Thursday, December 19, 2002


One of my US correspondents writes:

The country is currently a-buzz about Trent Lott. You're probably been up to speed on all of the clamor. As a conservative I would rather he step down and in fact I never thought that he was the man for the job in the first place. He has had a history of "foot-in-mouth" disease for years.

His recent "5th apology" on Black Entertainment Television was a form of grovelling that would have made Bill Clinton (spit) blush. He offered affirmative action support and other trinkets if he could just stay in power. This flies in the face of the platform of the Republican party which recognizes those policies as nothing more than reverse discrimination.

As I said this is not the first time he stuck his foot in his mouth. In 1997 there was a B-52 bomber pilot in the U.S. Airforce; Kelly Flinn, who was brought up on charges of disobeying and order, lying and adultery. Before all of the facts were out Lott and his wife jumped on the band waggon and declared that the Air Force was wrong. Of course the charges against Flinn were from the beginning the three listed above but the press chose to ignore the more important of lying and disobeying an order. The military just can't have it's officers "doing their own thing" especially when they fly a B-52 that could be delivering a nuke.

Most recently Lott made a deal with the Dems that he would be the majority leader and leave them at their posts as chairmen of the committees. What a slap in the face of conservatives. Those people are the ones that have held up appointments of federal judges, and the tax cut for over a year. Why would someone make deals with them. It's strange to me how the Dems can play hardball when they are in the majority but when Republicans are in power they "share the power". I wish the SOB would just step down.



This article shows that Republicans do NOT have an inferior record to the Democrats on civil rights.

Via Innocents abroad.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
The civil rights act - Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96.

I honestly feel the Dem's are the party of segregation now. They are the ones who wish to categorize and classify us by our skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. They are the ones constantly trying to divide the American people into ever smaller victim groups.

From American RealPolitik

"Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals. And the founding ideals of our nation, and in fact the founding ideals of the political party I represent, was, and remains today the equal dignity and equal rights of every American."
-- George W. Bush

Via The Fed:



People for the American Way has put out a report claiming that Lott's prospective rivals as majority leader also have what the group's honcho, Ralph Neas, calls a "dismal voting records" on civil rights. Among the evidence? Sens. Mitch McConnell and Don Nickles both voted for the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. That's right, by Neas's lights you're against civil rights if you vote to put a black man on the Supreme Court.

From Best of the web of 18th.



Meanwhile, a Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that 60% of Americans would support nuking Iraq "if Iraq attacked U.S. forces with biological or chemical weapons." Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

From Best of the web of 18th.



In this quote a Hindu lady replies to an Arab comment on the fact that a Hindu Nationalist party did well in the elections for India's Gujurat State:

"If the election that has just taken place in Gujarat, where the BJP has been re-elected by a landslide, had happened in Europe or elsewhere in the West, there would be an international outcry, with demands for a boycott of the country and that something be done about it".

Thus starts the preaching of this Arab News column, which is published in Saudi Arabia, where as our readers know, there are no elections at all. I would respond to this guy's pontifications, except that I refuse to even dignify with an answer his rants and ravings. I mean, his country does not elect its leaders, is extremely oriented towards only one religion, and he is preaching to a secular, democratic country about how they should hold their elections? Pah!




"Fossil fuels": How often have we heard that phrase? It is the Greenies' favourite way of persuading us that we are about to run out of oil. How the Greenies must hate old Tom Gold! Astronomer/geologist Gold makes a first-class scientific case that petroleum is not of fossil origin at all and that we have only scratched the surface of what there is locked up in the earth's crust.

Read about Tom Gold here and read his account of why his work has largely been ignored by academics so far here.


Comments? Email me:
If there are no recent posts here, check my HomePage for a new blog address.


No comments: