and Hitlerian Nazi Germany. "Islamo-fascism" is more than just a neocon catchphrase.

I strongly suggest this piece by The Belmont Club as "Recommended Reading".

In a positively breathless article in the Washington Post titled "Roberts Resisted Women's Rights", a team of reporters scouring the most recent document dump from the White House concerning the Roberts nomination uncovered scandalous evidence that Roberts has a sense of humor.

Among the memos the White House clearly hoped the press wouldn't find was this shocking legal opinion:

In a memo to (White House counsel Fred) Fielding dated May 7, 1985, Roberts addressed the ethics of allowing a Falls Church Girl Scout to meet the president in the midst of the annual cookie drive. "Elizabeth . . . has sold some 10,000 boxes and would like to sell one to the President. The little huckster thinks the President would like the Samoas," he wrote, before concluding that he had no objection to deviating in this case from the White House's practice of avoiding "an implied endorsement" by the president.

Newsbusters.com

I strongly suggest this piece by Newsbusters.org as "Recommended Reading".

It seems our old friend Mr. Lott has decided he's had enough of our guff, and decided to throw The 11th Commandment out the window.

The Senate is crammed with "lone wolves and immense egos," former Majority Leader Trent Lott writes in a memoir that settles a few scores with fellow Republicans and recounts an improbable partnership with a Democratic president.

In "Herding Cats, A Lifetime in Politics," Lott wrote that Sen. Bill Frist, his successor as majority leader, was one of the "main manipulators" in the events that resulted in his own loss of power. Lott lost his post in 2002 after making racially tinged remarks at a 100th birthday party for one-time segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond.

"Frist's actions amounted to a 'personal betrayal,'" Lott wrote. "I had taken him under my wing. ... He was my protege. ... We'd been friends off and on the floor, and that's pretty rare in a governmental body loaded with lone wolves and enormous egos."

...President Bush also played a role in his downfall, Lott wrote, not so much with what he said, but by saying it in a tone that was "devastating ... booming and nasty."

A native of Mississippi, Lott recalled feeling "anger in my heart over the way the federal government had invaded Ole Miss to accomplish something that could have been handled peacefully and administratively," a reference to the admission of the University of Mississippi's first black student in 1962.

Well, Mr. Lott, I don't think we should hold you to that commandment - I've never thought of you as much of a Republican anyway.

Still lagging days behind the rest of the blogosphere, I'd missed this yesterday. Apparently, oil and gas prices have collapsed after an Energy Department spokesman revealed that demand is low and supplies are high. So, economic-literate readers might ask with the law of supply and demand in mind, why are gas prices climbing? Two words: "News reports".

I swear, if it weren't for the news media hyping things into reality from nothingness, half the universe would disappear in a flash - and all the bad news.

I wanted to note the yeoman's work Michelle Malkin is doing on the Air America scandal (or, "Air Enron", as she calls it), but the fact of the matter is her update this morning does a fair job itself of catching us up with the latest news and listing all the entries devoted to the scandal.

Meanwhile, the New York Sun is running with the latest revelation, uncovered in the first part of an extensive report posted yesterday by Michelle and Radio Equalizer blogger Brian Maloney, that "the transfer of ownership of the Air America radio network from Progress Media to Piquant LLC in May 2004 was a 'sham' intended to maintain the network's assets while deceiving its creditors". Just as Charles Johnson's expertise in fonts aided him in the Rathergate scandal, Mr. Maloney is a radio industry veteran.

Nice work, Brian & Michelle! I can't wait to read the rest of this series.

I strongly suggest this piece by Stars & Stripes as "Recommended Reading".

While we are certain that the junior Senator from Massachusetts meant to sign the SF 180, but naturally changed his mind each time he reached for a pen, the fact remains, he has not kept his promise to release all of his military records for public review.

That he served in Vietnam is undisputed, if not widely known; what he did there, and why it took so long for him to receive an honorable discharge is an open question.

So, again we remind him, keep your word and sign the SF 180 Senator.

I have re-faxed the Senator reminding him that his unfulfilled promise is 200 days old. If you wish to also send him a polite, yet direct, reminder, his FAX numbers are listed in my prior post, here are John Kerry's Fax numbers.

PS- Chris whlie the Boston Globe is interviewing you, ask if they can't just send us a copy of the records they alone were allowed to see.

In what may be nothing more than raison d'etre for the liberal dems to get their backs up comes word that some documents examined by White House lawyers during the vetting process of John Rogers are not back in their proper folders.

"Archivists said the lawyers returned the file but it now cannot be located."

"Upon the lawyers' arrival, Archives officials said, they asked to inspect various folders, and as they were pulled from the boxes, a marker was inserted in their place and the lawyers signed a checkout sheet. An attendant present in the room at all times did not, as a matter of routine, sign a form signifying the return of each folder.

Nonetheless, Fawcett said, "we are quite confident that the records were returned to us." Asked why, she said that while the attendant does not recall seeing the affirmative action file in question put back, the marker was not in the box after the lawyers departed. "It would have been very difficult, given the circumstances in the room," for the lawyers to have retained the file because they were separated from their bags, she said."

The usual suspects are alarmed, as Senators Leahy and Kennedy have chimed in. We can be certain that if the documents are not found this will become a conspiracy of interplanetary consequence. Yawn.

It is also noted in the story that:

"Officials said they believe the file included a memo from Roberts urging the White House to withhold any response to two church officials who complained about the administration's policies on affirmative action in the workplace. "The debate is still raging" about proposed changes that would eliminate affirmative action goals and timetables, Roberts wrote, so "I recommend closing them out with no response," according to a copy of the memo provided by the administration yesterday."

So, it seems the contents of the missing memo are now known, even if the location of the document is unknown. And, by golly, judging by the number of times the Supreme Court refuses to hear cases, the memo seems to prove that the man has judicial temperment.

And this, according to Sharon Fawcett, the assistant archivist for presidential libraries,

It is "very difficult to believe it's anyone other than ourselves responsible for this loss,"

I'll take her word on that, but, I feel certain that some of the left wing web sites have already convicted Karl Rove of engineering a coverup. If the documents were stolen it is a serious matter, (but not one of life or death), just as it would be if a former National Security Advisor went into the National Archives on behalf of a former President and then stuffed the documents in his socks, left, and later destroyed the papers. But, of course, the latter would never happen; except in La La Land, or Washington DC.

Okay, enough time spent on this, I hope I never hear of it again. Wishful thinking.

I strongly suggest this piece by Peter Schweizer as "Recommended Reading".

It seems as if the Queen of Crawford and those that are following using her have gained the support of a Duke, and are learning a lesson the hard way - "When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

The funny thing about that quote is that it is atributed to a 26 year old, blond bombshell, Hollywood actress. You would think that if a girl who never finished high school and came of age in the inane air of Hollywood could understand that concept, a 48 year old mother of four would certainly get it. Brings to mind another famous quote... Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise.

Ace

Michelle Malkin

I strongly suggest this piece by Protein Wisdom as "Recommended Reading".

The Belmont Club quotes the statement from President Clinton, where he asserts his "wish" that he'd been in office "when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole," then focuses in on the single word that defines the man.

What's striking is the use of the word "officially", which suggests President Clinton may have 'known' Osama Bin Laden was a danger with intellectual certainty without being able to assert it officially. That in turn suggests that Osama Bin Laden was implicitly or even subconsciously provided with the protection of due process by a President who felt he would have to defend any action he took against OBL.

"I could not think one that was faithless in his hair could be trusty in his deeds." - Plutarch

Think twice before clicking that Submit button. (Read down through the post and you'll eventually grasp the part I'm referring to.)

La Shawn

Michelle Malkin links to an astonishingly fair piece in Newsweek that shows just how far the President is willing to go when he meets with grieving military families. She also seems to agree with James Taranto that Sheehanoia is coming to an end.

I strongly suggest this piece by Christopher Hitchens as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Manuel Miranda as "Recommended Reading".

I wrote some time ago, here of a debate I had with a friend on the merits of supporting Terri Schiavo's parent's attempts to win control over her destiny. Her parents wished to receive control, and responsibility, over her care while her husband sought to end her existence.

A valued friend of mine felt that Terri's husband was unfairly criticized, and was being denied his rightful power to end her existence. I believed that her parents should be allowed to intercede on her behalf to prolong her time.

Today we, my friend and I, met again, for the first since our charged discussion of the merits of the Schindler family's request for control over their daughter's fate. And, my friend broached the subject. Twice he baited me before I responded. My response left him wordless. He reported that the autopsy showed that Terri was blind, my response was to say that the revelation of her blindness was an indication of how little they knew of her condition. He was speechless.

Obviously my friend had not considered, or noticed it reported, that her blindness, while disproving her ability to follow a balloon's trajectory, also showed that her caretakers were unaware of her limitations and did not prove that she was not aware; only that she was blind. Her, so called, "blindsight" had fooled the experts, they were unaware that she could not see. And they missed the opportunity to try interaction based on, and with understanding of, her inability to see. Her family presumed that she recognized spoken recounts of past experience. The autopsy spoke to her blindness, but made no mention of her ability to hear. The so-called idiot savants achieve remarkable mental dexterity with only one hemisphere; her abilty to recognise and interact were not necessarily absent because she had less than 100% brain function.

My friend mentioned the autopsy report of her brain damage, and called me wrong when I spoke that no one had said she, before her death, was not brain damaged. He actually said that people were arguing that she was not brain damaged; can there be a more wrong statement made about the matter? She was brain damaged, that was acknowledged, but the autopsy did not say she was brain dead, though my friend insisted today that it had. It did not, and in fact says it can not make that determination.

Another friend was in on this conversation. Initialy he was against my view, but when he said that it ( the decsion to end her life) comes down to whether Terri had made it known that she did not wish to live in a diminished state, the other two of us were in agreement, it is inconclusive that such was her wish. And, the third party had been under the assumption her life support care was denying life support to another individual, my friend made it clear that such was not the case. Her feeding tube did not affect another's ability to be fed; (party number three was under the impression that her support was equivalent to an organ donation, and if she received care someone else was denied that same care, he used the Mickey Mantle liver transplant as an comparitive example, falsely. Mickey was jumped up the donor list, denying another that organ, such was not true with Terri.) Terri's life support, i.e., a feeding tube, did not prevent anyone from receiving the care they needed.

My intent with this post? I wish to make it clear that an imformed individual can bring the reasoned, informed, truth to any discussion of Terri Shindler's Schiavo fate, and the conditions surrounding her treatment and death.

To make this happen one need only know precisely what the autopsy did state, and an understanding of what it did, neither state, nor imply. And, an understanding of what her treatment consisted of, and what it did not deny to others. This is not a task easily accomplished. One must make the effort to accept that some of the rhetoric surrounding Terri's last days was unfounded. And, one must be resolute to not compromise on the facts that were declared true.

To that point. Terri was found to be blind, but not unaware. Terri was brain damaged, even to the point that she would not be assumed to be able to improve; but it was not determined that she was unaware and unresponsive. Terri was not in need of life support, though she did need to be fed (thousands of people need that assistance every day in our society in nursing homes in every state of the Union).

My friend remembered our last meeting as an intense debate with both of us heated. I said he was heated, I was right. I told him I remembered it as him being intensively wrong and me being firm in promoting the truth. He was not amused, but was left on the defense. I hit him again with my theory that the experts knew less than they thought about Terri. He was on his heels. He fought back with indefensible accusations of what the autopsy said, he was shown to be in error in his memory of that report. I was able to convince a third party that my friend was off base. And, I believe I have left my friend wondering about his own grasp of the facts.

Unfortunately, getting the story right does not give Terri another chance to exhibit her ability to relate, not end the debate over whether she had wished to be terminated if in that condition. Much less allow her to live on. But, there will be another situation in which we will need to discern the truth; and the closer we get to knowing it with regard to Terri, the better our model will be in future circumstances.

I strongly suggest this piece by David Limbaugh as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Daniel Henninger as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Thomas Sowell as "Recommended Reading".

Over at Captain's Quarter's we learn that the 9/11 Commission knew of Able Danger, but ingnored their findings.

Ummm, that spells, cover-up.

Tonight, Michael Savage reports that the officer who spoke with Rep. Weldon wishes to remain anonymous, so that his opportunity to reform operation Able Danger is not compromised. In other words, he does not want the enemy within to inhibit his efforts to reform the unit that un-covered Atta, et al. He wants us to know that the politicos (read lawyers) prevented effective enforcement against the terrorists (read murderers) and that his ability to reconstitute that investigative unit might be compromised if his identity is known.

The names we need to know are not those who constitued Able Danger, the names we need to know are those who inhibited Able Danger.

We need those names, and we need to know them now. And we need to eliminate the influence of those individuals; NOW!

PS- Sandy Berger, you are high on the list of suspects. Berger destroyed documents, we can only imagine what they revealed. Until proven otherwise, I will assume they contained info which shows that the Clinton adminstration failed the American people.

Also, Lee Hamilton is pointing the finger at the Defense Department. The current Defense Department was not in place when Able Danger suggested that Atta, et al, were trouble. It seems that the 9/11 Commission is now in overdrive in their attempt to deflect the responsiblility. Again, Rep. Weldon says that 9/11 Commission staffers received testimony from Able Danger officers detailing their findings and efforts to communicate with the FBI. The 9/11 Commission had the info without ever talking to the Defense Department.

It seems that the opponents of John Roberts (who, for special interest groups, is just a proxy and extension of President Bush) have run out of true facts, intelligent discourse, or logical arguments in support of their opposition and must now resort to bald face lies and deception. NARAL, with help from their ideological comrades at CNN, has produced and run an attack ad accusing the Supreme Court nominee of filing legal papers "supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber" and of having an ideology that "leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."

The purported "facts" that NARAL uses in this ad are patently false, and amount to nothing more than outright lies that can, should, and hopefully will be found to be legally slanderous and libelous. NARAL, CNN, and any other MSM outlet who gives airtime to these lies should not only be made to apologize to Judge Roberts but to also make this apology on air, in prime time, and with at least as much frequency as the ad had.

I was not surprised that CNN was pulled into this fray - they have been willing accomplices for so long they no longer even question the motives or assertions made by groups they, in their heart of hearts, really want to support - and have become somewhat accustomed to a certain level of hypocrisy from those on the liberal left. But what makes this even more infuriating than normal is the level to which these people have sunk. To think, a group that advocates allowing a baby to have all but his or her head outside the birth canal only then to have a metal rod stuck into their skull and their brains sucked out having the gall to complain about the inhumanity of bombings! Not that bombings are good, but it's sort of like a convicted pedophile complaining about the character flaws of a convicted rapist.

Chris' post today, reminds me that I have been anticipating an on subject response from another reader.

A fellow who commented under the name Cobra, (btw, Chris insists on calling him by his given name, Darrin, rather than his pseudonym), was given ample opportunity to rant on about his tangential argument to my post of June 28, however when I asked him an on point question he went away.

I could conclude that Cobra has no resolve to win this war. But, really, I suspect he may find the task of being positive to be too hard. For so many liberal commenters it seems that making affirmative statements, devoid of conspiracy theories and false accusations is impossible. I am referring to, mostly, commenters of the extreme leftist persuasion. Those weenie kooks who believe Howard Dean has a brain and that Dhick Dhurbin knows history. Those same Clinton apologists and Jimma Carter followers who see Ted Kennedy as an ethical figure who stands up for the little guy, and believes everything all three say. WooHoo, what a laugh! Those same fools who can not bring themselves to realize that Liberal Internationalism as a foreign policy is a formula for national suicide. If you think the UN should dictate our foreign policy, I am talking about you. That policy was tried and failed.

For my buddy Cobra, making a positive point was impossible, though he is just dandy at providing links and leaving it to the reader to divine their signifigance (generally none). And actually responding on topic remains a challenge he can not master.

Though I am willing to continue his education, he has not turned in his homework. We can help you de-program, we can show you the errors in your logic processes, and point you in a direction which will allow you to reason on your own. But, you must do your part first.

We still ask, Cobra, where is your resolve?

I was reading The Belmont Club yesterday and found something I could relate to. This doesn't happen too often for me at Belmont Club - not because I disagree with Richard Fernandez very often, but I just find his lengthy essays a bit too dry for regular consumption. But yesterday's very brief post mentioned that he was considering changes to his commenting policy due to some "pretty tasteless and... downright offensive" comments.

I don't have a lot of problem with that sort of thing here, but out of curiosity I thought I'd take a peek at what the first few visitors had to say in response to that post. Almost immediately, one commenter begged the other guests to consider what comments can do to a blogger, then linked to this.

One of the things I noticed during the last two weeks was that I had something of a feeling of relief. It's sort of like the feeling you have when you suddenly notice that your hiccups are gone, or that the throbbing headache you'd been feeling was suddenly over.

I don't actually get very much hate mail. Most of my mail is at least polite, though in some cases it approaches the indignant.

But nearly every article I write draws anywhere from 5 to 50 letters containing corrections, disagreements, comments about things I "left out" because "I didn't know", or other forms of kibitzing.

In the last two weeks, that has trailed down to nearly zero. (Not all the way, however. Yesterday I received a letter from someone who wrote 3000 words trying to refute something I posted two and a half years ago. At the end of his letter, he asked whether in light of his comments, I might now want to retract and rewrite my post. I answered thusly: "Nope.")

A couple of weeks ago, I received a comment from a recently-frequent comment-writer who wanted to continue the hand-to-hand combat we were engaged in. The first thing he said was, "I can play the cut, paste, and criticize game too...."

Something funny happened when I read that. First I groaned - out loud. Since the comment was posted without using TypeKey, I'd have to read it, trudge my way through a response, approve the comment, then post my rebuttal. Almost instantly I heard my own groan, realized how utterly stupid it was to feel any grief about this, and fell down laughing. I decided I'd put off responding for 24-48 hours, then tackle it when I felt the desire.

Five days later, long after I came to a feeling very similar to Mr. Den Beste's, I received another comment in the same thread:

Chris, I did write a response that took 40 minutes to write on Friday and was disappointed that it wasn't posted. Got the confirmation page that it had been received, so something must have gone haywire -- so I will rewrite and resubmit.

On several prior occasions, I've pointed out that this website is an expression of my free speech, and that it's a form of expression intended to prevent me from kicking my monitor screen in from excessive aggravation, when I would be so inclined. But while speech is free, webspace isn't, and while the First Amendment allows anyone to do the same thing, it doesn't require me to give anyone else a platform to spread what I believe is their misunderstanding, ignorance, or (in extreme cases) outright lies.

So this entry is simply a long-winded notice to certain people that they're not being censored. They're being ignored.

I may eventually get around to approving their comments and responding when I feel like it. Or maybe not.

UPDATE: I've received a curious response from the individual in question, though in email, not in a comment.

After 3 weeks of posting resulting in zero published posts, it is apparent that this is a site that chooses to censor and select what gets activated in the form of a debate. If I were posting profanity and insults, then it would be understandable why this is happening. However, theblackrepublican.net has proved to be, these past weeks, the kind of site that desires a one-sided debate and shuns any views that happen to differ from the individuals who created the site.

This is YOUR site -- you certainly have no jurisdiction re: what gets inserted into my personal site - free country and all.

I have never promoted this site as a debating society - far from it, I have repeatedly said that it is an expression of my personal beliefs, and is used as an outlet when I desire my own chance to speak. It is not "one-sided" to foster a place where a second point of view gets its first chance to be heard.

I readily await your unmoderated response in the comments - after you've registered with TypeKey.

U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon : 7th District Of Pennsylvania has discovered that a military unit known as Able Danger knew of Al Queda cells and operatives, including Mohammad Atta, within the US prior to 9/11. But Clinton legal operatives refused to allow the military unit to share the information with the FBI. So, they were not apprehended, halted, removed, or in any way prevented or even discouraged from committing murder on September 11, 2001.

Further, members of the Able Danger unit testified to 9/11 staffers about their discoveries of terrorists with in the US, and they testified about the Clinton adminstration lawyer's refusal to let them share their findings with the FBI; that testimony never made it to the Commission, and did not appear in the final report! A cover-up occurred during the vaunted 9/11 Investigation.

From Mr. Weldon's Special Orders speech of June 27, 2005:

"Mr. Speaker, what this now means is that prior to September 11, we had employees of the Federal Government in one of our agencies who actually identified the Mohamed Atta cell and made a specific recommendation to act on that cell, but were denied the ability to go forward. Obviously, if we had taken out that cell, 9/11 would not have occurred and, certainly, taking out those three principal players in that cell would have severely crippled, if not totally stopped, the operation that killed 3,000 people in America. "

Rep. Weldon says investigations into how this happened are now taking place.

Given that the worst fears many of us had in seeing that a person responsible for erecting the barriers between our protectors was on the 9/11 Commission seem to have come to pass, (that being that the mistakes which came from the mis-guided directives collectively known as "Gorelick's Wall" would be covered up), it is time for a Special Prosecutor to be assigned the job of investigating the 9/11 Commission's investigation. Someone within that investigation lied to the Commisssion, and thus America did not get the full story.

At a time when Able Danger identified a real threat, someone played political correctness games with the information. And people died. Now we learn. At a time of war, someone played crooked games with information which directly explains how our Federal Government failed to protect us from the murderers! We need to know the names of every lawyer who prevented Able Danger from sharing their findings. And we need to know the names of every staff investigator who failed to share this Able Danger testimony with the 9/11 Commission.

I strongly suggest this piece by Thomas Sowell as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Manuel Miranda as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Brendan Miniter as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by David Limbaugh as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Manuel Miranda as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Victor Davis Hanson as "Recommended Reading".

The first entry in this feature fits squarely in the "don't screw up a good cause this way" category. I received the following heart-swelling email earlier today.

AGREE OR DELETE

It seems to get worse daily.

This is by a daughter of a murdered couple in Raytown who had a Bible and Bookstore on 63rd street.

Just one more example:

When I had to testify at the murder trial of my parents a week ago, I was asked to raise my right hand. The bailiff started out "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

I stood there and waited but she said nothing. She said "Do you?"

I was so stunned I blurted out "What happened to "so help me God'?"

She came back with "Do you?" I replied yes, but I was perplexed

Then the judge said ................ "You can say that if you want to."

I stopped, raised my right hand, and finished with "So help me God!"

I told my son and daughter that when it came time for them to testify, they should do the same.

It's no wonder we have so many problems in this country. If I'd had my wits about me I'd have told them that taking God out of the courtroom is only going to result in more criminals and murderers like him being in there! I don't know what can be done about it, but it's time we stepped up and did something.

NBC this morning had a poll on this question. They had the highest number of responses that they have ever had for one of their polls, and the percentage was the same as this: 86% to keep the words, 14% against. That is a pretty 'commanding' public response. I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn... It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God.

Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why don't we just tell the 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

If you agree, pass this on, if not, simply delete....

In God We Trust

(T)hat the murders were real does not mean the "daughter's" account of her experience in a courtroom is. News accounts refer to the Caylors as having three sons, but no mention surfaces of any daughter. Moreover, although there has been an arrest in the case, the suspect has yet to be tried, a fact that moves the "daughter's" account of her courtroom experience squarely into the fiction column.

The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion (or more properly in today's language, a state religious sect), it does not require the banishment of anything resembling religiosity in public.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Two further points:

I wouldn't give a plug nickel for the results of an NBC News poll - especially one conducted online, where results are easy to rig. This country is supposed to be run by duly-elected representatives, not news organizations and polls.

And for the record, according to Oliver v. State Tax Commission, the Supreme Court of Missouri has upheld the oath of affirmation in court documents. Presumably the same would be true in verbal affirmations in court. From a quick glance, it seems possible for an individual county in Missouri to have bailiffs prompt the oath without the phrase, but that's also constitutional - and entirely appropriate. If the people of an individual county think it's inappropriate to use the phrase, they should have the right to use their legislative process to avoid what they see as a practice counter to their community standards. But it's equally appropriate that communities that think the phrase is a proper expression of respect for God and His Authority should be allowed to use it.

I used to have a detailed email response I'd send to people who forwarded email nonsense to me that I was able to debunk with the assistance of Snopes and other sources. (The content of the template I used can be found in the extended entry below.)

Unfortunately, it didn't always work. Some people are just shameless in their ability to believe the blather they read on the internet (especially in email, because they trust their friends), and no matter how many times I've responded with this template, these individuals continue to send me this junk without checking up on it first. Checking what you're forwarding before you click "Send" is not only courteous, it's also exercising restraint required by the Eighth Commandment.

I've decided that from now on, when I'm forced to respond in detail to one of these inane chain letters, I'm going to use the blog to respond - so that I always have a record of what I have to say in that particular case, and maybe to further shame those friends and relatives who continue to engage in forwarding lies and falsehoods.

Sorry I have to do this to you people, but I'm going to get you to learn one way or another.

The first installment of this series appears in the next entry.

I stopped using this template mainly because it was some of the content is rather dated, and I didn't think it was worth my time updating it (again). (For example, I now use Gmail instead of Pegasus.) Feel free to steal it for yourself, or just link to this entry.

Hi all!

I just love these emails! They always give me a good opportunity to refine my not-quite-patented "anti-spam" letter. :-)

For those who have not yet learned, the Internet is a hotbed of activity for the hustler, the con, and the prankster. The unsavory of every sort just LOVE to prey on the dim and gullible among us. To combat them, some of us who are a little more experienced in these matters have taken it upon ourselves to illuminate and educate anyone who happily informs us that they are so naive.

Inserted below is a personal message from me, providing the specific reason why your particular email was so annoying:

---INSERTED COMMENTS HERE---

(This spam e-mail is more generally explained in item # -- below!)

A copy of this EXACT email is found at the HoaxBusters site:

http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org

For those who don't convince easily, I've accumulated the following facts:

---END COMMENTS HERE---

For your continued education, I have attached another message below. I blatantly stole this from whomever it was who was kind enough to forward it to the people who sent it to me. :-) I got rid of all the " " or >> that began each line, and edited item #12 so as to reflect my own political slant. ;-)

Now... the next time any of my friends, relatives, or online "buddies" sends me the sort of spam discussed here, they're going to get this back. Fair warning.

Chris aka "Opusaug"

PS: I'll bet any amount that SOMEONE will see this and start the rumor that it's a trick of the devil - 'cause there are 13 items on the list. (sheesh!)

==

Email rules to live by:

Think about it . . .

1. Big companies don't do business via chain letter. Bill Gates is not giving you $1000, and Disney is not giving you a free vacation. There is no baby food company issuing class-action checks. MTV will not give you backstage passes if you forward something to the most people. You can relax; there is no need to pass it on "just in case it's true". Furthermore, just because someone said in the message, four generations back, that "we checked it out and it's legit", does not actually make it true.

See the U.S. Department of Energy, Computer Incident Adivsory Capability site that deals with Internet Chain Letters:

http://HoaxBusters.ciac.org/

The San Fernando Valley Folklore Society also maintains a comprehensive archive of urban legends:

http://www.snopes.com/

2. There is no kidney theft ring in New Orleans. No one is waking up in a bathtub full of ice, even if a friend of a friend swears it happened to their cousin. If you are hell-bent on believing the kidney-theft ring stories, please see:

http://urbanlegends.tqn.com/library/weekly/aa062997.htm

also see:

http://HoaxBusters.ciac.org/HBUrbanMyths.shtml#kidney

And I quote:

"The National Kidney Foundation has repeatedly issued requests for actual victims of organ thieves to come forward and tell their stories." None have. That's "none" as in "zero". Not even your friend's cousin.

3. Neiman Marcus doesn't really sell a $200 cookie recipe. And even if they do, we all have it. And even if you don't, you can get a copy at:

http://www.bl.net/forwards/cookie.html

Then, if you make the recipe, decide the cookies are that awesome, feel free to pass the recipe on (without the fake story please).

4. If the latest NASA rocket disaster(s) DID contain plutonium that went to particulate over the eastern seaboard, do you REALLY think this information would reach the public via an AOL chain letter?

5. There is no "Good Times" virus. In fact, you should never, ever, ever forward any email containing any virus warning unless you first confirm it through an actual site of an actual company that actually deals with viruses.

The F-Secure Corporation:

http://www.f-secure.com/virus-info/hoax/

The Symantic Anti-Virus Research Center:

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/hoax.html

The McAfee Virus Information Library at:

http://vil.mcafee.com/hoax.asp

And even then, don't forward it. We don't care. And you cannot get a virus from a flashing IM or email, you have to download it....ya know, like, a FILE!

[Edit: Since this was written, some virus writers have invented a neat way to deliver something *like* a virus in an email, that doesn't require downloading. These special virii are called "worms". Neat thing about worms is they only work on some very slick email clients with huge security holes in them, most especially Microsoft Outlook. I personally recommend Pegasus: http://www.pmail.com]

6. If your cc: list is regularly longer than the actual content of your message, you probably already have it stored in your old 8088, Franklin, or Adam computer.

7. If you're using Outlook, I.E., or Netscape to write email, please turn off the "HTML encoding." Those of us on Unix shells can't read it, and don't care enough to save the attachment and then view it with a web browser, since you're probably forwarding us a copy of the Neiman Marcus Cookie Recipe anyway.

[Edit: See #5 above. If you absolutely MUST use Outlook, please check the Microsoft website to learn how to turn off VB scripting. In this case, I won't give you a link - Bill Gates is a twerp and a thief.]

8. If you still absolutely MUST forward that 10th-generation message from a friend, at least have the decency to trim the eight miles of headers showing everyone else who's received it over the last 6 months. It sure wouldn't hurt to get rid of all the " " or << that begin each line. Besides, if it has gone around that many times we've probably already seen it anyway.

Wouldn't you rather impress everyone by letting them think that it is your original thought? (Unless of course they know you better). Instead of just hitting the "Forward" button, copy and paste into a new message. [Hint: Go to the beginning of the message (), then press ; ; . Go to the body of the new message and press . There now, wasn't that easy?

9. Craig Shergold (or Sherwood, or Sherman, etc.) in England is not dying of cancer or anything else at this time and would like everyone to stop sending him their business cards. He apparently is also no longer a "little boy" either.

10. The "Make a Wish" foundation is a real organization doing fine work, but they have had to establish a special toll free hot line in response to the large number of Internet hoaxes using their good name and reputation. It is distracting them from the important work they do.

11. If you are one of those insufferable idiots who forwards anything that promises "something bad will happen if you don't", too late...you're a lost cause already!

12. Women really are suffering in Afghanistan, but forwarding an e-mail won't help their cause in the least. If you want to help, contact the Red Cross.

http://www.icrc.org/

[Edit: Yes, this was written before 9/11/2001. And now we know why those poor women were suffering at the hands of those thieving murderous butchers. Good news is, the women are doing much better now, thanks to Donald Rumsfeld and a few of his close, personal friends.]

There is no bill pending before Congress to tax e-mails or that will allow long distance companies to charge you for long distance when using the Internet. Don't worry about people trying to help PBS and NEA get more funding, they aren't going to get anything more from our paychecks that way. If you get emails claiming that someone is trying to pass a bill in Congress to do something dumb, and you truly feel animated about it, why not become an informed voter and read the bill to find out exactly what Congress is doing. Congress is fully wired through a system called THOMAS to provide you with TONS of information about what they're doing (or not doing, as the case may be...).

http://thomas.loc.gov/

As a general rule, e-mail "signatures" are easily faked and mean nothing to anyone with any power to do anything about it (whatever "it" is), so forwarding emails such as these is normally irrelevant.

13. The CEO Proctor & Gamble has NEVER been a guest on any of the TV talk shows to proclaim P&G's allegiance to Satan...even Sally Jesse's. See for yourself at:

http://www.sallyjr.com/sally4/frm_sallyfaq3.html

All the disclaimers to this fact are posted on the various shows web sites. This is one of the longest running hoaxes anywhere..way before email was ever known by most people. For a complete list of the info, ref:

http://www.pg.com/about_pg/overview_facts/trademark_facts.jhtml

P&G is NOT a satanic organization, although I'm sure Satan sure is smiling over all the prolific emails that says it is and probably says thanks to all the 'lost souls' who pass this garbage on!

---

If you still don't get it, click this link:

http://bjcweb.com/may02-smilepop-soapbox2.swf

Bottom Line... composing e-mail or posting something on the Net is as easy as writing on the walls of a public restroom. Don't automatically believe it until it's proven false...ASSUME it's false, unless there is proof that it's true.

Got it?

Good!

Enjoy this wonderful 'tool' we have available to us and use it wisely, please think before clicking!

Now, forward this message to ten friends and you will win the Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes....I SWEAR!!!

Just kidding...!!!!!

I learned just last night, I am now Da Man. Word came during my stop at the local watering hole.

Jim: Rick, you are THE man.

Rick: I'm the man?

Jim: Yes, you DA MAN!

I am appalled at how far the standards for being Da Man have fallen. And I was, at first, taken to not accept the honor. For, as Groucho Marx said :

Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.

But, by what right can I question the judgement of those who awarded this honor upon me?

Now, I am not yet certain what duties and responsibilities go along with being named Da Man, (I did not know I was even in the running), or how my schedule will be affected in fulfilling those obligations. I will strive to endeavor to continue my sporadic blogging habits. And no matter how hectic the days ahead become I will never forget the little people, who obstructed my every move as I attempted to simply eke out a modest living and be a good person and I promise to repay you all in kind.

Signed,

Rick aka Da Man

Your Supreme Vengeful Tyrant For Life Benevolent Servant Always

I strongly suggest this piece by Charles Krauthammer as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Steve Chapman as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Walter E. Williams as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Herman Cain as "Recommended Reading".

Charles Krauthammer clears up one of foreign policy's big mysteries (for me, what is a neocon?) when he places America's ideological schools into four main categories.

The post-cold-war era has seen a remarkable ideological experiment: over the last fifteen years, each of the three major American schools of foreign policy—realism, liberal internationalism, and neoconservatism—has taken its turn at running things. (A fourth school, isolationism, has a long pedigree, but has yet to recover from Pearl Harbor and probably never will; it remains a minor source of dissidence with no chance of becoming a governing ideology.) There is much to be learned from this unusual and unplanned experiment.

The era began with the senior George Bush and a classically realist approach. This was Kissingerism without Kissinger—although Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and Lawrence Eagleburger filled in admirably. The very phrase the administration coined to describe its vision—the New World Order—captured the core idea: an orderly world with orderly rulers living in stable equilibrium.

...For the balance of the 1990’s, for reasons having nothing to do with foreign policy, realism was abruptly replaced by the classic liberal internationalism of the Clinton administration.

It is hard to be charitable in assessing the record. Liberal internationalism’s one major achievement in those years—saving the Muslims in the Balkans and creating conditions for their possible peaceful integration into Europe—was achieved, ironically, in defiance of its own major principle. It lacked what liberal internationalists incessantly claim is the sine qua non of legitimacy: the approval of the UN Security Council....Leon Trotsky is said to have remarked of the New York intellectual Dwight Macdonald, “Everyone has a right to be stupid, but Comrade Macdonald abuses the privilege.” During its seven-and-a-half year Oslo folly, the Clinton administration abused the privilege consistently.

In place of realism or liberal internationalism, the last four-and-a-half years have seen an un-ashamed assertion and deployment of American power, a resort to unilateralism when necessary, and a willingness to preempt threats before they emerge. Most importantly, the second Bush administration has explicitly declared the spread of freedom to be the central principle of American foreign policy. Bush’s second inaugural address last January was the most dramatic and expansive expression of this principle. A few weeks later, at the National Defense University, the President offered its most succinct formulation: “The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom.”

The remarkable fact that the Bush Doctrine is, essentially, a synonym for neoconservative foreign policy marks neoconservatism’s own transition from a position of dissidence, which it occupied during the first Bush administration and the Clinton years, to governance. Neoconservative foreign policy, one might say, has reached maturity.

Now, even this thick-headed goof can understand that.

I recommend the entire article. But I wish to make one point about his critique of Bush 41's "Realism" approach. Krauthammer says:

It was the failure of imagination in Bush’s other area of triumph—Iraq—that had truly stark, even tragic, consequences.

Leaving Saddam in place, and declining to support the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings that followed the first Gulf war, begat more than a decade of Iraqi suffering, rancor among our war allies, diplomatic isolation for the U.S., and a crumbling regime of UN sanctions. All this led ultimately and inevitably to a second war that could have been fought far more easily—and with the enthusiastic support of Iraq’s Shiites...

We did not march to Baghdad at the end of that conflict because? Surely, you remember, the United Nations mandate did not permit it. Thus, I would argue that the failure attributed to Geo. H. W. Bush is the result of not "Realism"s approach, but, rather, the creeping influence of "Liberal Internationalism". It was the aquiescence to the liberal influence which caused Bush 41 to not finish the job in 1991.

The latest email from the Take Back The Memorail group states;

WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS!

*Every day more and more people sign our petition and the "big money"
special interests behind the International Freedom Center are running
scared! The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation announced that
they are "taking one last look around" for alternative sites for the
IFC and the Drawing Center.

While this is likely a delaying tactic, make no mistake: that "one
last look around" must continue until it results in the removal of
the IFC and the Drawing Center from Ground Zero. We do not view this
decision as "one last look around" - we view this as the last chance
for the IFC and the Drawing Center to find a home. These magnets for
controversy cannot remain there and we will not rest until they are
removed.

They also note in this email that the NY Times has called the famili