Archive for the ‘political correctness’ Category

Does Anyone Else Find This Ironic? *Updated*

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

Yes, yes, more about the whole mosque thing in New York, though this is about a different aspect of it. And that would be our First Amendment right to free speech.

Remember how Obama went on and on about the mosque-builders and freedom of religion, as if this had anything whatsoever to do with freedom of religion? I know, I know, how could anyone forget THAT little debacle.

But get this. Now the concern is about those of us who are speaking OUT about building the mosque near Ground Zero are inciting terrorists. Yes, if we have the audacity to be upset that Imam Rauf wants to build his cultural center and mosque at a site he picked SOLELY for its proximity to Ground Zero and as a site that was hit by part of the jet that disintegrated flying into the Twin Towers, we are empowering the terrorists.

Oh, how I wish I was making this up, but it was reported by no less than NPR in this piece by Dina Temple-Raston, “Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists.” Oh, oh – someone didn’t get the memo that we don’t use that term anymore – “Islamic Extremists.” What, are they bigots or something? Ahem. Anyway, yes, by us utilizing our Constitutional Right Of Free Speech, we are giving ammunition to the Islamic Extremists who want to do us harm, according to this article:

Experts worry the controversy surrounding an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing right into the hands of radical extremists.

The supercharged debate over the proposed center has attracted the attention of a quiet, underground audience — young Muslims who drift in and out of jihadi chat rooms and frequent radical Islamic sites on the Web. It has become the No. 1 topic of discussion in recent days and proof positive, according to some of the posted messages, that America is indeed at war with Islam.

“This, unfortunately, is playing right into their hands,” said Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks these kinds of websites and chat rooms for Flashpoint Global partners, a New York-based security firm. “Extremists are encouraging all this, with glee.

“It is their sense that by doing this that Americans are going to alienate American Muslims to the point where even relatively moderate Muslims are going to be pushed into joining extremist movements like al-Qaida. They couldn’t be happier.”

Ah, yes. It is all our fault that we want just a little sensitivity from this Muslim cleric. How dare we. (And if you want to read the rest of the NPR piece, click HERE.)

Hmmm – what does it say that there is a concern that even “moderate Muslims” in the US, because people are asking for sensitivity, not a pox on all things Islamic, could be coerced into acting against the country in which they live? I can’t decide if that is a backhanded slap against moderate Muslims that they could so easily be pushed, or an attempt to silence critics in general.

But here’s a little newsflash: We don’t have to do a damn thing but be Americans to incite these Islamic Extremists. I’m serious. All we have to do is be who we are, and that is sufficient. Remember the first WTC bombing in 1993? I don’t recall anyone going out of their way trash-talking Islam to incite that event. Remember 9/11? The WTC, the Pentagon, and whatever the target was of the plane that was wrested away from the terrorists and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania? Was anyone going out of their way to talk smack about Islam? No, I don’t think so. How about the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000?

If you want to get an idea of how much Islamic terrorists have wanted to attack us for a period less than a decade, click here to read a statement to the Joint Chiefs from 2002 listing the numerous terrorist attempts on the US or our territories. That is just from 2/93 – 9/01.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on and on. No amount of political correctness, or respect for Islam in general, can negate the reality that there are Islamic radicals who want to attack Americans here and abroad. And if we stop exercising our rights as American citizens to try and pacify them, to not raise their ire against us, then THEY HAVE WON.

If that is the case, then all of those who died in the attacks on the US Embassies, those 17 sailors who died on board the USS Cole, and the thousands who died on 9/11, did so in vain. And that cannot stand.

We cannot allow the threat of more violence to silence us, whatever the issue is. We cannot be coerced to give up our Constitutional rights on the possibility that our fulfillment of these same rights might feel antagonistic to those who wish us harm. We cannot stop being Americans lest we somehow, whether consciously or not, enrage a group by our sheer existence.

Can we?

*Update* Check out this interview of Andrea Mitchell and Ambassador Ahmed. Apparently, what we should be concerned about is how those of us who oppose the mosque in that location are going to impact President Obama’s desire to reach out to the Muslim World. Oh, wow…

Mosque Rallies And Other News Of The Day

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

There are some doozies in the news this morning. But first, in case you missed it, there was a big rally near Ground Zero on Sunday. Protesters and supporters of the mosque/cultural center plans to be built in that area showed up to make their voices heard. Clearly, this issue is not going away anytime soon:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

You know, when I saw the CNN report, I just knew that CNN was under-reporting the numbers of those opposed to the mosque being built near Ground Zero. And CNN made it seem as if there were a couple hundred protesters on BOTH sides. I knew they were full of crap:

[snip] Hundreds of critics and supporters of the proposed center in New York showed up despite an overcast and drizzly sky to express their views amid the national debate over the facility.

Police estimated that supporters of the center numbered up to 250, and critics numbered about 450 during the demonstration. [snip]

Uh huh. Nothing like inflating the numbers on one side, and deflating them on the other. Oh, you just gotta love the LMSM (Lame Mainstream Media). Or not.

By the way, if you think for one second Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf did not know that the landing gear from one of the planes flew into that building, and the relevance of it being so close to Ground Zero, you are sadly mistaken. That is why he picked that location, and why Muslims started coming to that building to pray. At least according to this December 8, 2009 NY Times article, “Muslim Prayers And Renewal Near Ground Zero“:

[snip]But for months now, out of the public eye, an iron gate rises every Friday afternoon, and with the outside rumblings of construction at ground zero as a backdrop, hundreds of Muslims crowd inside, facing Mecca in prayer and listening to their imam read in Arabic from the Koran.

The building has no sign that hints at its use as a Muslim prayer space, but these modest beginnings point to a far grander vision: an Islamic center near the city’s most hallowed piece of land that would stand as one of ground zero’s more unexpected and striking neighbors.

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Nope, that site was no accident. It was chosen PRECISELY because it is close to Ground Zero, and because part of the landing gear fell.

Again, to those who keep acting like this is just some random site and those opposed to it are off our rockers, here’s the proof. From Imam Rauf’s own mouth. Satisfied yet? Yeah, that’s about what I expected – no amount of facts will matter. Whatever.

And then there is this story. It is no secret that California has been struggling mightily with its budget and deficits. That makes the following story even more disturbing than it would be otherwise:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Have these people lost their minds? Marble? In a public high school? While they are having to cut back on Education? That is just nuts.

Okay, one more, if you can stand it. This is the former head of the DNC, failed presidential candidate, and former governor, Howard Dean, giving advice to the Obama camp. Wait until you hear it. There is a bonus discussion about an organization funding Republicans:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Oh. My. Gosh. A bit of advice, Governor Dean – put down the Hopium pipe. You have had way too much…

And George Soros doesn’t hide behind an organization? Really? Huh. Is there an organization he funds that supports Democrats that has his name in it? If so, lemme know.

There ya go – a few stories of the day. Feel free to talk about these, or any other, stories.

Mosque Supporters Want WHO To Speak Out?

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

You might not want to be drinking coffee or anything right this moment. Why? Well, when I tell you just who the mosque supporters want to come out in support of building the mosque 60 feet from Ground Zero, whatever beverage you’re consuming may end up on your computer screen. Okay. Ready?

George W. Bush. No, really – I’m serious. They want George W. Bush to weigh in on the building of this particular mosque near Ground Zero. Would I lie to you? No. And wait until you see who a couple of the writers are requesting Bush’s input in this Byron York article in the Washington Examiner, “Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama’s rescue“:

It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

Come on, isn’t that hilarious? These are the same people who vilified Bush routinely, routinely!!! And now, now that the man they supported after consuming massive amounts of Kool Aide, and smoking tons of Hopium, and shoved down our throats, refusing to do any vetting whatsoever, has made such a mess of this issue, they want BUSH to weigh in? This is one of the funniest things I have heard in a while. Maureen Dowd?? Eugene ROBINSON?? Oh, wow.

Well, someone else who has weighed in is Debra Burlingame, from the 9/11 Families. Did she ever have something to say, especially about Madam Speaker Pelosi’s remarks about funding:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Well, Ms. Burlingame certainly didn’t mince words. Agree with her or not, there is no misunderstanding from where she is coming on this issue.

There is one group from whom we have not heard on this whole mosque business. And that would be moderate Muslims. What is their take on Imam Rauf’s building the mosque near Ground Zero? They, too, are quite clear: don’t build it. That is the upshot of this Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “Moderate Muslims Oppose Location of Cordoba Mosque – On Religious Grounds.” This article is well worth the read, but a few salient quotes:

[snip] Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, told TheDC that moderate Muslims have been silent on the matter, despite possible disagreements, due to religious concerns. According to Fatah, however, the need to avoid causing another person pain should trump such conflicts.

“There is a widespread belief among Muslim teaching that anyone who opposes the construction of a mosque, which is the house of God, is committing a sin,” he said. “So a lot of people who want to voice their opinion do not want to become a part of the controversy. But especially during the month of Ramadan it is important that our actions not cause pain to anyone. Any action by a Muslim that causes any pain to anyone else should be halted!” [snip]

That explains a lot – the widespread belief, that is. It helps to know why moderate Muslims have been quiet throughout this discussion. There is more:

Fatah believes the mosque plans are moving forward because they have the support of the American government. “I think they have an official green light either from the State Department or the White House telling them to, ‘Go ahead, you have our full backing,’ and they want to use this Islamic center as a place for diplomacy to the Middle East to demonstrate that the United States is a place where Muslims thrive. But that has backfired because this could have been done in many other ways.”

Jasser said that the building of this mosque is ‘fitna,’ a religious term meaning mischief-making, which is severely frowned upon in Islam. “‘Fitna’ is anything that causes chaos in society,” he said. “This mosque is causing chaos, it is causing ‘fitna’ and that is not the Islamic thing to do … This is ‘fitna’ and ‘fitna’ is wrong.”

Fatah agreed saying that ‘fitna’ is an ethical and moral issue that ought not be taken lightly. “If a step taken by an individual causes disharmony then it is ‘fitna.’ [The mosque] has caused so much pain. There are many mosques already in New York, nobody has ever opposed a mosque, if there is opposition to a mosque on grounds of hatred I would be the first to confront it. But over here it is a matter of sensitivity and there is no residential community even near the community center.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

“Mischief-making.” Yes, that seems to be a good term for what Imam Rauk is doing, along with Obama, I might add. And yes, the State Department sending Imam Rauf on a tour of the Middle East on our dime, at a cost of $16,000, certainly appears to condone the building the mosque by essentially endorsing Rauf.

But Fatah said it all. This is not about hatred. It is about sensitivity (about which I wrote recently, too). This decision is causing pain, to a number of people. Two thirds of New Yorkers oppose building the mosque there. Two thirds of Americans oppose building the mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero. Not because they/we/I oppose building mosques in general, but because we oppose it being built THERE, overlooking where Ground Zero stands, a hallowed ground to New Yorkers, to our nation.

George W. Bush can say something or not, doesn’t really matter to me. As far as I am concerned, the opposition is about sensitivity to those who lost loved ones, and to a nation that suffered a devastating attack there. It is not a matter of “freedom of religion,” or “freedom to practice religion.” It is about ceasing the mischief making, an “ethical and moral issue” of some weight.

I think that pretty much says it all, don’t you?

It Isn’t About “Freedom To Practice Religion,” Obama

Saturday, August 14th, 2010

As we all know by now, President Obama felt compelled to weigh in on the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. And a number of people are responding to Obama’s Friday Night Ramadan Dinner chat. I might say, no one has written more brilliantly than Larry Johnson at No Quarter. If you haven’t read it already, I definitely recommend it.

But Larry is not the only one with something to say about Obama’s proclamation. Here are just a few more statements being made this morning, compiled by AOL News:

[snip] Fitting Statement, But…
President Obama’s remarks about the community center and mosque planned for the neighborhood of Ground Zero were a fitting restatement of fundamental American fealty to freedom of religion….That said, it must also be recognized — and unfortunately Obama did not do so fully — that the hallowed ground of 9/11 stirs the deepest of emotions. That’s why, even as most of those polled saw the right to build, 64% still said the location was simply wrong for a mosque and Islamic-related facility…Those are legitimate sentiments, born not of bigotry but of reverence. They must be respected. — Editorial, New York Daily News

Not Hedging a Bit
The foes of the Islamic center have been trying to drag Obama into this debate, and some have urged Obama to avoid wading into it. But now he has, and he isn’t hedging a bit: He’s saying that opposing the group’s right to build the Islamic center is, in essence, un-American. I look forward to the response from the project’s opponents. – Greg Sargent, The Washington Post

Missing the Point

Like so much of the other stuff Obama says, this is an exercise in missing the point. The issue is not, legally, whether the Muslims can construct a mosque at Ground Zero — that is, whether state action should prevent them from doing so as long as they operate in “accordance with local laws and ordinances.” Of course not. That would be unconstitutional. But there’s a lot of stuff that’s legal that still isn’t right. And so, when it comes to the mosque, the real question is whether it should be built, and at only this one particular site — whether constructing it at Ground Zero is decent, and kind, and respectful of Americans’ sensitivities. – Carol Platt Liebau, Town Hall [snip]

I agree with Ms. Liebau – Obama is missing the point, as is Greg Sargent. This is not about freedom of religion – of course Muslims are free to practice their religion in the United States, as we all are (including the freedom not to practice religion). This is a canard, the purpose of which is a deliberate attempt to distort the real issue.

So, let’s be clear here. This mosque is not just any mosque, but one headed up by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. A man who is currently on tour of the Middle East courtesy of our State Department, and our dime. A man who refuses to condemn Hamas. A man who says we are partly to blame for 9/11. A man State Department spokesweasel P.J. Crowley says won’t be talking about religion, and won’t be fund-raising when he goes to countries like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to pay for the mosque he wants to build near Ground Zero.

But here’s the thing – Rauf has been offered other property on which to build his mosque by Gov. Patterson. He declined. He WANTS it to be in the shadow of Ground Zero. It begs the question: why?

This isn’t about freedom of religion. It is about reverence, about sensitivity to one of the most horrible acts of war on our shores, committed by Muslim extremists. That is not a right wing talking point, that is reality, a fact. The Twin Towers were brought down by Muslim extremists who sought to do us harm. And they did.

Perhaps President Obama, and all of the liberals who are working so hard to be “politically correct” and paint those who desire to not have this mosque so close to Ground Zero as a bunch of intolerant, insensitive yahoos should take a look at the video below, and remember. Remember what happened that day, not just to New Yorkers, but at the Pentagon, in a field in Pennsylvania, to all Americans, and to the world. This isn’t about freedom of religion. It is about this:

No, this is about reverence. It is about honoring the memories of all who were lost in this devastating attack at the hands of Muslim extremists. It is about sensitivity to those families and friends who lost loved ones, and to all Americans who lost a sense of safety that day. It is about all of us, whose lives were changed forever the day those planes were flown into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania.

How dare anyone try and make this out to be anything other than that. It is not about freedom of religion, or the right of one group to practice that religion. It is about a modicum of grace. A modicum of respect. We would no more accept a KKK headquarters in Selma, or a Japanese WWII memorial at Pearl Harbor, or a German Cultural museum on the beaches of Normandy. No, we wouldn’t, and we shouldn’t accept this as a “freedom of religion” issue. It isn’t.

Imam Fauk was offered another piece of real estate in the city of New York, which already has more than 100 mosques. He declined. He is determined to have it near Ground Zero.

And again I ask, why?

Students Sent Home For Wearing Patriotic Clothes

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

I could not believe my eyes when I saw this story last night, “Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees; Freedom of expression or cultural disrespect on Cinco de Mayo?.” Now, there are times kids might need to change their t-shirts, or turn them inside out, or what have you, for inappropriate messages, but this was most definitely NOT one of those times:


I’m sorry, did this young man just say they were not allowed to wear American flags because it was the Mexicans’ holiday? Evidently:

On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.

Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal’s office.

“They said we could wear it on any other day,” Daniel Galli said, “but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today.”

The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts “incendiary” that would lead to fights on campus.

“They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended,” Dominic Maciel, Galli’s friend, said.

The American flag is “INCENDIARY”?? Are you freaking kidding me? Maybe in, I don’t know, IRAN, but in the United States, it is our flag! For these boys to be sent home is absurd:

The boys really had no choice, and went home to avoid suspension. They say they’re angry they were not allowed to express their American pride. Their parents are just as upset, calling what happened to their children, “total nonsense.”

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous,” Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel’s mom, said. “All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They’re expressing their individuality.”

But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.

“I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day,” Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. “We don’t deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do that on Fourth of July.”

As for an apology, the boys and their families say, ‘fat chance.’

Well, evidently, they are not teaching Logic in that school. There is no comparison between an immigrant wanting to acknowledge the country of their birth, and the day the country in which they live celebrates its independence. The holidays of other countries are not federal nor mandatory holidays for the US, nor should they be. We are not required to observe them, and if we do, like Cinco de Mayo, it is out of generosity of spirit on our part, and is not a requirement.

And I’m with the boys – they have zero about which to apologize:

“I’m not going to apologize. I did nothing wrong,” Galli said. “I went along with my normal day. I might have worn an American flag, but I’m an American and I’m proud to be an American.”

The five boys and their families met with a Morgan Hill Unified School District official Wednesday night. The district and the school do not see eye-to-eye on the incident and released the following statement:

The district does not concur with the Live Oak High School administration’s interpretation of either board or district policy related to these actions.

The boys will not be suspended and were allowed to return to school Thursday. We spotted one of them when he got to campus — and, yes, he was sporting an American flag T-shirt.

Wow. What in the sam hill is going on here? Like Brian Kilmey said this morning, on St. Patrick’s Day, no one gets angry if you aren’t wearing green. No kidding. No kids are sent home from school for it, either. No other group demands that their holiday be observed here or else. Nor should they. I have zero problems with Mexicans and Mexico in general, but I have a huge problem with this sense of entitlement that seems pervasive among our youth today, and in this case, encouraged by someone in power. That is beyond the pale.

And while I am talking about Mexico, a new poll is out regarding our borders. The way Obama and the Democrats are talking about the new Arizona law, the results may surprise you. Or maybe not, if you know they are big liars. Anyway, the headline tells the story, Fox News Poll: Arizona Was Right to Take Action on Immigration. No doubt detractors will say, “Well, it’s Fox News, what do you expect?” Bet you didn’t expect this:

Polling was conducted by telephone May 4-5, 2010, in the evenings. The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of sampling error of ?3 percentage points.

Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted. LV = likely voters
Democrats n=366, ±5; Republicans n=331, ±5; Independents n=159, ±8
Questions 1-

You can view the full results here, but these are the highlights:

Most American voters think Arizona was right to pass its own immigration law, and think the Obama administration should wait and see how the new law works rather than try to stop it, according to a Fox News poll released Friday.

The new poll finds 61 percent of voters nationally think Arizona was right to take action instead of waiting for the federal government to do something on immigration. That’s more than twice as many as the 27 percent who think securing the border is a federal responsibility and Arizona should have waited for Washington to act.

Most Republicans (77 percent) and independents (72 percent) support Arizona taking action. Democrats are divided: 43 percent think the state was right, while 41 percent think Arizona should have let the federal government take the lead.

Considering Arizona has asked the Federal government repeatedly for help, I think that ship has sailed, but thanks for playing. As for the Arizona law itself:

Significantly more voters think the Obama administration should wait and see how the new law works (64 percent) than think the administration should try to stop it (15 percent).

To varying degrees, majorities of Democrats (52 percent), Republicans (77 percent) and independents (68 percent) think the White House should see how the law works.

Nearly half of voters — 45 percent — say they don’t know enough about the new law to offer an opinion on it. Thirty-four percent favor it, and 21 percent oppose it.

Who’s responsible for illegal immigration? By a 60-17 percent margin, voters think the Mexican government is the one that deserves to be targeted by protests for creating the conditions that make so many of its citizens want to leave, instead of protesting the U.S. government for having tough immigration laws.

What a concept – wait and watch to see how the law works out. Huh. Apparently, most people in government haven’t considered that option. And since it mirrors federal law, you would think the president would support it, not threaten Arizona with the Justice Department. But that just wouldn’t be Obama, would it?

And then there is the question of how to prevent illegal immigration:

Stopping Illegal Immigration

Asked how to deal with illegal immigration, the poll shows large numbers favor using National Guard troops to help border patrol agents (79 percent), and imposing fines and criminal charges against employers who hire illegal aliens (79 percent).

Sixty percent favor using the U.S. military to stop illegal immigrants at the border. Support for using the military is up slightly from 55 percent in 2006, although it’s down from a high of 79 percent in 2002,when memories of the 9/11 attacks were more top of mind.

Just over half of voters — 53 percent — favor building a wall or fence along the U.S.-Mexico border to stop illegal immigration.

The new poll finds the biggest concern about illegal immigration is the overburdening of government programs. Forty-four percent cite the strain on government services — far outdistancing all other concerns. About one in five (19 percent) says their biggest concern is illegal immigrants taking jobs away from U.S. citizens, while smaller numbers mention an increase in crime (6 percent) and terrorism (6 percent).

By a 7 percentage point margin, more voters say they think Republicans (42 percent) would do a better job than Democrats (35 percent) handling immigration issues. And by a much wider 20 point margin, voters think Republicans (48 percent) would do a better job than Democrats (28 percent) on border security.

The issue of immigration falls far behind other top issues on voters’ minds. The economy remains the priority — in fact, the poll finds nearly 10 times as many voters cite the economy (47 percent) as immigration (5 percent) as being the most important issue facing the country today.

These are not the things we are hearing from Washington. Now Obama wants to push Immigration Reform during a week when Unemployment reaches almost 10% in this country. He wants the Congress to focus on an issue that is way down on the majority of American’s radar. Our president seems to have his priorities skewed, to put it mildly. Is it really just for votes that he, Reid, and other Democrats are wanting to shift onto this now? Really? When our Unemployment is so high? I’m guessing there will be a lot of votes, but they most likely won’t be going the way Reid and Obama want them to go.

Students being thrown out of school for wearing the American Flag. American citizens begging for the border to be patrolled by the National Guard. The President siding not with the US citizens, but with the illegal immigrants. This is some kind of upside down world in which we find ourselves. How out of touch can this president, and this Congress be? I shudder to think we may find out…

Make Me a Musical! (or why I have been out of circulation)

Monday, February 8th, 2010

This video explains why I haven’t uploaded many videos lately. It is the first in a three-part series that tells of a musical I have been working on, which I hope will at least provide some entertainment for my friends on No Quater and on my Youtube channel.

If you enjoy musicals, you might enjoy this affectionate parody of musicals in general and some of the great classic musicals like West Side Story, My Fair Lady, Damn Yankees, Singing In The Rain, a Chorus Line, Hello Dolly, How to Succeed in Business (Without Really Trying), and a number of others.

Two more videos are to follow (unless everyone hates the first one!)`

Naturally, my prejudices are evident in the video, even if it is about something as seemingly innocuous as musicals. Political correctness is one of them.

The GoverNuts

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

cd_cover400-sMy friends over at the GoverNuts Headquarters have asked me to help them share a little holiday cheer with the unregulated media monitors – you – on this blog. They, The Nuts, enjoy the writers and the ever-clever POTUS (Oh, be still. That’s PEOPLE Of The United States) who add colonoscopic, penetrating insight to real world opinions and news, through the comment sections here. Though they lost their protocol director during the transition to their new digs the Nuts did find their near iconic, street-level guide to art of unraveling modern political cryptography. While they were Hoping to just Change the locks they Opened a large simi-Transparent box and found the lost promises volumes of their debut CD, The GoverNuts – Political Graffiti, and they want to share the wealth.

Actually I think they are a bunch of socialized capitalists because they want you to buy this CD for your friends, family and self so they can donate $4.00 from each CD to the NoQauarter spam-killer for mandatory, voluntary reeducation. Actually it will go towards this website’s operating costs, and that’s good for the Nuts because they are counting on NQ people to provide them fodder for their 2010 release, tentatively titled “ “ to accurately depict all of the great DC accomplishments of late.

elephant donkey

The debut CD was written around political and governmental shenanigans that seem to be repeated every cycle by the parties in power. So, instead of burning the few electron-producing chemicals that remain in my head trying to tell you more about the GoverNuts, I will just drop in a few lyrics from the CD.

Hide your wallet. Politika Rock

The polilitika rock is a pile of crock
But I guess we like the rhythm of the blues
Everybody’s swaying to political sayings
And turning on the late night news

Now the GoverNuts got a brand new band
And they think it’ll go all the way
But when they put your hands in your pockets
You can almost hear them say

Politika roll (big money) politika rock
Well we vote ‘em in because we think it’s a sin
To see a politician work a real job


Many blog regulars will remember the fantastic filmmaker, Flineo. He produced the below embedded video last fall and many formerly respected luminaries said: “Naw! They won’t bring Chicago Politics to Washington. Would they? No way!”


Chicago Politics, most interesting politics
The circus is coming to your town
With jerks, buffoons and elephants
From the House of Delegates
And certified administrative clowns


This is one aptly titled “Hail to the Mob.”

The big boys put a contract out on capitol hill
Well here’s the deal. Why don’t you all just go home!
We’ll take over. We won’t write no bills
There’ll be no more debates under the capitol dome

Balanced budget. Who do we owe this money to anyhow
Who was dumb enough to loan us this much in the first place

Hail, hail to the mob – We’re going to get it right
- No more parlimentary gobligook
- Peace. Not democracy
- Our way is your way
Hail, hail to the mob –

It’s the Chicago Way.


And now a word from the Sinclair Congressional Campaign Committee (If he were The Law Man) Hey. It was on the front page of the Globe, so it has to be true – right?

And evening with me could be the thrill of your life
My shift is almost over let me give you a ride
I got a suitcase full of goodies that I saved form a bust
And the local bar is part of my security trust


I really think I heard this next one was the transition team theme song. With all the issue-naked Hollywood stars and booty-slappin’ rappers hanging out with the boyz at the Frat House on 1600 this Nuts’ tune, Pornographic Pit, seems to fit nicely.

We’ll..Turn this whole damn town
Into a pornographic pit
Run out all the preachers
And bring in all the pimps

Put a banner on the interstate
Saying: “Welcome Everyone”
To the world’s largest
Pornographic pit

..they’ve given a whole new meaning
To home town U.S.A.


With all the Poultry Committees popping up everywhere telling us how we can look at people, issues and ideas, being UnPC may be the new PC. Overheard coming from the Left Lawn: Chicken Liveration

Come one – Gather all. Now is the time for the Chicken Liveration. Chicken’s Rights!
Brak bak ba ..

Over on the hill by the chicken house
The chicks were having a ball
With pigs at the door, a real live band
And corn from wall to wall

Well everything was going fine
Till off in the distance they heard
A band of people (people!) people
Speaking those people words

It was a very good year because we ate a lot of chicken

Well Clara McClacker said: “Stop the ball!”
Now’s come a time for one and for all
To gather together in the Chicken Liveration


What? Think the Right is off the hook? There’s even an oldie on the CD that was penned after the 1994 revolution.

We woke up and saw what they’d done
They’d given us no place to run
The moral minority is now the majority
“Let’s pray” is the priority.

It’s balanced.

The GOP holds a party
And puts a gorilla with religion at the door
While the democrats gather down at the river
And pass around the hat for more.


Well. There’s the introduction to The GoverNuts – Political Graffiti. Go order your copies so you can wrap them up and send them to your former friends. Also, please remember.. and this is very important. I’ve sold this thing (my After-Death Voting Rights) many times, and my kids need the residuals.

Chicago Death Ballot

When I’m dead please bury me in downtown Chicago
So I can still keep casting my vote!

Code Pink Fundraisers Have Lost Their Frikkin’ Minds, And Their Sense Of Decency

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Let me just warn you now. If you are drinking or eating anything as you read this, you might want to stop. This article is disturbing on so many levels, but even more, it is infuriating at the way in which it paints Major Hasan, the alleged mass murderer. This is way beyond the pale in just plain human decency, much less the manner in which they are using this horrific traedy. The headline pretty much says it all, Obama Ally Code Pink Justifies Fort Hood Terrorist Attack, Cashes in on Massacre in Veterans Day Fundraising Appeal. Yes, you read that right, and no, it is nor hyperbole:

Following on the heels of their macabre Afghan war protest at a White House Halloween party that targeted children of military families for psychological abuse, leftist Obama ally Code Pink issued a statement justifying the terrorist attack at Fort Hood as opposition to the war from officers and put out a Veterans Day appeal seeking to raise money off the Fort Hood terrorist attack.

Signed by top Obama funder Jodie Evans, the appeal was published at Code Pink’s website on Veterans Day and sent out the same day to the group’s e-mail list. The terrorist attack at Fort Hood is cited three times in the fundraising letter.

As appalling as cashing in on the mass murder of 14 innocents is, Code Pink tops that by invoking sympathy for the alleged terrorist as a reason to give money to Code Pink–even putting his act of terrorism on the same moral plane as the recent protest resignation of a former officer who left his diplomatic post in Afghanistan over Obama’s war policy:

“This Veteran’s Day, you can support Under the Hood and the soldiers who walk through their doors with a cash or in-kind donation…

“Click here to see how else you can support Under the Hood (in-kind donations accepted too).

“Our soldiers clearly need more care; the last thing they need is to be put into more harm’s way. Even US military officers think so–Matthew Hoh resigned from the Foreign Service in protest of the lack of clear mission and achievable results in Afghanistan, and of course the Ft. Hood shooter was a Major who did not wish to be deployed to Afghanistan.”

Think about that. Code Pink says a mass murder terrorist act against unarmed soldiers is the moral equivalance (sic) of a protest resignation.

I don’t know about you, but this is disgusting. I don’t know how else to categorize it. It is disgusting to equate one man’s respectful resignation to another man’s alleged mass murder. What the hell is WRONG with these people?? If only it stopped there:

Code Pink is even more direct in their justification for the terrorist attack allegedly by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in a statement posted to their website that they encourage opponents of America in Afghanistan to send to President Obama:

The recent shootings at Ft. Hood and the resignation of top Foreign Service officer Matthew Hoh demonstrate how even our military officers are opposed to US strategy in Afghanistan.

Code Pink claims the money will be used to fund a campaign operated out of a coffee shop near Fort Hood called Under the Hood that preys on soldiers and their families. However, the donation link goes to Code Pink’s fundraising page and not to Under the Hood’s website. Note, fundraising links in this story are deliberately not active.

This is some organization with which Obama has aligned himself, isn’t it? I am just thoroughly disgusted. TO read the rest of the story, which includes more about “Under the Hood,” the relationship between Obama and Jodie Evans, and additional articles about Code Pink, please click HERE. Disturbing, just disturbing.

And it makes this Krauthammer piece that much more salient, Explaining Away Mass Murder. Indeed That is exactly what the Code Pink fudnraisers are doing with their despicable fundraising efforts:

– What a surprise — that someone who shouts “Allahu Akbar” (the “God is great” jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives. It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre downplaying Nidal Hasan’s religious beliefs.

“I cringe that he’s a Muslim. … I think he’s probably just a nut case,” said Newsweek’s Evan Thomas. Some were more adamant. Time’s Joe Klein decried “odious attempts by Jewish extremists … to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.” While none could match Klein’s peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular story line was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Uh huh. And why is it that someone can’t be nuts AND a terrorist? Many people would see those words as not being the least bit contradictory when used in conjunction. Oops - silly me - inserting logic into that ridiculous argument:

They suffered. He listened. He snapped.

Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?

And what about civilian psychiatrists — not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics — who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?

It’s been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.

But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, whom National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.

And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won’t find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as “compassion fatigue.” The poor man — pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.

I wonder if Dr. Krauthammer would pay a visit to the entire fundraising staff, Obama’s allies, at Code Pink? Now THAT would be a visit I’d like to see, especially since Dr. Krauthammer, like me, thinks this is, well, in my word, obscene:

Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It’s a danger, clear and present.

Consider the Army’s treatment of Hasan’s previous behavior. NPR’s Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising Grand Rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand Rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital — attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.

I’ve been to dozens of these. In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia — as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan’s. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers — consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This “really freaked a lot of doctors out,” reported NPR.

Nor was this the only incident. “The psychiatrist,” reported Zwerdling, “said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he’s a terrorist, or is he just weird?”

Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not. Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague’s religion?

One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.

So many excuses, so little relevance:

What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn’t cry “Allahu Akbar” as they squeezed the trigger.

The delicacy about the religion in question — condescending, politically correct and deadly — is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: “Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center.”

Ah yes, those Jersey men — so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Indeed. Ahem. That organizations like Code Pink are painting this mass murderer of unarmed soldiers in such a sympathetic light, and with such moral superiority, indicates just how far from our moral base we have strayed. At a time when the fallen from that massacre are being buried, for this organization to depict Hasan as nothing more than a victim of US policy, and on the same level as a distinguished war veteran and US State Department employee who resigned with integrity is simply reprehensible.

In other words, the fundraisers at Code Pink, Obama’s ally, have lost their frikkin’ minds. I would say they should be ashamed of themselves, but they clearly, CLEARLY, have no shame at all. And that is most disturbing of all.

One last thing, to the families and friends of those fallen, it breaks my heart that in addition to such a grievous loss, you now have to deal with such outrageous fundraising attempts by a group excusing the actions of this man, Nidal Malik Hasan. I regret that you have to even deal with such additional lunacy an disrespect at this very difficult time. My heart and prayers go out to you all.

More On Fort Hood, Sgt. Munley, And Others

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

We are learning more and more as the days pass since the horrific terrorist attack on Fort Hood this past week- yes, I said it - that’s what it is. What else do you call it when someone plots, plans, and carries out an attack on our soil but terrorism? Was not the Oklahoma City bombing terrorism? Regardless of any connections it now appears Hasan had in his Virginia mosque, or not, to try and spin this assault as anything else other than a terrorist attack is simply disingenuous. It makes one wonder just who it serves when people try to frame this as “Contact PTSD,” though PTSD is a very real consequence of war, or other traumatic experiences. But “Contact PTSD”? Enough of the excuses. From all that I have seen on this recently (link above), there were a number of red flags, a number of people making complaints about Hasan, concern over his anti-American rhetoric, and yet, for whatever (misguided) reasons, he was allowed to continue his practice.

And that brings us to this article, Heroes Took Huge Risks To Save Others. Not only are we learning more about Hasan as time passes by, but we are learning more about the actions of that tragic day on Fort Hood, and others who acted selflessly. No doubt, the big hero is Sgt. Munley, and I will get to her in just a minute Here is another hero:

Pfc. Marquest Smith, on his way to Afghanistan in January, was completing routine paperwork about a bee-sting allergy when the sounds erupted.

A loud popping noise. Moans. The sudden, urgent shout of “Gun!”

Smith poked his head over the cubicle’s partition and saw an extraordinary sight: An Army officer with two guns, firing into the crowded room.

The 21-year-old Fort Worth native quickly grabbed the civilian worker who’d been helping with his paperwork and forced her under the desk. He lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun.

After the shooter stopped to reload, Smith made a run for it. Pushing two other soldiers in front of him, he made it out of the Soldier Readiness Processing center — only to plunge into the building twice more to help the wounded.

Smith had survived the worst mass shooting on an American military base, a rampage that left 13 dead and 30 wounded, including the alleged shooter, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

It could have been much worse, but for the heroics of Smith and others — including the diminutive civilian police officer who single-handedly took down Hasan.

Of course, that would be Sgt. Munley. More on her below as the picture of what happened on Fort Hood gets filled in. A big piece of that is we are getting some information on where the shooting began:

Decisive Action

At the processing center on the southern edge of the 100,000-acre base, soldiers returning from overseas mingled with colleagues filling out forms and undergoing medical tests in preparation for deployment.

Around 1:30 p.m., witnesses say a man authorities later identified as Hasan jumped up on a desk and shouted the words “Allahu Akbar!” — Arabic for “God is great!” He was armed with two pistols, one a semiautomatic capable of firing up to 20 rounds without reloading.

Packed into cubicles with 5-foot-high dividers, the 300 unarmed soldiers were sitting ducks (emphasis mine). Those who weren’t hit by direct fire were struck by rounds ricocheting off the desks and tile floor.

Let’s just reflect on that for a minute. Hasan chose an area in which the soldiers were close together. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. That’s pretty much what he did after he jumped up onto the desk and started firing. Just picture the logistics of that - man on desk firing on unarmed soldiers (only the MPs and contracted civilian police officers carry guns), 5 foot dividers, 300 soldiers. The potential for mass casualties was set in motion:

When he decided the shooter wasn’t close to being out of ammo, Smith made a dash for the door. He’d made it outside when he heard cries from within.

“I don’t want to die.”

“This really hurts.”

“Help me get out of here.”

Smith rushed back inside and found two wounded. He grabbed them by their collars and dragged them outside.

Around this time, Fort Hood Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley got the call of “shots fired.” The SRP isn’t on Munley’s beat; she was in the area because her vehicle was in the shop.

Munley, 34, was on the scene within three minutes.

Just over 5 feet tall, Munley is an advanced firearms instructor and civilian member of Fort Hood’s special reaction team. She had trained on “active shooter” scenarios after the April 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech. She didn’t wait for backup.

As she approached the squat, rectangular building, a soldier emerged from a door with a gunman in pursuit. The officer fired, and the uniformed shooter wheeled and charged.

Munley was hit at least three times in the exchange — twice through the left leg and once in her right wrist. Hasan was hit four times.

From the first shots to the last, authorities say the whole incident lasted less than 10 minutes.

Sgt. Munley’s fast response time, not waiting for backup (I wonder if she’ll get lectured about that?), and her willingness to put herself in harm’s way saved who-knows-how-many lives. Clearly, her training kicked in, and she did what she was trained to do. This article, Hero ‘Civilian Cops’ Emerge After Fort Hood Shooting: Sgt. Kimberly Munley Lost So Much Blood Doctors Feared She Wouldn’t Survive, goes into even more detail as to what Sgt. Munley did that day (H/T to American Girl in Italy for this article), as well as another police officer, Sgt, Mark Todd:

After Sgt. Kimberly Munley helped stop the Fort Hood massacre by shooting Major Nidal Malik Hasan several times, she collapsed from her wounds and doctors who treated her were afraid she wouldn’t survive.

“She was fading in and out of consciousness. She wasn’t saying much,” medic Francisco de la Serna, who began treating Munley when the shooting stopped, told ABC News.

Munley, a 34-year-old former soldier who became a civilian cop on the Fort Hood base, was shot twice in both legs during Thursday’s confrontation. Two powerful “cop killer” rounds allegedly fired by Hasan tore through her left thigh, exited and blasted through her right thigh as well. She was also struck in the wrist.

Sgt. Mark Todd, 42, a retired soldier who also works as a civilian police officer at Ford Hood, also engaged in a firefight with Hasan that lasted less than a minute, according to The Associated Press. Todd was not wounded.

Army officials say that an investigation is under way about whose bullets brought down Hasan as there was much confusion following the shooting. Munley’s supervisor initially credited her with the shot that stopped Hasan.

Todd told The Associated Press Saturday that he was unsure if Munley had wounded the suspect, because “once he started firing at me, I lost track of her.”

After firing his Beretta at Hasan, Todd said the suspect flinched, slid down against a telephone pole and fell on his back. Todd recalls hearing people say, “two more, two more.” He first thought they were referring to more shooters, but he realized that the bystanders were urging him to fire two more rounds, Todd said.

Todd said he approached the suspect and saw that he still had a gun in his hand, which he kicked away. Todd told the AP, “He was breathing, his eyes were blinking. You could tell that he was fading out. He didn’t say anything. He was just kind of blinking.”

Munley, the mother of two girls, was sped to Metroplex Hospital several miles away where doctors say she lost so much blood that they feared she would not make it.

I suppose we will have to wait to find out exactly whose bullet brought down Hasan - Munley’s or Todd’s, but there is no dispute that had she not started firing on Hasan, he would have inflicted more damage on the soldiers.

Her wounds were clearly severe, especially after being hit by “cop killer” bullets:

Munley proved to be as tough in the operating room as she was while confronting Hasan in their close-range shootout.

Dr. Kelly Matlock, who treated Munley at the Metroplex Hospital, said her first words in recovery were concern about Hasan’s victims.

“She opened her eyes and said, ‘Did anybody die?’ That’s what she said, ‘Did anybody die?’” Matlock said.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the make up and constitution of this woman. Her first thought, her first question, wasn’t about herself, but others. I am in awe.

Sgt. Munley got her question answered:

Munley now knows that the man she shot is alive, and that he is accused of killing 13 unarmed people and wounding 38.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry visited Munley in the hospital today and later described her as “understated.”

“She is a classic public servant who is not interested in anything other than getting on with her life,” Perry said.

Chuck Medley, the director of emergency services at Fort Hood, said many more would have died if Munley had not leaped into action.

“If she had not responded the way she had, we would have had an extremely high number of dead and injured,” Medley told ABC News Friday. “The number of lives that this person saved … We will probably never know. But there is a lot of ammunition left, a lot of magazines,” he said referring to what Hasan was allegedly carrying.

Uh, yeah. That, along with Hasan giving away his worldly goods, screams premeditation to me. No doubt about it.

While much of this has been covered already, the way in which this is written really paints a picture:

Sgt. Kimberly Munley’s Shootout With Major Nidal Malik Hasan

Medley described a scenario worthy of a Hollywood script. He said Munley, who is a member of the base’s SWAT team and a weapons expert, ran towards the gunfire and came upon Hasan when she rounded a corner and saw him pursuing a soldier who had already been wounded once.

“She fired on him twice and drew the attention toward her. He immediately spun around and charged her,” Medley said. “She fired a couple more rounds and fell back, continuing to fire.”

Despite getting struck three times by Hasan’s fusillade, Munley stayed upright and kept firing at the charging gunman.

Let’s stop right there. What kind of person is capable of doing this? What kind of person puts herself in the line of fire to save someone else? What kind of intestinal fortitude must this woman have to STAY UPRIGHT after being seriously hit, firing at the gunman?

I have a close friend who was a police officer at one time before he became a minister. I asked him that question - what makes some people run into danger, be it firefighters, police officers, military personnel, when everyone else is running away as fast as they can? What kind of courage and bravery must someone have to do something like Sgt. Munley? It is hard to fathom. Sure, many of us would like to THINK we would, but honestly - WHO would rush into this situation, size it up, and intentionally put herself in the line of fire to protect others? It is simply remarkable. This breed of human being is rare indeed.

At least according to this report, if it even matters at this point, it was Munley who brought Hasan down (as mentioned above, ballistics will have the final say):

“She struck him a couple times in the upper torso and he went down,” Medley said.

“When she rounded that corner she made a split-second decision to put her life at risk,” he said.

Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said Munley’s aggressive tactics averted even more carnage.

“She had been trained in active response,” Cone said. “They had rehearsed scenarios like this. Oftentimes, the idea is you would encircle the building and wait until you have more backup. What the belief is, if you act aggressively, to take the shooter out, you’ll have less fatalities.”

Munley acted aggressively, not waiting for backup. She went after the gunman and quickly found him. As Cone put it, Munley decided “to seek him out, to confront hm.”

Medley said he visited with Munley early Friday. “She’s doing very well. She was in good spirits. She was smiling and laughing,” he said.

Her boss said he told Munley, “The action you took saved countless peoples’ lives. People are healthy, alive and walking around today because of the action that this officer took. She’s a hero.”

Munley’s grandmother, Monirie Metz, told ABC News that the former South Carolina surfer girl would probably object to being called a hero.

“Kim doesn’t want be called a hero. She’s worried about everyone else right now and is very concerned about her colleagues with whom she is very close,” Metz said.

Of course Sgt. Munley would object to being called a hero. After what we have learned about her, who would be surprised by that? Not me. That speaks even more about her remarkable character. Can anyone not be impressed by this woman? I imagine her family is extraordinarily proud of her, as they should be.

Speaking of family:

Her husband, Matthew Munley, is a soldier at Fort Bragg, N.C., and was flown to Fort Hood. She also has two daughters, ages 15 and 2, from a previous marriage.

Needless to say, Sgt. Munley’s daring feats are already garnering tributes:

Facebook Tributes to Fort Hood Hero

In the hours after the shootings, two Facebook groups sprung up dedicated to Munley and her heroic actions.

“At that tragic moment you were able to use your training and abilities to bring an end to a day that will haunt the lives of many for years to come,” one member posted in the group “God Bless SGT Kimberly Munley.” “Thank you for being a true hero.”

And in the group “Sgt. Kimberly Munley: A Real American Hero!,” one woman stationed in Japan with her military husband said that Munley had inspired her to learn how to shoot once she returned to the U.S.

A true hero indeed - I know she’s mine.

Juan Williams Calls Out the Race Baiters…This Is Must See TV!

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Bumped up from Saturday night.

Whatever one may think of Rush Limbaugh, the controversy surrounding his attempts to participate in a consortium buying the Rams has made for some strange bedfellows. Apparently Limbaugh was falsely accused of making racist statements he did not make. Juan Williams of FOX News stood up for the truth and was told he should “get back on the porch.” Understandably, Mr. Williams was furious. While he has at times been critical of President Obama, it is not his habit. Imagine his horror when he realized that if he dares for once to tell a truth that is not “politically correct,” he too will be thrown under the bus by race baiters.

Mr. Williams interviews commentator Tammy Bruce and the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, PhD, a former NFL player, conservative pastor and African American who is close friends with Mr. Limbaugh. This 7:45 video is well worth your time…*



*From The O’Reilly Factor, 10/16/09, H/T to Hot Air…

This segment speaks truth to power. What do you think?