The Chruchill Series - Jan. 23, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Sir Winston S. Churchill died January 24, 1965 at his home in Hyde Park Gate, London, following a massive stroke on January 12. He was age 90. At his bedside were Lady Clementine Churchill and his youngest daughter, Mary.

Almost two year before, on April 9, 1963 at a White House ceremony, President John F. Kennedy read a proclamation granting Churchill honorary American citizenship. Only one other person, the Marquis de Lafayette, had previously been so honored.

Age and ill health prevented Churchill from attending, but special arrangements were made for a live satellite broadcast direct to his home where he watched the ceremony.

Kennedy first read the proclamation a unanimous Congress had authorized. The president then spoke some words of his own. They were brief, graceful, and left no doubt Churchill deserved the honor he'd just been awarded.

Churchill's son, Randolph, then read a statement on his father's behalf. It too was brief and graceful. And it left no doubt that, even in the winter of his life, Churchill was strong for the things he had always valued and fought for.

Below, courtesy of The Churchill Centre, are the full texts of the citizenship proclamation and President Kennedy and the former Prime Minister's remarks.

At the end of the post you find a link to a Library of Congress online version of its recent exhibit concerning Churchill's many connections to America.
__________________________________________

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS Sir Winston Churchill, a son of America though a subject of Britain, has been throughout his life a firm and steadfast friend of the American people and the American nation; and

WHEREAS he has freely offered his hand and his faith in days of adversity as well as triumph; and

WHEREAS his bravery, charity and valor, both in war and in peace, have been a flame of inspiration in freedom's darkest hour; and

WHEREAS his life has shown that no adversary can overcome, and no feat can deter, free men in the defense of their freedom; and

WHEREAS he has by his art as an historian and his judgment as a statesman made the past the servant of the future;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOHN F. KENNEDY, President of the United States of America, under the authority contained in an Act of the 88th Congress, do hereby declare Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen of the United States of America.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

DONE at the City of Washington this ninth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and eighty-seventh.

JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY
___________________________________________________________

Remarks by President John F. Kennedy at
The White House, Washington D.C., April 9, 1963

We meet to honor a man whose honor requires no meeting -- for he is the most honored and honorable man to walk the stage of human history in the time in which we live.

Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty.

Facing firmly toward the future, he has never forgotten the past.

Serving six monarchs of his native Great Britain, he has served all men's freedom and dignity.

In the dark days and darker nights when Britain stood alone -- and most men save Englishmen despaired of England's life -- he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. The incandescent quality of his words illuminated the courage of his countrymen.

Given unlimited powers by his citizens, he was ever vigilant to protect their rights.

Indifferent himself to danger, he wept over the sorrows of others.

A child of the House of Commons, he became in time its father.

Accustomed to the hardships of battle, he has no distaste for pleasure.

Now his stately Ship of Life, having weathered the severest storms of a troubled century, is anchored in tranquil waters, proof that courage and faith and the zest for freedom are truly indestructible. The record of his triumphant passage will inspire free hearts for all time.

By adding his name to our rolls, we mean to honor him -- but his acceptance honors us far more. For no statement or proclamation can enrich his name -- the name Sir Winston Churchill is already legend.
____________________________________________________________

Sir Winston's response
28 Hyde Park Gate, London, April 6, 1963

As read at the White House
by Randolph S. Churchill, April 9, 1963

Mr. President,

I have been informed by Mr. David Bruce that it is your intention to sign a Bill conferring upon me Honorary Citizenship of the United States.

I have received many kindnesses from the United States of America, but the honour which you now accord me is without parallel. I accept it with deep gratitude and affection.

I am also most sensible of the warm-hearted action of the individual States who accorded me the great compliment of their own honorary citizenships as a prelude to this Act of Congress.

It is a remarkable comment on our affairs that the former Prime Minister of a great sovereign state should thus be received as an honorary citizen of another. I say "great sovereign state" with design and emphasis, for I reject the view that Britain and the Commonwealth should now be relegated to a tame and minor role in the world. Our past is the key to our future, which I firmly trust and believe will be no less fertile and glorious. Let no man underrate our energies, our potentialities and our abiding power for good.

I am, as you know, half American by blood, and the story of my association with that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of my Father's marriage. In this century of storm and tragedy I contemplate with high satisfaction the constant factor of the interwoven and upward progress of our peoples. Our comradeship and our brotherhood in war were unexampled. We stood together, and because of that fact the free world now stands. Nor has our partnership any exclusive nature: the Atlantic community is a dream that can well be fulfilled to the detriment of none and to the enduring benefit and honour of the great democracies.

Mr. President, your action illuminates the theme of unity of the English-speaking peoples, to which I have devoted a large part of my life. I would ask you to accept yourself, and to convey to both Houses of Congress, and through them to the American people, my solemn and heartfelt thanks for this unique distinction, which will always be proudly remembered by my descendants.

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL
______________________________________________________________

The Library of Congress exhibit online, Churchill and the Great Republic may be viewed here. You may want to set aside a few hours for viewing. It's extraordinary.

Is Europe's cold weather anyone's fault?

Today from the Associated Press :

Freezing Cold Spreads to Much of Europe

The bitter cold seizing Russia retained its icy grip Monday and severe freezing temperatures spread westward into much of Europe.

More than 50 people have been reported killed by the cold wave in Russia, and scores of victims were recorded elsewhere in Europe over the weekend.
...

I'm sorry for the bitter cold and deaths. I hope the weather moderates.

But extreme cold in Europe is nothing new. Europe’s experienced extreme cold weather about as often as it's experienced extreme hot weather. Both have contributed to deaths there.

Until a few years ago, nothing I've just said would have provoked any comment other than perhaps: "Why is John saying the obvious?"

I'm saying it for the reason many of you have already guessed: There are "scientists" and "climatologists" as well as "officials in Brussels" and surely a "spokesperson at the Democratic National Committee "who'll blame President Bush for this latest weather extreme.

Do any of you doubt that most MSM news organizations will report what the "scientists'" and others' say as if it were all true?

Unless we keep saying "Wrong" to obvious misstatements, pretty soon even sensible people will start believing them.

Intolerance on the Internet

Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters posts on a recent form of intolerance that seems to be used mostly by Leftists

One of the least-welcome developments of the Internet has been the rise of e-graffiti, especially at places like Amazon.com, where the victims overwhelmingly have been conservative writers.
It appears that those who oppose conservative thought have little love for free speech when practiced by those who disagree with them, and their only intellectual recourse is to deface websites that sell the books written by conservatives.

Morrissey has a lot more to say here.

Serious Michael Moore will get Canadians laughing

The French news agency, AFP, is reporting:

Controversial American documentary filmmaker Michael Moore bemoaned an apparent right turn by liberal northern neighbor Canada in its upcoming general election.

"Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right? I know you have a great sense of humor, ... but this is no longer funny," Moore complained in a commentary on his website.

"First, you have the courage to stand against the war in Iraq -- and then you elect a prime minister who's for it. You declare gay people have equal rights -- and then you elect a man who says they don't," Moore moaned.

What is it about Moore and his fellow leftists. They're always saying they want "the people" to decide. And when "the people" decide, the leftists get upset. There's just no pleasing some people.

Moore even tries what he thinks will scare Canadians

"A man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper, because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest?" Moore asked.

Moore ends by telling Canadians he isn't suggesting what he's suggesting

"Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do," he added. "I hope you don't feel this appeal of mine is too intrusive, but I just couldn't sit by, as your friend, and say nothing."

Rarely has Michael Moore been so entertaining. I think Canadians will laugh all the way to the polls.

Ed at Captain's Quarters "will start live-blogging the election starting at 6 pm Central Time this evening, with frequent updates as information "crosses my desk", so to speak"

The Churchill Series - Jan. 22, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

We don’t pay enough attention and respect to Clementine Churchill. Tonight, let’s start to balance the books a bit.

It’s April, 1941.

There’s no Eastern front. Germany won’t attack Russia for another three months. France collapsed in June, 1940. The United States won’t enter the war until attacked by Japan on Dec. 7, 1941.

If you bought German government bonds then, you’d get a very low interest rate. That was "the price" paid by serious investors who wanted to collect their principal at maturity.

British government bonds? You were buying in on "the losing side."

Still, Britain, the Commonwealth, and Empire fought on wherever they could.

On the home island, the fight involved a mostly defensive battle against German bombing raids. The Royal Air Force destroyed many attacking bombers but others got through and did their worst.

Bristol was hard hit during a nighttime raid that April.

The following morning, Churchill and Clementine left London for Bristol to view the damage and comfort victims. A small party accompanied them. It included an American, Averell Harriman, then in England as a representative of President Roosevelt.

Everyone was moved by the damage they witnessed and the "pluck" of the survivors.

That evening, Harriman arranged to make a large, anonymous donation to a relief fund for the bombing victims.

Clementine learned of his gesture. She sent him the following letter:

Tuesday, April the 15th. 1941

My dear Mr. Harriman:

I am sending your generous present to the Lord Mayor of Bristol & although I shall respect your wish that it shall be anonymous, I shall tell him how moved the giver was by the sufferings and bearing of the people of Bristol.

I feel it is the fervent hope and prayer of many of us that all this pain and grief, some of which we have perhaps deserved by our blindness and negligence, may bring our two countries permanently together & that they may grow to understand each other.

Anyhow, whatever happens we do not feel alone any more.

Yours very sincerely,

Clementine S. Churchill

We often forget that in Freedom's great struggle,there were two Churchills who used the English language to touch, sustain, and inspire.
_________________________________________________________________
Lady Churchill's letter was included in a Library of Congress exhibit: Churchill and the Great Republic. A transcript of the letter may be viewed here.

Blogging update - Jan. 22, 2006

I'm involved with child care.

It's not hard. In fact, it's fun watching three young grandchildren.

But it does interfere with blogging.

So, except for tonight's Churchill Series post, no new posts until tomorrow about noon Eastern.

The Churchill Series post will go up about midnight.

Thanks for understanding.

John

Jeff Jacoby on Muslim allies we need to win

Abdurrahman Wahid? I couldn’t recall the name.

But Jeff Jacoby in his Boston Globe column today reminded me:

With 200 million residents, Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim nation, and Wahid -- popularly known as Gus Dur -- was not only its first democratically elected president but the longtime chairman of its largest Muslim organization, the 35 million-member Nadhlatul Ulama.

A revered religious scholar who studied in Cairo and Baghdad, Wahid is a longtime champion of a moderate, progressive, and nonpolitical Islam. As a result, he has frequently clashed with militant fundamentalists whose growing influence, fueled by Arab/Wahhabi oil money, is undermining Indonesia's traditional religious pluralism.

Jacoby reports on actions Wahid has taken to oppose Muslim extremists. Last year, for example

Wahid spearheaded the opposition to a series of 11 reactionary fatwas, or religious decrees, issued by a high-ranking council of Indonesian Muslim clerics.

The fatwas condemned any Islamic teaching based on liberalism and secularism, banned interfaith prayers not led by a Muslim, and even prohibited the answering of ''amen" to a non-Muslim prayer. Wahid and LibForAll promptly organized a group of religious leaders into an ''Alliance Toward a Civil Society," which denounced the fatwas as unworthy of decent Muslims and improper under Indonesia's constitution.

Jacoby says much more before he ends with:

Muslims no less than non-Muslims have a great deal riding on the defeat of the Islamofascists, (and) we will not win the war against radical Islam without Muslim allies like Wahid.

Jacoby’s column offers a look at the vast and critical struggle going on within Islam between the fundamentalists and those seeking a peaceful, democratic way to exist and partner with the West.

It’s hard for Americans to understand and gauge the direction of that struggle. Our media gives undue attention to the anti-Americanism and violence of Muslim fundamentalists while largely underreporting opposition to the fundamentalists from leaders like Wahid and organizations like Nadhlatul Ulama.

Three hundred zealots burning a flag and shouting “Death to America” will make the evening news. So will most any Imam screaming “Destroy the Great Satan.” It doesn’t matter how many times we’ve seen and heard it all before, MSM makes sure we see it again.

But when three hundred young men and woman gather in Jakarta before flying to America to pursue graduate studies and become engineers, physicians, and teachers: any interviews? Their thoughts? How do their families feel?

Nah, that’s not a story. Get the clip of those guys burning the flag.

And Wahid? Sure, he's important. Tell him if he changes his mind and decides to declare a fatwa against America, Bill Moyers or Ted Koppel will do a split screen interview with him. And Letterman will want to have him on.

Don't miss Jacoby's column here.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 21, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Tonight's post is the first "repeat" of a post I've run before.

Why a repeat, and why tonight?

Because I'm very tired so a new post tonight won't be as good as this "the old one" which illustrates Churchill's wisdom. What's more, "the old one" will make you smile.
___________________________________________________

The Churchill Series - Nov. 1, 2005

In late December, 1941 Churchill arrived in Washington to meet with Roosevelt and begin joint Anglo-American war planning.

With the exception of a brief trip to Canada, Churchill remained in America for almost four weeks. While in Washington, he stayed at the White House.

The British government and people were understandably very interested to know what was transpiring with the Americans.

When Churchill flew back to England, landing at Plymouth on Jan. 17, 1942, a train was waiting to take him to London where at 10 PM that evening, the War Cabinet assembled to hear his report.

The minutes of that meeting include this:

The Prime Minister thought that (the Americans) were not above learning from us provided we did not set out to teach them.

________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Road to Victory, 1941-1945. (p. 43)

JinC regurlars pastor the Pastor

Thursday I left a comment at one of my favorite blogs, Betsy's Page.

Betsy had posted on the importance of Wal-Mart as an employer. On the post thread, a Pastor Ray didn't agree. Well, I disagreed with the Pastor and commented.

I posted all about it here, Wal-Mart, George Will, a blogger and a pastor. And me, too.

That led Pastor Ray to comment here as well as at Betsy's Page.

The Pastor sure said a lot, including that I'd said things I didn't.

About that point, JinC regulars stepped front and center. They provided Ray with lots of information and asked him important questions he didn't answer.

Ray must still be digesting the information and questions. While he keeps commenting, there's no sign he understands the information or can respond to the questions.

I was working on a response to the Pastor (it would be my fourth) when I saw that JinC regulars were doing a better job of that than I could.

So I've moved on to work on other blog posts.

What posts?

For one, an open letter to Duke University President Richard Brodhead.

Most of you know Duke selected Harry Belafonte as its principal speaker to commemorate the life and legacy of Dr. King.

Belafonte is infamous to Americans for calling our President "the world's greatest terrorist," and making racist attacks on Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

I don't plan to tell Brodhead Belafonte was an inappropriate choice for the university. That wouldn't be true. Belafonte was a fitting choice for Duke.

But I do plan to ask Brodhead why Duke's PR office didn't say anything about Belafonte's attacks on the President and Secretaries Powell and Rice. Surely his remarks were relevant.

I also plan to ask whether Duke has given any thought to holding two commemorations next year: One for people who will cheer speakers line Belafonte and what he represents;and another for people who will cheer Dr. King's life and legacy.

I plan to have the letter/post to Brodhead up by Sunday evening, Jan. 22.

I've posted twice about "Teddy and the Owl." Look for more on "the liberal lion," but this time the matters will be even more serious than Kennedy's hypocrisy and witness abuse. The next Ted Kennedy post should be up by Tuesday, Jan. 24.

Will there be more about The Raleigh News & Observer?

Yes, including a new series, The Raleigh News & Observer for Dummies. It starts Monday, Jan. 23.

Thank you for visiting and keep checking in.

John

The Churchill Series - Jan 20, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Most people know horses were an important part of Churchill's life. He rode pony's as a child; trained in horsemanship at Sandhurst; was commissioned as a cavalry officer; rode as a lancer in the famous charge at Omdurman; played polo into his fifties; and kept and bred horses at Chartwell and other properties.

But most people don't know that for many years Churchill owned a racing stable. And he wasn't one of those celebrity owners who preen and eye the cameras while putting their feet in - oops - the wrong places. As with everything else he cared about, Churchill the race horse owner was informed and "hands on."

Churchill's most successful horse was a grey, Colonist II. He bought him against the advice of many racing experts. Churchill thought he saw something - a special determination - in Colonist that would make the horse "a winner."

Colonist proved Churchill right. "This tough and indomitable grey horse has performed miracles," said one racing writer in 1950. "No horse in living memory has put up such a sequence of wins in good-class races in one season." Among the prestigious races Colonist won were The Winston Churchill Stakes and The Jockey Club Stakes.

As Colonist's racing days came to a close, his trainer reminded Churchill that Colonist would be very valuable as a stud horse. The trainer offered to arrange matters.

Churchill pondered a moment, then laughed and replied,

"To stud? And have it said that the Prime Minister of Great Britain is living on the immoral earnings of a horse?"

Churchill's official biographer, Martin Gilbert, does not say what ultimately happened to Colonist. We can wish the horse had a green old age.

I wasn't able to learn what Churchill’s racing colors were. Can anyone help with that?

[Update 12-26-06: Churchill's father had owned race horses. Lord Randolph's colors were pink and chocolate and pink; and Churchill selected those as his own.]
____________________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Never Despair. (pgs. 488, 522, 524, 528, 563)

My favorite tribute to President Reagan

On this 25th anniversary of President Reagan's first inauguration, there've been many tributes paid to a man most Americans believe was one of our greatest Presidents. They reminded me of a tribute paid to Reagan more than 20 years ago.

In January 1981, "smart people" were saying America's best days were behind us. Just before he left office, President Carter attempted to excuse the four year train wreck that was his presidency by invoking " the forces of history." Most of Carter's supporters and many others assured us the job of President had "just gotten too big for one man."

A few year later, I read what's always been my favorite tribute to President Reagan. It was a one sentence letter to the editor:

Has anyone else noticed that people have stopped saying the job is too big for one man?

In the 1984 election, President Reagan carried 49 of 50 states. People had noticed.

RIP, President Reagan.

How you'll know America is on the right road

Reuters has just reported:

A former Pentagon analyst was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison on Friday for passing U.S. defense information to two pro-Israel lobbyists and for sharing classified information with an Israeli diplomat.

Lawrence Franklin, 59, who previously worked as an analyst in the office of the secretary of defense, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis. Franklin had pleaded guilty in October to sharing the information and also to illegally possessing classified documents
...

Michelle Malkin reacts:

There should be harsh consequences for illegally leaking classified information, whatever the intentions of the leaker. If people on both sides of the aisle would be more consistent about this, our country would be a hell of a lot better off.

I agree with what Malkin says. I also think America would be a lot better off:

if the people in government who disclosed national security secrets to New York Times reporter James Risen were given long prison sentences;

and Risen and others at the Times who jeopardized national security were prosecuted and sent to jail;

and when the public heard about all of that there was outrage that the sentences weren't long enough;

and Congress agreed to pass legislation with tougher penalties for disclosing national secrets;

which led Sen. Hillary Clinton to say, "The Bush administration isn't doing enough to track down and prosecute people who call themselves "whistleblowers" but are really just betrayers who put us all at greater risk."

If all of that started happening, you'd know America was on the right road.

Raleigh N&O silent on Sen. Kennedy's Owl membership

The self-described "fair and accurate" editors at The Raleigh News & Observer are withholding from readers news that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) has been for more then fifty years a member of an exclusive, private club, The Owl, which bars women from membership.

News that Kennedy, "the liberal lion" to his admirers, is an Owl member was first reported by The Washington Times and many bloggers. Once the news became public, Kennedy quickly announced he would quit the discriminatory club "as fast as I can."

Here's part of The Boston Herald's Tuesday, Jan. 17, report:

U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy — who ripped Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for ties to a group that discriminates against women — says he’s going to quit a club notorious for discriminating against women “as fast as I can.”

Kennedy was outed by conservatives late last week as a current member of The Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership.

In an interview with WHDH Channel 7’s Andy Hiller that aired last night, Kennedy said, “I joined when I . . . 52 years ago, I was a member of the Owl Club, which was basically a fraternal organization.”

Asked by Hiller whether he is still a member, Kennedy said, “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”

He then said of being a member in a club that discriminates against women, “I shouldn’t be and I’m going to get out of it as fast as I can.”

The Harvard Crimson reports that, in 1984, the university severed ties with clubs like the Owl, citing a federal law championed by Kennedy.
...

Here's some news analysis Barry at Palmetto Pundit provided his readers:

First, (Kennedy) hijacks the floor during the Alito hearings last week and demands a subpoena be issued for documents freely available in The Library of Congress.

Then, he conducts a character assassination on the nominee on the basis that he once was a member of a group at Princeton that discriminated against women.

Finally, he admits that he is a member of the Owl Club, which also discriminates against women, says he will “get out of it as fast as I can”, then says “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”

$100 for what, Senator Kennedy? Non-membership dues?

Barry has more to say. You can read it all here.

Why isn't the liberal trending left Raleigh News & Observer, a McClatchy paper, reporting on Kennendy and The Owl? Why don't we see any analysis of how liberals are reacting to the news? Are they appalled and outraged? Did they know that when their lion hangs out with owls, they're all males?

I'm sending this post to Editors Sill and Vaden at The N&O. I'll let you know if I hear back.

Cheney loses it

The Associated Press is reporting:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday defended the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program, saying it is an essential tool in monitoring al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations.

But Cheney stressed that the program was limited and conducted in a way that safeguarded civil liberties.
...

Well, there goes Cheney's chance to win the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.

About Sens. Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

People like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton, Maureen Dowd, and E.J. Dionne keep saying wonderful things about Sens. Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.


But for all they're saying, I can't bring myself to trust my family's and my own heath care to Hillary and Teddy.

How about you?

Jan. 20, 1981: The 25th anniversary of President Reagan's first inauguration

Barry at Palmetto Pundit posts a wonderful tribute to President Ronald Reagan on the eve of the 25th anniversary of his first inauguration. I liked best the extensive quotes from Reagan's inaugural address. Here are a few of them:

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.
...
From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
...
We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, ``We the people,'' this breed called Americans

Those words were spoken at a time when the "smart people" were telling us America's best days were behind it; and that we had just inaugurated an "amiable dunce."

Barry makes the case that Reagan is our greatest 20th century president. His post includes a very touching photo of Reagan.

The post is here.

Wal-Mart, George Will, a blogger and a pastor. And me, too.

One of my favorite bloggers, Betsy Newmark, posted on a George Will column. Betsy's post drew a comment from a reader, Paster Ray. I decided to respond to Ray.

Here first is the part of Betsy's post that drew Ray's comment:

George Will has a very powerful column today about how shoddy Maryland has been in their legislation against Wal-Mart. Every time I write about Wal-Mart I get some people in my comments section who have bought into the demonization of a company that has done more to help lower-income people than almost any other company in America.

Now Pastor Ray's entire comment:

"Every time I write about Wal-Mart I get some people in my comments section who have bought into the demonization of a company that has done more to help lower-income people..."(bold in Ray's comment)

At least Ms. Newmark has the historical savvy to offer us the apologetic that's been used to justify sweatshops since before Dickens.
Pastor Ray | 01.19.06 - 10:51 am | #

Now my response to Ray which I left on Betsy's comment thread.

Pastor Ray,

Dickens? Did you really read George Will's column? Do you know anything about Wal-Mart workers except what we all hear from “activists?”

Do you know that in the part of North Carolina where Betsy lives, a number of large, well-endowed, liberal oriented universities and churches compete with Wal-Mart for workers?

And can you guess why the Wal-Mart workers are there instead of at the universities and churches? That’s right, Wal-Mart made them the best offer.

Yes, some Wal-Mart employees complain they're not well treated so their lives are miserable. But don't some employees at Ben & Jerry's, the U.N., and National Public Radio say the same things?

Would you believe , Pastor Ray, that many Wal-Mart employees are regular savers. Some are saving to buy a house or a new car. Some will send a kid to college. Others are putting something aside for old age.

I've never met a Wal-Mart employee who complained of not having enough to eat. They have decent clothes. They have hobbies. They take vacations.

Dickens? That’s nonsense.

The Victorian author you and “activists” condemning Wal-Mart bring to mind is Anthony Trollope.

Have you ever read any of Trollope’s satires of the comfortable and smug “activists” of his day? They wanted to do everything for the poor except share their own material goods with them.

Some of Trollope’s books have been grouped into what’s called The Barchester Chronicles. They share a focus on hypercritical church connected “activists.”

My favorite is The Warden; but I love them all. They always get me smiling, sometimes even laughing out loud. I’m laughing right now just thinking about The Warden.

Pastor Ray, if you put down Dickens and pick up Trollope, you’ll find yourself transported from the 19th century to today.

And maybe you’ll be convinced to do nothing to interfere with the job opportunities of people who want to work at Wal-Mart.

Think about it.

John
www.johnincarolina.com

U. S. missile attack saves lives

The Associated Press is reporting today:

An al-Qaida explosives and chemical weapons expert and a relative of the terror network's No. 2 leader were among four top operatives believed killed in a U.S. missile strike in Pakistan last week, Pakistani security officials said Thursday.
...
The officials said the operatives included Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, 52, who the U.S. Justice Department calls an explosives and poisons expert. The Egyptian also has distributed training manuals with recipes for chemical and biological weapons and trained hundreds of fighters at a terrorist camp near the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad before the ouster of the hardline Taliban regime in late 2001.

Umar is suspected of training the suicide bombers who killed 17 U.S. sailors in the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, according to Mohamed Salah, a Cairo expert on Islamic extremists.

So terrorists who no doubt had already helped kill hundreds, maybe thousands, are likely dead; and can't carry out their plans to kill millions more. What great news!

It too bad some innocents also lost their lives in the attack. But if those monsters had lived, they would have killed many more innocents. America's critics never seem to care about that.

Final word: Thanks to everyone who helped make possible Umar and his pals' speedy flight to their meetings with all those virgins. Agents who arrange such trips are among my favorite people. They save so many lives.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 18, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In September 1943, American high school and college students knew that on the Russian front, Soviet and German soldiers their age were being killed, wounded or taken prisoners of war by the hundreds of thousands.

The students also knew that in the South Pacific, Americans they might soon join were fighting and dying side-by-side with Australian and other Allies against suicidal Japanese resistance.

Many of the students read the casualty lists the War Department released each day. Often they recognized names of friends they thought had been serving in Italy or with a bomber command or on a sub somewhere in the Atlantic. But the lists didn’t say much about where or with what units the dead, wounded and missing had been serving.

The students understood . Like everyone else, they didn’t want to read anything in the newspapers that might help the enemy.

It was before such students and to America’s youth that Churchill spoke at Harvard University on September 6, 1943:

"To the youth of America, as to the youth of all the Britains, I say, 'You cannot stop. It must be world anarchy or world order.

You will find in the British Commonwealth good comrades to whom you are united by other ties besides those of State policy and public need. Law, language, literature...common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially to the weak and poor, a stern sentiment of impartial justice, and above all the love of personal freedom. These are common conceptions on both sides of the ocean among the English-Speaking Peoples.

In 1943 British and American “common conceptions of what is right and decent” were under attack from without.

Today, they're under attack from within as well as without.
________________________________
The quote is referenced in many Churchill biographies.It can also be found in The Churchill Centre's Finest Hour. (Winter, 2000-2001) Go here and scroll down.

2005's most underreported story?

2005's most underreported story?


Besides progress in Iraq, it may have been the Egyptian massacre of Sudanese that occurred on December 30, says National Review’s Jay Nordlinger:

Egyptian police assaulted a crowd of Sudanese refugees, people who had already fled mass murder in their home country. Estimates vary on how many were killed, but it was a lot. For more information, you may wish to see the website of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, in Washington, D.C. They do a world of good work.

Reading about these events, I couldn't help thinking of the Sabra and Shatila massacres, in which "Christian" militias butchered Palestinian refugees. Israel was duly blamed. (As Prime Minister Begin remarked, "Goyim kill goyim, and they come to hang the Jews.") That story dominated the front pages for — what? Two years? It seems to me the wallpaper of my youth.

Of course, many more Palestinians were killed by their Lebanese foes than Sudanese were killed by the Egyptians, apparently. But you better believe that if any Israelis had been anywhere near the Sudanese bloodbath, this would not be an underreported story. This would be an over reported — and almost certainly wrongly reported! — story.

The story certainly deserved more attention then it received. And I agree with Nordlinger as far as how the media would have treated the story if Israelis had been involved. But I don’t think the story is the most underreported by a long shot.

My candidate for “most underreported story?”

The extraordinary skill and bravery of the world’s largest and best human rights and relief organization: America’s military.

How much did you hear about its work shielding billions of people from attack and death or enslavement? What would happen to all those Europeans who bash America if Muslim fundementalists knew America's military wasn't around? And what would happen to us?

How many of the year-end news reviews even bothered to mention the American military’s Tsunami relief work? Yet of all the world’s major relief agencies, our military was there first, delivering the most aid and taking on the toughest work.

We can never say thanks enough to our military and their families.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 17, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill._

Note to Regulars, Sorry I didn't post yesterday. It was the workload. John)

In 1975 there was fierce debate in Britain as to whether or not it should join the European Common Market.

Opponents of membership were supporting their arguments with, among other things, this Churchill quote: "Each time we must choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea."

Churchill's grandson, Winston S. Churchill, then a member of Parliament wrote a letter to The Times of London providing context for his grandfather's words. I don't know enough about the Common Market membership issues to judge the letter in that regard but I think you'll find it interesting for what it tells us about the Churchill-de Gaulle relationship as D-Day approached.

The quote, Churchill's grandson wrote:

"is drawn from de Gaulle's version of a wartime row he had with Churchill, as is made clear by the very next sentence: 'And if I have to choose between you [de Gaulle] and Roosevelt, I shall always choose Roosevelt.'

The date was 1944 and the Europe referred to was dominated and occupied by Nazi Germany. It is not surprising that Churchill, on the eve of the Allied invasion, should make clear to de Gaulle that the U. S. alliance was more important to Britain than de Gaulle's forces.

Churchill was not referring to the European Economic Community, as it had not even been thought of at the time.

A more representative idea of his thoughts can be gained from his many speeches in the cause of European unity especially those at Zurich, The Hague, and in the Albert Hall in 1947, when he declared, 'If Europe united is to be a living force, Britain will have to play her full part as a member of the European family.'"

It should be remembered that when Churchill spoke in 1947 of British membership in the "European family," he had in mind a militarily powerful Europe which could not only protect itself but could project force, when necessary, to other parts of the world.

Today's Europe, excepting perhaps Britain, is militarily weak and not the Europe Churchill envisioned in 1947.
________________________________________________
Letter to The Times, Winston S. Churchill, MP, (Here at Churchill Centre. Scroll to Winter, 1975)

I'll beat The N&O on the Ted Kennedy Owl Club story

I'm so often wrong about ordinary day-to-day stuff that I almost never go out on a limb and make a prediction. But I will now.

The prediction? John in Carolina will "beat" Raleigh's News & Observer on the story about Sen. Ted Kennedy's current and long-standing membership in an exclusive private organization that bars women from membership.

In fact, I'll go further. I'll publish on Kennedy and his Owl Club membership at least a full day before The N&O.

How can I be so sure? Well, the story has been out on the net since January 13. Friends say reporters and editors at The N&O know about it. But they haven't published it. That means they and their owners, The McClatchy Company, don't want to publish the story.

So it won't be hard to beat The N&O.

I'd like to wager with you, but you're all too smart to bet against me.

See you tomorrow.

At the library today

At the library today, I stood second in the checkout line, with a women ahead of me. In front of us at the counter were a mother and young child.

The mother was passing books to the child, who in turn passed them to the Liberian for scanning, after which the Liberian gave them back to the child who then put the books in a carrying sack.

The mother sometimes stopped and told the child to "Look at the Liberian" or "Say, 'thank you.'"

At one point, the mother turned to the women ahead of me and said, “I’m sorry to be holding you up.”

“No, please, I was just enjoying it,” the woman replied. “It’s so nice to see a parent teaching children manners.”

A second later both women looked at me. I smiled and nodded.

N&O propaganda and Chronicle reporting

Yesterday, I posted on The Raleigh News & Observer’s Jan. 16 front page story, Fiery Belafonte focuses on injustice, which concerned Sunday's Dr. King commemoration event at Duke University Chapel. The principal speaker was singer and activist Harry Belafonte. My post explained why The N&O's story is an anti-American and Bush-bashing propaganda piece.

I wish when I wrote that post I had a copy of the story of the event that ran in the Duke student newspaper, The Chronicle. I could have made my point about N&O propaganda by comparing The Chronicle and N&O stories.

Well, better late than never. Here goes. (N&O portions are in bold; Chronicle portions in italics.)

First, the headlines –

N&O - Fiery Belafonte focuses on injustice

Chronicle - Activist lauds King, decries Bush

Describing Belafonte -

N&O - He's an “(e)entertainer and human-rights activist.”

Chronicle - He's a “controversial musician, actor and activist”

Both stories are similar in their summaries and quotes of Belafonte’s remarks about President Bush being a "terrorist," the war in Iraq, and the moral equivalence between the 9/11 attackers and American policies.

But there are differences in how the stories report the circumstance in which Belafonte called the President "the greatest terrorist in the world."

N&O - Standing next to Hugo Chavez, that country's socialist leader, Belafonte called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world."

Chronicle - Belafonte previously had called Bush “the greatest terrorist in the world” during a Jan. 8 speech in Venezuela, setting off a firestorm of criticism.

About Belafonte's long history of support for leftist tyrants -

No - Silence

Chronicle - A student is quoted: “Belafonte claims to be a champion of human rights, yet he embraces tyrants, for example, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, who often brutally deny their citizens of the most basic human rights”

About racist remarks Belafonte has made about former Secretary of State Colin Powell and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -

Both stories are silent.

Did anyone disagree with anything Belafonte said?

N&O - No mention that anyone disagreed with anything Belafonte said.

Chronicle - “But not everyone agreed.”

N&O - No mention that tens of millions of Americans find Belafonte's attacks on the President wrong, reckless, and perhaps a threat to his safety.

Chronicle - Although most of the audience expressed agreement with Belafonte’s views, (a conservative student leader) said the crowd was not a true representation of Americans.

“Most Americans would not cheer when George W. Bush, their President, is compared to the 9/11 hijackers and Operation Iraqi Freedom is compared to hijacking a jet and flying it into a building,” he said.You'll see more differences if you read both The Chronicle and N&O stories.

I think you'll agree The N&O's story is anti-American and Bush-bashing propaganda. If you're not sure about that, please take another look my post, Belafonte and The Raleigh N & O's propaganda. It has much more analysis and discussion of The N&O's "Fiery Belafonte" piece than I've provided here.

You can read The Chronicle story here; The N&O story is here.

Belafonte and The Raleigh N & O's propaganda

While al- Jazeera and left-wing European newspapers regularly provide anti-American and Bush-bashing propaganda, Raleigh's News & Observer, a McClatchy Co. paper, has for years offered readers only the Bush-bashing kind. But today, Jan. 16, it ran a story containing both anti-American and Bush-bashing propaganda.

The story's front page and headlined: "Fiery Belafonte focuses on injustice." Written by reporter Michael Beisecker, it begins:

Entertainer and human-rights activist Harry Belafonte said Sunday that there is moral equivalence between the actions of the Sept. 11 hijackers and the American-launched war in Iraq.

"Killing is our easiest tool," Belafonte said, addressing about 1,800 people packed in the cavernous gothic chapel at Duke University for a commemoration honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "When you have a president that has led us into a dishonorable war, who has killed tens of thousands, many of them our own sons and daughters, what is the difference between those who would fly airplanes into buildings, killing 3,000 innocent Americans? ... What is the difference between that terror and other terrors?" (Ellipse in N&O story)
...
Belafonte's appearance at Duke, a private university that once closed its doors to blacks, came little more than a week after comments he made on a trip to Venezuela grabbed national headlines. Standing next to Hugo Chavez, that country's socialist leader, Belafonte called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world."
...
"When Katrina happened, this great tragedy, and our people called out in misery and fear, our government didn't respond," Belafonte said. He then recounted how the Venezuelan president offered to send doctors and low-cost heating oil to help America's poor -- an offer, Belafonte said, that was "arrogantly dismissed" by President Bush.

The rest of the story is in a similar vein.

Like any propaganda story, The N&O's "works" because relevant facts and context are unreported while falsehoods are presented as if true.

For example, The N&O doesn't mention Belafonte's enthusiastic support of brutal leftist dictators. In the 1980's Belafonte praised the Soviet and East German regimes. He's a friend of Castro. The N&O's "socialist leader" Chavez is only the latest leftist thug Belafonte's embraced.

The N&O knows if it mantions any of that, most readers wouldn't be fooled into thinking Belafonte is a "human-right activist." Its story would start falling apart.

The N&O knows Belafonte has made racist remarks. About then Secretary of State Colin Powell, Belafonte said, “When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Belafonte has said, is “like a Jew . . . doing things that were anti-Semitic and against the best interests of her people.”

Most newspaper reporters and editors would find it very relevant, and certainly ironic, that the principal speaker at an event honoring Dr. King's life made racist remarks about two great Americans. They'd make sure their readers knew about it.

But propagandists pitching a "Fiery Belafonte focuses on injustice" story would do just the opposite. They'd make sure the story said nothing about racist remarks. That's what The N&O did.

The N&O's story doesn't contain a single word indicating tens of millions of Americans find Belafonte's remarks about President Bush wrong, inflamatory, and possibly a threat to his safety.

The N&O never mentions that Belafonte's equating the terrorists acts of 9/11 with American policies has been challenged and refuted. Instead, The N&O reports Belafonte's "moral equivelence" charge the same way al-Jazeera reports it when others who hate America make it.

The N&O is silent about the enormous Katrina rescue and relief activities of our government and individual Americans. It’s silent about false MSM reports claiming minorities were discriminated against during and after Katrina.

The N&O’s silence on those matters enables it to "report" Belafonte's falsehood - "When Katrina happened, this great tragedy, and our people called out in misery and fear, our government didn't respond." - as if it were true.

And that's exactly how all anti-American propagandists "report" Katrina: Nothing about rescue and aid that we now know was nondiscriminatory. Just say there was a huge storm; poor black people cried out; and Bush and rich, white America ignored them.
___________________________________________________________________

Dear Readers,

I’ve tried hard to find a good ending for this post, but I’m stumped.

Over the years I’ve seen some pretty bad stuff in The N&O, but today’s story is among the worst.

It reads like a press release from the “Bush = Hitler” and “America deserved it” people.

I don’t know why The McClatchy Co. seems determined to drive The N&O further left.

I’d love to hear what you think.

I’ll be back tomorrow. We’re not giving up.

John

Green house gasbags and Noth Carolina

What do green house gasbags and the old Tar Heel state have to do with one another?

To find out, read Daniel Akst's opinion piece in the Jan. 13 Wall Street Journal. It begins:

In North Carolina, the owners of a 4,600-square-foot home that cost $1.2 million wanted it to be as "green" as possible, so they spent $120,000 on solar power.

In Colorado, using recycled materials, an architecture professor built a 4,700-square-foot home that uses geothermal heating and cooling and was on the market recently for $930,000.

And in Southern California, a husband-and-wife architect team who say that they "came of age during the '60s and '70s at U.C. Berkeley" also relied on recycled materials -- in building a second home six hours from their primary residence.
...
The question, of course, is what on earth are all these people thinking? How "green" can huge and, in many cases, isolated houses be? Wouldn't it be better to risk traumatizing the children by squeezing into a 3,000-square-foot home, especially one close to shopping, schools and work?

How many less affluent, less guilt-ridden Americans can afford to build such environmental show houses?

These houses aren't just ridiculous; they're monuments to sanctimony. If architecture is frozen music, these places are congealed piety, demonstrating with embarrassing concreteness the glaring hypocrisy of upper-class environmentalism.

Good for Akst for saying all that. We hear so much from "environmentalists" like Sens. Kerry and Kennedy, who between them own 9 very large homes (or is it 10?), that we're apt to forget the hypocrisy of so many "environmentalists."

Now, what does Akst have for people seriously concerned about the environment?

Plenty, including this:

Homeowners (can save energy with) high-efficiency appliances, stingy heating and cooling, and advanced windows with energy-saving coatings and argon gas between the panes.

Computerized thermostats, compact fluorescent bulbs and fuel-efficient cars also make sense, whether your goal is to save money, save the planet or reduce our dependence on imported oil, with all its geopolitical consequences.

There's more. Read it all here.

Contact information for North Carolina House Republicans

When I joined with other center-right bloggers and signed the statement on the U. S. House Republican leadership election, I said I'd provide contact information for North Carolina Republican House members.

If you're represented by a House member linked below, you can obtain phone, fax and email information for your representative by clicking on the member's name.

If you’re not sure of your representative's name, call your board of elections or local library.

Many of you want to make your voices heard on the Republican U.S. House leadership elections. Here's your chance.

Coble, Howard -- Dist. 6

Foxx, Virginia -- Dist. 5

Hayes, Robert C. -- Dist. 8

Jones, Walter B. -- Dist. 3

McHenry, Patrick -- Dist. 10

Myrick, Sue Wilkins -- Dist. 9

Taylor, Charles H. -- Dist. 11

Washington Post editorial: "Confirm Samual Alito"

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination were a disaster for Senate Democrats and their interest group allies.

That crowd did so badly the British magazine, The Economist, couldn’t resist placing above its hearings report the headline: “The brainbox and the blowhards.”

Now comes more bad news for the anti-Alito crowd: today's Washington Post lead editorial, “Confirm Samuel Alito.”

The Post says Alito would not have been “our pick for the high court:”

Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set.

The Post mentions disagreements it has with some of Alito’s rulings and judicial philosophy, but it makes clear it views Supreme Court nominations within the framework of Constitutional government:

A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election. The president's choice is due deference -- the same deference that Democratic senators would expect a Republican Senate to accord the well-qualified nominee of a Democratic president.

Give due deference to presidential nominations. Does anyone think Senators like Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Leahy, and Biden will be able to do that as long as there’s a Republican in the White House?

The Post takes up the Democrats and interest groups charges that Alito is "outside the mainstream," "a racist and anti-women," etc., etc.:

And Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires. His colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity, notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached.

The Post ends by reminding us of the consequences if we follow the Democratic Party and its interest groups down the path of politically driven nomination fights.

Supreme Court confirmations have never been free of politics, but neither has their history generally been one of party-line votes or of ideology as the determinative factor. To go down that road is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law -- which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law. However one reasonably defines the "mainstream" of contemporary jurisprudence, Judge Alito's work lies within it.

While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat. No president should be denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.

I hope you read the entire editorial.

It's refreshing to read an editorial that's informed, fair-minded, and an important reminder of how we should treat judicial nominations.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 14, 2006

(One of a series of posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

It was September 1919. British troops, along with those of other nations, were fighting in Russia. They were attempting to help the Czar armies (The Whites) defeat the Bolshevik armies (The Reds) led by Lenin and Trotsky.

Many in Britain opposed using troops in Russia and demanded they be brought home. They said British troops were fighting the Czar's battle.

Churchill response to those people contained an analysis and prophesy

"It is a delusion to suppose that all this year we have been fighting the battles of the anti-Bolshevik Russians. On the contrary, they have been fighting ours; and this truth will become painfully apparent from the moment that they are exterminated and the Bolshevik armies are supreme over the whole vast territories of the Russian Empire."

________________________________________________
Quote cited in Finest Hour's (Summer, 2003) review of David Carlton's "Churchill and the Soviet Union." (Here and scroll down)

Body armor: Why soldiers are saying "no more."

Here's part of military analyst Andrew Exum's op-ed in today’s New York Times:

From 2000 until 2004, I was an infantry officer in the Army. I deployed with a light-infantry platoon to Afghanistan in 2002, then with a platoon of Army Rangers to Iraq in 2003 and back to Afghanistan in 2004.

While I can testify that soldiers usually appreciate the protection body armor gives them, the load shouldered by the average infantryman often hinders his ability to fight - especially at high altitude as in Afghanistan.

But in Iraq, as well, the "soldier's load" is often unbearable. Most studies recommend that a soldier should not be burdened with more than one-third of his body weight. But if you take a 160-pound soldier and put 40 pounds of Kevlar and body armor on him and then he picks up an automatic weapon, ammunition, water and first aid equipment, it's not long before he is carrying half his body weight - and he is then expected to run, jump and fight insurgents, themselves carrying little more than a 10-pound AK-47. All of this, of course, often takes place in 120-degree heat in the cities of Iraq.

Lost among the politicians' cries for more extensive armor for the troops is the fact that most soldiers, in my experience and based on discussions with many, feel they have enough armor already - and many feel they are increasingly being burdened with too much equipment.

Exum is saying what most soldiers now in Iraq seem to be saying: they have enough body armor. More will only make their service more dangerous while giving the enemy important advantages. It all has to do with speed, accuracy and exposure to enemy fire.

If that seems hard to understand, imagine you're a soldier in Iraq.

Your armored vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb. You managed to climb out a second or two before it was engulfed in flames. Carrying 30 extra pounds, you’d never have made it.

Yesterday, you were able to quickly shoulder your weapon and fire a split second before your enemy could. You lived; he died.

For accuracy, your shoulder-fired weapon must be held very steady. That’s tough to do, especially in combat. You know it’s going to get a lot tougher if Congress and the Pentagon decide you need to hang another 5 or 6 pounds of armor on each arm. Why can't folks back home understand that?

When you move from place to place in the open, speed is one of your best protections. It doesn't just limit the time the enemy has a clear shot at you; it limits the time he has to observe where you're going and cell-phone to others who then have some seconds to site their weapons on the corner they know you're about to turn. This time, the enemy will fire first. So he may live; and you may die.

If we can imagine some of what troops in combat face,it shouldn't be hard to understand why so many of them in Iraq are reluctant to put on more body armor.

But Senator Hillary Clinton seems to want to weigh them down with more armor.

Here's some advice for Senator Clinton: You want to be the soldiers' next Commander-in-Chief. Then listen to them when they speak about body armor.

Your deciding about body armor makes as much sense as my telling you how to organize a Hollywood fundraiser.

But if you feel you must decide about body armor, please first wear 30 pounds of it for a few weeks.

Hat tip and trackback: Michelle Malkin

Statement of House Republican leadership election

The Truth Laid Bare got it going.

Now, I'm one of many center-right bloggers who've signed the following joint statement on the House Republican leadership election:

-----

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.
************************************************************************

Learn more about it.

Here's a list of blogger signing so far (Courtesy of Truth Laid Bare):

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

Follow ups:

Pass the word to other bloggers.

Here in the North Carolina, let's get Republican House members on the record.

I'll post contact info for them tomorrow.

I'll keep you posted on anything I learn about what Tar Heel House Rs are planning.

And you all please keep me posted.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 13, 2006

(One of a series of daily post on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

It was August, 1950. The Prime Minister’s office was held by Clement Atlee. The Leader of the Opposition was Churchill, then age 75. He was spending August at Chartwell, his home in Kent, about an hour's drive from London.

At Scotland Yard that same August Detective Constable Edmund Murray, age 33 and a former member of the Irish Guards who’d served with both the French resistance and British intelligence, was ordered to complete all his outstanding case reports. He knew that meant an assignment change.

Murray was told he would now be part of Churchill’s protection detail. He tells us what happened next (British spellings):

I travelled by police car from Scotland Yard down to Chartwell. As I got out of the car I looked towards the half-open, substantial front door of the manor. (It looks as if it were made of solid English oak but is really ordinary pinewood and was designed by Churchill himself.)

In the hallway beyond I could see what appeared to be an immense figure, sitting on a red leather-covered bench.

I approached and recognised the most recognisable figure in the whole world. He was wearing a silver-grey Stetson hat and royal-blue velvet bedroom slippers initialed "WSC" on their fronts in gold thread. He was wearing his siren suit, as he called it, which he had perfected during the war years.

It was just a glamourised boiler suit, really, made in one piece more or less, with a zip fastener down the front. Occasionally when I was waiting for him to dress, I would hear a roar, and would know that he was having trouble with his zip fastener.

The Leader of the Opposition removed the cigar from his mouth with his left hand and offered me his right hand. As I took it I noticed its beauty: smooth and pink, unsullied by the liver spots that were to invade his hands sporadically in later years; with impeccable nails, one of which, that of the little finger of his right hand, was kept about a quarter of an inch long and well pointed. This existed for no unhygienic reason, but to be introduced into the end of any cigar that he took from the box in order to extract it without any damage to the object he loved so much.

I didn't know about Murray until a few days ago. How about you?

I want to learn more about this detective with such a fine eye for detail.
_____________________________________________
Edmund Murray, "The Churchill I Knew." Proceedings
of the International Churchill Societies 1992-93.

The brainbox and the blowhards

"The brainbox and the blowhards"

You knew it was about Alito v. Sens. Kennedy, Schumer, Biden, Leahy et al; and you're right.

But did you think the post title was mine?

I wish it was but it's the British magazine, The Economist, headline for its Alito hearings story.

It sure tells us a lot about how the committee hearings turned out.

And will you look at how The Economist begins its report:

TED KENNEDY is deeply troubled by the ethics of the Supreme Court nominee. Between 2001 and 2006, Samuel Alito, who is currently an appeals court judge, accepted $7,684,423 in “donations” from special interests who perhaps wanted the law tweaked in their favour. That included $28,000 from defence contractors, $42,200 from drug firms and a whopping $745,373 from lawyers and law firms.

No, wait. Those are Senator Kennedy's conflicts of interest—or, rather, a brief excerpt from a long list compiled by the Centre for Responsive Politics.

You can read the entire article here.

One point the political left and right can agree on: Sens. Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy, Biden, et al are excellent representatives of their party.

The Times can't admit it has an Alito litmus test

I suppose the New York Times will continue telling us it believes Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito should be judged in terms of his fitness to interpret the Constitution and the law.

But an editorial today leaves no doubt the Times views the Alito nomination as all about one big litmus test: Will Alito, if confirmed, rule to uphold Roe v. Wade?

The Times doesn't say that, but it begins with:

There are many reasons to be concerned about the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court, but for a small group of moderate Republicans who strongly identify themselves as supporters of abortion rights, there is a special problem: if Judge Alito gets to the court, there is every reason to believe that he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade when the opportunity comes.

And it ends with:

The single most important thing a senator can do to support abortion rights is to vote against Supreme Court nominees who would take such rights away. Given Judge Alito's record and his testimony, it is hard to see how Senators Specter, Chafee, Snowe and Collins - or any other pro-choice senators - can call themselves strong advocates of abortion rights if they support him.

Everything in between is about how the Times thinks Alito would rule on Roe v. Wade.

Many advocacy groups admit they use litmus tests for judicial nominees. Why can't the Times admit that, too? Because it fears the public backlash that would surely follow.

Under the American justice system judges are supposed to decide only after they've heard all the arguments during a judicial process. If we demand judges tell us how they'll decide cases before they're heard, we'll be like countries where you know a judges decision before the trial begins.

Most Americans don't want that to happen here. Our distrust on MSM news organizations will only grow if newspapers such as the Times begin admintting they advocate litmus tests for judges. So the Times won't admit it has one for Alito anymore than it will admit its news selection and reporting are influenced by liberal bias.

The Chruchill Series - Jan. 12, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the live of Winston S. Churchill.)

In June 1942 Churchill visited the United States for the second time since Pearl Harbor. After a series of discussions and an inspection of American troops training in South Carolina, he traveled to Baltimore to meet a flying boat which would take him and his party back to England. President Roosevelt sent his top aide, Harry Hopkins to see them off.

As the flying boat prepared to taxi for takeoff, a struggle was taking place at the end of a nearby pier. Two FBI agents had tackled a man and were wrestling a gun from his hand as he shouted, "I'm going to kill Churchill."

The man was later judged to be insane.

When Churchill learned of the incident he took note of the fact the man had placed himself in the open at the end of a pier: "crackpots are a special danger to public men, as they don't worry about the 'getaway.'"
_______________________________________________________________
Tom Hickman, Churchill's Bodyguard. (p. 139)

Remember Sen. Leahy's attack on Judge Bork?

Today at NRO I found Jay Nordlinger's article, The ‘Nastiest’ Democrat," which first appeared in National Review's July 9, 2001 issue.

And no, Nordlinger wasn't writing about Massachusetts’ "liberal lion." His "nastiest" was Vermont’s Sen. Patrick Leahy.

Here's Nordlinger on Leahy's conduct during Judge Bork’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings :

(Leahy) was a major tormentor of Robert Bork during those awful hearings of 1987. In fact, he was responsible for one of their moments of highest drama. He scolded Bork for doing insufficient charity work while a professor at Yale, and recited the fees he earned as an outside consultant during the years 1979 to 1981.

Responded Bork, "Those are the only years I ever made any money in consulting." He continued, emotional, "There was a reason to get money, and I don't want to get into it here." Leahy acknowledged that the judge had his reasons.

Then Sen. Gordon Humphrey, a Republican, broke in, saying, "Judge Bork, this is a very personal question, and if you prefer not to answer it, by all means do not — but were those years [ones that] coincided with heavy medical bills in your family?"

Bork spoke one syllable: "Yeah."

The bills to which Humphrey had referred were for Bork's first wife, Claire, who died in December 1980. This was not only a moment of high drama, but one that turned the stomachs of many of those watching.

Many of us have forgotten how Leahy disclosed that day just what sort of Senator he is.

Nordlinger has a lot more to say about Leahy, all of it worth reading.

It's too bad MSM news organizations won't remind us of Leahy's shameful conduct at least as often as they remind us Vice-president Dan Quayle once misspelled "potato."

The Churchill Series - Jan. 11, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Churchill's father, Lord Randolph, almost always treated him harshly. For his part, Churchill did all he could to please his father, the hero of his youth whom he continued to revere all his life.

Below are portions of two letters father and son exchanged. They illustrate what I'm saying.

At the time Churchill was 19 and a cadet at Sandhurst. Lord Randolph had given him a gold watch; and later learned from the watchmaker, Mr. Dent, that it had twice been damaged while in Churchill's care. That prompted Lord Randolph's letter. The "Jack" Lord Randolph mentions is his son and Winston's younger brother.

21 April 1894

Dear Winston,
...
(Mr. Dent) told me (you had) with the utmost carelessness dropped it on a stone pavement & broken it badly.

(After repairs) Dent again received the watch and you told him it had been dropped in the water. He told me the whole of the works were horribly rusty.

I would not believe you would be such a young stupid. It is clear you are not to be trusted with a valuable watch & when I get it back from Mr. Dent I shall not give it back to you.
...
Jack has had the watch I gave him longer that you have had yours; the only expenses I have paid on his watch was 10/s for cleaning before he went back to Harrow.

(In) all qualities of steadiness taking care of his things & never doing stupid things Jack is vastly your superior.

Your very much worried parent,

Randolph S. Churchill

_____________________________________________

Churchill replied the next day. His letter includes lengthy explanations of the circumstances in which the watch was damaged and what he did to set matters right. Here's what he told Lord Randolph about dropping the watch "in the water."

I placed the watch ...in my breast pocket - not having with uniform a waistcoat to put it in - and while walking along the Wish Stream I stooped down to puck up a stick and it fell out of my pocket into the only deep place for miles.

The stream was only about 5 inches deep - but the watch fell into a pool nearly 6 feet deep.

I at once took off my clothes and I dived for it but the bottom was so uneven and the water so cold that I could not stay in longer than 10 minutes and had to give it up.

The next day I had the pool dredged - but without result. On Tuesday therefore I obtained permission from the Governor to do anything I could provided I paid for having it all put straight again.

I then borrowed 23 men from the Infantry Detachment - dug a new course for the stream - obtained the fire engine and pumped the pool dry and so recovered the watch.

I tell you all this to show you that I appreciated fully the value of the watch and that I did not treat the accident in a casual way. The labour of the men cost me over (three pounds).
...
I am sorry to have written you such a long and stupid letter, but I do hope you will take it in some measure as an explanation.

With best love
I remain ever your loving son
Winston S. Churchill

Nothing Churchill did impressed Lord Randolph. To the end of his life he predicted his oldest son would be a failure and an embarrassment to the family name.

Sad.
____________________________________________________________________
Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill: Youth (pgs. 209-213)

Open Newmark's Door and look what you find.

Craig Newmark at Newmark's Door is constantly posting "shorties" that lead us to important information we don’t often find in MSM.

Here's one of today's "shorties":

Michael Barone writes that we can understand why the pessimists were wrong about the American economy 25 years ago by looking at the fall of GM and the rise of Wal-Mart.

Follow the link to Barone's column and you'll read:

The American economy continues to surge ahead, though you won't read much about it in mainstream media. Economic growth in the third quarter was 4.1 percent--despite Hurricane Katrina!--the 10th consecutive quarter with growth over 3 percent. Unemployment is 5.0 percent--lower than the average for the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s. Since April 2003 the economy has created a net 5.1 million new jobs.
Core inflation is only 2.1 percent, and gas prices, which surged above $3 a gallon after Katrina, are now down around $2. Productivity growth for the five-year period of 2000-2005 is 3.4 percent, the highest of any five-year period in 50 years.

This is a remarkable performance and owes something surely to the Bush tax cuts and to Alan Greenspan's stewardship at the Federal Reserve. But it also tells us something broader about the American economy. Mainstream media coverage about the economy tends to be full of bad news, especially during Republican administrations, and to focus on economic problems.

Barone has a lot more to say, including his thoughts regarding why GM fell as Wal-Mart rose. You can read it here.

And don't forget to keep knocking on Newmark's Door.

The Churchill Series - Jan 10, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

By the time of the 1906 General Election, Churchill had left his Commons seat on the Conservative side and crossed over to the Liberals. Mostly it had to do with free trade. He was a staunch free-trader.

In the election, the Liberals offered Churchill a chance to run for a seat in Manchester held by a Conservative.

The race was seen as a tough go for him. The Conservative and Labour candidates were strong opponents.

And than there was the matter of many people just not trusting a man who had crossed the aisle. Could you believe anything a turncoat said?

To take advantage of this distrust, the Conservatives decided to distribute a pamphlet filled with quotes Churchill had made while in their ranks.

Let the public challenge him on what he'd once said. That would do him in.

They planned the first distribution for early on the night Churchill was to address a large crowd in a theater he had rented. Put the pamphlet in the hands of the people going in, run a few paid hecklers and some good party men in amongst the crowd, and then shout and hoot Churchill down with his own words.

It seemed like a good plan and everything was in place as Churchill walked onto the stage to a mix of cheers, boos, and a lot of pamphlet waving amidst cries of "Do you deny this?"

Churchill started his formal remarks but the pamphlet waving and cries of "Do you deny this?" threatened to drown him out.

Churchill paused.

Then he drew from his pocket a copy of the pamphlet he's obtained a few hours earlier. "What page should I look on," he asked?

He read for a moment; looked up; and admitted he's said what was on the page. Hoots!

And the other page? He asked for a little quiet while he read.

It was true, too. In fact, as he glanced through the pamphlet, everything he read was something he had said.

He had no quarrel with the people who'd put the pamphlet together. They had told the truth. Indeed, he'd said "all those stupid things."

He seemed to grow angry with himself and started tearing out pages, crumpling some and tossing others over his shoulder all the while repeating, "stupid," "stupid."

Finally, with no more pamphlet left, Churchill thundered to the crowd, "Yes, I said all those stupid things because I was then a member of a stupid party but I left that party and joined one that...."

Much cheering, and the night was his.

On election night, as the British would put it, "Churchill came first."
_______________________________________________________
Many biographers have recorded the pamphlet episode. See, for example, Violet Bonham Carter, Winston Churchill: An Intimate Portrait. (pgs. 100 - 103)

More on The N&O's Sago mine reporting

At Raleigh News & Observer public editor Ted Vaden's blog there are currently two comments concerning his Sunday, Jan. 8, column. That's the column in which he tells readers he "can't find fault" with The N&O for its botched, front page Jan. 4 "miners found alive" story.

How do you think that want down in the newsroom and executive offices in Raleigh, and at parent company McClatchy's California exec suites?

We really needn't pause, do we?

So moving right along ---

One of the two comments is quite critical of The N&O (No, it's not mine).

The other is very supportive of The N&O (That's not mine, either).

I've copied and pasted the entire supportive comment below.

After the comment, I ask some questions and make a few remarks.

I plan to use my questions and remarks as a basis for both a comment at Vaden's blog and a post here tomorrow.

If you are new to this story, stay with it. Search back through archives of the last seven days. News is developing all the time.

Example: Before today, how many N&O readers knew that its executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, and Vaden had explained nothing to readers about The N&O's other mine story on Jan. 4?

You'll read about that story and find a reference to it in my remarks.

Now the supportive comment made at Vaden's blog:
____________

Comment from: Ted at State [Visitor]
01/10/06 at 14:24

Does everything have to be about the N & O's presumed liberal bias? Let's look at the facts:

* The rescuers were given a code phrase if they found them dead and another if they found them alive. No one had the foresight to create one if some were dead and others alive.

* Communications in a mineshaft is pretty bad. I can't get my cell phone to work half the time when I'm in my office, much less 3 miles into a mine (and 250 feet below ground).

* The rescue team was focused on rescue. They heard moaning, so someone was alive. Unfortunately, it was only one person.

The N&O went with everyone else and published the story. They blew it, but not as much as the company withholding the correct information. The N&O hopefully will use this as an opportunity to improve.

Now, as to the comparison to Bush's team and WMD, I really don't see the connection. Rather than a miscommunication over a very short period of time, the WMD conclusion involved selectively reading intelligence reports over several months. The administration decided the outcome, and chose to use or ignore intelligence based on how it supported the outcome.

Calling the N&O liberal is really laughable. You should read some papers that ARE liberal or even progressive. The N&O seems somewhat to the right of the middle, and some of their editorial writers (such as Martinez) seem to be trying to get an invitation to appear on The O'Reilly Factor.
***************************************************************

Now some JinC remarks:

Comments to Ted at State ---

What company withheld “the correct information ?” Provide a name and a few facts.

Have you told N&O exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, and public editor, Ted Vaden, that a “company” withheld the “correct information?”

Do you know anything about The N&O's other Jan. 4 mine story?

It’s the two-column story that ran at least in The N&O’s West and Final editions on the same day The N&O reported the miners had been found alive.

The N&O’s other Jan. 4 mine story ran on pg. 10A beside the inside portion of its front page “found alive” story.

It begins, "Even as 12 of 13 trapped miners were found alive, attention turned to the Sago Mine's history of safety violations - and questions about the White House's commitment to mining safety."

And in the middle of the story The N&O says, “In recent years, Democrats have said the Bush administration’s enforcement of mining safety and environmental regulations must come under scrutiny.”

But nowhere does The N&O mention the many statistics indicating the century-long progress in mine safety has continued under the Bush administration. And The N&O doesn’t tell us anything about the many mine safety experts who dispute its “blame Bush” story.

Here are a few questions for Ted at State and other fans of The N&O’s “news reporting.”

We’ve been told The N&O barely had time to get out its wrong “found alive” story. So how did The N&O find time to also publish its “blame Bush” story?

If The N&O had held off a day or two on its “blame Bush” story, might it have had a little extra time to get its “found alive” headline story right?

And why haven’t Melanie Sill and Ted Vaden even mentioned the “blame Bush” story?

Many readers want to know more about both The N&O "miners found alive" story and its "Bush blaming" story.
______________________________________

More tomorrow.

An email to The N&O public editor

Many of you know that since Jan. 4 The N&O has claimed it told readers the Sago mine owners had not confirmed the men were found alive.

My copy of The N&O did not report that. I've had numerous contacts with The N&O trying to find out what's what.

Today I received from public editor Ted Vaden an email that's at the head of the email I just sent him by way of reply. You can read my most recent email below.

I'll post further on this matter tonight. Time is short now.
________________________________________________________


Dear Ted:

Re your email: John. Where do you live? It may be that you got an edition that didn't have that information. Our copy desk updated the story at least once, maybe twice as more info came in. Ted V.

My copy of the Jan. 4 N&O says West Edition.

Although neither you nor Melanie have mentioned it, The N&O's Jan. 4 West edition contained two mine stories.

One, of course, was your front page one reporting the men were alive.

The second also reported the men were alive. It's on page 10A and begins: "Even as 12 of 13 trapped miners were found alive, attention turned to the Sago Mine's history of safety violations - and questions about the White House's commitment to mining safety.

Questions:

Did your pg. 10A Bush-blamer mine story run in all editions?

If not, please tell me in which ones it ran?

The Boston Globe is cited at the bottom of the story. Is that entire story a Globe story? Or is part of it N&O?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Alito hearings outcome: A prediction

When his Senate confirmation hearings end, I think Judge Alito's standing with the public will be much higher than it is now. We may be saying Saturday that Alito impressed the public just as positively as then Judge Roberts did during his hearings.

I'll say more about this tonight.

Meanwhile, how do you think Alito's doing? Where do you think he'll stand Saturday?

This post reminded me of yesterday

In January 2004, blogger Collin May decided Howard Dean reminded him of students he’d met while at Harvard Divinity School. He contrasted them with students he’d met at Boston College. Here's some of what May said

Dean reminded me of the students and many of the professors I met when I was studying at Harvard Divinity School ten years ago - a combination of half-witted intellectual and provincial New England upper middle class trying desperately to be a liberal while stumbling all over his complete lack of familiarity with the traditional Democrat working-class and African-American voter.

I'm not surprised that Dean attracts a large "educated" group, which is more or less to say he attracts that coterie of pseudo-educated academic illiterate who has collected a few degrees but has no real understanding of the issues involved. This was exactly the kind of person Harvard Divinity School turned out.

I can contrast this with the two years I spent at Boston College. Many of the students there came from an Irish, Italian or Hispanic background. They were far more attuned to the working class mentality, but also far exceeded the Harvard Divinity students in terms of their intellectual abilities and their grasp of the essentials whether the subject was politics, philosophy or theology.

There's a certain "freshness" to May's comments, isn't there?

I'll bet we're all thinking of the same judicial nominee.

You can read May’s post here.

No Churchill Series post Jan. 9, 2006

Because of some other responsibilities, there's no post today.

I'm sorry I didn't post this message earlier. I kept thinking I could get a post done.

How did Churchill ever do all he did? Some person!

Please come back tomorrow evening after 10 PM.

John

Is Osama bin Laden dead?

We've heard the reports before: Osama bin Laden is dead. Often, they've come from very questionable sources.

But the latest OBL dead report comes via a respected errorism expert, Michael Ledeen, author of The War Against the Terror Masters and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Here's what he's says in an NRO article:

According to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time.

I hope you read Ledeen's whole article. I plan to comment on it tomorrow.