I consider myself lucky beyond the belief that I had the opportunity to visit Poland four years ago. While there, a group of my friends and I stayed with one of group member’s friend’s apartment in Gdansk. This gave us the opportunity to see Gdansk and the nearby town of Gdynia from a relatively non-tourist perspective. What struck me at the time was the Poles’ warmth, hospitality, good cheer, pro-American worldview, and pride in having resisted centuries of tragedy including partition, Nazi occupation, and Communist oppression. Although I had a great time every moment while I was there, one trip in particular still stands out in my memory today.
One afternoon, we all made a trip to the Solidarity Museum at the old Lenin shipyards. This museum featured several exhibits on how the Soviet-backed Communists used heavy-handed military force and relentless propaganda to impose their failed system on an unwilling and fiercely resistant population. Also prominently featured were exhibits depicting the disastrous economic results of Communism in Poland.
Having some knowledge of the evils and ineffectiveness of Communism, the museum made a powerful impression on me; however, that impression paled in comparison to the one left by our Polish friends while leading us through the museum and their beautiful city. As visitors are wont to do in a museum setting, the Americans in our group (myself included) would often look at an exhibit and then move on to the next. Several times, our Polish friends stopped us from doing this because they were so determined to make sure that we understood that life under Communism was as awful as the exhibits made it out to be.
For example, at one point we were standing in a replica of a Communist-era Polish market. Sitting in the market were empty food displays, a couple inedible loaves of bread, and several bottles of ammonia. We looked around, made our way out and were stopped. Our friends adamantly explained that this “market” was exactly how shopping was during that time and they did not allow us to leave the room until they were convinced that we understood just how awful it was. If the Americans in our group weren’t all Reaganites, I reckon I would still be on the Baltic Coast.
Perhaps it’s because I was so fortunate four year ago, but I’m always happy when I stumble across stories like this one, which seem to pop up all the time. It’s clear that the Poles haven’t forgotten their past and remain committed to telling their story to anyone willing to listen. When it comes to that country, I’m all ears.
Newt Gingrich announced yesterday that he would not be running for President because among other reasons McCain-Feingold would not allow him to both run for the White House and continue to head American Solutions. Also, he required that $30 million be raised in the next quarter for his prospective campaign, which would be an unprecedented amount. By announcing that he’s out on the same day as his American Solutions conference, he’s drawing attention to his organization in a very high-profile way. He has definitely chosen his path.
Conservatives like myself have been wondering if (and hoping that) Newt was going to jump in all year. If one could look past his previous marital infidelities and the media’s political hackjob which ruined his image during the 1990s, his ideas and initiatives would have made him the clearest philosophical thinker in the race even potentially an immediate frontrunner: his conservative values and his understanding that Republicans need to both be the party of change and distance themselves from Bush in order to win would give him an edge. He would even take She Who Must Not Be Named to the woodshed in the debates.
But, alas, he’s not going to enter. I can respect that. He might have lost the party’s nomination and probably would not have beaten SWMNBN in the general, while simultaneously giving up on a project that he thinks can affect real change in America. I watched most of yesterday’s workshops online and the ideas and problem-identification all made sense– not partisan sense, but common sense. I think he could have more of an impact staying out, pushing his ideas at the grassroots level, influencing Congressional races, mayors, states and eventually the Beltway. If he runs and loses, I think his legitimacy would be hurt, despite the strength of his ideas. Newt’s place in the race now: absent, but not gone.
It’s no secret that I’m a William Hague fan. His moral clarity would be an asset to the UK and the world, and his brand of political theater is rivaled by few. For quite some time now, I’ve been hoping for and even predicting a Hague comeback in which he re-gains his position as leader of the British Conservative Party, wins a general election, and moves into Number Ten. I’m happy to say this idea is no longer far-fetched. In fact, he is now favored to be the next Tory leader.
It’s true that Hague lost badly to Tony Blair’s Labour Party in 2001, but it wasn’t really his fault. Blair was a phenomenal and wildly popular politician in 2001. Hague on the other hand, took over the Conservative Party after its worst defeat in over a century and presided over them while they divided beyond belief. If he does get a second chance, I have no doubt he would win.
The following clip is a humorous exchange between Hague and former Deputy Prime Minster John Prescott (think of a belligerent and funny Ted Kennedy without the bridge incident) from about a year and a half ago. Hague was filling in for David Cameron at the time. Maybe next time he’ll be replacing him.
Today is the second day of Newt Gingrich’s “American Solutions for Winning the Future.” The opening of the conference Thursday was quite inspirational and full of ideas and possibilities. One of the things I love about Newt, is that he speaks a language I understand: the language of history and historical perspective. This conference and this afternoon’s workshops are all about finding solutions to America’s big problems. Surprisingly, the American people, according to the American Solutions polls of a diverse group of 6000 people asking in-depth revealing questions, have super majority opinions on:
wanting English as our official government language (85%)
solutions to our nation’s problems must start at the grassroots level outside Washington (84%)
change must happen (90%) and that government needs significant transformation (56%)
America has shared values (80%)
private sector solutions are better than government ones on Social Security and Health Care (80%)
long-term solutions trump short political quick-fixes (92%), etc.
I’ve already posted my feelings about America and our feelings about change and which political party can take the initiative better than the other. But Newt spoke the language of history to indicate that when the American people get fickle like they are today, they send a clear message to the ruling class in Washington: “Change or we’ll defeat you.”
Newt said this attitude has been present many times in US history and is present today:
The Federalists (1780s)
The Jeffersonians (Early 1800s)
The Jacksonians (1820s-30s)
The Lincoln Republicans (1860s-70s)
The Progressives (1900s-10s)
The New Deal Democrats (1930s-40s)
The Reagan Republicans (by extension the Contract with America) (1980s, 1994-5)
Those government officials embraced the public’s demand that the system change in order to accommodate the new challenges of the era. In all of these periods, the American people demanded that their government change the way it does things: some of these periods saw a decrease in government action, others an increase. Yet, in all of them the government had to change to the detriment of the political party not willing to listen: the Federalist and Whig Parties even went extinct! Is Newt making too big a deal about this? Is there really a national desire to make government work again? I think there is, and his polling data and historical perspective are consistent with the desire of the American people to embrace change. What kind of change? Well, that’s why Newt’s putting on these and future workshops– to at least start a serious dialogue.
In a “non-binding” resolution, the Iranian puppet parliament has labeled the CIA and the US Army “terrorist organizations.” I guess my brother is a terrorist, then. I guess the world’s beacon of freedom, trying to spread democracy, self-rule, and extend globalization’s reach creating a more interdependent, and thereby united, international community is a terrorist organization, but an oppressive religious theocracy which wants to have a new Holocaust while denying the old one, which bans dozens of political parties that it doesn’t like, which sponsors known terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and wages a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and Israel from Lebanon and Syria… well they aren’t. I happen to disagree with that subtle distinction.
Iran’s puppet parliament is only doing this in response to Bush and Congress classifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization because of the terroristic activities of the IRG. I’m sure that there are lefty-loons who would defend viewing US soldiers and CIA as terrorists, since they view the American military as the source of the world’s problems, not the solution in most cases. I wonder if Mahmoud’s puppets used the idea of a “non-binding” resolution to stand in solidarity with the Democrats, who love to grandstand without any teeth to stand behind their convictions. Probably not.
This is rich. John Edwards has criticized Rush Limbaugh for using the phrase “phony soldiers”when describing the only soldiers liberals actually support. The soldier in question was Jesse MacBeth, a soldier from Tacoma who was sentenced to five months in prison for lying about war atrocities that never happened, the scope of his own service, and collecting benefits he wasn’t entitled to. According to Limbaugh, his statement had nothing to do with anti-war soldiers. His comments concerned one soldier, the convict MacBeth. Presumably, what Limbaugh meant by “phony soldiers” was soldiers who initially serve and then do something to disgrace the uniform. You know, people like MacBeth, John Kerry, and Benedict Arnold.
I think John Edwards has some nerve accusing anyone else, especially a pro-military stalwart like Limbaugh, of not supporting our soldiers after he voted to send our troops to war, only to turn around and vote against funding them while they were in harm’s way. I wonder what Iraq War veterans think of John Edwards? Funny how CNN and CBS haven’t run any polls on that subject lately. Then again, I think the lack of media polls on what Iraq War veterans think about the left tells us all we need to know.
What disgusts those of us who either know or are directly related to soldiers who have served in Iraq are people like Jesse MacBeth and John Edwards.
In my own personal experience, I have met people, including many liberals, that have said the most racist things. The recent debate on illegal immigration is an example of this latent racist idea of accepting and keeping an economic underclass happily doing America’s nasty jobs. Does this and more overt kinds of racism come from anger, from a sense of superiority, or from stupidity and ignorance? While I can’t see into people’s hearts, I can hear John Edwards’ own mouth on his perception of the plight of America’s young inner-city black population.
On an MTV/Myspace forum last night, Edwards spouted this gem about how to stop inner-city kids from engaging in violence:
“We start with the President of the United States saying to America, ‘we cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.'”
John Edwards was assuming quite a bit with this statement: that young blacks are criminals, that more of them will be criminals in the future, and the only way to solve the problem is through our government. He was probably exaggerating to make a point, though I can’t see into his heart. Bad move either way. Bad solution too, considering that since 1964 big government has redistributed through taxes at least 3.5 trillion dollars from the wealthy to help the poor– it might be time to admit that the “War on Poverty” has been a miserable failure, redeploy, and cut-and-run out of there. Most of these programs were to help the impoverished inner-city minorities. Yet, after all this time and money, the poverty rate in the inner-city has changed little in 40 years.
Yet, Edward’s sentiment on blacks and black crime is not even true, not will it ever be true in this country, and to suggest it with a straight face in front of a serious audience is horrible in my opinion, even if it was exaggerating to make a point (that aside, MTV did delve into Mr. Clinton’s underwear preferences once– so much for the venue). Luckily, he’s not a serious candidate anyway. This kind of race-baiting hyperbole is symptomatic of what’s poisoning our political discourse while preying on the fears of others.
For those unfamiliar with Johnson, he is a Tory who looks like Doc Brown, writes like Ann Coulter, and is as entertaining as Bob Dornan. He may not be in the same mold as many American conservatives (e.g. he opposes the war in Iraq War), but his habit of attacking the media and nanny state leftists in ways that will have you on the floor laughing makes his campaign worth following. His celebrity status also gives him a reasonable chance of defeating the repulsive Livingstone.
Even if you’re not usually interested in what our British Conservative friends are up to, be sure to check out Boris’ website every now and then for some thought-provoking commentary and even some cheap laughs. You might not always agree with him, but you will appreciate his approach. He would make a much better Mayor than Red Ken. I hope he wins.
In case you were wondering, She Who Must Not Be Named is an honest to goodness flip-flopper on the really important issue of torture/advanced interrogation techniques. Last night in the New Hampshire Democrat debate she decided to rely on the MSM’s penchant for ignoring anything she has said before the moment she is in front of you. Bad move. Tim Russert was a little more shrewd when asking the field about the “ticking time-bomb” scenario, taking her to task about her previous statements on torture.
When pushed about the “ticking time-bomb” scenario she said in October that “if we’re going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law.” This happened to be her husband’s position, as well as her stated position until last night when O’Bama and Edwards got all lefty on her.
So last night her new position was: “It cannot be American policy, period.” No? Not at all? Even while the bomb’s ticking in an American city? No Jack Bauer to call… period? Boy, I sure want her to lead my country in a War on Terror!
Pandering? Yes. Caught in a flip-flop? Yes. Nice. Now, will the Republicans run with this? Who knows? Maybe the Republicans will fear her like her opponents do or maybe they’ll seize the opportunity.
Simply put, teaching gay fairy tales to second graders seems obscene to me. My problem with this story and its fallout is that I believe that kids should still have some sexual innocence before they turn eight. The story “King & King” is not surprisingly a Dutch tale that was translated into English and read to a second grade class in Lexington, Massachusetts. By the way, teaching it was upheld by a liberal Massachusetts judge that was cool with teaching material, even though parents were not happy with it.
Polly Prissy Pants himself, John Edwards, doesn’t seem to have a problem with it; for that matter, neither did any of the Democrats. In fact Edwards seems to think that little second graders should understand the plight of gays and feel part of society’s guilt about the issue, while at the same time not wanting to force kids to make a biased decision about the issue. In last night’s Democrat Debate, Barack O’Bama said that his wife teaches their own 6- and 9-year old daughters about gay marriage, while She Who Must Not Be Named actually had the most sensible (if coached) answer, letting the parents decide on that issue.
Mitt Romney was alarmed that the Dems would not object to young kids being taught about such things at such a young age. I’m with Mitt. At least leave it for middle school health class when they have the capacity to at least contemplate the basic underlying issue. Is it OK to expose kids to any kind of sexuality in Grade 2, especially when most of them still believe the difference between boys and girls is long hair? Essentially, morals aside, what is the educational value of teaching concepts and ideas to kids who have no idea what you’re talking about beyond a vague sense of distinction, except to assert one’s own extreme political ideology to young children?
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World has another point of view that may show where we’d go without getting some sense here: just have children play sexual games with each other, have sex with whoever they want in adolescence, and take drugs to numb them until they die sometime in their 30s before they get too old and wrinkly. Scary, but impossible? Just a thought.
Newt Gingrich’s “American Solutions for Winning the Future” conference begins tonight at 7pm EDT from Atlanta, Georgia. The purpose of this conference is to get ideas from all over the country on ways of solving America’s many problems. Obviously, this will have a right-of-center spin, because like I have been saying for years, the real, truly innovative ideas and problem identification is occurring on the right in American politics, not on the left. The right’s views have not been flawless, but at least they are talking about solutions, not the same ol’ inside the box solutions. The box is broken and the people are losing faith in their government’s ability to function properly or effectively.
The left wants to dwell on a 43-year old 1964 big government playbook and a 35-year old 1972 anti-war playbook, which they think may finally come into its own in 2008. It is from the right that Social Security reform, tax reform, being on offense in the War on Terror, and borders-first notions are coming from. Newt’s venue tonight and Saturday afternoon seeks to get the dialogue moving on these and other important issues. All the findings and ideas for the workshops will be sent to the major candidates of both parties for their perusal.
I think it’s worth checking out if you’re able to see it. Check the site for local listings tonight and Saturday afternoon.
Wow! Apparently Katie Couric opposes the Iraq War. Who knew? It’s a good thing she successfully hid her bias throughout the years in all of those informative and objective pieces on the conflict. If she wasn’t so talented at leaving her worldview at the door, her ratings at CBS would never have been as high as they . . .
The military junta of Burma (which they call Myanmar) has begun a crackdown of pro-democracy forces, including a protest march led by Buddhist monks. The catalyst of the latest popular outburst was a huge increase in fuel costs that have begun to hurt the average person in a country that has been politically unstable since 1962. The ruling junta had better be careful gunning down monks; the martyr effect could make the next few days very volatile in the Southeast Asia nation and we all remember what happened in Vietnam back in 1963 when the Buddhist monks fought back.
Images of the bloodied monks are being plastered all over the world. America has promised to stiffen sanctions, 27 members of the European Union have also condemned the act, but only China stands in the way of a swift UN Security Council Resolution to confront the Burmese Myanmar military government over their actions. If China condemns the junta, then China’s own oppressive domestic practices will be called into question. If anything, China wants economic and social stability in the run-up to the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. As such, China and Burma are huge trading partners in the region. With China it’s all about image and money over the rights of the people to assemble and express their grievances.
Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather (or Dan Rather-biased as he was called by conservatives throughout his CBS career) may potentially call both Bush 41 and Dubya as witnesses in Rather’s lawsuit against CBS. Rather claims he was “squeezed out” of CBS following the blow-back from those false Mary Mapes-inspired National Guard memos leading up to the 2004 Election. The memos were obviously not authentic, written some time later due to the specific Times New Roman font that was used on the memos not being in existence at the time they were alleged to have been typed. CBS and Rather should have vetted them out much more thoroughly, not listened to Mary Mapes (whose Abu Graib story, according to Bill Sammon in Strategery, directly led to Zarqawi’s justification for beheading Nick Berg), and kept his opinions out of journalism in this case. Four CBS higher-ups were let go as a result of this episode. The documents were falsified, run anyway, and did permanent damage to the journalistic integrity of the CBS News organization.
Old news?
Nah, this is a fallen Mainstream Media Icon! Rather wanted the memos to be real, almost willing them to be real before our very eyes and in the face of mounting evidence against their integrity. It was both sad and comic. He still wants them to be real, ready to hold back tears and pine over his failed search for the truth in interviews to this day. He even thinks it might take down Bush, or drag him into the mud. What’s Bush going to say that would change anything anyway? He was there, did his hours, and missed his other appointments… because he already logged the hours and didn’t need to show up, which was an acceptable practice at the time. It’s not that complicated. Too much for Dan Rather, though, who’s apparently still paying the price for his liberal media bias.
In an uncharacteristic amount of French diplomatic assertiveness and clarity, President Sarkozy used his first speech in front of the UN General Assembly to get real with Iran and their nuclear ambitions. The line of the speech in my opinion was, “Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war.” To Sarko, a nuclear Iran would create an unacceptable risk to regional stability. He seems to recognize what appeasement looks like. While he’s not ready to start bombing, his “firmness and dialogue” approach is a far cry from the mamby-pamby appeasement-laden Chirac government. He’s leaving the door open for sanctions to really work– without any teeth, however, nothing will stop Iran from getting nukes and threatening to use them.
A grim mood has gripped the country. No, it isn’t the weather. She Who Must Not Be Named made the rounds yesterday and appeared on just about every one of the major networks in her bid to trick the American people into voting for her. If you think the resulting dark mist just clearing up now is bad, just imagine if she is allowed to assume the most powerful position on earth and usher in a new era of “always winter but never Christmas.” OK. Enough with the Rowling and Lewis imagery.
SWMNBN did indeed make the rounds yesterday and showed that her arrogance clearly knows no bounds. Her recent refusal to condemn Moveon’s disgraceful attack on General Petraeus is common knowledge by now, as is her vote against the Senate resolution condemning the ad. Unfortunately, that didn’t stop her from deceptively trying to create the impression that she is not one pea in Moveon’s pod. Staying true to her love of buffets, she tried to have her cake and eat it too. Too bad for her this isn’t the 1990s anymore. The networks and CNN aren’t the only games in town.
Several Labour MPs are calling on Gordon Brown to call a snap election. With Labour riding high in the polls, many marginal backbenchers realize that their best chance of keeping their jobs is to fight an election battle before people remember why it is they were disaffected with Labour in the first place. After all, the Brown bounce can’t last forever, can it?
It wasn’t too long ago that David Cameron’s Conservatives were riding high in the polls and openly salivating over the prospect of running against Gordon Brown. Labour’s popularity during Tony Blair’s final days in Downing Street were nothing to brag about and Cameron seemingly succeeded in redefining the Conservative brand. Obviously our Conservative friends expected the new Prime Minister to enjoy a some sort of bounce after becoming Prime Minister but unfortunately for them, what went up still hasn’t come down. In fact, Labour’s lead over the Conservatives has increased since Brown took over back in July. It just might make sense for Brown to call an election even though he only recently achieved his life-long ambition.
But there’s the rub. Although Brown’s best chance to lead Labour to victory is right now, victory is never certain in politics. I think Gordon might be a little reluctant to risk his life-long ambition. The longer he waits though, the more likely he is to lose. This is quite a dilemma. Whatever Gordon decides to do, it would be wise to keep that referendum promise. Otherwise, the British map could turn bluer than people think.
Iranian President (and radical Islamist rube) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University today. Did they have the right to invite him? Yes. Should the United States have restricted Mahmoud’s visa to the hotel, UN building, and airport? Yes. Should Columbia have invited him? No, I don’t think so. There’s a difference between embracing different viewpoints and hearing the contrarian point of view in the interest of an intellectual exchange of ideas, with giving a microphone to a man who’s the head of a government that has funded the killing of hundreds of US soldiers, ostensibly denies the Holocaust and threatens the world with potential nuclear violence. It’s like Hitler and Khrushchev all rolled up into one!
To begin, he knocked Lee Bollinger, who gave him a chilly reception. Fair enough, but part of the deal was to be asked tough questions.
His country does not support terrorism, while America does support terrorism against Iran of all countries.
The Holocaust is a myth and more research needs to go into whether or not it truly happened.
Homosexuality is a “phenomenon” that does not happen in his country. The CBC thinks otherwise.
The US and Iran can be buddies, but it is the US that has to change, not Iran.
9/11 could have been an inside job… or not. He’s not sure yet.
“We love all nations.” Oh yeah? Ducking the issue on his previous statements about the destruction of Israel, he kept focusing on the Palestinians. To those of you who don’t know, the Palestinians are undeservedly considered the white-trash slack-jawed yokels of the Arab world: no one wants them, no one likes them, and they embarrassed the Arab world until about 1948. However, they are a great way to deflect the suffering of one’s own people for a scapegoated hatred of the Jews. By relating things to the Palestinians, Mahmoud is prodding the Arab nations, who despize Iran anyway since they’re Persian not Arab, Shia not Sunni, and going nuclear not getting along.
Mahmoud’s visit has caused many people to have a strong reaction. His Ground Zero talk inflamed people all over, perhaps even more than the Columbia speech. Americans view Ground Zero as sacred, hallowed ground and a known terrorist sponsor wanting to visit is obscene to many. I wouldn’t let him if I were in the authorities because, amongst other reasons, I couldn’t account for his safety. Word has it he’s not going to go despite the chatter.
As for Columbia University: I hope the alumni have been paying attention, especially if they donate.
This is one of the things that really bugs me about the United Nations: Iraq is showing real signs of improvement, so the UN’s thinking about increasing their presence in Iraq. So, let me get this straight: the country’s security is noticeably better, so they feel like “the time for determined, collective action has come.” That sounds like sending in the fire brigade once the house is almost finished burning down, since they don’t want their folks to be in any danger. What’s the point?
Iraq has needed real help over the last four years, but the UN ran away once they were hit by terrorists back in 2003. Why have an international organization if they aren’t going to help when people need it? Oh, the UN is there (with huge amounts of American help) every time there’s an earthquake, tsunami or disease epidemic, but on security issues (you know, the issue that matters most to people in the long-run) the UN has a horrible record. They are watching Darfur’s genocide, just like they watched Rwanda, East Timor, and Cambodia. The UN acquiesces while al Qaeda kills civilians all over Iraq, and during all the Sunni/Shia violence, ethnic cleansing and refugee crisis, etc.
How is one to respect an organization that is supposed to be there to assist in international security and stability, while they watch Iraq crumble because of a “you-broke-it-you-fix-it” grudge against the United States? Good thing the Iraqis have eventually gotten serious about their own security. I’m glad the UN decided that an Iraq life is worth something and have decided to send in help, but it’s too little too late in my opinion. Thanks, but for what: deciding that being a cheerleader can do more good than strapping on some pads and playing in the game until you’re sure you’re going to win? Tell that to the million dead in Rwanda or the thousands dead in Darfur, and gauge how they feel about the UN’s policy of bloody acquiescence.
He prays in the well of the United Nations for the coming of the Twelfth Imam, denies the holocaust, kidnaps British sailors, arms and funds terrorist organizations, and threatens the to wipe Israel off the map. For this and many other reasons, the U.S. State Department has designated Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a terrorist. For some other unknown reasons, Columbia University designated him as an ideal participant in an open forum where “controversial ideas” may be freely discussed. One wonders if they would have invited Adolph Hitler to give one of his infamous choreographed speeches.
Open debate and discussion is a great thing, even when one plans to advocate a point of view most would consider outside the bounds of reasonableness. The same cannot be said a maniacal tyrant who is such a threat to the world that even continental Europe is concerned. Perhaps Columbia University really believes their invitation to Ahmadinejad was done solely to foster open dialogue. I merely wish that they would extend the same courtesy to conservatives concerned about illegal immigration that they show to a state sponsor of terrorism.
UPDATE: I should know by now to always check out Hot Air before discussing liberal insanity. The answer to my rhetorical question is “yes.” Columbia would invite Hitler.
It’s hard to tell what’s really going on regarding the events of August 2006 which occurred around Jena High School in the small town of Jena, Louisiana. Louisiana has been on the civil rights radar since the charges of FEMA’s “racist” approach to Katrina (no such racism in Mississippi, though, which also has the nation’s highest African-American population, but a Republican governor unlike Louisiana). I’ve often wondered where Reverend Al and Jesse Jackson were all those years when New Orleans was the crime capital of the US.
Anyway, apparently there was a meeting tree on campus in Jena where white students usually congregated. A black student asked if it was OK for his fellow black students to congregate under the same tree. The principal said yes. The next day, nooses appeared on that tree. Not cool. Three white students were suspended as a result. Yet, tension continued to rise between the black and white population of Jena High School, which ultimately lead to the beating of Justin Barker, a white student by six black students. Barker was treated and released form the hospital fairly quickly. When the black students were charged with attempted second-degree murder, that’s when this whole ordeal began to draw national attention. All but one of the black students had their charges reduced. Mychal Bell is one of the black students still charged with aggravated second degree battery, but he was only 16 at the time of the beatings, meaning he was a legal juvenile. His story has become the civil rights lightning rod, which is drawing all the national attention.
So, should these black students have been charged as adults in the first place? Do you charge the white students who tied the nooses with a hate crime? How about the retaliatory beating of Barker? Was that a hate crime too? Are 15 and 16 year old students capable of knowingly committing an adult crime like a mob beating or calculating the commission of a hate crime? If so should they be charged as such?
Tough issues. I don’t really have any good answers. The white kids should have gotten suspended and were, but the Jena Six should also have been suspended with some minor charges slapped against them for battery– that’s only fair. They did do wrong, yet the punishment should match the crime. We do that in New Jersey– if a kids gets into a gang fight outside of school, he/she could get 9-10 days suspension, police charges, and probably do some community service. Had Justin Barker been hospitalized with brain damage, then nail the Jena Six with the original charge, but it was excessive from this outsider’s incomplete point of view. Yet, the original charges were also mostly thrown out. Reverend Al and Jesse Jackson have a habit of coming to the forefront with selective evidence (take Florida 2000 and the debunked issues of racism during the original vote and recount) and making a really big deal. Unfortunately, their appearances to some in white America seem to be becoming obligatory and knee-jerk like two perpetually ambulance-chasing lawyers, whether or not the issue really is minor. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
New York Governor Democrat Eliot Spitzer cheered his move today to give access to all illegal aliens who do not have driver’s licenses, licenses by not requiring proof of citizenship or a social security number in the state of New York. Yet another reward that a Northeastern, liberal state is giving to those who have broken the law and burden the education and health care system, while keeping real wages low for millions of low-wage citizen-workers around the nation.
The illegal aliens are not stupid. They’re in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington (state), Oregon and Idaho, etc. for a reason. If they stayed in Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Texas, they’d be booted real quick. So, word on the ground has it that the illegals try to be taken as far away from the border as possible, thinking that the locals in the Northeast and Northwest will not make such a big deal about deporting them since the borders are so far away and such an abstract thing to natives so far away from the southern border.
Hmm… then, you add the bleeding heart. To the illegal’s surprise, the Northeastern and Northwestern states have actually accommodated them with sanctuary cities (NYC, Hightstown, NJ, etc.), with in-state tuition breaks, with credit card access, and now in New York’s case, with driver’s licenses. They’re even making their way into the health care debate. Those 45-50 million uninsured Americans the Dems keep talking about happen to include about 12-15 million illegal aliens whose healthcare the Dems want our taxpayer money to subsidize! And getting all this while breaking the law–it almost sounds nice being an alien. The Eliot Spitzer’s of the world astound me; they’re either severely dimwitted or politically shrewd, hoping for the day when illegals get the vote– and you know what party they’d come out to support, which kind of makes one think.
President Bush commented on politics for a change during a news conference today when he said of the Moveon.org “General Betray-Us” ad:
“I felt like the ad was an attack not only on Gen. Petraeus but on the U.S. military, and I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that ad…. [and that] most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, than they are of irritating the United States military.”
“For MoveOn.org and their left-wing allies to brand General Petraeus a traitor and a liar crossed a historic line of decency. It was a despicable political attack by a radical left-wing interest group.”
Moveon is the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans. It shows how the left-wing fringe really feels, which embarrasses many mainstream Democrats who have already criticized the ad. But what are the Dems to do about all this? Most of them voted for the condemnation, but Moveon is an enormously wealthy and powerful liberal interest group. The Dems can’t knock them or disagree with Moveon’s big-picture for fear of facing a Ned Lamont-style fight in the primaries. If the Republicans play their cards right and stigmatize Moveon in the popular culture, they can cause further strain and rifts to appear within the Democrat Party. Barack O’Bama coincidentally missed the vote along with fellow Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden. Predictably She Who Must Not Be Named voted against the condemnation along with Chris Dodd. Again, the Republicans can continue to criticize the Dems and keep the story in the news another few days, maybe stretching it into yet another Sunday talk cycle.
The result: the repeal of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the enactment of special treatment to a large criminal element at the behest of the federal government. So, here again, the illegals are being given the chance to jump ahead of everyone else in line, this time to get green cards for themselves and their parents. It’s stealth amnesty if I ever saw it. Apparently, the Dems either think our memories are really really short, we’re disinterested, we were faking it last summer, or we’re all just dumb. As for the Republicans, they had better be on the right side of this one this time or many checkbooks might stay cold again next year.
People’s disaffection with government could result in a really bizarre election next year. Not every poll has Congress and the President this low, but nearly all show very low numbers for both Congress and Bush. Many people are also pretty sick of the dog and pony shows we’ve had to endure with all the incessant debates and policy parsing all year. I don’t mind them, but the nation seems to be put off by their frequency and yawning news on the same-ol’ candidates saying predictable things. I agree with Newt Gingrich (did I say deja vu?) here that there is an opportunity for true civic and political renewal in the eyes of the American people. We’re yearning for it and either party has the potential for seizing the opportunity. Newt’s American Solutions Conference begins on September 27 through the 29th and asks the American people to come up with real ideas about fixing America’s problems and creates a forum to discuss these ideas with people around the nation. According to Newt’s book Winning the Future, securing the borders, English-only in government, and the need to fix Social Security and the tax code are issues where 80%+ of the American people can agree need fixing or doing– why doesn’t a party sit down and try to figure out how to do these things for real, or at least talk about outside-the-box solutions? The solutions will not be easy or even be accomplished in the typical Washington manner.
I beat the Newt-drum because I’m concerned. I believe that the Republicans have a built-in handicap next year and really need help if they are to keep the White House and regain Congress. I also believe that the Millennials are going to vote in decent numbers in 2008, as many of them will be old enough to start paying taxes, have real jobs, and buy their first condo. They are a voting block that can still be persuaded by either party in my opinion– and may keep that voting pattern for life. They are a group that doesn’t remember government working well in their lifetimes and I believe would embrace a clearly stated view if it made sense, even if it meant sacrifice. I believe that the Republican Party has a better chance of seizing the opportunity if they can convince the American people that they want real change and have a real, starkly contrasting vision than the Democrats do. These kinds of common-sense changes are already pregnant in the party’s basic philosophies, but aren’t yet making the case. Look to Sarkozy’s campaign model, back to Reagan’s philosophical foundations, mix in new ways of thinking about our national problems and their solutions and I think we’ll have a shot next year to do great things.
Without too much fanfare, Rhode Island’s favorite ex-cokehead Republican, Lincoln Chafee, decided to bolt the party last “June or July.” Saying, “It’s not my party anymore,” begs the question: when was it ever your party? He’s currently unaffiliated, but that isn’t much of a change either. He was the definition of a RINO which is what prompted me to call and get on the Sean Hannity Radio Show a few years ago about his waffling on the issues and his lack of reliability back before the 2002 Election. He wasn’t a good Republican, and could not even survive the one thing that I used to believe was why he was a Republican at all– to avoid a primary fight. Due to his ridiculously RINO status, in 2006 he got a primary fight and lost the general.
Yet, the national party supported Chafee over former Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, who was much more conservative, because it was deemed that Chafee was the only Republican who could have won in Rhode Island. Laffey has since said that this kind of philosophical approach by the Republicans depressed turnout in 2006 not all over the place. I have to agree: I donated less money in 2006 than I have since I was in college, even writing to the local and national Republicans to complain and explain why they didn’t get my cash. With Chafee gone, the party is not going to suffer in Rhode Island (or anywhere) as this really looks like sour grapes.
She Who Must Not Be Named has no chance of tricking the country into electing her to the Presidency next year if she does not successfully contrast herself with the more radical elements of the Democrat Party. Let’s be honest; that was the real reason she voted the right way on the Iraq War resolution in the first place. After her primary coronation, count on the media to use that vote to portray her as a centrist hawk who courageously stood up to her party’s kook fringe. It will be her “Sister Soljah moment.”
Some are already trying to make that case. Fred Siegel is arguing that Rudy Giuliani’s attack against SWMNBN for her recent failure to disavow Moveon.org’s disgraceful ad against General Petraeus in the New York Slimes will, in addition to bolstering the Mayor’s chances, serve to provide SWMNBN with the foil she needs to appear mainstream next November. The problem with this argument is that Rudy’s shot across the bow does nothing of the sort.
SWMNBN’s silence on the Moveon.org ad will remind the country that deep down, she is the same left-wing radical who “graced” Wellesley’s campus during the 1960s. The fact that she supported the war could have helped her shed her radical image if she had not switched her position and reverted back to her old hippie (and hippy) ways. SWMNBN’s refusal to disavow Moveon will not cause voters to see the two as separate. Now that the Soros group and opportunistic candidate are singing the same tune, people will see them as two peas in a pod. Or to borrow a phrase from a famous fictional depiction of SWMNBN’s beloved 1960s; they are like peas and carrots.
Did you see this video from a University of Florida Kerry forum? It’s all over the Internet, so I thought I’d contribute to the media over this fellow. He reminds me of what’s wrong with some Millennials: he seems to understand that he has the right to free speech, but somebody forgot to tell him that he doesn’t have a right to be heard. His freedom to ask Kerry the “Skull and Bones” question was fine, but when the police asked him to move on, he made a big deal, as if his rights were being infringed upon. I think the cops behaved coolly, calmly, and gave this kid every way out. But, he chose to whine and cuss and make a big fuss in a public forum by disturbing the peace.
The reason why we have cops at these things is to protect our officials, and in this case the guest of the University of Florida, John Kerry, from possible assassins or violence by wack-jobs in the audience. It was a big problem in the 1960s and ’70s which has decreased dramatically because of increased security and better methods. When this kid (not a small kid either) was asked by the cops to calm down and stop resisting while he was on his back, he stops for a second… then turns over again and continues! So, the cops hit him with a taser gun. His whines turn to shrieks. Am I supposed to feel sorry for this kid? Well, I don’t after he resisted arrest. We used to respect the cops, for fear that they might have to use force on us. It was a good deterrent. Well, this kid is learning why one shouldn’t push the cops too far. I think they acted appropriately.
Axis of Right 