Thursday, September 29, 2005

A Times-bashing, fun-filled, free-for-all !

Liberal spitrag. Remember how they claimed that vile bilgerat Mother Sheehan had "the absolute moral standing" to define the war on terror and America's place in it? She's a saint, because she's a Bush-bashing anti-American liberal. However, if you lost a loved one on 9/11, and you oppose a "Freedom Center" that trivializes their deaths, the Times describes you thusly:

Yesterday, the Freedom Center submitted a report that specified in greater detail how it would be run and what it hoped to present in the way of programming. This became necessary when Gov. George Pataki capitulated to a misguided outcry from critics who fear that the center's main task will be to present anti-American views of 9/11.

But since late June the Freedom Center has been caught up in a vitriolic protest called the Take Back the Memorial movement, whose leaders claim for themselves the right of deciding for the rest of us what we should know and think about 9/11.

No, because the Times has decided that only Cindy Sheehan has the right of deciding for the rest of us what we should know and think about 9/11. All others are misguided, vitriolic, and full of fear. But this editorial is dated 9/23; and today we read that:

Plans to build a freedom museum at the World Trade Center site were effectively scrapped on Wednesday as Gov. George Pataki gave in to pressure from vocal families of September 11 victims, saying the project had aroused "too much opposition, too much controversy."

Thanks for the nasty "gave in to pressure" editorial bias, Reuters. Who cares - you and you America-hating ilk at the New York Times have lost; common sense and human decency have won.

Not that the Times doesn't keep trying. Look at this doozy of a correction today:

Libel Memorandum Attributed Falsely to Court Nominee

Judge John G. Roberts Jr., nominated to be chief justice of the
United States, was not the author of an unsigned memorandum on libel law that was the focus of an article published in The New York Times yesterday. The Times erroneously attributed it to him.

So they wrote a whole Roberts-bashing article, based on a memo that he didn't even write? How the heck do heads not roll for this malfeasance? Maybe because the Slimes is a left-wing propaganda organ, and the author was simply doing his master's bidding? Or, like the Bush National Guard Memos, if the Times really, desperately, want something to be true, they ignore basics like, oh, the facts????

Link here:

And why does the Times hate poor people so much? From Instapundit:

...Mickey Kaus wonders why the New York Times hates poor people: "TimeSelect--and with it Web access to columnists such as Paul Krugman--is unavailable to those too poor to have credit cards. . . . News of the NYT policy comes at a time when Hurricane Katrina has raised profound issues of race, class, and gender." Heh.

TimesSelect will backfire; by taking their ultra-liberal columnist out of public discourse; they will have no effect on the debates of the day; they will simply be barking in an echo chamber. Works for me...

And that's today's Times slapdown. A dirty job, but...

Link to Kaus via Instapundit here:

Times editorial link from 9/23 here:

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Here, according to the mainstream media, is the quintessential anti-war protester, the one whom would finally put some legs into the movemen, the lass with irrefutable moral credentials...ladies and gentleman, Miss Cindy Sheehan!

Charming, isn't she?

Ed Koch call it as we see it:

Many Americans, myself included, now see her as a person who has come to enjoy the celebratory status accorded to her by the radicals on the extreme left who see America as the outlaw of the world. These radicals are not content to be constructive critics. They are bent on destroying this country.

Some of them want to turn America into a radical socialist state. Others hope to create a utopia. But regardless of their agendas, how can Cindy Sheehan's supporters defend her shameful statement, “This country is not worth dying for.” ?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Link here:

Those Brave Anti-War Protesters

100,000 protestors, out of a country exceeding 270 million, show up in DC to protest...everything. Charles Krauthammer, as always, pounds this nail:

Were we able to psychologically profile the demonstrators, we'd find that most of them have a great deal in common: Disappointing lives, failed relationships and the desperate need for a cause of any kind. If we weren't at war, they'd be marching to save pinworms from drug-company aggression.

Of course, opposing a war involving American troops is the best cause of all. Our country has disappointed the protesters intimately — failing to hand them, free and clear, the lives to which they feel themselves entitled. So forget that our troops are re-enlisting at record rates and willingly risking their lives in a war they believe in. The self-satisfying cry of the demonstrators is "Bring Our Troops Home Now!"

It would be far easier to be sympathetic if a single spokesperson for the media-amplified anti-war movement laid out a convincing model of what would happen in Iraq or Afghanistan if our troops just came home.

There's a good reason for that; it would expose their fellow-man-loving hypocracy:

The protesters get their wish, our troops leave and a bloodbath erupts, drawing in Turkey, Syria and Iran? Just reach for a glass of sauvignon blanc and speed-dial a like-minded pal for reassurance. Genocide isn't your fault, girlfriend. You did what you felt was right, don't be so hard on yourself.
No consequences. At least not for us.

That's the moral shallowness of the anti-war left; they ape their Vietnam-era forefathers but do not have the excuse of not knowing the consequences of their actions. These are the people they are asking the United States to lead Iraq to:

BAGHDAD - Insurgents disguised as police dragged five Shiite Muslim schoolteachers and their driver into a classroom, lined them against a wall and gunned them down yesterday - the latest escalation of sectarian killings ahead of Iraq's crucial constitutional referendum

These are your heroic insurgents the left champions as the holders of the moral high ground in Iraq. These are the freedom fighters lionized by the anti-war movement; Michael Moore's latter-day Minuteman.

The next time you see an anti-war rally, think not of what they are protesting against, but whom they are actually supporting - and why.

"An 'appeaser' is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Winston Churchill

Krauthammer here:
Insurgents here:

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

"Gun Nuts", every last one!

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
Sigmund Freud

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which has proven to be always possible."
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941

"........he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace."
Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 and Luke 11:21, respectively.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of it's arms as the blackest."
Mahatma Ghandi, 1927

Wait! Found a guy who is pro-gun-control:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolph Hitler, 1935

From a Montana gunsmith; it's pure here:

Sunday, September 25, 2005

A Manhattan Wedding Story!

So, I attend a wedding in Manhattan on Saturday night, held in a beautiful 14th story restaurant, virtually encased in glass, overseeing the 59th Street Bridge and the East River. The bride is a dear friend of mine; a woman whom I have known for many years, and whose career path put her in the same company as mine, with the same job as mine, sitting right next to me for almost three years. “LeftyBride”, as we’ll call her, held diametrically opposed political viewpoints to mine, and we sparred daily, with facts, suppositions, and emailed articles. But our discussions usually ended with a concession on one side or the other, or more usually, uproarious laughter (because Leftybride is so damn funny!).

When she moved on to a new job, LeftyBride spoke of me often, and as I was to learn, also spoke of our animated political discussions. Sitting next to me at the affair was her new boss, also a Jersey guy, and a man whom I have great respect for. He launched the first salvo:
“So, JerseyNut, how can a smart, intelligent, nice guy like yourself really be a Republican?”
Speaking as I was with a management person at a high-powered communication company, I assumed we were to have a reasonable conversation, and I began to politely explain where I stood and why.

Boy, was I off. After I spoke but a sentence, I was cut off, only to be told that Bush was going to go down in history as the worst president ever. He was stupid, vile, and evil; a warmonger who was only interested in making money for himself. Every time I tried to discuss a point, I was cut off within moments and subject to more of this invective. I was shocked, not so much at the bile I was hearing, but at the fact this gentlemann was complete unable to discuss any issues, or even offer an alternative to any of his so-called “Bush Disasters”. Every word out of my mouth was simply met with more invective. I did get an interesting admission from him; that he had a deep visceral hatred for W.; that he couldn’t look at him or think about him without being ill. I thought this was true of most of the Democratic Party, I informed him, and I said that if their candidates could not overcome this hate, they would never win any significant national elections. He was momentarily speechless; I changed the subject, and hoped nobody else would start a conversation with me about politics again this evening, as a wedding is not the place for partisan bickering.

Alas, it was not to be. I got an introduction to LeftyBride’s sister, an airline pilot. She was truly nuts; this woman whom flies jets carrying hundreds of people believes the government caused 9/11 to grab oil (she used the “Pear Harbor was allowed to happen” “fact” as historical precedent), that Bush intentionally let the people of New Orleans drown, and that the Iraq war was an oil shakedown (when I asked here how that was possible, since we haven’t taken any oil, she shook her head at me in sad disbelief). She sneered at my disdain for the foreign press, saying that was where the truth was, and mocked me when I quoted a fact (“Oh, well obviously you CAN read a newspaper article”). As this was the bride’s sister, I was trying to be polite, but in short order I had enough and tried to excuse myself. But the LeftyPilot physically grabbed my arm (truthfully; I didn’t mind that much, she was in terrific shape even if her breastwork was too obvious) so that she could continue to barrage me with anti-American hatred. Even when LeftyPilot’s young daughter came up to her, crying that she wanted to go home, her mom pushed her away so she could continue her diatribe against me and my ilk.

When I finally pulled myself away from her, I offered her my hand, and told her it was a pleasure to meet her. She did not take my hand, only stated that she disagreed with me about everything, and she always would. Nice.

Nevertheless, I left this otherwise-pleasant soiree with positive vibes! Because:
- If this is Democratic thinking, not from the “uninformed masses” but from the professional elite of the party rank-and-file, then the Democratic Party is lost. The anger is irrational and apparently insurmountable; conspiracy theories and insults take the place of reasoned arguments. That’s fine for an internal debate; but the average American will not buy it. Maybe that’s why the Dems have lost control of the Presidency, House, Senate, and the majority of state governments. I sincerely hope the “discussions” I partook in resemble the debate in the 2006 mid-term elections; if so, it will be a Republican romp.
- I learned that Republicans have much better manners than Democrats. Imagine, such behavior, screeching political hate at a guest of the bride! I understand why sometimes Bush just lets his opponents rant; by remaining silent and letting your opponents make fools of themselves, your stature grows in comparison.

Have a great honeymoon, LeftyBride!

Saturday, September 24, 2005

The NRA Comes Through!

Back in the late August madness of the post-Katrina devastation, this blog fretted over the illegal confiscation of legally-held firearms in New Orleans (here and here and wondered why the NRA did not rise up to defend Americans' Second Amendment rights. Well, they did, and we "gun-nuts" were found to be in the right:

The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans...

Joining LaPierre in hailing the U.S. District Court decision was NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “This is an important victory. But the battle is not over. The NRA will remedy state emergency statutes in all 50 states, if needed, to ensure that this injustice does not happen again."

The NRA also pledged that it will continue its work to ensure that every single firearm arbitrarily and unlawfully seized under this directive is returned to the rightful law-abiding owner.

Now, if this was a ruling favoring abortion rights, or gay marriage, or the right of a terrorist to a lawyer (all so clearly deliniated in the Constitution), this would be front page news in the mainstream media. Haven't heard a peep out of them; I guess their favored "implied" rights trump those actually written into our Constitution.

Doesn't matter whether or not they report it; this is still a win for freedom that they cannot overturn with a swarmy op-ed piece...

Link to NRA press release here:

Friday, September 23, 2005

Enemy Propoganda, Served up Gleefully by Our Media!

RealClearPolitics points us to a Washington Post article, which while frantically trying to debunk the idea that we are winning in Iraq, serves up opinion from bedraggled terrorist Abu Hatem Dulaimi, a member of the Zarqawi-allied Ansar al-Sunna Army:

"I can say that the legend of the undefeated U.S. Army is gone, owing to our rockets and mines, which are separating them from it day after day," Dulaimi said in a telephone interview. "If they bet that time will be the way to end the resistance, they are wrong, because we are stronger since a year ago or maybe more."
Twenty-five members of Ansar al-Sunna killed themselves and others in suicide attacks last month, he said, and 53 volunteers for suicide attacks have arrived since.

Did the Post offer any differing sides on one terrorist's take on the progress of the war in Iraq? Why no; it stands on its own; unrepentant enemy propaganda delivered up as straight fact in a mainstream American newspaper. The individual news consumer, however, can find plenty to rebut this with surprisingly little effort - from the AP:

A suicide bomber captured before he could blow himself up in a Shiite mosque late last week claimed he was kidnapped, beaten and drugged by insurgents who forced him to take on the mission. The U.S. military on Sunday said its medical tests indicated he was telling the truth.

And from American Colonel Robert Brown , at a DOD briefing:

We've captured Libyans. We've captured Saudi, Yemenis, Algerians. And many of these -- one Libyan that we captured about a month and a half ago -- he was clearly brainwashed...They told he was going to be a suicide martyr. He said he didn't want to do that.

The Mainstream Media must hide the truth, that we are actually winning the war in Iraq and the war on Terror, because it does not fit their "Iraq as Vietnam" storyline. So they quote low-level thugs as authority and do not even bother to talk to folks like Colonel Brown. Unbelievable; this wouldn't even pass as college-level journalism, yet it passes at the Washington Post.

Read it all and follow the links here:

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

General Honore - My Hero!

Army General Honore, in charge of the military aspect of the Katrina aftermath in New Orleans, deals with reporters sh*tting in their pantaloons over Hurricane Rita...the good general just wants to get the potential re-evacuation plans out to the people; reporters, as usual, are trying to interject their own issue-bias, and Honore will have none of that:

Honore: Once we complete the plan with the mayor, and is approved by the governor, then we'll start that in the next 12-24 hours. And we understand that there's a problem in getting communications out. That's where we need your help. But let's not confuse the questions with the answers. Buses at the convention center will move our citizens, for whom we have sworn that we will support and defend...and we'll move them on. Let's not get stuck on the last storm. You're asking last storm questions for people who are concerned about the future storm. Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters. We are moving forward. And don't confuse the people please. You are part of the public message. So help us get the message straight. And if you don't understand, maybe you'll confuse it to the people. That's why we like follow-up questions. But right now, it's the convention center, and move on.

Male reporter: General, a little bit more about why that's happening this time, though, and did not have that last time...

Honore: You are stuck on stupid. I'm not going to answer that question. We are going to deal with Rita. This is public information that people are depending on the government to put out. This is the way we've got to do it. So please. I apologize to you, but let's talk about the future. Rita is happening. And right now, we need to get good, clean information out to the people that they can use. And we can have a conversation on the side about the past, in a couple of months.

Two points:
-like any good General, Honore is trying to fight the next battle, and not the last one...I will sleep better at night knowing he is a large part of the Command and Control of the United States military.
-"Stuck on Stupid" it! Methinks it applies to the Democratic party and the Mainstream Media since Bush was elected - stuck on stupid, indeed!

General Honore is an American, folks, and a great one.

Link to transcript here, at the Radio Blogger:
Go straight to the videotape, via The Political Teen:

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Now, about that "Global Warming" theory...

Jeebus, all those SUV's in use during the Forties must have really messed up the atmosphere; just look at all those hurricanes! And how about the Sixties - must have been all those hippie vans that caused such a large number of "very strong" hurricanes in that decade... I mean, what else can it be? A natural recurring cyclical phenomenon? Oh, please!!

Someone ought to show this little chart to Al Gore - it is amazing that Mr. "Earth in the Balance" has no understanding of atmospheric science whatsoever. But like any "true believer", he'll keep prattling on with his mystical mutterings about some so-called "Global Warming Effect"; while we here at Right, Wing Nut! will just stick with the facts...

Courtesy of No Parasan!; link here:

Liberals bash BBC Katrina Coverage!

We've trashed the insanely biased BBC on this site for some time, and while Tony Blair has never been a fan, these criticisms of anti-American bias from the left really are something new:

TONY Blair has re-opened the government’s long-standing row about BBC bias by describing the corporation’s coverage of the aftermath of the havoc caused to New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina as being “full of hatred of America”.

The UK Prime Minister’s comments on the BBC’s coverage have been revealed by Rupert Murdoch, chief executive of News Corporation. Murdoch also claims that Blair thought the BBC was “gloating” at the slow response of the federal and local authorities in helping and evacuating the hundreds of thousands of victims made homeless and the dead who were left lying uncollected where they had fallen for days.
Downing Street made no attempt to deny the story...

Bill Clinton, the former US president, and Sir Howard Stringer, chief executive of Sony Corporation,{also at one time the head of CBS! - ed.} also criticised the tone of the BBC’s coverage during a seminar on the media at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York.

Murdoch said Blair first turned on the BBC’s coverage of New Orleans flooding disaster during a recent visit to New Delhi. “He said it was just full of hatred of America and gloating at our troubles,” Murdoch claimed.

But the BBC lives in their own world, as their response demonstrates:

"...the BBC’s coverage of the Katrina devastation was committed solely to relaying the event fully, accurately and impartially, an approach we will continue to take with this and other stories.”

Gentleman, when even your liberal base says you have gone too far, maybe you should get your head out of your arses and take a look around, eh? The Scotsman, also no big fan of America, takes a dim view of the BBC's coverage: is the BBC that deserves to have a red face, because Blair's strictures are quite right. The corporation's coverage of New Orleans was an anti-American hatefest. The tone was gloating: distrust of the Bush administration in particular now colours BBC reports to the point of caricature.
During recent decades the BBC has drifted into political bias to a degree that makes its licence-supported status as a "public-service broadcaster" a mockery. Alongside some excellent programming exists a mind-set almost always slanted leftwards.

Will this torrent of disdain from all sides of the political spectrum prompt the BBC to re-look at themselves? Unlikely; in fact, expect a BBC documentary in the upcoming weeks on how few Jews died in the New Orleans floods - did George Bush secretly airlift his neo-con Zionist buddies to safety with taxpayer money?

All links via Instapundit here:

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Democratic Traitors - Six of them!

First, excerpts of House Resolution 427, introduced on September 7th, 2005:

Whereas on September 11, 2001, while Americans were attending to their daily routines, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and a fourth was prevented from also being used as a weapon against America by brave passengers who placed their country above their own lives;

Whereas four years later the country continues to, and shall forever, mourn the tragic loss of life at the hands of terrorist attackers;
Whereas by targeting symbols of American strength and success, these attacks clearly were intended to assail the principles, values, and freedoms of the United States and the American people, intimidate the Nation, and weaken the national resolve...

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) extends again its deepest sympathies to the thousands of innocent victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, their families, friends, and loved ones;

(2) honors the heroic actions and the sacrifices of United States military and civilian personnel and their families who have sacrificed much, including their lives and health, in defense of their country in the Global War on Terrorism;
(3) honors the heroic actions of first responders, law enforcement personnel, State and local officials, volunteers, and others who aided the innocent victims and, in so doing, bravely risked their own lives and long-term health;
(4) expresses thanks and gratitude to the foreign leaders and citizens of all nations who have assisted and continue to stand in solidarity with the United States against terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks...

Pretty basic stuff, right? Well, there were six votes against it - note the names and party well:
John Conyers (D-Michigan), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia), Pete Stark (D-Calif.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.)

No surprise that the two most frothing anti-Semites of the House, Conyors (he of the "mock impeachment" of George Bush that turned into a Democratic anti-Semetic free for all) and McKinney ("I lost because of the J-E-W-S Jews!") are there, nor McDermott, whom threw his body in front of Saddam while he throws America to the terrorists. Funny how two-thirds of the "nay" votes were from California - is there any wonder why the "left coast", and Hollywood, has such a disconnect from the rest of American society? Traitors to the principles and people of America these Democrats are; nothing less...

I'll close with this bit of analysis from No Parasan! (ironic that it takes a French blog to point out what the US media turns a blind eye to):

I’m sure they think they’re standard-bearers of some sort of cause, if they could pin something down. They are rapidly becoming just that – promoters of PC oppression which seems blind to the horrors of terror, and the tyranny of Jihadists.

Link to No Parasan! here:
Link to HR 427 here:

Insurgents, through a clear eye...

From the Washington Times, via The Corner, we hear from Army Colonel H.R. McMaster, who is leading the campaign in Iraq to retake the border town of Tal Afar, on the representatives from the "Religion of Peace" they are facing:

Col. McMaster appeared in the Pentagon this week via a video hookup to describe how his 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, joined by 3rd Iraqi Army Division, routed most of the extremists.

But it was his description of how the enemy occupied their safe haven that got the most attention. Col. McMaster told of beheadings, gunshot killings, a booby-trapped dead child and kidnappings. "This is the worst of the worst in terms of people in the world," he said. "To protect themselves here, what the enemy did is they waged the most brutal and murderous campaign against the people of Tal Afar. ... The enemy here did just the most horrible things you can imagine, in one case murdering a child, placing a booby trap within the child's body and waiting for the parent to come recover the body of their child and exploding it to kill the parents."

Col. McMaster said his men killed scores of the enemy in a series of firefights...and said soldiers captured some associates of lead terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi. "They are some of the worst human beings on the face of the Earth," he said. "There is no really greater pleasure for us than to kill or capture these particular individuals."

But...but...they are someone's "freedom fighters", right?? Well, let me say this: Anyone whom can defend these people is one of these people, and deserves to live under their rule, as they wish most Iraqis to do. Right, Mother Sheehan? We should get out of Iraq now and leave it to these heroes of yours? And speaking of Cindy Sheehan, she has in fact gone sooo completely batshit:

I don’t care what flag a person salutes: if a human being is hungry, then it is up to another human being to feed him/her. George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power

And so goeth the latest heros of the mainstream media: Their precious insurgents (not terrorists!) kill babies for sport, and their spokeswomen wants to leave New Orleans to the raging waters. When you support Cindy, and the terrorists, remember what kind of people you are lying down with...

Link to The Corner here:
Cindy Sheehan vis LGF here:

NPR, twisting the facts to suit their agenda...

Great example of media bias from NPR, brought to you by Matt Duffy:

ABC News was surprised after the speech to find no evacuees in the Astrodome who disapproved of the president's message. Most respondents said they found Bush to be heartwarming and uplifting.

This morning I listened attentively to NPR to hear their coverage of the speech and its reaction. The results were not surprising. Bush's outline for rebuilding the Gulf Coast was given a couple of minutes, and then four reactions from New Orleans evacuees were offered. Every one of them was negative (paraphrasing): "Bush doesn't understand us," "I don't believe the money will be spent correctly," or "It's just a lot of talk."

What's the difference between the ABC News coverage and NPR's this morning? Simple. Because ABC was broadcasting live, they didn't have the ability to present the news according to their frame. NPR, having 12 hours with which to work, managed to present the speech from the proper perspective: Bush sucks.

And the taxpayers foot the bill for this sh*t...amazing...but the silver lining is that it keeps our "intellectual elites" absolutely clueless about what Americans really think. As long as the Democrats keep taking their talking points from NPR, they'll keep losing elections.

No wonder the Republicans threaten, but never actually cut their budget!

Link here:

UPDATE: If you are interested, a very thorough examination of this little media curiosity, with transcripts showing ABC anchor Dean Reynolds trying his best to "lead the witness"; via Atlas Shrugged .
This is so money:

Not one of the six people interviewed on camera had a bad word for Bush -- despite Reynolds' best efforts. Reynolds goaded: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?" Brenda Marshall answered, "No, I didn't," prompting Reynolds to marvel to anchor Ted Koppel: "Very little skepticism here.”
Reynolds pressed another woman: “Did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?" She affirmed: "Yes, he was." Reynolds soon wondered who they held culpable for the levee breaks. Unlike the national media, {Miss Connie} London did not blame supposed Bush-mandated budget cuts: "They've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do."

Follow the links and click to the video - the media has no idea what to do when it runs into people whom don't fit in with their prefabricated agenda...

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Deciphering The Times...

Just had a chuckle looking at the blurbs that accompany the Times' editorial headlines; I guess I have my own way of reading them:

It's critical that President Bush acknowledge that the federal government is where the responsibility for disaster management rests.

Of course it is critical for the Times for Bush to take the blame - after all, if we the people are allowed to look too close, we might see a horrific lack of emergency planning by local Democrats Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governer Blanco. For if Bush doesn't take the blame, maybe some enterprising reporter might dig and find, you know, the truth...and the Times can't have that!

By subjecting Judge John Roberts Jr. to tough questioning, Senate Democrats are sending a message that if President Bush chooses a far-right nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, he can expect a major fight.

Tough questioning? Did anyone at this liberal wasteland even bother watching the confirmation hearings? Democratic Judiciary members bloviated with self-important flatuance while the best question Chuckie Schumer could manage was inquiring of the nominee what his favorite movies were. But the above line does note that this battle is over, and that Bush/Roberts have won.

While the Times whines about specific liberal cases where they fear the new Chief Justice may not share their bleeding heart, Republican Lindsay Graham injects some adult behavior into the debate:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., attempted to dispatch the heart argument. “Nobody can question your intellect, because it would be a question of their intellect to question yours,” Graham said to laughter. “So we’re down to the heart.”
Graham warned, “If we go down this road of putting people’s hearts in play, and the only way you can have a good heart is adopt my values system, we’re doing a great disservice to the judiciary.”

Something the Times does not care to believe...

Graham quote here:

The Brits go Jew-Hunting!

From Melanie Phillips, who's on the scene in "Great" Britian:

At present, to be a Jew in Britain feels like being under relentless ideological bombardment in a script written by Kafka. Whether it’s Holocaust denial, the lies about Israel’s ‘genocide’ of the Palestinian Arabs or the blood-lust and anarchy currently on display in Gaza, the British media are managing to blame the Jews and excuse their attackers. ..

Another item on BBC News 24 on Sunday night showed the burning synagogues -- but said something to the effect that the Palestinians were in a very difficult position because Israel had refused to dismantle them. Excuse me? Why was this difficult? What, pray, was it that forced these Arabs to behave like savages towards the holy places of another faith? If it had been the Israelis burning down mosques, the British media would have been apoplectic. But Arab savagery, whether towards Jews or Christians or towards each other, is either justified or ignored.

Never believed Europe when they said "Never Forget"; so this filth is no surprise. I do question the Jew's vow of "Never Again"; for as the new Nazis arise, they stay silent once more...

Read more about shocking anti-semetic, anti-Isreal lies told by the BBC (to cover up the Palestinian destruction in Gaza) in Melanie's full post here:

Wednesday, September 14, 2005


Anarchy ruled the Gaza Strip yesterday as jubilant Palestinians celebrated the Israeli withdrawal by planting flags in vacant Jewish settlements, torching synagogues, firing guns and storming across the Egyptian border.
The wild celebrations, marred by one fatal shooting and three drownings, came hours after the last Israeli troops left Gaza, ending their presence after 38 years.

Well, here we have it - the whelped child of poisonous Arab ideology and EU values . Any surprise their first order of business was burning down Jewish houses of worship? What else could it be?

link here:


Via Econopundit:'s reasonable to surmise that Sen. Kennedy is correct about those who wanted to leave: Most people who could arrange for their own transportation got out of harm's way; those who depended on the government (and public transportation) were left for days to the mercy of armed thugs at the Superdome and Convention Center. It was an extreme example of what the welfare state has done to the poor for decades: use the promise of food, shelter and other necessities to lure most of the poor to a few central points and then leave them stranded and nearly helpless.

Ouch. Don't think you'll see this line of analysis in the Mainstream Media....
link here:


I used to worry about Hillary; a smart lady, a good victim, coulda' been a contender...but now she seems to be chasing after the MoveOn crowd, using the Katrina tragedy to raise some fat cash for herself:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday cited Hurricane Katrina as part of an indictment of President Bush's administration, at a big-bucks Midtown fund-raiser for her 2006 re-election bid.
Clinton — who wants to create an independent commission to examine the government's initial response to the hurricane — said the disaster forced the nation to take a "rather unpleasant look in the mirror," adding, "How could we, as Americans, have let this happen?"

Hey Hil, you dumb ***k, I, as an American, didn't let this happen; but let me give you one freakin' clue, OK?? Compare the behavior of Rudy Guliani while his city came under (suprise) attack to the behavior of one Ray Nagin, while his city coped with a widely forewarned disaster.
One man stayed with his emergency service crews while buildings literally fell on top of him, the other fled to high ground and cried for help while his people drowned.

I know which one of these men is "yours", Hillary.

That's why I vote Republican.

link here:

Sunday, September 11, 2005

Falling Down

This photo, for me personally, is the most haunting visual from September 11th. This man went to work that beautiful Tuesday morning, perhaps kissed his wife and children goodbye, and soon was faced with a choice presented to him by Islamic terrorists: To die by fire, or to die by falling.
What went through his mind as he pondered his options? Was there ever the hope he could survive the 100-odd story fall? Or was this the American version of the ancient Isrealites' Masada, where they fell on their swords rather than be taken by the Roman enemy? Did he chose to take his own life in a defiant plunge rather than burn in his enemy's fire?
We'll never know, and it doesn't really matter anyway. What matters is that in his death, Falling Man did something meaningful, something great. He shows us, in the starkest terms, the choices being offered to us by the Islamic enemy. Peace and friendship are not present in this photograph, nor is the possibility of future existance. The only choice being offered by the Muslim Terrorist is the method by which our lives are to be ended to serve their dream of an Islamist globe.

I look at this photo and wonder how many Americans will be faced with this man's choice in the future. After 9/11, we said Never Again and Never Forget, but with the help of the liberals and their lackeys in the media the horror of that day is being sanitized, equivilized, and minimilized. Will it soon be taught that Falling Man's death was, in actuality, his own fault?

We must fight. Now. In the Middle East and wherever the terrorist calls his turf, lest he return to our soil to perpetrate his hatred again. We must ignore the sweet siren call of the Left, calling for aquiesence and appeasement with those whom want our blood. Let us turn away from the weakness of "understanding" our enemies; for I do not want the poisonous ideology of those whom caused my friend to jump to ever enter my soul.

There is right and wrong. There is good and evil. Those whom refuse to define it do not know the difference, and their morality (or lack of it) will eventually kill them.

I will define it; I will call a thing what it is, political correctness be damned. I was an eyewitness; watching the first Tower burning from my office window when the second plane hit. I watched the buildings fall and the people scream; I saw more funerals at a young age then I ever imagined possible. The cry of the bagpipes echos in my head, and still chills my heart. Here in New Jersey, the wounds are not healed, and today they are re-opening, with pain and tears.

Falling Man, again. He made a moral choice that turned into a symbol for September 11th. In the face of our enemy, we are all faced with a similar choice. Fight with whatever we have, or be consumed in his flames. Not happy choices, but neither were his. We cannot chose the times we are given to live in, we can only chose what to do with that time.

Let us chose wisely, then. On a day that we mourn the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans, it is incumbant upon us to Never Forget, and to do all in our power to make sure this never happens again. Lest our generation be cursed by those that follow.

May God bless and keep the souls of the dead of September 11th.

More photos here: ; I'll add some more links shortly...

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Authorities Confiscating Legal Firearms in New Orleans

Following up on the prior post regarding the illegitimate seizing of legally held guns by the authorities in Louisiana, I give you Dave Kopel, writing in Reason:

The good gun-owning citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas ought to be thanked for helping to save some of their city after Mayor Nagin, incoherent and weeping, had fled to Baton Rouge. Yet instead these citizens are being victimized by a new round of home invasions and looting, these ones government-organized, for the purpose of firearms confiscation.

Last week, we saw an awful truth in New Orleans: A disaster can bring out predators ready to loot, rampage, and pillage the moment that they have the opportunity. Now we are seeing another awful truth: There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will obey illegal orders to threaten peaceful citizens at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms.

Liberals always seem to be whining about the potential curtailing of liberties under such wartime provisions as the Patriot Act. Yet, when the authorities break their own laws and curtail deliniated Constitutional rights, nary a peep is heard from the left or their organs in the mainstream media. Yet imagine the outcry if they had, say, for safety reasons, put in place a temporary ban on abortions {which as we all know is a right clearly spelled out by our Founding Fathers}. Think it would go ignored by the media?

No, this is not melodrama. I can only imagine the Mad-Max type world that brought residents of New Orleans to this:

When night falls, Charlie Hackett climbs the steps to his boarded-up window, takes down the plywood, grabs his 12-gauge shotgun and waits. He is waiting for looters and troublemakers, for anyone thinking his neighborhood has been abandoned like so many others across the city. Two doors down, John Carolan is doing the same on his screened-in porch, pistol by his side. They are not about to give up their homes to the lawlessness that has engulfed New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. [via YAHOO!]

These are Americans, and this is what we do when the chips are down, when our backs are against the wall. Had this happened in Britian, or some other gun-control nation, I guarentee you the looter-fueled wreckage would have equaled the storm related damage. Cowards whom become animals in moments of fear and confusion are looking for easy pickings; and will not take on the determined man with a gun.

Everything we have is in our homes. With the lawlessness in this town, are you going to walk away from everything you built?" Carolan says. "A lot of people think we're stupid. They say, `Why did you stay?' I say, `Why didn't you stay?'"

We don't think you're stupid, Mr. me, you have America's respect. Too bad your Democratic Governer sees fit to take away your only means to protect what is yours...

Link to Reason article here (includes link to Yahoo story):

Ghoulish Media & Second Amendment Repression?

I'm linking to these little pieces on Instapundit, as it echos my very first (or second?) blog post ever:

THE PRESS WANTS TO SHOW BODIES from Katrina. It didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/11, for fear that doing so would inflame the public.
I can only conclude that this time around, the press thinks it's a good thing to inflame the public. What could the difference be?

...Dave Kopel has done some legal research and concludes:
I'll have an article on the New Orleans gun confiscation on But there's one part of the story that's too important to wait: the confiscation is plainly illegal. . . .
The particular Louisiana statute which allows emergency controls on firearms also clearly disallows the complete prohibition being imposed by the New Orleans chief of police.

As Mr. Reynolds notes, perhaps the NRA can do for law-abiding American citizens what the ACLU does for American-hating citizens...obviously, the media will not point out this anti-constitutional abuse of property rights. Who will stand up for the American whom carries a gun to protect his home and his family from thugs? In a city with no leadership, with a police force that either abandoned its posts or joined the mob, how can we allow the citizenry to be forcibly disarmed?

And as the anniversary of 9/11 approaches, will the media lift its self-imposed censorship to show us the horrors of that day? Unlikely; they do not what us to know what we are fighting for. But pictures of the Katrina dead, yes, because that can be spun into anti-Bush propoganda (or so they still believe). I will be watching some of the coverage tommorrow, looking to see who is putting on the anti-American spin the hardest, who are disrespecting the victims...

Link here
and here:
Archive Link:

Katrina Media Sampler; Kayne West Booed!

Just a quick taste...first, when the frothing-at-the-mouth lefties at The New York Times start questioning the actions of their heroes -the poor, hopeless, state authorities of Louisiana - you know there is trouble 'a brewin':

As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.
For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.

To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.

Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area.

Could you imagine the reaction from the Democrats and the media if W. had indeed invoked the Insurrection Act ? The howling from the left would have exceeded the blowing of a hundred Katrinas; all the devastation wrought would have been lost under accusations that BushHitler was taking over America by force, using the hurricane as cover.

So he opted against doing so (knowing our brave Democratic heroine would publicly refuse hin permission), leaving the defense of New Orleans to their elected leaders, whom promptly committed negligent homicide. Perhaps this is a lapse of judgement the media would be able to actually exploit, had they the intelligence to do so.

And it appears that Americans didn't get the message that Kayne West is an American Hero for trashing his President during a Katrina fundraiser. During the NFL Opening Night festivities in New England, Patriot fans sent Kayne a pretty clear message...and kudos to the reveiwer at the Boston Globe; he does not even bother to hide his bias:

...while West did one tune, ''Heard 'Em Say." Yet it was disconcerting to hear his name booed loudly by Patriots fans who evidently didn't appreciate his nationally televised comment the other night on a Hurricane Katrina benefit that President Bush ''doesn't care about black people." The boos were thunderous and lasted for much of his number.

Par for the course in medialand...60,000 people jeer an anti-American media hero, and it only gets mentioned in an entertainment review by a distressed journalist. One guy curses at the Vice President{link at bottom}, and it makes national headlines...
Go down to New Orleans, Kayne, and help Penn bail out his skiff.

Charles Krauthammer uses some historical precedent....

In less enlightened times, there was no catastrophe independent of human agency. When the plague or some other natural disaster struck, witches were burned, Jews were massacred and all felt better (except the witches and Jews).
A few centuries later, our progressive thinkers have progressed not an inch. No fall of a sparrow on this planet is not attributed to sin and human perfidy. The three current favorites are: (1) global warming, (2) the war in Iraq and (3) tax cuts. Katrina hits and the unholy trinity is immediately invoked to damn sinner-in-chief George W. Bush.

...and uses blunt logic that the Bush Administration should take note of:

This kind of stupidity merits no attention whatsoever, but I'll give it a paragraph. There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period. The problem with the evacuation of New Orleans is not that National Guardsmen in Iraq could not get to New Orleans, but that National Guardsmen in Louisiana did not get to New Orleans. As for the Bush tax cuts, administration budget requests for New Orleans flood control during the five Bush years exceed that of the five preceding Clinton years. The notion that the allegedly missing revenues would have been spent wisely by Congress, targeted precisely to the levees of New Orleans, and reconstruction would have been completed in time, is a threefold fallacy. The argument ends when you realize that, as The Washington Post notes, ``the levees that failed were already completed projects."

Thank you Charles, but trying to convince the Democrats that Bush is actually not responsible here is like trying to convince the Arabs that the Jews are not responsible for...oh, for every calamity that has befallen them for the last millenium. Luck, I wish you...

Kayne West Booed? Read it here:
Yahoo! heckles Cheney here:
Krauthhammer column here:
Times article via Damian Penny

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Katrina: The Poll Results Are In!

From Drudge, the first poll numbers are in on the blame game; and many a smug smile is going to be wiped off an editor's face :

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 609 adults taken September 5-6 shows:

Blame Game -- 13% said George W. Bush is "most responsible for the problems in New Orleans after the hurricane"; 18% said "federal agencies"; 25% said "state and local officials"; 38% said "no one is to blame"; 6% had no opinion.
-- 29% said that "top officials in the federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired"; 63% said they should not; 8% had no opinion.

More Government Performance
-- 10% said George W. Bush has done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 25% said "good"; 21% said "neither good nor bad"; 18% said "bad"; 24% said "terrible"; 2% had no opinion.
-- 8% said federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies have done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 27% said "good"; 20% said "neither good nor bad"; 20% said "bad"; 22% said "terrible"; 3% had no opinion.
-- 7% said state and local officials in Louisiana have done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"; 30% said "good"; 23% said "neither good nor bad"; 20% said "bad"; 15% said "terrible"; 5% had no opinion.

Jeepers, I wonder why this hasn't come over the wire services yet? And why do I have the feeling if the numbers were reversed, there would already be analysis out on "the failure" of the President?

Despite all the horrendously negative media coverage, which played the blame game and the race card as Americans were dying in droves all along the Gulf Coast, Americans decided that the evil BushHitler did not cojour up a storm over Africa (with Satan's assistance ) and guide it (using his dark powers) over the poorest and blackest city he could find, and laugh with his oil buddies as the poorest died. Sorry, Mainstream Media, but we are an informed electorate. We'll make our own judgements, thanks.

FYI we miserly, cheapskate, racist Americans have currently donated over $465 million dollars to our fellow countrymen in need (see tally here We take care of others, we take care of our own.

The papers tell me to feel shame; but today, I am quite proud to be an American.

UPDATE: American Racism, Uncovered! See the horrible slideshow of hate here :

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Katrina's Devestation - Blame the NY Times?

A few days back, the New York Times wrote a scathing editorial blasting President Bush from every angle possible in regards to Hurrican Katrina, just falling thisshort of accusing him of intentionally steering the storm into the poorest, blackest neighborhoods possible. They concluded with this apparently rhetorical question:

Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?

Fair enough, but the far-left liberals that make up the Times editorial board are kin with most of the blue-state anti-Bushies - filled with mindless rage, but no real ideas of their own. And when they get an idea, it is usually (who am I kidding?Always!) a bad one. Why, let's go back to just April of '05, and see what the Times has to say about "correcting some of the holes in the flood protection":

Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects — this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences... [snip]This is a bad piece of legislation.

Now you know why President Bush, as well as most fair-minded Americans, cares not a whit about what is written on those once-hallowed pages. For Congress did in fact listen to the Times editorial board and reject the aforementioned bill, costing untold American lives. Remember that, when you next hear some bloated liberal extolling the virtues of what he read today in the Times. And when he/she emails you an editorial, send 'em back a link to this page...

Amd in the spirit of liberalism, I'll ask the following question: Why would the New York Times editorial board intentionally promote a policy that would do the most harm to poor and black Americans? If this was a white neighborhood imperiled by floodwaters, I'm sure the paper would have brayed loudly for the passing of the above bill. What does the New York Times have against Americans that are economically challenged? Americans of color? This is a disgrace; where's the investigative committee looking into the Times' failures in policy? Where are the resignations??

Many links to the Times editorials; mine here:

Monday, September 05, 2005

Katrina: The Aftermath, with a Paradigm Shift?

Below are excerpts from one of the best (and longest) blog posts on any subject I've read in a long time, and that includes my own. From EjectEjectEject, Bill Whittle perceives a world broken down into different "tribes", and how they differ sociologically from one another. Beware, there are provocative thoughts contained herein...

...I had the delightful opportunity to read the comment of a fellow who said he wished that white, middle-class, racist, conservative c*cksuckers like myself could have been herded into the Superdome Concentration Camp to see how much we like it. Absent, of course, was the fundamental truth of what he plainly does not have the eyes or the imagination to see, namely, that if the Superdome had been filled with white, middle-class, racist, conservative c*cksuckers like myself, it would not have been a refinery of horror, but rather a citadel of hope and order and restraint and compassion.

...That has nothing to do with me being white. If the blacks and Hispanics and Jews and gays that I work with and associate with were there with me, it would have been that much better. That’s because the people I associate with – my Tribe – consists not of blacks and whites and gays and Hispanics and Asians, but of individuals who do not rape, murder, or steal. My Tribe consists of people who know that sometimes bad things happen, and that these are an opportunity to show ourselves what we are made of. My people go into burning buildings...

...There are some things my Tribe is not good at at all. My Tribe doesn’t make excuses. My Tribe will analyze failure and assign blame, but that is to make sure that we do better next time, and we never, ever waste valuable energy and time doing so while people are still in danger...

...My Tribe doesn’t fire on people risking their lives, coming to help us. My Tribe doesn’t curse such people because they arrived on Day Four, when we felt they should have been here before breakfast on Day One. We are grateful, not to say indebted, that they have come at all. My Tribe can’t eat Nike’s and we don’t know how to feed seven by boiling a wide-screen TV.

Care to have your worldview shaken up? Then read it all, here , and see if you can still jump up and down and say if John Kerry was elected President, none of this would have happened....

Hurricane Katrina: The Media Sees an Opportunity... engage in yet another tedious round of Bush-bashing. Good timing, this hurricane, for the media, as they Cindy Sheehan story was losing its legs due to her psycho-racist rants. Let's take this AP report as an example of how the media is trying to paint this natural disaster :

Under fire for its slow response to the flooding, the Bush administration tried to save face on Sunday...
- "save face"??? Why, did Bush order up a level 2 hurricane to raise oil prices, but got a level 5 instead?

We have been abandoned by our own country," Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish just south of New Orleans, told NBC's Meet the Press....
"For God sakes, shut up and send somebody," a tearful and anguished Broussard said of promises not kept by Washington, adding that "bureaucracy has committed murder" in New Orleans...

-which bureaucracy, AP? Bush's? How? I can give you a dozen examples, however, of murderous negligence by local Democrats here:

After a nightmare confluence of natural disaster and political ineptitude that al Qaeda-linked Web sites called evidence of the "wrath of God" striking America...
-What the hell does al-Qaeda have to do with anything? Or are you just trying to report on fascist gloating at American deaths? Methinks your stringers are spending too much time in terrorist chatrooms; it is distorting their reporting...and whose "political ineptitude", by the way? Ray Nagin? Governer Blanco? No, not a word here about their criminal malfeasence...

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld toured a medical facility at New Orleans' international airport on Sunday. He spoke and shook hands with military and rescue officials but walked right by a dozen refugees lying on stretchers just feet away from him, most of them extremely sick or handicapped...
-well, what the hell was he supposed to do, wake up the dead and dying for a photo-op? The AP is sick, demented...

Amazing, despite this vicious left wing propoganda, Americans have a pretty good view of what is going on here..from an ABC poll:

Federal government adequately prepared?
31% Yes
67% No
State/local government adequately prepared?
24% Yes
75% No

Blame Bush?
44% Yes
55% No

That last stat is amazing, and speaks well to America's ability to gauge the accuracy of the information they are receiving. And on Bush's response to the crisis, broken down by party:

46% Approve
47% Disapprove
17% Approve
71% Disapprove
44% Approve
48% Disapprove
74% Approve
22% Disapprove

So the nation's assignment of blame appears, unfortunately, to be split upon party lines.
Interesting, though, that the media coverage has been almost universally critical of the Bush Administration and has been falling all over itself to convolute the facts to lay blame at his feet.
In fact, the "Blame Bush" to "Blame{Whomever}" coverage of this horrific event probably falls out at about 71% to 17%. Not scientific, but still....

Remember this, the next time the media claims they are impartial...

Link to ABC poll results here:

UPDATE 1230A: Let's bring this post full-circle. See "Cindy's Lament" here
[hattip: "Fatass The Conquerer"(?) ]

Sunday, September 04, 2005

Katrina's Devastation: Who's Responsible?

{with updates at bottom}

OK, Lefties, you want to play politics with the hurricane that killed New Orleans? Well, perhaps the Democratic Mayor and Governer should be charged with negligant homicide - check out the timeline:

6:42 pm CDT August 28, 2005(Louisiana Governor) Blanco said President George W. Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.The president has already declared states of emergency in Louisiana and Mississippi to accelerate the emergency response to the storm. He joined the Federal Emergency Management Agency in urging everyone to obey evacuation order

In an interview on Eyewitness News, Nagin said his Saturday night dinner was interrupted by an urgent call from Governor Kathleen Blanco who asked Nagin to call the Hurricane Center.

That was after President Bush called Blanco and virtually begged her to get those people out.

A major hurricane bearing down on his city, and the freakin' mayor, charged with the population's safety, could not even be bothered to look at a weather forecast? Literally, criminal...

By the way; just a JerseyNut thought - did George Bush save untold thousands of lives by making this call to Blanco, telling her to get off her ass and do something??

Go read Lou Minatti; he has stories about official incompetence that will make your blood boil - thousands of unused buses, hundreds of millions of dollars of wasted federal money...the list goes on and on. If these two fools have anything resembling a soul, they should resign as soon as the crisis is over.

I'll end with a quote lifted from Lou's blog:

Nagin deserves much of the blame for the thousands of deaths that resulted from his inaction. I hope Ray Nagin is haunted by this for the rest of his life.

UPDATE: The Rottweiler speaks clearly to Nagin:

We’re sending buses across the country as fast as we possibly can to help clean up your mess and rescue the people you betrayed when you couldn’t be bothered to send the ones you already had a couple of blocks down the street before the disaster hit, yet YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO BITCH?

Clink the link, hear him bark loudly - should my negligant homicide charge be upgraded to mass murder?

UPDATE: Via Econopundit from Drudge, you can count all 250 schoolbuses. parked down the street from the Superdome, that Ray Nagin didn't send out to evac the poor of New Orleans
I guess neither Blanco or Nagin are literate, or else they certainly would have read this:

Louisiana disaster plan, pg 13, para 5 , dated 01/00'
The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating'...

UPDATE 1155P: Miss Atlas Shrugged adds her voice to the call for resignations here; scrolling down, you'll see some issues worth exploring regarding the FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security:

How is it possible that with the fourth anniversary of 9/11 almost upon us, the federal government doesn't have in hand the capability to prepare for and then manage a large urban disaster, natural or man-made...What has DHS been doing if not readying itself and its subcomponents for a likely disaster? The collapse of a New Orleans levee has long led a list of worst-case urban crisis scenarios. The dots had already been connected...

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Hurricane Katrina, the Media, and Racism

I'm keeping an eye on who says (and who doesn't say) what in the aftermath of Katrina...first, with glee, the BBC uses this tragedy to bash America and mock it values:

The uneasy paradox which so many live with in this country - of being first-and-foremost rugged individuals, out to plunder what they can and paying as little tax as they can get away with, while at the same time believing that America is a robust, model society - has reached a crisis point this week.

So the BBC pauses in the midst of this natural disaster to call us all "plunderers" whom essentially live in delusion and denial...nice. Remind me how balanced they are, OK? Link here:

With all the cries of "racism!" now popping up, it would be "balanced" to hear both sides of the's one about some British tourists caught up in the disaster:

Jamie Trout, 22, from Sunderland, was among 50 tourists stranded in horrific conditions in the devastated city....Mr Trout's family said the group was escorted to a nearby hotel by the National Guard after the Britons were targeted by others in the shelter...The group really feared for their safety because they were being targeted because they were the only white people there.
Mr Trout, who was with two friends, said: "There was a lot of heat from the people in there, people shouting racial abuse about us being white."

Wonder how this made it past the politically correct censors at the BBC?

More blaming Whitey (or just plain stupidity?)

Rev Jesse Jackson, fresh from dialogue with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, call for affirmative action in rescue effort:
Jackson questioned why Bush has not named blacks to top positions in the federal response to the disaster, particularly when the majority of victims remaining stranded in New Orleans are black: "How can blacks be locked out of the leadership, and trapped in the suffering?"

How does the color of one's skin make any type of difference here? Jesse should've stayed with his left-o buddy Chavez, he'd do more good there...

Here's another:

The R'n'B superstar Kanye West, meanwhile, went even further, accusing President Bush and the authorities of not just sins of omission but also of commission:

During NBC's live broadcast of Concert for Hurricane Relief rapper Kanye West, in what appeared to be an impromptu address, told viewers that National Guardsmen were given the unfair order to shoot at African-Americans on the streets of New Orleans.
In a stumbling, yet defiant statement, West proclaimed that when African-Americans were caught stealing in New Orleans, they were called looters. However when whites were caught, they were just feeding their families.
It might titillate this child of upper middle-class to think that redneck National Guard is going around NO gunnin' down niggaz, but those who remain stranded in the city (majority of them Kanye's fellow African-Americans) could arguably do without armed gangs which are roaming around raping and pillaging.

Real smart way to get America to open their wallets, Kayne...stop excusing the behavior of looters - they are doing the real harm to the people of New Orleans...

All from Arthur Chrenkoff, at

There will be more, much more...