Monday, April 30, 2007
My favorite states are Ohio (of course) and Virginia.
My least favorite state is where Harry lives, the state of denial.
How many states have you visited? Check it out.
create your own personalized map of the USA
or check out ourCalifornia travel guide
Ritual-washing area for Muslims at MCTC may be only the beginning
Last week, I wrote about Minneapolis Community and Technical College, which
is planning to install facilities to help Muslim students perform ritual washing
before daily prayers. It's a simple matter of extending "hospitality" to
newcomers, says President Phil Davis -- no different than providing a fish
option in the college cafeteria for Christian students during Lent.
MCTC must have a helluva fish budget, but what's a little "hospitalty" between forced friends?
Dianna Cusick, MCTC's director of legal affairs, is overseeing the project.
She referred me to the Muslim Accommodations Task Force, whose website she is
using as a primary resource (www.startribune.com/2617). "They've
done all the research," she said.
The task force's eventual objectives on American campuses include the
following, according to the website: permanent Muslim prayer spaces, ritual
washing facilities, separate food and housing for Muslim students, separate
hours at athletic facilities for Muslim women, paid imams or religious
counselors, and campus observance of Muslim holidays.
The task force isn't operated by overly enthusiastic college students. Its
professional staff, based in the Washington, D.C., area, includes coordinators
who provide legal advice, teach students to lobby, write letters on their
behalf, and help them overcome "obstacles" such as college administrators'
concerns about violating the separation of church and state.
The Muslim Accommodations Task Force is a project of the Muslim Student
Association of the U.S. and Canada. MSA's mission is to enable Muslims here "to
practice Islam as a complete way of life," and its "main goal" is "spreading
Islam," according to its website. The association calls itself the "landmark
Muslim organization in North America," and says it has chapters on 600
MCTC first, then America and then the world!
Dianna Cusick, you ham. Bend over and "squeal like a pig".
Blond Sagacity is Wuduing too
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Deseret Morning News, Sunday, April 29, 2007
Lincoln, RFK were anti-war 'traitors,' too
By Lee BensonDeseret Morning News
Amid all the protests, anti-protests and anti-protest protests accompanying
Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Provo this week, Utah Attorney General
Mark Shurtleff got so caught up with microphone fever that he forgot his manners and lost his sense of history all at the same time.
In a speech at a pro-Cheney rally, the A.G. compared the anti-war rants of Rocky Anderson and Harry Reid to fabled war propagandists Tokyo Rose and Hanoi Hannah, calling the mayor of Salt Lake and the majority leader of the U.S. Senate "Iraqi Rocky" and "Hezbollah Harry," respectively.
He said they are aiding the enemy by suggesting we are losing the
OK, forget that we are losing the war and forget that we're not even
real sure who the enemy is and even forget Shurtleff's lapsing into trash talk,
an art form I've always, where appropriate, rather enjoyed.
We’re losing the war Lee? We don’t know who the enemy is? Military expert, are you, eh? Or do you have military experts who aren’t disgruntled ex’s or trying to make a buck, who back you up? Besides, Harry didn't suggest that we are losing the war. He stated we were losing the war.
But what's with calling American politician war protesters traitors?
Disagreeing with this country's warfaring is as American as changing
your own oil.
Disagreeing, yes. Giving support to the enemy, especially as a Democratic leader of the Senate, is a tad different. Nice touch, that "changing your own oil" thing in place of "as American as apple pie". Really puts the war in context for you, doesn't it Lee.
Here are five names for Shurtleff: William Franklin, Abraham Lincoln,
Thomas Brackett Reid, Woodrow Wilson and Bobby Kennedy.
The thing they all have in common: All were war protesters.
William Franklin was governor of New Jersey when he protested the
Revolutionary War (and lost his job) in 1776 — much to the chagrin of his
father, Benjamin Franklin.
Ah, William had his reasons for being anti-war as the American colonial administrator and the last of the royal governors of New Jersey. He chose to support Great Britain throughout the American Revolution. His father, Ben Franklin, refused to support or speak to him the rest of his life. Words have meaning and actions have consequences Lee.
Abraham Lincoln was a U.S. congressman from Illinois in 1846 when heLincoln called Polk's justification of the war unconstitutional, unnecessary and expensive, calling Polk "a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man." Long way, even by Internet standards, from aiding and abetting the enemy. Lee, tell us just how anti-war Lincoln was after the "unprovoked" attack on Fort Sumter. This anti-war hero of yours didn't even have box cutter murderers slitting the throats of passengers and using the high jacked vehicles to murder more than 3,000 innocent civilians to blame for declaring war. Maybe he should have talked them to death, because there surely wasn't a military solution. Which was Lincoln Lee, anti war or craven war monger just looking for an excuse to wage war?
protested President James K. Polk's Mexican-American war, calling Polk "a
bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man."
Thomas Brackett Reid of Maine was speaker of the U.S. House of RepresentativesResigned in protest? Don't get my hopes up Lee. Do you think Harry has that much moral conviction? Nah, neither do I.
in 1898 when he resigned in protest of the Spanish-American war.
Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1916 on the strength of an anti-warAnd after Wilson entered the US into the war the effort became a bi-partisan effort to win with the Republicans winning control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in 1918. Bi-partisan Lee. When the troops were in the field. Are you seeing a difference here Lee.
campaign to keep America out of World War I (and a year later sent us into it
Bobby Kennedy was a U.S. senator from New York in 1968 when he called for aRFK in most of his campaign speeches in 1968 called for “peace” in Vietnam, offering a “negotiated settlement, but did not as belittle our troops or our effort. How ironic that you use RFK in your argument when it was Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian terrorist who assassinated Bobby Kennedy.
return of troops from Vietnam and declared his candidacy for the presidency
occupied by Vietnam supporter and fellow Democrat, Lyndon Johnson.
These men are not alone. American politicians have been protesting wars
since America started fighting in them. Even entering World War II wasn't
unanimous. When Congress voted on Dec. 8, 1941, 388 voted yes to one no from
avowed pacifist Jeannette Rankin of Montana.
She might have been unpopular, but she sure wasn't Tokyo Rose.
"As a woman, I can't go to war and I refuse to send anyone else. I vote 'NO'". However she did not vote against declaring war on Germany and Italy following their declaration of war on the U.S. Instead, she voted merely "Present."
That was "Present" Lee, not "The war is lost". That was a "No" vote to declare war, not a "You're a stupid man because I am smarter than you and you're not listening to me. I want the power" type of statement that makes the enemy think we don't have resolve as a nation.
Oh, and she didn't run next time. Maybe Harry shouldn't.
Words have meaning as do actions.
Whatcha think Lee?
Her voice raspy from days of campaigning, Clinton brought delegates to
their feet when she said she wished she could turn the clock back to a different
"Somebody said to me that he wished we could just rewind the 21st century and just eliminate the Bush-Cheney administration, with all their mistakes and
misjudgments," she said to cheers. "People are ready for leaders who understand
it is our votes who put them in power, our tax dollars that pay the bills."
She lambasted the "Mission Accomplished" speech nearly four years ago,
in which Bush declared an end to major military actions in Iraq. He made the
comment while on the deck of an aircraft carrier off the California coast.
That speech, Clinton said, was "one of the most shameful episodes in
American history. ... The only mission he accomplished was the re-election of
I've worked for Republicans and the Republican Party and Republicans blew it. They didn't blow it in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they did screw the pooch in the Pentagon and the Old Executive Building when they failed to fully understand what the troops and the people needed. Both were and are ready to get the job done if they only knew what the job is.
Republicans blew it when, once in power, they became Democrats. They played the same "get everything in my district or state named after me" pork game. They became "statesmen", or actually "statespersons", to win over the press and blunt their "anti-intellectual" perception. They may have worked hard, but they forgot who they were working for.
Mizz Clinton speaks of "one of the most shameful episodes" in a non-Jolson patois to give it due gravitas. Republicans can counter with many more shameful episodes, while republicans snark about blue dresses, noting such Clintonian issues as the failure of of pre-9/11 intelligence as seen by the Berger burglaries, their abuse of power, their pursuit of race and class warfare, their desire for socialized medicine and other programs, and the whole Evita complex.
President Bush has many failures, but he has been resolute on the GWOT, taxes and the court. Not bad, but, as they say, "a day late and a dollar short", because even at this late date most Americans don't think that.
If the people, actually the voter, believes that elected politicians will remember who put them there, those voters will vote for them. Not, as the cynics say, because the elected officials will bring the bling home, but because those elected are doing what is best for the Republic.
A minority believed in the formation of this nation, a minority believed in the equality of all men, a minority believed in the Reagan Revolution, a minority believed in the Contract With America and now a minority believe in the future of America. In each case, what made these things possible is that a majority hoped they would work.
If politicians sincerely put ideals into action the people will follow. If the people believe that politicians care only about elections, voters will wonder why they should care.
Somebody once said to me that they wished they could erase the embarrassment that led America in the last eight years of the 20th century. I told them that wishing against reality wasn't realistic, but my daughter was 15 years of age at the time, not a Presidental candidate.
The most shameful episode in this minor episode of Ms Clinton's quest for power is her flippant and political slur that President Bush, and thousands in his administration, used soldier's blood merely to re-elect Republicans.
I am still waiting for an electable politician for President that personifies Ms Clinton's ideal of a leader who understands who voted them into power and who also remembers that the taxpayer pays the bills. I don't need a cynic who recounts the "most shameful episodes" to cover their own and I also do not need a politician that treats the voter, the soldier, the taxpayer and the citizen as their "little people".
Of course, that is the Liberal problem in that they vote people into power, they don't elect people to represent the power of the people. Maybe Republicans should remember that as well.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
April 27, 2007
Sen. Reid's Fine Leadership
The Senate Democratic Caucus sent a letter to the Washington Post to
contest the attack on Senator Harry Reid's Leadership by David S. Broder in his
April 26 column, "The Democrat's Gonzalez."
The letter was signed by Sen. Reid's 50 colleagues in the caucus:
Sen. Reid's Fine Leadership
Letter to the Editor
Friday, April 27, 2007; A22
We, the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, contest the attack on
Sen. Harry Reid's leadership by David S. Broder in his April 26 column, "The
In contrast to Mr. Broder's insinuations, we believe Mr. Reid is an
extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority
through these first few months with skill and aplomb.
The Democratic caucus is diverse, and Mr. Reid has worked tirelessly to
make sure that the views of each member are heard and represented. No one
ideology dominates the caucus, so that a consensus can be reached and unity
achieved. It is hard to imagine a better model for leadership.
Because Mr. Reid has the support of members of the caucus, is a good
listener and has an amazing ability to synthesize views and bring people
together, the Senate has accomplished a great deal during his time as majority
leader. Armed with his years of service in the Senate and with a mastery of
procedure, Mr. Reid has led the chamber with a slim majority and a minority that
is, at times, determined to stop legislation with which it disagrees.
In the first 100 days alone, we made great strides under his leadership
on long-neglected legislation concerning stem cell research, the Sept. 11
commission's recommendations and the minimum wage, to name three. In addition, under Mr. Reid's leadership, we have fulfilled our obligation, left uncompleted by last year's Republican-led Senate, to fund the federal government. He has accomplished all of this in the face of stiff opposition and with a commitment to giving ideas full opportunity for debate.
Finally, in this age of scripted politicians speaking only to their
base or claiming that they "don't recall" anything, the fact that Mr. Reid
speaks his mind should be applauded, not derided. His brand of straight talk is
honest, comes from the heart and speaks directly to the people.
OF THE SENATE
What has Harry Reid's straight talking directly to the people brought us?
19 pieces of new law, of which 10 rename things, 1 changes the House Page Board makeup, 1 new arterial road and 7 pieces of legislative genius that tweaks things.
No wonder Harry Reid has so much time to insult the President, Vice President and everyone else, including our troops, because he, Harry Reid, is a legislative mover and shaker. A genius if you will. In fact, a "master of procedure" as the DemocratIC Caucus calls him.
A bill to redesignate the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the State
of Vermont as the "Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area"
To designate the Federal building located at 400 Maryland Avenue Southwest in the District of Columbia as the 'Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building'.
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3903 South Congress Avenue in Austin, Texas, as the "Sergeant Henry Ybarra III Post Office Building".
To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal Place in Santa Fe, New
Mexico, as the "Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse".
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2633 11th
Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the "Lane Evans Post Office Building".
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 16150 Aviation Loop Drive in Brooksville, Florida, as the "Sergeant Lea Robert Mills Brooksville Aviation Branch Post Office".
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1700 Main Street in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the "Scipio A. Jones Post Office Building".
To designate the United States courthouse located at 555 Independence Street in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the "Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr. United States
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 152 North 5th Street in Laramie, Wyoming, as the "Gale W. McGee Post Office".
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1300 North Frontage Road West in Vail, Colorado, as the "Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Post Office Building".
To revise the composition of the House of Representatives Page Board to equalize
the number of members representing the majority and minority parties and to
include a member representing the parents of pages and a member representing
former pages, and for other purposes.
To provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an arterial road in St. Louis County, Missouri.
Make further continuing appropriations.
Anew effective date for the applicability of certain provisions of law to
Public Law 105-331.
An act to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the
Small Business Act and the Small business Investment Act of 1958 through July
31, 2007, and for other purposes.
To amend the Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, to extend the
term of the Antitrust Modernization Commission and to make a technical
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide waivers relating to grants
for preventive health measures with respect to breast and cervical cancers.
A bill to endorse further enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and to facilitate the timely admission of new members to
NATO, and for other purposes.
A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to reinstate certain
provisions relating to the nutrition services incentive program.
Harry's first 100 days has altered legislative history. The Republic is agog at his leadership. The world sits in awe of his acumen.
But the troops have nothing.
Fine show by the embarrassment from Nevada.
Reid: Master broke his promise!
Sméagol: Don’t ask Sméagol. Poor, poor Sméagol.
Reid: Master betrayed us! Wicked, tricksy, false! We ought to wring his filthy little neck! Kill him! Kill him! Kill them both. And then we take the Preciousss and we be the master.
Sméagol: But the fat hobbit. He knows. Eyes always watching.
Reid: Then we stabs them out. Put out his eyses. And make him crawl.
Sméagol: Yes! Yes! Yes!
Reid: Kill them both.
Sméagol: Yes! No. No. It’s too risky, it’s too risky.
Reid: We could let 'Her' do it.
Sméagol: Yes. She could do it.
Reid: Yes, Precious, She could. And then we takes it once they’re dead.
Sméagol: Once they’re dead. Hush!
[He comes out from behind the trees, and appears in front of Bush and Cheney.]
Come on, hobbits. Long ways to go yet. Sméagol will show you the way.
Reid: Follow me. All is lost. Lost it is. Lose is what we do. Us be master.
New law sounds full of hot air
BARMY Euro MPs are demanding new laws to stop cows and sheep PARPING.
Their call came after the UN said livestock emissions were a bigger
threat to the planet than transport.
The MEPs have asked the European Commission to “look again at the livestock question in direct connection with global warming”.
The official EU declaration demands changes to animals’ diets, to
capture gas emissions and recycle manure.
The inconvenient truth about Elsie.
Success should be measurable, i.e., volume of reporting, favorable Op-Ed pieces and the width and depth of support. Always make sure designated staff members, not volunteers, are availible 24/7 (if possible) to answer questions, offer additional information and just be friendly. Remember, just being there means a lot to reporters on a deadline and many times will just write what you have offered as their own copy. THIS IS A GOOD THING!
Tehran: 23:17 , 2007/04/27 Print version Email this to a friend
Tehran Times Opinion Column, April 28, By Alireza Davari
TEHRAN, April 27 (MNA) -- The U.S. Senate recently passed a bill according to which U.S. military forces would have to leave Iraq by March 2008. However, President George W. Bush has repeatedly stated that he would veto the bill. But it appears likely the U.S. will be forced to leave Iraq in a far more humiliating way than the Soviet Union left Afghanistan.
This would be a major defeat for the United States almost as bad as the Vietnam debacle.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have cited the increasing unrest in Iraq as the main reason why U.S. forces should be withdrawn from the country.
The Democrats in Congress believe that stability can only
be established in Iraq through a political solution, although such views seem
overly optimistic, like the White House’s claim four years ago that U.S. troops
would be welcomed as liberators. However, U.S. citizens are worried about the
White House’s mismanagement of the war since it has become evident that
maintaining stability in Iraq is almost impossible.
Many U.S. officials have even admitted that the implementation of Bush’s ambitious policies in Iraq over the past four years has been a miserable failure. Iraq has become a smoldering ruin while Bush is trying to prevent a total collapse by calling for the deployment of even more troops to the region.
Yet, after a meeting with Bush, Reid told journalists that the United States had lost the war and that a troop surge would not help. He went on to say that success in
Iraq would only be possible through political and economic means, not war and
Yet even this relatively honest senator did not tell the whole truth about how much the Iraqi people have suffered over the past four years of occupation.
On the other hand, the fact that the U.S. media occasionally mentions the terrible conditions the Iraqi people are experiencing indicates that U.S. citizens are apprehensively following the Iraq story.
U.S.-style democracy seems to mean only endless pain for
Iraqis. The violence that came with the occupation claims the lives of about 100
Iraqis every day, on average. Two out of three Iraqis do not have permanent
access to clean drinking water. Hundreds of thousands of children suffer from
malnutrition and many of them are dying from preventable diseases. The health
system is falling apart.
So far, four million Iraqis, or in other words, one out of every seven citizens, have felt compelled to leave their homes. Should the current trend continue, the tide of refugees will turn into a regional tsunami with significant political consequences, which, of course, would not be in the best interests of the U.S.
Despite all these problems, the Bush administration refuses to acknowledge the terrible humanitarian disaster brought on by their mistake and is pretending that they can handle all the problems in Iraq. However, the reality tells a different
Half of the displaced Iraqis have fled the country. Jordan,
with a population of six million, now hosts 750,000 Iraqi refugees, and Syria,
with a population of 19 million, hosts 1.2 million refugees. Jordan has
officially declared that it will no longer allow Iraqi men between the ages of
17 and 35 to enter the country. According to the New York Times, Kuwait has
completely shut its borders to Iraqi citizens. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is
building a border barrier costing $7 billion to prevent Iraqis from entering the
country. The U.S., which is the main cause of all this misery, has accepted only
500 Iraqis, mostly just the educated asylum-seekers.
The Bush administration has lost more than the military battle because the consequences of the U.S. occupation are far-reaching.
Bush and his warmonger supporters have failed to realize that establishing stability in Iraq requires political strategies, not military ones. The new plan to increase troop levels in Iraq has met much opposition so far while there has been a rise in suicide bombings and other violence since the U.S. implemented the new Baghdad Security Operation, which is a joint effort by U.S. and Iraqi
Indeed, the recent assessment of the first months of the ongoing Baghdad Security Operation by high-ranking U.S. military officials like Peter Petraeus and William J. Fallon is vague.
It should be noted that U.S. casualties in Baghdad have increased by 21 percent since the Baghdad Security Operation was launched on February 14.
U.S. officials claim that the decline in violence in certain areas of Iraq, particularly
Baghdad, is due to the new U.S. military strategy, but the real reason is that
certain groups have chosen to take a hiatus.
As Bush and other U.S. officials are calling for a troop surge and constantly defend their new Iraq strategy, the Democrats are trying to find appropriate ways to limit Bush’s power.
Democrats in the U.S. Congress have also said that they will vote against Bush’s bill requesting an additional $93 billion for the military. This would undermine the plan to deploy another 21,500 troops to Iraq.
From a wider perspective, the miserable conditions in Iraq
and the dispute among White House official show that the U.S. will soon find
itself forced to withdraw from Iraq, just like the Soviet Union was forced to
withdraw from Afghanistan.
Thus, U.S. officials should draw up a timetable for withdrawing their forces, as Democrats in Congress are demanding, in order to end this war, which is becoming increasingly unpopular in the United States.
Remember, every vote counts. A great communications staff will always expand our base and effect a win! After all, victory is always our goal.
h/t Gateway Pundit
tell them what you think of the Defeatocrats latest attempt to undermine this country. Support the veto.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Iraqi Spokesman Criticizes Senate Vote
"We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals
to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process," Ali
al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press.
"Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their
mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over," al-Dabbagh said.
"We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices."
An anonymous source from an unnamed group in a nonaligned region threw a rock through this reporter's window with a note attached stating "Sammy bin Laden salutes all the "patriots" who voted for us. Their speaking to truth leads to our power."
John Kerry: Standing With Harry Reid
Thu Apr 26, 11:05 AM ET
They're at it again. When I came here to the Huffington Post and supported Speaker Pelosi when she was attacked by the right-wing, I said, "They thrive on destroying our leaders - we can't let them." I take no pride in my prognostication.
Now they're going after my friend and Majority Leader Harry Reid
(news, bio, voting record). And once again, it's up to us to defend him.
Thank God I'm not, but if I were Harry Reid I would pooping in my pants right now.
With Kerry's support, Harry is dead meat
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - A man was held Wednesday on charges that he
performed dental work on customers without a license in his "filthy" garage,
authorities said. Roger Bean, 60, was arrested Tuesday and held on $6,000 bond.
Bean performed denture fittings and made false teeth in his garage, charging
just $200 for a full set of dentures, a procedure that typically costs more than
$2,000, authorities said. But he was not licensed to practice in Florida.
Palm Beach County Sheriff's detective Don Zumpano said there were "health
risks with operating this type of facility outside of your house," adding that
Bean's workspace was "filthy."
Neighbors and clients, however, praised Bean for saving them thousands of dollars.
Ron St. Mary, 73, head of the neighborhood crime watch, said Bean is no criminal.
"He's helping the old people who don't have a few dollars," he said. "I think the world of him."
It was not immediately clear if Bean had an attorney.
On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's
off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in
other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between
Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not
lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . So the
bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to
police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in
Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have
that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can
Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since
Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic
leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of
the alternatives in Iraq.
Nor is this the first time Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had to ponder the political fallout from one of Reid's tussles with the language.
Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington."
He called President Bush " a loser," then apologized. He said that Bill Frist, then Senate majority leader, had "no institutional integrity" because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.
When a Broder says this, it makes Reid all the more scarier and he scares already. Schumer too, especially after all his practice, he stills lies so poorly.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and 46 Republicans voted against the legislation.
Sens. Mike Enzi, R-Wy., did not vote.
Way to go guys, you make
Oh, and Sherry Brown voted for the pullout. Voinovich voted against, according to his office, because of the time table. Congrats to you George. on this one.
Maybe the Dems will next legislate a "time out" clause for terrorists that behave badly. Oops, Democrats do not believe terrorists are capable of bad behavior, because they are victims!
Go read Dinah. Now.
Reid, Pelosi and Murtha should go. As starters.
Philip V. BrennanWednesday, April 25, 2007
Convincing evidence that corroborates NewsMax.com’s accounts of the Haditha insurgent ambush has compelled the prosecution to take extraordinary steps to bolster their crumbling case.
The stunning announcement that all charges are being dropped against
Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, formerly accused of murder in the Haditha incident
where 24 Iraqis were killed during an insurgent ambush against the Marines, is
indication that the prosecutors have a very weak case against all the
defendants, lawyers for the some of the accused say.
“Dela Cruz provided several sworn statements to the government,” Mark Zaid said. Zaid is one of the attorneys representing defendant Sgt. Frank Wuterich adding that
as part of its obligations the government turned over statements to Wuterich’s
“Unless there’s something new that he is suddenly going to come
forward with, it’s not entirely clear that it’s damaging to my client at all,”
Mark Zaid, one of the attorney’s representing Sgt. defendant Frank Wuterich,
“Those statements were available for the government to use,
and we found that there are numerous conflicting statements within his own
The announcement of the deal with Dela Cruz is further evidence
that the cases against the Kilo Company Marines and several of their superior
officers are in deep trouble. It comes on the heels of postponements of Article
32 hearings slated for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the battalion commander and
two of the enlisted men charged with murdering civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19,
Although the prosecutors said they needed more time
to prepare their cases, there is much more to the story than that NewsMax.com
has learned, and it paints a shocking picture of a prosecution that should never
have been pursued.
In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence
officer dropped a bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when
he revealed the existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have been
obtained by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and withheld from
This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as
one of the best and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine
Corps, was in possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute narrative
of the entire day’s action — material which he had amassed while monitoring the
day’s action in his capacity as the battalion’s intelligence officer. That
material, he says, was also in the hands of the NCIS.
Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of the entire day’s action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe houses. Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the ongoing action between the men on the ground and
battalion headquarters, and proof that the Marines were aware that the
insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo Company troops were videotaping the
action — the same video that after editing ended up in the hands of a gullible
anti-war correspondent for Time magazine.
When asked by the prosecution team to give his copies of the evidence to the prosecution, he told NewsMax.com that he was reluctant to do so, fearing it would again be suppressed or misused, but later relented when ordered by his commanding general to do so.
Confronted by the massive mounds of evidence that Marine Corps sources tell NewsMax proves conclusively that the cases against the Haditha Marines are baseless, the prosecutors were forced to postpone the Article 31 against Lt. Col. Chessani and two of the enlisted men in an attempt to regroup.
By granting immunity to the officer on the scene of the house-clearing effort, the prosecution, lawyers say, has further weakened its case.Because the intelligence officer was slated to return to Iraq for another tour of duty, arrangements were made prior to his departure to videotape his testimony for use in the hearings which would take place after his departure.
Those familiar with his testimony, which included masses of classified material, insist that the narratives of the day’s events disclosed by NewsMax.com in a long series of stories about Haditha were accurate presentations of the true facts and a total repudiation of all the slanderous material leaked by the Pentagon to the media.
Thanks to this officer’s testimony, the defense team was able to present over one hundred classified exhibits, including video.
Lawyers for some of the accused told NewsMax that the officer’s eight hour-long deposition will be made available to the defense in all the cases for use at the various Article 32 hearings which begin with Lt. Col. Chessani in May. Because most of it remains classified, it will be reviewed in private by the hearing officers and not revealed in the open hearings.
NewsMax, however, can reveal that the facts of what happened early
that November morning clearly show that the incident was part of a planned
ambush by insurgent forces, that the civilians tragically killed in the were
used as human shields by the insurgents, and that despite claims by Rep. John
Murtha, there was indeed an ongoing firefight between the Marines and the
In short, what the intelligence officer provided, was a fully backed
up account that puts the listener at the scene of the action and takes him
though the entire day’s action. All of this information was made available to
senior officers up the command ladder including the Battalion commander Lt. Col.
It was so complete it eliminated any need for further investigation.
Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who
questioned the officer, told NewsMax in a statement, “The intelligence officer
is a crucial witness in this case. During his testimony, he effectively
described the enemy situation prior to, during, and after the November 19
terrorist attack, providing the necessary context for the decisions that were
made as a result. His testimony shows the complexity of the attack this day, the
callousness of the terrorists toward the local civilians, whom they use to their
advantage, and the error of viewing this incident in a vacuum.
“The officer also showed how the insurgents used allegations of wrongdoing by Marines as propaganda to support their cause. In fact, another witness, who was the
assistant intelligence officer during the attack and is now the current
intelligence officer for the battalion, testified that since the Haditha
incident received so much negative attention, terrorist propaganda alleging law
of war violations against American servicemen in Iraq has ‘ballooned.’”
Addressing this point, Richard Thompson, the president and
chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center said, “The government’s politicized
quest to find wrongdoing in this case will ultimately harm the war effort, and
it has already resulted in an incredible expenditure of time, money, and scarce
resources, which could be better used fighting the terrorists.
“Our job is to allow the facts of November 19, 2005 and beyond to be presented to the investigating officer rather than the scurrilous and unfounded accusations from
anti-war politicians and media who rely on insurgent sources for their stories
about our decent and hard fighting men in uniform.”
In the past few days, as an apparent part of the prosecution’s damage control effort, some Pentagon officials leaked the once classified 130-page report, by Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell of the Army, to the New York Times and The Washington Post. That report, however, failed to conclude that any officers covered up evidence or
committed a crime — the basis of the charges against Lt. Col. Chessani and the
other officers charged.
In previous attempt to stir up animosity to the defendants, some people in the Pentagon leaked information allegedly compiled by the NCIS to the Washington Post.
As NewsMax demonstrated, that information was false.
Biased Media Weighs In
A shocking example of the sort of slanderous material being leaked to the media was this story broadcast by WKRN in Nashville, Tenn., which reported that military prosecutors said marines went on “a killing rampage in November 2005 in Haditha, Iraq, after their Humvee was destroyed by a roadside bomb killing one marine and injuring two others.”
According to the WKRN report, “The surviving marines went on a
killing spree shooting two dozen Iraqi civilians including unarmed men in the
street and men, women, and children in their homes.”
They went on to quote one Gen. Jack Keane, rescribed as an ABC News consultant, who said that “at that point, there was a fundamental . . . breakdown in the chain of command. They became more like a gang than a military unit. The order and the discipline fundamentally broke down and they were seeking revenge.”
The Pentagon report, WKRN admitted, “did not find specific evidence of a cover-up but concludes that nobody was interested in investigating the allegations.”
The facts show that these reports are blatantly false, and typical of the shamefully distorted media coverage of the Haditha killings.
On April 3, the prosecution granted immunity to talk to prosecutors to Lt. Max Frank, who arrived at the scene after the IED blast of the explosion. The grant was made as part of an order to “cooperate and truthfully answer all questions posed by investigators.”
He has not been charged in the case.
According to Muise and Brian Rooney of the Thomas Moore Law Center both former Marine officers now representing Lt. Col. Chessani, Frank, who personally witnessed the scene of the attack shortly after the fighting and assisted with removing the civilian bodies from the insurgent-occupied homes, insisted that there was no evidence of “executions” and that he saw no evidence of misconduct.
Muise observed that Frank was testifying under a grant of immunity by the government, which he said added further credibility to his testimony.
Lt. Col. Shelburne, the military defense counsel for Chessani who questioned Kallop, noted, “This officer’s testimony is significant. He was on the scene shortly after the attack. He saw the location of the bodies. He personally observed the damage caused by the attack. And yet, he saw nothing that caused him to suspect any wrongdoing on the part of the Marines. Moreover, this officer was given immunity by the
government, so the only way he can get in trouble is if he testifies
"What are you doing in there?" She asked.
The rabbit replied: "This is a Westinghouse, isn't it?", To which the lady replied "Yes."
"Well," the rabbit said, "I'm westing."
Roll Call Vote 265
Two Republicans – Reps. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina – joined 216 Democrats in passing the bill.
Other Republican Votes
Emerson – present
Cubin – not voting
Davis, Jo Ann – not voting
Westmorland – not voting
The U.S. Congress, where Victory Through Strength becomes Winning by Running.
My Rep., Zack Space voted for this. To our troops and the freedom loving people of Iraq, Afghanistan and others throughout the Middle East praying for peace and freedom, I apologize.
The "People's House" has become a sniveling den of lackeys for terrorists.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Her given name means pleasant, above all, and beauty. Ironic, eh? Now add Wolfe.
The woman who hoped to influence the masses through subliminal gender language using unnoticed socks, neutral tones and women to create the image of an alpha-male, all to secretly win an election, sees a conspiracy. Enter George, aka Hitler or Pinochet.
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but
history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be
willing to take the 10 steps.
As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to
look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United
States by the Bush administration.
Naomi "Socks" Wolfe is not new to conspiracies.
To Wolfe, Jeanne Kirkpatrick broke the "no-uterus rule" stating that she had;
"a voice so Olympian, so neck-up and uninflected by the experiences of the female body, that the subtle message received by young female writers is: to enter public voice, one must abide by the no-uterus rule."
Thus, one of the greatest women of this century was not abiding by the feminist conspiracy because of her stubborn individualism, but take Laura Bush, the new alpha uterus woman who, with her husbands handlers, moves women and men without their knowledge, but does so with a conspiracy of tones, clothes and altered male projections of perception.
"dressing the entire GOP convention, for instance, in matching tangerine and
turquoise, color-coordinating the Cheney grandchildren to give a visual sense of
order and unity—the Democrats keep being bumped to the inside pages because they send out their candidate and his wife in neutrals."
Okay, we've gone full circle here, and I won't mention how Ms. Wolfe says that Ms. Heinz Kerry is cuckolding her husband publicly every news day (thus causing him the election), but these two examples were just for the electoral soul of America, let us get back to the fascist America that will bend all of us to its will.
Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of
tyranny for the rest of us - staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who
faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to
the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and
prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the
banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate
collection of people needs everybody's help, including that of Europeans and
others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration
because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean
for the rest of the world.
We need to look at history and face the "what ifs". For if we
keep going down this road, the "end of America" could come for each of us in a
different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment
when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before - and this
is the way it is now.
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary,
in the same hands ... is the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We
still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and
fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to
Good God Almighty, Naomi has joined the John Birch Society. No wonder she sees conspiracies which are not pleasant or beautiful. She gets that from the lupus side of her family.
Lupus, Latin for wolf. Lupara, Sicilian for wolf-shot or shotgun which brings us back to the need for the 2nd Amendment.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
BASH:He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it
clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called
surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?
REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening.
Who was it that referred to Conservatives by snarking "Hate is not a family value"? Reid's hatred of Bush and his lust for power, I believe, have unhinged him.
UPDATE: Sniper One thinks his problem is mere stupidity.
UPDATE: Thanks to the tube like magnificence of the Internet Bloodthirsty Liberal captures Rudy's thoughts on Dems in general.
Gateway Pundit reports that the San Francisco Treat will not meet with General Petraeus. That's leadership!
MVRWC has the audacity to think a soldier has an opinion worth listening to.
Red State says resignation now!
WMD brings Boehner in his A-Game showing true leadership. Read on-Matt nails Reid and the SFT as well.
Sen. Harry Reid Is Right About Iraq War
OPINION by ANDY OSTROY
Last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., caused a ruckus in
Washington by saying that there is no military solution to the Iraq War. That
it's over and it's time to get out.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense —
and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows — that
this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated
by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," Reid said.
Bush and his war-mongering cronies took it upon themselves to invade a
sovereign nation under the guise of (a) retaliating against Sept. 11; (b)
protecting America and Britain from WMD "mushroom clouds;" and then (c) building a stable democracy in the Middle East. As we now all know, there were no WMD in Iraq, there was no connection to bin Laden and al Qaeda and true, sustainable democracy is but a fantasy. Failure, failure, failure. And the insurgents have been empowered and emboldened by this failure, not weakened. And Bush's desperate "troop surge" is not going to make one bit of difference in changing Iraq's military and political landscape.
Stop regurgitating all this BS about progress and success and show it to
Ah, the usual Liberal restating what Reid didn't say to make it more acceptable.
Next in the Liberal litany of usuals;
Supporters of the GWOT are war-mongering cronies of Bush
Iraq was a good sovereign nation, just remember the flying kites and balloons
No WMD, i.e., Bush lied and got Congress to lie with him
No al-Qaeda connection, but anyway just imply Bush said bin-Laden
No sustainable democracy because everybody knows it should have happened by now
Ostroy is right about emboldening the terrorists (he lovingly calls them insurgents), he and Reid and their ilk empower and embolden them everyday and as long as they voice terrorism's daily talking points, the surge may not work.
Andy, stop regurgitating the Liberal BS about failure and regression and you won't be able to continue as a whore for the right wing media. Maybe the BS is your price.
"I would really like to see Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton before I die" whispered the priest.
"I'll see what I can do, Father" replied the nurse.
The nurse sent the request to the Senate and waited for a response. Soon the word arrived. Kennedy and Clinton would be delighted to visit the priest.
As they went to the hospital, Clinton commented to Kennedy "I don't know why the old priest wants to see us, but it will certainly help our images." Kennedy couldn't help but agree.
When they arrived at the priest's room, the priest took Kennedy's hand in his right hand and Clinton's hand in his left. There was silence and a look of serenity on the old priest's face.
Finally Senator Kennedy spoke. "Father, of all the people you could have chosen, why did you choose us to be with you as you near the end?"
The old priest slowly replied "I have always tried to pattern my life after our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
"Amen" said Kennedy.
"Amen" said Clinton.
The old priest continued..."He died between two lying thieves. I would like to do the same."
Monday, April 23, 2007
Bruning Polling Ahead of Hagel
From Jon Bruning's press
release today, 23 April. Polling funded by Bruning's exploratory committee, completed by experienced, reputable polling firm.
If Chuck Hagel
decides he does want to pursue a 3rd term in the Senate, and the Republican
primary election for U.S. Senate were held today between Jon Bruning and Chuck Hagel, for whom would you vote?
leads Chuck Hagle 47%
to 38% statewide
**Bruning leads Hagel among
conservatives 57% to 31%Bruning leads Hagel among Republicans in Congressional District 2
(53% to 35%)
**Bruning leads Hagel among
Republicans in Congressional District 3 (52% to 33%). Congressional District 3
represents 42% of the Republican primary vote
Bruning leads Hagel in Douglas
County (Omaha) 54% to 34%
Bruning leads Hagel in the
Lincoln-Hastings-Kearney media market 49% to 34%
Bruning leads Hagel in Lancaster
County (Lincoln) 48% to 41%
Bruning leads Hagel in the entire
Omaha media market 44% to 42%
Hagel leads Bruning in 3 GOP
Congressional District 1 by 46% to 37%
Moderates by 46% to 37%
Liberals by 46% to 32%
Now suppose you learned that many Republicans here in Nebraska are
dissatisfied with Chuck Hagel because of his unrelenting criticism of
President Bush and for voting with liberal Democrats for a defense bill that
calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and is loaded with pork barrel
spending. They are also upset that Senator Hagel has suggested publicly that impeachment of President Bush is an option, saying "You can impeach him. And before this over, you might see calls for his impeachment." Knowing this, if the Republican primary for U.S. Senate were held today between Jon Bruning and Chuck Hagel for whom would you vote?"
**Support for Jon Bruning increases by 8 points statewide while
support for Chuck Hagel drops by 7 points - a 15 point net shift in
the Attorney General's favor.
**Bruning leads Hagel in
Congressional District 1 by 12 points (48% - 36%) and among moderates by 4
points (45%-41%). Only among liberals does Bruning trail Hagel (39% - 46%).
widens his lead over Hagel in Douglas County (Omaha) 57% to 33%,
Congressional District 2 (56% to 32%), and seniors 65+ (52% to 33%).
**Support for Bruning increases significantly among conservatives
(63% to 23%), voters under 50 years of age (56% to 33%), those over 50 (55% to
30%), those in Lancaster County (Lincoln) 55% to 38%, the
Lincoln-Hastings-Kearney media market (57% to 26%), the Omaha media market (50% to 35%), and Congressional District 3 (59% to 27%).
posted by Brian Bresnahan
Good, I hope they throw his arrogant tail out of office.
The Democratic strategy to use the ongoing violence in Iraq to their
political advantage in the run-up to the 2008 elections requires some skill and
nuance. But it's growing harder to believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid --
Nevada's own -- actually possesses those skills.
The Democratic strategy is anything but straightforward.
Sen. Reid and his colleagues know there is much political hay to be made by
criticizing President Bush's planning and conduct of the post-war occupation.
But they also know that while "cut our losses and pull out" plays well in
Democratic caucuses, it failed in the Connecticut general election in 2006, when
Sen. Joseph Lieberman and his anti-surrender stance handily defeated end-the-war candidate Ned Lamont -- even though Sen. Lieberman had to run as an independent to pull it off.
That's the kind of "poll" that really counts.
Thus, the Democrats' careful strategy requires them to appear to oppose Mr.
Bush's ongoing occupation of Iraq (to please their pacifist base), without
taking any concrete, "binding" actions to change the status quo.
Enter Sen. Reid, flopping around in big red shoes like Bozo the
Reid has instead given moral support to the terrorists. His "leadership"
has been to try to cut off our forces' war funding. Now he has told the
Islamofascists that victory is theirs if they can just keep blowing up U.S.
soldiers and Iraqi citizens a little while longer.
In aiding and comforting the enemy in wartime, Reid has betrayed the office
he holds, shamed the Nevadans he represents and made the Democratic Party he
leads synonymous with surrender. There is one way he can repair the damage he's done to the nation: step down.
…actively undermining our fighting men and women in Iraq. His legislative
efforts to starve our armed forces in the middle of a war are as contemptible as
anything I’ve witnessed in my 25 years in Washington. And yesterday he made a
statement that was so disgraceful and brazen that it could have been uttered by
Tokyo Rose during World War II or Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War. The difference, of course, is that Reid is the highest ranking Democrat in the
United States Senate.
David Broder, the sagely insightful “dean” of the Washington press corps, attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today over his claim that the war in Iraq is lost.
Speaking on XM radio, Broder said that Reid should “learn to engage mind before mouth opens,” and suggested that Reid’s Senate allies “have a little caucus and decide how much further they want to carry Harry Reid” and his “bumbling performance.”
Asked if Harry Reid is “an embarrassment,” Broder said, “I think so,” since “every six weeks or so there’s another episode where he has to apologize for the way in which he has bungled the Democratic case.”
Hang up the gloves Harry. Even the ref is laughing at you.
(All emphasis mine)
Monday, April 23, 2007
This is eerily like today.
Newspaper OpinionsThe Press and Army Morale
"'Spend Much Time in Reading the Daily Papers': The Press and Army Morale in the Civil War."
by James McPherson
News from the homefront as well as from other theaters of war affected army
morale. A soldier's conviction that he was risking his life for a worthwhile
purpose, a Cause with a capital C, was rooted in the support of his family and
community for that Cause. Some of that support, or the lack of it, was conveyed
to soldiers by the letters they received from home. But much of it came via the
press and the political process, which were intertwined institutions during the
Civil War. In both North and South, antiwar movements arose and flourished at
times when the war seemed to be going badly for one's own side. These movements
advocated an armistice and a negotiated peace. The governments in both
Washington and Richmond viewed such proposals as defeatist at best, treasonable
at worst. So did most soldiers. They labeled the peace proponents in the
Confederacy as "Tories" and in the North as "Copperheads." On both sides,
opponents of the war -- or more accurately, perhaps, opponents of their
governments' war policies -- made their case through the press as well as
through the political process.
After the triple disasters to Confederate arms
in the summer of 1863 -- Vicksburg, Gettysburg, and the Army of Tennessee's
retreat from its namesake state some Southern civilians began urging a
compromise peace. A nineteen-year-oid private in the 7th Alabama Cavalry
denounced what he called this "miserable class of men that now infest the
country," while another Alabamian, an infantry captain, deplored the lack of
"patriotism of a great many of the people at home. The army cannot be sustained
without the cooperation of the people." Even in South Carolina, a few Tories
seemed to surface after Gettysburg and Vicksburg, causing a nineteen-year-old
veteran from that state to cry out: "Shame for South Carolina! Go back into the
union, degraded despised dishonorable.... This is the way we are rewarded -- our
own people forsake us in the trying hour -- and after our all -- honour-and
everything else is at stake.... Degrading, wretched, unpatriotic, infamous
In 1863, peace sentiment manifested itself most powerfully in North Carolina. The
state's largest newspaper, the North Carolina Standard, edited in Raleigh by
William W. Holden, became an outspoken advocate of peace negotiations. So
incensed toward Holden were Confederate soldiers that on the night of September
9-10, 1863, several men of General Henry L. Bennings's brigade of Georgia
troops, passing through Raleigh on their way from Virginia to Georgia where they
would suffer heavy losses at Chickamauga ten days later, broke into the
Standard's office and wrecked it.25
Union soldiers did the same to so-called "Copperhead" papers in the North. And judging from the volume and bitterness of soldiers' denunciations of homefront
"traitors," the Copperhead press in the North was far more extensive and
outspoken than the Tory press in the South. Especially during the early months
of 1863 and again in the summer of 1864, the drumbeat of defeatism and anti-war
editorials in Copperhead newspapers caused morale problems in Union armies. A
captain in the 8th Connecticut complained in January 1863 that "the papers (many
of them) published at the North & letters rec[eive]d by the soldiers are
doing the Army an immense amount of evil." From Grant's army in the Western
theater came similar testimony from a captain in the 103d Illinois: "You can't
imagine how much harm these traitors are doing, not only with their papers, but
they are writing letters to the boys which would discourage the most loyal of
men. . . . I put in a great deal more of my time than I would wish to, in
talking patriotism at the boys ... to counteract the effect of these letters
[and papers] ... and doing good solid cursing at the home cowardly vipers." An
enlisted man from Iowa believed that the Copperhead press not only discouraged
the boys in blue but also encouraged the enemy. "The Rebels in the South well
know how we are divided in the North," he wrote in March 1863. "It encourages
them to hold out, with the hopes that we will get to fighting in the North, well
knowing that 'a house divided against itself cannot stand."26
At the same time, however, a backlash against the Copperheads' anti-war rhetoric
forged a bond of unity among Union soldiers that actually improved their morale.
"Copperheadism has brought the soldiers here together more than anything else,"
wrote a corporal in the 101st Ohio in April 1863. "Some of the men that yoused
to be almost willing to have the war settled in any way are now among the
strongest Union soldiers we have got." Many Northern soldiers lumped the Rebels
and Copperheads together as twin enemies who deserved the same treatment. "My
first object is to crush this infernal Rebellion," wrote a Pennsylvania infantry
captain in March 1863, "the next to come North and bayonet such fool miscreants
as [Clement] Vallandigham" the foremost Copperhead political leader. A private
in the 49th Ohio told his sister in June 1863 that "it would give me the
greatest pleasure in the world to be one of a regiment that would march through
Ohio and Indiana and hang every Copperhead in the two States."27
When Northern homefront morale plunged to perhaps its lowest point in the summer of 1864 because of horrendous casualties in the Army of the Potomac without much apparent progress toward victory, Union soldier morale remained higher than it had been in the spring of 1863 because of this bond of unity against the Copperheads. As a New York captain wrote to his wife, "it is the soldiers who
have educated the people at home to a true knowledge ... and to a just
perception of our great duties in this contest."28
That is one reason why many Union regiments established their own camp
newspapers at various times and places during the war -- at least one hundred
such newspapers, most of them short-lived. (There seem to have been few if any
counterparts in Confederate camps.) They bore such names as Stars and Stripes,
Whole Union, Banner of Freedom, New South, Free South, American Patriot, and
other such patriotic titles. Many Union soldiers (and some Confederates as well)
also served as army correspondents for their hometown newspapers. Perhaps the
most famous of these was Wilbur Fisk of the 2d Vermont, whose dispatches have
been published in book form in two modern editions. Fisk signed his letters with
the pen name "Anti-Rebel," which pretty much sums up their dominant theme.29
That is why almost 80 percent of the Union soldiers who voted in 1864 cast their
ballots for Abraham Lincoln on a platform of conquering a peace by military
victory, compared with 53 percent of the civilian vote for Lincoln. As one Union
officer put it in August 1864, at the low point of civilian morale, "We must
succeed. If not this year, why then the next, or the next. And if it takes ten
years, then ten years it must be, for we can never give up, and have a Country
and Government left."30
The Copperhead's grand children and great grand children are alive and well today. They're just as scummy.
I will not make any bad'ems, like I have Jane's Addiction. oops.
Now, my vast audience...., we need to get Tom Blogical to post more! He's good and if you're so smart, why didn't you come up with Blogical Conclusions for your masterpiece?
Reid: Congress Will Pass Withdrawal Bill Despite Veto Threat
Reid noted disapprovingly that in a speech last week, Bush repeatedly said
there were signs of progress in Iraq in the wake of a troop increase he
ordered last winter.
"The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the
state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial,'' said
Here in Ohio we have the Buckeyes to offset the bad taste of Dennis Kucinich. I guess Nevada can say they have whorehouses to offset the bad taste of Reid.
Of course, we have to pay more to enjoy the Buckeyes, but it lasts longer.
"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."
Our Founding Fathers paid the price for the United States of America.
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe
ColumnistCopyright 2000 Boston Globe
On July 2, 1776, the
Continental Congress voted 12-0 -- New York abstained -- in favor of Richard
Henry Lee's resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to
be, free and independent States."
On July 4, the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson -- heavily edited by Congress -- was adopted without dissent. On July 8, the Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Philadelphia. On July 15, Congress learned that the New York Legislature had decided to endorse the Declaration. On Aug. 2, a parchment copy was presented to the Congress for signature. Most of the 56 men who put their name to the document did so that day.
We tend to forget that to sign the Declaration of Independence was to commit an act of treason -- and the punishment for treason was death. To publicly accuse George III of "repeated injuries and usurpations," to announce that Americans were therefore "Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown," was a move fraught with danger -- so much so that the names of the signers were kept secret for six months.
They were risking everything, and they knew it. That is the meaning of the Declaration's soaring last sentence:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on
the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives,
our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Most of the signers survived the war; several went on to illustrious careers.
Two of them became presidents of the United States, and among the others were future vice presidents, senators, and governors. But not all were so fortunate.
Nine of the 56 died during the Revolution, and never tasted American independence.
Five were captured by the British.
Eighteen had their homes -- great estates, some of them - looted or
burnt by the enemy.
Some lost everything they owned.
Two were wounded in battle.
Two others were the fathers of sons killed or captured during the
"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." It was not just a
We all recognize John Hancock's signature, but who ever
notices the names beneath his? William Ellery, Thomas Nelson, Richard Stockton,
Button Gwinnett, Francis Lewis -- to most of us, these are names without
But each represents a real human being, some of whom paid dearly
"for the support of this Declaration" and American independence.
Lewis Morris of New York, for example, must have known when he signed the Declaration that he was signing away his fortune. Within weeks, the British ravaged his estate, destroyed his vast woodlands, butchered his cattle, and sent his family fleeing for their lives.
Another New Yorker, William Floyd, was also forced to flee
when the British plundered his property. He and his family lived as refugees for
seven years without income. The strain told on his wife; she died two years
before the war ended.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, an aristocratic planter who
had invested heavily in shipping, saw most of his vessels captured by the
British navy. His estates were largely ruined, and by the end of his life he was
The home of William Ellery, a Rhode Island delegate, was burned to
the ground during the occupation of Newport.
Thomas Heyward Jr., Edward Rutledge, and Arthur Middleton, three members of the South Carolina delegation, all suffered the destruction or vandalizing of their homes at the hands of enemy troops. All three were captured when Charleston fell in 1780, and spent a year in a British prison.
"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Thomas Nelson Jr. of Virginia raised $2 million for the patriots' cause on
his own personal credit. The government never reimbursed him, and repaying the
loans wiped out his entire estate. During the battle of Yorktown, his house,
which had been seized by the British, was occupied by General Cornwallis. Nelson
quietly urged the gunners to fire on his own home. They did so, destroying it.
He was never again a man of wealth. He died bankrupt and was buried in an
Richard Stockton, a judge on New Jersey's supreme court, was
betrayed by loyalist neighbors. He was dragged from his bed and thrown in
prison, where he was brutally beaten and starved. His lands were devastated, his
horses stolen, his library burnt. He was freed in 1777, but his health had so
deteriorated that he died within five years. His family lived on charity for the
rest of their lives.
In the British assault on New York, Francis Lewis's home
and property were pillaged. His wife was captured and imprisoned; so harshly was
she treated that she died soon after her release. Lewis spent the remainder of
his days in relative poverty.
And then there was John Hart. The speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, he was forced to flee in the winter of 1776, at the age of 65, from his dying wife's bedside. While he hid in forests and caves, his home was demolished, his fields and mill laid waste, and his 13 children put to flight. When it was finally safe for him to return, he found his wife dead, his children missing, and his property decimated. He never saw any of his family again and died, a shattered man, in 1779.
The men who signed that piece of parchment in 1776 were the elite of their colonies. They were men of means and social standing, but for the sake of liberty, they pledged it all -- their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
Which politicians of today would be this resolute?