Served a short stint in the military.
Attended law school for a while but didn't graduate. Passed the bar exam and set up a successful law practice practicing consumer law -- defending clients against creditors.
Served in a state legislature, but refused to serve as attorney general and also refused a position on the Supreme Court and a nomination to be Secretary of War.
Ran for House of Representatives and won but served a very short time.
Can you imagine Congress approving this nomination for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? I doubt it. The media would complain about "inexperience." Congress would poke and probe into motivations and declarations made years ago.
But his name was John Marshall and his impact on American constitutional law is peerless. He served for more than 34 years and participated in more than 1000 decisions. He authored over 500 opinions.
Today he is recognized as the single most important figure on constitutional law. Marshall's legacy resounds through the great issues of contemporary America.
Some of the best justices who have served on the Supreme Court were not judges before their appointments. Justice Renquist was one, and there were at least 10 others.
Other Presidents have been allowed to select justices and most have been approved without the kind of childish wrangling we've seen the past few years. It's all political grandstanding for the gullible media. And the nation is denied some exceptional legal minds (and public servants) because of it.
Monday, October 10
The West Wing vs Commander in Chief
I am no fan of television (with the possible exceptions of HGTV, the History Channel, CSpan, and sometimes the Discovery Channel) but I have to admit a fascination with and possibly a compulsion to watch "The West Wing." I discovered the show when I was flat on my back recovering from surgery and became addicted. That's the right word, too -- addicted.
Never mind that the show promotes a Democratic agenda. Of course I relish their mistakes: having Air Force One leave Nashville after the President visits Oak Ridge, for example. Poor research there, as was President Bartlett's speech in defense of homosexuals which relied solely on Old Testament references. And there have been others but, interestingly, not nearly as many in the three years or so of episodes that I've watched as there were in the first episode of the new TV series "Commander In Chief."
One advantage "The West Wing" has over the upstart is that they used former White House staffers like Dee Dee Myers as consultants. That makes a HUGE difference.
It's been claimed that "Commander In Chief's" premise that a woman can be President reveals a rising American controversy. What's controversial about that? After all, we've already had a woman as candidate for Vice President. (Remember Geraldine Ferraro?) And in fiction, last year "The West Wing" gave a woman the position of Chief of Staff -- a position much more powerful than the average American voter realizes.
"Commander In Chief" is, however, a thinly veiled (she was mentioned by name more than five times in the first episode) apologist for Hillary Clinton's candidacy in 2008. And if the first episode was any indication, it's not going to do her any good.
For example, the show is rife with feminist concepts, speeches and issues. As soon as she takes the oath of office, President Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis) initiates military action in Nigeria to rescue a woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. She does not refer to the UN, nor does she confer with advisors or her Cabinet. She comes on like a dictator, inflicting her will mindlessly, heedlessly and without any thoughtful consideration of repercussions or results. This does, indeed, sound a lot like Hillary Clinton!
Something like this pales in the face of real crises facing the USA. Although it's based on reality -- there have been cases where Nigerian women were sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. So far all have been overturned on appeal and no executions for adultery have actually been carried out. It doesn't take an expert in foreign policy to imagine the political fallout from such a unilateral action by a US President!
The cast is mediocre. I suppose Geena Davis can't help looking like someone just socked her in the mouth but you can't help but shudder at the thought of such mediocre TV actors running the country! The writing is especially poor and the premise that a woman President is unusual is silly. Also, the title of the fourth episode seems like a barometer of the shallowness of the show: "Walk Softly and Carry A Lipstick." There is no depth in this show and no passion. Another thing that is lacking is that sense of awe and respect for the American system that's in the West Wing. The fast, intelligent repartee is missing, too.
Women now run corporations, serve in Congress, serve in the military and more. The only problem with fielding a woman for President is that there are so few qualified women out there.
In "Commander In Chief" we can get an idea of what it would mean to America if we let modern feminists loose in the White House. An unmitigated disaster.
Never mind that the show promotes a Democratic agenda. Of course I relish their mistakes: having Air Force One leave Nashville after the President visits Oak Ridge, for example. Poor research there, as was President Bartlett's speech in defense of homosexuals which relied solely on Old Testament references. And there have been others but, interestingly, not nearly as many in the three years or so of episodes that I've watched as there were in the first episode of the new TV series "Commander In Chief."
One advantage "The West Wing" has over the upstart is that they used former White House staffers like Dee Dee Myers as consultants. That makes a HUGE difference.
It's been claimed that "Commander In Chief's" premise that a woman can be President reveals a rising American controversy. What's controversial about that? After all, we've already had a woman as candidate for Vice President. (Remember Geraldine Ferraro?) And in fiction, last year "The West Wing" gave a woman the position of Chief of Staff -- a position much more powerful than the average American voter realizes.
"Commander In Chief" is, however, a thinly veiled (she was mentioned by name more than five times in the first episode) apologist for Hillary Clinton's candidacy in 2008. And if the first episode was any indication, it's not going to do her any good.
For example, the show is rife with feminist concepts, speeches and issues. As soon as she takes the oath of office, President Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis) initiates military action in Nigeria to rescue a woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. She does not refer to the UN, nor does she confer with advisors or her Cabinet. She comes on like a dictator, inflicting her will mindlessly, heedlessly and without any thoughtful consideration of repercussions or results. This does, indeed, sound a lot like Hillary Clinton!
Something like this pales in the face of real crises facing the USA. Although it's based on reality -- there have been cases where Nigerian women were sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. So far all have been overturned on appeal and no executions for adultery have actually been carried out. It doesn't take an expert in foreign policy to imagine the political fallout from such a unilateral action by a US President!
The cast is mediocre. I suppose Geena Davis can't help looking like someone just socked her in the mouth but you can't help but shudder at the thought of such mediocre TV actors running the country! The writing is especially poor and the premise that a woman President is unusual is silly. Also, the title of the fourth episode seems like a barometer of the shallowness of the show: "Walk Softly and Carry A Lipstick." There is no depth in this show and no passion. Another thing that is lacking is that sense of awe and respect for the American system that's in the West Wing. The fast, intelligent repartee is missing, too.
Women now run corporations, serve in Congress, serve in the military and more. The only problem with fielding a woman for President is that there are so few qualified women out there.
In "Commander In Chief" we can get an idea of what it would mean to America if we let modern feminists loose in the White House. An unmitigated disaster.
Saturday, October 1
God Is A Gentleman
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show by Jane Clayson who asked, (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11), "How could God let something like this happen?""
Anne Graham said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.
And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
It started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.
Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. It has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.
Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages about prayer, Jesus or God, people think twice about sharing. They don't want to "offend."
Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing?
Anne Graham said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.
And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
It started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.
Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. It has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.
Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages about prayer, Jesus or God, people think twice about sharing. They don't want to "offend."
Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing?
MSM, War Protests and Lies
The September 24, 2005 anti-war protest in San Francisco was orchestrated and directed by none other than the North Vietnamese Communists. And the San Francisco Chronicle knew it and didn't report it.
Here they go again: The MSM (mainstream media), caught red-handed in another deception.
Look at the photo the Chronicle published on their web site as part of their report on the protest. Click here for Chronicle page.
It just so happens that someone else took a photo of that same girl at the same protest but this photo shows her environment and the people protesting with her. Click here to see the rest of the picture.
"Because the whole truth -- that the girl was part of a group of naive teenagers recruited by Communist activists to wear terrorist-style bandannas and carry Palestinian flags and obscene placards -- is disturbing, and doesn't conform to the narrative that the Chronicle is trying to promote. By presenting the photo out of context, and only showing the one image that suits its purpose, the Chronicle is intentionally manipulating the reader's impression of the rally, and the rally's intent.
Such tactics -- in the no-man's-land between ethical and unethical -- are commonplace in the media, and have been for decades. It is only now, with the advent of citizen journalism, that we can at last begin to see the whole story and realize that the public has been manipulated like this all along."
History will most likely say that bloggers saved the United States of America -- if, indeed, it can be saved. It may already be too late. . .
Friday, September 30
Higher Prices To Come At Walmart
"More than 300 labor unions and other liberal groups are joining forces for 'Higher Expectations Week,' a series of 1,000 events intended to pressure Wal-Mart to make reforms in such areas as 'affordable health care, corporate responsibility and economic justice.' According to the Wal-Mart Watch website, labor unions taking part in the campaign include the Service Employees International Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers."
Do these people not realize that Walmart doesn't pay for those things, their customers do? Corporations pass along all the corporate and employee taxes they must pay to their customers along with all their other costs -- it's called "overhead." Those "overhead" costs are embedded in the price of everything we buy.
Some of the supporters of these unions are: Other participants in the week-long series include such liberal groups as the Sierra Club, United for a Fair Economy and Pride at Work, as well as local affiliates of the AFL-CIO, the National Organization for Women, the ACLU and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
So what happens when and if they succeed and Walmart has to raise prices to pay for all those "economic justice" costs? Their prices go up and they are no longer competitive in the lower price market. Customers stop coming and the jobs are no more.
Come now, Unions and all you generous Liberals, whose interests are you promoting here? Not the employees. Not the customers. Who?
Do these people not realize that Walmart doesn't pay for those things, their customers do? Corporations pass along all the corporate and employee taxes they must pay to their customers along with all their other costs -- it's called "overhead." Those "overhead" costs are embedded in the price of everything we buy.
Some of the supporters of these unions are: Other participants in the week-long series include such liberal groups as the Sierra Club, United for a Fair Economy and Pride at Work, as well as local affiliates of the AFL-CIO, the National Organization for Women, the ACLU and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
So what happens when and if they succeed and Walmart has to raise prices to pay for all those "economic justice" costs? Their prices go up and they are no longer competitive in the lower price market. Customers stop coming and the jobs are no more.
Come now, Unions and all you generous Liberals, whose interests are you promoting here? Not the employees. Not the customers. Who?
Wednesday, September 14
Roberts, the Supreme Court and Contemporary States' Rights
I recently heard someone say (in a rather snide tone) that if John Roberts should take Chief Justice Rehnquist's place on the Supreme Court, it would be a case of the clerk taking the boss's job. My reaction to that was "so what?" Who better to fill the master's shoes but the apprentice trained at his shop?
One of Chief Justice Rehnquist's legacies is his belief that the Constitution limits Federal power. Throughout his tenure on the Court, he did everything he could to emphasize and reinforce those limitations. Chief Justice Rehnquist understood that respect for federalism does not mean that there is no legitimate role for federal authority in protecting fundamental individual rights and advancing national interests. It simply means that the Constitution must not be interpreted to give the federal government unlimited power.
He came to a court that had traditionally, from the 1930s until 1995, held that the constitutional provision granting Congress the power to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States" gave the federal government unlimited power to regulate anything that might conceivably have an impact on commerce. Many Constitutional experts claimed that this was not only blatant defiance of the Constitution but downright illogical.
Writing for the Court in the 1995 case, United States v. Lopez, Rehnquist amended this judicial error. He reasserted the principle that the Constitution gives Congress only a limited list of "enumerated powers," at the same time giving the states authority in areas where the federal government cannot intrude.
As it progressed, the Rehnquist Court limited Congress' ability to use state governments to advance federal policies and actually limited Congress' power to enable individuals to sue state officials.
Constitutional limits on federal power benefit conservatives and liberals equally, although liberals have traditionally assumed that federalism decisions furthered conservative politics. However, many liberal policies--gay "marriage," for example--have much better political prospects in "blue states" than in Washington.
If we can assume that the apprentice was well trained and tempered by the master, one might also assume that John Roberts would continue to promote that same limitation on Federal power.
Limiting federal power promotes competition between the states and we all benefit from competition. States with unpopular policies lose residents and businesses.
In a nation with strong federal power, there is little room for dissent. You agree with the federal government or you go to another country. When states can go their separate ways on key issues, a wider range of citizen opinions and preferences can be satisfied. If you don't like the policies of your state you can move to another where the laws are more sympathetic with your views.
The present Supreme Court, however, has managed to undermine Justice Rehnquist's legacy with their recent Gonzales v. Raich decision wherein they held that federal law supersedes a California law legalizing medical marijuana. In that decision they gave the Commerce Clause a broad interpretation. Justice Rehnquist and recently retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor each wrote dissenting opinions on the verdict.
Therefore, perhaps the most telling and crucial question that should be asked of Judge Roberts is something like, "How, Sir, do you interpret the role of the federal government as it relates to the contemporary interpretation of states' rights?"
One of Chief Justice Rehnquist's legacies is his belief that the Constitution limits Federal power. Throughout his tenure on the Court, he did everything he could to emphasize and reinforce those limitations. Chief Justice Rehnquist understood that respect for federalism does not mean that there is no legitimate role for federal authority in protecting fundamental individual rights and advancing national interests. It simply means that the Constitution must not be interpreted to give the federal government unlimited power.
He came to a court that had traditionally, from the 1930s until 1995, held that the constitutional provision granting Congress the power to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States" gave the federal government unlimited power to regulate anything that might conceivably have an impact on commerce. Many Constitutional experts claimed that this was not only blatant defiance of the Constitution but downright illogical.
Writing for the Court in the 1995 case, United States v. Lopez, Rehnquist amended this judicial error. He reasserted the principle that the Constitution gives Congress only a limited list of "enumerated powers," at the same time giving the states authority in areas where the federal government cannot intrude.
As it progressed, the Rehnquist Court limited Congress' ability to use state governments to advance federal policies and actually limited Congress' power to enable individuals to sue state officials.
Constitutional limits on federal power benefit conservatives and liberals equally, although liberals have traditionally assumed that federalism decisions furthered conservative politics. However, many liberal policies--gay "marriage," for example--have much better political prospects in "blue states" than in Washington.
If we can assume that the apprentice was well trained and tempered by the master, one might also assume that John Roberts would continue to promote that same limitation on Federal power.
Limiting federal power promotes competition between the states and we all benefit from competition. States with unpopular policies lose residents and businesses.
In a nation with strong federal power, there is little room for dissent. You agree with the federal government or you go to another country. When states can go their separate ways on key issues, a wider range of citizen opinions and preferences can be satisfied. If you don't like the policies of your state you can move to another where the laws are more sympathetic with your views.
The present Supreme Court, however, has managed to undermine Justice Rehnquist's legacy with their recent Gonzales v. Raich decision wherein they held that federal law supersedes a California law legalizing medical marijuana. In that decision they gave the Commerce Clause a broad interpretation. Justice Rehnquist and recently retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor each wrote dissenting opinions on the verdict.
Therefore, perhaps the most telling and crucial question that should be asked of Judge Roberts is something like, "How, Sir, do you interpret the role of the federal government as it relates to the contemporary interpretation of states' rights?"
Saturday, September 10
Katrina: An Unnatural Disaster But No 9/11
We're home. We've traveled all over the Eastern and South Eastern US the past six weeks and had a truly grand time. Even Katrina couldn't spoil our fun, although we were saddened at the tragedy we saw on news broadcasts whenever we happened to chance upon one.
Now that we're back, catching up on laundry and tons of mail while unpacking and rearranging things to make room for new acquisitions, we're catching up on the news, as well, and are amazed at the senseless blame and accusations that seem to have been flying about since the storm hit. What can those people be thinking?
An attack by nature in a single region, predicted for years and with plenty of warning so that citizens could get out of the way is in NO WAY comparable to a pre-meditated attack on United States citizens by an enemy intent on destroying the entire society.
Add to that the murder, rape and pillage by citizens of the communities, accepted if not encouraged by police, who simply looked the other way and allowed looting and you have a frightening yet predictable anarchy. Frightening, obviously. Predictable because of the mindset created by the welfare society espoused, created, supported and perpetuated by the liberal factions in our national politics.
Among the thousands of emails I'm plowing through this morning, I came across this piece, which I reprint here with complete agreement and sympathy while faulting, again, a mainstream media that once again has missed the real story:
An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State
by Robert Tracinski
Sep 02, 2005
by Robert Tracinski
It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.
If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.
Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists--myself included--did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.
But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.
The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.
The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over the past four days. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.
The man-made disaster is the welfare state.
For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency--indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country.
When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).
So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?
To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story:
"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.
"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....
"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.
" 'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.' "
The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows National Guard troops, with rifles and armored vests, riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.
What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to drive away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Super Dome?
Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?
My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage last night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)
What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"--the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels--gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, crucial fact: early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose. There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa.
There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit--but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals--and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep--on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.
All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. But in a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters--not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.
No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.
What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.
But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.
The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.
Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005
Now that we're back, catching up on laundry and tons of mail while unpacking and rearranging things to make room for new acquisitions, we're catching up on the news, as well, and are amazed at the senseless blame and accusations that seem to have been flying about since the storm hit. What can those people be thinking?
An attack by nature in a single region, predicted for years and with plenty of warning so that citizens could get out of the way is in NO WAY comparable to a pre-meditated attack on United States citizens by an enemy intent on destroying the entire society.
Add to that the murder, rape and pillage by citizens of the communities, accepted if not encouraged by police, who simply looked the other way and allowed looting and you have a frightening yet predictable anarchy. Frightening, obviously. Predictable because of the mindset created by the welfare society espoused, created, supported and perpetuated by the liberal factions in our national politics.
Among the thousands of emails I'm plowing through this morning, I came across this piece, which I reprint here with complete agreement and sympathy while faulting, again, a mainstream media that once again has missed the real story:
An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State
by Robert Tracinski
Sep 02, 2005
by Robert Tracinski
It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.
If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.
Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists--myself included--did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.
But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.
The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.
The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over the past four days. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.
The man-made disaster is the welfare state.
For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency--indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country.
When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).
So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?
To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story:
"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.
"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....
"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.
" 'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.' "
The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows National Guard troops, with rifles and armored vests, riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.
What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to drive away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Super Dome?
Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?
My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage last night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)
What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"--the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels--gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, crucial fact: early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose. There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa.
There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit--but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals--and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep--on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.
All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. But in a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters--not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.
No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.
What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.
But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.
The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.
Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005
Sunday, August 7
Global Warming BugaBoo
Written By: Environment & Climate News Staff
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: August 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yury Izrael, director of the Russian Academy of Science's Global Climate and Ecology Institute, issued a scathing indictment of global warming alarmism, published June 28 by the Russian News and Information Agency. The following are excerpts from Izrael's comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"According to 10,000 meteorological stations, average temperatures have increased by just 0.6 degrees in the last 100 years. But there is no scientifically sound evidence of the negative processes that allegedly begin to take place at such temperatures.
"Global temperatures increased throughout the 1940s, declined in the 1970s, and subsequently began to rise again. Present-day global warming resembles the 1940s, when ships could easily navigate Arctic passages.
"However, man's impact was much smaller at that time. A Russian expedition that recently returned from the central Antarctic says that temperatures are now starting to decrease. These sensational findings are one of Mother Nature's surprises.
"The European Union has established by fiat that a two-degree rise in global temperatures would be quite dangerous. However, this data is not scientifically sound. ...
"Many specialists estimate the peak atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 400 PPM.
"Our calculations show that carbon-dioxide concentrations would increase by just 800 PPM if all known and produced fuel were incinerated in the space of a few hours. But we will never reach this ceiling. In ancient times the Earth had periods when maximum CO2 concentrations were 6,000 PPM (in Carboniferous period). But life still goes on.
"In other words, we must comprehend what will happen while the carbon-dioxide levels will grow from the current 378 PPM to 800 PPM, that will hypothetically occur when all the fuel on Earth is burned.
"Global temperatures will likely rise by 1.4-5.8 degrees during the next 100 years. The average increase will be three degrees. I do not think that this threatens mankind. Sea levels, due to rise by 47 cm in the 21st century, will not threaten port cities.
"It is said that the sea may rise significantly because of additional carbon dioxide and higher temperatures.
"The sea has risen by 10-20 cm in the last 100 years. The port of London, not the entire city, would face a disaster if this trend persists. However, the situation can be rectified by building new piers. The Far Eastern city of Magadan has multi-level piers for coping with eight-meter high tides."
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: August 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yury Izrael, director of the Russian Academy of Science's Global Climate and Ecology Institute, issued a scathing indictment of global warming alarmism, published June 28 by the Russian News and Information Agency. The following are excerpts from Izrael's comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"According to 10,000 meteorological stations, average temperatures have increased by just 0.6 degrees in the last 100 years. But there is no scientifically sound evidence of the negative processes that allegedly begin to take place at such temperatures.
"Global temperatures increased throughout the 1940s, declined in the 1970s, and subsequently began to rise again. Present-day global warming resembles the 1940s, when ships could easily navigate Arctic passages.
"However, man's impact was much smaller at that time. A Russian expedition that recently returned from the central Antarctic says that temperatures are now starting to decrease. These sensational findings are one of Mother Nature's surprises.
"The European Union has established by fiat that a two-degree rise in global temperatures would be quite dangerous. However, this data is not scientifically sound. ...
"Many specialists estimate the peak atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 400 PPM.
"Our calculations show that carbon-dioxide concentrations would increase by just 800 PPM if all known and produced fuel were incinerated in the space of a few hours. But we will never reach this ceiling. In ancient times the Earth had periods when maximum CO2 concentrations were 6,000 PPM (in Carboniferous period). But life still goes on.
"In other words, we must comprehend what will happen while the carbon-dioxide levels will grow from the current 378 PPM to 800 PPM, that will hypothetically occur when all the fuel on Earth is burned.
"Global temperatures will likely rise by 1.4-5.8 degrees during the next 100 years. The average increase will be three degrees. I do not think that this threatens mankind. Sea levels, due to rise by 47 cm in the 21st century, will not threaten port cities.
"It is said that the sea may rise significantly because of additional carbon dioxide and higher temperatures.
"The sea has risen by 10-20 cm in the last 100 years. The port of London, not the entire city, would face a disaster if this trend persists. However, the situation can be rectified by building new piers. The Far Eastern city of Magadan has multi-level piers for coping with eight-meter high tides."
Tuesday, August 2
Vacation
Hubby and I are taking an extended vacation -- will be back soon, ready and rarin' to go.
Sunnye
Sunnye
Friday, July 22
BandAids and Bandits
Most medical professionals know that in order to cure a disease, you strike at the cause. Putting bandaids on symptoms may be comforting temporarily, but the disease always returns.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is trying to apply bandaids in the Sudan. On her recent visit there demanded that the Sudanese government own up to its responsibilities and acknowledge accountability for the violence in Darfur. All this while her own security people were being hassled by the Sudanese.
Meanwhile, back in the US Senate, Kansas Senator Brownback reintroduces his Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2005, which also calls for increased pressure on the Sudanese government.
The Sudanese government reminds me of a doll I had when I was a child. With the skirt pulled down in one position, the doll was white but if you turned the skirt inside-out, the doll was black.
The white doll side:
The dark doll side:
The Sudanese government is a Muslim government. They have supported the rebels, providing them with guns and gunship support when they ravage the villages of native Africans. Threatening them with sanctions is about as effective as threatening Saddam Hussein and we all know how that worked. Sanctions are bandages on symptoms; what the situation needs is a strike at the heart of the disease.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is trying to apply bandaids in the Sudan. On her recent visit there demanded that the Sudanese government own up to its responsibilities and acknowledge accountability for the violence in Darfur. All this while her own security people were being hassled by the Sudanese.
Condoleezza Rice today demanded a full apology from the Sudanese President after members of her entourage were allegedly roughed up by guards at a diplomatic meeting.
Jim Wilkinson, a senior adviser to the US Secretary of State, was grabbed and thrown against a wall at the entrance to President Omar al-Bashir’s palace in the capital Khartoum.
US officials said that the security guards elbowed and pushed them, barring advisers and the press from entering the meeting by slamming closed the residence's wooden doors.
An attempt was also made to seize tapes from a National Public Radio reporter before Sean McKormack, Miss Rice's spokesman, and others intervened.
Visiting a refugee camp, Rice called the crisis in Darfur, where 180,000 have died since 2003, a "genocide," the same word Powell used in his visit. And she warned that she wants "actions, not words" from Khartoum on dealing with the situation in Darfur. The State Department has found that the Sudanese government, after promising to quell the violence in Darfur , is still paying salaries to leaders of Arab militias known as Janjaweed that continue to attack and kill black civilians.
The leverage Rice has on Khartoum are strict sanctions that, if lifted, would allow Sudan to improve its decrepit infrastructure. But, first, she says she wants to see Khartoum live up to the peace deal it signed on Darfur. On that, she must stay tough.
Meanwhile, back in the US Senate, Kansas Senator Brownback reintroduces his Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2005, which also calls for increased pressure on the Sudanese government.
“As tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of Congress’ declaration of genocide in Darfur, Sudan, it is not the time to start thinking about easing sanctions or restoring certain diplomatic ties. It’s time to address the needs of the African Union and to sanction those responsible for genocide,” Brownback said.
The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2005 increases pressure on Khartoum, provides greater support to the African Union mission in Darfur to help protect civilians, imposes sanctions on individuals responsible for atrocities, and encourages the appointment of a U.S. special envoy to help advance a peace process for Darfur.
Today Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Sudan for the first time. While momentum for international support to end this crisis has been building, the violence and humanitarian crisis continues. Rape is still being used as weapon. Some women who have become pregnant due to brutal rapes have been forced to abort their unborn babies, while other women have been imprisoned for bearing illegitimate children. In addition, the government remains prepared to raze the Kalma refugee camp, moving 120,000 people against their wishes, thus, sending them back into areas where there is no security against these rapes and killings.
In remarks prior to the G-8 summit on June 30, 2005, President Bush declared, “the violence in Darfur is clearly genocide,” and “the human cost is beyond calculation.”
Brownback applauded Senator Corzine and his colleagues in the House, including Congressmen Hyde, Tancredo, Payne, Wolf, Smith and others, who have diligently worked with him to ensure a strong piece of legislation that they hope will move quickly and be enacted so that further relief may be provided to the suffering victims.
Brownback traveled to the Darfur region of Sudan in July 2004 and issued a report with recommendations for the international community to deal with the dire human rights situation there. Brownback also authored legislation declaring the dire situation in Sudan genocide, and sponsored legislation providing $95 million in emergency humanitarian aid to the Darfur region.
The Sudanese government reminds me of a doll I had when I was a child. With the skirt pulled down in one position, the doll was white but if you turned the skirt inside-out, the doll was black.
The white doll side:
Rice acknowledged that Sudan, once a terrorism sponsor, is a far better place today than it had been for decades, or even since her predecessor, Colin Powell, visited it 13 months ago. Sudan now has an elected national unity government that has become a useful ally in the U.S. fight against global terrorism, has increased its flow of oil substantially and, above all, is consolidating the peace deal ending Africa's longest civil war. The war pitted the Arab government in Khartoum against black Christian and animist rebels in the south and cost millions of lives. Today, a former rebel leader is vice president and the new constitution protects religious and political rights for all groups.
The dark doll side:
Villagers in Mirhanda in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where UN peacekeepers have chased out the Rwandan Hutu rebels terrorising the population, said on Thursday they feared the fighters would return to their stronghold. "Before leaving, they threatened us they would return," said 16-year-old Burhendwa Kahegesha, staring at the smouldering straw huts that served as a hideout for some 900 fighters for the past three years. "I am happy that the men are gone, but they said that we were responsible for their leaving. They will come back for revenge," he said. The Rwandan Democratic Liberation Forces (FDLR) rebels, who have been hiding out in eastern DRC since the 1994 Rwandan genocide, have inflicted terror on the residents of Mirhanda for years. Living in mud houses near the rebel base, some 70 families make up Mirhanda village, some 70 kilometres (45 miles) west of Bukavu, the provincial capital of the volatile Sud Kivu region.
The Sudanese government is a Muslim government. They have supported the rebels, providing them with guns and gunship support when they ravage the villages of native Africans. Threatening them with sanctions is about as effective as threatening Saddam Hussein and we all know how that worked. Sanctions are bandages on symptoms; what the situation needs is a strike at the heart of the disease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
