Post #196 He Answered Duty's Call

Meet a Hero: Wounded in Iraq

Michael Dinkel

After the towers fell in the terror attacks on 9/11/01, Michael Dinkel dropped all other plans. He chose to answer duty's call.

He fought for you and me in Iraq. He gave his leg for our country!

That's the kind of sacrifice you salute each time you choose to help heroes through the Disabled American Veterans (DAV).

Michael was wounded while coming to the aid of troops hit by a roadside bomb. Insurgents had planted a second bomb in the path they thought a rescue team might take. They were right.

A violent blast destroyed Michael's right leg, broke his back, mangled his face, and knocked out four of his teeth!

But because you chose to be there through your fervent support of the leader in service to disabled veterans, Michael isn't looking back.

Michael feels no self-pity, no regrets. He's just grateful for your help.

Keeping Patriots Alive in Our Hearts!

Arthur H. Wilson, National Adjutant
Disabled American Veterans

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

OUR MISSION:
Since its founding more than 90 years ago, Disabled American Veterans has
been dedicated to a single purpose: Building Better Lives for America's
Disabled Veterans and Their Families.

P.O. Box 14301 | Cincinnati, OH 45250-0301

Please thank a disabled veteran for their sacrifice and service!

Post #195 Rick Perry -- The Real Deal?

According to Bob Harris, a North Carolina political operative and a Michele Bachmann supporter, Rick Perry is a Republican LBJ, a career politician who's enriched himself and his friends through government connections. Uh-oh, does that mean he has been slurping at the trough of BIG government while politicking against that same BIG government?

Rick Perry accepted over $80,000 in farm subsidies over an eleven-year period while he was a Texas Legislator and Texas Agriculture Commissioner until he sold his farm in 1998 -- including several years in which he was paid NOT to farm. Yes, Perry received government funds to NOT work -- isn't that kind of like welfare!?! :p

Rick Perry controls the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund.

The Enterprise Fund has dispensed $435 million in grants to businesses since 2003. More than a quarter of the companies that have received grants from the Enterprise Fund or their chief executives made contributions to either Perry's campaign dating back to 2001 or to the Republican Governors Association since 2008 when Perry became its chairman.

The Technology Fund has doled out nearly $200 million to companies since 2005. This, too, operates on a similar pay-to-play scheme -- or, as I saw one commentator colorfully describe it, "incest."

1. I can hardly believe that Texans feel these gifts are an appropriate use of taxpayer money -- how does this sit with the idea that governments are instituted among men to secure unalienable rights for the people? Whatever happened to the idea that businesses would succeed or fail based on their own merits?

2. I can hardly believe that Texans feel the governor should be in control of gifts from Texas. Who is benefiting here? Mr. Average Texan or Rick Perry who, as Governor, has raised more than $100 million in campaign funds? That is, for every five dollars that Texas gave out in gifts, one dollar goes into Perry's pocket.

Yeah, but is Rick Perry the real deal? Well, he is a real politician alright....

P.S.: "We are fed up with bailout after bailout and stimulus plan after stimulus plan, each one of which tosses principle out the window along with taxpayer money."

Sound familiar, Rick? It's from your own book "Fed Up" -- written BEFORE you balanced the last two state budgets using stimulus money.

And, of course, stimulus money -- $10 million -- is being used to repair the Governor's mansion while the Texan taxpayer is paying nearly $10,000 a month for Perry to live in a three-story mansion with a heated pool, cabana and guest house.

I saw a commentator defending Perry's extravagance by snidely asking "What is he supposed to do? Live in a trailer?" Yes, I thought, show some leadership -- set an example.

Post #194 Racism 101, Pt. II

Nothing stirs up like 'racism.' Gimme another chance -- and please note that I am using 'black' as a shorthand for 'minority' (in other words, any minority faces these same issues):

The question remains: "Why is it that only whites can be racists??"

Blacks do not have the power to enforce their prejudices in America.

Of course, it's also true:

Blacks do have the power to enforce their prejudices in Kenya.

Now, I am HAPPY TO BE WHITE with the privileges associated with being a member of the dominant group in society. America is a WHITE society, most of the power and wealth are in white hands. Whites' wealth pulls far ahead of minorities - http://t.co/8PoFZfX The redistribution of wealth IS happening... in whites' favor. HAPPY TO BE WHITE! :p

I have the economic, political, social power in this society. If I use a racial slur, it is offensive -- I have the power to threaten a black's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; a racial slur against me means nothing -- a black has no power to threaten my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

We have eliminated the direct political expressions of racism. Until the mid-'60s, all sorts of laws and rules were enforced to support the prejudices of whites -- blacks had to ride in the back of the bus, for example. In contrast, today, blacks do not have the power -- even with a black living in the White House -- to make Glenn Beck use a 'whites only' entrance to the White House. :p

Now, political expressions of racism are sneaky. Today, you may oppose public school funding -- which may or may not be related to prejudices, but surely blacks will bear the brunt. That is what is known as "institutional racism" -- and, too often, is just a front for prejudices. Think about that the next time you are asked to sign a petition for 'neighborhood schools.'

Take the O.J. Simpson case, for example, in which blacks were able to enforce their prejudices and return a "not guilty" verdict. Why were blacks in that position? Because the WHITE criminal justice system put 'em there -- NEVER again.... :p

Of course, socially, things seem to be improving -- well, maybe not. But the economy is firmly in white hands!

And that is why it is that only whites can be racists. Racism = prejudice + power. A white who uses a racial slur is a racist; a black who uses a racial slur is a fool. There is your answer. NOT saying that "Racism = prejudice + power" is 'correct' or the only definition, but it does answer "Why is it that only whites can be racists??"

Of course, I am speaking collectively. Individually, I laugh at Billy Bubba Jim Bob who cries in his beer every night because somebody called him a "Honkey." :p

Of course, too, I am not laughing at the examples sent to me of blacks acting on their prejudices. I hate that a black kid kicked a white kid in the head because of the prejudice that all whites have a snotty tude. That black kid should have the book thrown at 'im! Being racial? Yes. Being racist? No. There is a difference -- what this Post is about.

Post #193 Racism 101

Nothing stirs up like 'racism.' Gimme another chance:

The question remains: "Why is it that only whites can be racists??"

The answer: Blacks do not have the institutional power to enforce their prejudices in America.

Of course, it's also true:

Blacks do have the institutional power to enforce their prejudices in Kenya.

I am HAPPY TO BE WHITE with the privileges associated with being a member of the dominant group in society. America is a WHITE society, most of the power and wealth are in white hands. Whites' wealth pulls far ahead of minorities - http://t.co/8PoFZfX The redistribution of wealth IS happening... in whites' favor. HAPPY TO BE WHITE! :p

If I use a racial slur, it is offensive -- I have the power to threaten a minority's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; a racial slur against me means nothing -- a minority has no power to threaten my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Until the mid-'60s, all sorts of laws and rules were enforced to support the prejudices of whites -- blacks had to ride in the back of the bus, for example. Blacks do not have the power -- even with a black living in the White House -- to make Glenn Beck use a 'whites only' entrance to the White House. :p

Today, you may oppose public school funding -- which may or may not be related to prejudices, but surely blacks will bear the brunt. That is what is known as 'institutional racism' -- and, too often, is just a front for prejudices. Think about that the next time you are asked to sign a petition for 'neighborhood schools.'

Take the O.J. Simpson case, for example, in which blacks were able to enforce their prejudices and return a "not guilty' verdict. Why were blacks in that position? Because the WHITE criminal justice system put 'em there -- NEVER again.... :p

And that is why it is that only whites can be racists. Racism = negative prejudice + power. A white who uses a racial slur is a racist; a black who uses a racial slur is a fool. There is your answer.

Of course, I am speaking collectively. Individually, I laugh at Billy Bubba Jim Bob who cries in his beer every night because somebody called him a "Honkey." :p

Of course, too, I am not laughing at the examples sent to me of blacks acting on their prejudices. Being racial? Yes. Being racist? No. There is a difference -- what this Post is about.

Post #291 9/11: A Day Of Infamy, Pt. II

Look at August 06, 2001, and Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S.," the "historical" document which had no "actionable" intelligence. No, obviously, that PDB did not specify a time, date or place, but surely a warning must not be specific in order for a President to take action.

The only thing new in that PDB -- Bush had received 40 PDBs concerning Bin Laden by that time -- was that the FBI was conducting 70 investigations. This was a good point for Bush to have called the FBI -- "70 investigations? That's a lot. What's up with that?"

Bush was not engaged against terrorism BEFORE 9/11. Having a President who is not engaged before disaster has implications -- ask the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

Jihadists hijacking planes in the air, flying the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings was not "unimaginable."

In 1996, when the Olympics were held in Atlanta, I paid attention to the preparations because 1) it was close, and 2) it was supposed to be the last Olympics before the end of time. Of course, they were worried bout terrorism, such as commandoes Munich-style or truck bombs World Trade Center-style or Oklahoma City-style or planes flying into buildings.

Indeed, when Amanda Beard won her swimming medals in what was basically an outdoor arena, the TV cameras would scan the night sky and show the lights of the planes landing at the Atlanta airport, and the TV guys talked about how dangerously close they were even tho the FAA had ordered a three-mile no-fly zone.

Why were they worried about planes flying into buildings? Well, at the trial of the first WTC bomber, they laid out the details of a plot from the Philippines to blow up 11 planes over the Pacific and hijack two others in the air and fly them into buildings.

Remember the plane in France jihadists wanted to hijack and fly into the Eiffel Tower in 1994? Commandos stormed the plane on the ground -- jihadists learned that they needed to hijack planes in the air and fly them themselves. The intelligence community -- and anybody else paying attention -- picked up on hijacking plane in the air, flying the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missilesagainst buildings as a way of the jihadists.

Indeed, different pre-9/11 plots have named the Sears Tower, CIA headquarters, the Seatle SpaceNeedle, the TransAmerica building in San Francisco among others as targets for the jihadists to hijack planes in the air, fly the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings.

Yes, Bush was taken by surprise -- obviously. But the U.S. intelligence community warned Bush about an imminent attack wherein jihadists would hijack planes in the air, fly the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings, and Egypt, France, Israel and Russia passed on their own warnings in the month before 9/11; Bush did NOTHING -- other than to tell a messenger, "You've covered your ass now."

I would expect a President -- any President -- to do like Franklin Delano Roosevelt in November 1940 and at least issue a war warning: Have the FAA warn the airlines about the threat of hijackings and tell them to take precautions; step up the air marshals; call the FBI -- "hey, buddy, the CIA is here having a fit 'bout terrorism. What do ya know 'bout that?"

Again, Bush did NOTHING. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe.

The bottleneck is at the top of the bottle. Um, 9/11 was NOT an intelligence failure; the failure was in the White House. I think a President should be aware of what his intelligence community had been working on for five years. Does the buck stop in the White House -- yes or no?

And they gave us Iraq instead....

President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, "These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can't get 'em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us."

Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?

Indeed, at a 9/13 meeting in the Oval Office with Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer of New York and Senators John Warner and George Allen of Virginia about getting aid for their states. Bush said, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

And so the Decider decided. He wouldn't repeat President Clinton's 'mistake' of chasing shadows -- he was going after bigger fish....

Post #290 9/11: A Day Of Infamy

Ten years later, the question remains: Does a President have any responsibility for the failures of his own government? Does the buck stop in the White House?

I consider a successful terrorism attack to be a failure. I'd expect a President -- any President -- to review what happened and fire those responsible. George W. Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission, refused to give a formal interview to Congress and promoted Condoleezza Rice. I think he failed to be responsible.

The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.

Why wasn't Bush all over this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)

SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

As Senator Carl Levin said as the new administration took office, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."

And where was Bush?

On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, sent Condi Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda." It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."

On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do
is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Ari never did.

Clarke had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq.

Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries themselves? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."

The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.

Post #289 BE PROUD TO BE WHITE, Pt. III

And why do those Italian-Americans get their own crime syndicate, the Mafia? Why are we so divided?