Friday, April 27, 2007
So, we have had our first of many presidential debatesas eight Democratic candidates held their first debate in what will be the longest presidential campaign in history Thursday night at South Carolina University.
I stomached as much of the debate as I could before I had to stop watching the “idiotic 8” bash President Bush and the Iraq war and talk about their plans for a socialized America. [watch debate here]
From what I saw Hillary Clinton did not have a successful night. She did not make any major mistakes, but I believe she must appear likeable and show the ability to get along with others. She failed to do that in this debate, all though she has plenty of time to become appealing.
Clinton continued to defend her initial vote to approve the U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying she did the best she could with the information she was given at the time. “If I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted that way,” she said, insisting that “the question is, what do we do now?”
This is a position she has held for a while now. I would just like to point out the President made the decision with the same information that she had.
One mistake she may have made is promising for a complete withdrawal from Iraq if she is president.. “If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I’m president I will,” she said.
I thought Barack Obama had a real good debate and if I had to pick a winner he is it. Mainly because people expected him to look inexperienced and he proved many wrong holding his own against much more experienced rivals.
Although I do not agree with Obama’s position on Iraq I have the most respect for his position than any of the other candidates.
“I opposed this war from the start because I thought it would lead to the disastrous conditions that we have seen,” he said, but he said he could not vote to cut off funding for troops once they were in the field.
I believe this position is going to help Obama with many moderate democrats.
Biden did a very good job as well. He was able to talk about foreign policy with some level of economy and sounded more wise than other Democrats running calling for the United States to decentralize its control of Iraq and share the nation’s oil wealth. Which may be one of the best plans I have heard from a Democrat candidate.
Chris Dodd probably had the best answers for the amount of time given but I do not think he can win the base of the party. He is to moderate, he did not call for an immediate withdrawal of troops and advocated for a more restrained approach of sending no more troops to Iraq. He later told Chris Matthews “The policy has failed and we need a new strategy if we’re to have any hope of stabilizing Iraq,” Dodd is probably the candidate that I like best…if I was forced to choose one of the eight.
John Edwards had a horrible performance in my opinion. He could not come up with an answer for who he thought was a moral leader. I actually counted at least 5 seconds of silence and then he could not pick one leader finally going with his lord, his wife and his father. That will cost him with southern Democrats who already do not like him.
The rest of the field is really not even worth mentioning.
Overall, I still think Hillary remains the front runner, but Obama gained some ground on her. Edwards may have been the biggest loser, but he will bounce back. He is to good of a politician not too. Biden just may be the dark horse to watch in this primary. Only time will tell, and 9 months is a whole lot of time.
Thursday's vote was 51-46. Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon joined Democrats in supporting the bill…no surprise. Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats, voted with Republicans opposing it.
Before the vote, Lieberman, the only person on the left that understands the threat before us, condemned the bill -- which he said laid out "a strategy based on catchphrases and bromides rather than military realities" -- as a guarantee of failure in the war in Iraq.
"In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost," Lieberman said, countering a remark to the contrary Reid made last week. "But if we follow the plan in this legislation, it will be lost and so, I fear, will much of our hope for stability in the Mideast."
Durbin said a new bill would be less "decisive" than the one passed Thursday, but he said its call for a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces could be attached to other bills -- such as the upcoming Pentagon budget or a defense policy bill.
So there you have it. Democrat Dick Durbin during a time of war threatening to play with the money our soldiers desperately need while in combat. If this is not treasonous some one explain to me what is?
The Pentagon has said it can fund the war through June. Without the additional appropriations, but the Pentagon will have to begin shifting money and deferring projects to find the funds to continue the wars.
Kind of like going to 15 month deployments. It is cheaper to keep Soldiers in theater longer than it is to mobilize units. Also, it takes money to train units getting ready to deploy. So, if Soldiers can not get the equipment they need to train efficiently for deployment then they can not replace Soldiers already deployed.
Play with the Pentagon Budget if you want to, but let’s make sure we know exactly who is at fault when U.S. Soldiers can not get the equipment they desperately need to keep them safe and accomplish their mission.
Before Wednesday's vote, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus went to a series of private briefings on Capitol Hill, during which he argued against setting a timetable, according to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers who attended.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said Thursday that Congress is using "the power of the purse" to end the war.
"When the mission ends, the funding ends, and that's perfectly reasonable," Feingold said. "Gen. Petraeus will have the funding as long as we feel there should be a mission there, but there shouldn't be a mission there anymore by the end of next March."
How the hell does Feingold know whether there should be a mission there by the end of next March? The decisions in the matter of war should be left to the Commander in Chief and the military, not a group of politicians 6,000 miles away that have their heads stuck so far up each others….well you get the picture.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
It's time to act. The Republicans have absolutely nothing going for them in the 2008 election. The only advantage they have with the brighter voters out there is that they are not Democrats. These candidates need to see that the FairTax is just the type of agenda that can drive people to the polls. And how do we show them that? By showing them that the FairTax can drive 10,000 people to Columbia for a rally.
Since the rally is scheduled for 5:00 p.m., you can easily drive to Columbia from Atlanta, Ga. Charlotte, Fayetteville, or Raleigh N.C. and other points in the Southeast, attend the rally, and still be back in your beds that evening.
Within a day or two I'll have a link here with more information on the rally. For now ... just mark the date, and make the decision to become part of the solution. If you think the FairTax is a good idea standing by is no longer an option.
Never heard of the FairTax? Go to FairTax.org and learn all about it. You can also type in FairTax in the search engine for this blog and find everything I have wrote on the FairTax.
The London Daily Telegraph has revealed the existence of a classified handbook for European Union diplomats that encourages governments and the European media to avoid using phrases that might offend Muslims when referring to terrorism. The EU handbook suggests banning words like "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist." Instead the EU handbook tells us that we might want to give consideration to the phrase "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam."
So now it is officially improper in Europe to refer to an Islamic terrorist as an Islamic terrorist. This is an insane plan that shows weakness and emboldens the enemy, but that seems to be the norm lately. The Western world just does not seem to understand what we are truly up against.
Let’s just ignore the fact that virtually every terrorist operating in the world today is a Muslim. Let’s ignore the fact that in approximately 120 hot wars throughout the world right now there is two defining forces in 90% of them made up of Muslims on one side and non-Muslims on the other.
Islamic radicals relies on terrorism as it's chief foreign policy tool. Their goal is to put the world into submission and then force it into Islamic law and they are doing a good job of it if you ask me.
Let’s take a look at how the Western world is standing up to Islam and preventing us from falling into Islamic law. The City of Minneapolis suggests a light signal system on its taxis to warn customers of which Muslim cab drivers will transport passengers carrying alcohol, and which will not. Target stores jumps through hoops to find a way to accommodate Muslim cashiers at its stores who refuse to ring up items containing pork. A British school changes the name of the "Three Little Pigs" to the "Three Little Puppies." The Daily Mail from London reports on a study by the Department for Education and Skills that British teachers are not teaching the Holocaust in British schools, because some teachers are afraid that Muslim students might react badly in class.
Does the West not understand that these are all small victories for Islamic fascists. Every time we give in or bend the rules for Islam we give them a victory in their over all goal of creating a world of Islamic state.
These actions are viewed by Islamic fascists as signs of weakness. It emboldens them, and weakens us. You do the math. Where will all of this lead us?
Giuliani: Dems will go on defensive, wave white flag and put us at risk of another terrorist attack.
Giuliani also says that the Democrats do not understand the threat of the "terrorist war against us."
Giuliani has much of this right. Democrats will definitely wave the white flag on Iraq, hell they already have, and a defensive approach to Islamic terrorists is suicide. We have to identify them and stay on the offensive over there before they come and we have to be defensive over here.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
A horrendous incident such as the Virginia Tech shooting affects people in different ways. Obviously, every balanced persons reaction would be sorrow. But for some people, like myself, that initial sorrow is mixed with anger and questions. How in the hell could something like this happen?
So instead of taking the chance to allow my anger to overshadow my sorrow and sadness for the families and friends who have lost loved ones I decided not to comment right away.
In a much different time, not to long ago, this kind of incident would not require a comment of opinion, but as I followed the story, I became more and more disturbed by the tone of the coverage.
Unfortunately, the media and others have not shared the same respects. Within hours the media was playing the blame game and using this event to try and boost their ratings.
Fox News Geraldo Rivera blamed the Virginia Tech administration and campus police for not locking down the campus after the first shootings. Even though the investigation that was filed did not indicate any further threat.
Others were using it to advance political agendas. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, the gun control crowd jumped on the Virginia Tech tragedy to push their disarmament agenda. They could not even wait a day before chiming in.
The infamous tape sent to NBC has had continuous airtime. One MSNBC anchor Michelle Kosinski was talking about how sad this story is and how horrible it must be for the students. She spoke about how the students became physically sick when they saw the tape. Yet they continued to show the tape over and over again.
The president of NBC Steve Capus made the comment that the news room was torn over what to do with the tape. Yeah, so torn they made numerous copies of the tape to distribute to all the other networks, before handing it over to the police. So torn they made sure they all had the NBC logo and every other network had to mention the tape was courtesy file of NBC. So torn over the tape it ran almost nonstop for four consecutive days.
The media’s reaction to this is really no surprise. The over sensationalism of the news has been around for a while now, but to play the blame game in order to boost ratings hours after the shootings is a new low. Crying crocodile tears while pushing a political agenda while the bodies are still at room temperature is even lower.
Of course, to no ones surprise, the anti-gun crowd came out in full force to blame the NRA and gun right advocates. I will have a lot more on that later.
The focus seemed to be on the campus administration and security. The issue was the two hours that separated the first shooting from the second. Two students died in the first shooting. Campus authorities believed (apparently correctly) that this was a domestic situation and that there was no further threat to other students. There were also reports that police had "a person of interest" in custody. Other reports were that a gunman was in custody. Two hours later the shootings occurred in Norris Hall and 31 more people were killed.
Some people are trying to place the blame on society. They claim that this is the result of bullying that led to a life of social isolation for Cho Seung Chui. Maybe so, but isn’t he still responsible for his own actions.
It also seems we have a new group of players in the blame game. They see a tragic event and immediately try to place blame. As soon as they figure out who they think is responsible, they start calling for resignations or firings.
The blame in this particular game seemed to be placed on the campus administration and security. The issue was the two hours that separated the first shooting from the second. Two students died in the first shooting. Campus authorities investigated the incident and decided it was a domestic situation and that there was no further threat to other students.
Two hours later all hell breaks loose in Norris Hall and 31 more people were killed.
Now we have parents along with members of the media demanding that the president of Virginia Tech be fired because the entire campus was not locked down after the first shooting.
Why would the administrators lock down the campus when they had no reason to believe that there was any further threat to the other students? Why don't we fire the administrative staff of Virginia Tech for not possessing the skill of hindsight.
This is amazingly insane to me. We don't live in a perfect world! The proper course of action here is to figure out how this tragedy might have been averted, not to go hunting for the scalps of college administrators who, in all likelihood, took every reasonable step they could think of to contain this situation after the first shooting.
So where there steps that the university could have been taken that may have prevented this tragedy from ever happening. Maybe, or maybe not.
Within days we found out the Virginia Tech killer was a mentally disturbed with suicidal thoghts and the university knew it! One professor had expelled the killer from her classroom. At one point he was sent to a mental health facility and was later released.
Cho committed suicide on Monday. He took 31 people with him. The university knew he was a threat. Nothing was done. Why was this student still going to school at Virginia Tech? Why did the administration not kick him out? Perhaps the university administration do indeed have blood on their hands. Well not so fast, it turns out the university’s hands were tied.
Virginia legislature unanimously passed legislation within the past year that barred Virginia colleges and universities from expelling a student on the basis of mental instability. Virginia colleges and universities were also banned from suspending or expelling a student because of an attempted suicide or the expression of suicidal thoughts. The law also forces schools to provide services to mentally ill students.
Are these educational institutions or mental health wards? Why should we expect them to fulfill both functions?
Here's another food for thought…What if the Virginia legislature had passed HB 1572 and signed into law? The bill would have made the Virginia Tech campus like the rest of the state and students and faculty could have carried a concealed handgun with permit. Then the shooter would have known that there was a strong likelihood that there would be some students, professors and administrators on the campus with a gun. Would there be 32 people dead if someone would have been able to defend themselves and fire back? Which leads to our next topic. Gun Control....
Many on the left are using this tragedy to push there agenda for total ban on guns. In their simplistic views of the world, if there were no guns there would be no crime and we would all live in a peaceful, safer society, holding hands singing kum-bye-yah. Several countries have tried this tactic and every single one has failed miserably.
Great Britain has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. To curb violent crime rates, they banned all handguns in 1997. What happened after they disarmed the general public? Homicide rates jumped by 50% and armed muggings increased by 53%. All handguns gone, and gun violence up.
In 1996, Australia took 660,000 guns off the street in a "buy back" program. If the liberal gun control theory is right, crime rates should have fallen. They didn't. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the murder rate increased by nearly 10%, assaults rose by 17%, and armed robbery went up by 73%. But how can that be? I thought fewer guns meant less violent crime
The truth is if you outlaw guns then outlaws are the only ones with guns. In all the years the Brady anti-gun organization has been advocating gun control there has never been one single gun control plan presented that would take the guns out of the hands of criminals. This is the oddity of gun control. Only law abiding people are going to abide by gun control laws. Criminals are not.
You will never get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for crime. Like it or not, that includes troubled people like Cho Seung-Hui and many others who have opened fire in schools and other public places. These people were intent on destruction and no anti-gun law or policy would have prevented these tragedies.
There have been some school shootings that were actually prevented or stopped by civilians with guns believe it or not.
In one incident a man was driving by a school when he noticed children running frantically out of the building. One of the children told him that there was a student inside shooting people. The civilian pulled out his gun, ran in side, and confronted the student. The student put down the gun and surrendered.
In another high school a vice-principal was informed there was a student in the hallways with a gun. He had a gun in his car, so he had to park off campus. He sprinted a half-mile to his car. He then sprinted back with the gun to confront the student. Lives saved.
There have been many other cases where civilians with guns have prevented further carnage at the hands of killers. The media isn't fond of reporting these episodes because they don't contribute to the cause of gun control.
Here is something else I have not seen in the media. Citizens in Virginia are permitted to carry concealed weapons with a proper permit from the state unless you are on a college campus. Earlier this year the Virginia General Assembly failed to act on house bill 1572 that would have allowed college students and employees to carry handguns on campus with a concealed weapons permit. However the bill died in subcommittee.
After the bill was thrown out Larry Hincker, a spokesman for Virginia Tech, said "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Really.. how safe do you suppose the students and faculty in Norris Hall felt as gun shots rang out and bullets started flying?
What if there had been a student or a professor in the dorm with a gun that heard the argument in an adjoining room. Could that student or faculty member prevented this whole tragedy from ever happening? We will never know.
Some people, otherwise known as liberals, will argue "We don't want to return to the wild, wild west." We don’t? Why not? What research do you suppose they have put into their "wild wild west" slogan other than what they have seen in the movies? Have they researched anything about the actual crime rates in the so-called wild west? You might be surprised to learn that the crime rate in what we now refer to as the "wild wild west" was actually lower than what it is in most American cities today.
Here is a story about two towns that took two completely different approaches with gun control.
In March 1982, Kennesaw Ga. In response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
By comparison, Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent.
This was not what some predicted.
In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world."
Now let me ask this. If you are a madman that wants to shoot a place up are you going to do it in “Gun Town USA” the pistol-packing capital of the world or are you going to go to Morton Grove, Illinois?
It seams to me you have a choice. Try to rush the shooter and take his gun, or stand there and wait to be shot. I just can not comprehend the failure to act in this situation.
Mark Steyn, a brilliant columnist, wrote a column titled "A Culture of Passivity." If you're interested you can just click on this link and read away. I will share a few lines from the Steyn column in red along with my thoughts:
On Monday night, Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our “children” need to be “protected.”
They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet.
We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.
Librescu understood instinctively the obligation to react because he understands the consequences of not reacting. People, such as war veterans, former POWs, hostage survivors more than likely understand that the first seconds in this kind of crisis is critical for the outcome and welfare of the group as a whole. They also understand that one must take care of himself and others around them instead of waiting on someone else to protect them.
We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom’s security blanket. Geraldo-like “protection” is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won’t be there to protect you. You’ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:
When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.
I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.
Perhaps Steyn is right. Maybe we have produced a culture of passivity. Public schools across the country do not even allow self defense without punishment. Students in a public school who uses physical force in self defense on school grounds is punished at the same level as the aggressor. How dare anyone actually fight back! Who was the expert that came up with this nonsense?
In this we teach our children that there is something wrong with acting to defend yourself. Is it not possible this lesson can be carried into adulthood?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Anyways, Don Imus called some Rutgers women's basketball players "nappy-headed hos" [video] on his radio show last week. Wow…that was not very smart now was it.
Yes, it was wrong for Imus to say what he said. It was even distasteful in my opinion. Definitely not a comment I would have made about a group of people I have never met, but I am not Don Imus.
Should Don Imus have been fired? I don’t know. I am not his boss. Would I have fired Don Imus? I probably would not have fired Don Imus. I am not an advocate of censorship and believe in the freedom of speech.
Of course, just like all freedom, freedom is not free, it comes with responsibility. There is a price that comes with freedom of speech. Just ask the Dixie Chicks. They learned real quickly the lessons in freedom of speech. Other artist, actors, politicians, and entertainers have paid the price for freedom of speech as well, but most of them never lost there jobs over it.
Some may argue that Don Imus is paying the price for his freedom of speech and to a certain extent I may even agree. However, I would argue that Don Imus is paying more of a price of a head hunt rather than the price of freedom of speech.
This was Don Imus’ radio show. He is free to say what he wants. If he can get the ratings, and there is an audience for what he says, that can pay the bills for his show so be it.
This is a free country; nobody is forcing anybody to listen to Don Imus. If you do not like what Don Imus says then change the station.
If enough people change the station then Don Imus drops in ratings. If he drops in ratings then advertisers will drop Imus. Then if I am his boss I fire him. Then Don Imus truly pays the cost for freedom of speech, but that is not what happened here.
What happened here is Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson called for Imus’ head on a platter and they got it. They called for an action of censorship and they got it.
Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson took an issue that did not even concern them, stir the racial victimization pot, and WHAM!!! Created a media fire storm. They then cashed in for all it was worth and got Don Imus fired.
The fact that Sharpton and Jackson were able to join together, influence the removal of one man’s voice from a successful radio show is disgusting…and all in the name of racial equality.
What about the remarks Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson have made in the past?
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have no room to comment when it comes to racial remarks. Al Sharpton is a race warlord. Always exploiting the sense of black victimization for his personal gain and he does not care who he hurts or lies about in the process.
Sharpton falsey accused Steven Pagones of the rape and mutilation of Tawana Brawley in 1987. He has never once apologized for it.
He incited murder at Freddie’s Fashion Mart in Harlem while loudly denouncing white interlopers in 1995. No apology.
How about the Crown Heights Riot in New York City in 1991 ? Sharpton whipped a crowd into a four-day riot on rumors that a Jewish ambulance had failed to treat a young black at the scene of a disturbance after a car accident. Sharpton referred to “diamond merchants” (racial slur for Jews) shedding the “blood of innocent babies.” No apology. Of course, he never really had to; the media gave him a free pass.
Jesse Jackson was quick to jump on the bandwagon against the Duke Lacrosse team who was wrongly accused of sexually assaulting and raping a black woman. He has never apologized and correct me if I am wrong but did he not use the words “ Hymie Town ” before?
So, Don Imus hurts the feelings of some female black basketball players and he is destroyed, thrown to the arena of the media hyenas and fired from his radio show. Al Sharpton, who in my opinion has blood on his hands, should have went to jail for his comments. Free speech does not cover inciting a murder or riot. Jesse Jackson, he is just an idiot, but he was never fired. There was never a media frenzy over anything that these two have said.
This shows me the real issue has little to do with racism or racial and degrading comments against black women, but more to do with a white man saying them.
What if it really was about racial and degrading comments against black women?
Do I even need to mention the hip hop, gangsta rap industry here? Imus did not say anything that can not be heard on a daily basis from disk jockeys and the music on urban radio stations across the country.
You want to see the degrading of women turn on MTV or BET. Watch these women get paraded around in G-strings and called “bitches” and “hos.”
Rapper Snoop Dog has showed up at award ceremonies with women on dog leashes. He makes pornography in the basement of his house and his lyrics to his music are filled with comments far worse than what Don Imus said. Isn’t that degrading to all women in general and not just black women?
The rap industry has been doing this for years on end. Why not any outrage there? Where is the media frenzy…Oh, that’s right…they are not white males. Only white males say degrading things about black females I guess.
Is it about Race at all?
If the Don Imus story was truly about race and racial justice, then why not the same media frenzy over Crystal Gail Mangum?
Who is she you ask? She is the black woman who falsely accused three members of the Duke Lacrosse team of sexually assaulting her and raping her. Her accusations caused a huge media frenzy against Duke University and these lacrosse players that was completely race generated.
Jesse Jackson also had a lot to say about this case. He wrote, in one of his columns on Blacknews.com, “Predictably, the right-wing media machine has kicked in, prompting mean spirited attacks upon the accuser’s character.” Later he said his organization, the Rainbow/Push Coalition, would pay Magnum’s college tuition for a degree even if her story turned out to be completely made up!
Wow! Hey black ladies, want a college scholarship? All you have to do is accuse an all-white college sports team of raping you. I am sure that did a lot for racial relations.
So we learn that the whole rape charge was a hoax. The North Carolina Attorney General’s Office dropped the charges and an investigation from the state bar association is under way against the District Attorney Michael Nifong who was prosecuting the case. Nifong has at least apologized to the accused; Jesse Jackson has never offered one.
The point is we have two college sport teams, the Duke Lacrosse team that is mostly white and the Rutgers women’s basketball team that is mostly black.
The Duke team members were falsely accused of a crime, charges was filed, DNA swabs taken. The district attorney claimed a rape definitely occurred.
They were a nationally ranked team and had a chance for a championship. Instead the season was cancelled, games forfeited. The coach, Mike Pressler resigned.
The accused had to hire attorneys and pay tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves. Reputations damaged as “mug shots” were posted across campus. Duke African Studies professor Mark Anthony Neal claimed it was “a case of racialized sexual violence.” One Durham NC resident cried “racial terrorism.”
Many lives were affected by these false accusations. Now let’s look at the Rutgers situation.
A white radio talk show host makes a stupid, distasteful comment that insults a Rutgers team. No season cancelled, Rutgers played in their championship game. No coaches resigned, no one was arrested. None of the Rutgers ladies had to spend tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. They were insulted, the targets of a stupid racially charged remark that every one of us has heard before. No life changing experience at all really.
The evil white man who made the stupid, hateful remark is being attacked and crucified. The black woman who made the false accusations of rape is going to walk free. No criticism, no media frenzy. In fact, I am willing to bet that the same civil rights leaders, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, which destroyed Don Imus will come to the rescue of Crystal Gail Magnus if anyone tries to place any kind of blame on her.
Should Don Imus have apologized?
Don Imus apologized here, apologized there, apologized on Al Sharpton’s radio show, [viideo] but it wasn’t enough. Don Imus would have never been able to apologize enough to satisfy Sharpton and Jackson. I guess these reverends are just not into that whole Christian forgiving thing.
Anyways, why apologize to Sharpton and Jackson anyway. Don Imus’ comments were not directed to or about Sharpton or Jackson. They were directed at the Rutgers female basketball team that is it. They are the only ones in this whole ordeal that deserves an apology from Don Imus, and he was right to meet with them to apologize. However that is where it should have ended.
The real mistake Imus made in this, other than uttering the stupid remark in the first place, was the continuous apologies and making an appearance on Al Sharpton’s radio show.
Don Imus should have made a statement that he had met with the women from the Rutgers basketball team and offered a heartfelt apology. He is sorry and knows what he said was wrong and inappropriate and should not be said by anyone. He then should have said that he is putting this event behind him and moving on. He then should have refused to comment on it any more.
His appearance on Sharpton’s radio show should have been reduced to a statement and that is it. He should have gone on the show made his statement and left. Let Al Sharpton and his critiques scream and cry all they want, but do not validate the cries and screams with continuous apologies.
It’s really about censorship, not race. Watch out talk radio.
The whole Don Imus affair has very little to do with race and a lot to do with censorship. You need to look no further than Al Sharpton’s remarks to see that.
“Somewhere we must draw the line in what is tolerable in mainstream media. We cannot keep going through offending us and then apologizing and then acting like it never happened. Somewhere we’ve got to stop this,” said Sharpton.
Draw the line in what is tolerable… cannot keep going on offending… Who is going to decide what is offensive or tolerable. Al Sharpton? Is there going to be a list of what you can and can not say or is it merely based on opinion. What about free speech Al?
The removal of Don Imus is just the beginning. Al Sharpton and his cronies along with the media have successfully silenced a talk radio icon by getting his program removed from the air. Sharpton is feeling confident and good about himself right now and last week told an overly excited media; “It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves.”
So, let the head hunts begin. Sharpton and his cronies will now go after other talk radio heads. Sure, they will claim they want to clean up all media and entertainment outlets, but let’s make it clear the real goal is to silence talk radio, conservative talk radio.
For years the liberal left has used various tactics to marginalize conservative talk radio. The most heavily used tactic is the “hate radio”accusation. The idea is to claim anything said on a conservative talk radio show that goes against liberal dogma is “hate speech.” Of course, this tactic hasn’t worked and talk radio continues to grow.
The left and the media in this country doesn’t just dislike conservative talk radio, they hate it, despise it. They can not stand the idea of radio talking heads speaking to the masses in an open forum about public policy, opinions, and the matter of government.
The left knows they can not succeed in talk radio. Air America has pretty much proven that. Since they can not succeed in the arena it must be destroyed. Their original plan to destroy conservative talk radio was to wait until the Democrats controlled the Congress and the White House then pass the so called “Fairness Doctrine”Now; they see they may not have to wait for the electorate to give them the power to do it.
They now know Al Sharpton can move the corporate money with his racially charged dialogue. The tape recorders will be rolling, waiting, preying for the next slip of the tongue. Come to think of it…they do not even need the host to say something derogatory, all they need is a caller.
Yeppers, anyone remember what happened to Howard Stern?
Some Final Thoughts and Country Boy’s Suggested Reading on Don Imus.
Oprah Winfrey invited the Rutgers Basketball Team on to her show…well that was nice…I wonder when she will have the Duke Lacrosse Team.
Oprah also held a town hall meeting forum on her show recently to discuss race relations stemming from the Don Imus comments... However, I noticed not one white person on the panel.
Are racial relations plainly a black issue? Do whites have nothing to offer to the table? Maybe they couldn’t find any white people to go on the show in fear of being labeled a racist…after all only black people are allowed to talk about race.
I am agreeing with Rosie! Say What?
Rosie O'Donnell, weighing in on the Imus matter, warns us that the thought police are coming! Agreeing with Rosie. This is going to bother me for the rest of the day. Damn, I need a drink!
Ann Coulter says we need a rule book because of the Don Imus case? We now need a rule book that tells us when we're allowed to say certain things and what we're allowed to say. She also goes after the media hypocrisy over the reasons for the controversy in the first place. Great Read…
Cal Thomas says the firing of Don Imus amounts to a media double standard. What about rap music? What about Jesse Jackson's racist slur in the past?
Found this article in the archives… It is from the Heritage Foundation: Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair.
The District Attorney who persecuted the 3 Duke LaCrosse players for a rape that never took place has apologized...sort of. "To the extent" that he made judgments that later proved incorrect, he says. Hey...it could happen to anybody, right? There goes the law license. Well, that is still more than Jesse Jackson has offered the Duke 3.
So with Don Imus erased from the airwaves, the next question on people's minds is just what are you allowed to say on TV and radio? Time magazine has a piece out today that tries to answer that question.
Two today from the one and only Ann Coulter. Coulter says Don Imus should apologize to the girls at Rutgers University and that's it...nobody else. Hmmm. Where have I seen that before….She also points out that Imus could have called her a ho instead...and there would have been no problem. Although she specified "flaxen-haired ho." Hilarious and outragous as always.
Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star says the controversy over Don Imus is allowing the black community to hide it's real problem: the gangster culture. As for Imus himself? Whitlock says his comment was at most a poor attempt at humor and is irrelevant anyway. Don't miss this column today. Definitely worth the read.
Sunday was the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's breaking the color barrier in major league baseball. A lot of players wearing the number 42 this weekend in tribute…Ray McNulty says that Jackie Robinson would have ignored Don Imus.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Well folks, I arrived in Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan around the end of February. I have since left Bagram Air Field and am now further South at Kandahar Air Field. KAF is quite the place. There is a Pizza Hut, Subway, Burger King, Coffee Shops...hell the Canadians even put in a hockey rink. So, at least we have nice things to come back to after missions outside the wire... War is hell...war is hell...I know.
I truly did not intend for my absence on my blog to last as long as it did, but preperations for deployment to Afghanistan ate up most of my time. I actually had some things ready to post toward the end of January, but I cracked the monitor on my Sony VAIO before that happened.
What a nightmare that became. I broke my laptop on Jan. 23 and went to get it fixed the next day. I still do not have my laptop! I quickly found out that getting a replacement monitor was not as easy as I or the repair shop thought it would be.
I was told by the repair shop that it should only take about a week to replace it. A week went by, no monitor...two weeks no monitor.
So, I remind the repair shop that I am deploying in a week and if they are not going to be able to have it repaired by then I need to know now. They reassure me it will be repaired by then.
Three days before we deploy still no laptop. So, I finally decide to go and buy a new laptop.
I finally get the phone call that tells me my laptop is ready for pick up while on a bus to Baltimore to board a plane for Afghanistan.
Talk about timing!!! Anways, I had a friend go pick the laptop up and he is going to mail it to me. So, I will have two laptops in Afghanistan.
The Sony VAIO is a great laptop, but expensive and takes time to fix, I guess...but that is why I have not been here. I am back and ready to blog from Afghanistan, and I have a lot to say.
Where to start??? How about some Country Boy Random Thoughts?
*The Democrats no longer want to use the term "Global War on Terror." Probably because they do not believe it is a war in the first place. They definately do not understand the threat from terrorism. The problem with the phrase seems to be the word "terror" and they want the phrase removed entirely from the 2008 defense budget.
Interstingly the Democrats and I agree on something. I do not like the phrase "Global War on Terror" either, never have. Terror is a tactic. You do not declare war on a tactic, you declare war on the people who threaten you by performing the tactic. That would be radical Islamic Fascists. The proper phrase should be the "Global War on Islamic Fascism." I wonder if the democrats would approve that phrase? Probably not, it would be offensive to Muslim terrorists. We wouldn't want to offend anyone.
*If anything the Duke Lacross rape case shows that there has never been more of a need for my idea of a loser pays all court system. These young men, were wrongly accused, held without any evidence, and had to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to attorneys to prove they were not guilty. Face it, the days of innocent until proven guilty are gone, and if you do not have the money to defend yourself you are screwed. If we went to a loser pays all court system the state would have to pay for all the costs that these young men had to pay. The prosecution would have made sure they had a case before takeing this to trial.
*Tony Blair has announced he was relieved the British Sailors were returned and he bore no ill will toward Iran. Not sure what else Ahmadinejad would have to do to create ill will between the U.K. and Iran. The appeasement of Islamic Fascism continues in the U.K.
*The British Sailors hostage crisis has exposed the America-hating international press again. They are praising Iran for releasing the hostages that should have never been taken in the first place...oh sorry, detainees, I guess hostage is to strong of a word even though that is what they were. Not one story from the media about Iran's violation of the Geneva Convention in parading the sailors around on T.V. The U.S. gets accused of prison abuse and violating the Geneva Convention at Guatanamo Bay and it is an international news story for months. Apparently only the U.S. violates the Geneva Convention.
*It's Tax Time! That's right time to file your income taxes. Think about all the time you have spent gathering information and filling out forms that you could have been spending with your family or enjoying something else. If you own a bussiness, how much time and money was spent on making desicions because of tax reasons instead of productivity? If we had the FairTax there would be no forms to fill out, there are no tax concerns in bussiness desicions, and April becomes just another ordinary month. How great would that be? How much did you pay in taxes this year anyways? Oh, you didn't have to pay because you got a refund! Lucky you! You still payed taxes and if you knew how much you actually paid it might make you mad.
*For a while now I have heard a lot of people and so called experts say we need illegal immigration. Our economy will collapse without illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are doing the jobs Americans will not do.
I have yet to hear an expert explain why Americans will not do these jobs that they once did. Could it be because the government is promoting laziness?
Take a look at New Orleans. Illegal immigrants are showing up by the masses to New Orleans to find construction work. However, the people who actually lived in New Orleans are demanding more government funding and assistance refusing to help with the clean up and restoration of their city. Hell, why not...they have a place to live, check every month, and they do not have to do anything for it.
This is nothing more than government produced laziness. These people wait on the government to take care of them and wait on someone else to rebuild their communities. They expect others to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.
*Hillary Clinton wants public funds to finance campaigns. Please...someone stop this insane woman...If the government starts paying for campaigns, government will start choosing candidates. Remember, who ever puts money in the juke box gets to pick the song, this is no different.
Think about this for a moment...Politicians would have to apply for campaign welfare and the feds would decide on some basis whether or not they get the cash.
Like most of the Hildabeast's ideas public financing of campaigns is not a good one. If you notice, like all of her other bad ideas, Hillary Clinton wants to reach into your pocket to pay for them.
**An artist in Chicago has made a sculpture that portrays Barack Obama as Jesus Christ. It was on display at the Chicago Institute of Art and seems to be very controversial. Personally, I think the only thing missing is members of the media kneeling in front of him, kissing his feet, asking to be one of his twelve disciples.
**Madonna says "Global Warming" is a real problem and we must act. Really...Madonna, well, now I am convinced. Anyways, did you know Madonna produced 440 tonnes of CO2 in a four month period last year. This is more than 40 times the polution the average American creates in a year! I wonder if Madonna will turn in her gas guzzlers and private jets for one of those electric deals. You know cause it is such a "real" problem.
While I am thinking about it, the U.S. is having the coldest April on record. Baseball games are being cancelled for snow. When is this "Global Warming" thing going to kick in? You know, so I can watch baseball.
Why ask for a timeline anyway??? If we are going to cut and run and leave Iraq why not just do it now. Why not demand the troops home now instead of a year from now. Why spend another day in a place they are not going to let the military do the job anyway.
Before we do make that terrible mistake and pull out of Iraq. Lets clearly understand what it will mean to lose in Iraq. Lets understand that losing the war does not mean we hang our heads, bring the troops home and go on and move on, like post Vietnam. The stakes are much higher.
If we lose this war we just well take down the Stars and Stripes fold it up and put it away because we will no longer be the premier country in the world.
Our way of life in this nation has not been in such great risk since WWII until now.
If we lose we will lose all future support from other nations or our allies, for fear of reprisals from terrorists. They will, rightfully so, view us as impotent and unable help them against the threat of Islamic terrorism.
If we lose this war, within ten years or less our economical infrastructure will be in serious crisis, income, and exports will all vanish as we know it. After our defeat, no nation will want to trade or deal with us, while threatened by Islamic terrorists. If we can't stop the terrorists, how will anyone else? The Islamic terrorists fully know what is being waged on this war, and are committed to winning, at any cost. Unfortunately, Americans are more concerned about finding out who Anna Nicole Smith's baby's daddy is.
If we lose this war Islamic terrorist will easily pick off non-Muslim nations, one by one. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next to go will be France unless they see the light, and realize if we don't win, they will be finished as well. Becase they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already made up of 20% Muslims who cause riots in the street until they get what they want from the French government.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away piece by piece at a time.
If we lose this war attacks from Islamic terrorists will not stop or decrease, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want all infidels dead or under Islamic law, not just quite. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 20 years. Prior to the attacks on 9-11 there were 7,581 terrorists attacks throughout the world. The terrorist's plan since the begining has been to attack us into submission and then force us into Islamic law.
Name one country under Islamic law throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women.
We are the only hope of defense from Islamic terrorism. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
The British Sailor hostage crisis proves several things. It shows the worthlessness of the United Nations. Iran goes into Iraqi waters commits an act of war by kidnapping and taking hostage 15 innocent British Sailors. Sailors that were not in Iranian waters but Iraqi waters, performing a U.N. mission. The British have the GPS data to prove it and the best the U.N. can do is express "grave concern." Wow! That is a great response to an act of war. The Useless Nations' response to this latest aggression from Iran shows the organization serve no purpose and should be downgraded to a Sunday morning breakfest club.
Of course the British response was not much better. When the whole thing happened, the most forceful statement that Prime Minister Tony Blair could come up with was he was concerned... Concerned? A terrorist state that backs the insurgency in Iraq, that is costing the lives of British troops, just committed an act of war against them by kidnapping these sailors and this was the response? At least the U.N. expressed "grave concern" if that matters.
Blair, just like the U.N., chose to take the route of appeasement in fear, exposing the impotence of their military might as Iran pushed them around. This response coinsides with the attitudes of Europe against Islamic terrorists.
Iran took these British Sailors hostage because they knew that the Western World and the U.N. would show appeasement rather than strength. They knew they could exploit these Sailors by parading them on TV, divert attention from their nuclear program and the U.N. sanctions. They knew they would make the West look week, gain major credibility within the Arab world and embolden the insurgency....and they were successful in their goals.
The proper response from the British should have been to start dropping bombs until the Sailors were returned. You know...like Margaret Thatcher or Winston Churchill would have done.
In another time, Tehran would have been bombed back to the stone Age for what they did, but today the policy of appeasement rolls on.
The world will eventually pay for continuous showings of weakness...and will pay big...just as the world paid for the appeasement of Hitler.