NY Times and AP Alito stories leave out "Well Qualified"

After nomination for The Supreme Court, Judge Samuel Alito received a unanimous "Well Qualified" rating from the American Bar Association. "Well-qualified" is the highest rating the ABA awards.

So in lengthy stories reporting today's Alito confirmation vote posted online (3:00 PM, EST), did either the New York Times or the Associated Press mention the ABA's "Well Qualified" rating?

No and no.

And, yes, that's just what you'd expect from liberal news organizations, isn't it.

NY Times' use of political labels in Alito story

Let’s look at the use of the labels "conservative" and "liberal" in today's New York Times online story of the Alito confirmation vote.

Reporter David Stout begins:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who has been widely praised for his intellect and integrity but both admired and assailed for his conservative judicial philosophy, was confirmed today as the 110th justice in the history of the Supreme Court.

A few paragraphs down we read:

The vote is also a triumph for the conservative movement, whose adherents have longed to tilt the balance of the court to the right.

The Times continues to use the “conservative” label throughout the story. Examples:

Legal scholars have described (Alito’s) jurisprudence as … solidly conservative. …

He’s the second relatively young conservative to ascend to the court in recent months. …

As an undergraduate at Princeton and a student at Yale Law School, he garnered … notice for his conservative views. …

His involvement with a conservative Princeton alumni group became something of an issue. ….

While generous with the “conservative” label, The Times doesn’t apply the “liberal” label to any current political figure. Instead we get this:

Among two Republican supporters of abortion rights, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine voted for Judge Alito, while Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted no, the only Republican to do so.

Snowe and Chafee are staunch Senate liberals.

Why doesn't The Times call them that? And why doesn't The Times describe Alito's confirmation as a defeat suffered by the liberal movement, whose adherents have longed to keep the court tilted to the left?

We know why: The Times wants to convince people that conservatives have an agenda while the liberals who follow its editorial line don't.

And speaking of that, are you finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between Times' news reporting and its editorials?

If you want to check The Times' story one more time, it's here.

As those Senate Dems remind us

We can all thank Sens. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and the other Dems who voted to filibuster the Alito nomination for at least one thing: They've showed us how they think the Senate should treat a Supreme Court nominee who receives The American Bar Association's highest rating by a unanimous vote of its committee on federal judicial nominees.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 30, 2006

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

On November 14, 1909, Churchill traveled by train to Bristol to deliver a speech. Clementine did not often accompany him on such trips, but she did that day.

As they were walking up the platform toward the exit a young suffragette, Theresa Garnett, rushed at Churchill and began beating him with a whip.

He reached up to protect himself at which point Garnett pushed him toward the edge of the platform. Clementine managed to grab Churchill's coat and pull him back, and prevent him falling off the platform and into the path of the train which was just starting to leave the station.

Others quickly helped the Churchill's subdue Garnett. As police led her away she hollered at Churchill, "You brute, why don't you treat British women properly?"

It was a close call.

I was unable to learn what subsequently happened to Garnett. Does anyone know?

Something else: Clementine always supported Churchill in public, but privately she was strongly in favor of granting women the vote.

The Churchills had plenty to talk about on the train trip home.
______________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life. (pgs. 209-210)

"Bush, the Divider" stories now?

Sunday's Los Angeles Times published another story in liberal MSM's long-running series, “Bush, the Divider.”

Written by the LA Times' own Washington bureau chief, Ron Brownstein, this latest story ran under the headline:

State of the Union Puts Bush on Collision Course With Himself

Here's Brownstein's lead paragraph:

On the nation's biggest domestic problems, President Bush faces a clear choice as he approaches Tuesday's State of the Union address. He can make a political point. Or he can make progress against the problems. It's probably not possible to do both — unless Bush wants to radically reconfigure his political strategy.

The rest of Brownstein's story is in the same vein here.

Brownstein’s story will appeal to most "Divider" fans. But some fans at least may question why Brownstein and the LA Times ran this latest "Divider" story just now.

That’s because today a majority of Senate Democrats – including Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy - voted to deny an up or down confirmation vote to a Supreme Court nominee The American Bar Association rated Highly Qualified.

Bush is "the Divider?” "He's not willing to reach out?" "He hasn't set a new tone in Washington."

Can any reasonable person fall for any of that today?

Now, we shouldn't expect Brownstein and the rest of liberal MSM to stop writing “Divider” stories. The pay's too good, the work is easy, and they're sure of "puff-puff" interviews on PBS, NPR and the others.

But timing is everything. Brownstein and liberal MSM better watch out or they'll lose people to more reliable news sources, including ones on the Internet.

Oops, you're right, that's already happening.

This sentence belongs in the State of the Union

And it doesn't make much sense to listen in on enemy communications but to hang up when a call is made to someone in the United States.

From Michael Barone's column, Stuck in the 70s.

Hat Tip: Realclearpolitics.com

The Churchill Series - Jan. 29, 2006

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

During late January and early February, 1932, Churchill was on a speaking tour in America. He warned of "communism and the disintegrating forces of a disunited Europe."

He argued that Britain and America should ally to keep order in the world. "Why should we not frankly recognize that there must be some source of doctrine and authority to rescue nations from confusion?"

Quite apart from the political controversy his remarks engendered, it took physical courage for Churchill to stand before his audiences. He knew there were a number of plots by Asian Indian extremists to assassinate him.

Host cities went to great lengths to protect his life . Detroit, for example, assigned a special detail of 12 detectives to accompany him while he was in the city. Another dozen plainclothes officers were in the audience when he spoke while many uniformed police officers watched the lecture hall.

Churchill was stoned twice during the tour; and in one case an armored car was put at his disposal. But he completed the tour, having refused to cancel any engagement in the face of threats.
________________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. (pgs. 136-139)

When Maureen Dowd and Ted Kennedy question

Maureen Dowd questioning the President's honesty is like

Ted Kennedy questioning your club membership.

The "clients from hell" find an attorney

The Powerline.com bloggers are outstanding attorneys.

Today, one of them, Paul Mirenkoff, posts "The clients from hell:"

All attorneys have had them, clients who take the fun out of practicing law. One sub-species is the client with a losing case who can't understand why you're not cleaning the other side's clock.
...
Recall the story about the client who asked John Roberts how he could have lost a case in the Supreme Court 9-0, to which Roberts replied "because there are only nine Justices."

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have their own clients from hell -- the juvenile left-wing of their party.

Mirenkoff then tells us more about the "clients from hell," even naming an attorney who was so eager to represent those clients, he cancelled his ski vacation.

And who was that?

Hint: He owns 5 large homes, 3 SUVs, travels in private jets and was The Sierra Club's "environmental presidential candidate" in 2004.

Bonus hint: There are lots of stories about him pushing to the front of restaurant lines and asking the person in charge, "Do you know who I am?"

You really didn't need the bonus hint, did you?

Anyway, Mirenkoff tells us more about Senator Kerry, "the opportunistic and mildly disreputable lawyer emerging from the shadows (or in this case the ski slopes)," and his "clients from hell" right here.

I ended up laughing. I bet you will, too.

Powerline's "The silence of the Times"

Don't miss today's Powerline post "The silence of the Times." It begins:

Last night at the end of his long post "Ahabs everywhere," John took a look at the New York Times article by Eric Lichtblau and Adam Liptak purporting to assess the Bush administration's argument for the legality of the NSA surveillance program.

John notes the article's failure to come to terms with the case law unanimously recognizing the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, let alone the international surveillance at issue in the NSA program.(bold added)

Further on there's this:

Like John, I think that the administration's NSA surveillance program as described by the president, the vice president, the Attorney General, and General Hayden is legal. I don't think it's a close question, though I think reasonable people can disagree on that point.

What is clearly illegal, however, in my view and the view of everyone involved in the Times story disclosing the existence of the NSA surveillance program, are the leaks that led to the story. The illegality of the leaks is precisely why the "nearly a dozen current and former government officials" who leaked the story to James Risen and Eric Lichtblau in connection with the original December 16 story demanded and received anonymity from the Times.(bold added)

Powerline has much more to say.

I'll add this. It think the leakers should go to jail; and so should all those at The Times involved in the story. The Times Co. should be hit with a large fine. By large I mean in the hundreds of millions.

I don't care how smart you think you are or how much you hate our President or our government.You have no right to publish classified information that will help America's enemies attack us.

"Don't miss" is an overused term. But for this Powerline post it fits

The Churchill Series - Jan. 29, 2006

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

Churchill's autobiography, My Early Life , published in 1930, ends with the words: "...until September, 1908, when I married and lived happily ever afterwards."

That Clementine and Winston loved one another, there's no doubt. But "happily ever after?" Not always.

For instance, in 1909 the recently married Clementine tried to get her husband to pay attention to bills that were mounting. There wasn't money to pay them. They were living beyond their means. They needed to talk.

Churchill paid no attention.

Finally, a desperate Clementine took a diamond necklace Churchill's aunt had given her as wedding present and pawned it to pay some bills.

That got Churchill's attention. He rushed to the shop to retrieve it, but he was too late. Someone had already purchased it.

There were other problems. Churchill gambled all his life. Clementine worried about that for years.

Clementine was "early to bed and early to rise." He kept Churchill hours.

She would often get a message telling her Churchill was bringing friends home in an hour or so for dinner. He didn't understand why the short notice should be a problem. All Clementine had to do was "put plenty of onions in an Irish stew."

In future posts, we'll talk more about their marriage.

Meanwhile, this understatement: Clementine was a remarkable woman without whom Churchill would never have been the Churchill we know.
_____________________________________________________
William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Visions of Glory (pgs. 395-403)

Kerry for President

of Switzerland.

Maureen Dowd victim of truth attack

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd was in the middle of explaining how when former President Clinton told a lie it wasn't really a lie because we all knew it was a lie whereas when President Bush ....

Well, you get where Dowd was going.

In the midst of Maureen's - "All my best, Bill" - she got hit with a truth attack. Her own words were fired at her. Ouch!

Michelle Malkin did it in a post here. Don't miss it.

Malkin has the video of MoDo and then flings Dowd's own words back at her.

Raleigh N&O silent on Hillary's poll numbers

Most MSM news organizations aren't giving much attention to recent Gallup poll results concerning how Americans feel about Sen. Hillary Clinton's becoming President. Here in North Carolina, the liberal trending left Raleigh News & Observer has been totally silent on the results.

So you're telling yourself the results were bad for Hillary. You're right.

Here's some of what the Jan. 25 New York Post reported:

Most American voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 — while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

The Gallup/CNN poll found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her.

That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1.

There's more here.

The results are indeed stunning. They were surely noticed and talked about by the Democrats who make the news decisions at The N&O.

The N&O's decision to date to tell readers nothing about Clinton's disastrous poll numbers is understandable given the papers political orientation.

And I would accept that if the paper admitted in was essentially a Democratic Party paper or an opinion journal.

But The N&O continues to tell readers and advertisers it's a fair and accurate newspaper that just wants to bring readers information so they can be better informed citizens. Exec. editor for news, Melanie Sill, claims the paper is free of news bias.

Really? The paper still hasn't told readers about Sen. Ted Kennedy's more than half-century long membership in The Owl Club, which denies women membership.

Kennedy held Owl membership even as he railed and berated Judge Samuel Alito for joining for a brief period while a student at Princeton a club Kennedy feels didn't respect women the way the way he feels a club should. Or something like that.

I find it impossible to believe The N&O is what it says it is: fair and accurate.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 27, 2006

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

It's an amusing exchange. I bet you know of it:

George Bernard Shaw telegrammed Winston Churchill just prior to the opening of his latest play: "Have reserved two tickets for first night. Come and bring a friend if you have one."

Churchill wired back, "Impossible to come to first night. Will come to second night, if you have one."

Amusing, yes, but I'm not sure it ever really happened. A number of reliable sources don't mention it, while most unreliable sources do.

But I do have confidence in what follows.

The cartoonist David Low said:

"Churchill is one of the few men I have met who... give me the impression of genius. Shaw is another. It is amusing to know that each thinks the other is much overrated!"

By October, 1950 Shaw and Churchill would no doubt have agreed that the public was low rating them both. Shaw was then often ridiculed by critics while Churchill was struggling to regain enough public confidence to assure him a return to the Prime Minister's office.

In those circumstances, Churchill learned that Shaw had been hospitalized. He sent him flowers and a warm note. Shaw sent back a copy of his newest book, Sixteen Half Sketches, along with a note in which he said:

You need only read (a bit of it) as you and I are officially classed as ignoramuses."

________________________________________________________
For the Low quote see The Churchill Centre, Contemporaries. (Here and scroll down)

For the exchange of notes ending with "ignoramuses" see Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churhcill: Young Stateman. (p. 1)

Here's Al Gore on Canada's election and new PM

Americans have grown used to former Vice President Al Gore’s long, rambling, venomous speeches attacking people and organizations he doesn’t like. Typically, Gore begins by calling someone “dishonest” or “dangerous.” Then it gets worse.

While Gore remains popular with the “Democratic base,” most Americans have tuned him out. Even liberal MSM news organizations now pretty much ignore him.

That may help explain why Gore decided his latest screed would include an attack on the recent Canadian election process and warnings to our Canadian neighbors about their new prime minister, Stephen Harper.

Gore may have reasoned that Canadians, not as familiar with him as Americans, would be more likely to listen to him instead of rolling their eyes and clicking the remote.

Anyway, here's some of his latest, Gore accuses big oil of bankrolling Tories:

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.

Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.

"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.

"And the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests."

You can read the rest here.

Every time I hear Gore I’m reminded how glad I am he lost the Florida election. Imagine him in the White House!

Charles Krauthammer: "Marcel, My Brother"

Most of us know Charles Krauthammer as an informed, clear-thinking Washington pundit whose columns help us separate political chaff and wheat.

Today, Krauthammer provides something different: a beautifully written, poignant memorial to his brother, Marcel.

Hat Tip: Realclearpolitics.com

The Churchill Series - Jan. 26, 2006

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

Some recent posts have been long or dealt with the sad years of Churchill's decline.

Tonight's post is brief and concerns only trivia.

But it's trivia interested people often ask about.

His favorite whiskey? Johnnie Walker Red.

Brandy? Hine.

Champagne? Pol Roger.

Cheers.

O dear, look what Republicans are doing now

An Associated Press story carries this headline:

Senate GOP Seeks to Force Vote on Alito

The AP’s story makes clear the headline isn’t just another of those “tabloid grabs” most MSM newspapers are using as part of their campaigns to win back former readers who’ve moved on to other news sources.

The AP provides plenty of information to help us realize Senate Republicans are driving to "force (a) vote" on Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination despite the opposition of many Senate Democrats to such a vote.

The AP tells us, for example, of Sen. Ted Kennedy’s efforts to convince his Democratic colleagues to support a filibuster. We're told Senators such as Durbin and Sarbanes support a filibuster. And there's more.

But for all of that, The AP never tells us why Republicans want to, as The AP puts it, "Force (a) Vote on Alito."

Without information from The AP, I'm left to rely on my own news sources. They claim Republicans are basing their drive for a vote on portions of a document called The Constitution.

There's no word yet on whether or not Sen. Kennedy would drop his plans for a filabuster in exchange for the Bush administration agreeing to make public a copy of The Constitution.

Kennedy is said to be considering the matter "while relaxing with friends at the Cape."

NY Times' earnings drop

The Associated Press reports on the latest earnings figures for The New York Times Co.

The New York Times Co. said Tuesday its fourth-quarter earnings fell 41 percent from the same period a year ago, weighed down by charges for staff reductions and an accounting change.

The Times, which also publishes The Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune, earned $64.8 million or 45 cents per share in the three months ending in December, compared to $110.2 million or 75 cents per share a year ago.

The “staff reductions and an accounting change” explanations were highlighted by The Times Co.

But if you read further into the story, you learn there were also very significant advertising revenue drops in major areas of The Times' media empire.

The revenue drops deserved more attention than The AP gave them. They’re certainly getting attention on Wall Street, where The Times Co (sym. – NYT ) stock price has fallen more than 30% in the last year. See, for example, a Forbes.com article, "Gurus Dump Gray Lady, Buy Energy Spider".

After chocolate, Mayor Nagin has a whine

Betsy Newmark posts on New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin’s recent whine over criticism he’s received for a string of - to put it kindly - “foot in mouth” comments. Nagin’s whine includes:

"I don't get what all the fuss was about when I talked about New Orleans being a chocolate city. I mean, I understand the frustration with my 'God' comments. Maybe I went a little overboard. But Chocolate City? Come on."

The post contains a number of “The Best of Mayor Nagin” quotes. She ends with an excellent question.

Take a look at Betsy's post here, and decide how you’d answer her question

Steyn’s take on Canada’s next prime minister

In today’s Wall Street Journal Mark Steyn discusses Monday’s Canadian election and offers his take on where he thinks the new prime minister, Stephen Harper, will lead the country. Here some of what he says:

Mr. Harper, the incoming prime minister, will not be "George Bush's new best friend" -- that's a more competitive field than John Kerry and Jimmy Carter think. But at the very least a Harper government won't rely on reflexive anti-Americanism as the defining element of Canadian identity.
…
Stephen Harper (will) move the country incrementally. On the environment, his views are compatible with Mr. Bush, John Howard and now Tony Blair: That's to say, if "climate change" is a problem, Kyoto's not the answer to it.

On missile defense, the Conservatives will string along with Washington because it's the easy option and we'll be covered by it anyway: Even Canadians aren't prepared to argue that, if there's something headed toward Winnipeg or Montreal, we'd rather the Americans minded their own bloody business and didn't tell us about it.

But it's a good gauge of the deterioration in U.S.-Canadian relations that a quintessential piece of postmodern, humbug multilateralism -- an issue that required Canada to be minimally supportive without being helpful, at no political cost and in return for some lucrative contracts for northern defense contractors -- was whooped up by the Liberals into a big scare about Washington's plans for the "weaponization of space."

On missile defense, Mr. Harper will be more down to earth in every sense.

There’s much more, all of it here and laced with Steyn’s wry humor.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 25, 2006

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

A previous post described the April 9, 1963, White House ceremony at which Churchill was awarded honorary American citizenship. Age and ill health forced Churchill to remain at his London home, but he watched the ceremony via live satellite transmission.

The following day Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, a friend and colleague who had served in both of Churchill governments, sent him this warm and revealing letter:

Dear Winston,

I gave a dinner last night for General Lemnitzer. He used to be American Deputy to Field Marshal Alexander in the Mediterranean Campaign and is now the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Field Marshals Alexander and Harding, Lord Mountbatten and General Strong all came.

We and others present unanimously agreed to send you a message recalling the days when we worked together under your leadership.

We wished also to express our delight at your versatility, which allows you to combine being a loyal British subject with being a good United States’ citizen.

Yours ever,

Harold Macmillan

It’s well known that in his last years Churchill’s memory faded and he lost interest in current events. Nonetheless, its jarring as well as poignant to realize Macmillian felt he needed to tell Churchill who was “now the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.”

We’ve also been told that until near the very end Churchill held on to much of what had always been one of his greatest strengths: a sense of humor. Macmillan’s closing sentence indicates he agreed with that assessment.

Blogger will shut down. Posting light tonight

Folks,

The Blogger system will shut down for "repairs" at 4 PM Pacific time. They say just a little while, but one never knows. Also, sometimes when Blogger repairs things get worse for a while.

I'll plan to try to post The Chruchill Series tonight before midnight. Otherwise, no posting until tomorrow.

But there's a lot in the pipe so come back tomorrow afternoon.

John

How did The Washington Post miss all those Canadians?

Yesterday's Canadian election confirmed what polls and pundits had been reporting: Millions of voters strongly favored the Conservatives and were disgusted by the Liberal's stumbling social policies and massive corruption.

But The Washington Post apparently couldn't locate any of those voters. At least, none were quoted in its post-election story, "Canadians Move Right, Elect New Leadership."

The Post only quoted one person who even claimed to have voted Conservative. And it told its readers said she did so “reluctantly:”

"I think we have to give it a try. But I am very afraid that it will be too far right," said Florence Koven, 72, emerging from the polls after voting -- reluctantly, she said -- for the Conservative Party. "The unknown always concerns you. Mr. Harper (the Conservative leader) says he is a changed man; we'll see how much he has changed."

Yes indeed, all of us on both sides of the border need to be sooo careful about voting for Conservatives. And if they win, we must always hope they change once in office.

The Post's management continues to insist the paper doesn't have a liberal bias. What's more, the editors tell us that when covering an election, their reporters find out what voters are saying and tell us.

Well, if that's the case, how did The Post miss all the Canadians who would have been happy to tell its reporters: "We're sick and tired of the Liberals and glad the Conservatives are going in?"

The Churchill Series - Jan. 24, 2006

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

On January 24, 1965, Churchill died after having suffered a massive stroke twelve days before.

When he heard the news, France's President Charles de Gaulle wrote a condolence letter to the Queen. Of the man with whom he had frequently quarreled during the war, de Gaulle said:

In the great drama he was the greatest of all.

Clement Attlee, as leader of Labour, and Churchill, as leader of the Conservatives, had often sparred across the Commons aisle. Churchill once called Attlee a "sheep in sheep's clothing;" another time, "a modest man with much to be modest about." Attlee had bested Churchill in the 1945 General Election, and succeeded him as Prime Minister.

Now Earl Attlee, he spoke in the House of Lords of the man who had been his friend as well as political foe:

My Lords, we have lost the greatest Englishman of our time - I think the greatest citizen of the world of our time.

Thirty-five years on, as the 20th century drew to a close, the distinguished commentator Charles Krauthammer considered its horrors and the times when many reasonable people thought it certain that Nazis or Communists would dominate the world. But they were prevented from doing so. Krauthammer asked who had stopped them:

The originality of the 20th surely lay in its politics. It invented the police state and the command economy, mass mobilization and mass propaganda, mechanized murder and routinized terror--a breathtaking catalog of political creativity.

And who is the hero of that story? Who slew the dragon?

Yes, it was the ordinary man, the taxpayer, the grunt who fought and won the wars. Yes, it was America and its allies. Yes, it was the great leaders: Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Adenauer, Truman, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan. But above all, victory required one man without whom the fight would have been lost at the beginning. It required Winston Churchill.

Winston S. Churchill, RIP
________________________________________________________________________
The de Gaulle and Attlee quotes are from Martin Gilbert, Never Despair. (pgs. 1360-1361)

The Krauthammer commentary can be found at The Churchill Centre's Personality of the Century page( Here and then scroll to near the bottom.)

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.