Talk? No, Laugh Instead!

I could talk about Bill Bennett, oil prices, the US Marine who went to work for Al-Jeezera, whether the indictment against Tom DeLay is just, what Judith Miller has to say, or any number of other political hot topics today. Instead we'll take Friday off and laugh a little. Enjoy this silly joke or two and have a great weekend!

The 9-11 Memorial Will Not House the Freedom Center!

Congratulations! Below is the nice news release thanking everyone for joining together to keep the IFC from the World Trade Center Memorial Site. Debra Burlingame somehow inspired "City Hall" to listen to the wishes of the majority of the people--not the least of which is the group of families of who lost members to the terrorist attacks on 9-11. God bless you, Debra, and your tenacity and sense of purpose. Hopefully we will now go forward with a fitting memorial honoring those who died on that ground without all the unrelated international world view politics taking center stage.
***
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact: Anthony Gardner
Coalition of 9/11 Families
amg@wtcufg.org
(973) 216-2623

Alliance of 15 Major 9/11 Family Groups Says: Thank You, Governor!

New York, N.Y.---September 29, 2005---The alliance of 15 major 9/11 family groups applauds the decision by Governor George E. Pataki to remove the International Freedom Center (IFC) from the World Trade Center Memorial site. Responding to concerns voiced by 9/11 families and New York City's first responders that the IFC would dilute and detract from the history of the 9/11 attacks and engage in controversial programming which would dishonor the victims on a site dedicated to their memory, the governor demanded that the IFC be moved elsewhere.

We are deeply grateful to Governor Pataki for taking this decisive action after the IFC issued its latest report on their plans for the center. We believe he did so after giving its organizers a fair opportunity to demonstrate that their institution would respectfully fulfill the memorial's mission.

We also appreciate the important bi-partisan support of Senator Hillary Clinton, Congressmen Peter King, Vito Fossella and John Sweeney, as well as the support of the UFA, FASNY, UFOA, PBA, Rudy Giuliani and others who all understood that this memorial belongs to all Americans, and that we have a public trust to future generations who will come to this site hoping to pay their respects and learn the important story of that day, a day of heartbreaking loss, uncommon valor and the coming together of a nation.

We look forward to their continued support as we pursue our common goal of ensuring that from the ashes of the World Trade Center site rises a 9/11 Memorial and Museum on a Memorial site dedicated solely to the stories of September 11, 2001 and February 26, 1993 and their aftermath with enough space to accommodate visitors safely and tell the story fully. As the future of the Memorial site is honed, the tactic of portraying the 9/11 families as divided must end. The goal is clear. The mission joined by the majority. We sincerely hope that the LMDC and the WTC Memorial Foundation will not ignore these voices as we attempt to resolve the outstanding issues in unity.

We and the tens of thousands of supporters who fought for this memorial did so, not because we wish to turn these few acres in Lower Manhattan into a cemetery or convert the site into one of enduring sadness. We did so because of our unshakable belief that this is Sacred Ground, that the truth should be told there, and that the core values of our nation will be amply demonstrated by the lives remembered, the deeds done and the spirit reawakened.

##

Advocates for 9/11 Fallen Heroes (rjtallon@cs.com, jalel31@hotmail.com, l59e85@aol.com)
Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund (www.cantorrelief.org)
Coalition of 9/11 Families (www.coalitionof911families.org)
Fix the Fund (www.fixthefund.org)
Give Your Voice (www.giveyourvoice.com)
Margie Miller 9/11 Support Group (WTCFamilyCenter@aol.com)
9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America (www.911familiesforamerica.org)
9/11 Families for a Secure America (www.911fsa.org)
Skyscraper Safety Campaign (www.skyscrapersafety.org)
September 11th Families Association (www.911wvfa.org)
September's Mission Foundation (www.septembersmission.org)
Voices of September 11th (www.voicesofsept11.org)
W. Doyle 9/11 Support Group (www.joeydoyle.com)
WTC Families for Proper Burial, Inc. (www.wtcfamiliesforproperburial.com)
World Trade Center United Family Group (www.wtcufg.org)

Citizenship Needs Consent Component

Citizenship and the lack of the public's understanding of its meaning has been a frustration for me for some time now. We no longer teach citizenship in our schools. We teach sex education to promiscuous youngsters, but we stopped talking about what constitutes being a good citizen. Then we wonder why our citizens feel no sense of responsibility to each other. We've dropped lots of important information from our teachings to our students: no more citizenship, no more courtesy, no more manners, no more respect for ourselves, our institutions. If we prioritize these things, perhaps students would grow up understanding that citzenship bears responsibility, requires consent of the citizen to be affiliated with our country, has duties attached to it, and that freedom has a cost. We have to lead our youth, giving them the tools they need to go into adulthood honorably, seeking personal goals and success. We also have to advise our courts that we do not afford the rights of citizenship to foreign criminals who happen to be captured while taking up arms against us.

Photo Source: www.claremont.org/ about/staff/eastman.html

****
Eastman to Testify Before Congress on Citizenship

Professor John Eastman, Executive Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, has been invited to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Control, and Claims, at 2:00 p.m. in the House Rayburn Office Building on Thursday, September 29. Dr. Eastman will discuss in particular the meaning of United States citizenship, and will argue that a persistent misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause has led to tragic consequences never contemplated by the framers of the amendment. The hearing on "Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty" will also be webcast.

The Framers of both our Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment understood citizenship to be grounded in the principle of consent. The significance of consent derives from the proposition that "all men are created equal," which requires that no one may be ruled without their consent. This revolutionary concept ennobled the meaning of citizenship by rejecting decisively the prior concept of "subjectship," by which anyone born within the geographical rule of the British king would remain his subject forever. The meaning of citizenship which is connected instead to reason and free choice stands at the center of what distinguishes the American experiment from other nations which are founded upon little else but "accident and force." Sadly, we have forgotten the meaning and significance of citizenship in recent decades, just as we have forgotten the meaning of our social compact designed to effect certain, limited, goals. Recent policies which define citizenship as flowing merely from birth upon American soil harkens back to those older times, depreciating what makes America most unique.

The Citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment defines as a citizen "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The clause contains two components that bear equally on citizenship qualifications: one must not only be born geographically in the United States, but also politically subject to the government of the United States. The critical act of consent which distinguishes citizens from subjects is missing from our current, partial, reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The practical significance of this misreading includes the automatic granting of citizenship to the children of those who have entered the country illegally rather than respecting the laws passed by Congress which govern immigration and naturalization. Another recent, egregious misapplication of the Citizenship clause afforded Yasir Esam Hamdi, a Taliban fighter born of Saudi parents while visiting the United States, full "due process rights" as a citizen of the United States of America. Hamdi never consented to affiliate with or bear allegiance to this country, its governing principles, or its laws. He was in fact captured on the battlefield while bearing arms against American troops. That an enemy of the United States could claim protection of the very laws and processes against which he fought is but one example of the bizarre definition of citizenship which has received sanction by recent jurisprudence of our courts.

The current practice of automatically recognizing as a citizen anyone who happened to be born on American soil comports with neither the text nor the history of the Citizenship clause, nor with the most basic political theory which it was meant to restore. It is time to again recognize the significance of jurisdiction and of consent, and with these the full meaning of American citizenship and our social compact.

This article is archived at http://www.claremont.org/writings/precepts/050928.html.

Phil Donahue vs Bill O'Reilly

The debate between Phil Donahue and Bill O'Reilly was a hot one. Phil Donahue looked and sounded like he was trying too hard to debate on an issue about which he had too few facts. His comments were personally denigrating to O'Reilly (calling him "Billy" in a derogatory tone) to try to get the advantage over him, mistating facts about the war, dealing almost exclusively in the all too familiar far left rhetoric, or throwing out dramatic emotional arguments in support of the case for our troops leaving Iraq NOW. "We're going to pull out anyway, Billy," Donahue said, equating projections that the Iraqis will be better able to protect themselves and police themselves wih the support of fewer Americans at a future date to simply cutting and running. Point O'Reilly.

O'Reilly was pretty good, standing his ground, until he caved and said that he doesn't embrace the war after being pressed on the point by Donahue. Point Donahue. Mostly Donahue echoed emotional lefty cries that O'Reilly wants to see more men and boys--they're men when they want to get abortions for their girlfriends, or want to get birth control from their school without their parents' knowledge--but boys when they're "getting arms and legs blown off in war." He doesn't even see what a circus he and his seditious friends create in the face of a genuine terrorist crisis.

Loved it when Donahue did the unthinkable for a professional interviewer (not knowing the answer before asking the question) by lashing out at O'Reilly for not being able to feel sympathy and understanding for parents of our military personnel because he doesn't have anything to lose--he has no son who would be going into battle. O'Reilly just about took Donahue apart at that point because, unknown to Donahue, O'Reilly's nephew just enlisted and went (or is going) into the war zone. He accused Donahue of denigrating his nephew's courage and his patriotism--which Donahue certainly had--and said he would throw him off the set if he didn't retract his statement about the nephew. Donahue stumbled majorly, humma humma humma, and was at a loss for words. Two Points O'Reilly.

They both missed the point.

If we, the USA, don't stand up to these terrorists, there is no one else who will. No one else who is capable. We are not France or Holland. We can't hide away letting someone else be our gatekeeper of freedom. There are too many other countries depending on us to stop these despots before the despots, and their brand of Islamic radicalism, take over the passive "nice" world and have their evil way with the rest of us. These "doves" are too much in denial to realize that the day that happens (and the terrorists promise you in writing and by video time and time again that this is their goal), they (the lefty doves) too will no longer have the ability to criticize their government the way they have become used to doing. That they can't see this astounds me.

If they should criticize the government in the new wacky Iraqi world, they will most likely end up in mass graves, shot and tortured just like those who didn't or couldn't get on board with Saddam and his gang.

We need the biggest stick possible to set these radicals on their heels. We need to be considered the undisputed leader of the world and it has to be known that we have the most fire power out there of any country in the world. Anything less makes us a likely target to the radicals.

Your children and grandchildren, should they survive the torture and rape and other atrocities the radicals will hand out to Americans, Christians, and their sympathizers, they--your children and grandchildren--will live like the third world nation you've seen in Iraq every day on the news since this war began. This is exactly what your enemies have told you they will do when they conquer you and your decadent family--correction--you and your decadent weakling family. If you think you can conquer these barbarians, the ones who have never not been aggressors, by modeling niceness, or American "Golden Rule" values, you are delusional and, well, not quite sane.
***
Photo sources:
Donahue-- http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/25/
donahue.ap/story.vert.donahue.ap.jpg
O'Reilly--http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/10/14/
billoreilly_narrowweb__200x181.jpg

Day Is Done, Gone The Sun

There seems to be a slight difference of opinion about the exact origination of TAPS. I recently received the version below from a friend. I, naturally, wanted to check out the veracity of the following story so I googled TAPS. I found a similar story involving different personnel including Union General Daniel Butterfield, a famous Civil War General. I am including a link to the Butterfield version of the story because it comes with a modicom of back-up. There are also more verses in the West Point link. The story below is a good read, too. Either way, it's still a very solemn and moving piece of music.
***

We in the United States have all heard the haunting song, "Taps". It's the song that gives us that lump in our throats and
usually tears in our eyes.

But, do you know the story behind the song? If not, I think you will be interested to find out about its humble beginnings.
Reportedly, it all began in 1862 during the Civil War, when Union Army Captain Robert Ellicombe was with his men near Harrison's Landing in Virginia. The Confederate Army was on the other side of the narrow strip of land.

During the night, Captain Ellicombe heard the moans of a soldier who lay severely wounded on the field. Not knowing if it was a Union or Confederate soldier, the Captain decided to risk his life and bring the stricken man back for medical attention. Crawling on his stomach through the gunfire, the Captain reached the stricken soldier and began pulling him toward his encampment.

When the Captain finally reached his own lines, he discovered it was actually a Confederate soldier, but the soldier was dead.

The Captain lit a lantern and suddenly caught his breath and went numb with shock. In the dim light, he saw the face of the soldier. It was his own son. The boy had been studying music in the South when the war broke out. Without telling his father, the boy enlisted in the Confederate Army.

The following morning, heartbroken, the father asked permission of his superiors to give his son a full military burial, despite his enemy status. His request was only partially granted. The Captain had asked if he could have a group of Army band members play a funeral dirge for his son at the funeral.

The request was turned down since the soldier was a Confederate. But, out of respect for the father, they did say they could give him only one musician.

The Captain chose a bugler. He asked the bugler to play a series of musical notes he had found on a piece of paper in the pocket of the dead youth's uniform. This wish was granted. The haunting melody, we now know as "Taps" ... used at military funerals was born.

The words are :

Day is done..
Gone the sun.
From the lakes.
From the hills.
From the sky.
All is well.
Safely rest.
God is nigh.

Fading light.
Dims the sight.
And a star.
Gems the sky.
Gleaming bright.
From afar.
Drawing nigh.

Falls the night.
Thanks and praise.
For our days.
Neath the sun.
Neath the stars.
Neath the sky.
As we go.
This we know.
God is nigh.

Remember Those Lost and Harmed While Serving Their Country. And also those presently serving in the Armed Forces...

Photo Credit: www.civilwarphotos.net/ files/usos.htm

Car Wash To Send Marines to Ball Before Iraq

Photo Credit: This photo is one I lifted from a Google image search. It appears it is, "of Sarah and me talking to the guest of honor, Lieutenant General Klemp. Melissa, Patrick's date, is in the background to the left," at the 99 Ball. I hope they won't mind that I've added them to this blog. Photo is out there at http://www.austinandalyssa.com/austin/personal/adventures/ball99.html. Two degress of separation from copyright infringement on the story--one degree on the photo, I guess. But I did give credit where due and this is such a good cause, I hope neither party will mind. There's nothing for me to gain and I HAD to share the story because all the guys from the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines HAVE to get to the ball in Vegas.

The Battalion has been washing cars on the weekend (and are doing so again at the Jiffy Lube on La Paz in Mission Viejo today) and providing security at Chargers games to get $ into the kitty. So if you live near Mission Viejo, go on over and get your car washed for a good cause.

If you want to help, but live elsewhere, send your donation to Sgt Major Jordan, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, Box 555473, Camp Pendleton, California 92055. You can participate in a sort of "virtual" car wash.

The Battalion, which served in Ramadi last year, is returning to Iraq in December.

Hugh Hewitt's campainging to help because he believes the really kind folks out there in cyperspace should be able to raise enough money through virtual carwashes to get the troops some of their Saturdays back between then and now and still get them to the MGM Grand. Hope you love the idea as much as I do--enough to chip in.

"From Hugh Hewitt's blog"
From a Southern California newspaper, the Irvine World News, (which I hope won't sue me for copyright infringement, but I can't find a link and I want folks to read this, because I think we can raise money for the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines Marine Corps Birthday Ball rather than have the fine men of this Battalion washing cars on their day off:

A birthday to remember Marines raising money for a celebration before shipping out again.
BY NAOMI ULICI IRVINE WORLD NEWS

This year’s Marine Corps Ball will be much better than last year’s, according to members of the 2nd Battalion 5th Marines. Last November, the men were in combat in Iraq.

This year, they plan to celebrate the Marine Corps’ birthday with an all-out gala at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.
The Marines washed more than 100 cars near the Spectrum Center on Saturday (9-17-05) to raise money for the celebration.

“The ball is pretty important for most of the guys. It’s a birthday celebration. The Marines turn 232 years old this year,” Hays said. It’s also one last hurrah before the men leave for Iraq in December, he said.

Stationed at Camp Pendleton, the Marines are in the middle of urban combat training in preparation for the deployment.
In addition to washing cars, they’re providing security for San Diego Chargers football games to help foot the bill for the ball. The money they raise will be used to rent a luxury bus to take them to Las Vegas and for special medallions inscribed with their unit’s name.

“We want to defer the cost for some of the younger Marines,” said Matthew Hays, a staff sergeant. Tickets to the dinner ceremony alone cost $60 each and they plan on paying for a room to raffle off to one lucky Marine.
The community seems to want to help, Hays said. Most of those lined up to get a car wash didn’t really need one, he pointed out, but were using it as an excuse to donate.

Joe Felder of Lake Forest noticed the car wash while on a bike ride earlier that morning. He returned with his car.

“I’ve had a lot of friends in the military. I appreciate the troops,” he said.

So far, the Marines had no negative feedback from people questioning the legitimacy of the war.

“After what I saw over there, you can protest all you want, and you can call me anything you want, but I’m going to defend your right to do that,” Hays said.

Source:

Hugo Chavez "The Killer"--In Case You Missed It

NewsMax, Thursday, Sept. 15, 2005 12:52 a.m. EDT
Hugo Chavez 'The Killer'

Media in the U.S. were quick to report on – and loudly criticize – Pat Robertson’s call for America to neutralize Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Why, then, have they remained silent about a recent conference in Venezuela where delegates called for the death of President Bush, asks Thor Halvorssen, president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation?

The Chavez government expressed outrage over Robertson’s remarks and has accused the U.S. of plotting to assassinate him.

But in an opinion piece headlined "Chavez the Killer,” Halvorssen points out that Chavez himself twice tried to kill a head of state – the president of Venezuela...

...Now Chavez’s government is calling for the death of President Bush.

The 16th World Youth and Students Festival – a "communist gathering,” notes Halvorssen – was held in August in Venezuela and funded by the Chavez government.

The festival included an "international tribunal” presided over by Venezuela’s Vice President Jose Vincente Rangel, during which Chavez "testified” that George Bush was the cause of the world’s terrorism.

Delegates were seen on film chanting "Death to America” and holding signs that read, "Death to Bush.”

Writes Halvorssen: "How can the Venezuelan government justify condemning Robertson when it spends millions of dollars hosting a conference that promotes violence, hate and assassination? And why does the U.S. media, which blitzed Robertson, give Chavez a free pass?

Now there's a couple of fine questions, if you ask me.

***

Article Source Link below
Picture Source Link: http://havanajournal.com/images/uploads/chavez_castro.jpg

Democrats 6 - Republicans 3

For those of you who need to brush up on the US Presidents at our helm at the time we declared our major wars, here you go:

*Democratic Republican John Quincy Adams, War of 1812;
Democrat James Polk entered the Mexican War in 1848;
Republican Abraham Lincoln, Civil War 1861-65;
Republican William McKinley Spanish American War in 1898;
Democrat Woodrow Wilson, World War I in 1917;
Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, World War II, 1939-1945;
Democrat Harry S Truman, Korean War, 1951
Democrat J F Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson (depending on your definition of entering the war), Vietnam 1960s;
Republican George Bush, Gulf War I, 1991;
****
Score: Democrats 6; Republicans 3

***
*Democratic-Republican Party--Definition: One of the first two American political parties, together with the Federalist Party. Founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Those two and James Monroe were the only Democratic-Republican presidents. Party disbanded in the 1820s, splintering into two factions, the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. Members of the Democratic-Republican Party believed that a strong federal government would weaken and not respect the rights of the states and the people.--Source: http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/wwww/us/demorepubpartydef.htm

Related Resources:
Sources: (1) American History revised and updated, c 1999, updated 2005, General Ed., Rana K Williamson, PhD, Parragon Publishing, Queen St House, 4 Queen Street Bath BA1,1 HE, UK (2)http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm (3)http://www.presidentsusa.net/partyofpresidents.html

Rasmussen Poll Shows Pres Bush Favorable Ratings At 46%

Interestingly the polls you read or saw on television about President Bush's approval rating dipping below 40% today were probably taken of people who don't vote, are registered Democrats in greater numbers than Republicans, or were the ones not weeded out because they have the "right," I mean "left," demographics, said (more or less) Matt Margolis today in his blog.

To understand a poll, you have to know a few facts: who took it, why they took it, who paid for the poll, who they sampled, and it wouldn't hurt to see the questions they used and the demographics of those who were polled, either. You can't know what information you are looking at if you do not have at least this much information.

Polls are generally taken by someone with something to prove to one public or another. Random scientific polls identify themselves as such. Here's the Rassmussen Poll results.

"Monday September 12, 2005--Forty-six percent (46%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans now give the President their Approval. That positive assessment is shared by 19% of Democrats and 36% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Americans believe the world would be a better place if other countries were more like the United States. That figure reflects a significant decline from previous years.

On the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, most Americans believe their nation was changed for the worse by those attacks. Four years ago, most Americans held the opposite view.

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, consumer confidence fell to its lowest level in more than two years. It has recovered somewhat, but remains well below month ago levels...."

"...Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Americans agree with the President on the importance of succeeding in Iraq. However, just 48% believe success is likely.

During 2004, reports on the President Job Approval were based upon surveys of Likely Voters. Typically, a survey of Likely Voters would report a Job Approval rating 2-3 points higher than a survey of all adults.

On Election Day, the President's Job Approval was at 52%. During all of 2004, the President's Job Approval ranged from a high of 57% in early January to a low of 48% on May 17.

The President's highest rating of 2005 was 54% on February 4."

Matt Margolis in his blog, September 12: Early this morning I heard on Fox News about the latest AP-Ipsos poll on the President's approval ratings... According to the poll, only 39% of Americans approve of the Presidents job performance... The first time Bush's approval dipped below 40%...

But, if you look at the internals of this poll, you'll see why...

Half the respondents were asked party identification in this location, the other half were asked at the end of the survey with the other demographic questions. Results for the respondents who were asked the question early were 41% Republican, 45% Democrat. For the respondents asked later in the survey, the results were 42% Republican, 51% Democrat.
Severe oversampling of Democrats... Also, only 76% of respondents were registered voters.

It seems clear that a poll like this was meant to convey the impression that Bush lost support for his handling of Hurricane Katrina.

If you are one of those who think President Bush's approval rating has taken a dive, take a guess at whether or not you think his numbers have dropped since he was elected.

If you'll look at the scientific Gallup Poll taken back then (October 29-31, 2004) showing who would vote for John Kerry and who would vote for George Bush at election time last year, you'll probably be surprised. If you go to the Gallup Poll on the USA Today site and toggle between "Registered and Likely" voters, you'll see there is virtually no difference today in the poll ratings of our President. If you look further, you'll see lots of other ways to spin even that poll.

President Bush was at either 46% or 48% then (one was registered voters and the other likely voters) and he is at 46% today. I'd venture to say that it's the same split then as now. I think few Kerry fans have changed their minds. I think few fans of the President have either.

So why is it people pay for these polls, anyway?

Sources: Rassmussen Polls - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
Gallup Poll - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm
Blogs For Bush - http://www.blogsforbush.com/ - September 12, 2005 Current page
WLU - http://journalism.wlu.edu/J203/polls.htm

Spontaneous Acts of Kindness For Our Men and Women in Uniform--Follow Up #1

Checking Blogs for Bush today and found some comments from others who have joined the spontaneous-acts-of-kindness-for-our-military campaign--or who were already engaged in similar kind acts for our brave and beloved military volunteers. I happened across the entries accidentally (they are about half way down the page) and it really made my day!!!

Just goes to prove the point: There are many, many fantastic citizens all around this, the greatest Country on God's green Earth!

Pass it forward....al Qaida cannot beat this spirit with hate and vilification of all we hold dear! If this is the first time you've heard of the campaign, click here to see what it's all about.

***

"People will forget what you say, they'll forget what you do, but they'll never forget how you made them feel...." --Author Unknown

***
BTW--Did anyone else watch with amazement the day-long video of the Coast Guard search and rescue teams in New Orleans and Mississippi? One orange-clad Coast Guard rescuer, I believe it was Rady seen in picture below, seemed to be peering into bushes and trees and upper floors of flooded homes all day long - all the while dangling on the end of rope hanging out of the helicopter. When he would spot a person in distress, down would come the basket, the rescue would take place, and off they'd go again. The teamwork between pilot and rescuer at the end of the rope was phenomenal! I just gained even more respect for our Coast Guard watching them in action.

Coast Guard Petty Officer 2nd Class Scott D. Rady, 34, of Tampa, Fla., pulls a pregnant woman from her flooded New Orleans home here today. Rady is a rescue swimmer sent from Clearwater, Fla., to help aid in search and rescue efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

***

Petty Officer 1st Class Steven Huerta hoists two children into a Coast Guard rescue helicopter Aug 29, 2005. The Coast Guard has begun damage assessment overflights as well as search and rescue operations following Hurricane Katrina. Huerta, 34, of Tampa, Fla., is an aviation maintenance technician stationed at Coast Guard Aviation Training Center Mobile, Ala.

Source: Coast Guard Storm Watch Website.

Scott Rady Photo Credit: U.S. Coast Guard photograph by Petty Officer 2nd Class NyxoLyno Cangemi
Steven Huerta Photo Credit: U.S. Coast Guard photograph by Petty Officer 2nd Class Kyle Niemi

Al Qaida Plan: Islamic World in 15 Years! Sleep Well, Y'All!

Have you seen this man? If so, you could earn yourself 5 million dollars. Seif al-Adl is not only wanted by the FBI but is also one of Hussein's main sources in the book.

*****

Reported by NewsMax today, Al Qaida's leaders have revealed their plan to take over the world 15 years from now--in 2020. Lest you scoff at this as an outrageous bashing of the Islamic religion, you should think about how easy we are making it for the terrorist organization Al Qaida to insinuate itself into a "world view culture" in this and other countries around the globe.

What did you personally know about Al-Qaida on September 11, 2001 - the day the USA was attacked in the twin towers in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, DC and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania by 19 of the organization's most despicable homicidal maniacs--the ones who flew planes into 3 buildings (taking the lives of thousands of innocents with them) and the ones who attempted to fly into even more US buildings than they actually were able. (Evidence: the plane that went down in suburban Pennsylvania --thanks to of the bravery of the passengers who saved the terrorists from hitting the plane's intended target.) How much more do you know about al Qaida today--only 4 years later? See Stage 2 in their plan below. Are they on schedule? (Mental head slap!)

Well, this is not an indictment by an American or a Britisher. These are their own words quoted in a book authored by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein. See for yourself. This is the complete article. Or you can click through to The Age yourself. Or you can visit Der Spiegel to read journalist Yassin Musharbash's take on the idea first hand. "If there is anyone who might possibly have an inkling as to what al-Qaida are up to, it is the Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein. He has not only spent time in prison with al-Zarqawi, but has also managed make contact with many of the network's leaders. Based on correspondence with these sources, he has now brought out a book detailing the organization's master plan.

This is copied from NewsMax Headlines emailed to me today.

Al-Qaida Plan: Islamic World in 15 Years

Al-Qaida has a master plan to take over the world and turn it into an Islamic state - by the year 2020.

Wishful thinking? Not in the minds of the top terrorist lieutenants interviewed by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein for a new book - including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, mastermind of many atrocities in Iraq.

The plan, which is revealed for the first time in the Australian publication The Age, has seven phases:

Phase 1: The "awakening" in the consciousness of Muslims around the world following the 9/11 attacks, which were aimed at provoking the U.S. into declaring war on the Islamic world and mobilizing Islamic radicals.

Phase 2: "Opening eyes," the current period, which should last until 2006. Hussein said the terrorists hope to make the "Western conspiracy" aware of the "Islamic community" as al-Qaida continues to form its secret battalions.

Phase 3: "Arising and standing up," which should last until 2010 and bring increasingly frequent attacks against secular Turkey and archenemy Israel.

Phase 4: Lasting until 2013, this phase will see the fall of hated Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Oil suppliers will be attacked and the U.S. economy will be targeted with cyber terrorism.

Phase 5: An Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared between 2013 and 2016.

Phase 6: "Total confrontation," beginning in 2016, will see the Islamic army begin the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" that has been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

Phase 7: "Definitive victory."

Hussein writes that this phase should be completed by 2020, and that the terrorists believe the caliphate will prove victorious because the rest of the world will be beaten down by an army of "one and a half billion Muslims."

***
Homework Section: Terrorists are using our systems to infiltrate and overtake us. Patience is their best weapon . Our desire to not believe this is true is their greatest tool.

Don't believe me. Read Resa LaRue Kirkland's first-hand interview with a Muslim friend of hers. You can find Welcome to the Family You Stupid Americans in my Links and Essentials at the right or by clicking here. And you can read the accounting of this book by Australian news provider, The Age or Der Spiegel. There are more accountings out there and more will probably be added as this inflammatory revelation gains notoriety.

Which will it be? Warm milk and cookies to help you sleep well? Or would you prefer a shovel so you can dig a hole in the sand where you can easily stick your head? Your choice, you can have either.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES KEEP FOOD FROM 'CANE VICTIMS

Where are the mainstream media reporters on the story that Major Garrett broke on the Hugh Hewitt Show a couple of days ago? Local authorities kept both the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army away from the hurricane dome and away from providing meals to those who were housed there in a "refuge of last resort" during and after Hurricane Katrina according to the officials of both organizations in the initial transcript and the transcript of the update from the show.

The most interesting question Hugh Hewitt raised was, "So where is the MSM coverage" on this most important news story about the handling of the hurricane?

Some believe that if the story appeared on Fox News first (and American Red Cross Director admitted the Major Garrett story was true on Bill O'Reilly's The Factor first), the MSM will not carry it out of, well, spite. They just can't bring themselves to quote a Fox News source in a MSM news story because they are jealous that Fox is killing the MSM in the ratings game. They'd rather miss the explosive revelation than credit FNS. Nah, they're not political--they'll go get that BIG story for us ....! And then they'll sit on it!

Powerline Blog's commentary brings some clarity to the reason why blame aimed at the Feds is hard for them to deflect while still maintaining an "in charge" demeanor. Michael Chertoff (Director of Homeland Security) is quoted saying, "I think when we go back and look at it lot of things worked well and some things didn't work well," he said.

Powerline says, "That simply isn't good enough. I understand the administration's problem: it's hard to mount a defense without pointing out the scandalous performance of the state and local authorities who were responsible for emergency preparation and for the initial response to the hurricane. But if the administration thinks it can ride out the current news cycle as it has passively ridden out so many news cycles in the past, it's crazy."

I disagree. I think people in the USA, at least, can add 1 + 1 and come up with 2. The so-called journalism of the MSM (main stream media) out there today can't keep the truth under wraps. We get it. And we're tellin'.

***
The British nation is unique in this respect. They are the only people who like to be told how bad things are, who like to be told the worst.
--Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, June 10, 1941, British politician (1874 - 1965)

***
High School Homework Section (in case you missed it): I remember studying the ramifications of "Yellow Journalism" in history class in high school. The condition was much maligned as were the characters accused of the despicable practice. These books were found in history classes in high schools in this country. When did a change occur that affected the ethics of those who call themselves journalists today? and when did we change the content of our high school history books? and why did we make those changes? There's a bit of an explanation in paragraph 6 below where the difference between News and Journalism is tackled. It should make you think critically about what you hear, read, and see in the MSM.

From Wikipeida.com

Yellow journalism is a term given to any widespread tendencies or practices within media organizations which are detrimental to, or substandard from the point of view of, journalistic integrity. "Yellow journalism" may for example refer to sensationalized news reporting that bears only a superficial resemblance to journalism. Journalistic professionalism, as now understood, is the supposed antidote. Instead of "yellow journalism", media bias is commonly used.

The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting. Most cases tend to be related to journalistic bias, and the endemic practices of particular organizations to operate as mouthpieces, for rather limited and particular allegiances, rather than for the public trust.

There is a very long history. Recent accusations of yellow journalism center around media infotainment and corporate media, referring to organizations where business interests supersede the interests of news organizations to accurately report damaging facts about influential corporations and common practices within corporate industry. In certain cases, the links between political, business, and media worlds, are alleged to violate various laws ranging from fraud to antitrust.
In the modern context of near-instant television news coverage, a perceived careless lack of fact-checking for the sake of a breaking news story might be refered to as 'yellow journalism'. Aspects of yellow journalism can vary at the minimum from the sporadic use of unnecessarily colorful adjectives, up to a systematic tendency to report falsehoods as fact.

The term has largely fallen into disuse as the media world has grown both in scope and in complexity. Further, because most media outlets have cultural allegiances or business practices which to one degree or other force them to deviate from idealized concepts of reporting, accusations of "yellow journalism" tend to be few.

Print journalists have tended towards building a career reputation of consistent and thorough professionalism, to gain respect and prominence. News anchors, for example, may be chosen not for their skills at journalism, but rather for their presentation, appearance, and personality.

A current perceived rift is therefore more akin to a segmentation according to definitions of "news". The public still attaches to "news" the connotations of "journalism". Because of these developments, the common definition of "news" no longer belongs in the domain of journalists, but to wider television and internet media outlets over a vast spectrum of target issues and audiences. The proliferation of web media has in a certain sense re-validated journalistic ethics: reports that conform best tend to be treated as more authoritative. "Pseudo-news" organizations draw general audiences, who tend fall into market demographics that each favor particular blends of issues-based entertainment along with their "news".
Reputation and ethics do not necessarily coincide at all times. Well-established institutions such as the New York Times can be at fault. Many journalists find conflicts between their employment and their professionalism as journalists.

The Yellow press
The sensationalized human-interest stories of the yellow press increased circulation and readership heavily throughout the 19th century, especially in the United States. Early practitioners, such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, seem to have equated the sensational reporting of murders, gory accidents, and the like, with the need of the democratic common man to be entertained by subjects beyond dry politics. Two early yellow newspapers were Pulitzer's New York World and Hearst's New York Journal American.

The term derived from the color comic strip character The Yellow Kid, who appeared in both these papers. (See also symbolism of yellow)

Hearst
While most early newspapers tended toward expressing a viewpoint, the prototypical example of yellow journalism was the late 19th century Hearst Newspapers' consistent and deliberate falsification of whole incidents, claiming a humanitarian crisis among Cubans at the hands of Spanish troops. Hearst had personally written or directed the production of a number of sensational stories that exaggerated the claims of Spanish cruelty toward their Cuban subjects. The stories, combining both a sense of urgency and moral outrage, were wildly popular, and Hearst directed his papers to market and exploit this trend to the fullest.

Having been successful not only in convincing the public for the cause for war, Hearst had managed to sway the political vote as well. This reporting sparked a public outcry that led to the Spanish-American War, wherin American intervention proved to be disastrous. Americans would soon find themselves occupying both Cuba and the Philippines, and Hearst found himself courted by politicians seeking his powers of influence.

Sound familiar?

***

Sources: www.radioblogger.com/#000967
www.radioblogger.com/#000970
www.wikipedia.com--Yellow Journalism
www.powerlineblog.com/archives/011560.php
Fox News Channel, The Factor with Bill O'Reilly

75%+ of Insurgents Foreigners

75% of so-called insurgents in Iraq are foreigners, according to the crawl on Fox News this morning.

That's the conservative estimate as evidenced by a report by Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit on MSNBC today:

An NBC News analysis of hundreds of foreign fighters who died in Iraq over the last two years reveals that a majority came from the same country as most of the 9/11 hijackers — Saudi Arabia.

Among the suicide bombers was Ahmed al-Ghamdi, a one-time medical student and son of a Saudi diplomat. In December 2004, he climbed into a truck in Mosul and blew himself up.

On an Internet video, another Saudi says goodbye to his mother, then drives an ambulance full of explosives into a building.

They are among more than 400 militants from 21 countries whose deaths were celebrated on Islamic Web sites over the last two years.

"By far the nationality that comes up over and over again is Saudi Arabia," says Evan Kohlmann, an NBC News terrorism expert. 

The NBC News analysis of Web site postings found that 55 percent of foreign insurgents came from Saudi Arabia, 13 percent from Syria, 9 percent from North Africa and 3 percent from Europe.

That adds up to: 55% + 13% + 9% + 3% = 80% by my count. Note that this information is not from a Bush supporter.

As I've written back in June, the term insurgent is not quite accurate. It refers to people rising up from within a population, not to those who enter another country to fight that country's citizens and allies on behalf of their own agenda. These so-called insurgents should be recognized as the invaders of Iraq that they are.

They are attempting to take over the land and government in Iraq in order to make a home base for their terrorist community to grow. These same extremist Muslims accuse the USA and its allies of trying to invade Iraq.

Our forces want to come home to resume their lives. Our government wants them to do just that, too. Just as soon as the Iraqis can govern themselves, police themselves and defend themselves from the terrorist forces that have invaded their land.

The USA does not want to occupy Iraq. The so-called insurgents from Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Africa, and Europe do. Where is the acknowledgement from the UN, and those who have not joined the allies in this fight, that Iraq's citizens need their support in order to save their country from invasion by neighboring terrorists?

***

Source: Article by Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit
Fox News 2005-08-09

General Black Jack Pershing

This actually came in an email. I don't know if it's true or not. And I don't want to insult non-terrorists, but you have to figure a man who cut to the chase and resolved a conflict with the loss of only 49 terrorist lives might have something.

Well, Why On Earth Didn't You Build An Ark????

***

***
It's all been said by too many, too loudly, too often, and too exploitively. I'll let Bill Garner's commentary stand for now. Prayers go out to those who need them.
***

Photo Source: Bill Garner for Washington Times online 9/3/05
Photo 2 Source: Bill Garner for Washington Times online 9/1/05

Take Back The 9-11 Memorial Rally in NYC 9 Days Away

The families of those lost in the 9-11 tragedy, will hold a rally in 9 days in NYC to mark the anniversary of the most unimaginable act of terror this country had seen until that day. I have mixed feelings about the rally; I wish the families and their cause Godspeed, but today the dangers surrounding a rally with political interest worry me. The potential for a clash between various groups or the attraction to terrorists is a real concern. And these people have been through so much pain, I can't help feeling protective of them and their cause. If you are a 9-11 family member who's attending the rally, I can understand why you feel you need to be there on that date but, be careful first of all, and also--and the group asks this of you-- please contact the group to let them know you are coming. Their site also shares other steps you can take to help the families make sure the victims get their rightful, respectful hallowed ground memorial. The emphasis below is mine.

According to Tim Sumner, a 9-11 family member, "While Americans attend 9/11 memorial events around the country and 9/11 family members gather at Ground Zero, nearby an “international cultural summit” will be hosted by the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council, September 8-11, 2005. Board members of both the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and organizers of the International Freedom Center will attend. The summit will conduct panel discussions about cultural protests and presumably which of them are “appropriate” for downtown and (will) display political “art” that disparages our country On 9/11 itself, the summit attendees will be taken on a walking tour of the World Trade Center site while below them, in The Pit, 9/11 family members will be at bedrock remembering the 3,000 they lost. This is how some of the caretakers of Sacred Ground, on the anniversary of the worst attack in our country's history, chose to treat the memory of that difficult day. The summit will even honor the late Susan Sontag, who, less than two weeks after the attacks, called the murderous 19 courageous..."

"This is the kind of moral equivalency which denigrates and disrespects those who died, those who gave their lives to save them. It declares "morally neutral" the kind of "courage" required to sacrifice one's life to kill as many innocent men, women and children as possible, with the willingness to die in order to save as many as one can. Do we entrust Ground Zero to people who cannot recognize the difference?" READ MORE

See also the link below and the article in my Links and Essentials list on the right by Debra Burlingame, The Great Ground Zero Heist.