“We urge Arab and Muslim governments to spare no effort to pressure the UN to issue a resolution banning the slandering of religions,” said the Arab Inter-Parliamentary Union, following a two-day conference at a Dead Sea resort in Jordan.
The 16-country union, represented by over 200 Arab politicians, released a statement calling on "Arab and Islamic governments [to] pressure the United Nations to issue a resolution banning the slandering of religions," said more than 200 Arab politicians, who used the occasion to renew their criticism of the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The statement also said that "those who violate such a resolution should face legal action."
Meanwhile, in Doha, Qatar, the UN held a conference aimed at healing the rift caused by the Islamic response to the cartoons, which was described as being "just a small part of an expanding divide between Islam and the West."
“What we face nowadays is not a clash of civilisations but a clash mostly caused by ignorance, arrogance, insensitivity and festering political differences that fuel hostilities,” Turkish secretary of state Mehmet Aydin said.
The same day as these two occurences, in Karachi, Pakistan, 5,000 children ages 8 to 12 demonstrated at a rally spnsored by Pakistan’s largest Islamic group. They chanted slogans like “hang those who insulted the prophet,” and burned a coffin draped in American, Israeli and Danish flags.
The European Union released a statement Monday saying that, although it regretted that the cartoons were “considered offensive” by Muslims, freedom of expression “is a fundamental right and an essential element of a democratic discourse.”
Obviously, the Islamic world does not agree with this fundamentally true principle, and if the UN does not do a far better job at standing up to the Islamist bullies in the world community, and approves a resolution against free speech, there will no longer be any freedom or democracy left to defend.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Defining Oppression: a response to the Red and Black
Monday the 27th, the Georgia Red and Black ran an Opinions-page rebuttal to Jeff Emanuel's column "Tunnel of Oppression reinforces victimhood," which first ran here on February 14, and was printed by the Red and Black on February 23, eliciting an immediate reader response. Included in blog posts previous to this one were an email from a reader, and the author's response. That column, "'Tunnel' columnist insensitive," can be read here. Below is a response from UGACR Chairman Katie M. Flanigan.
Miss Duncan,
First, I would like to clarify what the definition of oppression is. To oppress is “1. to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny. 2. To weigh heavily on: Poverty oppresses the spirit. 3. To overwhelm or crush.”
Please tell me, Miss Duncan, what group in America today is experiencing this?
You will find yourself hard pressed to answer this question because the answer is, in fact, that no group in America is oppressed.
If you would like to make the assertion that discrimination and prejudice exist then do so, but do not confuse those words with that of oppression, for they differ entirely.
Second, Mr. Emanuel, who you claim to be “insensitive,” is a veteran of Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and Kosovo where he risked his life as a Special Operations Airman to bring down the oppressive regimes and/or to promote freedom in each of those nations. Mr. Emanuel is the greatest example of someone who has committed his life to fighting oppression.
I would also like to point out that he is an American Indian. Though he is a member of a minority group he is of the belief, as am I, that playing the role of victim does not further one or one’s group on any level.
As the saying goes “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar” and it holds true. If groups would push an agenda that demonstrated the
positive and strong impact they have had on America rather than a future of victim hood they would find far greater success in battling discrimination and prejudice.
Ag Commissioner candidate to address UGACRs
Gary Black, candidate for Georgia Commissioner of Agriculture, will be speaking to the largest student-political organization in the nation, the University of Georgia College Republicans(UGACRs), on Wednesday, March 1, at 7:00pm in room 207 of the Student Learning Center.
A graduate of Commerce High School, Gary Black has served the state’s agriculture community for 25 years, including a recent term as President of the Georgia Agribusiness Council, Inc., an organization with over 650 Georgia member businesses, ranging from family farms to landscapers and from banks to grain elevators.
Black, who has served as Chairman of the Economic Development Committee of the Governor’s Rural Development Council since 2003, has received several awards from CropLife America, the Southern Crop Production Association, Georgia Seed Association, and University of Georgia Agricultural and Applied Economics Association for professional achievement and grassroots political activities. Gary was also past president of the College of Agriculture’s alumni society and the 2004 recipient of the society’s Distinguished Professional Award.
For more information, please see the official UGA College Republicans website, www.ugacr.org, or contact UGA College Republicans PR Director Jeff Emanuel at 678-492-8228 or via email at jemanuel@uga.edu.
A graduate of Commerce High School, Gary Black has served the state’s agriculture community for 25 years, including a recent term as President of the Georgia Agribusiness Council, Inc., an organization with over 650 Georgia member businesses, ranging from family farms to landscapers and from banks to grain elevators.
Black, who has served as Chairman of the Economic Development Committee of the Governor’s Rural Development Council since 2003, has received several awards from CropLife America, the Southern Crop Production Association, Georgia Seed Association, and University of Georgia Agricultural and Applied Economics Association for professional achievement and grassroots political activities. Gary was also past president of the College of Agriculture’s alumni society and the 2004 recipient of the society’s Distinguished Professional Award.
For more information, please see the official UGA College Republicans website, www.ugacr.org, or contact UGA College Republicans PR Director Jeff Emanuel at 678-492-8228 or via email at jemanuel@uga.edu.
Fighting the left in the classroom
My History of Africa class was recently assigned a paper on Sven Lindqvist’s “Exterminate All the Brutes: One Man’s Odyssey into the Heart of Darkness and the Origins of European Genocide.” The day it was due, I walked into class to hear our professor asking students to present their theses and one student argued the following: the conquering of Africa by Europeans in the 19th century can be compared to America’s “conquest” of Iraq. He then stated that Americans are in Iraq for the following reasons: to conquer the Iraqis, to obtain oil, and, to exterminate Iraqi civilians. Exterminate Iraqi civilians??
Interesting, last time I checked Americans had saved the Iraqis from an oppressive dictator who was committing genocide, not the other way around.
To this student’s false statement, I promptly raised my hand and strongly stated that Americans are not in Iraq to exterminate Iraqis, rather, we are there to spread the democratic peace and to defeat an oppressive dictator and his regime. I also pointed out that we did not conquer Iraq and did not seek to do so. When I said this, my professor looked at me and, in a visibly annoyed way, laughed at me and questioned how I could say we didn’t conquer Iraq, that invading Iraq was conquering Iraq. To this, I said we did not conquer Iraq, rather we defeated an oppressive regime and he looked at me in disbelief. (I'd like to ask this professor to look up the definitions of the words "conquer" and "defeat," as he clearly did not know the difference between the two.)
A classic liberal professor, he then allowed a democrat in the front of the room to claim that Americans are racist and that we do wish to exterminate the Iraqis, without questioning her position at all.
No surprise there! Rather than allowing students to present their ideas and to mediate the debate, he called out the students he didn't agree with and allowed the liberals to drone on and on about how terrible Americans are. Liberal professors fail to remember that the classroom is a forum for discussion and the exchange of ideas, not a soapbox to push their own agendas or to support students who are of the same mindset.
Interesting, last time I checked Americans had saved the Iraqis from an oppressive dictator who was committing genocide, not the other way around.
To this student’s false statement, I promptly raised my hand and strongly stated that Americans are not in Iraq to exterminate Iraqis, rather, we are there to spread the democratic peace and to defeat an oppressive dictator and his regime. I also pointed out that we did not conquer Iraq and did not seek to do so. When I said this, my professor looked at me and, in a visibly annoyed way, laughed at me and questioned how I could say we didn’t conquer Iraq, that invading Iraq was conquering Iraq. To this, I said we did not conquer Iraq, rather we defeated an oppressive regime and he looked at me in disbelief. (I'd like to ask this professor to look up the definitions of the words "conquer" and "defeat," as he clearly did not know the difference between the two.)
A classic liberal professor, he then allowed a democrat in the front of the room to claim that Americans are racist and that we do wish to exterminate the Iraqis, without questioning her position at all.
No surprise there! Rather than allowing students to present their ideas and to mediate the debate, he called out the students he didn't agree with and allowed the liberals to drone on and on about how terrible Americans are. Liberal professors fail to remember that the classroom is a forum for discussion and the exchange of ideas, not a soapbox to push their own agendas or to support students who are of the same mindset.
Saddam WMD tapes, continued
The first 12 hours of Saddam audiotapes having been translated and released, President Bush's case for war against Iraq appears to have been much more solid than the anti-war media has led us to believe.
With hundreds more hours of tapes still awaiting translation, some bombshells have already been produced. Recorded in "Saddam's version of the Oval Office," the tapes contain Saddam speaking "openly of programs involving biological, chemical and...nuclear weapons."
In a tape from April 1995, Saddam and his aides "discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq's biological weapons program." On the tape, Saddam's son-in-law and head of his WMD program, Hussein Kamel, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors. "We did not reveal all that we have," he says. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."
As late as 2000, Saddam can be heard talking with Iraqi scientists in his office about his attempts to build a nuclear weapon. At one point, he "discusses Iraq's plasma uranium program — something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD." This last part is "particularly troubling, since it indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb."
"What was most disturbing," said John Tierney, the ex- FBI agent who translated the tapes, "was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission (or UNSCOM, the group set up to look into Iraq's WMD programs)."
"Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using "proxies" in a terror attack"--reminiscent of 9/11 itself.
If nothing else, this demonstrates that President Bush was right about the timing--we had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam; otherwise, he would have completely reconstituted hisWMD programs when inspectors left.
Saddam "probably knew better than to use them himself against the U.S. But it's likely he wouldn't have hesitated giving one or more to terror groups with which he had routine contact."
Besides just the tapes, other evidence is mounting up daily to support these conclusions. Georges Sada, the former No. 2 in Iraq's air force, has written a book called Saddam's Secrets that details how the Iraqi dictator used trucks, commercial jets and ships to remove his WMD from the country. At the time, the move went largely undetected, because Iraq pretended the massive movement of materiel was to help Syrian flood victims. Ali Ibrahim, another of Saddam's former commanders, has largely corroborated Sada's story, as well.
So how was Saddam able to get away with this? "The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," said John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense, at an intelligence summit held in February in Arlington, Va. "They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special operations) units out of uniform that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.
We agree with the Investors Business Daily on this one: "These are extraordinary developments. They deserve a full airing in the media, since they essentially validate part of Bush's casus belli for invading Iraq and deposing the murderous Saddam."
With hundreds more hours of tapes still awaiting translation, some bombshells have already been produced. Recorded in "Saddam's version of the Oval Office," the tapes contain Saddam speaking "openly of programs involving biological, chemical and...nuclear weapons."
In a tape from April 1995, Saddam and his aides "discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq's biological weapons program." On the tape, Saddam's son-in-law and head of his WMD program, Hussein Kamel, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors. "We did not reveal all that we have," he says. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."
As late as 2000, Saddam can be heard talking with Iraqi scientists in his office about his attempts to build a nuclear weapon. At one point, he "discusses Iraq's plasma uranium program — something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD." This last part is "particularly troubling, since it indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb."
"What was most disturbing," said John Tierney, the ex- FBI agent who translated the tapes, "was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission (or UNSCOM, the group set up to look into Iraq's WMD programs)."
"Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using "proxies" in a terror attack"--reminiscent of 9/11 itself.
If nothing else, this demonstrates that President Bush was right about the timing--we had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam; otherwise, he would have completely reconstituted hisWMD programs when inspectors left.
Saddam "probably knew better than to use them himself against the U.S. But it's likely he wouldn't have hesitated giving one or more to terror groups with which he had routine contact."
Besides just the tapes, other evidence is mounting up daily to support these conclusions. Georges Sada, the former No. 2 in Iraq's air force, has written a book called Saddam's Secrets that details how the Iraqi dictator used trucks, commercial jets and ships to remove his WMD from the country. At the time, the move went largely undetected, because Iraq pretended the massive movement of materiel was to help Syrian flood victims. Ali Ibrahim, another of Saddam's former commanders, has largely corroborated Sada's story, as well.
So how was Saddam able to get away with this? "The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," said John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense, at an intelligence summit held in February in Arlington, Va. "They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special operations) units out of uniform that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.
We agree with the Investors Business Daily on this one: "These are extraordinary developments. They deserve a full airing in the media, since they essentially validate part of Bush's casus belli for invading Iraq and deposing the murderous Saddam."
Monday, February 27, 2006
Kingston leads the "New Media" wave on Comedy Central
"The Colbert Report," the late-night Comedy Central show and spinoff of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," has been seeking to create "a litany of fools" on Capitol Hill, drawing in seemingly unsuspecting congressmen and lampooning them on cable TV.
Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA), vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, became, at the behest of his Communications Director, 26-year-old David All, the first member of the House to appear on this show, . A "Georgia Republican and seemingly boring white guy who once lived in Ethiopia," Colbert drew Kingston into a "discussion of his African-American experience," among other satirical issues. Republican strategist Rich Galen "sees the youthful hand of hip Congressional aides at work," saying that "the younger staffs of these folks are convincing their bosses that if you really want to be president of the United States some day, you've got to get in with the crowd on Comedy Central."
The majority of legislators "don't seem to mind Colbert's non sequiturs, outrageous claims and preening for the camera," reported Roll Call magazine in an article about Colbert's show. "He's not just jabbing at Congressmen and politicians - he's jabbing at the media as well," said Representative Kingston.
After successfully convincing the 50-year-old Kingston to be Colbert's congressional "guinea pig," All contacted other House Republican aides and suggested that they urge their bosses to do the same; he even arranged for a showing of Mr. Kingston's Colbert clip at a recent Republican weekend retreat. "We're all about the new media," All said. "It's good that Republicans can be humorous."
The video of Representative Kingston's interview can be seen here, under "Better Know a District: Georgia's 1st."
Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA), vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, became, at the behest of his Communications Director, 26-year-old David All, the first member of the House to appear on this show, . A "Georgia Republican and seemingly boring white guy who once lived in Ethiopia," Colbert drew Kingston into a "discussion of his African-American experience," among other satirical issues. Republican strategist Rich Galen "sees the youthful hand of hip Congressional aides at work," saying that "the younger staffs of these folks are convincing their bosses that if you really want to be president of the United States some day, you've got to get in with the crowd on Comedy Central."
The majority of legislators "don't seem to mind Colbert's non sequiturs, outrageous claims and preening for the camera," reported Roll Call magazine in an article about Colbert's show. "He's not just jabbing at Congressmen and politicians - he's jabbing at the media as well," said Representative Kingston.
After successfully convincing the 50-year-old Kingston to be Colbert's congressional "guinea pig," All contacted other House Republican aides and suggested that they urge their bosses to do the same; he even arranged for a showing of Mr. Kingston's Colbert clip at a recent Republican weekend retreat. "We're all about the new media," All said. "It's good that Republicans can be humorous."
The video of Representative Kingston's interview can be seen here, under "Better Know a District: Georgia's 1st."
Iran: "Tom and Jerry" a Zionist invention?
The Iranian Education Ministry's Cultural Advisor recently suggested on 
Iranian tv that the cartoon characters Tom and Jerry were "a Jewish Conspiracy to improve the image of mice, because Jews were termed "dirty mice" in Europe," reports the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
Said Professor Hasan Bolkhari, "There is a cartoon that children like. They like it very much, and so do adults - Tom and Jerry."..."Some say that this creation by Walt Disney [sic] will be remembered forever. The Jewish Walt Disney Company gained international fame with this cartoon. It is still shown throughout the world. This cartoon maintains its status because of the cute antics of the cat and mouse - especially the mouse.
Some say that the main reason for making this very appealing cartoon was to erase a certain derogatory term that was prevalent in Europe."..."If you study European history, you will see who was the main power in hoarding money and wealth, in the 19th century. In most cases, it is the Jews. Perhaps that was one of the reasons which caused Hitler to begin the antisemitic trend, and then the extensive propaganda about the crematoria began"..."The Jews were degraded and termed 'dirty mice.' Tom and Jerry was made in order to change the Europeans' perception of mice."
"It should be noted that mice are very cunning and dirty. Tom and Jerry was made in order to display the exact opposite image. If you happen to watch this cartoon tomorrow, bear in mind the points I have just raised, and watch it from this perspective. The mouse is very clever and smart. Everything he does is so cute. He kicks the poor cat's ass. Yet this cruelty does not make you despise the mouse. He looks so nice, and he is so clever...This is exactly why some say it was meant to erase this image of mice from the minds of European children, and to show that the mouse is not dirty and has these traits. Unfortunately, we have many such cases in Hollywood shows."
Video of this address can be seen here.
Iranian tv that the cartoon characters Tom and Jerry were "a Jewish Conspiracy to improve the image of mice, because Jews were termed "dirty mice" in Europe," reports the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
Said Professor Hasan Bolkhari, "There is a cartoon that children like. They like it very much, and so do adults - Tom and Jerry."..."Some say that this creation by Walt Disney [sic] will be remembered forever. The Jewish Walt Disney Company gained international fame with this cartoon. It is still shown throughout the world. This cartoon maintains its status because of the cute antics of the cat and mouse - especially the mouse.
Some say that the main reason for making this very appealing cartoon was to erase a certain derogatory term that was prevalent in Europe."..."If you study European history, you will see who was the main power in hoarding money and wealth, in the 19th century. In most cases, it is the Jews. Perhaps that was one of the reasons which caused Hitler to begin the antisemitic trend, and then the extensive propaganda about the crematoria began"..."The Jews were degraded and termed 'dirty mice.' Tom and Jerry was made in order to change the Europeans' perception of mice."
"It should be noted that mice are very cunning and dirty. Tom and Jerry was made in order to display the exact opposite image. If you happen to watch this cartoon tomorrow, bear in mind the points I have just raised, and watch it from this perspective. The mouse is very clever and smart. Everything he does is so cute. He kicks the poor cat's ass. Yet this cruelty does not make you despise the mouse. He looks so nice, and he is so clever...This is exactly why some say it was meant to erase this image of mice from the minds of European children, and to show that the mouse is not dirty and has these traits. Unfortunately, we have many such cases in Hollywood shows."
Video of this address can be seen here.
Letter from the Chairman, February '06
* * * *
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Dear College Republicans,
Our chapter is off to an incredible start, and I would like to share some of the amazing things we have accomplished over the past month and a half with you! We conducted a voter registration drive and registered over 40 new conservative voters in the state, held a Mock Congress and a Trivia Night, created an outstanding weblog with over 95 posts and counting, established a working relationship with and have been receiving increasingly favorable and comprehensive coverage from both the Red and Black and the Athens Banner-Herald, watched the State of the Union Address with over twenty of you in attendance, registered twenty-five new College Republican members, established a strong volunteer network through the Team Leader Program, and attended the Christian Coalition's "Families and Freedom Kick Off" where we spoke with Congressman Max Burns, candidates for Lt. Governor St. Senator Casey Cagle and Dr. Ralph Reed, and Congressman Tom Price to name a few.
Most recently, twelve UGACRs attended the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. It was at this conference that our members had the opportunity to hear speakers such as RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, the Honorable Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, and many others. We were also honored to personally meet with Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss and their Communications Directors, and also with Representative Jack Kingston's staff and his Communications Director.
We have accomplished so much within that past few weeks alone and I look forward to all of the incredible things we will accomplish in the coming months!
I look forward to seeing all of you at the meetings this March. We will be hearing from candidate for Ag Commissioner Mr. Gary Black, candidate for State Senate Mr. Bill Cowsert , and the financial management group Summit Seminars.
Thank you for your continued dedication to our chapter! Your hard work has not gone unnoticed, I am continually told from strong Republicans across the state how proud they are to see how the UGA College Republicans have stepped up to the plate and have worked so hard for the Republican cause.
Keep up the good work!
Katie M. Flanigan, Chairman
* * * *
Rove upbeat on '06, '08
“Republicans will keep the House, Republicans will keep the Senate,” predicted administration strategist Karl Rove in an interview with Washington Times reporter Bill Sammon. “The question is, what will be the margin? Will we gain a couple of seats? Will we lose a couple of seats? Will we lose more than a couple seats? I’m frankly very optimistic.”
The interview, conducted for Sammon's new book, Strategery, featured plenty of attention-getting quotes from Rove, who predicted that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) will win the Democrat primary, but will lose the 2008 presidential election. “She is the dominant player on their side of the slate,” said Rove. “Anybody who thinks that she’s not going to be the candidate is kidding themselves.” The other candidates, he said, are merely “preening for the vice presidential slot.” However, he continued, "for somebody who is philosophically very liberal, she’ll be a very cautious candidate at times,” and warned that “that cautiousness will serve her well a lot of times — not always, but a lot of times. For example, her cautiousness had her vote for the Iraq war. Her cautiousness has led her to do things to sort of try to position herself as a centrist.”
Asked to describe Senator Clinton’s weaknesses, Rove responded with “her personal philosophy and her brittleness about her.” “The question people will ask," he added, is "do we want to have her as president? And the answer to that will be determined in part by how she conducts herself. But it will also be settled in part by who the Republican nominee is and how he or she conducts themselves.”
The interview, conducted for Sammon's new book, Strategery, featured plenty of attention-getting quotes from Rove, who predicted that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) will win the Democrat primary, but will lose the 2008 presidential election. “She is the dominant player on their side of the slate,” said Rove. “Anybody who thinks that she’s not going to be the candidate is kidding themselves.” The other candidates, he said, are merely “preening for the vice presidential slot.” However, he continued, "for somebody who is philosophically very liberal, she’ll be a very cautious candidate at times,” and warned that “that cautiousness will serve her well a lot of times — not always, but a lot of times. For example, her cautiousness had her vote for the Iraq war. Her cautiousness has led her to do things to sort of try to position herself as a centrist.”
Asked to describe Senator Clinton’s weaknesses, Rove responded with “her personal philosophy and her brittleness about her.” “The question people will ask," he added, is "do we want to have her as president? And the answer to that will be determined in part by how she conducts herself. But it will also be settled in part by who the Republican nominee is and how he or she conducts themselves.”
"Tunnel of Oppression" poorly rebutted in editorial
Monday the 27th, the Georgia Red and Black ran an Opinions-page rebuttal to Jeff Emanuel's column "Tunnel of Oppression reinforces victimhood," which first ran here on February 14, and was printed by the Red and Black on February 23, eliciting an immediate reader response. Included in blog posts previous to this one were an email from a reader, and the author's response. Below is the column:
Last Thursday, Jeff Emanuel missed the point in his column “‘Tunnel’
reinforces victimhood.” The “Tunnel” serves to create awareness mong students, and it must be approached with an open mind.
Unlike Emanuel’s belief that the tunnel seeks “to convey the oppression imposed by Americans on… everybody else,” the tunnel actually conveys the oppression that Americans impose on other Americans.
The goal of seeing this oppression first hand is to allow students to
empathize with students from different minority groups. One would think that a student’s point of view would change even slightly after an up-close view of insults like “Thank God for AIDS” or “No tears for queers.”
What Emanuel and several others across this campus and across this
country fail to realize is prejudice and discrimination exist far beyond
measures so overt as these. In the year 2006, prejudice is more covert than ever, and it is therefore more difficult to stop.
Social psychologists have coined the term “modern racism” to describe this subtle, prejudicial behavior.
By today’s standards, overt prejudice is simply unacceptable, and those who practice it are social outcasts. Modern racism, however, lingers in our cities, suburbs, classrooms and boardrooms.
One great example of modern racism lies in names. While one legally
cannot be denied a job opportunity because of his or her ethnicity, it seems as though one can be denied a job if his or her name sounds like he or she belongs to a certain ethnic group.
The troubling fact is that I am more likely than some of my other black peers to get a job once I leave this University. Compared to those with similar backgrounds and levels of education, I am more likely to be offered employment because my name is considered to be “mainstream,” as opposed to an ethnic-sounding name like Keisha or Malik.
Emanuel also doesn’t understand why the sign stating “Welcome to
America, now speak English” is so harsh. At last check, the U.S. Constitution did not list English as our official language. The framers of the Constitution did not list an official language because they wanted America to be a place that would grow and change.
At the end of his column, Emanuel ponders the question of why
mainstream Christians were not included in the Tunnel of Oppression. When did Christians in America become the minority?
As a Christian, I must say I have never felt that my beliefs were
coming under attack. The purpose of the tunnel actually follows a Christian principle, to love our neighbors as we do ourselves.
Another issue is that many so-called Christians persecute minority
groups, suppposedly in the name of Christianity.
America is made up of people of varying ethnicities, religions, family
histories and so on. Minority groups in America do not wish to be seen as victims, rather as victors. Problems faced by minorities must be addressed by mainstream America if this nation is ever to be as great as its promise.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Chairman Alexander's closing remarks
Outgoing Georgia Association of College Republicans(GACR) Chairman Britton Alexander gave a poignant final address in his last Chairman's Closing Remarks to the 2006 GACR convention. Addressing a visibly emotional audience which included national officials Dan Schuberth (Vice Chairman, Maine GOP) and Jess Beeson (Co-Chair, College Republican National Committee), Alexander spoke on leadership, his experience in the GACR, and the importance of continuing the conservative activist tradition. The full text of his speech can be seen below:Alexander leaves stewardship of the GACR to incoming Chairman Chris Dempsey (Ga Tech), Vice Chair Esther Clark (Brenau), and Financial Secretary John Bowles (Ga Southern). Dempsey immediately appointed 2005-06 GACR/Paul Coverdell Student Activism Award recipient and Georgia Tech CR Chairman Ruth Malhotra as his Exectutive Director.Ladies and Gentlemen, for all intents and purposes, that brings our Convention, and the 2005-2006 administration, to a close. I would like to sincerely thank all of you for not only your attendance here today, but your dedication to seeing this great organization succeed. I hope that you have been energized by the outstanding group of individuals that addressed the convention today and are ready to return to your campuses for what is sure to be an exciting year for the Georgia Republican Party. It was certainly a lot of information to take in and I’m sure you’re all ready to give your mind a rest.
However, before we leave here today, I’d like to leave you all with some final thoughts, some of which I’ve been saving for a long time, that you will hopefully carry with you as you continue your journey with the Georgia College Republicans. First and foremost, remember that we are all Republicans, we are all conservatives, and we all serve the same cause. Remember what is truly important, not titles, not recognition, not self promotion, not opportunism, but advancement of the conservative cause on our campuses and in our communities. Always remember, that in an organization such as ours, you either have growth, or you have decline. There is no status quo. I can tell you now, without a doubt, that the best way to continue to develop as an organization and advance the conservative cause is to focus on the three tenets of the College Republicans: votes, volunteers, and earned media. With each step you take, ask yourself, will what I am doing now put my candidate substantially closer to victory, bring out
enthusiastic young people who will help get the message out, or gain positive press coverage for my organization and my party? If the answer to all three questions is no, your priorities need to be rearranged. There is a reason that we continue to advise our chapters to channel their efforts towards these simple guidelines: They work! While many have tried to stray from this proven methodology and strike out a new way of clenching victory, their efforts, in the end, prove fruitless. For example, contrary to the belief of some misguided individuals, you cannot change the world, elect conservative Republicans, and improve the College Republicans by hiding behind a computer and attacking fellow Republicans! I have yet to see such a person register a voter or knock on someone’s door and ask for their support. A Grassroots Army canvassing communities, putting out yard signs, and making targeted phone calls; that’s what wins elections and keeps America on the right track. Never let anyone convince you otherwise.
Another part of making sure that America remains the best country in the world involves capturing the hearts and minds of our fellow students. When it comes to fighting for the free exchange of ideas on campus, do not yield to intimidation, pressure, or threats from liberals, and do not buy into their demands for diversity at the expense of freedom, or their call for tolerance at the expense of fiscal responsibility and moral decency. Shy away from “moderating” your conservative principles in order to be popular. Conservatives win when we act like conservatives. Do not forget, radical liberal activists and professors attempting to convince you to forsake your principles ARE NOT your friends. They may try to cozy up to you, try to get you to be “open minded”, and challenge you to friendly debates, all with the intention of distracting you from fighting their twisted agenda. While you’re sitting in meetings with professors to explain your actions, or spending time engaging in “bi-partisan” campus projects, leftists are spending your student fees on anti-war rallies, pro-abortion speakers, and anti-ROTC petitions. If you are not fighting them, you’re helping them. Remember, “When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.” If you remain silent in the face of liberal absurdity, you have allowed evil to triumph because of inaction. That, my friends, is a one of the most egregious insults to the land of the free you could ever dole out.
There are some in your organization who may try to convince you to shy away from productive controversy simply because people who hate you already are going to be angry. Do not lend them your ears. Let me make this point as clear as possible: If leftists on your campus are not in a state of perpetual anger because of the College Republicans, YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB!. We have gained back far too much ground in the past few years when it comes to the fight for academic
freedom. Do not let history judge all of you as being the ones who became fearful, and rendered meaningless the toils of hundreds of your fellow CRs. In the battle for the hearts and minds of America’s youth, recall the words to General Thomas Jackson: “Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in the pursuit. Never fight against heavy odds if you can hurl your own force on only a part of your enemy and crush it. A small army may thus destroy a large one, and repeated victory will make you invincible.”
I have been so pleased and honored to be a part of an organization that has been so incredibly successful this year, and is poised to reach never before seen heights on the backs of a fantastic leadership team whose abilities and dedication I admire immensely. After all, to one day see the student assume the role of the master and to surpass his former teacher’s abilities is to have a leader’s dream realized. While we have accomplished a number of tasks previously left untouched, never forget that there are limitless milestones remaining to be passed and a great vision left to be realized. As Sir Winston Churchill so correctly stated, “Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there will stretch out before you an ever-lengthening, ever-ascending, ever-improving path. You know you will never get to the end of the journey. But this, so far from discouraging, only adds to the joy and glory of the climb”. Walking along that path of success with my many friends here today has been one of the greatest joys of my life. I hope and pray that you may never see the end of that road.However, while navigating that path, be careful not to look too far ahead, as that can be just as dangerous as wearing a blindfold. Set your eyes on the goal of electing Republican candidates in November, not on electing yourselves later in life. If you are called to serve, that time will come, and, I promise you, if your intentions are pure, it will not be an easy decision or one you can make quickly. Do not fall victim to the sirens of power who call from, distant, seemingly utopian cliffs, promising recognition, notoriety, and fame if you will only this once take your eyes off the beacon of principle that is guiding our vessel of victory into the bountiful waters of freedom. My friends, I’ve witnessed men and women who chose to heed the call of this temptress, and I have seen their chapters, state federations, the conservative cause, and the Republican Party suffer deeply for it. The Georgia College Republicans have a long standing reputation of staying true to the cause and placing conservative victory on a firm pedestal that will remain upright despite the raucous, disorderly thrashing carried out by immaturity and self indulgence in the dirt below. All of us are here now, not because we were coerced, but because we have been called to serve a cause much greater than any single person in this entire room, a cause that has carried this nation from a struggling wilderness filled with uncertainty to a prosperous republic overflowing with opportunity. Freedom, limited government, respect for life in all its stages, equal protection under the law, the right to bear arms, strong national defense; those are the pillars that hold up the pedestal of conservatism upon which victory rests. Serve our cause selflessly as you have this past year, and as you are doing now, and success will follow you all the days of your life as you develop into the great leaders, policy makers, and public servants you are destined to be.
While there are many people who may wish to lead you in the future, be wary of those who want to lead only for self-fulfillment. The true downfall of many great men was their propensity to guard that pedestal upon which common victory lies only when it seemed as if there was an open road to their misguided and ill-timed quest for authority. However, when the path became rocky, or temporarily blocked, their supposed fiery passion for the common cause turned out to be nothing but incendiary narcissism coveting power. If you are a leader, or desire to become one, practice the art of stewardship every day. Lead because you have been called to serve others, not yourselves, and then, you will truly be keepers of the American Dream.In closing, never forget to enjoy what you are doing, and take time to cherish the memories you make. They are some of the most remarkable ones you’ll have. I can certainly say that I wouldn’t even consider letting a single one go. Even during the times I struggled through, or thought, “If that phone rings one more time I’m throwing it in the river”, I can still say that I brought something away from
the situation that made me a better man. After all, there is no other
organization like the one we call the Georgia Association of College
Republicans. No where else can you make steadfast friends, work hard for your country, gain invaluable life experience, and have the time of your life doing it. The wish of all of the people up here on this stage is that you might have the same life changing experience with the College Republicans as we have. With the vision of dedicated leaders like Chris Dempsey, Esther Clark, and John Bowles paving the way, you have one of the best opportunities one could have to get involved in a well managed organization and enjoy the victories that will be achieved in November. However, it will not always be easy. As in all things in life, there will be hard times. Times when you’ve given everything you had and still came up a few votes short, or felt completely alone in standing up for what was right instead of what was popular, or when friends or loved ones turn from their previous ways and horrified you with the demons they had been hiding. During those times, I have to admit that sometimes we all feel that it seems like all of this is just too much too much to deal with, especially when Churchill’s “ever-lengthening, ever-ascending, ever-improving path”, seems to be anything but, and victory is miles away.
However, because of the thousands of memorable, great times, we find ourselves coming right back to rooms like these, filled with people like all of you, who have a vision of moving this state, and this nation forward with the conservative principles that we know will serve us best. Maybe we all return for the thrill of common victory and carrying with us the knowledge that in some way, we helped guide our candidates to victory and our campuses to freedom. For me personally, it’s standing before the most unified, experienced, and dedicated GACR convention body in history and thinking that maybe, in some way, I helped someone on that floor realize how crucial it
is that they take a stake in their country’s future. Its certainly one of
the greatest honors of my life to stand before you today, but I never meant to be GACR Chairman. That wasn’t my intention when I first joined the College Republicans at Georgia Southern University in 1999. But in the words of Ronald Reagan, “I was raised to believe that you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed on you.” I sincerely pray that all of you recall the blessings brought into your life through the College Republicans and strive to selflessly return what has been given.
When I addressed the Assembly last year, I told all of you that its times like today that make it all worth it. But I also said that its times like today that will make leaving this organization, when the time came, one of the hardest things I would ever have to do. The time is now. In some ways what I said a year ago may be true, but when its all said and done, I am eternally grateful that we have been blessed with great individuals, passionate volunteers, and principled leaders who, through their sacrifice, are allowing me to leave the GACR with a better reputation, with a bank account 8,000% larger than it was two years ago, with 1,000 more members, and with an incoming Chairman more prepared to take the reins than I ever was.
As we close out the 2006 Convention, a final word to the men and women who fought tooth and nail to bring this organization to where it is now, if I may so humbly quote our greatest president--“My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a
difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.”
I thank you for your attendance here today, and ask for your support of our new leadership with the sincere belief that they will not let you down. May God Bless all of you here today, and as always, "may God Protect the Right."Thank you.
Outgoing GACR leadership says tearful goodbye
The 2006 Georgia Association of College Republicans (GACR) convention saw the end of the two-term chairmanship of Britton Alexander (Ga Tech), who also served as the College Republican National Committee (CRNC) 2nd Vice-Chair. Alexander oversaw the rise of the GACR to national prominence, working hand-in-hand with the CRNC and with the state GOP to achieve spectacular results in the areas of fundraising, voter registration, and grassroots effectiveness.The outgoing GACR officers said individual goodbyes, offering words of encouragement and motivation to their successors and to delegates from around the state, and cautioning against losing focus or becoming lackluster in their continuous efforts to promote conservative policy and principle.
Financial Secretary James Hall (Ga Southern), making his final report to the Association, read out the year's astounding fundraising results ($30,000 raised) to uproarious applause. Hall closed out his final remarks by speaking of his College Republican involvement since beginning college, and of professing the "great honor" it was to serve the GACR.
Vice-Chairman Justin Palmer (Ga State) gave a passionate final address, in which he spoke of the "honor" it was to serve the state's College Republicans, reminisced on his experiences travelling from chapter to chapter training members in grassroots activities, as well as travelling around the state to work on endless campaigns. Palmer became visibly emotional as he closed with the admonition to CR leaders from around Georgia to "always remember" that leadership, and the activities and ideas to which the CRs dedicate themselves every day while serving in such positions, is "not about you," but is about every member of every chapter in the organization, and is about advancing conservative ideals, not about advancing personal reputations and careers.
State Sen. Casey Cagle addresses GACR convention
Georgia State Senator Casey Cagle, finance committee chairman and candidate for Lieutenant Governor, made a heartfelt address to an emotional audience at the Georgia Association of College Republicans annual convention Saturday, touting his record in the General Assembly, making a strong case for his candidacy, and speaking very bluntly about the differences between him and his primary opponent, Dr. Ralph Reed.Senator Cagle opened by speaking of the "future hopes and opportunities" embodied by the students in the room, and touched on his own political background, beginning with a successful run for state Senate at age 28 and continuing through now, his 12th year in the legislature.
Cagle spoke of the "positive things for this state" that the General Assembly was actively doing, and touched on his own motivation for running for Lt. Governor--a candidacy which was sparked by his own colleagues' request for him to stay in state government as his self-imposed term limit of 12 years neared completion.
Senator Cagle showed visible passion for his subject matter as he spoke of the heartfelt support he has received from volunteers and donors, even as he was limited by in-session fundraising laws and his opponent was not.
"I am excited about the future of Georgia," exulted Cagle, who went on to say that the Lt. Governor position was "too important to elect someone who needs on-the-job training." The Lt. Governor "presides over the Senate, and has always been elected from within the legislature," he explained, pointing out that, as he "bring[s] to the table 12 years of service in the legislature," he wouldn't "have to be taught." He also mentioned that his opponent, who he never referred to by name, was "asked by 21 Senators to withdraw from the race," and emphasized that the winner of this race would have to be able to lead this body and to build consensus, openly questioning whether his opponent could possibly function in such a position with so little support from the legislature.
Senator Cagle encouraged his audience to "look at the future," and touted the last 3 years of Republican leadership in the legislature, saying he was "proud to have accomplished things they accomplished," such as "[changing] the entire business income tax structure, [cutting] $1 billion in state spending, and [returning] $2 billion to taxpayers." He also mentioned the successful Land Conservation Act, which "provided more greenspace and an incentive to keep it" that way, the passage of tort reform, increased spending on High School completion counselors, the state's AAA bond rating, and the Women's Right to Know bill, maintaining that "conservative values are at the forefront in the legislature."
In response to a question from UGACR member Matthew Williamson, Senator Cagle said that passage of the HOPE Chest amendment, intended to guarantee the channeling of lottery proceeds into college and pre-K programs, was "absolutely necessary," saying that the legislature "must make sure that HOPE is alive and well for every citizen in this state," and emphasizing that government "can't spend the HOPE fund on things other than what it was intended for." Cagle said that he was "confident that, at the end of the day, [the bill] will pass."
Cagle spoke of his goals as Lt. Governor, citing the need to "create more economic opportunities for Georgia," but pointing out that "government does not create jobs, but does create the infrastructure for jobs and businesses to be successful." On the subject of education, Cagle talked about the need to remove the "bureacracy that ties hands of every teacher and administrator in our schools, and allow them to work for what’s best for child." He took a hard line on illegal immigration and on law-enforcement, saying that the government had a solemn duty to "make sure that Georgians are safe from crime and disaster, that local law enforcement can keep criminals behind bars" (including increasing spending to help solve jail overcrowdedness), and to "make sure the people of Georgia feel safe." He vowed to "continue to protect Georgia family values," again citing his "record of 12 years that holds true" to this claim, including receiving the "highest ratings from Georgia Right to Life, the Christian Coalition," and other organizations. "I was raised by single mom," he said, "who never took governmental assistance. She instilled in me the values and hard work" necessary to continue fighting for the conservative cause.
Senator Cagle's speech evoked a strong reaction from the audience, with many teary-eyed attendees giving him a standing ovation as he concluded his address and exited the hall.
Dr. Ralph Reed addresses GACR convention
Dr. Ralph Reed, former Chairman of the Georgia GOP and of the Christian Coalition, and current candidate for Lieutenant Governor, addressed the Georgia Association of College Republicans (GACR) annual convention Saturday.Dr. Reed spoke of decision 2006 as an "important election," stating the goals of reelecting Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue and adding to the Republican majorities in both houses of the General Assembly. Reed also stated his goal of "establishing the position of the Lt. Governor as the philosophical ally of Gov. Perdue, rather than an opponent," and to "restore that office to effectiveness," so that it can "be a leadership slot for conservative values."
With a father who served in the Vietnam war, Dr. Reed said that he "grew up learning that there are certain values and principles, like freedom, worth fighting and dying for."
Reed hopes to serve Georgia by "eliminating the capital gains tax," promoting a "Taxpayer Dividend Act" which would return 1/2 of any budget surplus to the taxpayers, and by passing a constitutional amendment to protect private property rights. He said that it is "very important to oppose eminent domain abuse," as the three "foundational humand freedoms are life, liberty, and the right to own property," and "without these basic rights, no liberty can exist."
Reed said that he favored a HOPE scholarship amendment to "protect funding and to make homeschoolers eligible for immediate benefit." He also proposed a program called "Charters for Choice", which would determine failing schools (low test scores for three straight years, a non-graduation rate of over 50%, and other determinants), and would provide scholarships for students from these schools to go to private or religious schools, be homeschooled, to transfer to a public school of their choice. Reeed called a good education a "basic civil right," and cited a Harvard study which showed that school choice and competition was "more effective in raising test scores and improving schools" than the fixes instituted by the No Child Left behind Act.Reed presented himself as a visionary, promoting a "sound public policy that includes every one of our citizens" and saying that, "like Reagan," he wanted to “unfurl banner not of pastels, but of bold colors.” On the topic of immigration, Reed strongly opposed "amnesty in all forms," and cited the need to "protect the borders." On family-values issues, he reiterated his strong pro-life stance.
In response to a question from UGACR Vice Chairman David Ballard, Reed spoke in greater detail about his "Grow Georgia" propsal and the Taxpayer Dividend Act, saying that, after annual growth in population and inflation, ¼ of a budget surplus should be used for education, ¼ for bonds (to maintain Georgia's AAA bond rating), and the rest should be returned to the taxpayers, as "money belongs to the citizens" and, as shown in the 1980s and the 2000s, "economic growth is spurred by lower tax rates."
Dr. Reed closed by challenging the College Republicans to help maintain the low-tax, fiscally responsible, pro-life majority in the Georgia State Assembly, and by saying that the key to College Republican effectiveness can be characterized in three words: “grassroots, grassroots, and grassroots.” He touched on the Campus Canvass initiative--registering and turning out Republican voters--that the UGACRs conducted when he was Chairman, and which today's UGACRs expanded and carried out again earlier this semester. He also stressed the importance of signing up volunteers for the primary and general election, and pledged continual support for young people and for College Republicans as they carry out their grassroots activities.
Reed's speech received a large ovation from the many supporters in the audience. He stopped to shake hands with several attendees on his way out of the hall, thanking them profusely for their support.
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly meets with UGACRs
The "First Lady of American Conservatism," conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, sat down with two members of the UGACR Executive Board, Chairman Katie Flanigan and PR Director Jeff Emanuel, on Saturday morning and discussed several issues, including the state of the pro-life and feminist movements, the state of the courts, and immigration.Mrs. Schlafly, the President of the national volunteer organization Eagle Forum and author of several books on fighting feminism and other conservative issues, has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she began tehe successful ten-year battle against the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment.
An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement who was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal, Mrs. Schlafly had a lot to say about current events in her conversation with the UGACRs. She called President Bush's digging in on the Dubai port takeover a "Harriet Meiers moment," openly questioned whether the Republicans can muster a candidate for 2008 that will be strong enough to overcome a united Democrat base, scoffed at the idea that the Supreme Court was anything other than still solidly left-leaning, and argued that the blanket abortion ban on the floor in several state legislatures, and recently passed by South Dakota, could "set the pro-life movement back 30 years."Mrs. Schlafly lauded Emanuel and Flanigan, as well as CRs everywhere, for their "great work" and "difference-making activism." She encouraged them to "keep fighting" against feminism, multiculturalism, and other "destructive forces on campus and in society," saying that the battle which she started in the 1960s is ongoing, but that thanks to the efforts of "young people like you," we are "gaining ground" on an ultimate victory for the American way.
GACR Chapter Awards reflect excellence, dedication
The 2006 Georgia Association of College Republicans (GACR) annual awards were given at the convention diner Friday night.
Valdosta State received the "Distinguished Grassroots Army" award for their outstanding hard work, volunteerism, and activism.
Georgia Tech was named 2005 "Chapter of the Year," and Chairman Ruth Malhotra earned the Paul Coverdell Activism award.
Representative Tom Price speaks to GACRs
Atlanta Congressman Tom Price addressed the Georgia Association of College Republicans' (GACR) annual convention dinner Friday night, speaking of House of Representatives successes and failures and current issues, and exhorting College Republicans from throughout the state to "continue the grassroots and campaign activities" they have dedicated themselves to for so many years.Speaking at the Emory Convention Center Hotel, Representative Price...
More to come...
Congressional candidate Mac Collins speaks to GACRs
Former Congressman, and current congressional candidate, Mac Collins spoke to the annual Georgia Association of College Republicans' (GACR) convention dinner Friday night.Speaking at the Emory Convention Center Hotel, Collins described the successes of his past tenure in Congress, and spoke of his beliefs and of his motivation for running in the newly-redistricted 8th congressional district against Democrat incumbent Jim Marshall.
More to come...
South Dakota House passes abortion ban
South Dakota has become the first of several states to act on sweeping abortion bans proposed by state legislatures, passing a bill which would ban most abortions with a 50-18 vote Friday afternoon. The bill passed in the State Senate 23-12 on Wednesday, and the South Dakota Argus Leader reports that Governor Mike Rounds intends to sign the bill into state law, possbly setting up a Supreme Court challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which found the "right to an abortion" within the US Constitution.
The Georgia General Assembly is currently considering House Bill 93, a measure which would ban most abortions in the state. State Senator Brian Kemp, speaking to UGACR PR Director Jeff Emanuel, said that he would support such a bill if it came to the floor of the state Senate. He also spoke of his support for the "Full Disclosure Ultrasound Act," which would require doctors to perform an ultrasound on a pregnant woman, and offer the mother the opportunity to see the results, before conducting an abortion procedure, as well as the feticide bill, a version of the "Connor's Law" legislation which would hold a criminal who injured or murdered a pregnant woman resposible for damage to her unborn child as well.
The Georgia General Assembly is currently considering House Bill 93, a measure which would ban most abortions in the state. State Senator Brian Kemp, speaking to UGACR PR Director Jeff Emanuel, said that he would support such a bill if it came to the floor of the state Senate. He also spoke of his support for the "Full Disclosure Ultrasound Act," which would require doctors to perform an ultrasound on a pregnant woman, and offer the mother the opportunity to see the results, before conducting an abortion procedure, as well as the feticide bill, a version of the "Connor's Law" legislation which would hold a criminal who injured or murdered a pregnant woman resposible for damage to her unborn child as well.
Friday, February 24, 2006
"Tunnel" column receives heated response
The column "Tunnel of Oppression reinforces victimhood," which first ran on this blog on February 14, and was printed by the Georgia Red and Black on February 23, elicited an immediate reader response. Included in the blog posts immediately previous to this one were an email from a reader, and the author's response. The following is a letter to the editor written by a reader.
Jeff Emanuel’s column about the “Tunnel of Oppression” reinforced one thing: it needs to exist in order to educate students like him.I have personally witnessed someone screaming “Burn in hell, fag” to a group of homosexuals and their supporters. I have seen little children holding signs that say “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for AIDS.” These instances aren’t made up to make you feel guilty — they are real-life examples of prejudice, and people should be aware of them.
Emanuel missed the point of the Tunnel of Oppression. It’s not to reinforce victimhood — it’s for someone like him who clearly needs to be educated on the realities of prejudice and hate in this country.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
UGACRs meet with Athens Area Right to Life
Three members of the UGA College Republicans Executive Board, Chairman Katie Flanigan, Executive Director Shay Frendt, and PR Director Jeff Emanuel, attended the February 23 meeting of Athens Area Right to Life.
President and recent graduate of the UGA Law School Chuck Jones, Jr. led the meeting, which covered the nation-wide Right-to-Life oratorical contest, pro-life legislation currently in the Georgia State House, and the formation of a Political Action Committee to research and support local candidates in the 2006 election.
President and recent graduate of the UGA Law School Chuck Jones, Jr. led the meeting, which covered the nation-wide Right-to-Life oratorical contest, pro-life legislation currently in the Georgia State House, and the formation of a Political Action Committee to research and support local candidates in the 2006 election.
"Tunnel of Oppression" elicits more response
The column "Tunnel of Oppression reinforces victimhood," which first ran on this blog on February 14, and was printed by the Georgia Red and Black on February 23, elicited an immediate reader response. Included in the blog posts immediately previous to this one were an email from a reader, and the author's response. The following is a comment posted in the online feedback forum of the Red and Black online. Below is the author's response to this comment.
And the response from the author:"The “homophobia” room, for example, has signs which scream “Thank God for AIDS” and “Burn in hell, fag” — something I have personally never heard spoken in my life by anybody other than gay rights activists who say these things when they accuse me and others like me of secretly thinking it."All you have to do is google Fred Phelps. This type of language exists and is quite prevalent from the group you claim - mainstream Christian America.
While you're at it, you may want to google David Duke, David Koresh, and Jim Jones...then sit back and realize that NONE of those represent mainstream Christian America. Mainstream Christian America is what you see all around you every day--not the extremists you want it to be so that you can continue to justify your hatred of it.
--J.P. Emanuel
The author's response to a "Tunnel" letter
The column "Tunnel of Oppression reinforces victimhood," which first ran on this blog on February 14, and was printed by the Georgia Red and Black newspaper on February 23, elicited an immediate reader response. Included in the blog post immediately previous to this one was an email from a reader who disagreed on many issues.
Here is the author's response:
Here is the author's response:
Thanks for the well-thought-out response. I am glad to hear that my column provoked you to consider one of the many issues facing our society today. My response is simply this: there is NO group in America today which can qualify as "oppressed." Driving into the heads of college students that every non-white-Christian group in America is oppressed is simply perpetuating an untruth for the sole purpose gaining special treatment.
If you carefully read the column, you saw that the quotes around the words "minority" and "victim" were juxtaposed with the term GROUPS. I contest the idea that any of the so-called minority or victim's-rights groups (led by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc) represent either those they claim to speak for, or the victims of any oppressive behavior in the first place. As you say, blacks are a minority. So are American Indians, which I am. So are hispanics. However, being a minority does not grant them special treatment or a greater voice than the majority in an open, democratic nation.It is clear that I am not arguing that it is "a better solution to have people less educated about something." However, what I am saying is that immersion misinformation is wrong, and that is just what this experience provides. The academic society that brought us this is the same one that waxes apologetic over the "religion of peace" while violent Islamists burn Christians alive in Nigeria (happened yesterday, 100 dead); they are the same ones that defend the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union, and blame capitalists for all of the ills in this world; they are the same ones who would put Saddam Hussein back in the seat of power in Iraq tomorrow, if it were in their grasp to do so, because they hate the Judeo-Christian beacon of freedom in this world which America can be precisely because of the many different types of people here, because of the lack of oppression of people regardless of race, gender, or religion, and because of the backbone of this nation--a quiet majority which continues to labor thanklessly to make and keep this country great, and which continues to do so while being called "oppressors" and "victimizers" by those who wish to be treated differently and specially, but who do not want to do what it takes to be successful.
Thanks again for your response, and please feel free to write with any more thoughts or opinions. You can also see the UGA College Republicans blog, where you will doubtless find several more provocative discourses.
--J.P. Emanuel
A reader's response to the "Tunnel of Oppression"
The column "Tunnel of Oppression reinforces victimhood," which first ran on this blog on February 14, and was printed by the Georgia Red and Black on February 23, elicited an immediate reader response. Here is an email the author received the day the column ran (all spelling and grammar has been left unaltered):
I found your article in the Red and Black provokative. I did not agree with the argument, and wrote the red and black a rebuttal that will certainly be one of many. Nonetheless, I am not sure my response will run and wanted to send it to you because I think exchanging ideas is always a good thing. Here it is:Other people might attack the character of the author due to the nature of this article, but I will do my best to keep criticisms to what I found to be holes in the argument. First, I am unsure why quotes were used around the words minorities and oppressed. Is there disagreement that blacks are a minority or is there a dispute that these groups have been discriminated against? I would think most people would acknowledge that blacks are a minority, and slavery was oppressive. Debating how minorities should conduct themselves as a result of oppression is one thing, but you can't debate they are minorities.
Next, the general tone of the argument is bothersome. The reader gets
the impression that the conservative Christians (who the author claims to be
representing) want everyone to live and let die and not voice complaints about
society. Why can't those blacks let it go already? Slavery was abolished over a hundred years ago, how long are you going to complain about it?
This is the impression you get when reading this article. Segregation is not ancient history; it was in our parents life time that the children in Birmingham were being sprayed with fire hoses. The effects of that kind of racism will not go away in one generation. How long will it take for these wounds to heal? Well that would depend greatly upon the approaches used and their effectiveness. The tunnel idea seems like a good one, but an all-too-familiar rebuttal will certainly be used. Will racism ever be
healed if the cuts are constantly being re-opened? Will making middle class
whites feel awful about every oppression in history work? Don't try to make them
feel bad, but educate them on things tha thave gone on in the past and why these
things happened. It is never a better solution to have people less educated
about something. Next, why is this tunnel a threat to their (conservative Christian) way of life? This is a common argument that doesn't really make any sense. Learning about the plight of certaingroups is a hassle? "We the majority , under constant fire from those who want to destroy our culture and delete our right to live as we see fit just as they have the right to". So, everyone not in the majority of Christian conservatism is trying to ruin the culture of the United States? Perhaps living the way you see fit interferes with other people's lives? For example, believing the institution of marriage is sacred and should be for men and women only necessarily interferes with two gay men to get married. Lastly, the whole article contradicts itself. The article bemoans discriminated groups complaining. Next, the author notes that conservative Christians are the ones truly being discriminated
against and proceeds to complain about it.
"Tunnel of Oppression" runs in Red & Black
The Georgia newspaper Red and Black ran the column on the University of Washington's "Tunnel of Oppression" immersion sensitivity training Thursday, February 23. The column debuted on the UGACR blog on February 14.
A personal note from the author:
The column elicited an instant response from left-leaning readers of the paper, bringing criticism and personal attack for many different aspects of the piece. The morning began with a young lady, whom I shall refer to as "Sarah," contacting me and asking both what the point of the column was in the first place, and demanding to know how I could speak on this subject at all, never personally having been through the Tunnel, as she had. I responded by asking her how many editorial writers who commented on Iraq, Korea, and other places had actually been there, and could therefore speak authoritatively on the subject. To this, Sarah replied that it was not necessary to "immerse yourself" in the Iraq war to "understand it" and to be able to speak about it, whereas it was "necessary to immerse yourself in the Tunnel" experience to "understand the oppression" felt by groups all over America. I thanked her for her point of view, and mentioned that, as an Iraq war veteran, I disagreed that people who had never endured that experience could possibly speak authoritatively on the subject, whereas the point of my column had not been to detail my personal experiences in the "Tunnel of Oppression," but to point out that claiming oppression and victimhood takes away from possible achievement, and in the long run ends up hurting a group more than it could ever help it.
--J.P. Emanuel
A personal note from the author:
The column elicited an instant response from left-leaning readers of the paper, bringing criticism and personal attack for many different aspects of the piece. The morning began with a young lady, whom I shall refer to as "Sarah," contacting me and asking both what the point of the column was in the first place, and demanding to know how I could speak on this subject at all, never personally having been through the Tunnel, as she had. I responded by asking her how many editorial writers who commented on Iraq, Korea, and other places had actually been there, and could therefore speak authoritatively on the subject. To this, Sarah replied that it was not necessary to "immerse yourself" in the Iraq war to "understand it" and to be able to speak about it, whereas it was "necessary to immerse yourself in the Tunnel" experience to "understand the oppression" felt by groups all over America. I thanked her for her point of view, and mentioned that, as an Iraq war veteran, I disagreed that people who had never endured that experience could possibly speak authoritatively on the subject, whereas the point of my column had not been to detail my personal experiences in the "Tunnel of Oppression," but to point out that claiming oppression and victimhood takes away from possible achievement, and in the long run ends up hurting a group more than it could ever help it.
--J.P. Emanuel
Vatican to Muslims: practice what you preach
After initially supporting Muslim outrage at a perceived lack of respect for their religion in the cartoon fiasco, the Vatican "is now urging Islamic countries to reciprocate by showing more tolerance toward their Christian minorities."
Reuters reports that, after "criticizing both the cartoons and the violent protests in Muslim countries that followed," the Vatican this week "linked the issue to its long-standing concern that the rights of other faiths are limited, sometimes severely, in Muslim countries."
The recent murders of Catholic priests in Turkey and Nigeria have tested the Vatican's patience. At least 146 Christians and Muslims have died in five days of rioting in Nigeria, with many being hacked to pieces with machetes or burned alive.
"If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us," Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State, told reporters.
"We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries and, even more, in cultural contacts," Foreign Minister Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo told the daily Corriere della Sera.
The quest for reciprocity is at the heart of Vatican diplomacy toward Muslim states, as they seek the same rights for Christian minorities as Muslims generally have in Western countries, such as practicing their religion freely.
"Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves," said Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court. "The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century, mostly for oil, and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights," he said.
Bishop Rino Fisichella, head of the Pontifical Lateran University, called for the Vatican to speak out more. "Let's drop this diplomatic silence," he said. "We should put pressure on international organizations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities."
Pope Benedict XVI "signaled his concern" on Monday, when he told the new Moroccan ambassador to the Vatican that peace can only be assured by "respect for the religious convictions and practices of others, in a reciprocal way in all societies."
Geman man convicted of "insulting Islam"
A German man was convicted Thursday of "insulting Islam by printing the word "Koran" on toilet paper and offering it to mosques," Reuters reports.
"The 61-year-old man, identified only as Manfred van H., was given a one-year jail sentence, suspended for five years, and ordered to complete 300 hours of community service, a district court in the western German town of Luedinghausen ruled."
The conviction comes amid the worldwide riots supposedly in response to Danish cartoons insulting Islam.
Manfred "printed out sheets of toilet paper bearing the word "Koran" shortly after a group of Muslims carried out a series of bomb attacks in London in July 2005. He sent the paper to German television stations, magazines and some 15 mosques."
Prosecutors said that a letter he sent with the paper reffered to the Koran as a "cookbook for terrorists."
He also put the paper up for sale online, saying the proceeds would go toward a "memorial to all the victims of Islamic terrorism."
The maximum sentence for insulting religious beliefs under the German criminal code is three years in prison. No word yet on the maximum sentence for murdering 6 million Jews, but cartoons and toilet paper are obviously far, far worse.
"The 61-year-old man, identified only as Manfred van H., was given a one-year jail sentence, suspended for five years, and ordered to complete 300 hours of community service, a district court in the western German town of Luedinghausen ruled."
The conviction comes amid the worldwide riots supposedly in response to Danish cartoons insulting Islam.
Manfred "printed out sheets of toilet paper bearing the word "Koran" shortly after a group of Muslims carried out a series of bomb attacks in London in July 2005. He sent the paper to German television stations, magazines and some 15 mosques."
Prosecutors said that a letter he sent with the paper reffered to the Koran as a "cookbook for terrorists."
He also put the paper up for sale online, saying the proceeds would go toward a "memorial to all the victims of Islamic terrorism."
The maximum sentence for insulting religious beliefs under the German criminal code is three years in prison. No word yet on the maximum sentence for murdering 6 million Jews, but cartoons and toilet paper are obviously far, far worse.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Al Gore blasts America, Bush on Saudi soil
Former Vice President (and failed Democrat Presidential nominee) Al Gore, speaking to an audience in Saudi Arabia, said that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Speaking at the Jiddah Economic Forum on Sunday, Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up, ...and held in conditions that were just unforgivable." The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications. Fifteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were Saudi, so naturally we should be letting them in without a second thought, right?
Developing...
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNUKEO0.html
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004544.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/12/220618.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray061402.asp
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
Speaking at the Jiddah Economic Forum on Sunday, Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up, ...and held in conditions that were just unforgivable." The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications. Fifteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were Saudi, so naturally we should be letting them in without a second thought, right?
Developing...
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNUKEO0.html
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004544.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/12/220618.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray061402.asp
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
St. Paul TV station turns away pro-military ad, misleads public about content
KSTP-TV in St. Paul, Minnesota, an ABC affiliate, recently rejected an advertisement from pro-military organizations Progress for America and Midwest Heroes, citing a claim in the ad that "the media are intentionally misleading citizens." However, this language does not appear anywhere in the advertisement!
The ad, which can be viewed here (on Windows Media Player), is supportive of US efforts in Iraq, featuring several troops speaking out about the validity of their cause and about how much progress is being made there. It includes imagery of the smoking twin towers on 9/11, of the aftermaths of several other Al-Qaeda attacks, and of the Iraqi battlefield.
The sentence in the advertisement which actually caused the station to reject the $30,000 offered to air it was this: "You would never know it from the news reports, but our real enemy in Iraq is Al-Qaeda, the same terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11."
The adverstisement was accepted and aired by at least two other stations in Minnesota, which prompted the state Democrat Party (DFL) to send its members this letter:
Powerline blog obtained and provided that letter, further reporting: "DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez called a news conference to call the ad "un-American, untruthful and a lie."
"Minnesota has a chance to take a stand against this misleading and untruthful propaganda," he said. Referring to controversial ads that ran during the last presidential race, he said, "Minnesota TV stations should pull this ad and send a message that we will not tolerate this kind of 'swift-boating' anymore."
The ad, which can be viewed here (on Windows Media Player), is supportive of US efforts in Iraq, featuring several troops speaking out about the validity of their cause and about how much progress is being made there. It includes imagery of the smoking twin towers on 9/11, of the aftermaths of several other Al-Qaeda attacks, and of the Iraqi battlefield.
The sentence in the advertisement which actually caused the station to reject the $30,000 offered to air it was this: "You would never know it from the news reports, but our real enemy in Iraq is Al-Qaeda, the same terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11."
The adverstisement was accepted and aired by at least two other stations in Minnesota, which prompted the state Democrat Party (DFL) to send its members this letter:
Dear DFLer,
I’ve heard from many of you that you are disturbed by the misleading
"Midwest Heroes" ads produced by Progress for America Voter Fund that are currently being run by KARE 11 and WCCO. The ads erroneously make a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists attacks and suggest that the war in Iraq will prevent an attack by Al Queda in America. The 9/11 Commission findings clearly state that there was no connection between Iraq and the the Al Queda terrorists attacks on 9/11. We must call for media responsibility regarding this
issue. We have extraordinary sympathy for our troops and their families and believe that while our soldiers’ role is to protect the citizens of our country, it is our role as citizens to protect our soldiers and to make certain that they are not misused. It is a travesty that the tragedies of five countries and the deaths of our brave men and women are being used in this type of propaganda.Right now, our state is a testing ground for these ads. If Minnesota speaks out and says no to this ad, the entire country can thank us. What we do here, now, will have an enormous impact on the success or failure of this kind of swiftboating in 06.
You can view the ads at: http://www.midwestheroes.com/ Additionally, WCCO did a Reality Check stating that the ad is misleading and partly true, which in my mind means
that it is partly false. See it at: http://www.wcco.com/video/?id=14609@wcco.dayport.comIf you feel that this ad is doing a disservice to our troops and is misleading at best, and pure propaganda at worst, please call:
KARE 11 at 763 546 1111
WCCO at 612 370 0611
to ask for the removal of the ads. Letters to the Editor in your local
paper would be helpful to point out the untruths being communicated to citizens as fact. Thanks in advance for being a voice of truth, and for all that you do to improve the state of our nation and state.DFL Chair Brian Melendez will be holding a press conference at the State Capitol today at 2:30 to ask that this ad be pulled from the air waves. He will be joined by congressional candidate and veteran Tim Walz. Please tune in to your evening news to see coverage of this important event.
Sincerely, Donna
Donna Cassutt, Associate Chair,
Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
Powerline blog obtained and provided that letter, further reporting: "DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez called a news conference to call the ad "un-American, untruthful and a lie."
"Minnesota has a chance to take a stand against this misleading and untruthful propaganda," he said. Referring to controversial ads that ran during the last presidential race, he said, "Minnesota TV stations should pull this ad and send a message that we will not tolerate this kind of 'swift-boating' anymore."
So now soldiers who support the war they fought in are "un-American." Unbelievable. And, by the way, does anyone have any idea what "Swiftboating" is supposed to mean? Is that when a veteran says something that liberals disagree with? Is it when a serviceman publicly describes events that he participated in and witnessed with his own eyes? I'm not sure just what the criteria are, but it seems clear that only veterans and servicemen can be guilty of the dreaded crime
of "Swiftboating."
Supreme Court to reconsider partial-birth abortion ban; AP shows bias
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will reconsider the constitutionality of a partial-birth abortion ban it struck down in a 5-4 decision in 2000. The deciding vote was cast by the ever-indecisive Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been replaced on the court by Bush appointee Samuel Alito.
The AP report of this story is fraught with bias and loaded language. AP writer Gina Holland's pro-abortion and anti-Bush administration personal beliefs are readily apparent in her writing, as she speaks of new Justices Roberts and Alito as "the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court" and refers to the grisly procedure known as partial-birth abortion in typical liberal/pro-abortion jargon, calling it "a type of late-term abortion" and "the so-called partial birth abortion" (all emphasis added). She also defends the practice, claiming that "doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened."
The AP report of this story is fraught with bias and loaded language. AP writer Gina Holland's pro-abortion and anti-Bush administration personal beliefs are readily apparent in her writing, as she speaks of new Justices Roberts and Alito as "the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court" and refers to the grisly procedure known as partial-birth abortion in typical liberal/pro-abortion jargon, calling it "a type of late-term abortion" and "the so-called partial birth abortion" (all emphasis added). She also defends the practice, claiming that "doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened."
Monday, February 20, 2006
"Why Mommy is a Democrat," and other (scary!) children's stories
"Kids want to know. Kids need to know. It's up to you to tell them...WHY MOMMY IS A DEMOCRAT. A different kind of children's book."
PROMO:
PROMO:
Why Mommy is a Democrat brings to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children will easily understand and thoroughly enjoy. Using plain and non-judgmental language, along with warm and whimsical illustrations, this colorful 28-page paperback depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace, and concern for the well-being of others. It's a great way for
parents to gently communicate their commitment to these principles and explain their support for the party.
Why Mommy is a Democrat may look like a traditional children's book, but it definitely isn't just for children. With numerous subtle (and not-so-subtle) satirical swipes at the Bush administration
and the Republican party,Why Mommy will appeal to Democrats of all ages!
Finally, a portion of the profits will be donated to Democratic candidates and party organizations, so your purchase will help make an immediate difference!
And this is a very different kind of children's book indeed from Dr. Jeremy Zilber, author of Racialized Coverage of Congress: The News in Black and White. Why Mommy is a Democrat couches liberal social views in childish language and illustration, in hopes of proving that any ideology can be sold to a child if the pictures are pretty enough.
Each page features a family of squirrels (Mommy and two children; interestingly enough, there is no father in sight), a mouse, and, in the background, an apparently homeless, penniless man who looks on as social injustices--of the kind that Mommy prevents by being a Democrat--are perpetrated against him. For example, one page, which shows the children playing with blocks, says "Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does." In the background, sitting on a park bench, is the grubby-looking man, who is holding his hat out for spare change while a pretentious-looking, presumably Republican old couple walks by him.
Another page says "Democrats make sure we are aways safe, just like Mommy does." The illustration on this page features the Mommy squirrel sheltering her children from a giant elephant which is lumbering down a park trail, with the homeless man apparently about to be squashed underfoot.
A third sample page says "Democrats make sure children can go to school, just like Mommy does." This illustration shows Mommy packing up backpacks for the children, and, in the background, the bum looking on enviously as the pretentious couple from the "toy sharing" page congratulate their child at a graduation, under a sign that says "Admission $160,000."
The permeation of this children's book with degenerative, self-destructive themes is staggering. The socialist overtones of the "toy-sharing" page is reminiscent of the Rainbow Fish story, which taught that a person who has something others want is required to give it away to those "less fortunate." Just why Mommy squirrel already has two chidren while she is still going to school is not explained; also, it would be far more correct to say "Democrats make sure children cannot leave failing schools." The idea of Mommy keeping children safe is a reinforcement of childhood instinct, but the idea that the Democrats contribute in the least to doing this for society is laughable at best, and infuriating at worst. Even more misguided is the connection that Zilber is trying to create in children's minds--that a colossal elephant (which will be freely associated with Republican imagery the child will be exposed to when he becomes more politically aware) is the greatest of dangers, and one from which both Mommy and the Democrats must protect them. In this age of violent Islamist terrorism and of threats throughout the world, in this age of failing public schools and of the impending bankruptcy of social security, Dr. Zilber is doing far more harm than good, as he seeks to mold impressionable young minds to the liberal way of thinking--that government is a pseud0-parent who is there to look out for everybody, to redistribute wealth, and, above all, to prevent evil Republicans from harming them. It would appear that, with this latest installment in a long line of irrational liberal demagoguic literature, the Democrats are seeking to expand their scare-tactics from focusing primarily on senior citizens ("the evil Republicans are coming to steal your Social Security and Medicare...just like they were four years ago...and four years before that...and...") to include children, as well--showing that, as they move farther and farther left, and grow more degenerative in action and less pro-freedom in ideology, they are actively seeking to establish in practice an actual, cradle-to-the-grave, radical-government-controlled society.
Carter: "Give Hamas a chance"
"Give Hamas a chance." That is the new slogan from the man who was arguably one of the worst Presidents in our history (oil lines, malaise, and under-the-table dealings with the murderous, totalitarian leader of the Soviet Union in an effort to team up and defeat Ronald Reagan in 1980--including telling Leonid Brezhnev that Reagan wanted to start a nuclear war once he became president), and inarguably the worst ex-President ever (certified elections in Haiti that ultimately led to a coup, endorsement of the rigged election of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, and support for Kim Jong-Il's North Korea and for Castro's Cuba, and anti-American statements at every stop he makes worldwide), Jimmy Carter.
In an op-ed in Monday’s Washington Post, Carter urged patience with the "transition process" in the Palestinian territories, pointing out that President Mahmoud Abbas still has a good deal of power, especially since, "with nine of its elected members remaining in prison, Hamas has only 65 votes" in the 132-seat (123 if those nine are subtracted, preserving a majority) Parliament.
The former President warned America and Israel that treating the Hamas terrorist organization like--well, like a terrorist organization--could be unwise. "During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government," he said, "it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences."
This "punishment of the Palestinian people" he refers to includes the cutting off of the "humanitarian aid" that the US ($300 million) and, unbeknownst to most on the left (and to most within Palestine), Israel ($50 million) give to the Palestinian Authority monthly. Just why it would be wise to give over $4.2 billion annually to a terrorist organization, in hopes that they would use it for something other than bombs and guns, which is all they have used their funding for in the past, is about as clear as mud.
Hamas is set to "inherit a bankrupt government," Carter continued. Knowing this, "U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel." Perhaps there would be more labor and more money to pay for it, had Hamas not invested so much money and energy since 2000 carrying out over 500 terrorist attacks, killing 390 and injuring 2,100 innocent Israeli schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, and maintenance personnel.
"So far [America] has not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services." Of course, we should be more than willing to trust the UN to be capable of properly distributing our aid and money, and of keeping order. Just ignore the oil-for-food scandal, the refugee sex trade conducted by UN peacekeepers in Rwanda, and the anarchy in Haiti, among all of the other examples. Actually, better ignore anything the UN has ever touched, lest one be dissuaded from ever trusting them again.
"This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials...may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies," finished Carter--although even he was sane enough to recognize that Hamas will "not soon take the...steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist."
In an op-ed in Monday’s Washington Post, Carter urged patience with the "transition process" in the Palestinian territories, pointing out that President Mahmoud Abbas still has a good deal of power, especially since, "with nine of its elected members remaining in prison, Hamas has only 65 votes" in the 132-seat (123 if those nine are subtracted, preserving a majority) Parliament.
The former President warned America and Israel that treating the Hamas terrorist organization like--well, like a terrorist organization--could be unwise. "During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government," he said, "it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences."
This "punishment of the Palestinian people" he refers to includes the cutting off of the "humanitarian aid" that the US ($300 million) and, unbeknownst to most on the left (and to most within Palestine), Israel ($50 million) give to the Palestinian Authority monthly. Just why it would be wise to give over $4.2 billion annually to a terrorist organization, in hopes that they would use it for something other than bombs and guns, which is all they have used their funding for in the past, is about as clear as mud.
Hamas is set to "inherit a bankrupt government," Carter continued. Knowing this, "U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel." Perhaps there would be more labor and more money to pay for it, had Hamas not invested so much money and energy since 2000 carrying out over 500 terrorist attacks, killing 390 and injuring 2,100 innocent Israeli schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, and maintenance personnel.
"So far [America] has not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services." Of course, we should be more than willing to trust the UN to be capable of properly distributing our aid and money, and of keeping order. Just ignore the oil-for-food scandal, the refugee sex trade conducted by UN peacekeepers in Rwanda, and the anarchy in Haiti, among all of the other examples. Actually, better ignore anything the UN has ever touched, lest one be dissuaded from ever trusting them again.
"This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials...may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies," finished Carter--although even he was sane enough to recognize that Hamas will "not soon take the...steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist."
Senate squashes filibuster of Patriot Act
The Senate "steamrolled opposition to the renewal of the USA Patriot Act" with a 96-3 floor vote which broke yet another weak Democrat filibuster intended to prevent the Senate from fulfilling its role in government and voting on legislation. The three who voted to continue blocking the Senate from doing its job were anti-First Amendment Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), former Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), and former Republican-turned-Daschle-toadie Jim Jeffords (I-VT). Senator David Vitter (R-LA) did not vote on the matter.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said that the Patriot Act will now be able to be brought to the floor and renewed in a March 1 vote, nine days before it is set to expire.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said that the Patriot Act will now be able to be brought to the floor and renewed in a March 1 vote, nine days before it is set to expire.
Bin Laden vows not to be taken alive
In a continuation of the Osama bin Laden audiotape aired by Al Jazeera in December, in which the terrorist leader offered the US a truce, the world's most wanted man said he has "sworn to only live free."
Bin Laden accused the US military in Iraq of being as "barbaric" as the deposed Saddam regime, speaking of "oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents (which has reached) a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality."
"The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as [Bush] claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of energies," he said.
America is clearly far better off having Islamist terrorists "restore their energies" and travel to Iraq to die, than it would be if they were using those energies here.
Also, we are still waiting for bin Laden to import his humanitarian programs, of which Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) spoke so fondly in 2002, to Iraq, and begin "building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities," as she believes he has been doing "in many countries that are riddled with poverty" for "decades."
Bin Laden accused the US military in Iraq of being as "barbaric" as the deposed Saddam regime, speaking of "oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents (which has reached) a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality."
"The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as [Bush] claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of energies," he said.
America is clearly far better off having Islamist terrorists "restore their energies" and travel to Iraq to die, than it would be if they were using those energies here.
Also, we are still waiting for bin Laden to import his humanitarian programs, of which Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) spoke so fondly in 2002, to Iraq, and begin "building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities," as she believes he has been doing "in many countries that are riddled with poverty" for "decades."