baldilocks

For Your New Year's Black-Eyed Peas Recipe

This day, I cooked the black-eyed peas--for a change.

Usually, my great-aunt cooks them, but she's trying to catch a cold and didn't want to be coughing all over the food. So I took her directions and did it myself.

Try this.

Instead of soaking them, she had me bring them to a boil and let them bubble for two minutes. Then she told me to turn them off and let them sit for an hour. After that, I was told to turn them on very low, add specified ingredients and seasoning (in this case,

--leftover canned Christmas ham from the freezer,
--a couple of stalks of celery,
--a medium white onion,
--a half of a large bell pepper,
--a clove of garlic,
--a pinch of salt
--1/2 tsp of black pepper
--and 1/2 tsp of Parsley Patch seasoning

and let them cook until done, while, of course, checking on it).

Of course, one can tweak the recipe to one's own food and seasoning choices.

I must say that it's quite good, and my aunt says that it's better than hers (though she may be prejudiced).

As an alternative, check out the 'Black Family Reunion Cookbook' (published by The National Council of Negro Women, Inc., who should know what they're doing) for an excellent black-eyed pea recipe, among other things.

Happy New Year to All!

(Originally posted in comments at Booker Rising)

UPDATE: December 31, 2005 9:09 PM PST: Happy New Year to my East Coast countrymen and all of those in between them and the international dateline!

Mrs. Green Delivers

(Speaking of grey hairs), Vodkapundit is now VodkaDad.

Why My Hair is Dark Instead of Grey

No offspring.

Boy, is this kid ever in trouble with Mom and Dad.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A 16-year-old from Florida who traveled to Iraq on his own without telling his parents was put on a flight home Friday, the U.S. Embassy said, while warning Americans of the dangers of undertaking similar journeys.

Farris Hassan, of Fort Lauderdale, had been under the care of the U.S. Embassy after being on his own in Iraq for several days. [SNIP]

The teenager, whose parents were born in Iraq but have lived in the United States for about 35 years, says he wanted to travel to Baghdad to better understand what Iraqis are living through.

"I thought I'd go the extra mile for that, or rather, a few thousand miles," he told The Associated Press.
Skipping a week of school, he left the country on Dec. 11, telling only two high school friends of his plans. His travels took him to Kuwait and Lebanon before he arrived in Iraq on Christmas Day.[SNIP]

Hassan does not speak Arabic and has no experience in war zones, but he wanted to find out what life was like there.

"He is very driven and he is very patriotic. He believes in democracy," his mother said.

More ‘stones’ than brains, but he appears to have a lot of the latter also. It was reported that some of the Iraqis were...nonplussed, shall we say, by hearing Farris' American English come out of his Iraqi-appearing face.

Someone give this kid a job to keep him out of trouble! I'm sure his mom and dad will thank you.

Read his essay regarding his reasons for going to Iraq.

(Thanks to Pajamas Media)

Wheels of Justice Turning

And you thought 2005 was fun politically!

The Justice Department has opened an investigation to discover who leaked the classified information regarding the formerly Top Secret NSA program in which warrantless surveillance was conducted on selected targets in the US.

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President Bush's secret domestic [sic] spying program.

The inquiry focuses on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, officials said.

The Times revealed the existence of the program two weeks ago in a front-page story that acknowledged the news had been withheld from publication for a year, partly at the request of the administration and partly because the newspaper wanted more time to confirm various aspects of the program.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Justice undertook the action on its own, and the president was informed of it on Friday.

"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue. The fact is that al-Qaida's playbook is not printed on Page One and when America's is, it has serious ramifications," Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where Bush was spending the holidays.

I’m glad that it’s happening so quickly. However, we all can imagine the political firestorm that will be a by-product of this investigation, especially with the 2006 elections upcoming. No doubt there will be much political posturing on this matter from both sides of the aisle .

Another factor that may fill all of us with dread: the subpoenas of New York Times editors and reporters to whom the information was leaked. Without a doubt, some or all members of this group will be willing to go to jail rather than give up their sources. Certainly, this would be cast as a noble act of journalistic martyrdom.

However, an even nobler act would be for those who leaked the program’s specifics to come forward and save these editors and reporters the trouble.

Certainly this person/these people believed that, by leaking classified information to the public sector, they were doing right and, in addition, no person knowledgeable of handling classified material could have believed that such a public leak wouldn’t have resulted in an investigation from the Justice Department.

Would the leaker(s) allow the reporters and editors of the New York Times rot in jail for the former’s actions? I hope that the leaker(s) have more honor than that. Sometimes doing what one deems to be right has adverse consequences; the leaker(s) would at least be due some respect were she/he/they to shed the anonymity that has previously been their shield.

Of course, funneling information secretly is one thing; taking a public stand for one's beliefs and actions are another. It will be interesting to see what the leakers are made of.

More from:

Flopping Aces

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive

Michelle Malkin

AJ Strata

Previously:

What They Did For “Love”
More Power To Whom?
Desiring Power Over All Else

(Thanks to Memeorandum)

Discuss The Difference

Are the words ‘atheist’ and ‘anti-religion’ synonymous? The reason I ask is because I’ve gotten into trouble with some atheist friends/associates of mine when using the word ‘anti-religion.’ I say that they are not, but I’d like other perspectives, especially from my atheist readers.

Bah Humbug!

In my adult years, I had begun to hate Christmas; that is, the idea of what Christmas had become: the commercial part of it and the way that people sometimes act during this holiday. For example, it has been very dangerous to drive this weekend, more so than usual in LA and more so than on most holidays, even the long Thanksgiving weekend.

When I went out yesterday morning, there were two abandoned, smashed-up cars on the street three blocks over. This morning, as I made my way to church, I noticed at least three intersections that still were littered with the evidence of serious car accidents: large pieces of metal, fiberglass and tiny bits of glass. For all too many, the celebration of the birth of Christ has reverted to the pagan bacchanalia which it was intended to replace all those centuries ago. This day isn’t supposed to be about endangering the lives of others via wanton drunkenness while operating large and deadly pieces of machinery, but that’s what it has become.

But the funny thing about the recent controversies involving the use of the phrase “Merry Christmas” and the singing/playing of religious Christmas carols in government, educational and corporate life is that they have served to remind those of us who accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah of what this day should mean to us. Yes, most bible scholars agree that the historical Jesus of Nazareth probably was not born on December 25th, but that’s a trivial matter. (Personally, I find Easter far more meaningful than Christmas, because it is the day celebrating the most crucial point of why Christ was born, but that’s my preference.) What shouldn’t be a trivial matter for Christians is the ‘Christ’ part of Christmas, should they choose to honor this day.

Oh, I’m not bashing the giving of gifts or even the partying. I simply think that one’s priorities should be taken into account.

If your priority is to celebrate the birth of the Savior of Mankind, then put that first. However, if it is to merely take advantage of the holiday for your own selfish purposes, then don’t act as if you really believe in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ.

For this attitude, I am considered a type of Ebenezer Scrooge. It’s probably an accurate assessment: I’m most relieved on each January 2nd to have the season over with and have myself and all of my loved ones still intact. Let it be so for me and for you at the end of this “Christmas/Holiday Season” and all of those that come after.

Not Imperial Enough

I guess I need to get in touch more with my inner Diva because Bruce over at GayPatriot
neglected to include me in this poll.

The probable disqualifier is that there are too many wire hangers in my closet.

(Thanks to Cathy Seipp who is indeed a formidable Blog Diva, most definitely the accolade.)

What They Did For "Love"

I’ve posted little on the NSA story, mostly because of time constraints and because of my pure fury at those in the NSA who would leak classified material to the press and at a press who would publish the material.

I’ve read the stories fronted by the New York Times and funneled by some unknown…person(s) with a Top Secret compartmentalized clearance who is sworn and signed to hold secret his/her government’s means of reconnoitering its enemies. Every new revelation leaves this Cold Warrior—who, once upon a time, swore to and signed the exact same agreements--more disgusted and angry.

The majority of the Big Media, a goodly portion of the Democrats and not a small portion of the government in Washington hate George W. Bush; if we doubted that before, there’s no doubt about that now. But for the hate to be so pathological that the haters would seek to thwart every one of the president’s endeavors, including classified NSA programs designed to keep another 9/11 from happening, leaves me flabbergasted.

The argument as to whether the Executive Branch-approved NSA program is legal is raging still all over the Internet and shows no sign of ending. Powerline has the best list of judicial precedent underlying the program’s legality and concludes that

The federal appellate courts have unanimously held that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information, which includes information about terrorist threats. Furthermore, since this power is derived from Article II of the Constitution, the FISA Review Court has specifically recognized that it cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional action.

That being the case, the NSA intercept program, which consists of warrantless electronic intercepts for purposes of foreign intelligence gathering, is legal.

It’s worth noting that all of the cases cited above involved warrantless searches inside the United States. The NSA program, in contrast, involves international communications only, and the intercepts take place at least in part, and perhaps wholly, outside the United States. Thus, the NSA case is even clearer than the cases that have already upheld Presidential power.

Read this also.

Yes, the NSA monitors foreign communications. No hot news flash there, especially for those laymen who’ve read The Puzzle Palace. However, it is most assuredly illegal for a person with intimate knowledge of any specific NSA program to disclose the details of (even the existence of) that program to those who are unauthorized to receive that information.

1. A person without the formalized security clearance under which the program falls, and
2. A person without a ‘need to know’ about the existence and or the details of said program.

These would indeed include the New York Times.

Why would the person who leaked the existence of this NSA program do so? What do they believe?

That the program is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects [this part has long been interpreted to include communications] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does any part of the Constitution apply to foreigners located outside of the United States? Of course not. But what of those inside the US with whom these foreigners are communicating? That brings us back to the word ‘unreasonable.’ What of reasonable searches and seizures? Is it ever ‘reasonable’ for the federal government to conduct a warrantless ‘search and seizure’ on a US person, or rather surveillance of his/her communications? The Fourth Amendment implies that it is; otherwise why insert the word ‘unreasonable’ into it all?

Repeat, foreign operating outside of the US do not fall under the Fourth Amendment. When they are contacting people in the US of whatever nationality to coordinate plans for terrorist attacks on the US, it is reasonable to search (listen to) the conversation(s) between them. Sorry, but that’s my semi-learned take on the program’s legality. Apparently, all of the federal appellate courts' presumably learned opinions conclude at the exact same point.

So what will happen now?

Again, contemplate the magnitude of this: the legal legitimacy of what once was a Top Secret compartmentalized matter--its effectiveness dependant upon its confidentiality, having been designed to frustrate the plans of terrorists who would see another deadly attack on this country--is now being hashed out in the court of public opinion—informed and otherwise.

I predict that after every aspect of this matter is sliced to a fare-thee-well in the Senate, in the House and in the media—both old and new—its legality will be confirmed. During this evisceration of one of the means to keep Americans safe, members of the Senate, the House and the Big Media will get more opportunities to trumpet their goodwill toward the American public: “we are just trying to protect you from the evil plans of that evil George W. Bush, because even if he didn’t have his creepy, geeky NSA minions spying on you and your Grandma Ethel, you know he was thinking about it. That’s just how evil he is. EVILLLLLL!!!!” The program will be rendered useless (as will any other that uses similar means) and it will be scrapped (assuming it hasn’t been already), but it will be deemed clean and pure at its postmortem. Some government whistle-blower for this program that will have turned out to be totally legal and previously quite effective until its existence was broadcast to “our” enemies will be cast as the Grand Hero who saved America’s civil liberties from this “evil man.”

My hat's off to you, New York Times and to you, anonymous government official(s); certainly you’re just trying to ensure that my civil liberties are protected. I’ll try to be comforted by that when my family is dead.

Tom at Just One Minute knows that they won’t stop trying to destroy America to save it.

(Thanks to Memeorandum and thanks to old friend Marty—who, likely, is even more livid than I am. Thanks, Sweetie, for the CD, Romantic Warrior by Return to Forever! I need it to calm me down.)

UPDATE: DC at Toad Time has some excellent thoughts on the subject.

No Cameras Please

The Vodkapundit family is about to spawn. Those who thought that Stephen was serious about liveblogging the blessed event must not be married.

Getting the Types of Redemption Straight

I know that many are tired of the saga of Stanley “Tookie” Williams, but real life—or Whoever--sometimes intervenes and puts more thoughts into the minds of people like me.

I visited an old friend today—Victor is his name. As it happens, Victor is former member of Crips Gang of Terrorists. About my age, Victor has long been reformed and is an honest, hard-working family man now—a barber; he cut my hair. (Of note is that I acted as editor for Victor’s self-published autobiography chronicling his gang days, interesting dubbed The Choices We Make. Victor had seen “Tookie” in those days, and had, of course, known of him; however the former had never had a personal introduction.)

So it was natural that the “Tookie” subject came up; Victor was against the execution for the same reason that many others have been: the concept that a “redeemed” person should be spared the direst of earthly consequences of his/her actions. As a result, the confusion regarding what redemption is and what types of redemption there are re-surfaced, as it has here and in countless other venues.

I didn’t have time to say the following to Victor (who did prison time for his gang transgressions) and I am far less agile verbally than in written form, so I want to put this here.

Simply put, there is earthly redemption and there is heavenly/spiritual redemption.

Any type of redemption involves change: a change in attitude, made manifest by a change in word and in deed. Additionally, an essential component in redemption is the willingness and ability to pay one’s debt to those whom he/she has injured, whether the debt is to an individual or to a deity or to any entity in between.

How does one receive earthly redemption? In various ways, depending upon the injury; it can be something as simple as saying a heartfelt ‘I’m sorry’ or it can be by admitting guilt and submitting to the penalty received from a court of law—by paying the debt to society. Acknowledged in some earthly redemption is this: there are some things for which one can never get equal in this life, there are some things for which an injured party can never be ‘made whole’ again. Murder is one of those things, for obvious reasons.

In the Christian religion, heavenly/spiritual redemption is received by accepting that Jesus Christ has paid all of your (sin) debt for you. The two types of redemption, earthly and heavenly, are mutually exclusive—one cannot take the place of the other and there is no overlap. One can be consequent to the other, but that isn’t the same thing. Therefore, those who argue for giving clemency to a condemned murderer because she has given her life over to Jesus Christ are arguing apples and oranges. If the conversion is true, she has received all of the long-term forgiveness and redemption needed.

Victor noted that Paul, the author of the majority of the New Testament, had been—before the famed Damascus Road conversion--a prolific murderer of Christians and Victor asked me whether Paul had been redeemed. I answered that Paul had not had earthly redemption; had Paul—then Saul of Tarsus--been brought before the earthly authorities for his crimes, he should have been executed, should have paid his earthly debt. But God had other plans—for Paul to pay his spiritual debt by accepting Jesus Christ as propitiator for his—and everyone’s--evil and by becoming the most famous publicist for JC’s sacrificial act. (The fact that Paul had been acting at the behest of the earthly authorities of his homeland when he murdered Christians makes ludicrous the idea of him being executed for those acts. The fact that Paul ended up being martyred for his Christian faith is the height of irony. Both facts are, however, beside the point.)

Whenever a condemned murderer argues that his/her life should be spared because he/she has become a Christian, my askance radar begins to ping. Oh I don’t necessarily doubt that the conversion is sincere, but when such people confuse salvation in the spiritual realm for that from human beings, for that from government entities, it casts doubt on whether they’ve read the Rule Book. What those who use Christianity to argue for clemency for murderers forget is this: we all deserve to die--whether it's for murder or some other sin-debt in the spiritual area.

I wonder whether Karla Faye Tucker (read her story; it’s disgusting and uplifting at the same time), for example, understood Jesus’ words in Matthew 22:21: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” In other words don’t confuse God with whoever is sitting in the State House.

Conversely, I wonder whether Timothy McVeigh, one of the authors of the notorious 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing had a conversion and actually understood what type of salvation he might be in for. (If you recall, McVeigh refused the mandatory appeals inherent in a death penalty verdict and asked for the verdict to be carried out.) It’s unnerving to contemplate that Timothy McVeigh might have not gone to Hell, but only he and God know whether he asked for heavenly redemption--God does what He wants without consulting you or me. (McVeigh’s prideful words and deeds immediately preceding his execution, however, seem to have sealed his afterlife fate.)

But the point is this: if McVeigh accepted Jesus Christ and asked God for forgiveness for his heinous crimes, then he received it, according to the Rule Book. However--assuming the foregoing is the truth-- the free gift of heavenly redemption had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the earthly penalties which he was compelled to pay for his crimes.

This sort of questioning forces a questioner to ask himself whether he actually believes in the salvation of Jesus Christ for all sins and an afterlife spent in either Heaven or Hell. If the questioner doesn’t believe in this concept, he is merely using his false understanding of what Christianity is to support his position when he excoriates Christians who support the death penalty. If he does believe, then he needs to remind himself that “as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” That passage implies that death is not the end and that judgment is contingent upon whether one has paid his debts or has accepted the “get out of Hell free” card.

Is “Tookie” (or Karla Faye or Timothy) 'square with the house' yet? If it’s the “heavenly house” to which we’re referring, I don’t know and neither do you; we can only say ‘probably’ or ‘probably not.’ Only God knows what was in the hearts of these people when they were executed. But we shouldn’t pretend as if earthly penalties and heavenly ones are related. When we do that, we show our true hand; that we doubt or don’t really believe that there is either a heavenly redemption or a heavenly Judge; that we really believe that humans are the only arbiters of right and wrong and that we—some of us—are merely using our misunderstanding of what Christianity is to attempt to shame Christians into discarding the notion of the Great Judge and into believing that death is the final fate.

Sorry, but that's not in the Rule Book either.

Merry Christmas and celebrate His birth well.

Just Kidding

The mayor of Graz, Austria blinks first.

VIENNA, Austria - The mayor of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Austrian hometown on Tuesday begged the California governor to reconsider his decision to cut ties to the city after locals assailed him for his death penalty stance.

Siegfried Nagl, mayor of the southern city of Graz, said he wrote Schwarzenegger pleading with him not to return a ring of honor bestowed on him by officials in his birthplace in 1999 and reassuring him that most residents still admire him. [SNIP]

[Arnold's] demands effectively pre-empted a drive launched by opponents in Austria who already were gathering signatures on a petition calling for the 15,300-seat arena in Graz, about 120 miles south of Vienna, to be renamed.

The petition drive began last week amid a furor triggered by the execution in California of Stanley Tookie Williams. Capital punishment is illegal in Europe, where many people consider it barbaric. They are now waiting to see how Schwarzenegger deals with the scheduled Jan. 17 execution of a 75-year-old inmate.

The backpedaling is swift, no? But you know and I know that money often speaks louder than principle. Arnold kept his principles. Graz officials, not so much.

No Going Home

No girly man, our governor:

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday told officials in his hometown in Austria to remove his name from a sports stadium and stop using his name to promote the city.

The governor's request came after politicians in Graz began a petition drive to rename the stadium, reacting to Schwarzenegger's decision last week to deny clemency to condemned inmate Stanley Tookie Williams. Opposition to the death penalty is strong in Austria. [SNIP]

"In all likelihood, during my term as governor, I will have to make similar and equally difficult decisions," Schwarzenegger said in the letter. "In order to spare the responsible politicians of the city of Graz further concern, I withdraw from them as of this day the right to use my name in association with the Liebenauer Stadium."

The stadium had been renamed for the former Hollywood star in 1997. He said he wanted the lettering removed by year's end. [SNIP]

In [the letter to the officials of Graz, Austria] Schwarzenegger also said he would no longer permit the use of his name "to advertise or promote the city of Graz in any way" and would return the city's "ring of honor."

The ring was given to him in a ceremony in Graz in 1999. At the time, Schwarzenegger said he considered it "a token of sincere friendship between my hometown and me.

"Since, however, the official Graz appears to no longer accept me as one of their own, this ring has lost its meaning and value to me. It is already in the mail," the governor wrote.

The letter notes that city officials will receive a follow-up letter from Schwarzenegger's attorney.

Done like a true American.

More Power To Whom?

It appears that United States Code Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Sections 1801-1811 is more appropriate to the matter of intelligence agency surveillance than is Executive Order 12333. Read the definitions of the highlighted words (§ 1801) before reading "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General..." (§ 1802):

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

Here's § 1808, "Report of Attorney General to Congressional committees; ...":

(1) On a semiannual basis the Attorney General shall fully inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning all electronic surveillance under this subchapter. Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to limit the authority and responsibility of the appropriate committees of each House of Congress to obtain such information as they may need to carry out their respective functions and duties.

(2) Each report under the first sentence of paragraph (1) shall include a description of—

(A) each criminal case in which information acquired under this chapter has been passed for law enforcement purposes during the period covered by such report; and

(B) each criminal case in which information acquired under this chapter has been authorized for use at trial during such reporting period.

(All emphasis mine.)

The last release date of this subchapter of this law was March 17, 2005.

Some of this is legalese and open to a small bit of interpretation. Can the NSA activities which the AP and the New York Times publicized be interpreted as illegal? Maybe. And, if they can, are the members of both the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence claiming that Preisdent Bush's Attorneys General--John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales--have failed to inform them of the NSA's activities? Yes? No? Assuming that these members of congress knew about the program and since they are encouraged--no, legally charged to wield their authority and be mindful of their responsibilities in all intelligence matters, one would think that someone would cry "foul" on any type of surveillance that might be illegal. Right? Because, after all, people like Senate Select Committee on Intelligence members Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) would just love to have something like this to hold over this president. So, if this particular NSA surveillance is so illegal, heinous and so detrimental to civil liberties, why didn't these legislators do something about it sooner?

Hmm. Let's see who else is on the SSCI. Neither Leahy nor Feingold are listed. Were they the dogsbodies of the committee Democrats? Or--having seen an opportunity to get in the necessary sound bite, one which would cast doubt about the intentons of President Bush (again) in the minds of the voters--did they merely seize the moment?

The Democrat legislators are not acting as if this program is illegal. My bet is that they're calculating that--if this matter is framed correctly (for them), it will gain their party seats in the two chambers of Congress. Win no matter the cost.

One thing is certain: whoever exposed this classified program to the press should be tried, found guilty and imprisoned--at least. (Valerie Plame, my...foot.)

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi want an investigation. One wonders whether these l"Leaders" know what type of investigation they should be calling for.

It will be interesting to see whether the Democrats are so intent on regaining power that some of them would further expose the inner working of our intelligence activities to the public—and, therefore, to the enemy.

(Thanks to too many people to mention)

Number Four

And not crying! This blog landed in fourth place in the Weblog Awards of 2005 under the category of Best of the Top 251 - 500 Blogs! In front of me are Austin Bay (#3), Michael Berube Online (#2) and Sadly No (#1).

Thanks to all who voted for me and even to those who didn't vote, but read; I feel fortunate to have finished so highly. I'll try to do better next time. Additionally, I need to get to reading these higher finishing blogs--not just to learn how to finish higher, but to add new perspectives. I have Austin Bay linked but I've never read the others. They will be added to my blogroll, politics notwithstanding.

Desiring Power Over All Else

Which side are the Senate Democrats and the Big Media on? Is it the forces who would stand for freedom or those who would stand for tyranny? The evidence is piling up for the latter. Watch and note how our betters would play politics with World War Four using intelligence information (again) as the weapon.

From the AP via the New York Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Facing angry criticism and challenges to his authority in Congress, President Bush on Saturday unapologetically defended his administration's right to conduct secret post-Sept. 11 spying in the United States as ''critical to saving American lives.''

One Democrat said Bush was acting more like a king than a democratically elected leader. But Bush said congressional leaders had been briefed on the operation more than a dozen times. That included Democrats as well as Republicans in the House and Senate, a GOP lawmaker said.

Often appearing angry in an eight-minute address, the president made clear he has no intention of halting his authorizations of the monitoring activities and said public disclosure of the program by the news media had endangered Americans.

The president should be angry that there are government officials who would leak classified activities which are designed to protect the citizens of the United States. I’m incredibly angry about it, especially since I know that any president is authorized to do what President Bush has done in this matter. That the editors of the Associated Press and the New York Times couldn’t be bothered to gain some knowledge on the subject doesn’t surprise me. That those who make policy on foreign and domestic matters for all of us couldn’t be bothered to read or would ignore the existence of Executive Order 12333 of December 4, 1981 is far more frightening.

2.3 Collection of Information. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order [see below about who they are]. Those procedures shall permit collection, retention and dissemination of the following types of information: [SNIP]

(b) Information constituting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, including such information concerning corporations or other commercial organizations. Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons;

(c) Information obtained in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, international narcotics or international terrorism investigation;

More from the AP/NYT article:

Bush's willingness to publicly acknowledge a highly classified spying program was a stunning development for a president known to dislike disclosure of even the most mundane inner workings of his White House. Just a day earlier he had refused to talk about it.

This little piece of twisted “reportage” is just another example of how the Big Media does things when it comes to the actions of this president. Classified information is leaked to the press, the press publishes the information gleefully and when the president chooses not to comment on it, Big Media editors and op-ed writers lament the “secrecy” of the administration. But when the president decides to explain himself, the Big Media is “stunned” at his openness. Note how the writing attempts to make it seem as though President Bush is at fault for the uproar about the leak of classified information.

Since October 2001, the super-secret National Security Agency has eavesdropped on the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States without court-approved warrants. Bush said steps like these would help fight terrorists like those who involved in the Sept. 11 plot.

According to the linked Executive Order, however, it isn't the courts who have to approve the type of eavesdropping specified, but the justice department (among others), meaning the AG. But why would the Big Media let facts get in the way of innuendo unfavorable to the president?

James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, said the program could be problematic because it bypasses a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

''I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense,'' Bamford said in an interview. ''Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law -- which is illegal.''

You didn’t, Mr. Bamford? Funny, I seem to recall thatthe president’s speech contained an acknowledgment of the exact legal right necessary for such a program:

The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President.

NYT/AP article again:

Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said Bush was ''taking a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution and the president's powers under the Constitution.

But of course this president “went around the law” rather than getting approval from the proper authorities! How could it be otherwise for the president who would be king!

That the president actually mentions the AG approval, among others, but Bamford and Bloch miss it and the NYT and AP don’t bother to review the speech or the law is, again, ignorance or deception. I suppose, since the president doesn’t mention the National Security Council, the head of NSA (mentioned), the DNI or the DCI by name and refuses to tick off every aspect of a classified program, that it means that he really hasn't been checking with any of them. After all, that would be behavior constistent with that of the autocrat which Big Media and Senate Democrats keep trying to convince us that the president is.

That view was echoed by congressional Democrats.

''I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for,'' Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press.

Added Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.: ''The Bush administration seems to believe it is above the law.''

See? It's true because they say so;they're your betters and you couldn't possibly be smart enough to have some knowledge of the subject, know where to find the information or know someone who does know where to look. After all, there's no way in the Grand and Right Order of Things that you could know more than the Senate and the Big Media knows, right?

Perhaps Senators Feingold and Leahy know nothing about the appropriate law and missed all of the appropriate reviews—maybe they didn't/don’t have a ‘need-to-know’ this information or maybe they were out doing the peoples’ business for their respective states during every single review. (Maybe pigs can fly.) But if they know nothing about this program, what could possible be the purpose in getting out front of this latest parade to hurl epithets at the president? Oh, I forgot: these are the Senate Democrats Senators we’re talking about: any face time is good time. Forget I asked.

On the other hand, these good senators could be pretending that they know nothing about either the briefings or the executive order, which would be even more frightening than any ignorance of either or the usual senate narcissism. If such is the case, this is damning evidence that these senators would put partisan gain over national security. Of course, many of us on the right have been saying this for some time; still, every new piece of evidence seems to escalate in its level of shamelessness.

Bush defended the program as narrowly designed and used ''consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.'' He said it is employed only to intercept the international communications of people inside the U.S. who have been determined to have ''a clear link'' to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

Government officials have refused to provide details, including defining the standards used to establish such a link or saying how many people are being monitored.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said. Intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training in civil liberties, he said.

Bush said leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told House Republicans that those informed were the top Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of each chamber's intelligence committees. ''They've been through the whole thing,'' Hoekstra said.

If the president has authorized this classified program and it has been subject to proper approval and diligent review every forty-five days, one would think that the fine, upstanding members of the senate—some of whom fancy themselves to be so much smarter than the president--would think to ensure that the program they were reviewing was legal, legally implemented and reviewed within the proper scope. Do you think they did this? Actually, I do. So what’s this wannabee of a scandal about? Merely about a blind grab at power at the expense of national security.

In other news, the sun also rises.

(All emphasis mine in the quotes .)

MORE COMMENTARY:

Jeff Goldstein
Michelle Malkin
Stop the ACLU
Confederate Yankee:

Several decades in Club Fed is exactly what justice demands for those that would compromise America's national security concerns for partisan political vendettas.

Damn skippy, but noting the Sandy Berger precedent, I'm not holding my breath.

Typepad

By now everyone knows about the Typepad outage that happened today. Though the posts that I had made since December 11th are now up again, not all of the comments made since then are available. (I know because I get the comments in email.)

I'm sending a 'Help' ticket to find out whether they will be restored or whether I can restore some of them myself--those which haven't been deleted from my mailbox. Sorry for the problems.

:::thanking God for the foresight to save all of my long posts in Word:::

UPDATE: Thanks to Rick, all of the above-mentioned missing comments should be restored.

:::note to self: read the directions::::

Thanks

To "Santa," who sent me The Return of the King DVD extendo version! Merry Christmas! (Oops! Can I say that?) Between blogger relations (get your minds out of the gutter) and watching Eomer cry, I haven't had time for much else.

Iraq Elections

Available at Pajamas Media and Iraq the Model, information on the aftermath of the Iraq Parliamentary elections

Says Mohammed of ITM:

• The total registered voter-count was 1,000,000 higher than in January after adding Iraqi citizens who were born in 1987.


• 15.5 million+ Iraqis cast their votes in more than 30,000 stations spread nationwide.

From overheard TV news reports, some of the polls had to stay open to acccomodate the number of voters. Other polling places ran out of ballots.

It’s great to know that our efforts there are bearing fruit, in spite of what some of of our elected officials would have us believe.

Stanley Williams

Dead man, dead topic. Stanley “Tookie” Williams was executed first thing this morning. Somehow, we black people here in SCLA managed to control our “animal nature” and not riot, in spite of the cynical attempt by certain elements of the “Tookie” support to egg us on and in spite of those on the right (yes) who opined that LA residents needed to batten down the hatches.

Justice has been served.

UPDATE: Bay area headline:

Los Angeles 'quiet' after Williams execution

They seem shocked to find out that black Angelenos don't fit into their little pidgeon hole and seem oblivious to racism of the headline. Oh well.

PREVIOUSLY:
Arnold Says No
To A Young One Who Is An Apologist For A Terrorist
Tookie Blogging

Arnold Says No

Governor Schwarzenegger rejects all of the pleas to go easy on a terrorist:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today rejected clemency for Stanley Tookie Williams, convicted murderer and one of the founders of the Crips.

The decision was announced moments after a federal appeals court in San Francisco turned down Williams's request for a stay of execution.

Thank you, Governor. Now we'll see whether the idea--planted by Big Media--that blacks will riot over anything, even over the execution of one who made some of their neighborhoods a warzone, is a true one.

I say no.

(Thanks to Diane)

PREVIOUSLY:

To A Young One Who Is An Apologist For A Terrorist
Tookie Blogging

To A Young One Who Is An Apologist For A Terrorist (UPDATED)

Sometimes it’s of use to respond to one’s more problematic commenters, if only to make a point or ten.

Jeremy, a William and Mary student, writes in my only other Stanley “Tookie” Williams post:

how come you all seem to be picking on tookie. about his impending execution when no one that has posted anything on this page was not in the court room when his trial took place you didn't here the evidence. so dont comment about it. As for his impending execution I hope Gov. Arnold gives him clemency because even if tookie did those murders. I believe and so do thousands around the world believe that stanley "tookie" williams has done more good then bad. It is possible that he commited those murders and killed four people. But he has saved thousands check that millions from making those same mistakes that he made and probable has saved many lives in the process. Oh and another thing people talking about killing tookie because he may be a murderer. How about we kill the actual murderers like charles manson and stop protecting him behind laws. Oh yeah he's white.

from a 19 year old white william and mary student

To quote Commander Riker of Star Trek: The Next Generation—time for the long pants.

Frankly, Jeremy, unlike you, I acknowledge that you are free to comment all you want from your dorm room or the library at William and Mary--as is your right---about anything and everything. But frankly, sir, I find your academically and experientially unlearned opinion wanting and, conversely, I am free to tell you why I think so.

(As an aside, were I one of the faculty at William and Mary, I’d give you an ‘F’ simply for staining that august institution’s reputation by displaying your poor writing skills; it wouldn’t matter what subject it was. Were I one of your parents, I’d demand a refund for your tuition. However, I’m glad that you are only nineteen because you will have time to improve all of the writing-skill deficiencies displayed above.)

As to your research skills, two seconds of Google work took me to the Crime Library, where I found out that Charles Manson had indeed received the death penalty for his infamous Helter Skelter gang murder spree, but the verdict—along with dozens of others—was commuted to life in prison when California abolished the death penalty in 1972. I wonder whether you think that the white residents of California’s death row of the time were the only ones to receive that little get-out-of-Hell-free (for now) card. (The California Death Penalty was reinstated in1977; however all of those who received clemency under the old law retained it, including Charles Manson.)

(Second-person off.)

Of course Jeremy knew nothing about that little historical tidbit because he didn’t care to look for it. To be fair, I actually remember when this happened—long before young Jeremy was born.

Other types of skill deficiencies displayed by this young man are more problematic--his ability to detect BS, for one. The idea that Stanley “Tookie” Williams might not be guilty has been planted all over the Internet and Jeremy--along with a boatload of others, if my comments section is any indication—have been reeled in to this bogus notion; hooked in the corner of their mouths like hapless fish. So, in order for their position to make some semblance of sense, the fish have to insert their fish-like logic into the mix: ‘you weren’t there; you don’t know what *really* happened, so shut up,’ forgetting that they weren’t there either and are merely going by the news and propaganda reports from "geniuses" like Bianca Jagger just like the rest of us.

Attention: just because the rumor is being passed all over the Internet that “Tookie” might be innocent doesn’t mean that it’s TRUE.

Okay, Little Fishies, let’s play a game. Let’s say that “Tookie” is indeed innocent of the four murders for which he stands to be executed at 12:01 AM PST on Tuesday, December 13, 2005. As the founder of the Crips, one of the most notorious TERRORIST organizations in the world, do you think he murdered anyone other than Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang and Yee-Chen Lin Yang during his reign over the neighborhoods of South Central Los Angeles in the seventies (I’m not buying the ‘South Los Angeles’ moniker) ?

And all you black, white and other “upholders” of the black race—like Jeremy proclaims to be in my comment section—if you concede that “Tookie” might have murdered others, do you think that any of those other people were black? As an aside, did any of you grow up in “Tookie’s” South Central Los Angeles of the 1970s like Cobb and I did? Do any of you live there like I do right now?

I’m curious about the answers to these questions for two reasons.

Leaving aside those who oppose the death penalty for moral/religious reasons, few of you have seemed motivated to move into my South Central LA neighborhood to see what “Tookie” and his Crip co-founder Raymond Lee Washington (who’s burning in Hell right now) have wrought for the last thirty-odd years. And I know that you won’t be choosing to live here anytime soon. That’s understandable; however, don’t tell me that we should coddle these TERRORISTS like “Tookie” and those he created if you don’t have to put up with them. (Okay, you can tell me, but you can expect a barely polite response and that’s if I’m feeling generous.)

Secondly—and this is especially for people like Jeremy: black people are thinking, functioning humans who, when adult and without some actual mental deficiency that they can’t control, are just as responsible for their actions as are members of any other race of people. We’re not murderers by nature (that is, any more than any other set of humans are). Therefore, we don’t need a separate, lower standard of behavior in any area, whether it’s education, employment or criminal justice.

When black people do well, they deserve recognition; when they do wrong, they deserve the consequences—no more or no less than any other. Certainly, there are instances in which black people are victims of racism. However, every instance in which a black person finds himself in a predicament where he will suffer the consequences for his actions does not stem from racism. In this century, I’d even say that most bad outcomes for black people don’t come from that social ill. Sometimes those outcomes are a product of the black person’s own sinful nature; sometimes it’s a product of that most insidious of sins: pride. Don’t forget that we all—black, white and all others—can fall victim to pride.

I submit that “Tookie” is very proud of his legacy. He just doesn’t want to die for it and--for the next few hours--is doing everything he can think of to keep from dying for it, with the help of those who are prone to believing the lies of psychopaths: the gullible, the ignorant and the stupid.

(Second-person back on.)

Jeremy, we—black people--are not children who need to be succored by you and your ilk, youngun, and we don’t need to be protected from men like your daddy (who’s likely paying a fortune for your demonstrably p*ss-poor education) or from our grown-up, functioning adult decisions, especially those decisions which land us on death row. We also don't need for anyone to listen to our sociopaths.

The affirmative action mindset seems to have extended to expectations of behavior for black people. Therefore, when impressionable minds like yours, young Jeremy, have the certain elements enter their conscious—prisoner, murder, death row—there is always that mandatory element—racism--that puts a black man there. It’s never the actions of that particular man that are the problem; at least not to a mind that is as brainwashed as yours seems to be.

Know that you’ve been deceived by a particular type of rhetoric; that type in which no black person is responsible for his/her actions, that type in which the white man is always the culprit. In its insidious and ingenious way, it’s the rhetoric of black inferiority.

You, Jeremy, believe that this heinous mass murderer—born Stanley Williams—isn’t as responsible as any white man who committed the same type of acts. Therefore, it’s the worst thing that you could do to come here and condescend to me as if you’re the go-to expert on all things Tookie, Crip and South Central or—most especially—race and California law.

In your way, you’re as racist as any white supremacist. They also believe that black people aren't as sentient as whites and others. However—to your credit—I believe that your racism is only an accident, a product of who-knows-what kind of half-explained propaganda. You’re trying to do good; your idea of good is simply warped.

Read, live, learn and—most of all—think before you comment and act on the things of life. After that, there will be fewer chances of you being slapped down like the ignorant child that you apparently are right now.

You may think that I’m being rather hard on you, Jeremy, but there are young men your age that are at this very moment experiencing tougher things than being slapped down by women who are the age of their mothers. That’s not a slam on you for not being in the military (it’s a choice), however the duty of all good citizens is to use the weapons with which God has inclined us to pick up. Sometimes those weapons are physical; in other instances, the weapons are cerebral. Which ever weapon that God has endowed you with, don’t waste your ammo as you did here. Live, learn---and then tell.

UPDATE: Darmon Thornton has also had much experience with "Tookie's" South Central LA. Read and understand how "Tookies" terrorists are the bane of upstanding black people; no less so than any Klansman.

UPDATE: David Anderson knows why also.

UPDATE: Thanks to all and sundry who have linked to this post. With my new job, I often have little time to post, so I pay more attention to the things that I *do* post. I put a lot of time and thought into this one (a couple of days). Though I didn't spell everything out as I probably should have, this one is from the heart. I didn't mean to hurt Jeremy or those like him; I simply meant to impart to him and others the facts of the type of life about which he probably knows nothing. People like Jeremy only know about the propaganda which they are fed at places like William and Mary. Some may deem my words to be propaganda also; however, the Jeremys of the world need to understand that there are (at least) two sides to every situation. They need to know about the side that experienced the actions of the "Tookies" of this world.

God bless and protect you, Jeremy. And may He open your eyes.

PREVIOUSLY:
Tookie Blogging

Richard Pryor

The funniest man who ever lived is gone.

Richard Pryor, the groundbreaking comedian whose profanely personal insights into race relations and modern life made him one of Hollywood's biggest black stars, died of a heart attack Saturday. He was 65.

Pryor died shortly before 8 a.m. after being taken to a hospital from his home in the San Fernando Valley, said his business manager, Karen Finch. He had been ill for years with multiple sclerosis, a degenerative disease of the nervous system.

"We loved him and will miss you," his ex-wife, Flynn Pryor, said from her Florida home.

It's not a surprise, due to his illness and to his use and abuse of various substances, but it still hurts. He was the first "blue" comedian I ever heard and, as I was just saying the other day, his comedy stands the test of time. Remember the 'monkey' routine? Remember 'Mudbone?' Remember him joking about the freebasing incident? Milk and cookies, indeed.

He was even funny on television, where he had to clean it up considerably. (He had his own series for a short time.)

As the former Mrs. Pryor said--he had a knack for keeping the love of his many ex-wives--I will love and miss that Crazy...man.

UPDATE: Roger L. Simon--who worked with The Great Pryor--pays tribute.

Would You Fall For This Line?

I wanted to ask the fox behind the counter at the coffee shop if she had ever dreamed about being plain, just for a day, to get some idea what it's like for normal girls.

Nah, me neither. Unless it was from a funny guy who, like me, is crazy enough to tangle with fellow commuters.

(From reader Malcolm K.)

It's Always Fun To Drive In LA

Notice: I *can* be petty. But unfortunately fortunately blessedly, I’m always under the conviction of you-know-Who.

Driving in LA is always an adventure and I had one of those just moments ago. One of the banes of driving here is that there is always someone who is in such a hurry that he/she feels the need to endanger others and I was subject to one of those types of drivers tonight. As often happens in these cases, I ended up passing him. But I couldn’t let it go at that. Here are my words as I passed him: “I still made it past you, Dipsh*t!”

The driver heard me and started to follow me. He pulled up beside me and began detailing a list of my perceived faults.

“You’re bald.” Geez, you think? “You’re ugly, but most of all, you’re stupid. There’s nothing that’s a worse problem than stupid black people.” (He was black, too.) Granted, calling him a “dipsh*t” within earshot was stupid, but I’m quite secure in my intellect, thanks, and I let him know that. He then wanted an inventory: where I went to school, etc. (I have veteran plates and a USAF banner in the back window.) He noted that he was driving a Lexus and that I was driving a Kia, took that to show that he was more successful than I and pulled off. I then followed him and took a photo of his plate to share with you, my good readers. Then he felt the need to start the conversation again, wanting to know why I took the photo.

“To post on my blog, of course.”

“Well, I’m going to take a photo, too,” he said, “And I will post it on my blog and entitle it as such: a stupid, ugly, bald black woman.” I smiled for the camera. (I tried to give him my name—spelled, of course—and my URL, but he had his ear buds in by then.)

It’s amazing the insults that people will throw at you when they perceive that those insults are your insecurities. Bald? Well, duh! And I had a haircut yesterday. (I’ll refrain from inferring any stupidity from that observant declaration.) And any short-haired, nappy-haired, dark-skinned black woman who hasn’t been called ugly at least a gazillion times in her life needs to get out of the house more often. And, while I have been in some straits in recent history, I’m also quite secure in my achievements in life. I’ve never been tried not to be the type to lord my blessings over others and I like my (new) job. (And my car is paid for.)

However, I know that I shouldn't have called the man a ‘dipsh*t.'

Man driving a light-cream colored Lexus with California license plates 5MXV639, I’m sorry that I called you a dipsh*t. Can we be friends? No, I don’t want a date; you’re not my type (and I’m obviously not yours), but one can never have too many friends nor too few enemies. You should drive more carefully and considerately, however. <--couldn't help it

By the way, in spite of his CIA aspersions cast upon Pajamas Media (my employer), I certainly hope that Tony Pierce wasn’t Mr. Lexus.

(Thanks to Marc Danziger, one of the classiest guys in the blogosphere)

AFTERTHOUGHT: If there are any LAPD/CHP/LA County Sheriff types reading this, don't hassle the guy; I started it (sort of). If you must stop him, give him my URL and point him to my apology (using his plate number).

UPDATE: Tony say that it "wasn't me." Another blessing. Additionally he notes that he never actually said that Pajamas Media was funded by the CIA. Noted and logged.

Marshal Law

Certain aspects of life apply themselves easily to mathematical principles. Let ‘A’ equal riding as a passenger on a major airline after 9/11 while suffering from a treatable mental condition. When one does this and adds both of the following conditions,

B. Not taking your meds when you know that you’re crazy without them
C. Not ensuring that your spouse takes his meds when you know that he’s crazy without them

then A+B+C can equal 'D': a dead passenger.

Federal air marshals fired on a passenger for the first time in U.S. history Wednesday and killed a Florida man who falsely claimed to have a bomb in his backpack shortly after boarding a jet in Miami, the Department of Homeland Security said.

Rigoberto Alpizar, a 44-year-old home-improvement store worker, bolted from a jet on the ground after he was confronted by two air marshals, then was shot on the jetway, said James Bauer, special agent in charge of the air marshals' Miami field office. No explosives were found on Alpizar's body or in his bag. [SNIP]

After the marshals told him to get on the ground, he turned and reached into his bag, prompting them to fire, Doyle said.

It’s a tragedy that this man is dead, but thank God for the Air Marshals; they don’t shoot to wound and they don’t take an interview beforehand with a prospective perp to see whether he/she is telling the truth when he/she says, “I have a bomb.” Wounded bombers can blow themselves and everyone around them to bits.

More from Pajamas Media, including at least one blogger who dubs the marshals “Federal Airport Nazis.” Hey, there's always one who doesn't get it.

As an aside, one wonders whether any bi-polar passengers of the tightly secure El Al Airlines ever forget their meds. It’s amazing what doesn’t happen when you know that you’ll get capped for acting crazy.

Weblog Awards

If you're so inclined, vote for me in the

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Bet you Democrats wish someone would muzzle your National Committee Chairman.

SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. [SNIP]

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

No, that’s not how it happened, but why bother fisking Mr. Yankee Yell?

With all of the hemming and hawing that Democrats like John Kerry are doing, it’s refreshing to hear a Democrat spokesmen come straight out and state unequivocally that The United States and its military should give up its mission and abandon the Iraqis. Governor Dean is quite brave in his own way (or crazy; often the same thing).

When are the rest of you going to admit that Mr. Dean is on message, that Senator Joseph Lieberman is the renegade and that the rest of the Democrat Congress critters simply don’t have the stones to take a definitive stand?

UPDATE:

Ma Deuce Gunner

The Jawa Report

Dr. Sanity (appropriately enough)

Ed Morrissey notes that Dr. Dean's word's recall those of that well-known yea/naysayer (mentioned above) from some thirty-odd years ago. Kerry does it again:

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs.

This man could have been our president. Ponder that.

Whose Canvas Is It Anyway?

A retired USMC colonel who is also a Democrat US representative from Pennsylvania paints a picture:

LATROBE, Pa. (AP) -- Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.

The members of the all-voluntary US Armed Forces as a set of duped victims scrounging for sustenance in the "wilds" of Iraq (and of Afghanistan); Colonel/Representative Murtha believes that this is who fights America’s wars right now and believes that this is how they are supported. That’s the image which Colonel Murtha and many members of his party seem to have fixed in their heads and wish for the public to visualize as well and accept as truth. But is it an accurate vision?

If Colonel Murtha is still beset by the idea of what the military was like during his own career, it’s no wonder he has such a low opinion of how the military takes care of its people and of the morale of its members. The bulk of Colonel Murtha’s career spanned the Vietnam years—the draft years--and their aftermath: the years in which unwilling draftees, drug addicts and small-time criminals feed a certain, deserved reputation of the military.

One of the reasons that most military members—even Democrats—revere the memory of Ronald Reagan is that when he became president, things began to dramatically change for the better. The aforementioned chaff was nearly totally weeded out and that particular president was able to tell military men and women what their mission was and was willing to back his words up with action: by giving those men and women the tools to accomplish that mission and by removing from their midst those who were unwilling to "lead, follow or get out of the way."

Regarding the eradication of drug addicts from the military: I was a young airman--only nine months in service and nine months after President Reagan became the Commander–in-Chief--when mandatory urinalysis was implemented and nearly all of the dope-heads were relieved from duty, busted down in rank and/or drummed out of the service. I saw units shut down (temporarily) rather than be operated with key positions manned by the dangerously impaired. Major John came in not long after I did and had a ring-side seat to the circus and to the transformation as well.

Ask any veteran who served between 1975-1982/3 what the Army (or the rest of the Armed Forces for that matter) were like. Drugs everywhere, low pay, morale was non-existent, equipment was falling behind or scarce, there was no great sense of mission or purpose. Only the heroic measures of a few dedicated officers and NCOs saved us from absolutely bottoming out. We needed the Reagan Era build up (hell, even Jimmy Carter, not the brightest or strongest to even stumble across the White House threshold, realized things had gone down too far, too fast, by the last two years of his miserable term in office) but almost as important, we got our elan back - we were told we mattered, we were the shield of liberty against Soviet totalitarianism.

When I hear Colonel Murtha talk about a broken down, rag-tag American military that can’t even manage to properly feed, clothe and equip its personnel, I wonder whether he’s talking about 2005 or 1975.

However, should we listen to the retired colonel (or even to me, the retired NCO) or should we listen to those who, like Major John, have recently been on the receiving end of a supply line in a war zone?

…I served in Operation Enduring Freedom V (Afghanistan, March 2004-March 2005). We stood at the end of the longest sustained supply line in the history of human conflict. We were in war-torn Central Asia. Af-frickin'-ghanistan. We had decent food, e-mail, phone (OK, sometimes they weren't always working, but almost all the time) excellent medical support, good pay, regular (if slow) mail. We had a PXs at most of the larger bases, and coffee places sprang up too. We had so damned much ammunition that we needed to build a bigger ammunition supply point at Bagram, AF. We had so many vehicles that we were constantly squabbling over where to put them all - and we had enough up-armored ones too. Our supply warehouses were stuffed with clothing, boots, body armor and the like. "Living hand to mouth" is the worst lie of the bunch.

Uncle Jimbo--posting at Blackfive--issues a call-to-arms, as it were, to getting the word out: the truth about the military, who its members are, how they live and what they believe about their superiors and about their mission.

Given the opportunity, the left/media would love to hang a loss or a tie on W and the whole idea of US military power. If they can create a loss in popular opinion they gain all of the casualties as martyrs to their belief that the employment of US power is fundamentally wrong. They already have pounded the meme that we are now handcuffed and unable to use military force against anyone else because we have exhausted the military and destroyed it's morale. That lie is put to rest as soon as these armchair pacifists are confronted by the swelling pride of those who have earned victory on the ground. They reenlist in record numbers and they come home to tell the truth about their good works, ignored by the defeatist press that owes the truth but delivers only the death and destruction. [SNIP]

Someone has to stand up and say BULLS**T!, and here we are. The rise of the milblogs is the best antidote to the poison spread by the left/media, but we have to raise up and make sure everyone hears. The troops will start coming home next year, not because we were forced to admit that not one more should die for a lost cause, but because we won. That message must dominate and we have an election cycle to do just that. The left/media will have a challenge to maintain this fiction of defeat as the troops enjoy parades all summer and when interviewed talk about the schools they built and the wells they dug. But they need our help, and that means everyone. Many readers here also write and every voice adds to the message, but we also must directly oppose those who oppose the truth. Newspapers, TV stations and all media must be taken to task for defeat-mongering and failure to show the positive.

Greyhawk’s brainchild, MilBlogs and Milblogging feauture hundreds of blogs authored by military personnel. Some are veterans like myself; however, the vast majority are active duty in Iraq right now. There are critics of the war among them—the idea that all members of the military would have the same opinion and subscribe to the same ideologies is laughable to anyone in the know—but I dare anyone to find some GI among them who has voiced a legitimate need and found it not addressed. Horse's mouth and all that.

As a bonus, watch FoxNews tonight. Of all the mainstream media outlets, FoxNews has lead the way in counteracting the defeatist image that certain (most) other Big Media outlets and some members of our legislative branch of government seem intent on inserting in the minds of the public. Tonight “Winning in Iraq: The Untold Story” will be broadcast at 6PM PST, featuring the “stars” of this drama, peace-loving Iraqi people themselves. Those who believe that FoxNews is hopelessly right-wing probably will skip it, but I challenge fair-minded people to take a look.

Should we believe the words of a retired military colonel, sixteen years out of his commission, who was one of the presiding officers of a military that was indeed “broken and worn out?” Or should we believe the present-day members of the strongest and most motivated armed forces in history who are reenlisting in droves (as of July 2005)?

Sgt. 1st Class Edwin Allbaugh, a member of the 75th Ordnance Company in Michigan, said he re-enlisted because his job makes a difference and "I work with a great group of guys." Allbaugh's unit, which disarms and destroys improvised bombs, is about to deploy to the Middle East.

1st Lt. Rusten D. Currie:

This war is indeed different. It is not Tripoli, or Luzon, it is not reminiscent of Foy, or Gettysburg, it is not Berlin, or Tokyo. It is towns that yet again we didn’t know existed before we got here. It is towns that we still can not easily pronounce. It is specs on the ground where history was born, it is a place where far too many of our young have grown old beyond their years. It is a place where far too many of us paid for freedom with blood. It is a place where my faith in God and humanity have been shattered. It is a place where my faith in God and humanity have been reaffirmed. It is a place where I come to grips with my own life, and the possibility of my end. Yet, despite it all and despite world opinion it is a place where I have found the faith to believe in something that I am willing to fight to the death to defend. To the agnostic, or the atheist here there is more at stake. To the agnostic and atheist this life is all there is, so to be willing to risk it all, to be willing to die for our way of life to me that is just huge. I really want to believe, and despite it all I falter. Yet despite it all I…we are holding the line, and more importantly we are crossing said line, and pushing back with all that we have, so that those of you at home don’t have to sleep with one eye open.

Choose wisely.

(Thanks to Protein Wisdom, to A Silent Cacophony and to The Belmont Club)

UPDATE: Mark Steyn:

If the reaction to Murtha's remarks by my military readers is anything to go by, he ought to be grateful they're still bogged down in Iraq and not in the congressional parking lot. [SNIP]

These sad hollow men may yet get their way -- which is to say they may succeed in persuading the American people that a remarkable victory in the Middle East is in fact a humiliating defeat. It would be an incredible achievement.

Linkage

Yes, I've been busy. Why do you ask?

Baggy-Pants Logic: Cobb, uncharacteristically, rants and rants good.

Ken Summers is ‘hawking’ a book.

It’s that most wonderful time of the year: the Army-Navy game.

A non-Christian contemplates the war on Christmas.

There’s an interesting conversation going on regarding the future of the Democrat party, the prominence of the Left therein, its manner of discourse and what it may mean to all of us here, here, here and here. Check all the links; you may have to backtrack.

Dan at Gay Patriot notices that John Kerry is somewhat fickle. Say it ain't so!

And Marc Danziger is conducting a polite discussion on the pros and cons of the original premises of the Iraq War and of 'staying the course.'

Citizenship Test

Ten out of ten, baby!

You Passed the US Citizenship Test

Congratulations - you got 10 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

(Thanks to Rashunda)