It would seem that Cynthia has done more than just slap around Capital Secruity. It would appear that Cynthia has cheated taxpayers by violating a very strict Congressional Rule. However, nothing has been said about this either other than on a local Atlanta Channel. Amazing isn't it. The same woman that likes to skirt security procedures, hit security personal, throw out the "I'm black" card and have everyone from Danny Glubber to Henry Belefonte do her crying for her. The woman has no shame. Now she uses taxpayers money to fly in Issac Hayes to Atlanta to open a new office. Did she mention that in her little TV press meetings or on TV?
The Stars and Stripes
Respect Her, Defend Her, and Cherish what she stands for.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Monday, April 03, 2006
McKinney Case Goes to Federal Prosecutor
Cynthia McKinney's incident with the Capital Hill Police is moving forward. The case presented to the U.S. Attorney's office came about from a recent scuffle McKinney had while trying to enter the Capital without her identifying badge. Her, McKinney's, defense is that she was touched inappropriately, and stopped simply because she was a "black congress woman". McKinney also tries to fly the childhood reasoning that if others have done it and not been stopped, why can't I. Can you see the flip side of this as well? Let's say that Cynthia, was allowed to pass unchecked, and something happened to cause the Congress to evacuate the building. I can assure you that Cynthia would be one of the first to step up and call the security at the capital lax and make it a major issue for the security of the Congress. I feel what Cynthia is doing is simply displaying her total disregard for authority. Considering that this is not her first run in with security would tend to lend to the story that she thinks that she is a "privileged" "BLACK CONGRESS WOMAN", and therefore is not subject to procedures and policies established for the safety of the congress and visitors that go there.
Playing the "black card" is about as childish as one can get in the Congress. What it does present is that Cynthia simply can not admit that she was wrong. I guess one could go as far as to say that if I, as a white person, breaks the law or violates certain policies, and I am confronted by a black officer, I could claim racism on the part of the officer. It doesn't matter that I broke the law or violated policies. It is the fact that a black officer stopped me and detained me because I was white. Sound ridiculous? I would hope so. I know that the NAACP would be the first to step out and call it a sham. As a former law enforcement officer and having held a security supervisor's position for over nine years, I know the importance of ID Badges and enforcing policies and the law. Regardless of what a persons status is, be they a politician or be they a regular "Joe" on the street, they must be held accountable to the law. After all isn't this the main 2006 political push by the Democrats, "ACCOUNTABILITY" for the law? Crazy Politico, "America, The Divided", also has a reference to this incident on his site, and verbalizes it much better than I. Face it Cynthia, you can't have it both ways, and throwing this damn "I am Black" crap out there isn't going to cut it. Grow your arse (not the original word I was going to use, but more readable I think) up and take responsibility for your stupidity.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
John Wayne where are you...
Picture if you will John Wayne standing in front of a large wall draped with an American Flag, speaking in his familiar drawl the following words:
Why Are You Marching Son?
THAT's a pretty potent question and can be answered on both sides of the fence. So when you ask it of a young rebel, he may come back with answers that run the gamut from political corruption to social unrest.
I think that a certain amount of questioning of our nation's direction and purpose is healthful, and I for one respect young people for wanting to effect change. If they don't mind however, I'd kind of like to ask them where they intend to go. If you march wildly because you want social reform and have no plan to better the social conditions that already exist, it might be better to stay home. It seems to me that a whole lot of our marches of the sixties have sure discovered that the political process of America, encompassing in its purpose the search for the best common good for all of us, may be slow and a bit tedious, but most effective in the long run.
Now if you take up arms and march for your country when she calls on you, that's a whole new ballgame. To me it means that you've already accepted the belief that your nation is on the right track for you and that you want to keep it there.
Maybe we've had "right" wars and "wrong" wars in our two-hundred-year history, and even now it's only conjectural to say how they will be evaluated a thousand years from now. But I can't help feel for example that our country wouldn't be worth much today if we would have sat back on December 7, 1941, and said, "Ah shucks, maybe we should see it from their viewpoint."
And so we marched again, just as we'd done at Valley Forge and at Belleau Wood. The millions of Americans who were transformed from fuzzy cheeked youths into formidable fighting men, marched to preserve their country and preserve it they did.
I just wish that our dissenters would recognize a darned interesting point. America didn't keep up that huge army of civilian soldiers, but in remarkably quick time returned them to civilian life. We marched when we had to and then quit marching.
Again, I'd like to ask those dissenters to think about a thing called honor. You can't put it in a sandwich and you can't hold it in your hand. You either have it or you don't and you, alone, are the one who knows. If you think it's honorable to question a commitment made by your Government to a foreign power, that's certainly your buisness. All I ask of you is don't consider that young boy who is fighting for you in some faraway land either a fool or a patsy. In my book, no matter how you may look at it, I feel that he's making it possible for the rest of us to enjoy the luxury of deciding to which tune we will march.
Don't know about you, but that kinda sends goose bumps up and down my spine. Hearing those words, spoken by this man, relights that patriotic flame in me everytime. Whether you liked him or hated him, you can't deny his direct effect of millions of Americans when it came to setting a "Hollywood" figure who spoke for America.
For more of the words John Wayne spoke please click on the link below. I promise you won't regret it.
NewsBusters presents...
You just have to check these out. They are great and definitely show some of the slant by the MSM.
April 1, 2006 - April Fools Edition (Vol. Nineteen; No. 7)
A bi-weekly compilation of the latest outrageous,
sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.
Hillary, Savior of Our Savior
“Last month, Senator Hillary Clinton said Republicans
couldn’t rid the country of undocumented immigrants
without creating a police state. Then last week, Senator
Clinton said conservatives would have kicked Jesus out of
the Holy Land for not having the proper paperwork. Yesterday,
the aspiring first female President brilliantly put
those themes together like cookies and milk, saying Christian
conservatives want to create a theocratic police state
so rigid and intolerant it wouldn’t have room for Jesus.
Bingo! It’s our political Play of the Week.”
— CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider on The Situation
Room, April 1.
More Jobs = Worst Possible News
Anchor Elizabeth Vargas: “In Washington, the Labor Department
reported that the U.S. economy added 470,000
new jobs last month. The Bush administration was quick to
claim this was good news, but is it really? We turn now to
ABC’s Betsy Stark for some perspective.”
Reporter Betsy Stark: “Elizabeth, this may sound like good
news, but investors are terribly nervous. More jobs mean
fewer people in the unemployment line, and that means
unemployment offices will lay off workers. More people
with money in their pockets could drive up inflation, and
oil prices could soar. And more new homebuyers could
mean a further expansion of this huge housing bubble,
indicating a possible crash ahead. That could leave a lot of
families out on the street, Elizabeth.”
— ABC’s World News Tonight, April 1.
Blacks, Hispanics, Poor Favor Immigration Crackdown
Is it possible that all those marching in the streets aren't really the minority? Is it possible that the real minorities want real control over immigrants coming in to America Illegally? Well according to an article at NewsMax.com back in 2004 a majority of the minorities wanted a stiffer crack down on illegal aliens coming in to the US.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, minorities and the poor overwhelmingly favor a get tough approach on illegal immigration - as they proved just two years ago by supporting Arizona's Proposition 200 in a landslide.
As the 2004 election approached, the immigration crackdown, which proposed denying state services to anyone who couldn't prove they were in the country legally, was decried by critics as "draconian" and "xenophobic."
The proposal was trashed by Arizona's business community. All the state's big newspapers came out against it. Governor Janet Napolitano, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Jon Kyl echoed their opposition. The Chamber of Commerce and the labor unions opposed Prop 200 as well.
___________________________________________________________________
Could it be that the "will of the people" has again been squashed by those who have the most to gain. McCain and Napolitano, what did you gain from disolving the will of the people. People that are here legally and have registered to vote.
Hillary---HOW STANDS YOUR HUSBAND?
Clinton bounces same ball as Bush on Immigrants and Illegal aliens. In an interview with Larry King, Clinton agrees with the direction Bush is taking.
Partial Transcript of Clinton interview by Larry King:
In 1996, you signed a border crackdown bill. Now there are meetings in Cancun. What's your read on this whole immigration debate?
CLINTON: That first of all it's an exceedingly complicated question, particularly as it relates to our border along the Rio Grande River. Keep in mind that Mexico and the U.S. have a very long border. Only the Canadian border is a longer unguarded border of any countries anywhere in the world.So, we have to guard our border there because we have narcotics problems as well as illegal immigration problems. On the other hand, our country has been immensely enriched by immigrants coming up from Mexico.And, the real trick now it seems to me is how do you recognize some harsh realities? Number one, as long as America has a higher standard of living than our near neighbors the ones from poor countries who are enterprising and hardworking will try to find a way to get in.Number two, the overwhelming majority of these people are good, decent, law abiding people who would never become terrorist threats. Number three, the same border does give people an opportunity to disguise themselves if they're terrorists and also to run drugs across, which does happen.
KING: Yes.
CLINTON: So the real dilemma is here how can we avoid being foolishly xenophobic trying to be cruel to hardworking people who are paying taxes and doing jobs other people wouldn't do in America, giving them a reasonable path to citizenship without punishing people who wait in line and obey the law and still trying to make sure that through technology and other means we do a better job to protect our borders from potential terrorists, from narcotics and other things that are real trouble.I mean it's a -- in other words, it's complicated but I know that the bill that's making its way through the Senate seems to me to be closer to what I think should be done. I have no problem in the world having more border patrol guards and stiffer border enforcement for security reasons.But I don't think it is practical or wise for us to try to denigrate or demonize a lot of the undocumented immigrants who came here and are working hard paying taxes and making a contribution and sending the money back home to their folks.
KING: So, are you saying you generally support President Bush?
CLINTON: I think the president has a good idea in terms of wanting to give people a path to citizenship and have increased border enforcement. That's also the idea behind the bill sponsored by Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy in the Senate. I think the House provisions have by and large been too punitive. Now, the one thing I would say and the Senators have emphasized I don't think this guest worker program that the president supports should be totally unlimited, either in -- in other words, I think if there's just no limit on it then it's going to be very difficult for us to enforce the existing labor laws.
That's the other thing I would say.For people who are worried about whether this affects their jobs and their incomes, I think the president and perhaps the Congress ought to offer as a provision of this a more vigorous enforcement of the existing labor laws of America on minimum wage, minimum hours, working conditions and things like that because that would tend to minimize the number of people who would be brought in to abuse the existing system. But I don't feel that immigration is a threat to America's future. I think it's key to America's future. I do think that when people wait in line then they ought to be able to become citizens more quickly than people who come here even if they've been undocumented for a long time and worked hard. So, I think the Senate bill and where the president is, I think they're trying to get to the right place.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Capitol Hill police plan to issue an arrest warrant today for Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.).
Did you see this one in the Headlines of the Post or the Times? To be honest it didn't even make a back page story on any of the AP releases. In fact you would probably not know anything about it if it hadn't shown up on a local Atlanta TV station, and it probably was not a leading story. However, Rep. Cynthia McKinney is in trouble with the law.
Probably not much to this story since it concerns a Democrat representative. But just think what would be hitting the airwaves and press if it had been a Republlican. Then you have Pelosi, the "town crier" for the Democrats on the HILL, saying "I would not make a big deal of this,". However, this is an assault on a police officer which could be a felony if pressed. How many people do you know that if they struck a police officer in the line of duty, would get a slap on the wrist and let go. Speaking for myself, as a former law enforcement officer in Oklahoma, I would press for the felony charges. Not because she is a Democrat, but because it was unprevoked. She was detained because the officer did not recognize her as a member of Congress. A simple mistake, and I am sure an honest one.
During my tenure as a police officer(five and one half years), I once stopped a state representative in the town in which I worked. He was stopped for a simple traffic violation, he rolled through a stop sign. But did he become violent? No, in fact he was very apologetic and thanked me for being unbiased in my upholding of the law. He was given a verbal warning and let go without further incident. I later received a letter from this representatives office, again thanking me for upholding the laws of the state and local ordinances. Yet here we have a federal elected official striking a law enforcement officer, and Pelosi is saying not to make too much of it.
If this had been a republican congress member, the left would be out there in total voice screaming that this is what the Republican Party represents. A violent and uncontrollable party always on the brink of hostilaties, and screaming for his/her resignation. The Democratic Party's been well known for trying to blow things out of proportion when it envolves any Republican concerning just about any type of law related violation.
Post Update: 1650 hr, 3/31/06
Just watched the "press meeting" regarding McKinney. She "can't comment on the incident at the advise of her lawyers" however, she did slam the race card on the table right up front with this statement "...a black woman...inappropriate touching of me...and insitgated by the officer". Excuse me Cynthia, but how else can an officer detain someone that they thought might be trying to get by security measures established at the Capital? They say stop, or hold on there, or whatever else their policy requires, and they usually grab you by your elbow area or a light grab on the shoulder. So I guess, inappropriate touching means,"Keep your %$# hands off me. As I said earlier in the post, if it had been me that she slapped, she would have found herself in cuffs and on the way to the pokey for assaulting a police officer. Then she could explain it to the judge, which she will anyway (hopefully). Totally unexcusable behavior on her part. And they call themselves the "compasionate party".
Perhaps Ms. McKinney is right. Perhaps she should not be touched to stop her from violating the security policies, perhaps the next time they should just shot and not ask questions. When a law enforcement officers says stop or halt, regardless who you are or your "COLOR", YOU STOP. Continuing to disregard the instructions of a law enforcement officer demands harsher methods. Don't throw that Race Card up just because you are too stupid to follow the rules and you think just because you are black gives you a reason to do it your way. BLACK DON'T MATTER, WHITE DON'T MATTER...BREAK THE LAW, PAY THE PRICE. Unfortunately, poor Cynthia will probably get off scott free, which will open up another can of worms that the Democrats will have to face up to. When someone slides by security and puts a bomb or anthrax letter under their butts, they can thank Cynthia.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
IS IT WORTH STAYING IN THE UNITED NATIONS?
Received an interesting e-mail this evening that has what I call pointed reasons as to why we should give the boot to the UN or at least get the ____ out of the most corrupt international organization in the world.
THIS OUGHT TO UPSET EVERYBODY:
How they vote in the United Nations:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against theUnited States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States, receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States, receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States, receives $143,699,000 annually.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes (and gasoline). Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know. And send to your congressman, who should be disgraced but couldn't care less.
Disgusting, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
