Wednesday, September 14, 2005


Farrakhan visits Charlotte, criticizes federal response

Minister Louis Farrakhan was very critical of the Red Cross and FEMA response to hurricane Katrina.
Minister Louis Farrakhan was in Charlotte Monday to rally support for his Millions More March. However, he did have some choice words about the response to Hurricane Katrina victims, some of whom are staying at the Charlotte Coliseum.
Farrakhan's been traveling across the country to visit shelters like the one that is set up at the coliseum. He said he's not happy with the job the American Red Cross is doing.
He had harsh words for FEMA too. But that was just the warm up. Farrakhan also shared his thoughts on how the levee breached in the first place.
"I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry," Farrakhan said.
Gilton Balanos lived in the very neighborhood Farrakhan was talking about.
"I think that's ludicrous," Balanos said. "When this happened we were caught by surprise. Individuals, the government and everybody were caught by surprise."
Farrakhan also said that the Red Cross’ response to the disaster was inadequate. Red Cross Spokesperson Pam Daigle said "there was no basis for the criticism."
As for the issue of how the Red Cross spends money and on whom, Daigle said "the Red Cross’ books are open for anyone who wants to see the audits, who wants to see how we spend money."
"I'm sure some good is being done, but not enough to answer the cry." Farrakhan said.
Some evacuees who spoke to 6NEWS said they support Farrakhan and his look into what happened in New Orleans and other affected areas.
President Bush said Monday that Hurricane Katrina did not discriminate and neither will recovery efforts.

Blaming Bush -- for Everything

"I blame BUSH for the declining moral standards in Springfield! But at least we have busses and all of our Negro residents are employed!"

Los Angeles lost its electrical power the other day, and within minutes Jesse Jackson said President Bush's racism was at fault. Maureen Dowd got off some cutesy one-liners about limited government limiting civilization. Michael Moore likewise worried that starving the government had enfeebled it. And, Democrats called for an investigation.
Yes, this particular blame barrage came to me in a dream, but although it's not real, it's hard to imagine Jackson missing any opportunity to call an official a racist _ that being his role in life, his profession, his calling. Still, people of normal sensibilities might be surprised that he said racism kept the federal government from coming to the rescue as quickly as it should have in New Orleans. After all, he had no evidence. But little things like evidence _ or the fact that some well-off whites were among the hurricane's victims _ have never stopped him.
Now, the Rev. Jackson is actually saying it's racist to call those blacks who left Louisiana seeking refuge in other states "refugees," and I agree: Stop using that ugly epithet this minute. Once you get started down that road, the next thing you know you will be calling them people in need of help, or something like that, and pretty soon all kinds of other ugly things might ensue. Right?
Dowd, sassy as ever and beaming with joy over her derision of Bush as someone who did not send enough funds to keep New Orleans' levees in shape, said _ or surely contemplated saying _ that she was far from "shocked" that Bush did not have enough "juice" to keep the lights on in Los Angeles, because after all, he was always "in the dark."
She might have gone further except that someone may have tapped her on the shoulder to tell her the facts about the money for the levee. Bush proposed spending as much over the past five years as President Bill Clinton had in his last five years, reporters have noted.
The New York Times columnist may have wanted to say that more money for California energy would have saved the day, but that the war in Iraq had impeded domestic spending. In a piece on New Orleans, she said emergency money had been "depleted" by that "folly," overlooking the fact that domestic spending has soared under Bush.

Michael Moore of moviemaking fame would naturally want to jump into the question about LA losing power because LA is a place where he is a hero, widely appreciated by celebrities for his Bush bashing. In a hurricane-related piece on his Web site, he gave an example of that sport, sounding a Dowd-like note in expressing concern about politicians "whose main goal has been to de-fund the federal government," pointing to the Federal Emergency Management Agency as an example of what could be good for America if it had more money.
FEMA's problem _ besides having a now-resigned boss who was unqualified for the position _ was not that it was too lean a fighting machine, but that it had been stuffed inside an overly large, super-fat bureaucracy where it's hard for anything to get done.
That's the sort of thing a bipartisan investigation might disclose after New Orleans has been put back together, but it's questionable that the Democrats seeking such an inquiry are nearly as interested in getting to the truth as in making the hurricane a continuing embarrassment for Bush. From the mouths of people like Jackson, Dowd and Moore, we have a taste of the kinds of bloated claims that actually get in the way of facts that appear to be bad enough without exaggeration or ideological contortion.
If leftists were really pouncing on Bush for the LA blackout, you can bet they would shut their eyes to its real cause, the accidental slicing of a cable, just as they are now refusing to identify the chief culprits in the muffed response to the hurricane: the New Orleans mayor and the Louisiana governor. Not just their careers, but the lives of those two public figures will now be defined by a horrid reality that they had a difficult time accepting. The left would like to have the New Orleans disaster define the Bush administration, too, but while the administration covered itself with faults more than glory, the tale the left is trying to convey is largely false.

Foul Air

Pittsburgh Tribune

Air America, the liberals' answer to conservative talk radio, received "loans" from the Bronx-based Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, a social services agency funded largely with public money.
New York authorities are investigating the $875,000 transfer as possibly an illegal conveyance.
Al Franken, Air America's franchise performer, claims ignorance of the loans until late July. Oh, really?
On the air, Mr. Franken, between nervous giggles, called the man who arranged the loans, former Air America Chairman Evan Montvel Cohen, a "crook." Mr. Cohen also was a fundraiser for the club.
Cohen indicated to The New York Sun that club officials knew where the money was going -- to Air America.
Depending on the version, however, sources claimed Cohen said he needed the money for his and the ongoing health problems of his father.
Oh, yeah. Dad died in 1991.
As for Franken's latter-day discovery, his signature appears on a notarized document dated Nov. 22, 2004, in which the network promises to repay the money. The money had not been repaid.
Confronted by the document's contents, Franken said he did not "see this thing," referring to the listing of the loans, and penned his name on legal advice only to erase money claims he had against others, The Sun also reported.
Sure, Al.
Isn't it clear? Everyone is fair game to suffer for liberal elites, such as poor children and Alzheimer's patients whom the club was supposed to help.

Krazy Liberals!!

Here is the start of these MAD liberals and their attempt to impeach the prez.
I know this is pure lunacy, but I find it amusing. People who amuse Snoop get special consideration. So I will post updates on their progress I may even add my link to the cause just for fun. Playing with liberals is fun TRY IT!

From On the Left Tip: Impeachment 101-- Past and Present
I.B.C. member and contributor RenaRF from the blog On the Left Tip prepared this excellent summary (It is also posted over on The Daily Kos, please go comment there too.):

Impeachment 101 -- Past and Present

A few things before we start. I am going to assume that IBC members really do want to impeach Bush. Let's face it - the vast majority (if not all) of us have wanted him gone since an instance of Judicial activism put him in office in 2000... But just wanting him gone and actually building a credible case for his removal are two different things.

I'm not a lawyer. I have no exceptional knowledge....(HEY, you got that right Einstein, maybe you need to get laid and release some sexual tension................................ of the Constitution of the law outside of what I can glean from reading other blogs and from doing some research on the internet. My opinions and reasons may lack legal rigor - but they need to be put out there as a jumping-off point for serious vetting. Great journeys begin with a single step and this is mine, offered with the hopes that bright people will mold and change and add and grow this into something entirely possible.

What's the Point, You Ask?
A lot of people -- especially those on the Right -- have asked, in one way or another: What's the point of the IBC?

Consider Bullwinkle's remarks:

How do you intend to impeach Bush if you aren't rounding up congressmen to pass an impeachment bill to the senate? Do any of you have the slightest idea how to do this?

I liked the Bulldog's and Tom Harper's responses, and I have one of my own.

Bulldog's answer:

We create discussion. Popular discussion creates political pressure. Political pressure causes politicians to act. Pressured politicians find a way to make things happen. The legal groundwork for impeaching Bush has already been laid. That's not what we are here for.

Tom Harper's answer:

Bush needs to be impeached, regardless of who will succeed him in office. Whatever Bush turns out to be guilty of, Cheney is probably up to his eyeballs in it too. We might be able to just get them all out, one by one.

President Hastert? President DeLay? It doesn't matter. We have to demonstrate that we're a nation of laws; that illegal behavior in the White House won't be tolerated.

My answer?

Whatever happens, we win.

"Just what the fuck do you win!?"

If Bush is impeached, we win.

If Bush is not impeached, we still win. Why? Because with all of this discussion, we will probably win the mid-term elections and the 2008 Presidential election.

Creating discussion is what blogging is all about. IMPEACH BUSH has now been in the top 3 searched phrases on Technorati for 3 days in a row. That tells you something.

The more discussion, the more mainstream media will pay attention.

The more mainstream media pays attention, the more the American public pays attention.

The more the American public pays attention, the more pressure will be brought to bear on our politicians.

And we either will get that impeachment, or we'll win the next elections.

In fact, with the President now at a 38% approval rating, wining the next 2 elections seems likely already. We just have to keep the momentum.