Why Martin Luther King was a Republican
by Frances Rice/Special to East Texas Review
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950’s and 1960’s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.
Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.
Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King’s protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as “that Nigger preacher.”
Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist “Dixiecrats” did not all migrate to the Republican Party. “Dixiecrats” declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those “Dixiecrats” continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
Another former “Dixiecrat” is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment,” including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970’s with President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.
Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
Democrats have been running inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Politics and Religion
POLITICS AND RELIGION
The United States of America has an election coming up in November. Openly discussed hot topics include rights for women and doctors to kill babies in the womb, laws to silence us who speak against the practice of homogenital sex, teaching perverted sex practices in our schools, rights to marry for those with gender confusion issues, how to defend our nation, how to spend public money, illegal entry into the U.S., as well as a host of other important issues of which we will hear nothing until politicians have already imposed laws upon us that we do not want.
Politicians are men and women who earn their living by making and enforcing laws that tell us what we can and cannot do, whether we like it or not. Politicians base their decisions on the money that they receive from people who hold influence on them, on public opinion, on pressure from various groups, on their desire to stay employed in office, and a very few who actually decide issues from the morality in the Bible and from common sense of the natural law.
The peaceful upright person for the most part doesn't like contention, arguments, and the nasty rhetoric, deception, and shrewdness of politics wherein special interest groups are trying to impose their way of life which require the rest of us to change our lives to accommodate novelty and evil when it is not in our best interest or our morality to do so.
It is my observation that faithful Catholics work hard, support families, pray, and wish to live in peace and harmony enjoying our leisure without the added work of being vigilant for our safety, our welfare, our future.
This lifestyle of work and leisure is noble and good. Living naively and ignoring vigilance for your family, safety, and future is deadly.
Jesus told us in Matthew 10:16, "Be clever as serpents, but innocent as doves."
A clever man is one who is informed of the issues, the arguments, the friend and foe, and who is prepared to act, leaving aside work and leisure to protect his family's safety, welfare, and future.
The innocent man is one who is honest, open, transparent, morally upright as Jesus is forming us to be with His grace.
The naive man is one who, for fear of the work involved or the contentions to come, hides his head in the sand by going on about his work and leisure neither knowing nor wanting to know about issues and the ongoing plans of others which will change his life and make him do things he may not want to do. Jesus never told us to be naive.
While we labor, play, and sleep, special interest groups are working tirelessly with politicians to make you do what you do not want to do as Christians. For them the end justifies the means. They consider you and me to be common, while they are elite. You and I are bigots while they are enlightened. You and I are old fashioned, while their evil novelties are called "liberal" or "progressive".
Special interest groups are undermining morality under the false pretense of "rights" and "equality" with constant pressure on politicians to support killing children in the womb . People who practice homogenital sex are promoting "marriage" for themselves, passing laws to teach your children in public school how to perform such sex acts on one another telling them that this is normal.
While we labor and leisure naively, special interest groups work tirelessly to influence politicians using money, manipulation, threats, and attacks. Their efforts have given them power to have approval of their agendae from the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Bar Association, the National Education Association, the current platform of the Democrat party, the Academy of Pediatrics, and numerous other organizations even in the Catholic Church.
Jesus tells us through 1 Pet. 5:8-9 "Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for [someone] to devour. Resist him, steadfast in faith."
One of the greatest weapons of those who hate our Catholic faith and its teachings is that of silencing us. Ironically, we actually succumb just as they tell us to do and insist that we cannot talk about political issues while they do so all the time.
We have a saying, "Never mix religion and politics in polite company." From this, you have been beguiled to think that the Catholic church cannot engage in politics. Believing this is to give your life away to those who wish to control you.
Polite company might be a dinner party where people come together to relax in light conversation. The world in which we live is NOT polite company, and neither is the world of politics. Catholics have a right and an obligation to speak of politics in the church. Some of us do not want to do so because the realities of evil will challenge our long standing affiliation with a politician or a party with whom we have put our faith and trust in previous times. Times, however, have changed.
It is said you cannot negotiate with a terrorist. For us Catholics we cannot negotiate the life of a child in the womb, the foundation of the family as marriage between a man and a woman, or that love is to be expressed only between a man and a woman in marriage. Those who oppose this will stop at nothing to impose their view. We Catholics need to respond in kind by speaking and voting Catholic.
As pastor, I will neither tell you to support a candidate nor a party. I won't tell you to vote Democrat or Republican. I will, however, present you the truth of the church, the false teachings of special interst groups, a politician's voting record and his public statements, to engage you in the political process, and tell you to vote Catholic for the sake of the safety, welfare, and future of your family, our country, our faith.
All Catholics should engage in the political process, regardless of their citizenship. Know the bills being proposed. Take action by writing your legislators and executives to make known your will on pending legislation. Let others know as well. Organize to promote your Catholic faith. If you are a U.S. citizen, vote Catholic and encourage other citizens to vote Catholic as well.
Fr. Richard Perozich
St. Mary Catholic Church
Escondido, CA
The United States of America has an election coming up in November. Openly discussed hot topics include rights for women and doctors to kill babies in the womb, laws to silence us who speak against the practice of homogenital sex, teaching perverted sex practices in our schools, rights to marry for those with gender confusion issues, how to defend our nation, how to spend public money, illegal entry into the U.S., as well as a host of other important issues of which we will hear nothing until politicians have already imposed laws upon us that we do not want.
Politicians are men and women who earn their living by making and enforcing laws that tell us what we can and cannot do, whether we like it or not. Politicians base their decisions on the money that they receive from people who hold influence on them, on public opinion, on pressure from various groups, on their desire to stay employed in office, and a very few who actually decide issues from the morality in the Bible and from common sense of the natural law.
The peaceful upright person for the most part doesn't like contention, arguments, and the nasty rhetoric, deception, and shrewdness of politics wherein special interest groups are trying to impose their way of life which require the rest of us to change our lives to accommodate novelty and evil when it is not in our best interest or our morality to do so.
It is my observation that faithful Catholics work hard, support families, pray, and wish to live in peace and harmony enjoying our leisure without the added work of being vigilant for our safety, our welfare, our future.
This lifestyle of work and leisure is noble and good. Living naively and ignoring vigilance for your family, safety, and future is deadly.
Jesus told us in Matthew 10:16, "Be clever as serpents, but innocent as doves."
A clever man is one who is informed of the issues, the arguments, the friend and foe, and who is prepared to act, leaving aside work and leisure to protect his family's safety, welfare, and future.
The innocent man is one who is honest, open, transparent, morally upright as Jesus is forming us to be with His grace.
The naive man is one who, for fear of the work involved or the contentions to come, hides his head in the sand by going on about his work and leisure neither knowing nor wanting to know about issues and the ongoing plans of others which will change his life and make him do things he may not want to do. Jesus never told us to be naive.
While we labor, play, and sleep, special interest groups are working tirelessly with politicians to make you do what you do not want to do as Christians. For them the end justifies the means. They consider you and me to be common, while they are elite. You and I are bigots while they are enlightened. You and I are old fashioned, while their evil novelties are called "liberal" or "progressive".
Special interest groups are undermining morality under the false pretense of "rights" and "equality" with constant pressure on politicians to support killing children in the womb . People who practice homogenital sex are promoting "marriage" for themselves, passing laws to teach your children in public school how to perform such sex acts on one another telling them that this is normal.
While we labor and leisure naively, special interest groups work tirelessly to influence politicians using money, manipulation, threats, and attacks. Their efforts have given them power to have approval of their agendae from the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Bar Association, the National Education Association, the current platform of the Democrat party, the Academy of Pediatrics, and numerous other organizations even in the Catholic Church.
Jesus tells us through 1 Pet. 5:8-9 "Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for [someone] to devour. Resist him, steadfast in faith."
One of the greatest weapons of those who hate our Catholic faith and its teachings is that of silencing us. Ironically, we actually succumb just as they tell us to do and insist that we cannot talk about political issues while they do so all the time.
We have a saying, "Never mix religion and politics in polite company." From this, you have been beguiled to think that the Catholic church cannot engage in politics. Believing this is to give your life away to those who wish to control you.
Polite company might be a dinner party where people come together to relax in light conversation. The world in which we live is NOT polite company, and neither is the world of politics. Catholics have a right and an obligation to speak of politics in the church. Some of us do not want to do so because the realities of evil will challenge our long standing affiliation with a politician or a party with whom we have put our faith and trust in previous times. Times, however, have changed.
It is said you cannot negotiate with a terrorist. For us Catholics we cannot negotiate the life of a child in the womb, the foundation of the family as marriage between a man and a woman, or that love is to be expressed only between a man and a woman in marriage. Those who oppose this will stop at nothing to impose their view. We Catholics need to respond in kind by speaking and voting Catholic.
As pastor, I will neither tell you to support a candidate nor a party. I won't tell you to vote Democrat or Republican. I will, however, present you the truth of the church, the false teachings of special interst groups, a politician's voting record and his public statements, to engage you in the political process, and tell you to vote Catholic for the sake of the safety, welfare, and future of your family, our country, our faith.
All Catholics should engage in the political process, regardless of their citizenship. Know the bills being proposed. Take action by writing your legislators and executives to make known your will on pending legislation. Let others know as well. Organize to promote your Catholic faith. If you are a U.S. citizen, vote Catholic and encourage other citizens to vote Catholic as well.
Fr. Richard Perozich
St. Mary Catholic Church
Escondido, CA
Shirley Ward's arrest is beginning to smell !!
A few days ago we reported that the President of the Tennessee Federation of Republican Women, Shirley Ward, had been arrested on voter fraud charges. Ward, best known as one of the major contributors to the GOP grassroots group TeamGOP, is the mother of TeamGOP founder Jeff Ward. Both Wards are active in politics in Tipton Co.
Since then the Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper has reported that Ms. Ward is alleged to have exited the voting booth and stated that she had voted in the wrong district.
With electronic voting equipment, several ballots can be on each machine because voters at a polling place may be residents of different areas and therefore vote in different local elections.
It sounds like the election official set up the machine with the wrong ballot.
We see no intent of fraud in Ms Ward's actions.
We are beginning to smell something in the air.
Since then the Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper has reported that Ms. Ward is alleged to have exited the voting booth and stated that she had voted in the wrong district.
With electronic voting equipment, several ballots can be on each machine because voters at a polling place may be residents of different areas and therefore vote in different local elections.
It sounds like the election official set up the machine with the wrong ballot.
We see no intent of fraud in Ms Ward's actions.
We are beginning to smell something in the air.
Katrina spending 5 times larger than past disasters
The Tragedy of New Orleans (wall street journal report)
Katrina spending is five times larger than past disasters.
"New Orleans has suffered from the trauma of three crises," says Louisiana Congressman Bobby Jindal. "First was the hurricane, second was the levees breaking and third has been the widespread incompetence of the federal, state and local government response. This has been a one-year case study in bureaucracy and red tape at its very worst."
Congressman Jindal's aptly stated charge of incompetence across all levels of government is the gentle assessment. Here, on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, are the views of prominent Democrats:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, touring New Orleans: "What is needed in New Orleans is public works projects." Senator Hillary Clinton, from a church in Harlem: "Our leadership has turned its back on those people who still need us."
Turned its back? As the chart nearby indicates, Congress has approved $122.5 billion for the Gulf Region, a figure incomprehensible in size to anyone but, well, a politician. The real wonder is that anyone is surprised, much less feigning surprise, that things are going poorly.
New Orleans' plight is not the result of federal underspending. Uncle Sam has spent some five times more on Katrina relief than any other natural disaster in the past 50 years. Both parties in Congress and the White House opted for the status quo by relying on federal bureaucracies to oversee the rebuilding effort. If Uncle Sam were deliberately trying to waste these funds, it is hard to imagine a better way than to funnel the money through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Small Business Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Both HUD and the SBA have been on the chopping block back to the early Reagan years.
The post-Katrina spend-fest in Louisiana will be remembered as one of the greatest taxpayer wastes in U.S. history. First came the FEMA $2,000 debit-cards fiasco intended to pay for necessities that were used for things like flat-panel TVs and tattoos. Then came the purchase of thousands of mobile homes that cost as much as $400,000 per family housed; the $200 million for renting the Carnival Cruise Ship; millions more in payments that went for season football tickets, luxury vacation resorts, even divorce lawyers. Federal flood insurance policies surely will encourage many to rebuild in the same flood plains and at the same height as before.
There has been some notable progress away from the most damaged areas of New Orleans. Coastal Mississippi is well on the way to full recovery, thanks in part to the leadership of Governor Haley Barbour. The number of building permits in Mississippi are four times higher than in New Orleans. The business district in New Orleans and the French Quarter, where flooding was minimal, are nearly back to the normal rhythm of life. But the neighborhoods that were overwhelmed with water remain mostly deserted wrecks, with electricity, hot water and sewage systems spotty at best.
Where rebuilding progress has been swiftest in New Orleans, it has been companies like Wal-Mart and Home Depot that have stepped up to make contributions along with the $4 billion in charitable donations. While billions of dollars of federal flood insurance payments and community development dollars remain tangled in red tape, the private insurance industry has made at least 80% of its payments to homeowners.
Given the famously ingrained culture of political corruption in New Orleans--a system designed to siphon public money of any sort away from its intended purpose--President Bush was right to call on Congress to convert New Orleans into a massive "enterprise zone." That included tax breaks for new business investment, health savings accounts for those without medical insurance, school vouchers for families located where schools have been ruined and a reappraisal of all regulations.
Some of the tax incentives were enacted and have spurred more business investment. And charter schools will serve thousands of the kids still residing in New Orleans this fall. But Congress and Louisiana's pols have ignored most of the promising free-market reforms, opting instead for red tape as usual.
After the hurricane, newspapers around the world showed photos of New Orleans under headlines that shouted: "America's shame." In truth, New Orleans was America's shame long before Katrina. In large part the residents of the Big Easy were victims of the predatory behavior of their own politicians. Louisiana already ranked among the bottom five of all the states in crime, poverty, health care and school performance; the murder rate in New Orleans today is 10 times the national average.
For all the finger-pointing this week, Congress hasn't spent much more than a dime to clear away the debris of corruption, patronage, welfare dependency, high taxes and racial division of decimated neighborhoods. What is still lacking in the life of New Orleans is the vital architecture of local capitalism.
Katrina spending is five times larger than past disasters.
"New Orleans has suffered from the trauma of three crises," says Louisiana Congressman Bobby Jindal. "First was the hurricane, second was the levees breaking and third has been the widespread incompetence of the federal, state and local government response. This has been a one-year case study in bureaucracy and red tape at its very worst."
Congressman Jindal's aptly stated charge of incompetence across all levels of government is the gentle assessment. Here, on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, are the views of prominent Democrats:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, touring New Orleans: "What is needed in New Orleans is public works projects." Senator Hillary Clinton, from a church in Harlem: "Our leadership has turned its back on those people who still need us."
Turned its back? As the chart nearby indicates, Congress has approved $122.5 billion for the Gulf Region, a figure incomprehensible in size to anyone but, well, a politician. The real wonder is that anyone is surprised, much less feigning surprise, that things are going poorly.
New Orleans' plight is not the result of federal underspending. Uncle Sam has spent some five times more on Katrina relief than any other natural disaster in the past 50 years. Both parties in Congress and the White House opted for the status quo by relying on federal bureaucracies to oversee the rebuilding effort. If Uncle Sam were deliberately trying to waste these funds, it is hard to imagine a better way than to funnel the money through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Small Business Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Both HUD and the SBA have been on the chopping block back to the early Reagan years.
The post-Katrina spend-fest in Louisiana will be remembered as one of the greatest taxpayer wastes in U.S. history. First came the FEMA $2,000 debit-cards fiasco intended to pay for necessities that were used for things like flat-panel TVs and tattoos. Then came the purchase of thousands of mobile homes that cost as much as $400,000 per family housed; the $200 million for renting the Carnival Cruise Ship; millions more in payments that went for season football tickets, luxury vacation resorts, even divorce lawyers. Federal flood insurance policies surely will encourage many to rebuild in the same flood plains and at the same height as before.
There has been some notable progress away from the most damaged areas of New Orleans. Coastal Mississippi is well on the way to full recovery, thanks in part to the leadership of Governor Haley Barbour. The number of building permits in Mississippi are four times higher than in New Orleans. The business district in New Orleans and the French Quarter, where flooding was minimal, are nearly back to the normal rhythm of life. But the neighborhoods that were overwhelmed with water remain mostly deserted wrecks, with electricity, hot water and sewage systems spotty at best.
Where rebuilding progress has been swiftest in New Orleans, it has been companies like Wal-Mart and Home Depot that have stepped up to make contributions along with the $4 billion in charitable donations. While billions of dollars of federal flood insurance payments and community development dollars remain tangled in red tape, the private insurance industry has made at least 80% of its payments to homeowners.
Given the famously ingrained culture of political corruption in New Orleans--a system designed to siphon public money of any sort away from its intended purpose--President Bush was right to call on Congress to convert New Orleans into a massive "enterprise zone." That included tax breaks for new business investment, health savings accounts for those without medical insurance, school vouchers for families located where schools have been ruined and a reappraisal of all regulations.
Some of the tax incentives were enacted and have spurred more business investment. And charter schools will serve thousands of the kids still residing in New Orleans this fall. But Congress and Louisiana's pols have ignored most of the promising free-market reforms, opting instead for red tape as usual.
After the hurricane, newspapers around the world showed photos of New Orleans under headlines that shouted: "America's shame." In truth, New Orleans was America's shame long before Katrina. In large part the residents of the Big Easy were victims of the predatory behavior of their own politicians. Louisiana already ranked among the bottom five of all the states in crime, poverty, health care and school performance; the murder rate in New Orleans today is 10 times the national average.
For all the finger-pointing this week, Congress hasn't spent much more than a dime to clear away the debris of corruption, patronage, welfare dependency, high taxes and racial division of decimated neighborhoods. What is still lacking in the life of New Orleans is the vital architecture of local capitalism.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Poll shows Democrats losing religious voters
Not God's Party
A new poll shows Democrats are losing (more) religious voters.
By Amy Sullivan
When Democratic Party leaders "found God in the 2004 exit polls," as Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. likes to say, no one expected instant results. Many of the party's early efforts to attract religious voters, after all, were scattershot and not a little awkward. No one knew quite what the "faith staffer"—a new breed of legislative aide—was supposed to do, and random-seeming insertions of Bible verses into floor speeches came off as Tourette's syndrome for Democrats. In the longer run, though, the new focus on forming relationships with religious communities and voters has been the right move for a party that had essentially limited its religious outreach to black churches. Democratic campaign trainings now smartly include tips for communicating with Catholic voters. Candidates are starting to appear on religious radio outlets. And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has even stopped saying things to intentionally antagonize evangelicals.
Which is why it is startling that in the two years since this Democratic revival began, the party's faith-friendly image has dimmed rather than improved. The Pew Research Center's annual poll on religion and politics, released last week, shows that while 85 percent of voters say religion is important to them, only 26 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party is "friendly" to religion. That's down from 40 percent in the summer of 2004 and 42 percent the year before that—in other words, a 16-point plunge over three years. The decline is especially troubling because it cuts across the political and religious spectra, encompassing liberals and conservatives, white and black evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. The Republican Party also experienced a drop in the percentage of Americans who say it is friendly to religion—eight points over the past year. But that decrease occurred mostly among white evangelicals and Catholics and the reasons for it seem obvious: Two years of broken promises by the GOP.
In contrast, the Democrats' crumbling credibility on religion wasn't caused by one thing. And that may be the problem. All at once, the party needs to counter conservative attacks, change the conventional wisdom that Democrats just aren't religious, and expand the party's reach to moderate religious voters. To do that, the party will need a little more faith and a whole lot more work.
In the past year, stunts by the right have taken a toll on the Democrats. There are the repeated Justice Sunday events, in which Republican congressional leaders bravely defend America from the onslaught of liberal activist judges, and the War on Christmas hysteria, in which Bill O'Reilly defends baby Jesus from secular tyrants at Target. If you say anything enough times on Fox (see: Saddam Hussein, role in 9/11 attacks), you can get some people to believe it. It's not a surprise that all of this affects conservatives' views of the Democratic Party's faith-friendliness. Of more concern to Democrats is the effect such tactics have on moderate voters. The percentage of self-identified political moderates and independents who believe Democrats are friendly to religion each dropped by 18 points over the past two years, according to Pew. These respondents may not exactly believe the rhetoric of Justice Sunday, but it seems to have planted a seed of doubt in their minds.
And that doubt is fed by media coverage that reinforces images of who is and is not religious. Conservatives complain about media bias all the time, but when it comes to religion, journalistic paradigms help Republicans and hurt Democrats. When CNN's Wolf Blitzer introduced a discussion of Pope John Paul II's funeral with Robert Novak and Paul Begala in the spring of 2005, he tossed off the comment, "I'm sure Bob is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about Paul Begala." It was an absurd remark—Begala is a devout pro-life Catholic who named his oldest son John Paul—but also a revealing one, because it demonstrated how accepted it is to assume that Republicans are religious and Democrats are not.
When Democratic irreligion is the premise, it can be easy to conclude that a liberal politician who talks about religion is insincere or positioning themselves for higher office. (The way the press covers Hillary Clinton, lifelong Methodist and longtime Baptist Sunday School teacher, comes to mind.) Even the party's own may see talk of faith as pandering. Two years ago, half of Democrats thought that their party was friendly to religion. Now that number has dropped to 39.6 percent, with a 12-point decline among respondents who aren't affiliated with a religious tradition. These Democrats view the party's interest in talking to religious voters as a sure betrayal of the party's principles. Rarely is there an acknowledgment that Democratic politicians—and Democratic voters—hold liberal political views precisely because of their religious beliefs, that caring for the most vulnerable in society and protecting God's creation are imperatives, too.
Another big drop—14 points in two years—surfaced in the percentage of black Protestants who see Democrats as religion-friendly. That's a sure sign that despite their outreach efforts in black churches, Democrats aren't necessarily listening to the folks in the pews. African-Americans may still be the most reliably Democratic constituency, but they are far more socially and theologically conservative than gauzy references to the bygone civil rights era reveal. And they're still not finding a lot of room to talk about those views in the party.
Finally, Catholic voters are increasingly skeptical. Support for Democrats' approach to religion dropped by 10 points among Catholic Democrats, 16 points among Catholic Independents, and 25 points among Catholic Republicans, including a 9-point decline just in the last year. As the party hemorrhages Catholic support at the polls, it's past time to hire a national party staffer to focus on Catholic outreach and strategy. Alas, the Democratic National Committee has been looking for a year to fill such a position, with no results.
The DNC should ramp up that search. But the party's leaders also should remain calm. The Democrats' most productive activities on the religion front have taken place at the state level and in local campaigns. This work may not bear fruit nationally for a few years, but it's important to hang in there and keep funding it. Democrats also need to avoid the temptation to play preacher: One cringe-inducing "Praise Jeeeeezus!" from Howard Dean spoils the quiet faith of Democrats like Tim Kaine and Jennifer Granholm and Barack Obama. And they should shout from the mountaintops about Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid's plan to reduce abortion rates, talk to every evangelical who will listen about tackling global warming, and re-embrace the concept of the common good that once united religious and political progressives. Democrats, take those lights out from under your bushels.
Amy Sullivan, a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly, is writing a book about religion and the left.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2148547/
A new poll shows Democrats are losing (more) religious voters.
By Amy Sullivan
When Democratic Party leaders "found God in the 2004 exit polls," as Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. likes to say, no one expected instant results. Many of the party's early efforts to attract religious voters, after all, were scattershot and not a little awkward. No one knew quite what the "faith staffer"—a new breed of legislative aide—was supposed to do, and random-seeming insertions of Bible verses into floor speeches came off as Tourette's syndrome for Democrats. In the longer run, though, the new focus on forming relationships with religious communities and voters has been the right move for a party that had essentially limited its religious outreach to black churches. Democratic campaign trainings now smartly include tips for communicating with Catholic voters. Candidates are starting to appear on religious radio outlets. And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has even stopped saying things to intentionally antagonize evangelicals.
Which is why it is startling that in the two years since this Democratic revival began, the party's faith-friendly image has dimmed rather than improved. The Pew Research Center's annual poll on religion and politics, released last week, shows that while 85 percent of voters say religion is important to them, only 26 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party is "friendly" to religion. That's down from 40 percent in the summer of 2004 and 42 percent the year before that—in other words, a 16-point plunge over three years. The decline is especially troubling because it cuts across the political and religious spectra, encompassing liberals and conservatives, white and black evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. The Republican Party also experienced a drop in the percentage of Americans who say it is friendly to religion—eight points over the past year. But that decrease occurred mostly among white evangelicals and Catholics and the reasons for it seem obvious: Two years of broken promises by the GOP.
In contrast, the Democrats' crumbling credibility on religion wasn't caused by one thing. And that may be the problem. All at once, the party needs to counter conservative attacks, change the conventional wisdom that Democrats just aren't religious, and expand the party's reach to moderate religious voters. To do that, the party will need a little more faith and a whole lot more work.
In the past year, stunts by the right have taken a toll on the Democrats. There are the repeated Justice Sunday events, in which Republican congressional leaders bravely defend America from the onslaught of liberal activist judges, and the War on Christmas hysteria, in which Bill O'Reilly defends baby Jesus from secular tyrants at Target. If you say anything enough times on Fox (see: Saddam Hussein, role in 9/11 attacks), you can get some people to believe it. It's not a surprise that all of this affects conservatives' views of the Democratic Party's faith-friendliness. Of more concern to Democrats is the effect such tactics have on moderate voters. The percentage of self-identified political moderates and independents who believe Democrats are friendly to religion each dropped by 18 points over the past two years, according to Pew. These respondents may not exactly believe the rhetoric of Justice Sunday, but it seems to have planted a seed of doubt in their minds.
And that doubt is fed by media coverage that reinforces images of who is and is not religious. Conservatives complain about media bias all the time, but when it comes to religion, journalistic paradigms help Republicans and hurt Democrats. When CNN's Wolf Blitzer introduced a discussion of Pope John Paul II's funeral with Robert Novak and Paul Begala in the spring of 2005, he tossed off the comment, "I'm sure Bob is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about Paul Begala." It was an absurd remark—Begala is a devout pro-life Catholic who named his oldest son John Paul—but also a revealing one, because it demonstrated how accepted it is to assume that Republicans are religious and Democrats are not.
When Democratic irreligion is the premise, it can be easy to conclude that a liberal politician who talks about religion is insincere or positioning themselves for higher office. (The way the press covers Hillary Clinton, lifelong Methodist and longtime Baptist Sunday School teacher, comes to mind.) Even the party's own may see talk of faith as pandering. Two years ago, half of Democrats thought that their party was friendly to religion. Now that number has dropped to 39.6 percent, with a 12-point decline among respondents who aren't affiliated with a religious tradition. These Democrats view the party's interest in talking to religious voters as a sure betrayal of the party's principles. Rarely is there an acknowledgment that Democratic politicians—and Democratic voters—hold liberal political views precisely because of their religious beliefs, that caring for the most vulnerable in society and protecting God's creation are imperatives, too.
Another big drop—14 points in two years—surfaced in the percentage of black Protestants who see Democrats as religion-friendly. That's a sure sign that despite their outreach efforts in black churches, Democrats aren't necessarily listening to the folks in the pews. African-Americans may still be the most reliably Democratic constituency, but they are far more socially and theologically conservative than gauzy references to the bygone civil rights era reveal. And they're still not finding a lot of room to talk about those views in the party.
Finally, Catholic voters are increasingly skeptical. Support for Democrats' approach to religion dropped by 10 points among Catholic Democrats, 16 points among Catholic Independents, and 25 points among Catholic Republicans, including a 9-point decline just in the last year. As the party hemorrhages Catholic support at the polls, it's past time to hire a national party staffer to focus on Catholic outreach and strategy. Alas, the Democratic National Committee has been looking for a year to fill such a position, with no results.
The DNC should ramp up that search. But the party's leaders also should remain calm. The Democrats' most productive activities on the religion front have taken place at the state level and in local campaigns. This work may not bear fruit nationally for a few years, but it's important to hang in there and keep funding it. Democrats also need to avoid the temptation to play preacher: One cringe-inducing "Praise Jeeeeezus!" from Howard Dean spoils the quiet faith of Democrats like Tim Kaine and Jennifer Granholm and Barack Obama. And they should shout from the mountaintops about Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid's plan to reduce abortion rates, talk to every evangelical who will listen about tackling global warming, and re-embrace the concept of the common good that once united religious and political progressives. Democrats, take those lights out from under your bushels.
Amy Sullivan, a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly, is writing a book about religion and the left.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2148547/
Are Academic Elites Communists???
Are academic elites communists?
By Walter Williams
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Grove City College publishes an excellent newsletter titled "Visions and Values." Its July 2006 edition features an interview with Dr. Richard Pipes, acclaimed Russian historian and Harvard University professor of Sovietology. The interview was conducted by Grove City College professor of political science Dr. Paul Kengor.
Dr. Pipes, who served on the National Security Council during the Reagan administration, explained that there are actually only a few communists among academics. At first glance, that's a puzzling observation, given the leftist bias at most college campuses. Drs. Pipes and Kengor explain the puzzle in a way that makes perfect sense.
While academic leftists, and I'd include their media allies, are not communists, they are anti-anti-communists. In other words, they have contempt for right-wingers, conservatives or libertarians who are anti-communists. Why?
Academic leftists, and their media allies, are in agreement with many of the stated goals of communism, such as equal distribution of wealth, income equality and other goals spelled out in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' "Manifesto of the Communist Party." Leftist elites love the ideas of communism so much that they are either blind to, or tolerant of, its many shortcomings.
In practice, communism is nothing less than sheer barbarism that makes even the horrors of Naziism pale in comparison. Professor Rudolph J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii outlines that barbarism in his book "Death by Government," a comprehensive detailing of the roughly 170 million people murdered by their own governments during the 20th century. From 1917 to its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union murdered about 62 million of its own people. During Mao Zedong's reign, 35,236,000, possibly more, Chinese citizens were murdered. By comparison, Hitler's Nazis managed to murder 21 million of its citizens and citizens in nations they conquered. Adding these numbers to the 60 million lives lost in war makes the 20th century mankind's most brutal era.
At home and abroad, leftists have done a thorough and commendable job documenting and condemning the horrors and crimes of Hitler and his fascist Nazi regime, but when have you heard them direct similar condemnation of Joseph Stalin, his successors and Mao Zedong? By and large, they've chosen to overlook the horrors of communism.
The reason for their reluctance to condemn the barbarism of communism is simple. Dr. Pipes says, "Intellectuals, by the very nature of their professions, grant enormous attention to words and ideas. And they are attracted by socialist ideas. They find that the ideas of communism are praiseworthy and attractive; that, to them, is more important than the practice of communism. Now Nazi ideals, on the other hand, were pure barbarism; nothing could be said in favor of them."
Often, when people evaluate capitalism, they evaluate a system that exists on Earth. When they evaluate communism, they are talking about a non-existent Utopia. What exists on Earth, with all of its problems and shortcomings, is always going to fail miserably when compared to a Utopia. The very attempt to achieve the utopian goals of communism requires the ruthless suppression of the individual and an attack on any institution that might compromise the loyalty of the individual to the state. That's why one of the first orders of business for communism, and those who support its ideas, is the attack on religion and the family.
Rank nations according to whether they are closer to the capitalism end or the communism end of the economic spectrum. Then rank nations according to human rights protections. Finally, rank nations according to per capita income. Without question, citizens of those nations closer to capitalism enjoy a higher standard of living and a far greater measure of liberty than those in nations closer to communism
By Walter Williams
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Grove City College publishes an excellent newsletter titled "Visions and Values." Its July 2006 edition features an interview with Dr. Richard Pipes, acclaimed Russian historian and Harvard University professor of Sovietology. The interview was conducted by Grove City College professor of political science Dr. Paul Kengor.
Dr. Pipes, who served on the National Security Council during the Reagan administration, explained that there are actually only a few communists among academics. At first glance, that's a puzzling observation, given the leftist bias at most college campuses. Drs. Pipes and Kengor explain the puzzle in a way that makes perfect sense.
While academic leftists, and I'd include their media allies, are not communists, they are anti-anti-communists. In other words, they have contempt for right-wingers, conservatives or libertarians who are anti-communists. Why?
Academic leftists, and their media allies, are in agreement with many of the stated goals of communism, such as equal distribution of wealth, income equality and other goals spelled out in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' "Manifesto of the Communist Party." Leftist elites love the ideas of communism so much that they are either blind to, or tolerant of, its many shortcomings.
In practice, communism is nothing less than sheer barbarism that makes even the horrors of Naziism pale in comparison. Professor Rudolph J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii outlines that barbarism in his book "Death by Government," a comprehensive detailing of the roughly 170 million people murdered by their own governments during the 20th century. From 1917 to its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union murdered about 62 million of its own people. During Mao Zedong's reign, 35,236,000, possibly more, Chinese citizens were murdered. By comparison, Hitler's Nazis managed to murder 21 million of its citizens and citizens in nations they conquered. Adding these numbers to the 60 million lives lost in war makes the 20th century mankind's most brutal era.
At home and abroad, leftists have done a thorough and commendable job documenting and condemning the horrors and crimes of Hitler and his fascist Nazi regime, but when have you heard them direct similar condemnation of Joseph Stalin, his successors and Mao Zedong? By and large, they've chosen to overlook the horrors of communism.
The reason for their reluctance to condemn the barbarism of communism is simple. Dr. Pipes says, "Intellectuals, by the very nature of their professions, grant enormous attention to words and ideas. And they are attracted by socialist ideas. They find that the ideas of communism are praiseworthy and attractive; that, to them, is more important than the practice of communism. Now Nazi ideals, on the other hand, were pure barbarism; nothing could be said in favor of them."
Often, when people evaluate capitalism, they evaluate a system that exists on Earth. When they evaluate communism, they are talking about a non-existent Utopia. What exists on Earth, with all of its problems and shortcomings, is always going to fail miserably when compared to a Utopia. The very attempt to achieve the utopian goals of communism requires the ruthless suppression of the individual and an attack on any institution that might compromise the loyalty of the individual to the state. That's why one of the first orders of business for communism, and those who support its ideas, is the attack on religion and the family.
Rank nations according to whether they are closer to the capitalism end or the communism end of the economic spectrum. Then rank nations according to human rights protections. Finally, rank nations according to per capita income. Without question, citizens of those nations closer to capitalism enjoy a higher standard of living and a far greater measure of liberty than those in nations closer to communism
Sunday, August 27, 2006
why "blue dogs" vote liberal and talk conservative
read this article and you'll understand why the "blue dog democrats" talk conservative but vote the liberal party line.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1368714,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1368714,00.html
Friday, August 25, 2006
Ford's Security Votes don't match the talk
In addition to voting not to adopt and implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, Congressman Ford has other national security votes of questionable merit.
From the National Republican Senatorial Committee
In 2005, Ford Voted Against PATRIOT Act Reauthorization.
(H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #414, Passed 257-171: R 214-14; D 43-156; I 0-1, July 21, 2005, Ford Voted Nay; H.R 3199, CQ Vote #627: Adopted 251-174: R 207-18; D 44-155; I 0-1, December 14, 2005, Ford Voted Nay)
In 2004, Ford Voted Against Reorganization Of U.S. Intelligence And The Creation Of A National Intelligence Director.
“Passage of the bill that would reorganize 15 U.S. intelligence agencies and create a national intelligence director who would give guidance on budgets. It also would create a national intelligence center and allow aliens to be deported without judicial review. The number of border patrol agents would increase from 10,000 to 20,000 over the next five years. The bill, as amended, would make attending a terrorist training camp a deportable offense and toughen penalties for those charged with financially aiding terrorist groups.” (HR 10, CQ Vote #523: Passed 282-134: R 213-8; D 69-125; I 0-1, October 8, 2004, Ford Voted Nay)
Ford Voted To Cut Defense And Intelligence Funding
Ford Has Voted At Least Twice To Cut Intelligence Funding.
(HR 1775, CQ Vote #253: Rejected 142-289: R 27-198; D 114-91; I 1-0, July 9, 1997, Ford Voted Yea; HR 1775, CQ Vote #255: Rejected 182-238: R 23-199; D 158-39; I 1-0, July 9, 1997, Ford Voted Yea)
Ford Voted Against Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Funding Authorization.
(H.R. 2417, CQ Vote #649, Adopted 264-163: R 209-15; D 55-147; I 0-1, November 20, 2003, Ford Voted Nay)
* And Ford Has Skipped Intelligence Funding Authorization Votes.
(HR 5020, CQ Vote #108: Passed 327-96: R 224-3; D 102-93; I 1-0. April 26, 2006, Ford Did Not Vote; HR 4628, CQ Vote #483: Adopted 366-3: R 188-3; D 177-0; I 1-0. November 15, 2002, Ford Did Not Vote)
Ford Voted For A Substitute Amendment That Called For “An Approximate 25 Percent Cut In Defense Spending.”
(H. Con. Res. 290, CQ House Vote #70: Rejected 70-348: R 0-212; D 69-135; I 1-1, March 23, 2000, Ford Voted Yea)
Ford Plays Politics With National Security
After The September 11th Attacks, Ford Said He Didn’t Want To “Exploit” Intelligence “Problems.” “The attacks ‘points to some problems, but I don’t want to exploit this moment too dramatically.’ He says the system obviously needs to be examined.” (Lawmakers’ Views, Gannett News Service, September 15, 2001)
But Ford’s Latest Campaign Ad Does Just That.
“Once again terrorists tried to take down passenger planes. This time, with liquid explosives. Thank God the British stopped them. I’m Harold Ford Jr. The bipartisan 911 commission says our airports failed on security, five years after Sept. 11. And today our ports and borders remain vulnerable to terrorists. Its time to put aside politics. Adopt the Commission’s 41 recommendations and get tough on controlling our borders. I approve this message because there is nothing, nothing more important than our security.” (Harold Ford, Jr. For Tennessee Campaign Ad,
http://www.lawrencedemocrats.org/5_yrs_Upres_IIMed_Prog.mov
Accessed August 24, 2006)
And we’re supposed to trust him in the United States
From the National Republican Senatorial Committee
In 2005, Ford Voted Against PATRIOT Act Reauthorization.
(H.R. 3199, CQ Vote #414, Passed 257-171: R 214-14; D 43-156; I 0-1, July 21, 2005, Ford Voted Nay; H.R 3199, CQ Vote #627: Adopted 251-174: R 207-18; D 44-155; I 0-1, December 14, 2005, Ford Voted Nay)
In 2004, Ford Voted Against Reorganization Of U.S. Intelligence And The Creation Of A National Intelligence Director.
“Passage of the bill that would reorganize 15 U.S. intelligence agencies and create a national intelligence director who would give guidance on budgets. It also would create a national intelligence center and allow aliens to be deported without judicial review. The number of border patrol agents would increase from 10,000 to 20,000 over the next five years. The bill, as amended, would make attending a terrorist training camp a deportable offense and toughen penalties for those charged with financially aiding terrorist groups.” (HR 10, CQ Vote #523: Passed 282-134: R 213-8; D 69-125; I 0-1, October 8, 2004, Ford Voted Nay)
Ford Voted To Cut Defense And Intelligence Funding
Ford Has Voted At Least Twice To Cut Intelligence Funding.
(HR 1775, CQ Vote #253: Rejected 142-289: R 27-198; D 114-91; I 1-0, July 9, 1997, Ford Voted Yea; HR 1775, CQ Vote #255: Rejected 182-238: R 23-199; D 158-39; I 1-0, July 9, 1997, Ford Voted Yea)
Ford Voted Against Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Funding Authorization.
(H.R. 2417, CQ Vote #649, Adopted 264-163: R 209-15; D 55-147; I 0-1, November 20, 2003, Ford Voted Nay)
* And Ford Has Skipped Intelligence Funding Authorization Votes.
(HR 5020, CQ Vote #108: Passed 327-96: R 224-3; D 102-93; I 1-0. April 26, 2006, Ford Did Not Vote; HR 4628, CQ Vote #483: Adopted 366-3: R 188-3; D 177-0; I 1-0. November 15, 2002, Ford Did Not Vote)
Ford Voted For A Substitute Amendment That Called For “An Approximate 25 Percent Cut In Defense Spending.”
(H. Con. Res. 290, CQ House Vote #70: Rejected 70-348: R 0-212; D 69-135; I 1-1, March 23, 2000, Ford Voted Yea)
Ford Plays Politics With National Security
After The September 11th Attacks, Ford Said He Didn’t Want To “Exploit” Intelligence “Problems.” “The attacks ‘points to some problems, but I don’t want to exploit this moment too dramatically.’ He says the system obviously needs to be examined.” (Lawmakers’ Views, Gannett News Service, September 15, 2001)
But Ford’s Latest Campaign Ad Does Just That.
“Once again terrorists tried to take down passenger planes. This time, with liquid explosives. Thank God the British stopped them. I’m Harold Ford Jr. The bipartisan 911 commission says our airports failed on security, five years after Sept. 11. And today our ports and borders remain vulnerable to terrorists. Its time to put aside politics. Adopt the Commission’s 41 recommendations and get tough on controlling our borders. I approve this message because there is nothing, nothing more important than our security.” (Harold Ford, Jr. For Tennessee Campaign Ad,
http://www.lawrencedemocrats.org/5_yrs_Upres_IIMed_Prog.mov
Accessed August 24, 2006)
And we’re supposed to trust him in the United States
The state of things in Mississippi
the following is a post from www.freerepublic.com
As a Mississippian whose family lost two homes, three cars and one business (having another business damaged), I can say without a doubt (and with certain authority) that President Bush and the Feds reacted beautifully.
Both families are in new homes, and both businesses are booming. We did it through our own hard work, and making sure we were insured and prepared correctly. Cleanup, food, water, medical, construction funding, emergency aid etc all were here in vast quantities a few days after the storm. I will always be grateful to the Fed, Military, and private Churches for their love and caring!
BTW, we didn't shoot at our saviors when they arrived! We welcomed them with open arms, sharing everything that we had!The Fed have done more for Hurricane relief than at any time in the past, going all the way back to Hurricane Betsy.
All we have left are whiners that KNEW they did not have coverage, gambled and lost. Sure, there are the odd situations where someone still needs help, but those situations are dealt with as soon as officials are made aware of the problem.
New Orleans is another story in itself. The biggest welfare city in America, LBJ's failed "Great Society", and no one should be shocked that they sit on their collective arses doing nothing, bitching and whining all of the time.
Boo Hoo! Cry me a river of that putrid Dixie Beer!
As a Mississippian whose family lost two homes, three cars and one business (having another business damaged), I can say without a doubt (and with certain authority) that President Bush and the Feds reacted beautifully.
Both families are in new homes, and both businesses are booming. We did it through our own hard work, and making sure we were insured and prepared correctly. Cleanup, food, water, medical, construction funding, emergency aid etc all were here in vast quantities a few days after the storm. I will always be grateful to the Fed, Military, and private Churches for their love and caring!
BTW, we didn't shoot at our saviors when they arrived! We welcomed them with open arms, sharing everything that we had!The Fed have done more for Hurricane relief than at any time in the past, going all the way back to Hurricane Betsy.
All we have left are whiners that KNEW they did not have coverage, gambled and lost. Sure, there are the odd situations where someone still needs help, but those situations are dealt with as soon as officials are made aware of the problem.
New Orleans is another story in itself. The biggest welfare city in America, LBJ's failed "Great Society", and no one should be shocked that they sit on their collective arses doing nothing, bitching and whining all of the time.
Boo Hoo! Cry me a river of that putrid Dixie Beer!
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Another Democrat bites the dust - Wilder mentioned
A federal grand jury has indicted Tennessee State Sen. Jerry Cooper on charges of bank fraud, mail fraud and conspiracy.
A 2005 federal indictment had already called the Morrison Democrat an unindicted co-conspirator in a lending scheme involving the 1999 sale of a lumber mill in Warren County.
The 2005 indictment contended Cooper "used his political contacts, connections and influence" to help the buyers get a $1.7 million dollar federally insured loan from Lt. Gov. John Wilder's BankTennessee. http://tnpoliticsblog.com/
A 2005 federal indictment had already called the Morrison Democrat an unindicted co-conspirator in a lending scheme involving the 1999 sale of a lumber mill in Warren County.
The 2005 indictment contended Cooper "used his political contacts, connections and influence" to help the buyers get a $1.7 million dollar federally insured loan from Lt. Gov. John Wilder's BankTennessee. http://tnpoliticsblog.com/
Obion County Chamber shuns Bob Corker during recent campaign stop
Northwest Tennessee Obion County Chamber of Commerce and Industrial Development Board rolls out red carpet for Harold Ford, Jr. but shuns Bob Corker.
The Union City Daily Messenger reports that Obion County Chamber of Commerce staff emailed chamber members and directors urging them to come to a recent Ford campaign stop in Obion County. ( www.ucmessenger.com )
That same courtesy was refused for Bob Corker on his recent campaign stop.
Tennessee Conservative Watch sources from the Northwest Tennessee area report that Chamber officials initially denied being notified of the upcoming visit by Corker campaign staff. Email and phone records later proved that assertion untrue.
Harold Ford, Junior has never held a public job and has never created a job for anyone except political cronies.
Bob Corker has created hundreds of jobs in Tennessee and is a successful businessman.
Why did the Obion County Chamber of Commerce and the Obion County Industrial Development Board rally and support Junior and then shun a real businessman?
The Union City Daily Messenger reports that Obion County Chamber of Commerce staff emailed chamber members and directors urging them to come to a recent Ford campaign stop in Obion County. ( www.ucmessenger.com )
That same courtesy was refused for Bob Corker on his recent campaign stop.
Tennessee Conservative Watch sources from the Northwest Tennessee area report that Chamber officials initially denied being notified of the upcoming visit by Corker campaign staff. Email and phone records later proved that assertion untrue.
Harold Ford, Junior has never held a public job and has never created a job for anyone except political cronies.
Bob Corker has created hundreds of jobs in Tennessee and is a successful businessman.
Why did the Obion County Chamber of Commerce and the Obion County Industrial Development Board rally and support Junior and then shun a real businessman?
Monday, August 21, 2006
It is just the beginning for Hillary Clinton
It is just beginning, folks. The mainstream media is going to sell foolish people on Hillary Clinton.
She is in position to march into our White House.
TIME MAGAZINE steps up to the plate with a Hillary story to set the stage.
How many people know that Hillary's top advisor, the lovely Mandy Grunwald, is the daughter of the former TIME editor-in-chief, Henry Grunwald?
How many know that Mandy's husband, Matt Cooper, works for TIME?
This is incestuous and it is how the MSM is going to carry her into the White House.
Wait for perky Katie Couric to lead the cheerleading for her on CBS.
Everything is coming together for Hillary. This is getting scary.
--------------------
Hillary's star is finally rising, says Time poll
Oliver Burkeman in New YorkMonday August 21, 2006
Guardian
Hillary Clinton is finally gaining a toehold with American voters, according to a new poll that puts her almost at level pegging for the presidency with the current Republican favourite, John McCain.
Months of polls have suggested the New York senator would lose the 2008 White House race badly if she won the Democratic nomination. But Time magazine's survey puts her just two percentage points below Mr McCain, with 47% to his 49% - within the poll's margin of error.
Mr McCain would trounce two other potential Democratic candidates, John Kerry and Al Gore. A poll in June said that 47% would never vote for Ms Clinton, who has been accused of projecting a cold persona, and who is a symbol of the cultural divisions over her husband's presidency.
The latest poll will help counteract the pessimistic conventional wisdom emerging among Democrats, which is that Ms Clinton might be unbeatable at the nomination stage but unelectable at the national level. More than half of those questioned said they had a positive view of her.
The former first lady insists she has not decided whether to run, and aides claim she is focused on fighting her Senate re-election bid in November, which she will almost certainly win, leaving plenty of money in her $33m (£18m) war chest.
Assuming she runs, Democratic strategists are torn over how actively Bill Clinton should campaign for her, Time reports. He is so charismatic, one strategist said, that it "makes it harder to see the gifts that she has that he doesn't", such as "much less insecurity". He is also a reminder of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
The poll also shows that Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, has higher national ratings: 64% to Mr McCain's 56%.
She is in position to march into our White House.
TIME MAGAZINE steps up to the plate with a Hillary story to set the stage.
How many people know that Hillary's top advisor, the lovely Mandy Grunwald, is the daughter of the former TIME editor-in-chief, Henry Grunwald?
How many know that Mandy's husband, Matt Cooper, works for TIME?
This is incestuous and it is how the MSM is going to carry her into the White House.
Wait for perky Katie Couric to lead the cheerleading for her on CBS.
Everything is coming together for Hillary. This is getting scary.
--------------------
Hillary's star is finally rising, says Time poll
Oliver Burkeman in New YorkMonday August 21, 2006
Guardian
Hillary Clinton is finally gaining a toehold with American voters, according to a new poll that puts her almost at level pegging for the presidency with the current Republican favourite, John McCain.
Months of polls have suggested the New York senator would lose the 2008 White House race badly if she won the Democratic nomination. But Time magazine's survey puts her just two percentage points below Mr McCain, with 47% to his 49% - within the poll's margin of error.
Mr McCain would trounce two other potential Democratic candidates, John Kerry and Al Gore. A poll in June said that 47% would never vote for Ms Clinton, who has been accused of projecting a cold persona, and who is a symbol of the cultural divisions over her husband's presidency.
The latest poll will help counteract the pessimistic conventional wisdom emerging among Democrats, which is that Ms Clinton might be unbeatable at the nomination stage but unelectable at the national level. More than half of those questioned said they had a positive view of her.
The former first lady insists she has not decided whether to run, and aides claim she is focused on fighting her Senate re-election bid in November, which she will almost certainly win, leaving plenty of money in her $33m (£18m) war chest.
Assuming she runs, Democratic strategists are torn over how actively Bill Clinton should campaign for her, Time reports. He is so charismatic, one strategist said, that it "makes it harder to see the gifts that she has that he doesn't", such as "much less insecurity". He is also a reminder of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
The poll also shows that Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, has higher national ratings: 64% to Mr McCain's 56%.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
TennCare discussion at National Conference of State Legislatures
the following is from the blog Music City Oracle
http://musiccityoracle.blogspot.com/
TennCare at National Conference of State Legislatures
The subject of TennCare and its successor, CoverTennessee, were under much discussion at today's meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures, which began today at the Opryland Hotel.
After hearing a presentation on recent initiatives by various states for providing health care coverage to uninsured populations, Tennessee's Commissioner of Health, Dr. Kenneth Robinson, noted that the presenter had made no mention of CoverTennessee and asked for her thoughts on the proposal.
The presenter bluntly responded that given the dollars proposed for the coverage, that she had doubts as to whether the state would even get much response to a Request for Proposal (RFP).
The CoverTennessee proposal calls for a public/private partnership in which the state would underwrite a portion of the $150/month per member premium. For the uninsured population that is a low premium amount, because such programs tend to suffer from what insurers call anti-selection -- sick people are more likely to buy into the program than well people.
The CoverTennessee proposal is unusual in that it gives a dollar figure and asks vendors to tell what they will provide. Most RFP's work the opposite way -- the state defines the program, and vendors bid based on what they will accept as payment for the services.
Later, an entire two hour session was devoted to the subject of lessons that can be learned from Tennessee's health coverage experience.
One of the presenters, Tennessee's Safety Net Director, presented an outstanding overview of the reasons for the TennCare failure and the various ways that CoverTennessee will address the state's health care coverage needs, before lapsing into full-blown statism during the question and answer period.
At that point, it was emphasized that CoverTennessee was only a small start, that ultimately many more will be covered, that nurses will be found in every school, state officials will instruct in nutrition in school cafeterias across the state, that food banks will be reformed, parents will be taught to eat and feed their children properly, obesity will be eliminated, and we will all live happily ever after.
All of which was well-intended, but advocates of the nanny state always are.
------------------
tcwatch comments:
Music City Oracle noted that NO news media (The Tennessean for example) were present to report on the admitted failure of TennCare.
When TennCare was introduced by Uncle Ned years ago, Uncle Ned said, "this is a program that will eventually cover ALL Tennesseans".
http://musiccityoracle.blogspot.com/
TennCare at National Conference of State Legislatures
The subject of TennCare and its successor, CoverTennessee, were under much discussion at today's meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures, which began today at the Opryland Hotel.
After hearing a presentation on recent initiatives by various states for providing health care coverage to uninsured populations, Tennessee's Commissioner of Health, Dr. Kenneth Robinson, noted that the presenter had made no mention of CoverTennessee and asked for her thoughts on the proposal.
The presenter bluntly responded that given the dollars proposed for the coverage, that she had doubts as to whether the state would even get much response to a Request for Proposal (RFP).
The CoverTennessee proposal calls for a public/private partnership in which the state would underwrite a portion of the $150/month per member premium. For the uninsured population that is a low premium amount, because such programs tend to suffer from what insurers call anti-selection -- sick people are more likely to buy into the program than well people.
The CoverTennessee proposal is unusual in that it gives a dollar figure and asks vendors to tell what they will provide. Most RFP's work the opposite way -- the state defines the program, and vendors bid based on what they will accept as payment for the services.
Later, an entire two hour session was devoted to the subject of lessons that can be learned from Tennessee's health coverage experience.
One of the presenters, Tennessee's Safety Net Director, presented an outstanding overview of the reasons for the TennCare failure and the various ways that CoverTennessee will address the state's health care coverage needs, before lapsing into full-blown statism during the question and answer period.
At that point, it was emphasized that CoverTennessee was only a small start, that ultimately many more will be covered, that nurses will be found in every school, state officials will instruct in nutrition in school cafeterias across the state, that food banks will be reformed, parents will be taught to eat and feed their children properly, obesity will be eliminated, and we will all live happily ever after.
All of which was well-intended, but advocates of the nanny state always are.
------------------
tcwatch comments:
Music City Oracle noted that NO news media (The Tennessean for example) were present to report on the admitted failure of TennCare.
When TennCare was introduced by Uncle Ned years ago, Uncle Ned said, "this is a program that will eventually cover ALL Tennesseans".
Why Muslims terrorists are so quick to commit suicide
Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide.
Let's see now:
No Jesus.
No Wal-Mart.
No television.
No cheerleaders.
No baseball.
No football.
No basketball.
No hockey.
No golf.
No Internet.
No tailgate parties.
No Home Depot.
No beer
No hot dogs.
No burgers.
More than one wife.
(HELLO, ARE YOU CRAZY?)
Rags for clothes and towels for hats.
Constant wailing from the guy in the tower.
No chocolate chip cookies.
No Girl Scout cookies.
No Christmas.
You can't shave.
Your wives can't shave.
You can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung.
The women have to wear baggy dresses and veils at all times.
Your bride is picked by someone else.
She smells just like your donkey, but your donkey has a better disposition.
Then they tell you that when you die it all gets better!
I mean, really. IS THERE ANY MYSTERY HERE?
Let's see now:
No Jesus.
No Wal-Mart.
No television.
No cheerleaders.
No baseball.
No football.
No basketball.
No hockey.
No golf.
No Internet.
No tailgate parties.
No Home Depot.
No beer
No hot dogs.
No burgers.
More than one wife.
(HELLO, ARE YOU CRAZY?)
Rags for clothes and towels for hats.
Constant wailing from the guy in the tower.
No chocolate chip cookies.
No Girl Scout cookies.
No Christmas.
You can't shave.
Your wives can't shave.
You can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung.
The women have to wear baggy dresses and veils at all times.
Your bride is picked by someone else.
She smells just like your donkey, but your donkey has a better disposition.
Then they tell you that when you die it all gets better!
I mean, really. IS THERE ANY MYSTERY HERE?
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Homosexual Marriage Officialy Supported by Democrat Party
American Family Association Action Alert -- August 15, 2006
http://www.afa.net/aa081506.asp
Democrats help block marriage protection amendment
Party goes on record in support of homosexual marriage
Activists pushing for legalizing homosexual marriage say they will not stop with just homosexual marriage. They demand more. They want government and societal acceptance, approval and financial support for many kinds of relationships, including polygamy.
Activists say that marriage is "not the only worthy form of family or relationship," and it "should not be legally or economically privileged above others." The statement was signed by 270 homosexual rights activists and heterosexual allies.
Other kinds of relationships that they say deserve marriage-like benefits include "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner (polygamy)" and "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The goal of the activists is the destruction of traditional marriage.
The Democratic National Committee has developed plans to help the homosexual activists achieve their goal. DNC spokesman Danien LaVera says the DNC has developed a five-point plan to help homosexuals block any legislation which prohibits homosexual marriage, and to push homosexual marriage.
The first successful effort by the Democrats occurred in Illinois where the Democrats donated $10,000 to help the activists keep the marriage protection law off the ballot in that state.
LaVera said the DNC strongly opposes efforts to ban homosexual marriage by amending the federal or state constitutions and that the Democratic party plans to step up efforts to promote pro-homosexual marriage bills in several states.
Democratic parties in eight states have already adopted platforms endorsing homosexual marriage bills. They include New York, California, Washington, Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii.
Here is the 5-point plan LaVera said the Democratic National Committee has developed to fight for homosexual marriage:
1: Labeling efforts to ban homosexual marriage as "divisive" ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues, including "the Bush's administration's failed policies."
2: Begin a "party-building" operation which includes specific training for state Democratic operatives in all 50 states on how to campaign against ballot measures banning homosexual marriage.
3: Working closely with the gay group National Stonewall Democrats to "develop strategy and talking points' to combat state measures defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
4: Working cooperatively with homosexual organizations fighting ballot measures in each state where they surface, providing campaign advice, expertise, and logistical and financial support.
5: Empowering and organizing homosexual communities around the country with the help of the DNC's new homosexual outreach organizer Brian Bond.
http://www.afa.net/aa081506.asp
Democrats help block marriage protection amendment
Party goes on record in support of homosexual marriage
Activists pushing for legalizing homosexual marriage say they will not stop with just homosexual marriage. They demand more. They want government and societal acceptance, approval and financial support for many kinds of relationships, including polygamy.
Activists say that marriage is "not the only worthy form of family or relationship," and it "should not be legally or economically privileged above others." The statement was signed by 270 homosexual rights activists and heterosexual allies.
Other kinds of relationships that they say deserve marriage-like benefits include "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner (polygamy)" and "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The goal of the activists is the destruction of traditional marriage.
The Democratic National Committee has developed plans to help the homosexual activists achieve their goal. DNC spokesman Danien LaVera says the DNC has developed a five-point plan to help homosexuals block any legislation which prohibits homosexual marriage, and to push homosexual marriage.
The first successful effort by the Democrats occurred in Illinois where the Democrats donated $10,000 to help the activists keep the marriage protection law off the ballot in that state.
LaVera said the DNC strongly opposes efforts to ban homosexual marriage by amending the federal or state constitutions and that the Democratic party plans to step up efforts to promote pro-homosexual marriage bills in several states.
Democratic parties in eight states have already adopted platforms endorsing homosexual marriage bills. They include New York, California, Washington, Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii.
Here is the 5-point plan LaVera said the Democratic National Committee has developed to fight for homosexual marriage:
1: Labeling efforts to ban homosexual marriage as "divisive" ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues, including "the Bush's administration's failed policies."
2: Begin a "party-building" operation which includes specific training for state Democratic operatives in all 50 states on how to campaign against ballot measures banning homosexual marriage.
3: Working closely with the gay group National Stonewall Democrats to "develop strategy and talking points' to combat state measures defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
4: Working cooperatively with homosexual organizations fighting ballot measures in each state where they surface, providing campaign advice, expertise, and logistical and financial support.
5: Empowering and organizing homosexual communities around the country with the help of the DNC's new homosexual outreach organizer Brian Bond.
Friday, August 11, 2006
51% of Democrats hope Bush (and the USA) fails
Friday, August 11, 2006
51% of Democrats Succumb to BDS
Posted by Hugh Hewitt 9:50 AM
The latest FoxNews poll offers the typically dismal results we’ve come to expect. Bush’s approval holds in the 30’s, and Congress is less popular than I was in junior high school.
But the poll also offers this stunning and revealing nugget. Fox asked, “Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” 51% of Democrats answered “No” to that question. 40% answered yes, and 9%, who are still apparently trying to determine just how deranged they are by their Bush hatred, answered “I don’t know.”
The depths to which the modern Democratic Party has sunk never lose their ability to shock me. In the 1990’s, I couldn’t stand Bill Clinton but I didn’t root for him to fail. From a purely selfish standpoint, I owned a business and owned stocks; the economy going in the crapper would not have been good. On a patriotic level, I also realized that there were far more important things than my disdain for the priapic POTUS.
51%. The mind reels.
51% of Democrats Succumb to BDS
Posted by Hugh Hewitt 9:50 AM
The latest FoxNews poll offers the typically dismal results we’ve come to expect. Bush’s approval holds in the 30’s, and Congress is less popular than I was in junior high school.
But the poll also offers this stunning and revealing nugget. Fox asked, “Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” 51% of Democrats answered “No” to that question. 40% answered yes, and 9%, who are still apparently trying to determine just how deranged they are by their Bush hatred, answered “I don’t know.”
The depths to which the modern Democratic Party has sunk never lose their ability to shock me. In the 1990’s, I couldn’t stand Bill Clinton but I didn’t root for him to fail. From a purely selfish standpoint, I owned a business and owned stocks; the economy going in the crapper would not have been good. On a patriotic level, I also realized that there were far more important things than my disdain for the priapic POTUS.
51%. The mind reels.
how did your rep. vote on illegals??
take a look at State Rep. Stacey Campfield's blog.
see how your state rep. voted on issues like illegal aliens registering to vote and getting a drivers license.
you'll be amazed at how the liberals voted. (actually you won't)
http://lastcar.blogspot.com/
see how your state rep. voted on issues like illegal aliens registering to vote and getting a drivers license.
you'll be amazed at how the liberals voted. (actually you won't)
http://lastcar.blogspot.com/
Thursday, August 10, 2006
GOP voters: Like A Rock
Washington Whispers: GOP voters: like a rock
By Paul Bedard Posted 8/9/06
Many Democrats may hate the war in Iraq and itch to dump the president, but a new GOP survey shows that Republican base voters stand ready to jam the November polls to return their team to Congress.
A three-page-survey memo
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060809/RNC_memo.pdf
obtained by Washington Whispers reveals that despite reports of some dissatisfaction with the economy, the war, and President Bush, 81 percent of Republican voters are "almost certain" to vote and an additional 14 percent say they are "very likely." It goes without saying that they'll vote Republican: By a margin of 84 percent to 6 percent, they will pull the GOP toggle switch in the voting booth. And here is something you don't hear very often: 88 percent of Republicans approve of how the prez is handling his job.
What's it all mean? Analysts say that GOP voters are ready to dig in and play defense against the charges Democrats are tossing at Republican candidates.
The memo also helps to define what issues work for Republican candidates. The survey--officially tilted "Base Mobilization Survey Finds and Conclusions"--divided the issues into foreign and domestic.
On the foreign side, it's all terrorism and war with polling that finds GOP voters back the war, worry about Democratic attacks on the fight against terrorism, and think the Patriot Act, moves to tighten the border, and even telephone surveillance are good things. And their favorite domestic issues aren't a surprise: They are pro-tax cuts, big on cultural values, and worried that Democrats want to put too much bureaucracy in healthcare.
Another nonshocker: They don't like the media's war stories, thinking that they are too negative. Some 60 percent of the GOP base expresses "extremely high dissatisfaction" with the coverage of the war.
By Paul Bedard Posted 8/9/06
Many Democrats may hate the war in Iraq and itch to dump the president, but a new GOP survey shows that Republican base voters stand ready to jam the November polls to return their team to Congress.
A three-page-survey memo
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060809/RNC_memo.pdf
obtained by Washington Whispers reveals that despite reports of some dissatisfaction with the economy, the war, and President Bush, 81 percent of Republican voters are "almost certain" to vote and an additional 14 percent say they are "very likely." It goes without saying that they'll vote Republican: By a margin of 84 percent to 6 percent, they will pull the GOP toggle switch in the voting booth. And here is something you don't hear very often: 88 percent of Republicans approve of how the prez is handling his job.
What's it all mean? Analysts say that GOP voters are ready to dig in and play defense against the charges Democrats are tossing at Republican candidates.
The memo also helps to define what issues work for Republican candidates. The survey--officially tilted "Base Mobilization Survey Finds and Conclusions"--divided the issues into foreign and domestic.
On the foreign side, it's all terrorism and war with polling that finds GOP voters back the war, worry about Democratic attacks on the fight against terrorism, and think the Patriot Act, moves to tighten the border, and even telephone surveillance are good things. And their favorite domestic issues aren't a surprise: They are pro-tax cuts, big on cultural values, and worried that Democrats want to put too much bureaucracy in healthcare.
Another nonshocker: They don't like the media's war stories, thinking that they are too negative. Some 60 percent of the GOP base expresses "extremely high dissatisfaction" with the coverage of the war.
State Troopers with Political Ties Promoted
Troopers with political ties get promotions
Commissioner says advancement based on merit, leadership
By BRAD SCHRADE Thursday, 08/10/06 The Tennessean
A state trooper who once used his state-issued service handgun to shoot out an estranged girlfriend's television set was promoted to the Tennessee Highway Patrol's second-highest rank Wednesday as part of a wave of promotions that elevated several troopers with political ties.
Danny Wilson, who previously had been the captain over troopers in Davidson and the surrounding counties, was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel, as was Tracy Trott, who had served recently as major.
Their promotions and others Wednesday, affecting 13 officers in all, were part of a dramatic restructuring for the Highway Patrol, whose top leadership melted down late last year after a months-long investigation by The Tennessean into allegations of cronyism and turning a blind eye to troopers in trouble.
Wilson and Trott will serve as lieutenant colonels along with Albert Strawther, who was promoted into that rank in March as part of a new THP leadership team installed by interim state Safety Commissioner Gerald Nicely.
Speaking at a brief promotion ceremony at the patrol's Donelson training facility, Nicely defended the promotion of Wilson and the others.
"If we're looking for sainthood as a criteria for promotions, we're not going to achieve it," the commissioner said. "Anybody that's been on the Highway Patrol for 25 or 30 years probably had some issues. Part of leadership is being able to overcome those issues. In the case of Lt. Col. Wilson, he's done that and done an outstanding job as captain in the Nashville District, and I'm very comfortable with his elevation."
Wilson declined to comment Wednesday.
In 1993, during the time he was on Gov. Ned McWherter's security detail, Wilson shot out a television and put two bullets in a large oval mirror at his girlfriend's Hendersonville home while she was not present, leaving a note that described what he wanted preached at his funeral, according to state records. He was put on leave and sent to counseling, according to state records, and was promoted to captain in 2002.
His new post puts him in command of Nashville and all districts west to the Mississippi River.
Three captains also were promoted to major Wednesday: John Eldridge, the head of the patrol's Cookeville District; J.R. Perry, the head of training; and Wayne Springer, head of the Lawrenceburg District. All three men have political ties, according to state records.
Eldridge is a personal friend of Deputy Gov. Dave Cooley's brother-in-law, according to state records, and gave $600 to Gov. Phil Bredesen's campaign in 2004. Perry was promoted from sergeant to captain, skipping lieutenant, after he and his wife gave $312 to Bredesen in 2002; they gave an additional $100 in 2004. Springer had cited references for promotion in recent years from U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Pall Mall, and Democratic activist Marvin Sandrell of Columbia, who was slated to welcome U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. at a cookout-fundraiser at his barn tonight.
Perry said Wednesday that politics didn't play a part in his advancement to major for the patrol's administrative and field support staff. Instead, he credited his rise to his experience and work ethic.
"I've worked very hard for what I've got," Perry said. He said the newly installed Col. Mike Walker approached him within the past two or three months about helping out in the upper command staff.
Nicely said troopers' political activity played no part in the promotion process "any more than it played in the demotions and some of the dismissals we've had since we've been here. I don't think you can say someone is qualified because they've been politically active or not qualified. I think you have to judge them on their merits." Walker also said politics played no part in the promotions process.
The restructuring creates a new command chart that Nicely said will lead to more accountability across the state. Previously, the patrol had one colonel, one lieutenant colonel and one major, a leadership team that oversaw more than 800 uniformed troopers statewide. That structure was among the problems described in March by a private consulting firm hired by the state to help resolve the THP's problems.
The patrol also promoted three officers to lieutenant and five to captain Wednesday.
Among the new captains is Don Nicholson of White House, who was promoted to lieutenant in 2003 despite having the lowest score of the 15 sergeants in his group on impartial promotion rankings. He was promoted to lieutenant over five other sergeants with higher scores not long after Bredesen took office and after Nicholson's family had given $350 to the governor's 2002 campaign.
The private consultants Kroll Inc. reported earlier this year that the THP's promotion process was "corrupted" and "tainted" by political activity, unethical conduct and lies — a system that had built up over decades. It called for an overhaul of the process to make it more transparent and open and to wipe political influence.
The patrol's new leadership thus far has made efforts to create more openness in the promotion of troopers in the lower-ranking jobs that are covered by the state's civil service rules, such as posting open jobs and test scores on the Internet.
However, the process that culminated in Wednesday's promotions of higher-ranking officers was less transparent. There was no formal application process or job postings for the executive command staff.
Walker defended the selection process on Wednesday.
A more formal structure is appropriate for promotions in the lower ranks, he said. "As far as the (executive service) positions, we don't think that was the intent of the Kroll report," Walker said. "It's been discussed on more than one occasion. We looked at people we knew throughout the department, backgrounds, capabilities they had, and made the decisions from there."
Walker said he couldn't say exactly how many people were interviewed for the 10 executive service promotion positions made Wednesday, other than to say it "was more than 10."
Three of the officers promoted Wednesday were made lieutenants, whose jobs are covered by civil-service protections.
Lt. Robert Melton, who was elevated to captain over the Jackson District, also contributed or had family members contribute to Bredesen, according to records. A Robert Melton listed at his home address gave $1,675 to his 2002 campaign, records show. •
Commissioner says advancement based on merit, leadership
By BRAD SCHRADE Thursday, 08/10/06 The Tennessean
A state trooper who once used his state-issued service handgun to shoot out an estranged girlfriend's television set was promoted to the Tennessee Highway Patrol's second-highest rank Wednesday as part of a wave of promotions that elevated several troopers with political ties.
Danny Wilson, who previously had been the captain over troopers in Davidson and the surrounding counties, was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel, as was Tracy Trott, who had served recently as major.
Their promotions and others Wednesday, affecting 13 officers in all, were part of a dramatic restructuring for the Highway Patrol, whose top leadership melted down late last year after a months-long investigation by The Tennessean into allegations of cronyism and turning a blind eye to troopers in trouble.
Wilson and Trott will serve as lieutenant colonels along with Albert Strawther, who was promoted into that rank in March as part of a new THP leadership team installed by interim state Safety Commissioner Gerald Nicely.
Speaking at a brief promotion ceremony at the patrol's Donelson training facility, Nicely defended the promotion of Wilson and the others.
"If we're looking for sainthood as a criteria for promotions, we're not going to achieve it," the commissioner said. "Anybody that's been on the Highway Patrol for 25 or 30 years probably had some issues. Part of leadership is being able to overcome those issues. In the case of Lt. Col. Wilson, he's done that and done an outstanding job as captain in the Nashville District, and I'm very comfortable with his elevation."
Wilson declined to comment Wednesday.
In 1993, during the time he was on Gov. Ned McWherter's security detail, Wilson shot out a television and put two bullets in a large oval mirror at his girlfriend's Hendersonville home while she was not present, leaving a note that described what he wanted preached at his funeral, according to state records. He was put on leave and sent to counseling, according to state records, and was promoted to captain in 2002.
His new post puts him in command of Nashville and all districts west to the Mississippi River.
Three captains also were promoted to major Wednesday: John Eldridge, the head of the patrol's Cookeville District; J.R. Perry, the head of training; and Wayne Springer, head of the Lawrenceburg District. All three men have political ties, according to state records.
Eldridge is a personal friend of Deputy Gov. Dave Cooley's brother-in-law, according to state records, and gave $600 to Gov. Phil Bredesen's campaign in 2004. Perry was promoted from sergeant to captain, skipping lieutenant, after he and his wife gave $312 to Bredesen in 2002; they gave an additional $100 in 2004. Springer had cited references for promotion in recent years from U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Pall Mall, and Democratic activist Marvin Sandrell of Columbia, who was slated to welcome U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. at a cookout-fundraiser at his barn tonight.
Perry said Wednesday that politics didn't play a part in his advancement to major for the patrol's administrative and field support staff. Instead, he credited his rise to his experience and work ethic.
"I've worked very hard for what I've got," Perry said. He said the newly installed Col. Mike Walker approached him within the past two or three months about helping out in the upper command staff.
Nicely said troopers' political activity played no part in the promotion process "any more than it played in the demotions and some of the dismissals we've had since we've been here. I don't think you can say someone is qualified because they've been politically active or not qualified. I think you have to judge them on their merits." Walker also said politics played no part in the promotions process.
The restructuring creates a new command chart that Nicely said will lead to more accountability across the state. Previously, the patrol had one colonel, one lieutenant colonel and one major, a leadership team that oversaw more than 800 uniformed troopers statewide. That structure was among the problems described in March by a private consulting firm hired by the state to help resolve the THP's problems.
The patrol also promoted three officers to lieutenant and five to captain Wednesday.
Among the new captains is Don Nicholson of White House, who was promoted to lieutenant in 2003 despite having the lowest score of the 15 sergeants in his group on impartial promotion rankings. He was promoted to lieutenant over five other sergeants with higher scores not long after Bredesen took office and after Nicholson's family had given $350 to the governor's 2002 campaign.
The private consultants Kroll Inc. reported earlier this year that the THP's promotion process was "corrupted" and "tainted" by political activity, unethical conduct and lies — a system that had built up over decades. It called for an overhaul of the process to make it more transparent and open and to wipe political influence.
The patrol's new leadership thus far has made efforts to create more openness in the promotion of troopers in the lower-ranking jobs that are covered by the state's civil service rules, such as posting open jobs and test scores on the Internet.
However, the process that culminated in Wednesday's promotions of higher-ranking officers was less transparent. There was no formal application process or job postings for the executive command staff.
Walker defended the selection process on Wednesday.
A more formal structure is appropriate for promotions in the lower ranks, he said. "As far as the (executive service) positions, we don't think that was the intent of the Kroll report," Walker said. "It's been discussed on more than one occasion. We looked at people we knew throughout the department, backgrounds, capabilities they had, and made the decisions from there."
Walker said he couldn't say exactly how many people were interviewed for the 10 executive service promotion positions made Wednesday, other than to say it "was more than 10."
Three of the officers promoted Wednesday were made lieutenants, whose jobs are covered by civil-service protections.
Lt. Robert Melton, who was elevated to captain over the Jackson District, also contributed or had family members contribute to Bredesen, according to records. A Robert Melton listed at his home address gave $1,675 to his 2002 campaign, records show. •
Primary Colors: This is not your fathers democratic party.
Primary Colors
From The Wall Street Journal
By MIchael Barone
Op-Ed
August 10, 2006
Sen. Joseph Lieberman's narrow defeat in Connecticut's Democratic primary on Tuesday tells us something important about his party. Mr. Lieberman, who has made it clear that he is running in November as an independent, can argue plausibly that his loss represented the judgment of only a sliver of the electorate: Connecticut, where most major party nominations are decided by party conventions, has a tradition of low participation in primaries, and less than one-sixth of the registered voters took the trouble to cast their ballots in this contest. The winner, Ned Lamont, thus got the votes of less than one-tenth of Connecticut voters.
Still, this was a well-publicized contest, and one in which Sen. Lieberman's opponents had reason, from their point of view, to target him. And not just for his staunch support of the American military action in Iraq. On a number of issues, Mr. Lieberman has been at odds with large constituencies in the Democratic Party...
The Connecticut primary reveals that the center of gravity in the Democratic Party has moved, from the lunch-bucket working class that was the dominant constituency up through the 1960s to the secular transnational professional class that was the dominant constituency in the 2004 presidential cycle...
The working class Democrats of the mid-20th century voted their interests, and knew that one of their interests was protecting the nation in which they were proud to live. The professional class Democrats of today vote their ideology and, living a life in which they are insulated from adversity, feel free to imagine that America cannot be threatened by implacable enemies. They can vote to validate their lifestyle choices and their transnational attitudes.
In the mid-20th century the core constituencies of both the Democratic and the Republican Parties stood foursquare for America's prosecution of World War II and the Cold War. Today, as the Connecticut results suggest, it's different. The core constituency of the Republican Party stands foursquare for America's prosecution of the global struggle against Islamofascist terrorism -- and solidly on the side of Israel in its struggle against the same forces. The core constituency of the Democratic Party wants to stand aside from the global struggle -- and, as the presence of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton at Mr. Lamont's side on election night suggests, is not necessarily on the side of Israel. It's not your father's Democratic Party.
Mr. Barone is a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report and coauthor of "The Almanac of American Politics" (National Journal Group).
From The Wall Street Journal
By MIchael Barone
Op-Ed
August 10, 2006
Sen. Joseph Lieberman's narrow defeat in Connecticut's Democratic primary on Tuesday tells us something important about his party. Mr. Lieberman, who has made it clear that he is running in November as an independent, can argue plausibly that his loss represented the judgment of only a sliver of the electorate: Connecticut, where most major party nominations are decided by party conventions, has a tradition of low participation in primaries, and less than one-sixth of the registered voters took the trouble to cast their ballots in this contest. The winner, Ned Lamont, thus got the votes of less than one-tenth of Connecticut voters.
Still, this was a well-publicized contest, and one in which Sen. Lieberman's opponents had reason, from their point of view, to target him. And not just for his staunch support of the American military action in Iraq. On a number of issues, Mr. Lieberman has been at odds with large constituencies in the Democratic Party...
The Connecticut primary reveals that the center of gravity in the Democratic Party has moved, from the lunch-bucket working class that was the dominant constituency up through the 1960s to the secular transnational professional class that was the dominant constituency in the 2004 presidential cycle...
The working class Democrats of the mid-20th century voted their interests, and knew that one of their interests was protecting the nation in which they were proud to live. The professional class Democrats of today vote their ideology and, living a life in which they are insulated from adversity, feel free to imagine that America cannot be threatened by implacable enemies. They can vote to validate their lifestyle choices and their transnational attitudes.
In the mid-20th century the core constituencies of both the Democratic and the Republican Parties stood foursquare for America's prosecution of World War II and the Cold War. Today, as the Connecticut results suggest, it's different. The core constituency of the Republican Party stands foursquare for America's prosecution of the global struggle against Islamofascist terrorism -- and solidly on the side of Israel in its struggle against the same forces. The core constituency of the Democratic Party wants to stand aside from the global struggle -- and, as the presence of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton at Mr. Lamont's side on election night suggests, is not necessarily on the side of Israel. It's not your father's Democratic Party.
Mr. Barone is a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report and coauthor of "The Almanac of American Politics" (National Journal Group).
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Rebuplican plans and goals for next year
from Knoxville State Rep. Stacey Campfield’s blog
http://lastcar.blogspot.com/
Tennessee Trust (The republican plans and goals for next year) is starting to roll out now.
Voting records that some legislators have kept hidden from the people on these issues for a long time will be exposed. Expect pain.
Phase one Immigration:
1. Drivers license test in English (Can you read a road sign that says hidden driveway ahead, blind curve ahead, lane ends ahead, stop, yield ect.,ect, can you understand commands from police officers). This is a common sense safety issue.
2. No state services (except emergency) unless you can prove you are in the country legally. No free education, free child care, healthcare, in state tuition, ect, ect. this is in effect in many other states.
3. You must prove you are a citizen before voting. I had to show photo ID 3 times to get on a airplane, 0 times to vote. This is a no brainer unless of course you need the illegal vote to win.
4. You must provide proof you are in the country legally before you can register and license a vehicle. An unlicensed car is an easy stop for a police Officer. No car,no accidents without insurance, No car, less jobs. Less jobs, less immigration problems and more jobs for legal immigrents and citizens.
5. Training of State troopers so they will and know how to help deal with the illegal immigrant issue W/O racial profiling. With out enforcement, rules and laws are easy to break by someone who can just pick up, move and start over.
We have other goals on this issue but these are our top 5.
Next up, the history of these bills and who voted how when they came up.
Names will be named.
tcwatch says, "any dems listening? email us your party plans for next year. we'll publish them for you." tcwatch@gmail.com"
http://lastcar.blogspot.com/
Tennessee Trust (The republican plans and goals for next year) is starting to roll out now.
Voting records that some legislators have kept hidden from the people on these issues for a long time will be exposed. Expect pain.
Phase one Immigration:
1. Drivers license test in English (Can you read a road sign that says hidden driveway ahead, blind curve ahead, lane ends ahead, stop, yield ect.,ect, can you understand commands from police officers). This is a common sense safety issue.
2. No state services (except emergency) unless you can prove you are in the country legally. No free education, free child care, healthcare, in state tuition, ect, ect. this is in effect in many other states.
3. You must prove you are a citizen before voting. I had to show photo ID 3 times to get on a airplane, 0 times to vote. This is a no brainer unless of course you need the illegal vote to win.
4. You must provide proof you are in the country legally before you can register and license a vehicle. An unlicensed car is an easy stop for a police Officer. No car,no accidents without insurance, No car, less jobs. Less jobs, less immigration problems and more jobs for legal immigrents and citizens.
5. Training of State troopers so they will and know how to help deal with the illegal immigrant issue W/O racial profiling. With out enforcement, rules and laws are easy to break by someone who can just pick up, move and start over.
We have other goals on this issue but these are our top 5.
Next up, the history of these bills and who voted how when they came up.
Names will be named.
tcwatch says, "any dems listening? email us your party plans for next year. we'll publish them for you." tcwatch@gmail.com"
It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note from Michael Moore
It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note from Michael Moore
August 9, 2006 Michael Moore
Friends,
Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.
Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.
I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.
To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?
To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.
If you don't believe us, give Joe a call.
Yours, Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com www.michaelmoore.com
P.S. Republicans -- sorry to leave you out of this letter. It's just that our side has a little housecleaning to do. We'll take care of you this November.
August 9, 2006 Michael Moore
Friends,
Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.
Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.
I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.
To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?
To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.
If you don't believe us, give Joe a call.
Yours, Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com www.michaelmoore.com
P.S. Republicans -- sorry to leave you out of this letter. It's just that our side has a little housecleaning to do. We'll take care of you this November.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Things Liberals Fear
www.huffingtonpost.com -- posted by Greg Gutfeld
THE HUFFPO LIST OF THINGS TO BE FEARFUL OF!
Fear of a loss of individual liberty in response to the war on terror.
Fear that the paranoia over terrorism will erode everything this country was founded on.
Fear that liberals haven't degraded the education system enough so most people still know that Abraham Lincoln and FDR suspended many liberties to deal with similar crises
Fear of Mel Gibson
Fear that your angry denunciations of Mel Gibson will not detract attention from the rampant anti-semitism found at the Huffington Post.
Fear that Ari Emmanuel's "brave" attack on Mel Gibson said more about Emmanuel's opportunism than any sincere belief.
Fear that Emmanuel's client Michael Moore might be a bigger anti-Semite than Gibson.
Fear of George Bu$H
Fear that Bu$h is to blame for everything
Fear that Bu$h isn't to blame for everything
Fear that if you continue to blame everything on Bu$h, you won't actually figure out who really is to blame for your problems
Fear that your spelling of Bu$h reflects your intellectual prowess, in a nutshell.
And for that, you still blame Bu$h And your parent$
Fear of Walmart
Fear of people who shop at Walmart
Fear that you might actually save money if you shopped at Walmart
Fear that Walmart has done more to help the poor than any social program ever created by our government.
Fear of all forms of energy except for the ones that don't work
Fear that people will realize the easiest way to cut back on greenhouse gases is to convert to nuclear energy
Fear that your activism will be exposed as a front for your narcissism
Fear that low taxes actually do create prosperous societies
Fear that people will find out what a hypocrite you are because you call for higher taxes while using tax shelters
Fear of mean people
Fear of judgmental people
Fear of appearing narrow-minded
Fear of intolerance
Fear that with your tirades against SUVs, Wal-Mart, meat, cigarettes, guns, whisky, and organized religion, you are the judgmental, intolerant one.
Fear of 3d ultrasounds that show fetal development
Fear that your children won't carry on your failed politics as religion/lifestyle
Fear of being judged in the afterlife
fear of being judged in this life
fear of that dark facial freckle
Fear that your new age health practices won't be able to save you from that dark facial freckle
Fear of writers asking for fair compensation given there are ads sold by barry diller on the pages.
Fear that people will notice the contradiction between pushing for higher minimum wages and not paying the writers on your website.
Fear of not being invited to arianna/denton blog loft parties.
Fear of all country singers except for the ones that hate Bush
Fear that Deepak is laughing all the way to the bank
Fear that the exposure that you're being for the 'common man' is a joke considering you go to the only clubs and bars roped off to keep those people out.
Fear that when they take away your anger there will be nothing left.
Fear of free speech when it mocks your beliefs.
Fear of free speech when it speaks back to you.
Fear of free speech when it comes from Christians.
Fear of free speech when it comes from me.
Fear that your definition of free speech - that only you get to be heard-- won't fly with us Wal-mart shoppers.
Fear of a police state unless of course it actually is a police state, like, Venezuela
Fear of Hugo Chavez dying
Fear of Castro Dying
Fear of Communism dying
Fear of Israel and their determined desire to blow up terrorists
No fear of Hezbollah and their pleasure in blowing up citizens
Fear of black Republicans
Fear that one day blacks will figure out you're the racist for always treating them like helpless victims instead of responsible individuals.
Fear that your comments are default responses to people who already agree with you
Fear that maybe shame is a good thing
Fear of rightwing "Repuglicans"
Fear of "crackpot Christians"
Fear that these fears do not measure up to the more legitimate
fear of crackpot Islamists who blow you up in order to sleep with 72 virgins who are most likely lousy in bed anyway.
Fear of losing the next election
Fear that you'll have to put your support behind a candidate who was already exposed and rejected by the American public.
Fear that it might be Gary Hart.And he still won't trim his eyebrows
Fear of Big Brother
Fear of group think
Fear that your lockstep obedience to progressive boilerplate is a purer example of subservience than anything you'd ever find in "Repuglican" circles
Fear that people will realize that a record of no terror attacks on the U.S. in five years, and liberating 55 million people in two Muslim nations, is not so bad.
Fear of having to come up with a new dehumanization campaign for the next Republican president.
Fear of not having to come up with dehumanization campaigns for radical islamists, kim jong II, the iranian mullahs and the EU and Russian oligarchs who took oil bribes from Saddam to keep him in power.
Fear that Foucault is not holding up to scrutiny.
Fear that common sense is making a comeback.
Fear that all those colonics did absolutely nothing for you.
Fear that grad school did even less.
Fear of the death penalty actually being a deterrent.
Fear that you'd experience more happiness from a Big Mac than from that bag of overpriced organic produce you bought at Knoll Organic Farms in Brentwood.
Fear of school vouchers
Fear that school vouchers will enable poor minority children to attend your children's private schools
Fear of a Marine knocking on your Prius's window to discuss your bumperstickers.
Fear that your own sense of rebellion is a farce and every opinion you have is safe and only voiced among those who agree with you
Fear of your conscience telling you even though you are supposed to like it, you really think NPR - especially its self serious whispering, wimpy bumper music and simpering anchors -- sucks.
Fear that the right to free speech is being curtailed.
Fear that when you bravely proclaim you're speaking "Truth to power," those who live in countries where the right to speak is truly curtailed are laughing bitterly at you.
Fear that your anti-Americanism is becoming even boring to you.
Fear that you hate the right for the same reason you hate your dad because you know that he is right and that you are a loser and you will always be a loser and that you are sabotaging your life and those of everyone around you because that makes you that angry.
Fear that everyone will notice that other than incessant complaining you haven't come up with a single solution.
Fear of never having a bad thing to say against the real tyrants of the world while having a rich vocabulary against a milquetoast GOP congressman from Georgia.
Fear of someone sitting you down and forcing you to deal with the fact that even if global warming was absolutely manmade and as bad as Gore says it is, that the threat of islamic terrorists getting WMDs and using them is far greater and imminent and requires offering at least moderate allegiance to the current president of the United States and to Tony Blair and Sen. Lieberman.
Fear of people snickering at you when you use the terms 'sustainable' and 'indigenous peoples'.
Fear of Nascar
Fear of Nasa
Fear of Nas (rapper)
Fear of NA (narcotics anonymous)
Fear of N (nitrogen)
Fear of nothingness
Fear that even if the democrats win the 08 election, Europeans will still look down on us and Muslims will still want to kill us.
Fear that capitalism actually works better than any other economic system
Fear that America really is the freest country in the world
Fear that going it alone when you think you're right is more moral than trying to build a coalition with dictators, thieves and cowards.
THE HUFFPO LIST OF THINGS TO BE FEARFUL OF!
Fear of a loss of individual liberty in response to the war on terror.
Fear that the paranoia over terrorism will erode everything this country was founded on.
Fear that liberals haven't degraded the education system enough so most people still know that Abraham Lincoln and FDR suspended many liberties to deal with similar crises
Fear of Mel Gibson
Fear that your angry denunciations of Mel Gibson will not detract attention from the rampant anti-semitism found at the Huffington Post.
Fear that Ari Emmanuel's "brave" attack on Mel Gibson said more about Emmanuel's opportunism than any sincere belief.
Fear that Emmanuel's client Michael Moore might be a bigger anti-Semite than Gibson.
Fear of George Bu$H
Fear that Bu$h is to blame for everything
Fear that Bu$h isn't to blame for everything
Fear that if you continue to blame everything on Bu$h, you won't actually figure out who really is to blame for your problems
Fear that your spelling of Bu$h reflects your intellectual prowess, in a nutshell.
And for that, you still blame Bu$h And your parent$
Fear of Walmart
Fear of people who shop at Walmart
Fear that you might actually save money if you shopped at Walmart
Fear that Walmart has done more to help the poor than any social program ever created by our government.
Fear of all forms of energy except for the ones that don't work
Fear that people will realize the easiest way to cut back on greenhouse gases is to convert to nuclear energy
Fear that your activism will be exposed as a front for your narcissism
Fear that low taxes actually do create prosperous societies
Fear that people will find out what a hypocrite you are because you call for higher taxes while using tax shelters
Fear of mean people
Fear of judgmental people
Fear of appearing narrow-minded
Fear of intolerance
Fear that with your tirades against SUVs, Wal-Mart, meat, cigarettes, guns, whisky, and organized religion, you are the judgmental, intolerant one.
Fear of 3d ultrasounds that show fetal development
Fear that your children won't carry on your failed politics as religion/lifestyle
Fear of being judged in the afterlife
fear of being judged in this life
fear of that dark facial freckle
Fear that your new age health practices won't be able to save you from that dark facial freckle
Fear of writers asking for fair compensation given there are ads sold by barry diller on the pages.
Fear that people will notice the contradiction between pushing for higher minimum wages and not paying the writers on your website.
Fear of not being invited to arianna/denton blog loft parties.
Fear of all country singers except for the ones that hate Bush
Fear that Deepak is laughing all the way to the bank
Fear that the exposure that you're being for the 'common man' is a joke considering you go to the only clubs and bars roped off to keep those people out.
Fear that when they take away your anger there will be nothing left.
Fear of free speech when it mocks your beliefs.
Fear of free speech when it speaks back to you.
Fear of free speech when it comes from Christians.
Fear of free speech when it comes from me.
Fear that your definition of free speech - that only you get to be heard-- won't fly with us Wal-mart shoppers.
Fear of a police state unless of course it actually is a police state, like, Venezuela
Fear of Hugo Chavez dying
Fear of Castro Dying
Fear of Communism dying
Fear of Israel and their determined desire to blow up terrorists
No fear of Hezbollah and their pleasure in blowing up citizens
Fear of black Republicans
Fear that one day blacks will figure out you're the racist for always treating them like helpless victims instead of responsible individuals.
Fear that your comments are default responses to people who already agree with you
Fear that maybe shame is a good thing
Fear of rightwing "Repuglicans"
Fear of "crackpot Christians"
Fear that these fears do not measure up to the more legitimate
fear of crackpot Islamists who blow you up in order to sleep with 72 virgins who are most likely lousy in bed anyway.
Fear of losing the next election
Fear that you'll have to put your support behind a candidate who was already exposed and rejected by the American public.
Fear that it might be Gary Hart.And he still won't trim his eyebrows
Fear of Big Brother
Fear of group think
Fear that your lockstep obedience to progressive boilerplate is a purer example of subservience than anything you'd ever find in "Repuglican" circles
Fear that people will realize that a record of no terror attacks on the U.S. in five years, and liberating 55 million people in two Muslim nations, is not so bad.
Fear of having to come up with a new dehumanization campaign for the next Republican president.
Fear of not having to come up with dehumanization campaigns for radical islamists, kim jong II, the iranian mullahs and the EU and Russian oligarchs who took oil bribes from Saddam to keep him in power.
Fear that Foucault is not holding up to scrutiny.
Fear that common sense is making a comeback.
Fear that all those colonics did absolutely nothing for you.
Fear that grad school did even less.
Fear of the death penalty actually being a deterrent.
Fear that you'd experience more happiness from a Big Mac than from that bag of overpriced organic produce you bought at Knoll Organic Farms in Brentwood.
Fear of school vouchers
Fear that school vouchers will enable poor minority children to attend your children's private schools
Fear of a Marine knocking on your Prius's window to discuss your bumperstickers.
Fear that your own sense of rebellion is a farce and every opinion you have is safe and only voiced among those who agree with you
Fear of your conscience telling you even though you are supposed to like it, you really think NPR - especially its self serious whispering, wimpy bumper music and simpering anchors -- sucks.
Fear that the right to free speech is being curtailed.
Fear that when you bravely proclaim you're speaking "Truth to power," those who live in countries where the right to speak is truly curtailed are laughing bitterly at you.
Fear that your anti-Americanism is becoming even boring to you.
Fear that you hate the right for the same reason you hate your dad because you know that he is right and that you are a loser and you will always be a loser and that you are sabotaging your life and those of everyone around you because that makes you that angry.
Fear that everyone will notice that other than incessant complaining you haven't come up with a single solution.
Fear of never having a bad thing to say against the real tyrants of the world while having a rich vocabulary against a milquetoast GOP congressman from Georgia.
Fear of someone sitting you down and forcing you to deal with the fact that even if global warming was absolutely manmade and as bad as Gore says it is, that the threat of islamic terrorists getting WMDs and using them is far greater and imminent and requires offering at least moderate allegiance to the current president of the United States and to Tony Blair and Sen. Lieberman.
Fear of people snickering at you when you use the terms 'sustainable' and 'indigenous peoples'.
Fear of Nascar
Fear of Nasa
Fear of Nas (rapper)
Fear of NA (narcotics anonymous)
Fear of N (nitrogen)
Fear of nothingness
Fear that even if the democrats win the 08 election, Europeans will still look down on us and Muslims will still want to kill us.
Fear that capitalism actually works better than any other economic system
Fear that America really is the freest country in the world
Fear that going it alone when you think you're right is more moral than trying to build a coalition with dictators, thieves and cowards.
Is Obion Co. Chamber on Ford Campaign Team??
The Obion County Chamber of Commerce sent out the following email today.
Has the chamber joined Junior's Campaign Team or will Bob Corker be given the same publicity ????
Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. will be speaking at the Northwest Tennessee Regional Industrial Center’s new “spec” building this upcoming Wednesday, August 9th at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this visit is to learn about the Obion County “Step-Up” campaign, the “spec” building program along with Obion County’s efforts to achieve economic growth and to see how he can better assist those efforts. Please make plans to attend.
Thank you,
Jim Cooper
Has the chamber joined Junior's Campaign Team or will Bob Corker be given the same publicity ????
Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. will be speaking at the Northwest Tennessee Regional Industrial Center’s new “spec” building this upcoming Wednesday, August 9th at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this visit is to learn about the Obion County “Step-Up” campaign, the “spec” building program along with Obion County’s efforts to achieve economic growth and to see how he can better assist those efforts. Please make plans to attend.
Thank you,
Jim Cooper
Another Name for Lollipop
Another name for lollipop
Posted: August 8, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
By Mychal Massie
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2006
There's a stench in the air that's covering the countryside. It isn't from farmers spreading manure as fertilizer. It isn't from factories, exhaust emissions or municipal landfills. The stench is the flatulence being produced from the decadent character of those who will say anything and promise anything to get elected or re-elected to national office.
It's election time, and the landscape is littered with those who think you are dumb enough to believe whatever they say are the problems, believe whatever they claim it takes to address said problems, and that they are the solution to said problems. Sadly, in most cases, they analyze correctly.
American politics aren't about solving problems, nor are they any longer about addressing the concerns of the people (if indeed they ever were). American politics are about joining a very small, very elite fraternity – which makes up its own rules, provides for its own best interest, and whose members are not subject to the laws and provisions that govern the proletariat.
American politics have become, at best, a taxpayer-funded brothel and/or liars club comprised of hedonistic opportunists. Many claim the system is corrupt. I submit it isn't the system; rather, it is the ne'er-do-wells who have been permitted to conscript it.
Granted, without laws we would be reduced to chaos and anarchy, but do we really need 535 men and women micro-managing the daily lives of some 300 million? Take a closer look at those who control our daily lives. When did John Murtha, D-Pa.; Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.; Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.; Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga.; William Jefferson, D-La.; Randall "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif.; Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas; Harry Reid, D-Nev., ad nauseum, become the final word and absolute authority on what is best for our daily lives? At best they are the equivalent of department store shoe salesmen – barely able to control their own lives – yet they daily pass laws under the auspices of knowing what's best for us. Truth be told, the majority of this referenced group would be in prison if not in Congress.
Politicians do not act in your best interest unless you are a member of NAMBLA and you voted for Barney Frank, D-Mass. Politicians act based on what those with the deepest pockets persuade them to do. They follow the directives of lobbyists representing the interests of entities 99.9 percent of Americans will never see and in many instances do not even know exist.
One of the primary causal factors in the creation of our form of government was to eliminate kings and queens. Yet that is exactly the way those on Capitol Hill behave. There are only so many reasons a person is willing to spend tens of millions of their own money to get a job that pays $165,000 a year – and while certain of those reasons may be altruistic, it's a safe bet that the greater majority of same are totally self-serving.
The McCain-Feingold-Cochran so-called campaign-reform bill served only one purpose, and that was to control what the voters could say and/or hear pursuant to those running for office. In brief, they were insulating themselves from public scrutiny leading up to elections.
The American people have been led to believe they are limited per the rights and powers they have. The reason for this is simple: It is the way the elected indemnify themselves from the wrath that would surely come if the voters were to ever regain their senses.
Most voters, like it or not, aid and abet in the conspiracy that keeps them in check. They blame one party or the other party, when in truth both parties are comprised of those who care only about themselves. It is time the voters wake up and realize that the self-serving promises (read: lies) of those eager to join the Capitol Hill fraternity are nothing more than verbal sleight of hand.
America was "created by the people and for the people," but the people have bought into the lie that someone else knows what is best for them. The people have abdicated their right to control themselves. The people have become so caught up in the electoral process, as it is defined by those vying for office, that they have become like mice on tread-wheels: running around in circles to get the most gifted prevaricator elected – then complaining when nothing changes.
It is time we made it clear that they work for us. Special-interest groups with deep pockets have figured it out. Until the rest of us figure this out, politicians will treat us like another name for lollipops.
The bottom line is that if you are not willing to fight for what belongs to you, i.e., your freedoms, then you have no right to complain when usurpers take it.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Tennessee Democrats fail to block pledge protection bill
Tennessee Democrat Congressmen voted to block a bill designed to protect the Pledge of Allegiance.
On July 19, 2006 the U.S. House voted to consider a bill to bar most federal courts from hearing cases challenging the constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance, a measure supporters said was needed to prevent judges from scrapping the pledge's reference to God
ALL democrats present in the house (197) voted against considering the bill. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll382.xml
When the measure to consider the bill passed, the chamber then voted 260 to 167 to approve legislation that would strip most federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of the right to take cases challenging the pledge's reference to ``one nation, under God'' as an unlawful government endorsement of religion.
76% of democrats present in the house voted against protecting the Pledge.
[Roll Call final vote results: click]
It appears that ALL Tennessee democrat congressmen supported the final bill after their earlier attempt to block the measure failed.
On July 19, 2006 the U.S. House voted to consider a bill to bar most federal courts from hearing cases challenging the constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance, a measure supporters said was needed to prevent judges from scrapping the pledge's reference to God
ALL democrats present in the house (197) voted against considering the bill. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll382.xml
When the measure to consider the bill passed, the chamber then voted 260 to 167 to approve legislation that would strip most federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of the right to take cases challenging the pledge's reference to ``one nation, under God'' as an unlawful government endorsement of religion.
76% of democrats present in the house voted against protecting the Pledge.
[Roll Call final vote results: click]
It appears that ALL Tennessee democrat congressmen supported the final bill after their earlier attempt to block the measure failed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
