Friday, September 23, 2005

After Iran walked out of nuclear arms talks with EU powerhouses France, Germany, and Britain last month, the EU decided to get serious about the nuclear threat posed by the middle eastern nation. Accordingly, the EU is likely to accede to U.S. demands to bring Iran before the Security Council of the U.N. If Iran fails to comply with demands that it discontinue any ongoing nuclear program, it will likely face severe consequences.

Among the potential consequences are a severe condemnation by the Security Council members, which would likely consist of the Iranian representative being asked to stand in a corner of the U.N. with his face against the wall for 3-5 minutes. Other options include giving Iran a nuclear reactor and uranium enrichment technology in exchange for guarantees that it will not use that technology to develop nuclear weapons. If pressed, the Security Council members may throw in missile guidance technology to finalize the deal.

Forecasters predict that Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons until a Republican U.S. president decides to take military action against the rogue nation. Despite the existence of several U.N. resolutions requiring disarmament, and former cries for action by EU nations, the U.S. president will be roundly criticized for calling upon the use of force.

The preceding story will become completely true in the future. Stay tuned for updates.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

As you've probably heard, Judge Roberts' nomination was voted out of committee today 13 to 5. The Gang of 5 responsible for the "No" votes include Democrat luminaries Biden, Feinstein, Durbin, Kennedy, and Schumer--all of whom are sucking up to NARAL and the rest of the fringe left for early "base" support in '08. These votes prove that no one is good enough for the Democrats, acting simply in their "advise and consent" role, unless that person is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-property confiscation, etc. This is why the Democrats will not lead the country in the foreseeable future.

I saw the most bizzarre interview with Alan Dershowitz today on Court TV (click here for his column on Roberts). He suggested that Justices Breyer and Ginsburg were "mainstream" nominees. Maybe if the pool of potential candidates were taken from the faculty of Harvard University or an Iraq War protest. In the real world, people like Breyer and Ginsburg are social radicals who exaggerate their roles as justices in order to create "rights" and a class-based system of law, despite constitutional restraints plainly implied by the text of the document itself. Further, both of these justices were voted on by a majority of Republican senators, but not because they approved of the nominees' radical ideologies. Instead, the Republican senators possess tact and an understanding of their constitutional role.

The Democrats lack any constitutional understanding whatsoever, and, moreover, don't even understand that they are out of power. Consequently, the rest of us will continue to watch these losers slink into oblivion, aligning themselves with radical leftist groups and taking positions clearly outside the mainstream of the country. At this rate, they'll never hold power again.

Monday, September 19, 2005


Read this article, and take the free test, to determine whether you have the mental disorder otherwise known as liberalism.
A few years ago, a duo named Kerry/Edwards ran for president and vice president on the same ticket. After breaking up, the two are showing signs that they may once again share a microphone soon. Both recently outlined their plans for the post-Katrina hurricane relief efforts; Edwards, who currently works at a "think tank," proposed the well-thought-out ideas of increasing the minimum wage and reinstituting the WPA; Kerry had no substantive ideas to offer, instead choosing to second-guess the president's decisions while asking for campaign contributions from his largely disbanded supporters. Both men denied any interest in a 2008 run for the White House.

If this is the competition, Hillary has nothing to worry about.

It's time to start upgrading the excellent content of this blog to include pictures. Enjoy!
Check out this video of Victor Davis Hanson debating Arianna Huffington on the subject of War and Empire. The result is similar to what would have happened had the 1984-version of Ronald Reagan debated the president of a high school debate club. If you went to the high school of the debate club president, you just might be able to give a victory to your fellow student, justifying it through emotional attachments. If you are capable of reasoning through problems and have a grasp of history, you would have a more difficult time. In summary: Hanson wipes the floor with Huffington. It's awesome.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Ha ha ha! This is so typical of your average Communist these days! On Friday, Grand Leader of the Endless Revolutionary Movement of the Proletarian Masses Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, told his comrade in the media, Nightline's Ted Koppel, that the U.S. has definite plans to invade his country. Chavez railed against the alleged U.S. war plan, codenamed "Balboa," which involves--gasp!--planes and aircraft carriers. But the jig is up for George W. Bush. Now that Chavez knows about the secret plan, he's working on a "counter-Balboa plan," the results of which he described as follows:

We are coming up with the counter-Balboa plan. That is to say if the government of the United States attempts to commit the foolhardy enterprise of attacking us, it would be embarked on a 100-year war. We are prepared.

More like a "100-minute" war. All the doctors and teachers in Cuba, along with all their classic cars, couldn't save Chavez in a war with the U.S. But that doesn't matter, because none of this has any basis in reality. The only way people like Chavez (and Castro and Kim Jong Il, for that matter) can stay in power is by constantly claiming that their country's "sovereignty" is at risk from "imperialist aggression." Just take a look at today's North Korean News, which uses a similar tactic (I wrote this sentence without having even looked at the source yet! Yet it's there. It's always there.):

Anti-DPRK War Outcries of Commander of U.S. Forces in S. Korea Blasted

Pyongyang, September 16 (KCNA) -- Laporte, commander of the U.S. forces in south Korea, when interviewed by American media recently, disclosed that the United States is "modifying its military strategy in the direction of depending on ultra-modern weapons to cope with the possible outbreak of military conflict with north Korea." Rodong Sinmun Friday says this in a signed commentary.

It goes on: Multi-faceted dialogues and cooperation are now brisk between the north and the south of Korea and the six-way talks are under way to settle the nuclear issue and put an end to the military confrontation for the purpose of building confidence. The reckless remarks made by him against this backdrop, hinting at setting out a new military strategy, cannot be construed otherwise than a revelation of the U.S. design to chill the atmosphere of inter-Korean reconciliation and cooperation and provoke a war of aggression on the Korean Peninsula at any cost.

What is ridiculous is his assertion that "though the main concern of the six-way talks is focused on north Korea's nuclear capability but its conventional weapons still remain a threat that should not be ignored". He did not bother to talk nonsense that "he is aware of north Korea's massive stockpiling of chemical weapons and its biological weapons are under constant test." While paying lip-service to "dialogue" and "peace," the U.S. is pushing forward in real earnest its work to round off the preparations for a preemptive attack on the DPRK, whetting its sword for aggression behind the scene. The noisy false propaganda launched by the U.S. to charge the DPRK with the spread of weapons of mass destruction is nothing but a plot to create an international environment for mounting a preemptive nuclear attack on it. Herein lies a sinister aim of the U.S. to list the DPRK as a "dangerous state" by inventing a variety of fictions such as stories about "chemical and biological weapons". The ever-increasing danger of war on the Korean Peninsula urgently demands the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from south Korea. The United States would be well advised to stop making much ado about "threat of aggression against the south" from somebody, an old fiction, and quit south Korea as early as possible, taking with it its aggression troops.

Note the rich similarities! These people are all the same; their governments never work, so they have to constantly claim the need to "defend themselves," thereby justifying their terrible policies, which invariably lead to famine and poverty. And to think we're just a few thousand more Cindy Sheehans, Howard Deans, and Jane Fondas from the same fate!

Never vote Democrat. Never.

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Check out this article, detailing the hyper-political, communist-inspired American Humanist Association's condemnation of W's calling this past Friday for a national day of prayer and rememberance for the victims of Katrina. The group described the day, and Bush's religiously-tinged leadership, as "inherently exclusionary." The AHA further criticized Bush's motivation for calling on a day of prayer, describing it as an attempted coverup of his poor leadership immediately following the disaster. As you may have guessed, the finer details regarding the mayor's and governor's conduct are not discussed. They must not be praying (except for their jobs).

If you haven't read the last post yet, please do so now.

The left's hatred for religion (particularly Christianity) couldn't be better expressed than in this moronic call to exclude the very idea that God exists from all aspects of our national response to tragedies: natural disasters, war, death/dying, abortion, etc. As my last post proves, the atheist viewpoint is well represented at the collegiate level, where Communist thugs are trying to push any mention of religion out of public universities. After all, religion is "racist" (except for Islam, of course). It's a pretty safe assumption that the public high schools are doing their part as well to push the "opiate of the masses" out of public view as well.

If you're as offended as I am about the left's treatment of religion, we should write to our representatives and request that they immediately discontinue funding for all public universities that do not have a well-monitored "diversity" program that features diverse viewpoints, not just skin color. This would put a "levee" in place that stops the left from turning the campus into the equivalent of an atheistic Potemkin Village, where Christians are casually swept off the streets. In addition, the AHA would lose its fertile recruiting grounds. We might just gain some sanity, as well

Friday, September 16, 2005

I had the sureal experience of seeing a miniature version of Mao's so-called Cultural Revolution on the UW-Madison campus yesterday. Some Christian group had set itself up at on the Library Mall. The minister sat on a folding chair, perched on a stone cube, and preached to the crowd. Around him were several people holding signs saying that homosexuality, killing, stealing, etc., are sins that God does not approve of. The response of the students was one of the wierder things I've seen in recent memory.

The group of students was extremely hostile. There were members of the militant gay lobby, who wore pins with a rainbow on them, punk rock types, and other fanatical campus liberals who otherwise did not stand out. At various points, the minister would be saying something and one of the liberals would start yelling and criticizing him, usually calling the minister "racist" or Chiristianity "racist." Interestingly, the minister's counterparts seemed to be largely Asian and Latino, while all the liberals were white, except for two black men who appeared to be members of the gay lobby. In terms of "diversity," the minister's group certainly seemed to outdo the liberal group, which I'm sure the liberals would say was caused by affirmative action/diversity policies at the university, and certainly not their nearly satanic outlook.

Each time a liberal spoke, he would obviously be seeking crowd support and appeared to be putting on a show for his friends. I saw several of them, over the course of about one-half hour, slap the minister on the shoulder while making fun of him and calling him "racist." At one point, about four or five of them got onto the perhaps 5 x 5 foot platform the minister was on, while each would take turns speaking the "truth" about Christianity and try to scream over the minister. Throughout the episode, each of the liberals looked and sounded so insecure and stupid that if it weren't for their overwhelming numbers and lack of respectful conduct, each of them probably would have been too afraid to engage the minister, who was obviously much more intelligent than any of them individually (or collectively, for that matter).

Not happy to merely shout over the minister, some of the liberals brought a megaphone to the scene and began using that to completely drown out the minister's preaching. The guy on the megaphone held a little red book (I'm NOT kidding!) and read from it. Before he got started, he asked if anyone had heard of the "IWW" (Industrial Workers of the World). Some of the crowd cheered, but it was obvious that many had no idea what he was talking about (I didn't either). The "industrial worker"/UW-student with the megaphone then read what was either a song or some sort of chant from the book entitled "Christians at War," which is copied below for your reading pleasure:

Christians at War (John F. Kendrick - 1916)

Onward, Christian soldiers! Duty's way is plain; Slay your Christian neighbors, or by them be slain, Pulpiteers are spouting effervescent swill, God above is calling you to rob and rape and kill, All your acts are sanctified by the Lamb on high;If you love the Holy Ghost, go murder, pray and die.

Onward, Christian soldiers! Rip and tear and smite! Let the gentle Jesus bless your dynamite. Splinter skulls with shrapnel, fertilize the sod; Folks who do not speak your tongue deserve the curse of God. Smash the doors of every home, pretty maidens seize; Use your might and sacred right to treat them as you please.

Onward, Christian soldiers! Eat and drink your fill; Rob with bloody fingers, Christ okays the bill, Steal the farmers' savings, take their grain and meat; Even though the children starve, the Savior's bums must eat, Burn the peasants' cottages, orphans leave bereft; In Jehovah's holy name, wreak ruin right and left.

Onward, Christian soldiers! Drench the land with gore; Mercy is a weakness all the gods abhor.Bayonet the babies, jab the mothers, too; Hoist the cross of Calvary to hallow all you do.File your bullets' noses flat, poison every well; God decrees your enemies must all go plumb to hell.

Onward, Christian soldiers! Blight all that you meet; Trample human freedom under pious feet. Praise the Lord whose dollar sign dupes his favored race!Make the foreign trash respect your bullion brand of grace. Trust in mock salvation, serve as tyrant's tools; History will say of you: "That pack of Goddamn fools."

This reading was followed by fairly sparse applause. For the first time, I noticed that some police officers had shown up and were surveying the situation. This seemed to prompt the megaphone guy and his friends to quit the scene, taking the megaphone with them. I'm still not sure if the crowd thought that the megaphone guy had taken things too far when it failed to applaud more loudly. Given the karaoke-like situation, maybe the crowd wasn't very pleased with his "performance," instead of being at least somewhat offended by the arrogance of the song. Who knows?

In any event, here's a word to the wise: Never send your kids to this university. I know that many of you (and I) went there during our undergraduate years, and we still managed to escape without becoming rabid Commies. But why take the chance? If this sort of conduct is the obvious and most expected response to a minister preaching on campus, then we should all be wondering why we spend our tax dollars to subsidize this U.S. version of Red Square, where a bunch of pampered, wanna-be Robespierres can go around disrespecting the Christian religion at our expense. There is a more appropriate place for this sort of behavior: North Korea.

And for any lefty that thinks I'm advocating a suppression of "free speech," just look at yourselves and the conduct of your brethren toward this minister. It's proof positive that the left's respect for free speech extends no farther than the spouting of idiotic Communistic idealism.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

As you may already know, President Bush has taken responsibility for the sluggish response of the federal government in the wake of the Katrina disaster. When I looked around this morning for a story detailing the "apology," there was a surprising lack of material on the glorified event, which has mostly been buried on the mainstream media web sites. Why is that?

Here's why. In order to avoid perhaps the most obvious media bias in recent history, the mainstream press has actually downplayed Bush's "acknowledgement of responsibility" to avoid turning the camera to the most guilty parties in this fiasco--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

And their guilt is a whole hell of a lot more obvious than Bush's. Nagin had a disaster plan that he didn't even follow--leading to the deaths of dozens of people in hospitals and nursing homes--as thousands of buses sat underwater. He even let an outbound Amtrak train leave without any passengers one night before the hurricane struck; when Amtrak had offered to evacuate a few hundred residents, the mayor's office refused. Blanco dilly-dallied for two days after the hurrican hit before calling in the National Guard, causing a huge delay that facilitated much of the looting and criminal conduct that followed. As you may not know from reading the press accounts, only the governor can call the National Guard into her state.

But these obvious mistakes are of no interest to the liberals in the media, who were (and remain) too focused on the national government's shortcomings to care. When it became obvious that the Democrat-dominated local government was woefully inept, perhaps more inept than its federal counterpart, the media decided that blame just wasn't that important, anyway.

Mayor Nagin, who recently purchased a house in Dallas and enrolled his children in school there, apparently understands that one day he may take the blame for some of this. But if I were advising him, I'd tell him he has nothing to worry about, so long as a Republican was in the White House when the bad thing happened.

And one was.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Here is a liberal's rendition of what type of speech GW should have given when he "apologized" for the slow response after Katrina, entitled "The Katrina Speech that George Bush Isn't Man Enough to Make." It's laden in class envy and, of course, lacks an actual plan to remedy any problems. The whole thing is worth reading, but here are a few representative passages:

But taxes are there for our common good. We have to change our minds about taxes. Not paying taxes is selfish. Paying taxes is about contributing to the common good, about being selfless and charitable. We should be happy to pay taxes because that is our social capital. That's the money we pool to make ourselves better. We should be happy to pay taxes to build a better education system, for example, so poor kids have a better chance at life, and can work themselves out of poverty.


We in America have forgotten that we are one big family, the family of America. Like a family, we have to learn how to take care of our own. A good, strong family stands together to help its members who are in trouble. Everyone who is in a family knows that when you are in need, you can rely on someone in your family to come through for you. And when you are doing well, you don't think twice about helping those in your family who need help.

The author's rosy, or maybe red, view of government is a laughable example of how far out of touch the Democrats are when it comes to government corruption and waste. The whole reason for lower taxes and increased privatization is that government is utterly incapable of increasing "social capital" in most cases, and it certainly isn't a very good "family" to be in (just ask any child in foster care, any prison inmate, any government hospital patient, etc.). Not only that, but the government is itself a big corporate-type entity, complete with corrupt unions and unneeded, wasteful programs (and employees) that refuse to die, a la programs in the movie "The Matrix."

In its unreality, doesn't this sound similar to something you might hear from "Uncle Joe" Stalin's political department when he ruled the Soviet Union? But this faux "speech" is all too typical of the left these days. It is yet another great example of why no one should ever vote Democrat again.

Monday, September 12, 2005

Check out this article about the logistical difficulties involved in providing aid to New Orleans. And who says journalists are uninformed?

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Check out this collection of video clips of Arab and Saudi Arabian television shows. The commentators, who wax conspiratorial about 9/11 and Israel, sound an awful lot like Michael Moore.
Check out this website. It's awesome.


Thursday, September 08, 2005

As you may recall, the President appointed his father and Bill Clinton as co-fundraisers following the Katrina disaster. You may also recall that Clinton gladly accepted the appointment. The press has since gone crazy over a quote by Barbara Bush, calling her insensitive to those affected by the crisis (see last post). The media has also been in a frenzy trying to discredit W's slow response to the tragedy and its aftermath. If Bush Sr. would have done anything within their realm of outrage, you can be sure that he would have taken a boatload of criticism as well.

Which leads me back to Bill Clinton. What's he been up to? On Wednesday, about one week after disaster struck here, Clinton attended a dinner held in his honor in Uttar Pradesh, India--half a world away from the disaster site. Not that you would ever hear the mainstream press highlight that story, which stands in stark juxtoposition to the Bush family actions they're currently criticizing with such zeal. If Bush Sr. had done the same--attending a foreign dinner held for the sole purpose of inflating his ego--could you imagine the press response?

If you can't, you're probably a liberal.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Check out this editorial in today's mouthpiece of the Madison left The Capital Times. The nameless writer gets extremely exercised about the following quote by George W. Bush's mother:

Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them.

What Mother Bush is referring to is the relative quality of the surroundings of the Houston Astrodome, when compared to the Democrat-run Superdome in New Orleans. According to the Cap Times, any sort of optimism in the face of the Katrina aftermath is highly inappropriate, especially when the optimistic person lives in a "multi-million dollar" home.

No, when it comes to poverty, the liberals have a monopoly on the "appropriate" affect: a somber tone, a condemning voice, etc. Nevermind that their plans, including hellhole public housing projects and a family-busting welfare program, actually make poverty worse. In the end, that is probably why the editor is so upset about Bar's comment. It gets to the crux of the matter in that the evacuees are probably better off being relocated outside Democrat-run New Orleans than they otherwise would have been. After the chaos dies down, they will most likely get an opportunity to start over in a better environment.

I guess that Cap Times editors can mull that over in their multi-million dollar houses tonight, as they centrally-plan the fate of the poor in their minds. With any luck, they won't be able to plan anything in the actual government.

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

John Nichols, the associate editor of The Capital Times, had this to say about Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House's, commitment to rebuilding the Democratic stronghold that is New Orleans:

Don't believe it. Hastert, like his congressional godfather, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, sees everything in political terms. And in the political calculus of the House Republican leadership, New Orleans and cities like it have for a long time been seen as expendable.

As you may recall, Hastert questioned the wisdom of rebuilding New Orleans because the city was (1) virtually destroyed and (2) under sea level, which places it in a precarious position should another disaster hit. Yet, according to Nichols, Hastert's real motivation is driven by "political terms."

Nichols goes on to frame Hastert's political motivations according to his own red vs. blue strategy map. For example, Mississippi should be rebuilt because rich Republicans live there; New Orleans shouldn't because it's a densely populated Democratic district, etc.

Only a liberal could think in such bone-chilling, aloof terms during a time of national crisis. Nichols completely ignores that practical difficulties and expense of rebuilding New Orleans to its prior status. Although Hastert spoke pragmatically, and perhaps a bit insensitively, he is only thinking of the good of the country and trying to contain the costs of the cleanup while preventing the consequences future disasters. Nichols, by his own analysis, demonstrates perfectly how he "thinks" about such crises, despite the fact that he tries to attribute his darkest thoughts to Hastert.

How pathetic, yet typical, of the left these days.

Monday, September 05, 2005

Check out my newest effort, a blog dedicated to my repressed liberal side. Click here to read the first post.
Check out this article about the influence of tribalism on what happened in post-Katrina New Orleans. It's pretty enlightening.
Kanye West and Jesse Jackson won't be too happy about this story slipping through the censors over at Reuters. A reporter interviewed a man who before the hurricane had a "complex about white people," only to lose the same after being helped by white rescuers. Others were found carrying Bibles and being consoled by church leaders who made it into the disaster zone.

Of course, the lefty journalists couldn't resist a "counterpoint" by an Atheist organization, which I'm willing to guess has very little offer in terms of hurricane relief--except for a "critical" voice:

"We're getting reports of how some religion-based 'aid' groups are trying to fly evangelists into the stricken areas and how U.S. Army chaplains are carrying bibles -- not food or water -- to 'comfort' people," Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheist, said in a statement. "People need material aid, medical care and economic support -- not prayers and preaching."

I guess that Ms. Johnson speaks for the looters, rapist, and other blame-society types with a nihilistic view of the world around them who are causing most of the problems for the actual rescuers. What New Orleans needs now, more than ever, is more religiosity and togetherness, not a bunch of whiners like these. What a shame that this woman speaks for your average liberal these days, who wants more than anything to make political hay from this crisis. How tragic.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

Has anyone else noticed that the Democrats have been doing nothing more than whining incessantly in the wake of Katrina. Just look at today's edition of the Huffington Post, where almost all of the articles criticize the officials in charge of disaster management for not acting fast enough. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the people actually doing something about this situation are very likely not going to have a mindset like your average liberal, who is too busy acting as "society's critic" to actually get off his or her you-know-what and actually DO SOMETHING, such as sending in a ten dollar check to the Red Cross. Further, even when a liberal does pitch in, such as Bill Clinton did by assisting in the fundraising effort, the liberal residue will turn its anger towards him or her for not acting as a nose-in-the-air critic of President Bush.

The liberal post-hurricane refrain is starting to sound very similar to the one employed after 9/11. Immediately after that crisis, the libs criticized President Bush for waiting a whole 7 MINUTES to leave a classroom of children and do something about the attacks on the World Trade Center. Of course, Bush's approach to that disaster was far more comprehensive than the "anger management" approach the liberals would have instituted had they been in power. Still, in liberaldom, actual results have no bearing on the handling of a crisis because it's all about the "feelings" conveyed by a leader. There, as here, President Bush has failed because he failed to focus solely on the "feelings" of those hurt by the crisis, combined with some sort of symbolic, yet likely ineffective, action. Nevermind the myriad logistical difficulties presented by the current situations in New Orleans, such as the impossibility of getting tractor trailers into the disaster area, the tendency of residents to shoot at rescue helicopters, the noncooperation of residents who still refuse to leave their houses (despite a mandatory evacuation issued before the hurricane), the fact that New Orleans police officers are walking off the job, the hyper-criminality of many of the residents preying upon their fellow citizens, the failure of the Mayor to utilize a large number of passenger busses at his disposal before Katrina hit, etc.

According to the libs, none of these things should have prevented the god-king president from instantly remedying (or preventing) the situation. Of course, it is difficult to imagine that even a perfectly executed plan would have avoided all of the consequences of Katrina, which is why the libs are now starting to blame such lofty concerns as global warming and poverty for the disaster, despite their tenuous or nonexistent causal link with what actually occurred. We are also hearing from Kanye West and other liberal "thinkers" that the President hates blacks and hearing Jesse Jackson criticize the President for not appointing a black person to head up the disaster relief effort (even here, pushing affirmative action). In sum, all the liberal brimstone and fury is likely to cause even greater problems resulting from the situation, such as deeper racial divisions or non-science based solutions (e.g., signing the Kyoto Protocol instead of fixing the surrounding wetlands). NEVER will you hear a good solution come from their lips.

If it weren't the socialist educational system, the entitlement mentality, and the race baiting that liberals engage in, which all result in a childlike, infantilist opinion of the world, we might solve these problems much sooner. As it stands, we'll just have to continue doing something while they sit around and point fingers. How tragic.

Saturday, September 03, 2005

This column, by Arianna Huffington, pretty much sums up the liberals' contribution to the Katrina aftermath. According to her, the dems are missing a "teachable moment" due to Clinton's misdeeds. She's spazzing about Bill Clinton acting as a chief fundraiser at W's request, which, in her words, makes Clinton "Suck-Up-in-Chief." She's angry because Clinton, who is the figurehead of the Democratic party, won't come out and blame Bush for the disaster--despite the fact that some people in New Orleans are impoverished, which, of course, Bush caused. In her view, the disaster was perfectly foreseeable--never mind that no Democrats (including Clinton) ever made a big deal about New Orleans' vulnerability BEFORE the disaster hit. I guess that makes the Democrats racist against blacks, including the mayor of New Orleans (who is black).

Like 9/11 made terrorism a top priority, I suspect that this disaster will make responsiveness to natural disasters a top priority as well. Clearly more could have been done, such as immediatley sending in paratroopers, to stop the criminal looting and marauding that followed the disaster; more also could have been done to quickly send in food and water. However, to lay the blame solely at Bush's feet, and notably not at all at the Mayor of New Orleans' feet (who is in the best position to set readiness plans in motion), is to follow the Democratic talking-points to a tee.

People like Huffington (a rich, pampered Stepford-wife of a woman) are not proposing any meaningful solutions to Katrina-like disasters at the policy-making level. Instead, they are actively trying to STOP Clinton from raising funds to help the poor minorities they claim to embrace. The Democrats have no interest in any solutions to these problems that will not add to their position politically. Given the alternatives, helping poor blacks with aid money or making political hay against Bush, the Democrats' choice allows only one conclusion: The Democrats are racist!

Thursday, September 01, 2005

I simply cannot believe the liberal bloggers' coverage of the Katrina aftermath. While some blame definitely can be laid at the feet of the administration (too few National Guard troops, etc.), the Democrats' petty response speaks volumes about their inability to lead the country in times of crisis. Among their "reasons" for the tragic situation in New Orleans: Bush diverted flood-prevention funds to Iraq, not entering into the Kyoto Protocol caused Katrina, racist Republicans have no interest in helping poor Blacks, etc. You will never see anyting approaching a SOLUTION to the problem come from a liberal's lips. As usual, the libs are too busy schizophrenically pointing out the administration's faults to bother themselves with actually suggesting a course of action.

If you are interested in reading a first-hand account of what's going on in New Orleans, I suggest you read this briefing by a doctor working out of a hotel on Canal Street. The situation is truly frightening.

If you are interested in reading about the what the liberal bloggers are writing, click this link.

If you are interested in actually doing something, click this link.
I simply cannot believe the liberal bloggers' coverage of the Katrina aftermath. While some blame definitely can be laid at the feet of the administration (too few National Guard troops, etc.), the Democrats' petty response speaks volumes about their inability to lead the country in times of crisis. Among their "reasons" for the tragic situation in New Orleans: Bush diverted flood-prevention funds to Iraq, not entering into the Kyoto Protocol caused Katrina, racist Republicans have no interest in helping poor Blacks, etc. You will never see anyting approaching a SOLUTION to the problem come from a liberal's lips. As usual, the libs are too busy schizophrenically pointing out the administration's faults to bother themselves with actually suggesting a course of action.

If you are interested in reading a first-hand account of what's going on in New Orleans, I suggest you read this briefing by a doctor working out of a hotel on Canal Street. The situation is truly frightening.

If you are interested in reading about the what the liberal bloggers are writing, click this link.

If you are interested in actually doing something, click this link.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?