Even if Democrats retain a slim majority in the House this November, Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have an insurrection on her hands from moderate Democrats looking for a change in leadership.
Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., who two weeks ago threw a colossal insult at his party by joining Republicans in a pledge to repeal the health care law, stepped out of line again over the weekend by telling a pair of Capitol Hill newspapers he wants someone other than Pelosi leading the chamber...
The day of reckoning comes around sooner or later, one way or another.
Recently, Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernmentposted "Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism–2010," in which he stated:
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.
In my view, that point about the NAACP audience is being missed by those who don't visit "the right-wing blogosphere" or watch Fox News.
Despite Breitbart's protestations to the contrary, CNN has turned "Shirley Sherrod's Story," as that edition was entitled, into a tale excoriating Fox News Channel, specifically Bill O'Reilly, who called for Ms. Sherrod's resignation on his show earlier this week.
Yesterday afternoon, CNN showed the full video of Ms. Sherrod's speech to the NAACP, a special show that I watched on the plasma television at the car dealer, when I took in my vehicle for scheduled service. Several others were also in the customer-service area at the car dealership.
I could see it on their faces: they are now discounting "the right-wing blogosphere" and deeming Fox News as unfit sources of information.
Now, while I was waiting at the car dealership, sometimes I couldn't always quite hear what CNN was saying. But the best that I recall now, CNN didn't cover the audience's sounds of approvals to what appeared to be the racist statements Ms. Sherrod was making in her speech to the NAACP, although CNN did, at the top of the video-loop screen, print in words the text of that portion of Ms. Sherrod's speech. Furthermore, the two black women I was sitting across from, were nodding their heads in agreement to every point that CNN made, including that Andrew Breitbart is a major player in the Tea Party Movement. Let me also add that a large part of yesterday's broadcast was self-congratulatory (paraphrase): "We at this network didn't fall for the scam because we don't broadcast a story until we fully investigate that story" [as in watching the entire video].
Over at this thread at MSNBC, the following comment well summarizes the reactions, black and white, in the customer-service waiting area:
When did this sort of stuff become OK? How is it possible in a country that claims to be the "best in the world"? How does this blog clown sleep at night? Oh, that's right, he's conservative.
For the record, HERE is the full video of Shirley Sherrod's speech at the NAACP. The video is long, but I do recommend that you watch it in its entirety.
This video clip of Keith Olbermann pretty much sums up the way the Shirley Sherrod story is playing out in the mainstream media, albeit not always so condemnatory of Obama:
Let's keep in mind that a lot of American voters base their decisions at the ballot box upon information they glean from the mainstream media.
Maybe there is plenty of loss of credibility to go around, including for the Obama administration, which was quite willing to throw Mr. Sherrod under the bus before watching the full video of her NAACP speech. However, based on what I saw yesterday in that waiting area at the car dealership, conservatives have taken a big hit on this one.
How many of those in the waiting area at the car dealership and how many American voters will see the Bill O'Reilly's rebuttal, which aired last night?
What is your view of the damage done in this Shirley Sherrod story?
Here's how the media and our Congress of Criminals are coping with the grassroots movement, "Taxed Enough Already":
What happens when an elected government tries to ignore the will of the people? Below the fold, history provides one answer.
Please read slowly, carefully, and thoughtfully the entire text of the Declaration of Independence:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776
Our War for Independence almost two and one-half centuries ago wasn't a revolution. Rather, it wasthe necessary step for restoring rights which no government should be allowed to usurp.
Of course, England at the time portrayed the colonists' uprising in a different way, much as the media and the BHO administration are portraying the Tea Parties of the Twenty-first Century.
American and Proud has an index for finding a Tax Day 2010 Tea Party near you. Get out tomorrow, and exercise your Constitutional rights. While you still have them.
If you do choose to participate in a Tax Day 2010 Tea Party, remember these words from Texas Fred:
A word of advice to ALL TEA Party members, don’t fall into their trap. Civility, sanity and patriotism! That’s the action needed to counteract those that would use the words of a few less than stellar TEA Party people against the group as a whole!
[T]he Tea Party movement is more popular than the President of the United States.
More below the fold.
[M]any Americans are awake now, with more waking up all the time. So keep your powder dry, America. Our country has drifted Left toward the rocks for 60 years now, and time is short to steer away from shipwreck, but we can do it.
"This court is not interested in the truth. This court doesn't want me to have a fair trial." - Geert Wilders, February 4, 2010
It has come to my attention that some informed people don't even realize that Geert Wilders is on trial in what could well be the most important trial of the our time. Indeed, sometimes when I've mentioned the name "Geert Wilders," I've gotten a blank stare and the response, "Who?" and "What's going on?"
In my view, it is an abomination that the story of the trial of Geert Wilders is not making headlines in every newspaper in the West, including in the American media. Especially in the American media.
Paul Marshal, senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, explains some of the importance of this trial and indicts the American media at National Review Online:
The American media’s silence about the Geert Wilders trial is puzzling —the trial is explosive, much more so than most of America’s perennial “trials of the century.” Wilders, leader of the Freedom party, is arguably the Netherlands’s most popular politician, but for years he has had to live in safe houses, including on military bases. He now faces the possibility of imprisonment on charges of “group insult” and “incitement to hatred,” as defined by articles 137 (c) and (d) of the Dutch penal code, for his public speeches and op-eds criticizing Islam.
Apart from its direct and immediate threat to free speech, the trial exposes the growth of political violence and repression in the Netherlands, long lauded as the most tolerant country in Europe, if not the world....
The media’s silence is also disturbing since it indicates their reluctance, even fear, when it comes to grappling with the West’s increasing censorship of anything that might be deemed offensive to some Muslims. So far, the effects in the U.S. are small — such as the Yale University Press’s removing the famous Danish cartoons from a book about those same cartoons — but they betray a mindset common to much of Europe: preemptive self-censorship.
Much more HERE in the article "Western Civilization on Trial"; contributors to the essay also include Bat Ye'or, Clifford D. May, Daniel Pipes, Nina Shea, and Robert Spencer.
The Geert Wilders trial ought to be an international media event; seldom has any court case anywhere had such enormous implications for the future of the free world. The case against him, which has all the legitimacy of a Stalinist-era Moscow show trial, is a manifestation of the global assault on free speech sponsored chiefly at the U.N. by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). If Wilders loses, the freedom of speech will be threatened everywhere in the West.
Even if he wins, a dangerous precedent has been set by the fact of the trial itself: It is a sad day for the freedom of speech when a man can be put on trial for causing another man offense. If offending someone were really a crime warranting prosecution by the civil authorities, the legal system would be opened up to absurdities even greater than the Wilders trial....
Of course, thanks to the Internet, the most-publicized "offense" that Mr. Wilders committed was making the video Fitna, a short film using words from the Koran, news headlines, and news video footage to illustrate the threat that jihad and Islamization pose to the Netherlands. Watch the video for yourself. Exactly what in that video isn't true?
No matter. The truth doesn't matter! As Stogie points out in this essay:
Geert Wilders is on trial for telling the truth.
Furthermore, we have yet another disturbing aspect of the trial:
Wilders is being limited in the number of witnesses he can call: out of 18 requested, only 3 were approved by the court.
Of note: one of the approved witnesses is Wafa Sultan, a former Muslim and the author of A God Who Hates.
In his unique style, Pat Condell addresses the matter of the trial of Geert Wilders in the following video, absolutely worth your time if you care one whit about freedom and justice:
(Note to family and friends: The most recent update on Mr. AOW is here)
The usual: chants calling for death to America and death to Israel.
Also note the following (hat tip to Jihad Watch, citing AFP):
..."We need all Muslims, Sunni and Shiite, to be unified and focus on important issues: Al-Aqsa (mosque in Jerusalem), the occupation of Palestine, the problems in Iraq, the Afghan occupation, and the fighting between brothers in Yemen. We need be purified from all infidels."...
Investigations into Iran's nuclear programme will reach a "dead end" unless Tehran starts to co-operate, the UN nuclear chief has warned.
Mohamed El Baradei told governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that there had been no movement on issues that needed to be clarified....
"Investigations...will reach a 'dead end'"? The dead end of trying to reason with Iran's leaders was reached long ago.
Has Tehran cooperated with the West since the Iranian Revolution of 1979?
Only a fool would believe that such cooperation is even possible.
And this morning's "news" prattles on about the couple who crashed the state dinner at the White House and the shopping crowds on "Black Friday."
First, a bit of background on Atzlan and La Raza, from this source:
La Raza teaches that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as “Aztlan” — a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America. These areas belong to the Latinos and Latinas and must be surrendered to “La Raza” once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, come to constitute a majority, as in Los Angeles. Once this is achieved, the current borders of the United States will simply be obliterated.
But the “reconquista” won’t end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of “Aztlan.”
Miguel Perez, a La Raza spokesman at Cal State-Northridge, has been quoted as saying: “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled — opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”
And what is Sonia Sotomayor's connection to La Raza?
Senorita Sotomayor served on the governing board of La Raza for six years.
I fail to understand why this association alone disqualifies Sonia Sotmayor from serving as a justice on the Supreme Court. For that matter, why is she sitting on ANY court?
Of course, the left will say that it is racist for me even to bring up that Sonia Sotomayor has connections with a racist organization.
Meanwhile, the circus (aka Senate hearings) to confirm her nomination continues. And Republicans so far refuse to ask the tough questions about the nominees connections to the Latino KKK.
Excerpts from today's Washington Post story are below the fold:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared a "new beginning" for Iran late Saturday after he was declared victor in the presidential election, but as he spoke on national television violent demonstrations rolled through several areas of Tehran. Supporters of defeated candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi burned dumpsters, threw stones and clashed with police in the worst rioting in Tehran in many years.
What new beginning is Ahmadinejad talking about? The same mullah-controlled thug will be at the helm of Iran. Supposedly, he had a landslide victory:
The Interior Ministry, controlled by Ahmadinejad, announced that he had been elected in the first round with 62.6 percent of the vote, compared with less than 34 percent for Mousavi, who was the leading challenger. Turnout was a record 86 percent of the 46.2 million eligible voters.
Oh, really? Check out this information about the 2005 election, which brought Ahmadinejad to power. Should we believe that this 2009 election was run with more integrity?
According to today's Washington Post:
Announcement of the results triggered protests throughout the day. Families lined the streets in the middle-class neighborhood of Saadat Abad, cheering on the demonstration and shouting, "Death to the dictator!"
[...]
Talks between Iran and the United States are still a possibility with Ahmadinejad at the helm. On several occasions, he has said he wants such talks. His oft-repeated verbal attacks on Israel are not expected to change.
So, no fresh start, really.
Meanwhile,
The White House released a two-sentence statement...
In Tehran, Mousavi's whereabouts were unknown. Reporters on their way to a news conference by the former candidate were stopped by security personnel, who said the meeting had been canceled. Several journalists were beaten.
[...]
"We are hopeful," Ahmadinejad said during his speech. "Now it's time to move on and continue to build our great Iran."
In essence, Ahmadinejad is speaking of change and hope. No wonder BHO cuts him so much slack.
With all this unrest over the election in Iran going on right now, BHO's weekly address was about healthcare reform, also the topic on the lead page of the White House web site. Not a word of support for the oppressed people of Iran. Does that community not matter to him?
The museum is closed today and the flags flying at half mast.
Coincidence or not, yesterday's shooting, which ended in the death of museum guard Stephen Tyrone Johns, occurred on the anniversary date of the end of the Six Day War (1967). ------ One thread at Stormfront refers to the murderer, James Von Brunn, as a "white racialist treasure." The thread was posted in 2004. I won't link to it.
Yesterday's Examiner published the following article a few hours after the shooting and contains some interesting information that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere:
Holocaust Museum shooter von Brunn a 9/11 'truther' who hated 'neo-cons', Bush, McCain
The anti-semitism of von Brunn is the first thing one notices when visiting these bizarre websites. However, like those of most "white supremacists", many of von Brunn's political views track "Left" rather than "Right." Clearly, a re-evaluation of these obsolete definitions is long overdue.
For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other "neo-conservatives" in online essays. As even some "progressives" such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, "neoconservative" is often used as a derogatory code word for "Jews". As well, even a cursory glance at "white supremacist" writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.
James von Brunn's advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories also gives him an additional commonality with individuals on the far-left.
In fact, anti-semitism is something the New Left and the "Far Right" have had in common since the 1980s, which is why so many former leftists like David Horowitz defected from one side to the other during the Reagan era and beyond. It also helps explain the otherwise baffling alliance between the Left and radical Islam.
That this shooting occurred shortly after President Obama's former mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, blamed "the Jews" for his lack of access to his former parishioner is a troubling confluence of events as well.
Anecdotal reports on the local D.C. news are saying that Von Brunn was "weird" and volatile. According to the Washington Post:
James W. von Brunn was growing despondent.
John de Nugent, an acquaintance who describes himself as a white separatist, noticed the change when they last spoke two weeks ago.
"He said his Social Security had been cut and that he was barely making it," de Nugent said. "He felt it was the direct result of someone in Washington looking at his Web site."
In one of his e-mail blasts expressing his white supremacist views, the man police sources say shot and killed a security guard yesterday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum told readers that they shouldn't expect to hear from him again. Von Brunn was shot and critically wounded by museum guards.
He was about to give away his computer, his primary connection to the fringe world of radical racists. He was living hand to mouth.
The e-mails were getting violent in tone: "It's time to kill all the Jews."
Von Brunn, who lives in Annapolis, was known for decades to fellow white supremacists who read his elaborate conspiracy theories on his Web site and met him through a network of radical racist groups. He was smart enough to join Mensa, but even admirers considered him a loner, a hothead and a man consumed with hatred.
[...]
Von Brunn's neighbors said yesterday that they invited him to their home for a drink recently. Apropos of nothing, they said, he raised his belief that the Holocaust did not occur.
[...]
Von Brunn's ex-wife said she divorced him about 30 years ago when she could no longer take his racist beliefs.
"When he talked about [race], he would get verbally abusive because I didn't really want to talk about it," said the 69-year-old woman, who lives in Florida and said she would speak to reporters if they would agree not to name her. "It was always against the Jews and the blacks."
The woman said she had not talked to authorities about the man she was married to for a decade.
"We absolutely detested his beliefs," she said. "I am disheartened the young guard was killed."
She said von Brunn once predicted that he would "go out with his boots on."...
A memorial Facebooksite has been set up for Stephen Tyrone Johns, who was cold-bloodedly murdered yesterday at his post in the museum. You can read details about Mr. Johns, "Gentle Giant," HERE. Please pray for his family.
And let us thank God that none of the tourists inside the museum yesterday were hurt. Some 2000, including schoolchildren on field trips, were touring at the time.
Note: The news this morning continues to mention that Von Brunn extensively used the web. Are these reports on the news tacit calls for government control of the web?
The following video was filmed in front of the Army-Navy Recruiting Station, where Pvt. William Long was murdered earlier this week by "the Arkansas jihadist":
Some reading below the fold. From this source, which may offer periodic updates:
Secure Arkansas organized a rally in rememberance of the first terrorist attack since 9/11. Pvt. William Long was killed and Pvt. Quinton I. Ezeagwula was wounded by Carlos Leon (aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad).
Channel 11 was the only TV crew out there with a camera, and the AR Dem Gazette sent a reporter and a photographer. The event had several speakers who did a wonderful job. Video footage of them will be uploaded soon. However, the most shocking part of the event was when a muslim fanatic crashed the event. The fanatic drove by and yelled at us, then parked in the parking lot and stood out with a homemade sign yelling anti-American and later anti-Semetic comments.
Had this been a ceremony for Tiller, this would have been the top story for both local and national media. Since it isn't a top story, it's up to you to send this to as many people as possible....
Contrary to what the muslimatoon say in the video, many of us do indeed know "what is Islam."
Quickie link to yesterday's CNN story. The next day, the Washington Post gives the story short shrift in an item in today's "Nation Digest" section, with nary a mention of Islam.
In contrast, the murder of abortionist George Tiller got front-page coverage yesterday in the WaPo. At the newspaper's web site, coverage of Tiller's murder appears to be ongoing. --------- By the way, on this morning's CBS Morning News, the Arkansas story got some brief airtime at 7:11 A.M., Eastern Standard Time. Immediately following was BHO's upcoming trip to Riyadh; the coverage of BHO's reaching out to the Moslem world got significantly more airtime. Heh.
ADDENDUM (source):Arkansas jihadist had maps to Jewish organizations, a Baptist church, a child care center, a post office and military recruiting centers.
First, we have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton casting blame for Mexican drug violence in the direction of the United States' "war" on drugs:
The United States is at least as responsible as Mexico for the violent drug wars that are roiling its southern neighbor because of an insatiable U.S. market for narcotics, the failure to stop weapons smuggling southward and a three-decade "war" on drugs that "has not worked," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday.
"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians," Clinton said.
"How could anyone conclude any differently? . . . I feel very strongly we have co-responsibility," she said....
American truck drivers operating near the U.S.-Mexico border are being warned of increasing violence among warring drug cartels and are being told to stay alert against attacks or hijackings.
"Violence amongst Mexican drug cartels in the border states, on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border, has exponentially increased in the past year," according to the alert from First Observer, a trucking security program funded by a Department of Homeland Security grant.
"Truck drivers carry a risk, as they are involved in operations that might interest these criminals," the alert said.
The alert cited the efforts of Mexican President Felipe Calderon to crack down on cross-border smuggling of drugs, which it says has hurt the cartels' operations.
"With these difficulties, the cartels' gangs have become more aggressive and dangerous with their tactics," the alert said. "Violent crimes have surged throughout border cities, and the violence that primarily occurred on the Mexican side has begun to spill into the United States."...
Postpone that upcoming vacation in Mexico or living in a border state until consulting the map:
From this March 18, 2009 article in the Washington Post:
...A [dark] picture was presented by Denise Dresser, a Princeton-educated professor of political science in Mexico City, who warned that recent U.S. assistance in fighting drug trafficking has had only mixed success. Cocaine traffickers now spend more than twice the attorney general's budget just for bribes; 450,000 citizens are involved in the drug trade....
"Mexico is becoming a country where lawlessness prevails, where more people died in drug-related violence last year than those killed in Iraq, where the government has been infiltrated by the mafias and cartels it has vowed to combat," Dresser said. "Although many believe that Obama's greatest foreign policy challenges lie in Pakistan or Iran or the Middle East, they may in fact be found in the immediate neighborhood."
[...]
"Unfortunately, in the past six months, we have noted a troubling increase in the number of grenades . . . seized from or used by drug traffickers, and we are concerned about the possibility of explosives-related violence spilling into U.S. border towns," the Justice Department said...
Newsbleat makes the following observation in a post dated March 18, 2009:
Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, who oversees U.S. military interests on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border as the head of Northern Command, told the US Senate: “The Mexican government is taking aggressive action to win. They are building momentum. I would not say they are losing,” Renuart said when asked if the Calderon government was winning or losing.
A bunch of drug pushers fighting the entire Mexican military and police force, drug cartels versus the entire combined might of the Mexican government, and our expert general would not say if the Mexican government was winning or losing.
“I would not say they are losing”. Talk about having your tongue stuck between your teeth and your cheek…
Meanwhile, the BHO administration is working on a "Mexico plan." We've already seen how some of BHO's other "plans" have worked out.
Well, he WANTED the job of President, and he got it. Now what?
The full article from 9News Now, a local channel here in the D.C. area:
Hospital Volunteer's Cross Stolen From Chapel
WASHINGTON DC (WUSA) She raised six children and was grandmother to 13 others, but 71 year old Patricia Perna always found time to do more.
Perna was a girl scout leader, water aerobics instructor, and had volunteered more than seven thousand hours at the Washington Hospital Center, before ovarian cancer claimed her life last January.
Her family and friends filled the chapel at the hospital Tuesday to receive a brass cross with Perna's name on it from the women's auxillary. That's when they got the unthinkable news. The cross was missing.
Investigators are trying to track down the brazen thief who stole the cross right off a church altar.
The theft from the Washington Hospital Center chapel was discovered just hours before the cross was to be blessed and given to the family of Perna.
Being a place of worship, the hospital chapel is open to anyone 24 hours a day. There is no security guard or surveillance camera in the chapel.
The hospital wouldn't let 9News Now take pictures in the chapel. Nobody could provide a photo of the two foot by two foot brass cross, but the hospital is asking for the public's help to find it.
You'll know it when you see it. It has Patricia Perna's name engraved across the front of it.
This morning's big story is the resignation of the president of Pakistan. I haven't included a link because the story is easily available on Internet news sites. For good or ill, how will Musharraf's resignation affect world dynamics?
In my view, this story is just one more illustration of the hypersensitivity pervading our culture, thanks to political correctness and the emphasis on self-esteem at all costs:
Zondervan faces $60M federal lawsuit over Bible, homosexuality
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD)--Christian publisher Zondervan is facing a $60 million federal lawsuit filed by a man who claims he and other homosexuals have suffered based on what the suit claims is a misinterpretation of the Bible.
[...]
[Bradley Fowler's] suit centers on one passage in scripture -- 1 Corinthians 6:9 -- and how it reads in Bibles published by Zondervan.
[...]
Fowler says his family's pastor used that Zondervan Bible, and because of it his family considered him a sinner and he suffered....
In addition to suing for $60 million, Fowler is demanding an apology, all because the passage in Corinthians caused him and others emotional and mental distress for the past twenty years. The "objectionable" Zondervan versions cited were published in 1982 and 1987.
Whoa-oa-oa! I feel good, I knew that I would, now I feel good, I knew that I would, now So good, so good, I got you
Whoa! I feel nice, like sugar and spice I feel nice, like sugar and spice So nice, so nice, I got you
When I hold you in my arms I know that I can't do no wrong and when I hold you in my arms My love won't do you no harm
And I feel nice, like sugar and spice I feel nice, like sugar and spice So nice, so nice, I got you
So good, so good, I got you HEY!!
We need new lyrics for our litigious-crazed society: "I feel bad. I knew that I would now...." The possibilities are endless — even new words using information from "The List of Things That Offend Muslims." Or perhaps we could create new words for the music by using a list of things that offend infidels.
Any lyricists out there? This little activity can be such fun!
Thanks to Chaim, who notified me of the following at the left-leaning UK blog Harry's Place:
We’re Being Sued By Hamas UK Last Friday, in the wake of a closely argued debate about whether Mohammed Sawalha, the President of the British Muslim Initiative, had used the phrase “Evil Jew” or “Jewish Lobby” in a speech, Harry’s Place received a letter. The letter is from Dean and Dean, a firm of solicitors who are acting for Mr Sawalha. Mr Sawalha has demanded that we take down certain articles from Harry’s Place..."
The nerve of IslamoFascists is galling, they can say or do whatever they feel like but we, infidels, may not expose them. Hamas is now trying to stop a great British blog Harry’s Place from telling it like it is. How? By suing him! Regardless of your political views, right, left or in between… if they succeed in this case any of us could be next. I appeal to every blogger to post about this outrage, I appeal to every blogger to support free speech by publicizing this suit. It is a question of your rights and mine!...
Back when I was in school and, later, when I taught in the traditional classroom, the day began with our Pledge of Allegiance. Those few students who were not American citizens often recited the Pledge, although a few of them merely stood, thereby showing respect for our flag and our nation. A few students even omitted saying "under God," but not many. Never did I hear anyone bring up that students should not participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. ------------ But according to this source, the principal of a school in Portland, Oregon, took it upon himself to prevent students from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:
Pledge of Allegiance
Posted: 8:36 AM Jun 11, 2008 Last Updated: 8:36 AM Jun 11, 2008
(CBS) Most children growing up in the US memorize the Pledge of Allegiance. But, in one Oregon elementary school, the kids won't be allowed to recite it at an end of the year assembly.
The principal banned it that day so as not to offend Muslims.
One resident of Portland, Oregon was a little surprised when she received an e-mail from her stepson's school principal.
The e-mail said that the children would not be reciting the pledge because of its reference to God.
Instead, the students would memorize and sing the Preamble to the United States Constitution.
But it's not just non-Muslims who were offended.
At least one Muslim community leader says he feels the same way. Muhammad Najieb says that 'God' is central to the Muslim faith, and there are several references to him in every prayer.
Portland school officials say the principal was trying to be sensitive, but some Muslims say the ban caused hurt feelings, and may foster bitterness and division within the community.
Therewith, I offer these two videos recently posted at The Amboy Times as reminders to the principal in Portland, Oregon:
Be sure to watch all the way to the end of the second video!
I wonder what John Wayne and Red Skelton would have to say about the state of America today, were they still with us. Whatever their comments, they'd be elegant and to the point — and expressive of their contempt for individuals such as that principal in Portland, Oregon.
Here is one reason that we keep hearing the same old, same old in the mainstream media, despite the concerns about media consolidation in the 1920s, when William Randolph Hearst wielded powerful control over print-media and radio-media:
Today, about a dozen media corporations—the largest is Gannett Co., followed by the Tribune Co.—own roughly one third of the country's more than 1,400 daily newspapers. Some argue that the reduction in the number of news outlets could lead to fewer critical opinions, with grim implications for democracy....[According to] Mara Einstein, associate professor of media studies at Queens College in New York, if that editor operates in a market with several options[,] "You read one person's point of view and then another person's, and you can come up with your own idea of what you believe is best." Online sites may fill in where mainstream news leaves off, but Davidson points to problems "weighing the gravity and the authority of the voices."
The FCC may be getting ready to allow even more monopolies on the news:
As America prepares for the year of intense democracy that is a presidential election, the question of how and what information reaches the public is crucial. So when the Federal Communications Commission last month proposed to loosen restrictions on media ownership, the reaction was deeply divided. FCC Chair Kevin Martin said the new rules, which would lift a 32-year ban on cross-ownership, would improve news coverage and help the struggling newspaper industry, which he called the "watchdog and informer of the citizenry." But what happens when fewer companies are responsible for the watching and informing?
As in the past, some are objecting to the FCC's proposal:
The FCC has long struggled to promote access to diverse news sources. Starting in the mid-1990s, the panel has been trying unsuccessfully to change the formulas governing cross-ownership, and it has often been attacked on all fronts. In 2003, the panel proposed allowing one company to own three television stations, eight radio stations, and the monopoly newspaper in a single market. A federal appeals court rejected the rules, while agreeing that the blanket ban on cross-ownership was outdated.
[...]
...[A]s in 2003, the proposals face serious challenges. While the FCC can move to adopt the plan, there are checks on its ability to implement it. A bipartisan group of 25 lawmakers has pledged to slow the enactment of the rule changes, while the White House has vowed to oppose any congressional intervention. Between the opposition on Capitol Hill and possible court challenges, the rules might never take effect.
Read the rest of the entire article in U.S. News & World Report.
How would our Founders, supporters of independent sources for the news, feel about what has happened to today's "free press"?
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible
for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or
harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP.
Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links
to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a
criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate
any applicable local, state, national or international law or
regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited.
The fact that particular comments remain on the site
in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.
