God bless Jeremiah Wright!
For all his faults, he was the only man in America who could have arrested the presidential hopes of the smooth-talking Marxist from Hawaii. Wright’s God-given gift to do and say exactly the wrong thing at the right time transcends all human understanding, making Hillary and her husband look almost normal.
Like a cat burglar’s yappy Pomeranian, Wright doesn’t know when to shut up. Padding through a sleeping household at 3 AM, Obama’s free-spirited ankle-biter isn’t afraid to bark at the family mastiff, or his Bible-clinging-gun-toting owner.
Who could blame them?
While the Harvard-lawyer studied Wright’s genius of convincing Chicago’s poorest and most vulnerable families to drop their welfare and beer money in his offertory plate, Obama gave Wright the political legitimacy that his moral incompetence regularly subtracted. Wright baptized Obama with the black authenticity that his white mother and Harvard could not give him. Together, Trinity became the blackface Obama needed for his political minstrel show.
To the Democrat Party, Wright and Obama were invaluable in their control of Southside Chicago’s black voters. Like the Islamic theologians who blame Jews for the miseries of their primivitized flock, Trinity and similar pseudo-Christian scams that target vulnerable blacks throughout America have replaced the impolite tactics once used to control them by using Islam’s more nuanced forms of indoctrination. Instead of terrorizing "wayward Negroes" with white hoods and flaming crosses, Democrats now empower talented herdsmen like Wright to corral, feed, and provoke their livestock into blaming Republicans for the Democrat Party’s historical and political sins – and, of course, voting for more Democrats.
The problem with this minstrel show is that Wright doesn’t know how or when to shut up. Except for America’s loneliest moonbats, most Americans would be too embarrassed to spread lies about HIV and 9/11 – especially after being publicly pantsed by the facts. But after decades of audacity that comes from the corruption of ignorance, white guilt, affirmative action, and moral relativism, Wright has returned for more, while Obama tries to figure out a polite way to stop the yapping Pomeranian from humping his political legs.
While Wright insists that his marginalization is an attack on the black church, it’s hard to find real Christians who are willing to back his claims with more noise than a December cricket. Christian churches are not black or white, and any defense of Wright will likely come from Hamas, Jimmy Carter, or secularists who loathe real Judeo-Christian values.
The blowback Wright now sees isn’t an attack on the “Black Church,” but rather the convulsed nausea from mainstream Americans, black and white, who recognize Wright’s scam for what it is. Whether he knows it or not, Jeremiah Wright has saved America from his own dispiriting progeny.
The Lord works in mysterious ways – God Bless Jeremiah Wright!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
God bless Jeremiah Wright!
Monday, April 28, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those "Saturday Night Live" parodies were so devastatingly effective.)While it’s satisfying enough to watch two pathologically flawed Democrats in a catfight, it’s a special treat to have a psychiatrist calling the action. Story here…
Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama's own anthropological observation that "bitter" working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests.
In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes. The difficulty is understandable. Some of the contradictions are inexplicable. How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?
I decided to go to (the local coffee shop) for a quick sandwich and a glass of water and, as you know, the Obama headquarters are right next door. I decided to poke my head in and take a little look at what was going on. A cross-eyed twenty-something year old lady greeted me, asking me if I was an Obama fan.
"I just want some information," I replied. She went on to say that I was with the 22% of the population in Indiana who were "undecided" (which she assumed I was) and went on to explain that people like me "just might end up making the difference" in the upcoming election.
After going on for about 10 minutes about how excited she was to be volunteering in this office (which by the way, was like 90 degrees inside, with no air conditioning), she finally asked me what the most important issues were for me.I decided to amuse myself and pretended to think for a moment and then I actually said, "I really think that what our country needs right now is a little bit of hope and change."
My remark caught the attention of a few more people in the office, who all looked at me and smiled. Their eyes seemed to actually shine and silently say, "That's exactly it!"
The fat kid with the glasses (and I am not trying to be mean here, just to illustrate the situation better) then asked me if I was a (local college) student and if I knew that I could vote right now at the library. I told him that I was very well aware of the fact.
The two of them then proceeded to pile up my (already heavy with books) arms with brochures and other sorts of Obama paraphernalia and assured me, "Senator Obama is with you, it is people like you who will make a difference!"
As I exited the office and glanced back I could almost swear these people had tears in their eyes. They were probably gushing over the "fact" that they had "converted" me to yet another supporter of their cult similar to the way new parents gush over their one-year olds' first "da-da."
Ok, I am not the most knowledgeable individual when it comes to politics, but what exactly was their argument in convincing me that senator Obama is qualified to be our next president? I don't know because, like his speeches, they said nothing of substance. I cannot say that my short trip into the Obama office added any significance to my day or my beliefs, but I do think my detour was not in vain...
I can think of at least ten things I want to do with my free "Obama '08" button.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
BGen Robert E. Milstead, Jr., Director, Marine Corps Public Affairs on 19 February, 2008 addressing the Wounded Warriors Foundation in Charlotte, N.C.
Thank you and good evening.
Thanks for that introduction… but to introduce me as the mouthpiece of the Marine Corps is an exaggeration to say the least. Regardless, it’s an honor to be here this evening and to support such a worthwhile cause as the Wounded Warrior Foundation.
Today is a very special date in the history of our Corps. Sixty-three years ago today, at 0859, the first assault waves of the 4th and 5th Marine Divisions landed on the beaches of Iwo Jima. Before that battle was over, the Marines would suffer 26,000 casualties 6,000 Marines were killed taking that island. Twenty-two Marines were awarded Medals of Honor, the most ever awarded for a single engagement. On an island only 7+ square miles in size, almost 100,000 men were locked in mortal combat. 21,000 Japanese died in place. It is said that for every piece of terrain the size of a football field, one Marine was killed and five were wounded. But before I continue, I’d like to acknowledge Admiral Spiro, he’s sitting over here. He was on a Destroyer off the coast of Iwo Jima that morning providing fire support to the Marines. Admiral, thank you for your service, especially during World War II.
Why do I begin my remarks speaking of Iwo Jima? Because it is the benchmark we Marines use to judge all other battles. Also because it speaks to valor and determination two key characteristics we see in the young men and women serving today in this global war on terror. This is a generational conflict, and we are closer to the beginning than we are the end.
In my current assignment, I am often asked by the media and others about the health of our Corps. How do I reply? Tonight I will tell you what I tell them. We are indeed in good health. Our Corps is in the best shape I have seen during my 33 years of service. The young men and women serving today are our nation’s next greatest generation. They are taking the baton from the likes of Admiral Spiro. I have been in combat with them twice, and can say they are a national treasure, they are our future leaders and we are in good hands.
Speaking specifically about our Corps. We are the youngest of all the services. The average age is 24. Approximately 65% of the Corps is under the age of 25. Almost a quarter populates that beloved rank of Lance Corporal. We have almost 26,000 teenagers. Last year we recruited over 38,000 young men and women, 95% of them high school graduates, and every one of them joined knowing full well they will likely move toward the sound of cannons. This year we are well on our way to recruiting another 40,000. This is a generation that understands the meaning of service. As long as we continue recruiting men and women like this, our Corps will remain healthy.
Several months ago I had the privilege of being the reviewing officer for a graduation parade at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego. Standing out on that parade deck were six platoons, 571 young men lean and mean after the rigors of boot camp. I asked the battalion commander who was the honor graduate. He told me it was a Lance Corporal Sanchez, from Baytown, Texas. I asked if his parents were there. Yes sir, he answered, they are in the reviewing stand behind you. I want to meet them, I said. Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez were indeed proud parents. Taking her hand in mine, I thanked Mrs. Sanchez for giving us her son and told her that although I couldn’t guarantee his safety, I would guarantee he’d be taken care of. With tears in her eyes, she explained this was not her first. You see, both LCpl Sanchez’s older brother and sister were already Marines, and another sister was a Navy corpsman. I will tell you that as long as we have American families like the Sanchez family, our Corps will remain healthy.
I’ll then tell of the wounded Marines I met while visiting Brooke Army Medical Center and the Army Burn Center in San Antonio. I’ll tell of the young Lance Corporal who was burned when his vehicle was hit by an IED. His face is not bad at all, he looks if he merely has some road rash. But his hands are pretty badly burned and his therapy is painful. Mustering some courage, I asked him if he felt it was worth it. His reply was as you’d expect from a Marine, and I’ll clean it up some, “F-ing A sir, no regrets. I’d do it again in a second.” So I’ll tell you that as long as we have young men like him, our Corps will remain healthy.
I’ll also talk about the Corporal I met down there at the burn center. Now he was burned much worse. He still wears a protective cap and gloves and has had 37 surgeries. He tells of the time, when he could finally go out in town, of coming out of a restaurant, and a small child, as honest and straight-forth as only a child can be, said in a voice that he could hear, “look mommy, it’s a monster.” That child’s mother, instead of whisking her son away in embarrassment, got down on a knee, and looking her son in the eyes said, “no honey, that’s not a monster, that’s a very brave man who was badly hurt protecting you and me. You need to go over and thank him.” And with trepidation as you can imagine, the young child walked over, and reached out his hand taking the corporal’s gloved hand in his, and said “thank-you.” The corporal will tell you that as long as there are people like that, he can endure another 37 operations. I will tell you that as long as there are mothers like that child’s, our Corps will remain healthy.
As I close, I will offer you a couple of figures… There are about 1.5 million of us in the active forces that wear a uniform. If you add all the reserves and the National Guard, the total is somewhere close to 3 million. That is only 1% of our nation’s population. We are a military at war, not a nation at war. Unfortunately, many Americans just don’t get it. But you get it. Oh yeah, you get it. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be here tonight. So I’ll end by saying that as long as we have folks like you, our Corps will remain healthy.
Thank you for being here tonight, thank you for your support of our brave servicemen and women, and especially thank you for your support of our wounded warriors. God bless you. I pledge your Marine Corps will remain healthy, and Semper Fidelis.
Friday, April 18, 2008
I won’t run for president, but I ran for State Assembly in 2006. I’ve answered questions at political forums and speeches. I’ve testified in court and sworn depositions as an expert witness more than 500 times. I’ve been asked tough questions and answered them all.
Even on this blog, when someone coherently challenges something I’ve written, I always respond. I’ve found that the problem doesn’t stem from my answer, but from the questioner’s refusal to understand them.
Some questions are unfair. For example, “Do you still beat your wife?” is a “loaded question”. The NO-answer resolves the present allegation but leaves the implied past behavior.
During this week’s debate, BHO was asked about his pastor and both BHO and HRC were asked about their association with terrorists. The questions are not tough in an algebraic sense, but because their answers require an admission of guilt. And because they are true, our embarrassed Affirmative Action candidates have the audacity to blame the media for finally asking some uncomfortable questions about their morality, virtue, and patriotism.
Mark Twain said that “If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.” The candidates’ (and their supporters’) hostility stems not from media unfairness, but from what they don’t want to say and what their supporters don’t want to hear.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
I've never posted a joke, but this one was the best I've heard in a long time...
Three women: one engaged, one married, and one a mistress, are chatting about their relationships and decide to do something to amaze their men.... that night all three will wear a sexy leather bodice, stilettos and mask over their eyes as a treat for their partners.
After a few days they meet again to talk about what happened...
The engaged woman said: 'The other night, when my boyfriend came back home, he found me in the leather bodice, 4" stilettos and mask. He said, you are the woman of my life, I love you...then we made love all night long.'
The mistress said: 'Oh Yes! The other night we met in the office. I was wearing the leather bodice, mega stilettos, mask over my eyes and a raincoat. When I opened the raincoat, he didn't say a word. We just had wild sex all night.'
The married woman then said: 'The other night I sent the kids to stay at my mothers for the night; I got myself ready, leather bodice, and super stilettos and mask over my eyes.....
My husband came in from work, grabbed the TV remote control and a beer, and said, 'Hey Batman, what's for dinner?'
by Dick McDonald
Barack Obama has made no bones about it. He is going to eliminate the cap on payroll taxes to save the Social Security/Medicare programs. Those making over $97,000 a year will be hit with an additional 15.3% in payroll taxes for anything they make over $97,000.
Let’s assume you are a $20 million a picture actor and you make two pictures a year. Obama is going to ask you for an additional $6,130,000 of new taxes over and above the $14,000,000 you pay at 35%. In other words he wants you to pay a 44% increase in your taxes to compensate for Congress’s irresponsible use of the pay-as-you-go method of funding those programs over the years and promising more than they could afford – to be precise $45 trillion more and counting.
Now if you are a run-of-the-mill celebrity and only make an extra million above the $97,000 cap it is only going to cost you an extra $153,000 in new taxes over the $350,000 you pay to the IRS.
Assuming you are a Hollywood liberal the price of being one has just gone up – thanks to your new liberal political idol. The tragedy of such liberal philosophy is that raising taxes on the rich never makes the poor wealthy. Raising taxes on the rich will merely reduce the capital in the private sector used to keep the economy humming. Obama’s raising the cap won’t make the poor wealthy, it merely covers up the screw-ups of Congress and keeps massively inadequate retirement programs called Social Security and Medicare from being scrapped for better ones.
There are better programs that not only promise benefits 20 times better than the present plans, but will increase the value of the US Dollar as well as increase the net worth of America and Americans as well.
Hopefully someone in Hollywood is paying attention. Why would Hollywood feel obligated to pay for political mistakes even if those mistakes were made by politicians in Hollywood's favored party? It doesn't seem fair to Hollywood. Their salaries are going to be the hardest hit. Corporate types will just alter their compensation packages to avoid this 15.3% punishment.
For further information, go to Rise Up America
Sunday, April 13, 2008
HotAir posted Newt Gingrich’s comments about Barack Obama’s complete disconnect with ordinary, normal Americans.
If you go to the most expensive private school in Hawaii and then move on to Columbia University and Harvard Law School, you may not understand normal Americans. Their beliefs are so alien to your leftwing viewpoint that you have to seek some psychological explanation for what seem to be weird ideas.While some have called him the Manchurian Candidate, Obama seems to be programmed to choke on his own feet. The Clintons can't relate to real people either, but they swallow their feet like big slippery oysters - with finesse that makes Tiger Woods look clumsey.
They can’t really believe in the right to bear arms.
They can’t really believe in traditional marriage.
They can’t really believe in their faith in God.
They can’t really want to enforce the law on immigration.
Therefore, they must be “bitter” and “frustrated.”
This is the closest Senator Obama has come to openly sharing his wife’s view that “America is a mean country”. Not since Governor Dukakis have we seen anyone so out of touch with normal Americans. It makes perfect sense that it was in a fundraiser in San Francisco that he would have shared the views he has so carefully kept hidden for the entire campaign.
The current campaigns remind me of the choice between death by drowning, fire, or blunt force. How do we choose between the schizophrenic Obamas, the pathological prevaricators who pimp their daughter, or the Republican who hopes to win by looking, sounding, and acting like them?
Although I plan to vote for John McCain to promote the Party platform, I pray he doesn’t become America’s next Arnold Schwarzenegger Kennedy.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
A retired CHP officer recently sent this obnoxious video of Americans as they insulted Border Patrol officers during a border check. It’s an excellent example of the kind of behavior America’s police officers put up with every day.
To assuage any irritation with these spoiled children, I’ve posted video from a court case I was involved in ten years ago, where motorist Beverly Manos made a false complaint against LAPD Officer Brett Robinson after he issued her a speeding ticket. Robinson sued and won a $5000 judgment against Manos.
LA politicians welcome all complaints AGAINST LAPD officers regardless of their merit. On the other hand, LA politicians do all they can to prevent officers from filing civil complaints against those who defame their character. And regardless of proof, politicians prevent the Los Angeles City Attorney from filing criminal charges against citizens who make false complaints against officers.
LAPD officers have been accused of stealing a woman’s ovaries, while another alleged that an officer stole a NASA lunar lander. Whether true or not, records of those complaints remain in an officer’s personnel file.
I encourage all LAPD officers to file lawsuits against individuals who file false charges against officers. I encourage them to use video or audiotape when possible and would gladly assist them in the filing and preparation of those cases.
By the way - a few hours before our hearing was set, our captain ordered Brett and me not to attend the hearing. I offered to comply, but shared my concern that he might be dissuading witnesses (us) from appearing in a court trial, a felony.
After a few phone calls to the City Attorney he decided to let us appear.
I hope you enjoy our hearing as much as we did.
Part I and II are posted below:
A friend recently sent me this Open Letter to the Democrat Party. It was written by retired US Army officer Francis Rice who also blogs as The Black Republican. A native of Georgia, she retired from the Army in 1984. Read more about this accomplished American patriot.
This is her letter:
"We, African American citizens of the United States, declare and assert:
Whereas in the early 1600's 20 African men and women were landed in Virginia from a Dutch ship as slaves and from that tiny seed grew the poisoned fruit of plantation slavery which shaped the course of American development,Now, therefore, for the above and other documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon African Americans, we demand a formal written apology and other appropriate remuneration from the leadership of the Democratic party.
Whereas reconciliation and healing always begin with an apology and an effort to repay those who have been wronged,
Whereas the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices committed against African Americans during the past two hundred years, nor for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices and current soft bigotry of low expectations are having on us today,
Whereas the Democratic Party fought to expand slavery and, after the Civil War, established Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes and other repressive legislation that were designed to disenfranchise African Americans,
Whereas the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, and their primary goal was to intimidate and terrorize African American voters, Republicans who moved South to protect African Americans and any other whites who supported them,
Whereas, according to leading historians (both black and white), the horrific atrocities committed against African Americans during slavery and Reconstruction were financed, sponsored, and promoted by the Democratic Party and their Ku Klux Klan supporters,
Whereas from 1870 to 1930, in an effort to deny African Americans their civil rights and to keep African Americans from voting Republican, thousands of African Americans were shot, beaten, lynched, mutilated, and burned to death by Ku Klux Klan terrorists from the Democratic Party,
Whereas Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission,
Whereas the Democratic party has used racist demagoguery to deceive African Americans about the history of the Republican Party that: (a) started as the anti-slavery party in 1854, (b) fought to free African Americans from slavery, (c) designed Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for African Americans, (d) passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting African Americans freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote, (e) passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting African Americans protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, (f) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 granting African Americans protection from the Jim Crow laws, g) established Affirmative Action programs to help African Americans proper with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan that set the first goals and timetables and his 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act that made Affirmative Action Programs the law of our nation, and (h) never sponsored or launched a program, passed laws, or engaged in practices that resulted in the death of millions of African Americans,
Whereas Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (a 1954 decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower) was a landmark civil rights case that was designed to overturn the racist practices that were established by the Democratic Party,
Whereas after Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the vote of African Americans, he banned African American newspapers from the military shortly after taking office because he was convinced the newspapers were communists,
Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law, opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was later criticized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for ignoring civil rights issues.
Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy authorized the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) to investigate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on suspicion of being a communist,
Whereas Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, made a 14-hour filibuster speech in the Senate in June 1964 in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was heralded in April 2004 by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd as a senator who would have been a great leader during the Civil War,
Whereas when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for vote, Senator Al Gore, Sr. and the rest of the Southern Democrats voted against the bill,
Whereas in the House of Representatives only 61 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as compared to 80 percent of Republicans, and in the Senate only 69 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 82 percent of the Republicans,
Whereas Democratic President Bill Clinton sent troops to Europe to protect the citizens of Bosnia and Kosovo while allowing an estimated 800,000 black Rwandans to be massacred in Africa, vetoed the welfare reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan,
Whereas Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore created harmful racial division when he falsely claimed that the 2000 presidential election was "stolen" from him and that African Americans in Florida were disenfranchised, even though a second recount of Florida votes by the "Miami Herald" and a consortium of major news organizations confirmed that he lost the election, and a ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission declared that African Americans were not denied the right to vote,
Whereas the Democratic Party's soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotions have consigned African Americans to economic bondage and created a culture of dependency on government social programs,
Whereas the Democratic Party's use of deception and fear to block welfare reform, the faith-based initiative and school choice that would help African Americans prosper is consistent with the Democratic Party's heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery, a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party whose racist legacy bode ill until this generation of African Americans,
Friday, April 11, 2008
For those who wonder why the networks and newspapers are dying, look no further than pseudo-journalists like Rachel Uranga. Her report this week about the LAPD’s recent murder spree reminded me of the biker who saves a girl from being eaten by a lion:
… the lion grabbed her by the cuff of her jacket and tried to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.In 1999, Uranga was asked:
The biker jumped off his bike, ran to the cage and hit the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumped back and let go of the girl. The biker then took her to her terrified parents, who thanked him endlessly.
A reporter saw the whole scene and, addressing the biker, said, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life.'
'Why, it was nothing,' said the biker, really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and reacted the right way.'
'I noticed a patch on your jacket,' said the journalist.
'Yes, I ride with an Israeli motorcycle club,' the biker replied.
'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist with the Times, and tomorrow's paper will have this on the front page.'
The following morning the biker bought the paper to see if it indeed brought out the news of his actions. On the front page was the headline:
ISRAELI GANG MEMBER ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH
Q: What are your future goals?Like real cops, REAL journalists report stories – they don’t come to work with stories they have in their minds. But while Rafael Perez (also an affirmative action hire) went to prison for creating stories, Rachel is a rising star at the Daily News.
A: To win the Pulitzer (laughs). Just kidding. I don’t care.
Q: Why not?
A: Because I just really want to be able to do the bigger stories I have in my mind.
My friends need not worry about fake journalists like Uranga any longer. The mainstream (aka dinosaur) media (MM) is being replaced by the Internet and cable news. Real journalists, like Daily News alum Michelle Malkin, successfully compete with their former employers. We are no longer forced to rely on Walter Cronkite to tell us “That’s the way it is…” Bloggers forced CBS to dump Cronkite progeny Dan Rather and the NYT is going the way of Air America. We now have choices.
My news sources:
I read the Times and Daily News for free on the Internet and watch/TIVO Fox News from 3-6 PM PST. Although the former rag LA Weekly still hawks vaginal rejuvenation, call girls, and "medical" marijuana, their journalism is usually more solid than LA’s MM.
Besides Malkin, giants like Drudge, Breitbart, or local bloggers like Patterico (a deputy LA County DA) and Mayor Sam provide free alternative stories that would horrify the mainstream mediocrity. And if those outlets are too unsophisticated for you, bona fide geniuses like UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh or Townhall columnists like Thomas Sowell are also available, free for the reading. We don't need Uranga, Rather, or Cronkite – they need us.
So don’t let Uranga or her ilk upset you. She’d never make it on her own, and her employers can’t make it without your monthly subscriptions. And if you need to sell your car or find a puppy, there's always Craigslist.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
“Yes,” I said.
“I’m Charlton Heston.”
My heart jumped – Moses was on the line!
“I heard about your case,” he began, “and after some checking with friends around town and in the LAPD, I have come to the conclusion that you were screwed… I have instructed my lawyers to provide for you any assistance that you may need to appeal your case.”
MY CASE stemmed from false charges filed against me after I questioned the legitimacy of criminal charges brought against police officers whose brutality was required by then-Mayor Tom Bradley’s civilian Police Commission. Although I had no excessive force complaints or history, I was criminally charged with beating a pedestrian during an arrest (no injuries) weeks after publishing a Daily News op-ed about the LAPD’s brutal use-of-force policies.
It’s hard to explain what being wrongly convicted is like. There’s no easy way to tell prospective employers that I was convicted - but it was a bum rap. They don’t care. The LAPD fired me despite their knowledge of my innocence, leaving me with two children, a mortgage, and few prospects. So when Charlton Heston called me on that spring day in 1994, he lifted my spirits in ways that no one else could.
A few months later, the Superior Court reversed my conviction and cited Judge Veronica McBeth and prosecutor David Sotelo for judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. But instead of being disbarred like Mike Nifong, Sotelo was rewarded with an appointment to the Superior Court Bench. (His affiliation with Warren Christopher and La Raza continues today.)
I returned to the LAPD in 1994 and retired in 2000.
Today, I spend my days writing, mentoring, and helping other wrongly accused defendants. My kids are grown and married, and I am happy, healthy and honored to live within a mile of the Heston’s home.
Charlton Heston, who marched with Martin Luther King before Democrats hijacked his dream, was deeply concerned about civil rights issues. One reporter wrote:
He would not and did not.In late years, Heston drew as much publicity for his crusades as for his performances. In addition to his NRA work, he campaigned for Republican presidential and congressional candidates and against affirmative action. He resigned from Actors Equity, claiming the union's refusal to allow a white actor to play a Eurasian role in "Miss Saigon" was "obscenely racist."
He attacked CNN's telecasts from Baghdad as "sowing doubts" about the allied effort in the 1990-91 Gulf War. At a Time Warner stockholders meeting, he castigated the company for releasing an Ice-T album that purportedly encouraged cop killing.
Heston wrote in "In the Arena" that he was proud of what he did "though now I'll surely never be offered another film by Warners, nor get a good review in Time. On the other hand, I doubt I'll get a traffic ticket very soon."
As good as my life it today, a day does not pass when I don’t thank God and Heston for his hand when I needed him. God blessed him, his friends, family, and his community with love, grace, virtue, and courage that so many in Hollywood abhor today.
Goodbye, my friend. I pray that you find your well-deserved place in Heaven.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
During one memorable encounter on ABC with Gore Vidal, however, Buckley lost his temper -- responding with a homophobic slur and threatening to sock Vidal in the face when the author called him a “crypto-Nazi”.Roug suggests that, while Vidal was justified to call Buckley a crypto-Nazi (he meant fascist), Buckley was not justified to call Vidal queer.
Why not? Is it because Buckley loathed socialist mediocrity or because Vidal happens to be queer and homosexual? His contempt for Vidal stemmed not from what the LA Times assumes was Buckley’s irrational fear of gay men, but from his contempt of Gore Vidal’s anti-American/pro-Communist advocacy (or what George Orwell described as pro-fascist).
While our sons and daughters risk their lives in the service of our country, betraying and dispiriting them to help our enemies demands universal contempt – especially within the only country where their sacrifice promotes freedom in the United States and around the world.
Some disagree, but when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, she attacked his pro-insurgency comments as a US Senator and not his unremarkable sexuality. But to defend Edwards, the media (e.g. Democrats) attacked Coulter’s remark as a slur against all homosexuals, whether genuine patriots or self-indulgent narcissists.
Assuming that “all blacks (gays, women, etc.) are alike” is a slur lost on liberals and Democrats alike. As Bronze Star and Purple Heart recipient Leonard Matlovich has said: “… many gays are forced into liberal camps only because that’s where they can find the kind of support they need to function in society.” My gay friends agree, telling me that those who challenge liberal doctrine risk becoming as isolated as black students who pursue good grades – which may be why so many Democrats envy political unifiers like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
While Coulter and Buckley would not disparage real patriots like Gad Beck, Leonard Matlovich (USAF), or Commander Steve Hall (USN), calling a whiney trial lawyer like Edwards a faggot, or Gore Vidal queer, affords us precision that William Shakespeare would appreciate.
Obama remains mired in the past, as well, on the issue of Iraq. The dominant message of his campaign is that we never should have gone to war in the first place (another demagogic feint to anti-war sentiment). This is about as backward a form thinking as one can get, since the new president must imagine and carry out a solution that protects the nascent Iraqi society, which is a fundamental duty that we have taken on ourselves as a nation, whether we like it or not. He must also protect American interests in the region, regardless of whether he agreed with the war or not.Lengthy, but well worth the read (full text).
The other central part of his campaign message on Iraq is that the war is a lost cause – a fact with which most Iraqis and General Petraeus would not concur. He is, in effect, consigning America to defeat against al-Qaeda, which can only benefit the latter and enable radical Islam to new heights globally. It is hard to see any “hope” in Obama’s plans for Iraq. In fact, I have strained myself to find any indication whatsoever of what exactly a President Obama would do about the war on terror. I suppose, like most left-liberals, he imagines that it only exists as a creation of George W. Bush, rather than something which was there before Bush and will be with us a long time, especially if Iraq is lost. The astute Paul Berman has recently pointed out in The New York Times that the silence of the left on radical Islam is one of the most troubling hallmarks of the discourse of modern times. Like his preacher, one gets the sneaking suspicion that Obama, like many left-liberals, really do think that we are the cause of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, as if the agents of the latter are simply reflexes of our “evil empire.”
This is the Unknown Obama that strikes fear into my heart. So-called liberals think that everything will just be better when George Bush goes away and think that someone with no political experience, armed with “the audacity of hope” and the spiritual guidance of a black liberation theologist, and with a little dash of charisma and charm, is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces and to protect our national interests and national security. What is even more troubling is that so many Americans, distanced as they are from the realities of the world, see this self-appointed messiah and political hack as their national savior.
Friday, April 04, 2008
After Robert CJ Parry, LAPD Officer Jack Dunphy and the LA Times exposed his secret SWAT report, LAPD Chief William “the Godfather” Bratton has threatened LAPD officers who speak candidly to the LA taxpayers who employ them.
So it comes as no surprise that Bratton has coerced METRO Captain Jeff Greer and SWAT Lieutenant Mike Albanese to defend Bratton’s effort to mediocritize the LAPD.
I never worked directly with Albanese, but his reputation and credibility are up there with Greer, who I partnered with 25 years ago. That either would get stuck working for someone like Bratton is bad enough, but to be forced to defend Bratton’s scheme must have cut both officers deeply. Their choice was simple – either write something positive or get reassigned to a basement somewhere. In this case, Greer and Albanese held their noses and did, what cops call, some creative writing.
Their essay says nothing. After some generic flag waving, the essay explains that some SWAT candidates have been needlessly injured during their training and that, if anything, SWAT is now raising the bar – which makes me believe that one of Bratton’s political appointees wrote it and forced Greer and Albanese to sign it. Greer’s better than that.
The problem with this pitch is that it neither describes the LAPD’s well documented lowering of standards or how they plan to recruit from the existing pool of classmates who graduated with Raphael Perez, Kevin Gaines, Nino Durden, or David Mack. And if Bratton plans to "raise the bar at SWAT," why would Assistant Chief Sharon Papa disavow knowledge of the secret report? Wouldn’t improved standards be something to celebrate? Why would Bratton threaten cops who speak candidly to LA taxpayers? And if the report was written by the top SWAT experts in the country, why was Dr. David Klinger excluded?
LAPD Officer Jack Dunphy raises that question:
If indeed the Board of Inquiry had been interested in a true comparison of LAPD’s SWAT team to those in other cities, they might have consulted with Dr. David Klinger, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and author of the book Into the Kill Zone, a Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force. In 2000, Klinger published what remains the only National Institute of Justice-funded study of American SWAT teams. “By any objective measure,” Klinger told me, “the LAPD’s SWAT team is one of the most effective in the country.” Members of the Board were made aware of Klinger’s research, yet they made no effort to contact him or include his findings in their report.During the 1980s, when women were being fired for incompetence and rehired two or three times, LA politicians removed the LAPD’s responsibility to deselect incompetent or unsuitable recruits. When the Academy was forced to accept prostitutes and gang members to meet racial quotas, almost all of the LAPD training cadre, including Earl Paysinger, left the Academy in disgust.
But if someone like Greer or Paysinger exposes these political decisions, nothing prevents former NYPD Chief William Bratton from replacing them with more of his unqualified East Coast cronies.
The LAPD no longer works for you – they work for the Mayor and his LAPDog, Bratton.
Dan Calabrese reminds us that Hillary Clinton’s pathology is older than most of us realize.
The former chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s “history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.”
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the House Judiciary Committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.Read the full story here.
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
If you haven’t seen it, Hillary: The Movie is an outstanding recap of Hillary’s sordid background.