Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Right to Life
Caught this story via Sister Toldjah:
"'(Baby Amillia) showed us early on that she was a fighter and wanted to be here,' said Dr. Paul Fassbach, a neonatologist.
"Amillia was born Oct. 24, 2006. She was the world’s fourth-smallest baby, weighing 284 grams (just under 10 ounces) when she was born. She was just 9.5 inches long — barely longer than a ballpoint pen.
"'We’ve never even really resuscitated babies this small right,' (Dr. Paul) Fassbach said. 'Now, the recommendations for the American Academy of Pediatrics is that we can resuscitate babies that are 23 weeks or by birth weight over 400 grams. So, babies were considered non viable or too immature to survive outside the uterus if they were born earlier than that.
"Doctors said that at 23 weeks old, their survival rate is 30 percent. Now, after nearly four months at Baptist’s Children’s Hospital neonatal intensive care unit, baby Amillia will be going home healthy and thriving."
UPDATE (via Drudge): It looks as if the baby isn't going home just yet.
In an age where abortions can be legally mandated, this story is yet another example of why abortion is wrong. On ALL levels.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, this baby shouldn't have been resuscitated. Now she's almost ready to go home.
Proof that miracles do happen.
"'(Baby Amillia) showed us early on that she was a fighter and wanted to be here,' said Dr. Paul Fassbach, a neonatologist.
"Amillia was born Oct. 24, 2006. She was the world’s fourth-smallest baby, weighing 284 grams (just under 10 ounces) when she was born. She was just 9.5 inches long — barely longer than a ballpoint pen.
"'We’ve never even really resuscitated babies this small right,' (Dr. Paul) Fassbach said. 'Now, the recommendations for the American Academy of Pediatrics is that we can resuscitate babies that are 23 weeks or by birth weight over 400 grams. So, babies were considered non viable or too immature to survive outside the uterus if they were born earlier than that.
"Doctors said that at 23 weeks old, their survival rate is 30 percent. Now, after nearly four months at Baptist’s Children’s Hospital neonatal intensive care unit, baby Amillia will be going home healthy and thriving."
UPDATE (via Drudge): It looks as if the baby isn't going home just yet.
In an age where abortions can be legally mandated, this story is yet another example of why abortion is wrong. On ALL levels.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, this baby shouldn't have been resuscitated. Now she's almost ready to go home.
Proof that miracles do happen.
Unhinged on Campus
For those of you who don't believe that college campuses are increasingly left-leaning, and that "College Democrats" do not possess fanatic ideologies...
...I point you to this story.
Be sure to double check your facebook profiles before Democrats attack...
...I point you to this story.
Be sure to double check your facebook profiles before Democrats attack...
Border Patrol Outrage
The Ramos-Compean story continues.
I've written about this twice before (here and here) but there's so much material on this that I have to address it continually.
World Net Daily has the scoop on a potential mistrial in the case, as the defense attorney is now claiming that exculpatory evidence (this agency memo), which seemingly implicates the two agents, was withheld from the defense.
According to Ramos' attorney Mary Stillinger, the prosecution violated both the Jencks Act and Brady v. Maryland.
World Net Daily has a good round-up of the entire story here.
Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers shrewdly points out that "the defenders of Ramos and Compean would be smarter to focus on (the harsh sentence) instead of claiming that the agents just simply didn't do anything wrong."
The argument could be convincingly made that the agents were in the wrong - Deb Saunders acknowledges as much: "(Attorney Johnny) Sutton can point to inconsistencies in Ramos' and Compean's stories. He is right to argue that law enforcement officials cannot be allowed to shoot at unarmed suspects or lie about what they do."
But 10 and 11 year sentences?
When rewards are bestowed on illegal aliens for their testimony against Border Patrol Agents, and people cry about the "prison-like" conditions to which illegals are subjected when they're actually caught...isn't it about time that we stick up for people who actually try to DEFEND our borders?
For more on this and other illegal immigration controversies, check out Laura Ingraham's website.
I've written about this twice before (here and here) but there's so much material on this that I have to address it continually.
World Net Daily has the scoop on a potential mistrial in the case, as the defense attorney is now claiming that exculpatory evidence (this agency memo), which seemingly implicates the two agents, was withheld from the defense.
According to Ramos' attorney Mary Stillinger, the prosecution violated both the Jencks Act and Brady v. Maryland.
World Net Daily has a good round-up of the entire story here.
Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers shrewdly points out that "the defenders of Ramos and Compean would be smarter to focus on (the harsh sentence) instead of claiming that the agents just simply didn't do anything wrong."
The argument could be convincingly made that the agents were in the wrong - Deb Saunders acknowledges as much: "(Attorney Johnny) Sutton can point to inconsistencies in Ramos' and Compean's stories. He is right to argue that law enforcement officials cannot be allowed to shoot at unarmed suspects or lie about what they do."
But 10 and 11 year sentences?
When rewards are bestowed on illegal aliens for their testimony against Border Patrol Agents, and people cry about the "prison-like" conditions to which illegals are subjected when they're actually caught...isn't it about time that we stick up for people who actually try to DEFEND our borders?
For more on this and other illegal immigration controversies, check out Laura Ingraham's website.
What's Wrong With New Orleans?
A lot, apparently.
This article does a decent job focusing on the problem that existed BEFORE Katrina - though some have been exacerbated after it struck.
Tulane University criminal instructor Ronnie Jones makes an interesting implication:
"Before Katrina struck on August 29, 2005, there was little public pressure to do something about the number of murders, which peaked in 1994 with 425 killings.
"But Katrina hit hard the poor neighborhoods where the murders usually occurred, and brought the criminals closer to wealthier, often mostly white, areas, Jones said."
The juxtaposition of those two sentences makes it seem as if the poor communities of New Orleans were apathetic to the crime around them - only AFTER Katrina hit, and crime migrated to the "white" areas, was any outrage expressed publicly.
Does anyone else find this odd?
The article lays blame to the following for New Orleans' demise: poor police work, inept prosecutors, a local government that hasn't taken action, drug use, broken families, overall poverty, and the education system.
WOW - is anything right in this city?
One would think that people would use an event like Katrina to revamp all that is wrong, as the devastation of Katrina practically left a blank slate...but the city, with more than half its population displaced with no intentions of returning, is STILL in shambles almost two years later.
So where to start with the blame game?
I start and end with Ray Nagin - who was inexplicably re-elected.
Nagin has stepped in it a few times in the Katrina aftermath. He attacked NYC rebuilding efforts after 9/11 when confronted with his own shortcomings in the New Orleans clean-up efforts. From CBS News:
"On a tour of the decimated Ninth Ward, Nagin tells (CBS Correspondent Byron) Pitts the city has removed most of the debris from public property and it’s mainly private land that’s still affected – areas that can’t be cleaned without the owners' permission. But when Pitts points to flood-damaged cars in the street and a house washed partially into the street, the mayor shoots back. 'That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair.'"
Okay, Mr. Nagin. Let's be fair. One city is cleaning up from the worst terror attack on American soil, and the other is cleaning up from a hurricane, one for which it was ill-prepared.
Which city should we give a little bit more leeway to - New York City, or New Orleans?
I thought so.
Before this swipe at NYC, however, he strangely characterized his own city as "chocolate," on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, no less. According to the article, here's his rationale for using the term:
"'How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about,' he said. 'New Orleans was a chocolate city before Katrina. It is going to be a chocolate city after. How is that divisive? It is white and black working together, coming together and making something special.'"
"How is that divisive"???...well, maybe when you're trying to explain things like THIS:
"'I don't care what people are saying Uptown (a predominantly white section of town) or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day,' he said. 'This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be.'"
God wants New Orleans to be black - according to Ray Nagin.
Again, this fool was RE-ELECTED.
We already know that Nagin ignored the city's official evacuation plans for hurricanes, and now it appears he's doing nothing to dispel the reputation of his city. His "100 Day Plan" since re-election accomplished essentially nothing, and he tried to take credit for what actually was done, when he did not have a hand in doing it...
Ray Nagin is the reason New Orleans is in its sorry state. Let's hope the city smartens up and gives this guy the boot...real soon...
This article does a decent job focusing on the problem that existed BEFORE Katrina - though some have been exacerbated after it struck.
Tulane University criminal instructor Ronnie Jones makes an interesting implication:
"Before Katrina struck on August 29, 2005, there was little public pressure to do something about the number of murders, which peaked in 1994 with 425 killings.
"But Katrina hit hard the poor neighborhoods where the murders usually occurred, and brought the criminals closer to wealthier, often mostly white, areas, Jones said."
The juxtaposition of those two sentences makes it seem as if the poor communities of New Orleans were apathetic to the crime around them - only AFTER Katrina hit, and crime migrated to the "white" areas, was any outrage expressed publicly.
Does anyone else find this odd?
The article lays blame to the following for New Orleans' demise: poor police work, inept prosecutors, a local government that hasn't taken action, drug use, broken families, overall poverty, and the education system.
WOW - is anything right in this city?
One would think that people would use an event like Katrina to revamp all that is wrong, as the devastation of Katrina practically left a blank slate...but the city, with more than half its population displaced with no intentions of returning, is STILL in shambles almost two years later.
So where to start with the blame game?
I start and end with Ray Nagin - who was inexplicably re-elected.
Nagin has stepped in it a few times in the Katrina aftermath. He attacked NYC rebuilding efforts after 9/11 when confronted with his own shortcomings in the New Orleans clean-up efforts. From CBS News:
"On a tour of the decimated Ninth Ward, Nagin tells (CBS Correspondent Byron) Pitts the city has removed most of the debris from public property and it’s mainly private land that’s still affected – areas that can’t be cleaned without the owners' permission. But when Pitts points to flood-damaged cars in the street and a house washed partially into the street, the mayor shoots back. 'That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair.'"
Okay, Mr. Nagin. Let's be fair. One city is cleaning up from the worst terror attack on American soil, and the other is cleaning up from a hurricane, one for which it was ill-prepared.
Which city should we give a little bit more leeway to - New York City, or New Orleans?
I thought so.
Before this swipe at NYC, however, he strangely characterized his own city as "chocolate," on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, no less. According to the article, here's his rationale for using the term:
"'How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about,' he said. 'New Orleans was a chocolate city before Katrina. It is going to be a chocolate city after. How is that divisive? It is white and black working together, coming together and making something special.'"
"How is that divisive"???...well, maybe when you're trying to explain things like THIS:
"'I don't care what people are saying Uptown (a predominantly white section of town) or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day,' he said. 'This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be.'"
God wants New Orleans to be black - according to Ray Nagin.
Again, this fool was RE-ELECTED.
We already know that Nagin ignored the city's official evacuation plans for hurricanes, and now it appears he's doing nothing to dispel the reputation of his city. His "100 Day Plan" since re-election accomplished essentially nothing, and he tried to take credit for what actually was done, when he did not have a hand in doing it...
Ray Nagin is the reason New Orleans is in its sorry state. Let's hope the city smartens up and gives this guy the boot...real soon...
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Boston Security "Scare"
How to react to the "Boston security scare" of a few weeks ago? Do you say that, in a post-9/11 world, there's no such thing as an "overreaction" and applaud Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick, and Police Commissioner Davis for taking every precaution regarding the 10 or so "suspicious packages" strategicaly placed around Boston and outlying areas?
Do you blame Turner-owned Cartoon Network and its marketing strategy, conceding that, again, in a post-9/11 world, one should be sensitive to the world climate and understand that any misidentified "suspicious package" could be part of a terrorist plot?
Is it right for Turner and the contractor behind the marketing scheme, Interference Inc., to pay $2 million dollars to make amends for the publicity campaign, and for the two men who placed the devices, to be brought up on criminal charges?
Or...
Is Boston now more than ever a national embarrassment, mistaking a marketing scheme by the Cartoon Network as the work of Islamic fundamentalists? Then demanding retribution in the amount of $2 million dollars to save face, deflect blame, and excuse behavior?
What of the fact that these devices had been there for at least two weeks in Boston and in other major cities without so much as a peep of their existence? (apparently, the marketing scheme wasn't working anyway)
And the fact that it seems that Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick, and Police Commissioner Davis clearly have no idea what terrorism actually looks like, what constitutes a terrorist threat, and what means terrorists use to threaten us?
so...
which argument is more plausible?
To me, it has to be THE LATTER.
A lengthy excerpt from John Stossel's revealing piece, Panic In Boston:
"The Boston Globe reports, 'Turner Broadcasting acknowledged that it never sought approval or alerted authorities that it would put up the signs.'
"Good lord, if advertisers now have to apologize for not seeking prior approval from authorities for putting up signs, what have we come to?
"One of the men charged, Peter Berdovsky, said, '[It's] kind of ridiculous that they're making these statements on TV that we must not be safe from terrorism, because they were up there for three weeks and no one noticed. It's pretty commonsensical to look at them and say this is a piece of art and installation.'
"Terrorism is horrible, but your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are relatively low. You're more likely to be killed hitting a deer with your car. (Two hundred Americans die on average every year from car collisions with deer. Including the toll from 9/11, the average number of Americans to die each year from international terrorism since 1981 is 145.)
"Excessive fear of terrorism hurts Americans, too. After 9/11, many people chose to drive rather than fly, leading to 1,000 additional deaths in automobile wrecks.
"Boston's crazy reaction reinforces the theme I've been sounding in recent columns: Decentralization of authority is always better than centralized power. Imagine if the federal Department of Homeland Security imposed procedures on all cities for when suspicious devices are spotted. The whole country might have come to a standstill.
"Instead -- thank goodness -- cities and states can establish their own procedures based on their own knowledge and experience. If Boston's procedures cause the city to panic and shut down, at least New York's and L.A.'s don't."
Michael Graham's take:
"So, do you think the people in New York and LA are really bummed out that THEY didn't spend an hour stuck in traffic or trapped on a stopped subway train? Do you think the taxpayers in Portland and Seattle wish they had blown a million bucks chasing Lite Brites on Wednesday?
"Or do you think they're thinking their lucky stars that their mayor isn't named Menino?"
Again...THE LATTER.
Do you blame Turner-owned Cartoon Network and its marketing strategy, conceding that, again, in a post-9/11 world, one should be sensitive to the world climate and understand that any misidentified "suspicious package" could be part of a terrorist plot?
Is it right for Turner and the contractor behind the marketing scheme, Interference Inc., to pay $2 million dollars to make amends for the publicity campaign, and for the two men who placed the devices, to be brought up on criminal charges?
Or...
Is Boston now more than ever a national embarrassment, mistaking a marketing scheme by the Cartoon Network as the work of Islamic fundamentalists? Then demanding retribution in the amount of $2 million dollars to save face, deflect blame, and excuse behavior?
What of the fact that these devices had been there for at least two weeks in Boston and in other major cities without so much as a peep of their existence? (apparently, the marketing scheme wasn't working anyway)
And the fact that it seems that Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick, and Police Commissioner Davis clearly have no idea what terrorism actually looks like, what constitutes a terrorist threat, and what means terrorists use to threaten us?
so...
which argument is more plausible?
To me, it has to be THE LATTER.
A lengthy excerpt from John Stossel's revealing piece, Panic In Boston:
"The Boston Globe reports, 'Turner Broadcasting acknowledged that it never sought approval or alerted authorities that it would put up the signs.'
"Good lord, if advertisers now have to apologize for not seeking prior approval from authorities for putting up signs, what have we come to?
"One of the men charged, Peter Berdovsky, said, '[It's] kind of ridiculous that they're making these statements on TV that we must not be safe from terrorism, because they were up there for three weeks and no one noticed. It's pretty commonsensical to look at them and say this is a piece of art and installation.'
"Terrorism is horrible, but your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are relatively low. You're more likely to be killed hitting a deer with your car. (Two hundred Americans die on average every year from car collisions with deer. Including the toll from 9/11, the average number of Americans to die each year from international terrorism since 1981 is 145.)
"Excessive fear of terrorism hurts Americans, too. After 9/11, many people chose to drive rather than fly, leading to 1,000 additional deaths in automobile wrecks.
"Boston's crazy reaction reinforces the theme I've been sounding in recent columns: Decentralization of authority is always better than centralized power. Imagine if the federal Department of Homeland Security imposed procedures on all cities for when suspicious devices are spotted. The whole country might have come to a standstill.
"Instead -- thank goodness -- cities and states can establish their own procedures based on their own knowledge and experience. If Boston's procedures cause the city to panic and shut down, at least New York's and L.A.'s don't."
Michael Graham's take:
"So, do you think the people in New York and LA are really bummed out that THEY didn't spend an hour stuck in traffic or trapped on a stopped subway train? Do you think the taxpayers in Portland and Seattle wish they had blown a million bucks chasing Lite Brites on Wednesday?
"Or do you think they're thinking their lucky stars that their mayor isn't named Menino?"
Again...THE LATTER.
New Links
1) Magic Valley Mormon: Not sure if this blog is still active, but it is insightful. I've cited it here before and am starting to comb its archives for information.
2) Atlas Shrugs: One of the most intense blogs I've ever come across, and quickly becoming one of my favorites. Quite thorough and dense, and with over 2.5 million visitors in about two years, very heavily trafficked.
Check them out.
2) Atlas Shrugs: One of the most intense blogs I've ever come across, and quickly becoming one of my favorites. Quite thorough and dense, and with over 2.5 million visitors in about two years, very heavily trafficked.
Check them out.
Schlussel v. Hannity
I've always liked both Debbie Schlussel and Sean Hannity - Schlussel more, though. She's one of the most articulate, insightful, and analytical pundits out there, while Hannity tends to benefit from sitting across from Alan Colmes.
If I had to choose one in a fight, however, it would be Schlussel. Hands down.
And it appears as if she's winning.
I first found out about the battle Schlussel is waging here when Hot Air linked to a clip of Ann Coulter and Geraldine Ferraro on Hannity and Colmes debating the worthiness of Imam Al-Husainy's giving the opening prayer at the Democratic National Convention's winter convocation. Here's what Schlussel had to say about the clip:
"...clearly, they (HANNITY AND COLMES/FOX NEWS) are ripping people’s work off. Since they used my info on Al-Husainy, they could have at least given me credit or had me on. Everyone else gave me credit. Why couldn’t they? FOX News has done this to me so many times, my head is spinning.
"Covering the story is only half of the story. Getting people on who are the basis for the story and who have the complete info–as I do on Al-Husainy–is the other half. They did not do their job tonight."
Schlussel convincingly states her case against Hannity here, here, here, and here, with prominent blogosphere support from LaShawn Barber, Robert Spencer, and Independent Conservative.
It appears that Hannity is in the wrong and he should just "make amends," as Barber suggests. If this whole thing is true (which, it appears to be), it is quite a letdown. We conservatives supposedly stand for truth in all respects - and Hannity is denying the truth by not crediting Schlussel for her exclusive work.
I urge you to read Schlussel frequently. As for Hannity...we'll see if he publicly addresses this...so far, I haven't seen anything.
If I had to choose one in a fight, however, it would be Schlussel. Hands down.
And it appears as if she's winning.
I first found out about the battle Schlussel is waging here when Hot Air linked to a clip of Ann Coulter and Geraldine Ferraro on Hannity and Colmes debating the worthiness of Imam Al-Husainy's giving the opening prayer at the Democratic National Convention's winter convocation. Here's what Schlussel had to say about the clip:
"...clearly, they (HANNITY AND COLMES/FOX NEWS) are ripping people’s work off. Since they used my info on Al-Husainy, they could have at least given me credit or had me on. Everyone else gave me credit. Why couldn’t they? FOX News has done this to me so many times, my head is spinning.
"Covering the story is only half of the story. Getting people on who are the basis for the story and who have the complete info–as I do on Al-Husainy–is the other half. They did not do their job tonight."
Schlussel convincingly states her case against Hannity here, here, here, and here, with prominent blogosphere support from LaShawn Barber, Robert Spencer, and Independent Conservative.
It appears that Hannity is in the wrong and he should just "make amends," as Barber suggests. If this whole thing is true (which, it appears to be), it is quite a letdown. We conservatives supposedly stand for truth in all respects - and Hannity is denying the truth by not crediting Schlussel for her exclusive work.
I urge you to read Schlussel frequently. As for Hannity...we'll see if he publicly addresses this...so far, I haven't seen anything.
More on the Border Patrol
Tammy Bruce gives us a heads-up on the most recent goings-on in this case that is now spiralling out of control. Via World Net Daily: (my emphasis)
"A heavily redacted Department of Homeland Security report on the prosecutions of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was issued by Assistant Inspector General Elizabeth M. Redman, one of four investigators called upon to resign for lying to Congress.
"The 77-page report – which Redman issued with her signature in November – was released to the public yesterday on the heels of DHS Inspector General Robert Skinner's admission at a hearing that his deputies falsely told lawmakers the agency had documentary proof the border agents were rogue cops 'out to shoot Mexicans.'"
The report is linked, but I don't know that it is all that helpful to understanding the case. The main point here is that DHS lied under oath. Who can you trust these days?
Meanwhile, Ignacio Ramos has been beaten in prison by "fellow inmates." What does the AP story fail to mention?
The assailants were quite possibly illegal immigrants.
Honestly, my head is starting to spin over this. Keep in mind the following:
1) The drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, was given immunity by the U.S. government to testify against the two border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. Aldrete-Davila is now suing the Border Patrol for five million dollars (U.S. taxpayer funded, naturally) for civil rights violations.
2) The prosecution and the Department of Homeland Security, at best, used false testimony or, at worst, lied about the events of the day of the shooting:
"The prosecution contended Compean called the alien victim a 'Mexican piece of sh-t.' The DHS went further, telling concerned Congressmen in Texas on September 26 that the agents confessed they 'were out to shoot Mexicans.' The department’s Office of Inspector General has provided no proof for the assertion. Nor do they seem concerned that both alleged racists, Ramos and Compean, claim to be of Mexican descent."
3) From Deb Saunders (as previously linked here): "Two of Aldrete-Davila's family members, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, told the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin that the smuggler had been dealing drugs since age 14 and, according to one, he 'wouldn't move drugs unless he had a gun on him.'"
4) The judge has acted in a corrupt manner: (emphasis mine)
"Some of the jurors broke down in tears at the reading of the guilty verdict. Three jurors – Robert Gourley, Claudia Torres, and Edine Woods – came forward days before the sentencing in October to say they had been holdouts against a guilty verdict and only voted with the majority when other jurors told them the judge would not allow a hung jury. Doing so, they noted, violated their consciences. Gourley wrote, 'Had we had the option of a hung jury, I truly believe the outcome may have been different.' Two days later, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone denied the motion for a new trial.
"Although many Congressmen hoped for a federal investigation, Judge Cardone – a 2003 George W. Bush appointee whose near-total focus before assuming the federal bench had been family law – had also refused to delay sentencing until after any potential review, saying it would only 'postpone the inevitable.' Ultimately, no review ever came.
"In October, Cardone sentenced Ramos to 11 years, and Compean to 12 years, imprisonment – 6-7 years longer than the sentence a U.S. district judge imposed that July upon another Border Patrol officer who had smuggled 100 illegal immigrants into the country."
5) The feds knew the smuggler.
Doesn't this SCREAM of a presidential pardon? As I've asked before, who in their right mind would want to work as a Border Patrol Agent after this mess?
With our sieve-like borders becoming more transparent by the day, and with DHS lying to protect illegal immigrants and turning against its own people...how can ANYBODY take the president seriously when he rhetorizes how tough we have to be in the War on Terror? Who doesn't think, at this point, that radical Muslims are watching the details of a case like this and thinking to themselves "America will take care of itself! We don't have to do anything!"
With our increasingly lax immigration policy, our declining overall birth rate, and the lack of assimilation among those immigrants here (legally or illegally), it won't matter that we haven't had an attack like September 11th in over 5 years.
We're allowing the takeover to occur without attacks even happening.
"A heavily redacted Department of Homeland Security report on the prosecutions of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was issued by Assistant Inspector General Elizabeth M. Redman, one of four investigators called upon to resign for lying to Congress.
"The 77-page report – which Redman issued with her signature in November – was released to the public yesterday on the heels of DHS Inspector General Robert Skinner's admission at a hearing that his deputies falsely told lawmakers the agency had documentary proof the border agents were rogue cops 'out to shoot Mexicans.'"
The report is linked, but I don't know that it is all that helpful to understanding the case. The main point here is that DHS lied under oath. Who can you trust these days?
Meanwhile, Ignacio Ramos has been beaten in prison by "fellow inmates." What does the AP story fail to mention?
The assailants were quite possibly illegal immigrants.
Honestly, my head is starting to spin over this. Keep in mind the following:
1) The drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, was given immunity by the U.S. government to testify against the two border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. Aldrete-Davila is now suing the Border Patrol for five million dollars (U.S. taxpayer funded, naturally) for civil rights violations.
2) The prosecution and the Department of Homeland Security, at best, used false testimony or, at worst, lied about the events of the day of the shooting:
"The prosecution contended Compean called the alien victim a 'Mexican piece of sh-t.' The DHS went further, telling concerned Congressmen in Texas on September 26 that the agents confessed they 'were out to shoot Mexicans.' The department’s Office of Inspector General has provided no proof for the assertion. Nor do they seem concerned that both alleged racists, Ramos and Compean, claim to be of Mexican descent."
3) From Deb Saunders (as previously linked here): "Two of Aldrete-Davila's family members, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, told the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin that the smuggler had been dealing drugs since age 14 and, according to one, he 'wouldn't move drugs unless he had a gun on him.'"
4) The judge has acted in a corrupt manner: (emphasis mine)
"Some of the jurors broke down in tears at the reading of the guilty verdict. Three jurors – Robert Gourley, Claudia Torres, and Edine Woods – came forward days before the sentencing in October to say they had been holdouts against a guilty verdict and only voted with the majority when other jurors told them the judge would not allow a hung jury. Doing so, they noted, violated their consciences. Gourley wrote, 'Had we had the option of a hung jury, I truly believe the outcome may have been different.' Two days later, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone denied the motion for a new trial.
"Although many Congressmen hoped for a federal investigation, Judge Cardone – a 2003 George W. Bush appointee whose near-total focus before assuming the federal bench had been family law – had also refused to delay sentencing until after any potential review, saying it would only 'postpone the inevitable.' Ultimately, no review ever came.
"In October, Cardone sentenced Ramos to 11 years, and Compean to 12 years, imprisonment – 6-7 years longer than the sentence a U.S. district judge imposed that July upon another Border Patrol officer who had smuggled 100 illegal immigrants into the country."
5) The feds knew the smuggler.
Doesn't this SCREAM of a presidential pardon? As I've asked before, who in their right mind would want to work as a Border Patrol Agent after this mess?
With our sieve-like borders becoming more transparent by the day, and with DHS lying to protect illegal immigrants and turning against its own people...how can ANYBODY take the president seriously when he rhetorizes how tough we have to be in the War on Terror? Who doesn't think, at this point, that radical Muslims are watching the details of a case like this and thinking to themselves "America will take care of itself! We don't have to do anything!"
With our increasingly lax immigration policy, our declining overall birth rate, and the lack of assimilation among those immigrants here (legally or illegally), it won't matter that we haven't had an attack like September 11th in over 5 years.
We're allowing the takeover to occur without attacks even happening.
Lourdes, 149 Years Ago...
The story of Saint Bernadette, the patron saint of the sick, poor, and the people of Lourdes.
Here are the details of the 18 apparitions - all encounters Bernadette had with the Blessed Virgin Mary...of particular miraculous importance are #3, where Mary first spoke to Bernadette, and #12, where a friend of Bernadette's plunged her dislocated arm into the water of the spring near the apparitions, and it healed.
The Church officially recognizes these encounters and canonized Bernadette in 1933. Here's why these apparitions are so important to life in the Church, according to the website:
THE APPARITIONS IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH.
"This judgement of the Church is essential because the Apparitions add nothing to the Creed or the Gospel; they are a reminder for an age that had a tendency to forget them, they are indeed, a prophetic Visitation to our world. God does not want us focusing on the wonderful or the extraordinary; but through the Apparitions he gives us a sign that we should return to the Gospel which is the Word of his Son, the Word of Life. Faithfulness to the message of the Gospel, the authenticity of our life of witness, the results of holiness which flow out from it for the people of God are the criteria of an authentic Apparition in the Church. At Lourdes they are verified with a special clarity: the Church is not deceived in this."
"A reminder for an age that had a tendency to forget them"...seems all too appropriate now, as well.
In particular for today, please pray for the sick and the poor. They need it now more than ever.
Here is information for the Jubilee Year 2008 in celebration of the 150th anniversary of Lourdes.
Here are the details of the 18 apparitions - all encounters Bernadette had with the Blessed Virgin Mary...of particular miraculous importance are #3, where Mary first spoke to Bernadette, and #12, where a friend of Bernadette's plunged her dislocated arm into the water of the spring near the apparitions, and it healed.
The Church officially recognizes these encounters and canonized Bernadette in 1933. Here's why these apparitions are so important to life in the Church, according to the website:
THE APPARITIONS IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH.
"This judgement of the Church is essential because the Apparitions add nothing to the Creed or the Gospel; they are a reminder for an age that had a tendency to forget them, they are indeed, a prophetic Visitation to our world. God does not want us focusing on the wonderful or the extraordinary; but through the Apparitions he gives us a sign that we should return to the Gospel which is the Word of his Son, the Word of Life. Faithfulness to the message of the Gospel, the authenticity of our life of witness, the results of holiness which flow out from it for the people of God are the criteria of an authentic Apparition in the Church. At Lourdes they are verified with a special clarity: the Church is not deceived in this."
"A reminder for an age that had a tendency to forget them"...seems all too appropriate now, as well.
In particular for today, please pray for the sick and the poor. They need it now more than ever.
Here is information for the Jubilee Year 2008 in celebration of the 150th anniversary of Lourdes.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Are We All Hopelessly Racist?
Some recent events involving race that have ticked me off:
1) The lauding of Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith being two Black coaches in the Super Bowl...why is it that everything these days seems to be a multicultural landmark (except in the case of Condoleeza Rice being the first Black woman Secretary of State - nobody cares about that)? Look at the boatload of stories on this non-issue:
Via CNN, Vibe, the Washington Post, CBS, the LA Times, and, above all, this gem from the Denver Post (entitled "Black Power"), among others...
Check out how Debbie Schlussel tries to put the issue to rest on CNN recently - she says it much better than I could. Here's a long segment of the transcript, worth quoting at length (my emphasis added):
SCHLUSSEL: Well, I think that this whole focus on racism, racism, racism -- we are the most unracist country in the world. Black coaches get this chance to be in the Super Bowl. There isn't a white coach in the Super Bowl. They made it on merit alone, not because of the Rooney rule. Neither of those guys got hired because of the Rooney rule. Nobody has ever been hired because of that rule.
(ESPN analyst Stephen A.) SMITH: How would you know that?
SCHLUSSEL: Because the teams usually know who they want to hire. And they interview somebody and waste that person's time.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: For decades, there was never anybody else. For decades, there was never anybody of African-American descent that they wanted.
SCHLUSSEL: Name one person you know was hired because of the Rooney rule. The Rooney rule is silly...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: ... because what it does is, it wastes a black candidate's time, when the team probably already decided who they wanted to interview.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: Now Mike Singletary has been interviewed by the Dallas Cowboys. Do you think he's going to be hired because of the Rooney rule or based on merit?
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: An owner wants to hire somebody...
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: You ask a question that you don't want answers to. You are obviously asking questions that you don't want answers to.
(Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Karen) HUNTER: This is about affirmative action. And, as a person who has benefited from affirmative action, I can tell you, it's absolutely necessary. People will not hire people who don't look like them, who they're not comfortable with, unless they're forced to.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: Everyone in America is a racist?
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: No, everyone in America is not a racist.
SCHLUSSEL: Exactly.
HUNTER: But this country has a racial foundation that we do not...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: It's time to move on.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: Is it time to move on?
SCHLUSSEL: Yes.
HUNTER: It's time to move on when we stop being racist.
(CROSSTALK)
(host Paula) ZAHN: Let me move on to another question. Do you think blacks have been held to a different standard?
HUNTER: Absolutely. I have to be twice as good at what I do.
ZAHN: Not even you...
HUNTER: Yes. No, exactly.
ZAHN: ... but specifically when it comes to the NFL?
HUNTER: Both of these coaches, that they are both in the Super Bowl right now says a lot about...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: If you were twice as good, you wouldn't need affirmative action.
HUNTER: Really?
SCHLUSSEL: Yes. You don't need it.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: There is not a black person in America that would tell you differently than what she just said. Of course we're held to a different standard. We're always held to a different standard. That's why, even more significant than Tony Dungy -- or just as significant as Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith going to the Super Bowl, is the fact that Tomlin was hired by the Pittsburgh Steelers, because his resume is not impeccable. Yet, at the age of 34, he was given an opportunity to be a head coach in the NFL. That's something that simply never, ever happened in this sport's history.
SCHLUSSEL: Why should he get that opportunity just because of color?
SMITH: Because white folks get that opportunity all the time.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: And, if you're talking about fairness, how about being fair and making sure that black people are afforded the same opportunity as white people?
SCHLUSSEL: OK. Fine.Do you think that there should be -- do you think there should be Samoan and Latino coaches, because there are Samoan and Latino players? And there hasn't been one of those coaches yet.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: Deborah (ph), the NFL is 70 percent black, right? The NFL is 70 percent black.
SCHLUSSEL: Over 75 percent.
HUNTER: OK. Well, I -- right, 70 percent.
ZAHN: But does that necessarily mean that 75 percent of the coaches should be black?(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: You make -- you make a point.
SCHLUSSEL: Well, then maybe we should have affirmative action for white players on the field. Why does there need to be a correlation between the 75 percent on the field?
HUNTER: It is about opportunity. The fact that Smith is the lowest paid coach in the NFL. SMITH: $135,000.
(INAUDIBLE)
SCHLUSSEL: He had a very bad agent. He had a bag agent
ZAHN: What evidence is that that that's relevant? You know, racism and not bad agent? SMITH: I'll give you a perfect example, Lane Kipman (ph), new coach of the Oakland Raiders. He was at USC. You got a guy like Norm Chow (ph) who led USC to two national championships as an offensive coordinator, plus he took them to a third. He did a fantastic job at Tennessee. He couldn't get a head coach job. You got Ron Rivera (ph)
(INAUDIBLE)
Let me just say. The man is 31 years old with no experience whatsoever coaching on the NFL level, but he was given a head coaching job. That simply does not happen for black people in America.
SCHLUSSEL: There are 32 jobs, 32. There are a lot of good coaches of all races that want to be coaches.
SMITH: Let me address my issue. The man is 31 years old with no coaching experience, any NFL and got a head coaching job for the Oakland Raiders. Does that happen for a black man in the United States of America?
SCHLUSSEL: Everybody gets a chance.
SMITH: Does that happen?
SCHLUSSEL: The fact is that
(INAUDIBLE) .
Why did Art Shell (ph) and Dennis Green (ph) get hired over and over and over again?
SMITH: What are you talking about? What are you talking about over and over again? HUNTER: Here's the problem I have. When you hire unqualified people and you say, ha, see, blacks can't do it.
(INAUDIBLE)
SCHLUSSEL: I think blacks are very qualified.
HUNTER: The Rooney rule works. Affirmative action works
(INAUDIBLE).
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: These are two great coaches, not black coaches. They're great coaches of any race. They are great coaches in their own right, not because they're black and it's time to move on.
I think she put that "issue" to rest... wonder if CNN will ever have her on again after she smoked those two...
Here's what should be emphasized, via the Miami Herald. Fantastic piece.
2) Barack Obama is articulate...
Racism!!!
Read this via the New York Times:
"That is the core of the issue. When whites use the word in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment. It is similar to praising a female executive or politician by calling her 'tough' or 'a rational decision-maker.'
"'When people say it, what they are really saying is that someone is articulate ... for a black person,' Ms. Perez said.
"Such a subtext is inherently offensive because it suggests that the recipient of the 'compliment' is notably different from other black people.
"'Historically, it was meant to signal the exceptional Negro,' Mr. Dyson said. 'The implication is that most black people do not have the capacity to engage in articulate speech, when white people are automatically assumed to be articulate.'"
...and the piece has the GALL to point out how to use the word!
"But here is a pointer. Do not use it as the primary attribute of note for a black person if you would not use it for a similarly talented, skilled or eloquent white person. Do not make it an outsized distinction for Brown University’s president, Ruth Simmons, if you would not for the University of Michigan’s president, Mary Sue Coleman. Do not make it the sole basis for your praise of the actor Forest Whitaker if it would never cross your mind to utter it about the expressive Peter O’Toole."
This is beyond comprehension. Barack Obama IS articulate. Condoleeza Rice IS articulate. Thomas Sowell IS articulate. LaShawn Barber IS articulate. Star Parker IS articulate. Oprah Winfrey IS articulate.
And they're all black. IT'S A GOOD THING.
3) LaShawn Barber's piece entitled "Slavery Apologies and Diversity Pledges" is spot on, per usual. She highlights two resolutions in the Virginia legislature which call for the state to apologize to blacks for its role in slavery.
Of course, blacks were slaveowners too - disproportionately so, according to some statistics. But you never hear this. Anywhere.
Here's the simple point Barber makes: "Raise your hand if you or anyone you know was a slave. Raise your hand if you or anyone you know owned slaves."
As Debbie Schlussel was saying, it's time to move on.
The second racial issue Barber notes is this diversity pledge from the University of Virginia.
Excerpts from Barber:
"The student council proposed a so-called diversity pledge to…who knows? Someone tell me what is a “diversity pledge?” A promise to always consider the skin color of fellow students? Hmm…content of character, and all that, doesn’t apply. Is it a promise not to notice differences like skin color? Wait a minute. You can notice differences if doing so is beneficial but not detrimental, right? Isn’t that inconsistent and a bit…hypocritical?...
"...If you need a 'diversity pledge' to act like a responsible, courteous adult, no matter what color skin someone is born with or who they have sex with (besides a child), a diversity pledge ain’t going to help you."
Naturally, she's right. Certain blacks, it seems, don't want racism to go away, and in fact perpetuate it, when it benefits them. All three of these cases illustrate that point. Be it the need for "diversity" among NFL coaches, the "proper" use of certain words towards minority groups, or "diversity pledges" on college campuses, it's ALL a part of the victimhood culture which permeates our society.
Certain blacks (and white liberals, come to think of it) need to see Tony Dungy, Lovie Smith, Barack Obama, and LaShawn Barber for who they are, and get past the "Rooney rule" obsession that blacks need help because of oppression.
These people are proof positive that you don't. See beyond their race.
1) The lauding of Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith being two Black coaches in the Super Bowl...why is it that everything these days seems to be a multicultural landmark (except in the case of Condoleeza Rice being the first Black woman Secretary of State - nobody cares about that)? Look at the boatload of stories on this non-issue:
Via CNN, Vibe, the Washington Post, CBS, the LA Times, and, above all, this gem from the Denver Post (entitled "Black Power"), among others...
Check out how Debbie Schlussel tries to put the issue to rest on CNN recently - she says it much better than I could. Here's a long segment of the transcript, worth quoting at length (my emphasis added):
SCHLUSSEL: Well, I think that this whole focus on racism, racism, racism -- we are the most unracist country in the world. Black coaches get this chance to be in the Super Bowl. There isn't a white coach in the Super Bowl. They made it on merit alone, not because of the Rooney rule. Neither of those guys got hired because of the Rooney rule. Nobody has ever been hired because of that rule.
(ESPN analyst Stephen A.) SMITH: How would you know that?
SCHLUSSEL: Because the teams usually know who they want to hire. And they interview somebody and waste that person's time.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: For decades, there was never anybody else. For decades, there was never anybody of African-American descent that they wanted.
SCHLUSSEL: Name one person you know was hired because of the Rooney rule. The Rooney rule is silly...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: ... because what it does is, it wastes a black candidate's time, when the team probably already decided who they wanted to interview.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: Now Mike Singletary has been interviewed by the Dallas Cowboys. Do you think he's going to be hired because of the Rooney rule or based on merit?
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: An owner wants to hire somebody...
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: You ask a question that you don't want answers to. You are obviously asking questions that you don't want answers to.
(Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Karen) HUNTER: This is about affirmative action. And, as a person who has benefited from affirmative action, I can tell you, it's absolutely necessary. People will not hire people who don't look like them, who they're not comfortable with, unless they're forced to.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: Everyone in America is a racist?
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: No, everyone in America is not a racist.
SCHLUSSEL: Exactly.
HUNTER: But this country has a racial foundation that we do not...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: It's time to move on.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: Is it time to move on?
SCHLUSSEL: Yes.
HUNTER: It's time to move on when we stop being racist.
(CROSSTALK)
(host Paula) ZAHN: Let me move on to another question. Do you think blacks have been held to a different standard?
HUNTER: Absolutely. I have to be twice as good at what I do.
ZAHN: Not even you...
HUNTER: Yes. No, exactly.
ZAHN: ... but specifically when it comes to the NFL?
HUNTER: Both of these coaches, that they are both in the Super Bowl right now says a lot about...
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: If you were twice as good, you wouldn't need affirmative action.
HUNTER: Really?
SCHLUSSEL: Yes. You don't need it.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: There is not a black person in America that would tell you differently than what she just said. Of course we're held to a different standard. We're always held to a different standard. That's why, even more significant than Tony Dungy -- or just as significant as Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith going to the Super Bowl, is the fact that Tomlin was hired by the Pittsburgh Steelers, because his resume is not impeccable. Yet, at the age of 34, he was given an opportunity to be a head coach in the NFL. That's something that simply never, ever happened in this sport's history.
SCHLUSSEL: Why should he get that opportunity just because of color?
SMITH: Because white folks get that opportunity all the time.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: And, if you're talking about fairness, how about being fair and making sure that black people are afforded the same opportunity as white people?
SCHLUSSEL: OK. Fine.Do you think that there should be -- do you think there should be Samoan and Latino coaches, because there are Samoan and Latino players? And there hasn't been one of those coaches yet.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: Deborah (ph), the NFL is 70 percent black, right? The NFL is 70 percent black.
SCHLUSSEL: Over 75 percent.
HUNTER: OK. Well, I -- right, 70 percent.
ZAHN: But does that necessarily mean that 75 percent of the coaches should be black?(CROSSTALK)
HUNTER: You make -- you make a point.
SCHLUSSEL: Well, then maybe we should have affirmative action for white players on the field. Why does there need to be a correlation between the 75 percent on the field?
HUNTER: It is about opportunity. The fact that Smith is the lowest paid coach in the NFL. SMITH: $135,000.
(INAUDIBLE)
SCHLUSSEL: He had a very bad agent. He had a bag agent
ZAHN: What evidence is that that that's relevant? You know, racism and not bad agent? SMITH: I'll give you a perfect example, Lane Kipman (ph), new coach of the Oakland Raiders. He was at USC. You got a guy like Norm Chow (ph) who led USC to two national championships as an offensive coordinator, plus he took them to a third. He did a fantastic job at Tennessee. He couldn't get a head coach job. You got Ron Rivera (ph)
(INAUDIBLE)
Let me just say. The man is 31 years old with no experience whatsoever coaching on the NFL level, but he was given a head coaching job. That simply does not happen for black people in America.
SCHLUSSEL: There are 32 jobs, 32. There are a lot of good coaches of all races that want to be coaches.
SMITH: Let me address my issue. The man is 31 years old with no coaching experience, any NFL and got a head coaching job for the Oakland Raiders. Does that happen for a black man in the United States of America?
SCHLUSSEL: Everybody gets a chance.
SMITH: Does that happen?
SCHLUSSEL: The fact is that
(INAUDIBLE) .
Why did Art Shell (ph) and Dennis Green (ph) get hired over and over and over again?
SMITH: What are you talking about? What are you talking about over and over again? HUNTER: Here's the problem I have. When you hire unqualified people and you say, ha, see, blacks can't do it.
(INAUDIBLE)
SCHLUSSEL: I think blacks are very qualified.
HUNTER: The Rooney rule works. Affirmative action works
(INAUDIBLE).
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLUSSEL: These are two great coaches, not black coaches. They're great coaches of any race. They are great coaches in their own right, not because they're black and it's time to move on.
I think she put that "issue" to rest... wonder if CNN will ever have her on again after she smoked those two...
Here's what should be emphasized, via the Miami Herald. Fantastic piece.
2) Barack Obama is articulate...
Racism!!!
Read this via the New York Times:
"That is the core of the issue. When whites use the word in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment. It is similar to praising a female executive or politician by calling her 'tough' or 'a rational decision-maker.'
"'When people say it, what they are really saying is that someone is articulate ... for a black person,' Ms. Perez said.
"Such a subtext is inherently offensive because it suggests that the recipient of the 'compliment' is notably different from other black people.
"'Historically, it was meant to signal the exceptional Negro,' Mr. Dyson said. 'The implication is that most black people do not have the capacity to engage in articulate speech, when white people are automatically assumed to be articulate.'"
...and the piece has the GALL to point out how to use the word!
"But here is a pointer. Do not use it as the primary attribute of note for a black person if you would not use it for a similarly talented, skilled or eloquent white person. Do not make it an outsized distinction for Brown University’s president, Ruth Simmons, if you would not for the University of Michigan’s president, Mary Sue Coleman. Do not make it the sole basis for your praise of the actor Forest Whitaker if it would never cross your mind to utter it about the expressive Peter O’Toole."
This is beyond comprehension. Barack Obama IS articulate. Condoleeza Rice IS articulate. Thomas Sowell IS articulate. LaShawn Barber IS articulate. Star Parker IS articulate. Oprah Winfrey IS articulate.
And they're all black. IT'S A GOOD THING.
3) LaShawn Barber's piece entitled "Slavery Apologies and Diversity Pledges" is spot on, per usual. She highlights two resolutions in the Virginia legislature which call for the state to apologize to blacks for its role in slavery.
Of course, blacks were slaveowners too - disproportionately so, according to some statistics. But you never hear this. Anywhere.
Here's the simple point Barber makes: "Raise your hand if you or anyone you know was a slave. Raise your hand if you or anyone you know owned slaves."
As Debbie Schlussel was saying, it's time to move on.
The second racial issue Barber notes is this diversity pledge from the University of Virginia.
Excerpts from Barber:
"The student council proposed a so-called diversity pledge to…who knows? Someone tell me what is a “diversity pledge?” A promise to always consider the skin color of fellow students? Hmm…content of character, and all that, doesn’t apply. Is it a promise not to notice differences like skin color? Wait a minute. You can notice differences if doing so is beneficial but not detrimental, right? Isn’t that inconsistent and a bit…hypocritical?...
"...If you need a 'diversity pledge' to act like a responsible, courteous adult, no matter what color skin someone is born with or who they have sex with (besides a child), a diversity pledge ain’t going to help you."
Naturally, she's right. Certain blacks, it seems, don't want racism to go away, and in fact perpetuate it, when it benefits them. All three of these cases illustrate that point. Be it the need for "diversity" among NFL coaches, the "proper" use of certain words towards minority groups, or "diversity pledges" on college campuses, it's ALL a part of the victimhood culture which permeates our society.
Certain blacks (and white liberals, come to think of it) need to see Tony Dungy, Lovie Smith, Barack Obama, and LaShawn Barber for who they are, and get past the "Rooney rule" obsession that blacks need help because of oppression.
These people are proof positive that you don't. See beyond their race.
To CMS...
...your post infuriates me - I had to address it separately. Though I am glad that you posted - it gives me a chance to highlight hollow arguments from the left:
First off, here is Bush's proposal for balancing the budget by 2012. Note that "permanent tax relief" strengthened the economy and contributed to cutting the deficit in half, three years ahead of schedule. Also, the report explains that only those programs "that are not getting the job done" should be eliminated.
Sure, not all Americans will be happy with cuts in government programs...but could Americans as a whole be really upset about cutting programs which serve no purpose? According to this budget fact sheet, the Program Assessment Ratings Tool is used to determine what programs are useful, which could use more funding, which could be eliminated, etc. Here is the latest information as of February 5th...
After analyzing this data myself, it looks like we could cut the Department of Education altogether - but I digress...
There has been no evidence of a lack of consumer or investor confidence despite what you say about Americans lacking any savings. If you want to blame Bush on the outrageous costs of education and housing which prohibit many Americans from saving anything, well...you're just wrong. Education costs go through the roof when legislators want to make education tax deductible (a Clinton idea) and extend tuition breaks to illegal immigrants (a decision made at the state, rather than the federal, level - see here). Also, housing prices are starting to fall nationwide, and supply and demand, rather than any government interference, is dictating their pricing.
Also, earmark reform, which Bush addressed briefly in his SOTU, should greatly contribute to the trimming of the national deficit by eliminating wasteful spending.
Lastly, I HAVE to address the fact you threw in "global warming" as if that was all Bush's fault...
Read this and weep.
Looks like they were against it before they were for it this time, huh?
First off, here is Bush's proposal for balancing the budget by 2012. Note that "permanent tax relief" strengthened the economy and contributed to cutting the deficit in half, three years ahead of schedule. Also, the report explains that only those programs "that are not getting the job done" should be eliminated.
Sure, not all Americans will be happy with cuts in government programs...but could Americans as a whole be really upset about cutting programs which serve no purpose? According to this budget fact sheet, the Program Assessment Ratings Tool is used to determine what programs are useful, which could use more funding, which could be eliminated, etc. Here is the latest information as of February 5th...
After analyzing this data myself, it looks like we could cut the Department of Education altogether - but I digress...
There has been no evidence of a lack of consumer or investor confidence despite what you say about Americans lacking any savings. If you want to blame Bush on the outrageous costs of education and housing which prohibit many Americans from saving anything, well...you're just wrong. Education costs go through the roof when legislators want to make education tax deductible (a Clinton idea) and extend tuition breaks to illegal immigrants (a decision made at the state, rather than the federal, level - see here). Also, housing prices are starting to fall nationwide, and supply and demand, rather than any government interference, is dictating their pricing.
Also, earmark reform, which Bush addressed briefly in his SOTU, should greatly contribute to the trimming of the national deficit by eliminating wasteful spending.
Lastly, I HAVE to address the fact you threw in "global warming" as if that was all Bush's fault...
Read this and weep.
Looks like they were against it before they were for it this time, huh?
New Links...
First, two books:
1) State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan. I feel that I'll be referencing this book often, as it makes strong points for securing our borders before the rest of our country looks like "Mexifornia"...also, there's some justified Bush-bashing for all you haters out there...
2) Meltdown by Patrick J. Michaels. I'm sure you'll see a lot of this, too. It's rather dense, and science is not my forte, so it will take me a while to dig through. The premise of the book is to debunk the "predictable distortion of global warming" conjured up by scientists, politicians, and media elites. Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and senior fellow of environmental studies at the Cato Institute.
Here's a preview.
...and one columnist link:
1) Star Parker. Check out her story here and discover why her voice is so important in today's racially charged political climate.
More to come as my search expands for more sources...
1) State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan. I feel that I'll be referencing this book often, as it makes strong points for securing our borders before the rest of our country looks like "Mexifornia"...also, there's some justified Bush-bashing for all you haters out there...
2) Meltdown by Patrick J. Michaels. I'm sure you'll see a lot of this, too. It's rather dense, and science is not my forte, so it will take me a while to dig through. The premise of the book is to debunk the "predictable distortion of global warming" conjured up by scientists, politicians, and media elites. Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and senior fellow of environmental studies at the Cato Institute.
Here's a preview.
...and one columnist link:
1) Star Parker. Check out her story here and discover why her voice is so important in today's racially charged political climate.
More to come as my search expands for more sources...
Thursday, February 1, 2007
The Border Patrol Fiasco
First, here's President Bush with Neil Cavuto yesterday on the Border Patrol Fiasco:
CAVUTO: Let me ask you, sir, about the ex-Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, both serving time in jail for shooting a runaway Mexican drug dealer.
Would you pardon them?
BUSH: You know, I get asked about pardons on a lot of different cases. And there's a procedure in place. And what I told members of Congress who have written me or called was to just look at the case, look at the facts in the case.
And people need to understand why these folks were sent to trial and why a jury of their peers convicted them. And that's, of course, what a president does on any pardon request.
CAVUTO: So, what are you saying?
BUSH: I'm saying, I would look at all the facts. And — but there is a process in any case for a president to make a pardon decision. In other words, there is a series of steps that are followed, so that the pardon process is, you know, a rational process.
CAVUTO: Well, they're in jail now. They're not going anywhere.
BUSH: Right. That's right.
CAVUTO: So...
BUSH: So...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: ... as things stand now, they will stay in jail.
BUSH: As things stand now, they will serve their sentence, right.
CAVUTO: Unless you interfere.
BUSH: Right. But what I'm trying to tell you is, is that it is — there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the Justice Department to make a recommendation as to whether or not a president grants a pardon.
CAVUTO: And we're not at that yet?
BUSH: No, we're not at that stage yet.
Background on the story from World Net Daily here and here (much of the two pieces are the same). The ultimate miscarriage of justice:
"U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, sentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos to 11 years and one day despite a plea by their attorney for a new trial after three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case, the Washington Times reported."
Maybe the President isn't pardoning the two agents because he nominated the judge to the U.S. District Court? Let's hope not...
Deb Saunders has been all over this case: here is her most recent piece, along with past columns here and here.
What kind of message does this sentencing and subsequent inaction by President Bush send to current and would-be border patrol agents? "You better not make a mistake"?
The victim's civil rights were violated - keep in mind, the victim purportedly sold drugs since the age of 14, never sold unless he was packing heat, carted over 700 pounds of marijuana illegally over the U.S. - Mexican border, and is now suing for $5 million dollars.
Isn't this just a little bit backwards?
With our borders more porous than we even knew, immigrants sending money to their homelands in record numbers due in large part to deportation fears, and the opportunities for work extending beyond agriculture, illegal immigrants are pouring into the country in record numbers (according to the Washington Times, 300,000 illegal aliens live in the Washington, D.C. metro area ALONE)...
...shouldn't border enforcement be something we REWARD, rather than PUNISH?
These agents have suffered enough. A presidential pardon is necessary.
Congressman Duncan Hunter has the right idea. Hopefully the President does, too.
Sign this petition, along with nearly 300,000 other people, in the hopes of making a difference.
CAVUTO: Let me ask you, sir, about the ex-Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, both serving time in jail for shooting a runaway Mexican drug dealer.
Would you pardon them?
BUSH: You know, I get asked about pardons on a lot of different cases. And there's a procedure in place. And what I told members of Congress who have written me or called was to just look at the case, look at the facts in the case.
And people need to understand why these folks were sent to trial and why a jury of their peers convicted them. And that's, of course, what a president does on any pardon request.
CAVUTO: So, what are you saying?
BUSH: I'm saying, I would look at all the facts. And — but there is a process in any case for a president to make a pardon decision. In other words, there is a series of steps that are followed, so that the pardon process is, you know, a rational process.
CAVUTO: Well, they're in jail now. They're not going anywhere.
BUSH: Right. That's right.
CAVUTO: So...
BUSH: So...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: ... as things stand now, they will stay in jail.
BUSH: As things stand now, they will serve their sentence, right.
CAVUTO: Unless you interfere.
BUSH: Right. But what I'm trying to tell you is, is that it is — there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the Justice Department to make a recommendation as to whether or not a president grants a pardon.
CAVUTO: And we're not at that yet?
BUSH: No, we're not at that stage yet.
Background on the story from World Net Daily here and here (much of the two pieces are the same). The ultimate miscarriage of justice:
"U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, sentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos to 11 years and one day despite a plea by their attorney for a new trial after three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case, the Washington Times reported."
Maybe the President isn't pardoning the two agents because he nominated the judge to the U.S. District Court? Let's hope not...
Deb Saunders has been all over this case: here is her most recent piece, along with past columns here and here.
What kind of message does this sentencing and subsequent inaction by President Bush send to current and would-be border patrol agents? "You better not make a mistake"?
The victim's civil rights were violated - keep in mind, the victim purportedly sold drugs since the age of 14, never sold unless he was packing heat, carted over 700 pounds of marijuana illegally over the U.S. - Mexican border, and is now suing for $5 million dollars.
Isn't this just a little bit backwards?
With our borders more porous than we even knew, immigrants sending money to their homelands in record numbers due in large part to deportation fears, and the opportunities for work extending beyond agriculture, illegal immigrants are pouring into the country in record numbers (according to the Washington Times, 300,000 illegal aliens live in the Washington, D.C. metro area ALONE)...
...shouldn't border enforcement be something we REWARD, rather than PUNISH?
These agents have suffered enough. A presidential pardon is necessary.
Congressman Duncan Hunter has the right idea. Hopefully the President does, too.
Sign this petition, along with nearly 300,000 other people, in the hopes of making a difference.
The Response
Here is Jim Webb's response to the President's speech.
Actually, I thought it was quite good. I would be more than satisfied if I were a Democrat listening to Webb speak. Not only did he come off as quite articulate, but also he presented himself as militarily strong, which was especially important considering the Dems' recent weaknesses on military, defense, and national security.
From what I could see, the Dems chose the perfect representative who didn't shy away from the spotlight despite his freshman status. Some of what he said, however, did not sit well with me.
For instance, this statement on the economy: "The first (difference between the two major parties) relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans." To me, this sounds like code language for "redistribution of wealth"...certainly a scary thought. Shouldn't you be allowed to keep what you earn?
This fragment on the Iraq War is QUITE telling of the Dems' real stance: "The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion..."...wouldn't a "proper conclusion" to the war be "winning"? Why doesn't he say he wants to win the war?
Do ANY Democrats say they want to win the war???
Another point of contention I have with the speech is the consistent Democratic claim that the war in Iraq takes away from the global "war on terror"...
Is there ever any proof of that?
The President has made abundantly clear that an unstable Iraq is not the only threat to our national security. And other countries are doing their part as well.
Another suspect statement during the rebuttal: "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military." - Webb offers no evidence to support this claim. It seems apparent that the former assertion is true...but the latter?
Questions are raised by Flopping Aces here. More from National Review.
The conclusion to the speech, I thought, was the best part. Invoking Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, two universally respected Presidents, was a good move. Also, the fact that Webb re-wrote the speech himself also seemed to be a good move. His personal story of military strength showed that Dems' *may* be able to be against the war and support the military.
They haven't proven that to me yet, though...
Actually, I thought it was quite good. I would be more than satisfied if I were a Democrat listening to Webb speak. Not only did he come off as quite articulate, but also he presented himself as militarily strong, which was especially important considering the Dems' recent weaknesses on military, defense, and national security.
From what I could see, the Dems chose the perfect representative who didn't shy away from the spotlight despite his freshman status. Some of what he said, however, did not sit well with me.
For instance, this statement on the economy: "The first (difference between the two major parties) relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans." To me, this sounds like code language for "redistribution of wealth"...certainly a scary thought. Shouldn't you be allowed to keep what you earn?
This fragment on the Iraq War is QUITE telling of the Dems' real stance: "The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion..."...wouldn't a "proper conclusion" to the war be "winning"? Why doesn't he say he wants to win the war?
Do ANY Democrats say they want to win the war???
Another point of contention I have with the speech is the consistent Democratic claim that the war in Iraq takes away from the global "war on terror"...
Is there ever any proof of that?
The President has made abundantly clear that an unstable Iraq is not the only threat to our national security. And other countries are doing their part as well.
Another suspect statement during the rebuttal: "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military." - Webb offers no evidence to support this claim. It seems apparent that the former assertion is true...but the latter?
Questions are raised by Flopping Aces here. More from National Review.
The conclusion to the speech, I thought, was the best part. Invoking Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, two universally respected Presidents, was a good move. Also, the fact that Webb re-wrote the speech himself also seemed to be a good move. His personal story of military strength showed that Dems' *may* be able to be against the war and support the military.
They haven't proven that to me yet, though...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)