Thursday, July 31, 2008

Obama Plays Race Card

I don't care what Robert Gibbs, who is an Obama strategist, says... Barack Obama played the "race card". There is no justification or rationalization a democrat could use to support Obama's comments. Mr. Gibbs, you gave it a good try (see below) but the spinning has spun your head around in a circle.

Readers, please read the following statement by the Obama camp. The full text of the article can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_el_pr/obama

"While calling to mind the images of presidents on the nation's paper money
— George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant are on the bills most commonly used — Obama didn't make clear what distinctions he
thinks McCain is likely to raise. Besides being white, they were for the most
part much older than Obama when elected. McCain has not raised Obama's
race as an issue in the campaign; he has said that Obama lacks experience.

When asked by The Associated Press what Obama meant by the comparison,
Obama strategist Robert Gibbs said Thursday morning that the senator was not
referring to race."What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get
here after spending decades in Washington," Gibbs said. "There is nothing more
to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political
scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the
history of others. It is not about race."

Okay, so let's look at Gibbs' reasoning, "that Obama didn't get here after spending decades in Washington" and how that reasoning relates to the presidents on the U.S. currency.

Let's start with George Washington. First of all, George Washington never spent a day in Washington. In fact, George Washington lived in Mount Vernon, which is in Virginia. Secondly, George Washington did not serve for "decades" either as President, vice president, or within the halls of Congress. So, Mr. Gibbs, let's take George Washington off the table.

Next is Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States. Before becoming President he was a member of the US House of Representatives where he served for ONE term (not decades). He then served in the Taylor administration. Again, this was not for even a decade, let alone decades. So, Mr. Gibbs, let's take Abraham Lincoln off the table.

Next on the table is Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson was the 17th President of the United States. Jackson started his "washington" political career in 1796 as the representative for Tennessee which aquired statehood. He was elected to the Senate in 1797 but he resigned within a year. He then became a judge in 1798 where he served until 1804. It was not until 1821 that he again became a politician when he served as military governor of Florida. He was nominated for President in 1822 and he again returned to the US Senate that year. He resigned from the Senate in 1825. He became President in 1828 and won reelection in 1832. So, Mr. Gibbs, let's do the math. One year House, one year Senate, three years again in the Senate and 8 years President. Now, if we include the presidency Jackson had 13 years in Washington government. But, would Obama really want to count the 8 years of a persons' presidency against them? I doubt it, so that pulls it back to 5 years. Once again, Mr. Gibbs, we have a currency president off the table.

Finally, we have Ulysses S. Grant. Grant was the 18th president of the United States where he served from 1869–1877 another 8 years that we will eventually right off. So what were Grant's decades of politics as a Washington insider? He was the youngest man elected president (46) and inexperienced. His cabinet was fixed on scandal (Black Friday, whiskey ring, Sanborn, and Credit Mobilier). He also faced accusations of anti-semitism. Mr. Gibbs, that is what we got from a no experience president. He had zero experience beyond being a general in the army. So I am sure you'll want Grant off the table.... because to think that Obama is running as a Freshman senator with little to no experience, not even military experience, one only wonders how Grant-like he could be.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

House Apologizes to African-Americans

Today the U.S. House of Representatives apologized to African-Americans for slavery and Jim Crow. I thank them for apologizing on my behalf since I had something to do with it. I would honestly think there is more our congress could be doing than engaging in election year politics, which is exactly what this was. The resolution was wordsmithed by none other than Steve Cohen who faces a run off election in his district.

"The House "apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the
United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who
suffered under slavery and Jim Crow."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_go_co/slavery_apology

Cohen is a rank and file democrat according to Govtrack's own analysis who votes 96% of the tie along party lines. He is far left of center.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=412236

He hasn't done anything in the House worth noting. Steve Cohen has sponsored 21 bills since Jan 4, 2007, of which 15 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Cohen has co-sponsored 980 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). [On 4/2/08, the numbers were updated to consider companion bills in the other chamber identified as "identical" by the Congressional Research Service when determining if a bill was enacted or made it past the introduction stage.]

Cohen is facing a challenge from Nikki Tinker, a relative unknown to politics, who took 25% of the Democratic vote in 2006. Cohen has a party line history in congress who is considered by Nancy Pelosi as the "conscience of the freshmen class" of the 110th Congress. He's avidly against the Iraq War. He helped Pelosi gain her seat as House Speaker, hence the help on passing his resolution to cater to his constituency back home. He also sits on the Judiciary Committee and is responsible for blocking so many of Bush's nominees. He is also a huge Obama supporter. Finally, when asked what his biggest role might be in a second term, "But first and foremost, he wants to be instrumental in ending the war in Iraq." Well, I guess ending the war is more important that winning... no wonder he's an Obama fan.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

McCain and Bush are NOT the same.

Another pithy reporting job by an Associated Press writer (Liz Sidoti). You can read her article over at news:news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080712/ap_on_el_pr/obama_contrast. In the middle of her article she states

"These days, Obama assails McCain's position on the issues every chance he
gets. He levels his charges with a commonsense tone and lighthearted touch that
couches the criticism while making his core argument: McCain and President Bush
are the same."

Of course the above quote is political rhetoric and nothing more. It's an appeal to emotion. Obama does not believe McCain and President Bush are the same. I highly doubt this is one of Obama's "core arguments". Why not you ask? Because the argument is a fallacious one and if Obama is everything he claims to be (a new kind of politician) I'd like to believe he would not stoop to such common practices as "guilt by association", "Poisoning the Well", Et cetera.

Of course, I have no problem laying my bias out in plain view... Obama is not a new kind of politician; he's the same kind just carefully packaged and more carefully unwrapped. The paper is from one store, the box is from another, the gift has had its price tag removed, and the gift receipt was accidently misplaced.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Obama Admits He's no Centrist

While giving a speech at a town hall meeting outside Atlanta, Ga. Obama expressed surprise that people would think he is trying to move to the center,



"Obama said he is “no doubt progressive,” and that even though he talks openly
about faith and takes a few positions his supporters might not agree with, “the
notion that somehow that’s me trying to look like I’m more centered — more
centrist — is just not true."

Judging from Obama's own statement, he well deserves the title, "Most Liberal Senator in the Senate."


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/08/obama-responds-to-accusations-of-flip-flops/

Sunday, August 27, 2006

If you let someone kick you.

"If you let someone kick you five times they are gonna kick you five times. Let them kick you three times, they will kick you three times. Let them kick you once and they will kick you once. But... if you break off their friggin feet there ain't gonna be no kicking going on..."

I didn't write that little statement. It was written in response to Israel defending itself against Hezbollah. It makes one think about the issue of turning the cheek... how many times?

Monday, September 19, 2005

It will come as no surprise

In the aftermath of the liberal 1990s where progress was measured in how much money a person had in their wallet, the size of their portfolio, the opportunity for coporations like Enron and Worldcom to screw people, a President who was immoral in the oval office, a nation that joined the rest of the world in appeasement peacemaking which allowed Saddam to divert mass sums of money from his people though the defunct oil for food program, and ignoring the gathering threat at the nations borders...It comes as no surprise that our nations moral metal is being tested as it embarks on making past mistakes right, honoring its pledges to the Iraqi and Afghan people, bridging a real gap between the west and the North Koreans (instead of being suckered) and seeing enormous change stirring in the Middle East...It comes as no surprise that evil people and those with evil tendencies would ignore the hope that is stirring, would instead prefer to fall back into their 1990s mindset of self-preservation and isolationism...It comes as no surprise that people hate excellence when they would prefer to sit in the seat of mediocrity where a government handout to the local grasshopper is more valuable than a nest of ants working together...It comes as no suprise that Americans feel that their right to liberty and money is far more relevant to those who share our borders and a hope for a better life...It comes as no surprise... that these series of tests will one day show us how judged we are...

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Pet Peeve

It really bothers me when people go through the 15 items or less line at the grocery store and they have more than 15 items. I saw a woman who should have known better go through with a cart of over 30 items. I counted them. The teller said nothing.

I have a number of other pet peeves I am going to share over the next few days. Please... don't be like the people I tell you about.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Definately worth a read: Comparing Presidents

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/
frontline/shows/choice2004/leadership/greenstein.html

Do Facts/Truth Exist??

There are no longer such things as facts. Social humanism killed truth/fact a long time ago. Today there is only relativistic interpretation of events. That's what happens in a standardless society bent on self-preservation, rationalization and mediocrity.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

A Person for all Seasons

Genesis 43: 15-34

What were Joseph's sanctifying virtues?

1. He worked well under authority and respected those under his authority.
2. He returned good in the place of evil; he was forgiving. (Romans 12:17-Do not repay evil for evil). Do more than is required, replace evil with good, love your enemies.
3. He executed his stewardship with complete trustworthiness. He used his position for the common good (John 17:4)
4. Whenever he spoke he spoke truth. He didn't tell everything he knew but what he did tell was true.

A mistake is not a sin.

Suffering & God's Use

Hebrews 5:1-10 & Genesis 37:12-36

1. To show and move one beyond their suffering and longing.
2. Faith develops where one is at in their life and not where one was or where one will be.

New Orleans: Out of the City of Death

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina one begins to think about ones home. Where is home, what is a home, who makes up a home? People long for a permanent home that is non-hostile, one that is safe, secure, comfortable, peaceful. In the gulf region 3 million people are without homes. Citizens in New Orleans fled as best they could the city of death and hostility. There is another city of death and hostility and it is one only Jesus Christ can get one out of.

Judging Others

Ever heard the phrase, "Judge not lest ye be judged"? I am sure that most have. Unfortunately when people toss this phrase into a discussion they rarely include the full context where the phrase comes from (Matthew 5:1-7:27).

The command to "Judge Not" is not a requirement to be blind toward truth telling... but a plea to be discerning, gracious and merciful. The passage where this verse is found is part of a larger sermon Jesus taught called the Sermon on the Mount. The entire sermon is needed for understanding. Chapter 5 emphasizes the Kingdom of God... especially as it relates to the law. Jesus lays out the spiritual "order of opperations" (PEMDAS). Blessed are the poor in Spirit. The person recognizes their fallen nature. Blessed are those who mourn. The person is sorrowful and seeks repentence... and so on. Jesus builds the truth upon a solid rock foundation. Man is evil. God is good. God justifies man. Jesus is the justifier. Chapter 6 emphasizes the Fatherhood of God and the freedom that provides. Chapter 7 emphasizes the Judgment of God and the impact that has on our lives.

With an truthful understanding of Chapter 5 and 6, chapter 7 and the "Judge not" passage makes more sense. Here are some of the misinterpretations of this passage:

1. We should never judge or criticize anyone for anything.
2. We are not to be discerning.
3. Love and Judgment are incompatible.

The first misinterpretation is the one unbelievers usually use. They use this interpretation in the political/social arena to justify actions, attitudes and beliefs.

Here is the irony about judgment. If one judges in your favor then that person is being open minded, progressive, tolerant etc... but if a person judges against you then that person is being close minded, out of date and intollerant.

The thrust of this passage is distinguishing between true and false religions... between truth and hypocrisy. It reveals the natural human tendency to see the faults of our neighbors while blithely overlooking our own. What misinterpreters fail to realize is that their interpretation is blind to a simple truth. Judgment is meant to bring one to repentence and conversion.

But there are many Christians who do not understand this and they use the hammer of justice like the Pharisees and Scribes used it. They were oppressively judgmental. They were unmerciful, unkind, unforgiving, censorious (harshly critical/ inclined to find fault), lacking compassion and lacking grace. The truth be told many non-christians are often censorious as well--and judge all that is wrong with the world to be the fault of Christians, their Bible and whomever the world perceives to be their "political" leaders. These are erroneous views of judgment. Keep the context in mind, "Judge not lest ye be judged" ... "for in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." This is not saying not to judge but to be right in your judgment. God will measure His judgment upon mankind according to the standard of measure mankind uses; may it be a measure of grace and mercy.

Saturday, September 10, 2005

The Blame Game

Why do people believe nothing bad should ever happen to them and when something bad does happen why do they try and find someone to blame? Sometimes events occur and people are to blame and sometimes events occur and there is nothing anyone could have done.

We live in a fallen world. Bad things are going to happen. Get over your self importance.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Gas Prices to high? Try Europe!

By Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Fri Aug 26, 4:00 AM ET

PARIS - When Guy Colombier pulls his economy car up to a Paris pump, he allows himself just 15 Euros ($18) worth of gas - barely enough for three gallons. Since prices started rising rapidly earlier this year, says Mr. Colombier, a printing press worker, "I drive a lot more slowly ... and I'm looking for a place to live closer to where I work."

ADVERTISEMENT

Colombier's pain is shared by drivers all over Europe, where fuel prices are the highest in the world: a gallon of gas in Amsterdam now costs $7.13, compared with just $2.61 in America. The contrast in prices and environmental policies - and the dramatically different behaviors they inspire - signals a widening transatlantic energy gap. And it raises the question: Does Europe offer America a glimpse of its future?

Indeed, while Europeans have learned to cope with expensive fuel (mostly due to taxes), there's scant evidence yet that US drivers are adopting their conservation tactics.

"Societies adjust over decades to higher fuel prices," says Jos Dings, head of Transport and Energy, a coalition of European environmental NGOs. "They find many mechanisms."

Chief among them, say experts, is the habit of driving smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. While the average light duty vehicle on US highways gets 21.6 miles per gallon (m.p.g.), according to a study by the Paris based International Energy Agency (IEA), in Paris, its European counterpart manages 32.1 m.p.g.

"European consumers are very sensitive to fuel economy and sophisticated about engine options," says Lew Fulton, a transport analyst with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). "European car magazines are full of comparisons of fuel costs over the life of a vehicle."

Europe's cars: 40 percent are diesel
That approach has given a special boost to diesel cars, which make up more than 40 percent of European car sales, compared with just 4 percent in the US.

Just ahead of Colombier in the line at the gas station Thursday was Nicole Marie, a high school teacher, who was using her husband's diesel Audi, rather than her own gasoline-powered car, to take her daughter to Normandy for a final week of vacation by the sea.

"I only use my car in town," she says. "We bought a diesel car deliberately because it is cheaper to run."

That is partly because the French government encourages the use of more- efficient diesel fuel by taxing it less heavily. Only in four European countries is diesel more expensive than gasoline, the way it is in America.

But efficiency alone does not explain the huge disparity between fuel-use figures on either side of the Atlantic: European per capita consumption of gas and diesel stood at 286 liters a year in 2001, compared to 1,624 in the US, according to IEA figures.

The nature of cities plays a role, too. "America has built its entire society around the car, which enabled suburbs," points out Mr. Dings. "European cities have denser centers where cars are often not practical."

In Paris, for example, about half the trips people make are by foot, by bicycle, or on public transport, says UNEP's Mr. Fulton. In America, that figure is more like 20 percent.

Impact of fuel tax
"The single most effective measure" that has brought down motorists' fuel use in Europe, however, is taxation, says Dings.

On average, 60 percent of the price European drivers pay at the pump goes to their governments in taxes.

In Britain, the government takes 75 percent, and raises taxes by 5 percent above inflation every year (though it has forgone this year's rise in view of rocketing oil prices, and the French government has promised tax rebates this year to taxi drivers, truckers, fishermen, and others who depend heavily on gasoline.) On August 8, for example, the price of gas in the US, without taxes, would be $2.17, instead of $2.56; in Britain, it would be $1.97, instead of $6.06.

"There is really good evidence that higher prices reduce traffic," says Stephen Glaister, a professor of transportation at London's Imperial College. "If fuel prices go up 10 percent ... fuel consumed goes down by about 7 percent, as people start to use fuel more efficiently, not accelerating so aggressively and switching to more fuel-efficient cars. It does change people's behavior."

The US authorities, however, "are unwilling to use resource price as part of their strategy" to conserve oil, says Lee Schipper, head of transportation research at the Washington-based World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank.

"The biggest hole in our policy today is fuel taxation," he adds. "Tax increases are something Americans should do but don't know how to do, and I wonder if they will ever be able to.

"Consumers want muscle cars, manufacturers say they make what the consumer wants, and the government panders to both constituencies," Mr. Schipper continues. "It's a vicious cycle."

Europeans may drive smaller cars, but there are few signs that the current record gas prices are making them drive less.

Germans who live close to the Czech Republic can drive across the border to take advantage of the lowest prices in Europe, but most people "cannot react to [the prices] because they still need to drive a lot," says Jürgen Albrecht, an official with Germany's largest auto club, the ADAC. "I can't say I'm not going to drive the 50 kilometers [31 miles] to work because of the high gas prices. It doesn't work that way."

"Most people have no alternative, particularly those who live in rural areas," says Paul Hodgson of the RAC, the British motoring association. "A lot of motorists tell us that if there was a decent and affordable public transport system they would use that ... but we are still a long way from having an alternative."

Prices vary widely across Europe. The Greeks, for example, are getting off comparatively lightly, with just $4.32 a gallon. But they're not exactly celebrating.

On the Greek isles, where almost everything comes in by boat, residents are hit even harder by rising fuel prices. "Whatever you do, it all comes back to gasoline," huffs Dimitra Vogiatzi, who sells produce on the far-flung island of Patmos, as she slams closed her massive ledger.

Ms. Vogiatzi has been obliged to raise her prices, and more and more of her customers are buying on credit, she complains. "Imagine if we need a doctor, or someone has to have a baby," she adds. "All the boat fares, coming and going - isn't that gasoline?"

Though shipping costs in the Aegean may remain high, European Union regulations are forcing vehicle manufacturers to make their products even more efficient than they already are.

Though their primary motivation is to reduce CO2 emissions, in line with targets set by the Kyoto Protocol, bio-fuel and hybrid cars are still so rare that increased fuel efficiency is the fastest route to lower emissions, says Dolf Gielen, an expert at the IEA.

CO2 emissions from new European cars fell by 12 percent from 1995 to 2003, according to Mr. Gielen, and manufacturers have voluntarily pledged to reduce them by a further 14 per cent by 2008, he adds.

European governments are proposing tax breaks to encourage motorists to take advantage of these possibilities. Belgian drivers who buy a low-emissions vehicle get a 15 percent price rebate; Spain cuts $865 from the cost of registering a car if it replaces a car using leaded gas more than 10 years old; Hungary waives registration tax for hybrid cars.

End of the road for SUVs?
Though US vehicles' fuel efficiency has improved greatly over the past 30 years, overall consumption has risen in the past decade because consumers and manufacturers have used the leeway offered by the new technology to buy and build bigger and more powerful vehicles, experts say.

Environmentalists wonder whether the current price spike in gas prices might lead to a lasting change in US behavior. "The exciting thing now is that we are almost at the real high point of prices in 1981," says Mr. Schipper. "We'll see if American manufacturers, authorities, and drivers realize that these prices may now be locked in."

"Sales of big SUVs have been dropping in the last few months," points out Fulton. "We are now at the point where people believe this is real and they are reacting. The longer it goes on, the more they will react."

• Mark Rice-Oxley in London, Andreas Tzortzis in Berlin, and John Thorne in Patmos contributed to this article.

Friday, August 26, 2005

War Protestors--Be Strategic

There are a lot of people protesting the war and they are using every form of media to their advantage. I think it is great that in the United States we have the freedom of voice and I would not begin to say the Iraq War Protestors should "shut up." I hope they continue to voice their opinion of the war. But I wish they would voice their opinion strategically.

During the Vietnam War protestors in the United States bolstered the enemy to continue their fight. "Those who initially objected to the involvement in Vietnam fell into three broad categories: people with left-wing political opinions who wanted an NLF victory; pacifists who opposed all wars; and liberals who believed that the best way of stopping the spread of communism was by encouraging democratic, rather than authoritarian governments. (1)"

Memoirs and documents released by the North Vietnamese since the Vietnam War tell of the reliance upon the anti-war movement in the United States in helping to fight the American's.

Cindy Sheehan says that Bush killed her son by sending him to Iraq. Insurgents killed your son Ms. Sheehan. Insurgents hate Democracy, Jews and Christians. Like it or not the insurgents consider Democracy, Judaism and Christianity one and the same. Whenever a war protestor calls the insurgent a "freedom fighter" the insurgent and his/her allies around the world are bolstered to continue attacking.

Those who protest the Iraq war should do so but they should be strategic about it. Writing letters to Congress and telephoning state representatives are two ways to maintain free expression and do so in a way that does not aid enemy insurgents in Iraq or their supporters around the world. Protest marches and OpEd pieces are perfectly fine so long as the rhetoric is carefully worded. Calling Iraqi insurgents "Freedom Fighters" as and making comments such as "we are losing the war", "we are in a quagmire", "Bush lied", "this war is immoral", and "all this for oil" do nothing but bolster the enemy. If someone wants to believe these things go right ahead and tell your Congressional representatives who have the real power to work on your behalf to bring the troops home. In public be reserved when our troops are in combat.


1. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNprotest.htm

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Anti-War Folks Targeting Heroes

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.

One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."

Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.

On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.

But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.

"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.

Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."

When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."

Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.

"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.

At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.

"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.

Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.

Cindy Sheehan: "Peace" mom

There has been a whole heck of a lot in the news lately regarding Cindy Sheehan who lost her 24 year old son in Iraq. She has become the face of the peace movement. I use peace figuratively because the type of peace she and her followers espouse I have already discussed throughout this blog.

Losing someone is tragic and I can speak this for personal experience. I have lost many people in my life and a few of them were in accidents that were not their fault. Cindy's son died because of insurgents in Iraq. Terrorists.

Cindy was interviewed by CBS News’ Mark Knoller on August 6, 2005. In this interview (that has never made it to the main stream media, no surprise, she makes the following statements to questions Mr. Knoller asked her:

1. "Iraq was not a terrorist state."
2. "But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open. Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in."
3. "people who never thought of being car bombers, suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."

Sadly, Ms. Sheehan is very much mistaken and has allowed the emotion of her loss to cloud her logic. Let's look at the truth.

1. Was Iraq a State sponsor of terror? On July 22, 2002 Palestinian Kefauah Eshatah had a picture taken of her by REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah. Kefauah was posed in front of a picture of her son who killed himself in a suicide bombing. Kefauah is pictured holding up a compensation check for $10,000 which she received from the pro-Iraqi faction ALF (Arab Liberation Front). Saddam Hussein has given millions to families who have lost men fighting Israel. Pro-Iraqi Palestinian officials say Iraq has paid at least $5 million to Gaza families.

2. We have decimated the country? No, actually aside from the suicide and car bombing terrorists the country would be in pretty good shape.

3. The borders are open: Cindy, Cindy, Cindy... the borders were open long before the United States took out Saddam. That region of the world has always been pourous and will probably always be relatively pourous.

4. "Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in." So... the insurgents and terrorists are "freedom fighters"? What was your son who died for what he believed in? I want to have sympathy for this woman but I also want her to be logical. These people who are going to Iraq to fight are not Freedom fighters. At least not in the definition most people use. They want freedom... to go back to Saddam era politics or create a Fundamentalist Islamic State that does not recognize basic human rights.

5. "people who never thought of being car bombers, suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country." Cindy, there is no shortage of Islamic Fundamentalists and the presence of the United States has done very little to change this. The only thing that is true is that Iraq has become the hub for terrorist acts and I would much prefer that they happen in Iraq than in your home state. Let's not forget that the United States was not in Afghanistan in 2000 or 2001, but the Taliban support for Osama Bin Laden's network had no problem perpetrating 9-11. For your logic to be even remotely feasable the real terrorists should have come with the political support of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait where the United States has bases.

Now, before someone points out and says, "most of the terrorists were Saudi." Yes, that is true... and they followed Osama who was kicked out of Saudi Arabia.

Cindy, when you call these people "Freedom Fighters" you empower them with your message. When people by into your illogical conclusions they add more voices to a false justice. Your voice, and those before yours, only add to the enemy and result in more deaths... perhaps even leading to the death of your son. Now you are doing what is going to kill another woman's boy.

What the United States needs to do is maintain its resolve against terrorism and fight it where it spawns, grows, infests and congregates.

How Old is T-Rex?

In 1993, a report surfaced in the journal Science that a T-rex fossil found in the United States contained fresh bone tissue with nucleated blood cells. Since organic molecules of this type can only be preserved (even in the best circumstances) for a few thousand years, this becomes compelling evidence that this animal was possibly alive when Noah was building the ark.

A graduate student named Mary Schweitzer from the Museum of the Rockies in Montana found the fresh bone tissue; upon thorough microscopic investigation, she reportedly discovered nucleated blood cells still present in the tissue. She said that “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it…the bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”

She showed the slide to her boss, paleontologist Jack Horner, and he told her to prove that they were not blood cells. She worked on this research for nearly seven years, and reported in Earth Magazine (June 1997, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp 54-58) that “so far, we haven’t been able to.” Dr. Horner and Edwin Dobbs, who co-authored Dinosaur Lives that same year (1997), reported that, “under the microscope there appeared to be blood cells preserved within the bone tissue. Mary conducted a number of tests in an attempt to rule out the possibility that what she’d discovered where in fact blood cells. The tests instead confirmed her initial interpretation.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Similarities between Bush and Truman (David Shuster)

If you've been watching Hardball, you've seen some of our reports that dip into the vast NBC archives to put current political events in perspective with previous presidents, lawmakers, and etc. I'm excited to tell you that we are going to offer some of those same stories here on our blog. For example, for Hardball I've been working on a report that compares the challenges President Bush is facing with those of Harry S. Truman.

Truman was our 33rd President. He took over following the death in 1944 of President Roosevelt and had to deal immediately with a host of foreign policy issues. The video we have is remarkable. There was the conclusion of the war in Europe, the Potsdam conference when allied leaders (Truman, Churchill, Stalin...) decided how to handle a defeated Germany, and the dropping of atomic bombs in Japan. Three years later, in 1948, Truman held on to the Presidency by just four percentage points. Last fall, after four years dominated by 9-11, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq... President Bush held on to his presidency by three points. Like President Bush's critics, Harry Truman's considered him not up to the job of President. Truman was a folksy man who popularized simple phrases (i.e. "The buck stops here.") President Bush is a folksy man who tends to see the world in black and white.

There are other similarities as well... Despite a growing economy and job growth, President Bush's approval rating is falling because of problems in Iraq. President Truman's approval fell even lower because of the war in Korea. President Bush felt the sting of allegations that his White House leaked classified information. President Truman was hurt by allegations that his State Department was riddled with communists.

Today, historians regard Harry Truman as one of our nation's best Presidents. His huge U.S. investment in rebuilding post-war Japan and Germany paid off... and Truman's policy of containing Soviet expansionism was a role model throughout the cold war. The question with President Bush, of course, is whether his huge war on terror investment in Iraq will pay off and whether history judges him to be a treasured President like Truman or somebody regarded far less.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086