About Me

Name: RME KRNL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

More Attempted Climate Change "Change"

 
As in: Please try to change, or at least cloud up as much as possible, the real subject. (Climate -- change -- cloud up? Get it? Never mind.)
 
Since the recent exposure of the UK's climate change scientists' incriminating emails, it seems that lots of folks on the Left are trying to change the subject. Democrat senators are downplaying what the leaked emails reveal (which is fraud) and those in the liberal lamestream media are basically either ignoring the story altogether or, like Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, are trying to actively change the subject away from ClimateGate.
 
Well, if I recently "took on" someone like the New York Times' Paul Krugman over global warming/cllimate change and especially his attempts at "misdirection deception" (see Obama, Paul -- he wrote the manual) on behalf of the recently exposed not-so-slick scientists and their now-not-so-surreptitious emails, I can surely also handle Eugene Robinson, liberal hack writer for the Washington Post, who recently opined in an article called The Copenhagen Conundrum that: "Climate-change skeptics are barking up the wrong smokestack. The shell game being played isn't with the science, it's with the solutions..."
 
As is too often the case, Mr. Robinson is at best only half right and therefore proves himself once again as at least half of a useful idiot.
 
He is also, like Krugman and other liberal apologists for and defenders of the crooked climate change scientists, trying to misdirect the public's attention from the "bigger picture," which is that much of the global warming/climate change facts and figures are fake, the proponent scientists know they're fake and that they, along with other promoters like Al Gore, are therefore part of one of the largest, most long-standing and far-reaching frauds in modern history. And that we all, therefore, should tread slowly, perhaps in a more Reaganesque "trust but verify" manner, about making any big, expensive changes in the way we do things until after some of the now even more questionable data have been, uh, at least "rechecked and reverified."
 
Robinson's own shell game premise, that it's not the so-called "science" but the solutions which are the problem, is correct in that the "solutions" would definitely be both draconian and disastrous -- billions and billions of developed nations' lost treasure and diminution of production capacity at a time when they are already currently struggling with a world-wide recession in exchange for minuscule reductions in so-called man-made, or anthropogenic, "global warming/climate changing" carbon emissions.
 
As an aside, here is some info for you, courtesy of none other than Glenn Beck, about the current Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and the carbon emissions about which all of its attendees are supposedly so concerned: "The big climate change conference...it's already been conceded that nothing groundbreaking will happen as a result of the meetings. Considering the carbon footprint of this event is larger than what 60 countries produce in an entire year -- combined (Italics added) -- maybe they should get something done since they are hurting the environment so much. Perhaps participants feel a little less guilty now that it's apparent, thanks to the ClimateGate emails, [that] much of the global warming hype is exactly that."
 
And part of all that carbon emitting globe trotting and conferencing by the attendees is caused by about 1,200 limos and 140 private planes to get to and from and in and around while they're all at Copenhagen for two weeks, too. Hmmm, I'm pretty sure you spell that H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S!
 
But, back on point with "Mr. Eugene of the WaPo," it is also correct that the so-called "settled science" is not only not so "settled" but now patently shown to be outright fraudulent in many respects.
 
It's the height of irony that global warming scientists, who were after fame and governmental grant money, and self-promoters like Al Gore, who is seemingly forever after fame (after all, it's a long time ago now since he invented the Internet, you know) and who has made millions off of "saving the planet," both early and often derided anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers" and now have been caught denying and manipulating "inconvenient science" themselves. Plus their claims that data collected prior to 1980, which previously allegedly served to substantiate their hypotheses, hyperbole and hype, have now, suddenly and mysteriously, been "accidentally destroyed."
 
My, my, that's convenient, isn't it? Sort of like, "The dog ate my homework," but even worse. Since they're all "scientists," don'tcha know, it's more like my college professor coming into class and saying he can't each that day because his dog ate his teaching syllabus. How ludicrous (not the rapper, the adjective meaning "amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity").
 
The fact is, the former "denier" decriers and denouncers are now themselves the "new deniers" -- having long denied Freedom of Information requests so their work could be properly peer reviewed by their more skeptical fellow scientists and now also denying having manipulated data, denying having ignored other data, and denying having "accidentally" destroyed still other data. Gee, just how much denying are we supposed to believe?
 
Those kinds of "inconvenient truths" are really inconvenient when they come home to roost, aren't they? Karmic "goes around, comes around" can be a real ball-buster, huh, Mr. Eugene?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chairman Mao - increasingly popular among Obumbler's fumblers?

[Sorry for the lack of posts lately, but "I been sick." Will try to get back on track now.]
 
Unless you live under a rock -- but maybe even then, if you have TV -- you've probably heard by now that Obama's White House Director of Communications Anita Dunn (and who "styles" her hair anyway?) said to high schoolers this past summer that Mao Tse Tung -- you know, Red China, the Red Revolution, Little Red Book, prison camps, "re-education" centers, 70 million murdered, brutally repressive regime of the few ruling over the many -- yeah, that Mao Tse Tung -- is one of her favorite political philosophers, to whom she most often turns for inspiration.

(Well, that is, you've heard about this unless you only get your "news" from MSNBC, NBC or the New York Times. Then, whether you live under a rock and have TV or not, you may not have heard a thing about it. Actually, that goes for most of the liberal lamestream media, once again failing to do their job in keeping the American public informed about the whackos in our government.)

Now it comes out that Ron Bloom, Obama’s new manufacturing czar, in speaking to the 6th Annual Distressed Investing Forum, in February 2008, is also a member of Obama's Mao Tse Tung Fan Club:

“Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they are convinced that there is a free lunch. We know that this is largely about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it, that if you want a friend, you should get a dog.”  (Emphasis added.)

Wow! Makes you wonder just how many other Mao Tse Tung fans there are among Obama's appointees, advisors, fellow travelers, henchmen and enablers, doesn't it? Let's see, Mao was, ummm, a Communist, right? That's Communist, with a capital "C." You know, those guys who, whether they were internal and domestic or external and foreign, the United States has always seen as enemies to our values, our way of life and our liberties.

So, with Obama already having displayed more of a penchant for czars than the Russian royal Romanoffs could ever have even hoped for and senior Obama advisors and appointees being so fond of Mao, what kind of people does that mean are running "our" government right now? Hmmm, just as Glenn Beck of Fox News said, oligarchy is the term which comes to mind.

Merriam-Webster - Oligarchy:
1. government by the few
2. government in which a small group exercises control, especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also a group exercising such control
3. an organization under oligarchic control

So, taking definition number 2 and applying it to the Obumbler and his coterie of liberal socialist-communist admirers-sympathizers, what's to worry, right? Uh, right?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

From One Blogger to Another

Darvin Dowdy, in his Townhall.com blog Street Level, recently wrote the article "Who's Crazy Enough to Oppose Obama in 2012?" in which he suggested perhaps Glenn Beck.

My comments:

Although I understand you're just throwing spaghetti against the wall at this point, I agree with other commenters who say Beck is probably unelectable, as well as those who say he's probably doing just what he needs to be doing, both now and in the future, in exposing and questioning things as an "outsider."

However, you do us all a good service by providing the focus and raising the issue of: If not Beck, then who? And, I agree with you and others, it "don't look pretty out there." Between libs who run to the center only to govern from the left, Blue Dogs, RINOs, so-called moderate conservatives, conservative moderates, yadda, yadda, yadda, it's hard to tell all the leopards by their spots, especially when they go behind the Wizard of Oz curtain after getting elected and DO change their spots after all.

As much as I love Palin (and I just love the very IDEA of Palin and how twisted up she got the liberal lamestream media, as well as other libs, to pull their hair out -- or at least run around like it was on fire), she needs to do a lot of serious prep on multiple subjects before being a serious front-runner. She's got the right instincts and common sense but needs some in-depth prep as well, And, so far as I can tell, she's not doing that right now. She is the kind of firebrand with star power that we need, but she also needs more than that, especially at the top of a ticket. Obama used his star power, along with his lawyerly parsing of language and soaring but insubstantial rhetoric to slick talk his way in, and we all see where that's gotten us -- even those of us who saw it coming as far back as the Summer of '08.

I also agree -- Pawlenty, Jindal, Huckabee, Romney, etc. -- capable, smart, experienced -- but yawn, yawn, yawn. All good second tier candidates for VP, but not any exciting (read: motivating) star power, much less being a firebrand, among them. DeMint could possibly be an exception, but even there, so far, I haven't seen the type of fire in the belly I'm looking for. Jeb Bush would probably be another one, but I think he's just doomed (however unfairly) by his last name alone.

We need an experienced person who is a good speaker and debater, who is plain-talking, hard-fisted, take no prisoners, call 'em like I see 'em, let the chips fall where they may, almost apolitical person but who knows how to play politics with the best of them. A combination of Sarah Palin charm and star power, former ambassador John Bolton plainspokenness, Harry Truman directness, Abe Lincoln brevity, Ronald Reagan delivery, with maybe a little Southern preacher firebrand and Mitt Romney presidential good looks thrown in for good measure. Someone who would look directly at Katie Couric during an interview, smile and say, "Katie, I'm offended by that question," or would call Chris Matthews out for the liberal lapdog that he is while appearing on his own show, or would briefly but clearly explain after the Charlie Gibson interview that Charlie obviously hadn't understood his own question about which part of the still evolving (at that point in time, at least three-part) so-called "Bush doctrine" he had wanted me to respond to.

OMG! IMNSHO, I just described ..... MYSELF! ..... but from about 15 years or so ago. Just kidding. Anyway, that's the kind of person I'm looking and hoping for. Not just some warmed over "moderate" Republican or pseudo-conservative, but a real conservative who is (even more of a liberal's worst nightmare) also a Federalist and a Constitutionalist.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Van Jones - More vain than sane, more radical than rational, more racist than responsible

Mr. Jones sure seems full of himself -- as well as some pretty wild ideas and accusations.

There's a painting at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, CA, which appears in a video interview of President Obama’s so-called Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones. Mr. Jones, an unrepentant rioter, race baiter and professional victim monger, started the Ella Baker Center. The painting shows a Jimmy Carter looking white man on the left pointing a gun into the back of the head of what appears to be a Hispanic woman. On the right is an Orin Hatch looking white man holding a piece of paper that says “War on Youth” as he handcuffs a young black male. In the middle are young minority youths just trying to have a good time if only the evil white men would let them.

So, who was Ella Baker? Well, she was a peaceful but persistent activist in the early days of the civil rights movement in this country and, one might say, a modern day American heroine for her work for equal rights for all. Born December 13, 1903, in Norfolk, Virginia, she developed a sense for social justice early in her life. As a student at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina, she challenged school policies that she thought were unfair. After graduating in 1927 as class valedictorian, she moved to New York City and began joining social activist organizations.

She began her involvement with the NAACP in 1940. In 1957, Baker moved to Atlanta to help organize Martin Luther King's new organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). In February 1960, a group of black college students from North Carolina A&T University refused to leave a Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, where they had been denied service. Baker left the SCLC after the Greensboro sit-ins because she wanted to assist the new student activists. She organized a meeting at Shaw University for the student leaders of the sit-ins in April 1960, and from that meeting, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was born.

Adopting MLK's Gandhian theory of nonviolent direct action, SNCC members joined with activists from the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) to organize the 1961 Freedom Rides. With Ella Baker’s guidance and encouragement, SNCC became one of the foremost advocates for human rights in the country. She continued to be a respected and influential leader in the fight for human and civil rights until her death on December 13, 1986, her 83rd birthday.

And who is Anthony "Van" Jones? Born September 20, 1968, he attended the University of Tennessee at Martin and subsequently obtained his JD degree from Yale Law School. He is a lawyer, a civil rights, human rights and environmental activist, a self-proclaimed communist, a former street rioter and jailbird, and the author of one book, The Green Collar Economy (2008).

His current employer is the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he is listed as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, which means he's Obama's green jobs "czar," which means he works for and is accountable only to Obama but is paid by you, the American taxpayer. How much he's paid or the size and pay of his staff, we don't know -- just as with the approximately three dozen "other" extra-constitutional "czars" which Obama has appointed.
 
By virtue of being Obama's green jobs czar, Jones needs no Congressional approval -- approval he would not get either following an FBI SBI (Standard Background Investigation) or from Congress based on his record as a die-hard communist and self-described Marxist revolutionary. He also has some, ahem, other "interesting" beliefs, as well. He believes that "white polluters" intentionally steered poison into black neighborhoods. He also, just this year, attended a forum to promote Barack Obama’s agenda and, when asked how Republicans were able to block Obama’s agenda, repeatedly called them a-holes. He then said people around Barack Obama would need to get “uppity” to deal with the Republicans. (This is a guy with an advanced degree from Yale?! Well, that just made me much less impressed with Yale, and maybe with affirmative action, that's for sure.)

Oh, and Van Jones was also co-founder in 2005, along with James Rucker, previously Director of Grassroots Mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action (2003 - 2005), of Color of Change, the extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy with FNC's Glenn Beck for "outing" "Van the Man" Jones as a former jailbird, self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist." 

Jones later moved on to other pursuits, but, coincidentally (I'm sure), it was Color of Change which recently called for a boycott of Beck's sponsors (let's hear it for free speech!), probably at least with the White House's blessing, if not its collusion. However, their attempt to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show backfired because, although some sponsors did withdraw from Beck's show and/or equivocated about advertising on Fox but not specifically with Beck, it appears none canceled their ads with Fox in general and plenty of others have filled the void and signed up as Beck sponsors -- and Beck's already impressive ratings, especially for a 5PM show, have skyrocketed even more. It's like a few months ago when the DNC and Democrats in general tried to demonize Rush Limbaugh as the "head" of the Republican Party who wanted Obama to fail, and Rush's already incredibly large audience got even bigger.

By the way, Jones was also a founder and previously on the board of the Appollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now literally running parts of the Obama administration. So, had you ever even heard of them before? Me neither, but they're running part of the federal government now, it seems. As also recently reported by -- guess who? -- Glenn Beck (well, you didn't think it was the liberal lamestream media, did you?), the Appollo Alliance has not only recently acknowledged but actually bragged that it literally dictated parts of the legislative language in the February stimulus bill to Congress. (Hmmm, still more radical left associations with, and within, the Obama White House. Oh my! Who would've guessed?)

So, Jones said “people around Barack Obama would need to get ‘uppity’ to deal with the Republicans,” eh? Well, that's okay. I'm from the South, where Ella Baker did most of her good work, and we don't tolerate uppity folks too well. In fact, not much better than we tolerate fools or liars, or communists, or radicals or so-called "revolutionaries," for that matter. And we know how to deal with uppity folks, too, blacks as well as whites. We prefer to treat people as equals but if you're going to act uppity, then get ready for a plain old Southern slapdown. You know, like maybe yo' momma should have given you more of when you were a little, too-big-mouthed boy and before you grew up to be a big ole too-big-mouthed man.

Jones has since, just recently, apologized for his "Republicans are a-holes" comments, saying something like since he started working in the White House, he's realized such comments are counter-productive and yadda, yadda. Well, duh! Looks like someone as smart as Jones seems to think he is, and with a law degree from Yale and all, would already have known that, wouldn't you think? Or were his "a-hole" comments just another example of "uppity" liberal-speak, when the mouth often just runs away with, or is that from, the brain?

Well, Van baby, "apology" NOT accepted! Your history and past comments and actions show who you really are, more than some "make nice" words of apology now. You're basically just another Saul Alinsky style, radical leftist (no wonder you and Obama "bond") who has most recently now taken on the mantle of White House enviro-terrorist and thug-in-chief. I don't think Miz Ella, who was not "uppity" herself, would be very proud of your methods or your mouth. In fact, if she were still alive, she might give you that good old Southern slapdown herself -- you know, the one yo' momma shoulda given you more of as a boy?

You recently said we need to completely overhaul the entire agricultural system in this country, and I simply ask you: Who the hell do you think you are? As we say in the South, "Don't get all carried away with yourself." What, besides your own ignorant arrogance, qualifies you to do anything with our agricultural system? I don't think a law degree even from Yale or the writing of one book or a background of radical victim activism qualifies you to even seriously talk about our overall agricultural system. So, as long as you last as Obama's "green jobs czar," why don't you just stick to seeing if you can create some overly expensive "green jobs" with all that "green jobs" money your Appollo Alliance aiders and abettors dictated into the so-called "stimulus plan" which so far, now even seven months later, hasn't stimulated much of anything?
 
Besides, I think you're already one of those "uppity" guys who needs to learn more about that old saying, "Don't let your alligator mouth overload your hummingbird as-."

But that's just me -- just askin' - just sayin'.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's 9/11 Makeover?

Team Obama is trying to give the true meaning of 9/11 a "makeover." I guess it's more of what Obama promised during the campaign about "transforming" America. You know, a little revisionist history never hurt anybody, right?

Plans for this were outlined in an August 11 White House-sponsored teleconference call conducted by Obama "associate" Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.

Yearwood, who uses the honorific "Reverend" before his name, has been in the news in recent years, often for getting arrested. After Democrats took back Congress in 2006, the "Reverend" was handcuffed outside a congressional hearing in September 2007, during General David Petraeus' testimony. Yearwood later said he wanted to attend the hearing to hear Petraeus give his report, because "I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die." Gee, that sounds like maybe Yearwood might have extensive experience as a soldier himself and would thus have some standing, and the understanding, to make such a comment. But, alas, no. However, he was an Air Force lieutenant (and avid anti-Iraq war protester) in the Individual Ready Reserve until his discharge in mid-August 2007.

So, hey, Lennie, you got a M. Divinity degree from Howard University in May 2002 but so far as I can tell are not an ordained minister, yet call yourself "Reverend" and wear a white collar, no less, which is sort of like me insisting on being addressed as "Doctor" because I have a Juris Doctorate degree. And you're an activist who tried to jump the line waiting to get into a congressional hearing in 2007 and got yourself arrested instead of being allowed into the meeting you wanted to disrupt, er, attend. And you want to imply that whenever a distinguished Army general and authentic American hero is talking he may be lying and that is causing soldiers to die? What a presumptuous, self-important, radical, big-mouthed idiot you must be! But, of course, you're supposedly some kind of friend of Obama's (as well as P. Diddy's -- or whatever he's calling himself this week), so I guess that makes you good-to-go and gives you all the "creds" you need, huh?

However, one must stop and ask, just as the issue was raised during the campaign about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and many others (but never pursued by the liberal lamestream media), what kind of people is Obama (and this White House) choosing to associate with? And don't such associations say at least as much -- maybe even more, really -- about Obama the man and the politician as does his stage-managed presidential "pressers" and his other telepromptered pontifications and pronouncements? Just askin' - just sayin'.

On the August 11 call, a source with insider knowledge said that Yearwood and other leaders (see more below) kept saying that they wanted 9/11 to be used for something "positive," "forward-leaning" and "productive." The plan is "remake" 9/11 from a "day of fear" into a so-called "day of activism" called the "National Day of Service." Now, there's a euphemistically and meaninglessly misnomered national day, if ever I heard of one.

And who were those other leaders on the conference call with Yearwood? Well, it was a coalition including the radically left-wing pressure group Color of Change and other far-left, environmentalist, labor and corporate shakedown groups, including: ACORN, AFL-CIO, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 80 Million Strong for Young American Jobs, Friends of the Earth, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Mobilize.org, National Black Police Association, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of N-gro Women, National Wildlife Federation, RainbowPUSH Coalition, Urban League, and Young Democrats of America.

Gosh, how did two other Obama-favored special interest groups, the SEIU and UAW unions, get left out of that conference call? Oh, maybe the SEIU purple T-shirted thugs were out trying to intimidate some honest citizens at another town hall meeting that day and the UAW was as busy as ever running General Motors into the ground. So, as Dana Carvey's Church Lady used to say on SNL, "N-e-v-e-r m-i-n-d."  

Color of Change is an extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy with FNC's Glenn Beck for "outing" Van Jones, the former jailbird and self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" who became Obama's so-called green jobs czar after jumping on the environmentalist bandwagon. (Hmmm, more radical left associations.) Color of Change recently called for a boycott of Beck's sponsors (let's hear it for free speech!), probably at least with the White House's blessing, if not its collusion. However, their attempt to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show has backfired because, although some sponsors did withdraw from Beck's show and/or equivocated about advertising on Fox but not specifically with Beck, it appears none canceled their ads with Fox in general and plenty of others have filled the void and signed up as Beck sponsors -- and Beck's already impressive ratings, especially for a 5PM show, have skyrocketed even more. It's like a few months ago when the DNC and Democrats in general tried to demonize Rush Limbaugh as the "head" of the Republican Party who wanted Obama to fail, and Rush's already incredibly large audience got even bigger.

By the way, Jones was also a founder and previously on the board of the Appollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now literally running parts of the Obama administration. So, had you ever even heard of them before? Me neither, but they're running part of the federal government now, it seems. As also recently reported by -- guess who? -- Glenn Beck (well, you didn't think it was the liberal lamestream media, did you?), the Appollo Alliance has not only acknowledged but actually bragged that it dictated parts of the February stimulus bill to Congress.

Uhhhhh, can we all say, "WAIT A DAMN MINUTE, HERE!"?

A far-left alliance I had never even HEARD of before, composed of a bunch of people I don't know and who certainly weren't VOTED FOR or ELECTED by anybody, not only INFLUENCED (as in special interest groups -- you know, those people Obama said would have no place in his administration?) the so-called $787 billion stimulus plan, which has failed to stimulate much of anything, except more debate over massive waste of taxpayer money, but also literally DICTATED large parts of the actual legislative language to members of Congress? WOW! Just think about that for a minute. Couple that with Obama creating a shadow government of his own by appointing about 40 plus or minus "czars," whose pay and powers are unknown, many of whom have no qualifications for their positions and some of whom have criminal and/or radical leftist backgrounds, and one has to wonder: WHO IS REALLY RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT? Do "We the People" even know? Is it even "our" government anymore? It doesn't look like it. 

With the help of the Obama administration, the August 11 conference call coalition of far-leftist loons is launching a public relations campaign under the radar of the mainstream media -- which doesn't appear to be too hard to do nowadays, since their "radar" is basically turned off and they seem collectively too cowardly to criticize our first black president, not because he's right but just because he's black. What spineless so-called
"watchdogs" of the government!

The public relations campaign will try to change 9/11 from a day of reflection and remembrance to a day of activism, food banks, community gardens, environmentalism and green, green, GREEN. C'mon, all together now, say, "La-la. La-la-la." The conference call insider source said, "They think it needs to be taken back from the right." "They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day." (Italics added.)

Taken back from the right? Why, because it's the right which still wants to fight, and win, the "global war on terror," rather than engage in vague and limp-wristed sounding "overseas contingency operations"?

It gives Republicans an advantage? Why, because there are real historical and traditional reasons that the maxim "Republicans are better and stronger on national defense and national security than Democrats" is a maxim? That is, because maxims are truisms?

That day is a fearful day? Well, finally, they got one out of three right. Yes, 9/11 was a fearful day -- and it should remain so in our annual collective memory, and a day of anger as well. It is not a GREEN day! And no amount of leftist, revisionist radicals has any right to try and remake it into any other kind of day than it is. It is a BLACK day! And one we should never forget. Just as March 6, 1836, when Santa Anna's thousands of Mexican soldiers finally overran the Alamo and killed all of its less than 200 brave defenders, was a black day. Just as December 7, 1941, when the Imperial Japanese Forces bombed Pearl Harbor, was a black day.

September 11, 2001, was a day when Muslim jihadists used our own freedoms against us, when they slaughtered thousands of innocent people, then laughed and bragged and celebrated about it in the streets all around the Muslim world afterward. There was not, and should never be, anything green about 9/11. It was a day of tragedy and turmoil, of both horrific loss of life and yet of heroes, of deep and disturbing vulnerability, and of bewilderment giving way to righteous anger.
And it doesn't need a "makeover." It needs to be remembered as it was and honored and the sacrifice of those killed kept holy by that unchanged and unchanging memory.
 
Perhaps one day we can still remember and honor the day but forgive those responsible. Not excuse them but forgive them, as we have the Mexicans and the Japanese. But 9/11 should always be an annual day of sorrow, of remembrance, of reflection, of rededication to vigilance and rebirth of our republic's will to survive any and all attacks by any enemy at any time and place. Never forget! Never again, America!
 
Remember the Alamo!
 
Remember Pearl Harbor!
 
Remember 9/11! 

And screw Obama's hip-hop, greenie revisionists.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »