9/11 – Was it Really all That Bad?

LA Times Op Ed says that America may have overreacted to the 9/11 attacks – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo. 

The struggling LA Times has seen fit to print a article by David Bell, History Professor and Johns Hopkins and contributor to the New Republic magazine, scolded America for over reacting to 9/11. 

Mr. Bell admits that the people who attacked us in 2001, are indeed, hate filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. 

He acknowledges that Islamic extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world.  But then he says, “. . . it’s quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.  Americans,  particularly on the right have failed to make this distinction,” says the enlighten professor. 

Mr. Bell says “of course the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come.”  But, writes he, “ . . . Islamic terrorists have come close to employing weapons other than knives, guns and conventional explosives.  A war it may be, but does it really disserve comparison to World War II and its 50 million dead?  Not every advisory is an apocalyptic threat.” 

Yep, that’s it my friends,  the terrorist just hijacked a few planes, they flew them into skyscrapers and murdered thousands; and they crippled our economy.  And those of us, particularly on the right, why we dared support all out war on all these mild infractions civility. 

Yes, we over reacted. 

Mr. Bell sets the same mind set that under pins the democrats cut-n-run defeatism, which in fuels the drive-by-media. 

America!  We are the worlds evil.

It’s the very mindset which underestimated terrorists in the first place, leading to 9/11 – which is found particularly on the left. 

The lesson America needs to be taught. 

And that’s the memo.

Equal Cheer for Boys and Girls Draws Some Boos.

Imagine this:  Your’re at a high school girls basketball game and you realize there are no cheerleaders present.  What do you do?  You file a lawsuit of course – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

Rosie Pudish, who’s daughter played for Johnson City High School in New York, filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Education.  Her argument was that the lack of cheerleaders violated Title 9.  And the law enforcing gender inequality in school sports.

Ms. Pudish, an accountant with the Federal Government, wined “it send the wrong message that girls are second class athletes, and don’t respect the schools spirit.  They are just little girls playing sily games and the real athletes are the boys.”

Of course the education bureaucrats quivered in their shorts and promptly issued a ruling:  Cheerleaders must cheer at both girls and boys games; like it or not.  And most of them don’t like it.

At one New York High School, over half of the 30 girls who singed up for the cheerleading squad, quit!  When they were told they would be cheering for girls too.

Fast forward to results.

Dozens of schools have stopped sending their cheerleaders to away games so they can meet their cheerleading mandate at girls and boy games.

In California, a group of phys-ed teachers are demanding that cheerleaders attend girls and boys games in the same number, with equal enthusiasm.

I never knew you could measure enthusiasm – but I guess some cheerleaders can fake it.

Final score:  1 for diversity.  1 for offended basketball moms, and commonsense fowled out again in the public school system.

And that’s the memo.

Nancy Pelosi’s First 100 Hours

Nancy (the Queen-Bee) Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have written a bill that supposedly addresses the 9-11 Commission recommendations that have not become law – that’s that subject of today’s Talking Point’s memo.

 Despite Democrat’s promise to restore fiscal sanity to Washington by implementing pay-go (pay as you go) policies, their 9-11 mandate implements expensive government action without mentioning cost or detaling how it will be paid for.  Estimated cost begins at $53 Billion.

That’s more than “The Fence” to keep illegals out.

Using technology that yet does not exist, we’re going to examine every container in every port for threats.

How will this be done without bringing business at every port to a complete standstill and costing thousands of jobs is unknown.

But wait, they kicked it up another notch!

Under this Democrat National Security law, airport screeners will be granted collective bargaining rights, including the right to strike!

So expanding union membership and giving those unions leverage over the nations air travel system – that passes for National Security?!

Pelosi’s Democrats completely ignored the 9-11 Commission call to overhall its own house, cut the redundancy and red tape, because that would require Democrats to give up some of their newly acquired power.

Well, you people wanted them.  Those of you who were mad at the Republicans and voted Democrate – well you got them.

And now we have symbolism over security.

And that’s the memo.

The Wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

The President has seen his political party lose both legislative houses, and now presides over a divided government – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo. 

Polls are over whelming against him.  Especially over his handling of Iraq.   

Powerful media outlets have used their influence to undermine this presidents policies at every turn, and to relentlessly paint the war as a hopeless cause.

 Some in the media have gone so far as to publish classified material; revealing national security secrets to Americas enemies. 

Some have doctored war photos. 

Some have even aired enemy video footage of our soldiers being assonated by snipers; propaganda footage they acquired in collaboration with the enemy. 

Some federal judges have overstepped their constitutional rolls to confer U.S. Constitutional rights on foreign terrorists. 

Judges have hampered our nations ability to spy on foreign terrorists who communicate with their contacts imbedded in this country. 

Now, in the opening stages of the 2008 Presidential Campaign, politicians;  on both sides of the isle, have spurned our most vital national security objective; and that is winning the war on terror. 

Instead, they had opted to pander to those weaken Americans who are inclined to cut-and-run. 

Faced with all the adversities, men with lesser character would choose the path of bending the public opinion.  But this president insists that America will prevail in this difficult war. 

It is no accident that the power in the Commander and Chief over our military is invested in one person – the President. 

Once again the wisdom of our Founding Fathers is what stands between us and disaster.  

And that’s the memo.

What the Future Holds

It is my contention that no matter what happens in Iraq in the future, the world press will spin it negatively as long as President Bush is in the White House – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo. 

Quite simply, most of the media believes the Iraq conflict is a disaster and even if things were to improve there, the media now has a vested interest in America’s failure. Thus, honest assessments about the war in Iraq will be hard to come by.

I’ll back up my belief by pointing to two facts. First, the New York Times summed up President Bush’s speech on Iraq this way: “There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq.” That doesn’t leave the Times much wiggle room, does it? And second, the execution of Saddam: We now know that the Bush administration asked the Iraqi government to postpone the hanging by two weeks, at least. The Iraqis said no and demanded the dictator be handed over. The President complied.

The Iraqis then totally botched the execution and the long knives came out. The American press pounded the Bush administration for being incompetent once again. NBC’s Tom Brokaw called the execution a “wild west hanging,” and flat out said it would lead to more violence in Iraq.

Well, so far violence levels have not risen and while Mr. Brokaw is certainly entitled to his opinion on the wild west front, I can only wonder what the anti-Bush press would have said if the USA had not handed Saddam over to the Iraqis. The likely headline would have been something like “Bush Insults the Iraqi Justice System.” The articles and punditry would have emphasized that America was usurping Iraqi authority.

At this point, Bush cannot win in Iraq, no matter what he does. If he tries to pull victory out of chaos by sending in more troops, the press condemns him as delusional. If he were to draw down troops and the violence ramped up, then the press would hammer him for losing the war and creating more instability in the Middle East.

President Bush must be wondering where it all went wrong. After the fall of Saddam, it looked like America had followed up its victory in Afghanistan with another triumph. The President was in tall cotton, as they say in Texas.

But Iraq soon went south, and here is the reason why.

The President and his advisors counted on the Iraqi people to work together in forming a democracy. Obviously, that did not happen. The powerful Mullahs who pretty much control entire neighborhoods saw an opportunity to kill their ancestral enemies. Al Sadr became Al Capone.

With that situation unchecked, al Qaeda and Iran exploited the violence by inciting more of it. As Iran trained killers and manufactured bombs, America took casualties. When al Qaeda blew up a Shiite mosque, the U.S. command could do little more than sweep up the wreckage.

And so the violent chaos grew and the Bush administration’s vision of a vibrant Iraqi society cooperating with the West against terrorism dissolved in cloud of desert dust.

So now the President is giving Iraq one more chance to fight for its freedom. He will be vilified for doing it. But he should do it. Iraq is that important. 

And that’s the memo.

NEWS FLASH! Human Stem Cells are Present in Ammonic Fluid

This week we got a block-buster announcement from medical research:  Human Stem cells are present in ammonic fluid – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

For those of you who graduated from public school, ammonic fluid is the liquid that surrounds babies in the womb.

Ammonic stem cells hold great promise.  In the lab they are used to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessels, nerve and liver cells. These ammonic stem cells, along with cells from the placenta, may be as potent as embryonic stem cells. 

Even more important they can be generated without destroying life.

(shhhh. don’t tell that Nancy Peloci)

Dr. Anthony Atala at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, who lead the seven year study, said “our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well.”

Well, this did not set well with Liberals.  Democrat Senator Tom Harkin sponsored a bill to allow harvesting embryonic stem cells, called it cruel to raise expatiations that stem cells that derive from ammonic fluid carry the same promise as embryonic stem cells.

Cruel?!  Contradicting the doctor who actually did the study, Harkin claims that the new report offers no evidence that ammonic stem cells has as much potential as embryonic stem cells.

As Senator Harkins’ cruel response proves to liberals, the stem cell debate has never been about medicine or curing diseases; its all about preserving abortions.

We have heard from liberals who are not doctors but play one on TV.  Next up the Hollywood crowd will no doubt share their medical views on this.

Right, Mr. Fox?

And that’s the memo.

Banning DDT Declared a Mistake

The Wall Street Journal reports that the World Health Organization plans to admit that current malaria fighting methods have failed – That’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

The mosquito born disease infects half a billion people every year.  Over 1 million of them die.  The majority of the dead are under age 5 from sub- Sahara Africa.

So the WHO plans to encourage using DDT.  The highly effective pesticide currently banned in most of the world.

Robert Miller, in an article with a British on-line publication, described the founder of the modern ecological movement, Rachel Carson as a evil person.  Her 1963 book ‘Silent Spring’ lead to the international ban on DDT.

Her claims on DDT caused wide spread ecological disaster were later disproved.  One of the myths was that DDT caused bird eggs to break before they hatched.  It turns out phenomenon existed pre-DDT.

Within just 5-years of banning DDT, wrote Miller, the number of malaria in Sri Lanka had risen from 17 cases back up to ½ million.  African nations spend about 40% of their health-care dollars fighting malaria.  And many were threaten with trade sanctions by the west if they use DDT.

Let’s run the numbers:  At least 43 million people, mostly black kids, have needlessly died since DDT was banned, based on flagrant claims from 1 environmentalist wacko. 

The impact on third-world economies is incalculable.

And its not over reaching to call this exactly what it is:

Liberal Genocide! 

And that’s the memo.

Enviromental Wacko’s get theirs

Table turns on environmentalists – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

 At great ideological battle of our times is taking place over a little patch of land.  About five years ago the environmentalist wackos picked a fight with off-road drivers who enjoyed riding their vehicles in Surprise Canyon which lies near Death Valley. 

A successful mining town once operated in the canyon, which is home to a waterfall and a lively water stream.  So the wackos sued and they won; and the canyon was declared off limits to off-road vehicles. 

Think that’s the end of the story?  Nope. 

Eighty or so of the off-riders began to purchase small partials of land around the top of the canyon; and they are suing the Federal Government for access to their land.  The foundation of their argument is a Civil War era mining law, putting the rights of the feds behind public access rights of local governments and private individuals. 

Well, the wackos are livid!  They are demanding to be allowed to intervene in the off-roaders lawsuit claiming the canyon will be destroyed if the property owners prevail. 

Its going to be years before this is settled – but its being watched closely. The fate if thousands of acres of land, in the west, declared off-limits by over zealous liberals may hang in the balance. 

Win or lose, those of you who are off-roaders – you are fighting a good fight.  You did not lay down and get run over (no pun) by these wackos – you used their favorite weapon – the courts (who are probably run by liberal judges) to give them a surprise that they will never forget, which I say, YES! 

And that’s the memo 
Read the article

One Child Starts an Anti-Santa hat Controversy

Political Correctness runs amok – again – this time pointing right to Santa – that the subject of today’s Talking Points memo. 

It was only last week that we learned of the sad situation at a Needham, Massachusetts, high school where one parent (one mother) who had three kids complained to the school principal that the fact that two of her kids didn’t make the honor roll was causing trouble in the household because the school published a list, and so the principal took it under advisement, thought about it for about a half minute, and canceled the whole notion of publishing the honor roll list. 

They didn’t want to make people feel uncomfortable.  Okay 

Now, a Long Island school bus driver by the name of Kenneth Mott; he has a white beard, he looks a lot like Santa Claus, and he was driving the bus with a Santa Claus hat on. Newsday reports: “Mott said that he was told that a parent of a child complained to the district about Mott’s Santa Claus hat, saying that the child doesn’t believe in Santa Claus and was bothered by the hat.”

So a guy with a beard wearing a hat who looks religious — although Santa Claus is not a religious figure per se — is minding his own business, driving the bus, upset a kid!  

So what else? Does this kid not get to go to the mall? If you see Santa Claus somewhere, does this upset the kid? What does the kid do at the sight of anything that reminds him of Christmas? “Company officials nevertheless told Mr. Mott to remove his Santa Claus hat,” and he refused. Kenneth Mott stated, “‘Nobody is going to tell me what I can do and can’t do.’ He doesn’t pretend to be Santa Claus while driving, nor does he play Christmas carols or decorate his bus. ‘This is America. I’m not hurting anybody,” said Mott.  

Things have sure changed when I was a kid. Teachers would dress in Christmas theme clothes.  I remember a history teacher in my grade school who wore a Santa hat – and no one was offended. It was in the spirit of the times, the spirit of the season. It was cute, and it was fun to see somebody get in the holiday spirit, and it used to be that way when we were kids. If you get on the bus and Santa Claus was driving the school bus, if the driver wearing a Santa Claus hat, nobody would run around, “Oh, my God, I’m offended! I’m bothered by that!” One person, one kid goes home and tells his parents about it.

This is political correctness run amuck, which it’s hard to pick one occasion or example to say that political correctness has run amuck. Jack Kemp, who was a contributor to AmericanThinker.com says, “This farce, the type of thing one sees in the plot of a $7 Christmas movie you can buy off the rack at a drugstore chain, has mercifully ended for now. It seems there are two major schools of thought about unusual people with odd hats. One is that we should all learn about other cultures and be tolerant of them.” 

What if the guy had been wearing a turban? Let’s forget the Santa Claus hat. What if the bus driver had been wearing a turban, and what if a kid had complained? Do you think the kid would be sent to sensitivity lessons? Damn right, he would be! The kid wouldn’t be allowed to drive on the bus, and I guarantee you that turban would not have come off. Mr. Mott, if he chose to wear a turban, would be riding around wearing a turban today and the kid would be off somewhere getting his mind right, learning how not to be discriminatory and bigoted. But put a Santa Claus hat on, and Mr. Mott is approached by his bosses and told what-for, and he denied them.

 

So we’re either taught to be tolerant of other cultures and to learn all about them. The other school of thought today “is that we now in America have the Guaranteed Right not to be made uncomfortable by anything that doesn’t suit our fancy, be it a person with an unusual hat or a guy with only one leg or who is obese or doesn’t wear designer jeans — or is obese AND wears designer jeans.

 “These two opposing viewpoints are increasingly headed for confrontations. And the winners will be those who come to the conclusion that we are all entitled to our reasonable public displays of our culture that don’t interfere with public safety,” but I think it goes deeper than that. It goes back to The Offended. It is almost a registered group now: The Offended. If there are people out there who are personally bothered, they think they have a right not to be. They have a right not to be offended; they have a right not to be bothered, and they are given power because they are a minority. In some cases, such a small minority, they are one person. So if one person is bothered, one person is offended, then all hell breaks loose, and the majority, obsessed with guilt over being the majority, says, “Okay, okay! Well, we don’t want to hurt your feelings, and we don’t want you uncomfortable and we don’t want you offended.”

Then go to Mr. Mott, or the principal cancels the publishing of the honor roll or what have you, and the process repeats. It was very vivid in the days after the 9/11 attacks in New York City at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. An august bureaucracy, no less than the state department convened a series of forums on the subject: “Why Do They Hate Us?” meaning the terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Why do they hate us? And, of course, why you going to ask that question? You’re only going to ask it if you want an answer, and why do you want the answer? Well, you want the answer because you think the answer might help you to convince them to stop hating us. Which, in a war, is a serious dereliction of responsibility, an absolute distraction. It doesn’t matter why we’re hated. There’s nothing that justifies blowing up two of our buildings. There’s nothing that justifies blowing up the Pentagon and trying to blow up another building in Washington — we don’t know if it’s the White House or Capitol. Nothing.

There are enough people in this country who say, “We are guilty! We have brought pestilence and syphilis, racism, sexism and bigotry, the white people did, when they conquered this land that was once dominated by the great Indians who are at one with nature. Of course everything was pristine back then, but we came along, we destroyed it; kicked them off their land.

Now we rob and steal the other people of the world all their oil, all their gold, all of their diamonds — which are now called ‘conflict diamonds’ — and we put these baubles around our necks and on our fingers and we put their oil in gasoline in our cars and we air-condition our homes while the rest of the world suffers, and so we deserve this kind thing.” This has been building for a long time. I call it “the tyranny of the minority,” and it’s getting bad now when one person, particularly a child, can be made to feel offended or uncomfortable (gasp!) and the guilt of the majority is the only thing — even if it’s adults versus children, it’s the guilt of the majority that is the only thing — that permits the minority to get away with this kind of intimidation.

 And that’s the memo.

(Note: Links on this blog may become inactive over time)

Tis the Season…..

How New York Stole Christmas, that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo. 

Well, the Supreme Court punted. The justices were supposed to decide weeks ago whether or not to hear a blatant example of anti-Christian bias in New York City. But still no decision. 

The case concerns a policy by the New York City public schools to allow displays of the Star and Crescent flag for Ramadan and the Menorah for Hanukkah, but to ban the Nativity scene at Christmas time. The decision makes no legal sense, as the federal courts have previously ruled that so-called “religious” displays can appear on public property, as long as there is no preference given to one religion over another. 

I have been up front about how liberals and the ACLU have waged a war on Christmas in the public and in some cases the private arena, and I must say that I am tired of it all. There is no need to deny students a Nativity display. Don’t they get enough of history being re-written and anti-Americanism as it is, do they really need to be told that Christmas is bad? I mean, how threatening and offensive can a baby, two loving parents, and three wise men really be? 

All the polls say that most Americans believe as I do: That the traditional signs of Christmas are a good thing. So leave them alone, okay? 

The Supreme Court, of course, could have made things a lot easier by taking the case, discussing it for ten minutes, then ruling that New York City school officials are in strict violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution  that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Would that be so hard to do?  But then we are talking about the Supreme Court; that’s as bad as dealing with the ACLU. 

But no, the Supreme Court justices are now on their Christmas break – opps, I mean winter soltus, and have left the country adrift once again. The anti-Christmas forces are still clinging to the bogus separation of church and state argument that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would mock these secular fools and then retire to his Virginia estate for Christmas dinner. 

The good news is that despite the cowardice of many public officials and the anti-Christian bias of many in the media, the forces of Christmas cheer are winning in America. Most retail stores are saying “Merry Christmas” again, and the ACLU is mad as hell that they can’t stop them. 

Again, all of this is so stupid it hurts. With so much strife and evil in the world, why can’t we have a celebration that honors a baby who grew up to espouse “love your neighbor as yourself?” So what if it has spiritual overtones? Why can’t we introduce children to Christian philosophy in a joyful way? Everything about Christmas is positive except the commercialism. And that can even be looked at positively – its called Capitalism. Entrepeneurialism. Making the economy strong. 

Here’s the bottom line: If you’re offended by Christmas, you have a problem. See somebody or tough it out. But enough with the petty nonsense. When Christmas images have to be decided by the Supreme Court, you know things are out of control.  I mean my God, we have people in this world who have sworn their lives to kill us, and we’re spending time defending Christmas!  How nuts is that!  Wake up America!

 So give Jesus a break – give Christmas a break and enjoy the season no matter how you celebrate it, and be thankful you live in a country where the philosophy of peace on earth, good will toward all people is honored with a federal holiday. 

And that’s the memo