Operation
Purple Pride
Topic: Iraq War
I quite often am curious about my readers, so if I see one coming from an interesting domain, I am tempted to go to it, and look around.

Tonight I noticed I had a reader from http://www.jmu.edu/

Which turned out to be James Madison University cool.

I then found its online magazine Madison Online cooler still.

But THIS was the coolest of all

Operation Purple Pride

The views from the troops
If you're serving in Afghanistan or Iraq, you're making a special sacrifice, and that's news. Operation Purple Pride is the place to share your experiences with your classmates and the rest of the Madison community.
Whether you're interacting with the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting insurgents, flying jets and helicopters, or supplying the troops from home, you have a story to tell. Operation Purple Pride welcomes personal diaries or journals, photos, quick news updates about you and other classmates, and background pieces that give context and understanding to what is shown on the news. Please share your special insights, those moments that make the sacrifice worth it, the triumphs and tragedies. News of your experience will enrich the Madison community.
Please email your queries, news, notes and photos to madisonmag@jmu.edu.

Other Links

Operation Purple Pride: Richmond Alumni The Richmond Alumni Chapter honors three Dukes in uniform, including Lance Cpl. Jourdan L. Grez, who died May 11 in Iraq and two on active duty... MORE

If you are tired of information filtered by the Mainstream Media here are some first hand accounts from folks who did not get their information while spending most of their time in a hotel.

Thanks to my unknown friend from James Madison and if you drop back in and read this, give us a holler in the comments?
Let me know if "Purple Pride" gets its meaning from this?

|

Civil War in the Anti-War Movement
Topic: Iraq War
I find I continually underestimate the extremes of one side of the Political Spectrum

This from LGF

Dissent in San Diego

and THE INDEPUNDIT

Fracture Lines

JAMAL KANJ, a fiery Palestinian from a group called Al-Awda, takes the podium. “We Palestinians,” he begins, “have been subjected to GENOCIDE at the hands of the Israelis for generations.“ He rants on. ”In 1948, they forced us out of our homes, and today we must DRIVE THE JEWS from PALESTINE!”
Suddenly, a middle-aged man wearing a black “F the President” T-shirt rushes the stage, screaming at Kanj, “I’m TIRED of this CRAP! You people keep bringing this up! This is supposed to be an ANTI-WAR rally, not an ANTI-ISRAEL rally!”
Kanj yells back, into the microphone. Others in the crowd stand up and join in the shouting match.
The Arab-Israeli conflict has arrived in San Diego.
Red-vested “peace monitors” converge on T-shirt Man, trying to contain this sudden outburst of dissent. They are followed closely by the San Diego Police Department, who quickly take control of the situation and lead the man away.

AT LEAST A THIRD of the crowd has departed. Others remain behind only to express their disappointment and disgust. The organizers argue amongst themselves.

Let me see if I have this straight,

An Anti-War Protester
Was Lead away from an Anti-War Protest by the Police.

Because

He was Protesting

That the Anti-War Protest

Was not Protesting the War?

You can NOT make up stuff this good!

We need a Protest like this in every city in the Nation, so folks can see just what these people are really like, not filtered thought the media.

Or better yet, how about Jerry Springer producing
a new Reality Show called the Protest?

Where the members eliminate each other?

Wow what a Challenge that would be for Karl Rove
to sneak in some Protest Warriors and fix it so THEY would win. LOL

(Do go to Indepundit and check out the whole story and the photos!)

|

And Then
They Came For Us
Topic: Out of Flyover Land
Those who study History are doomed to see it repeated by those who don't.

We never learn.

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

New and updated version

When they came for the Fourth Amendment, I did not say anything - because I had nothing to hide.

When they came for the Second Amendment, I did not say anything - because I did not own a gun.

When they came for the Fifth and Sixth amendments, I did not say anything - because I had committed no crimes.

When they came for the first Amendment - I could not say anything.


On Protein Wisdom there is thread about the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice.

Bobbing Roberts

For me the most important, the most dangerous concepts which have arisen during this confirmation hearing were--

On the final day of the Roberts hearings, Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois tried one last time: “If you’ve made one point many times over . . . the course of the last three days,” he told the judge, “it is that as a judge you will be loyal and faithful to the process of law, to the rule of law.” But “beyond loyalty to the process of law,” he asked Roberts, “how do you view [the] law when it comes to expanding our personal freedom? . . . That’s what I’ve been asking.”

And so, in various ways, had Durbin’s Democratic colleagues been asking about such matters--ones “beyond loyalty” to the rule of law. In response to Durbin, Roberts stuck to the point he had indeed made “many times over.” Reframing the senator’s question so as to reach the core issue, Roberts said, “Somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer. But as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that ‘I’ll look out for particular interests.’ . . . The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that’s what I would do.

Good intentions can be the most dangerous thing. Actions for the Greater Good can be as dangerous.

The LAW is never supposed to be FOR someone, never biased nor adversarial, lawyers can and must be, but the Law and Judges should never be.

When we cross that line we are no longer governed by Law and the Constitution, but by fiat. I do not care how well intentioned a persons motives are this opens the gate for and oppression because there is NO guarantee that once the Law is perverted to be biased towards one element of Society it cannot be biased towards others. In the end it will be biased towards those who can muster the most power and the FUNDAMENTAL principle of our Nation that ALL rights are the Inalienable attribute of the Individual has been sacrificed to whatever the current political desire is. There can be no other outcome.

In Kelo versus New London the protections of the V Amendment were shattered.

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Public use become to "benefit" the Public, there for Eminent Domain may now be used to take one person's property, NOT for the use of the Public, but to turn it over to other private individuals to develop and the increased Tax Revenue will be for the Greater Good of all, but the RIGHTS of an individual are now gone.

But their intentions were caring so I guess that makes this sundering of the rights of the individual all OK.

When McCain-Feingold first reared its ugly head few cared because it only effected the "Rich", not that it seems to have hindered George Soros much, but the public perception was we needed to be protected by undue influence by the "Rich" for the Greater Good as usual.

But what is the reality, what does all this mean? The ACLU and Court Action has decreed that burning the American Flag is protected speech, freedom of expression.

Has anyone ever heard the phrase, "Put your money, where your mouth is."? How can there be any more important speech or expression in a Democracy than supporting a Political Platform or Politician that you believe in?

But you say but=== No, you either BELIEVE in the Constitution and the Rights enumerated or you DON'T.

For me it is that simple. Can there be abuses? Yes there can and they, the abuses will be illegal.

But as Benjamin Franklin stated.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security


Most of the Nation was willing to give up part of our basic rights of Freedom of Speech, because HEY it was only going to effect the "Rich" not any of us regular people. Right?

Then they came for us

The FEC started thinking that the same statutes should be applied to bloggers. That could even include someone on minimum wage who blogs from a free computer in a library.

But don't worry we are told, they are not going to apply the new interpretations to the "little guy" we are going to have TWO sets of Law in this country?

When they came after us it was different wasn't it?

We NEED men like Judge Roberts on the Supreme Court.

We NEED men who are willing to uphold the Constitution from US.

I tried to illustrate how Kelo versus New London and
McCain-Feingold are perversions of our Basic Rights and the Principles this Nation were founded upon.

I doubt there are many who will disagree with me about Kelo versus New London.

For those who still labour under the illusion that McCain-Feingold is still just as long as it is only applied to the "Rich"

I ask this one simple question.

Whatever makes you think that if the Rights of Speech, Assembly and Association of those deemed "Rich" can be sundered so easily and willingly,
that YOURS are still intact?

And then they came for us and there was no one left to say anything.

|

I am on the same side as Hilary Clinton?
Topic: 9/11
Got another email from our friends and neighbors at

I have to be honest folks, ANY ally in this struggle is welcome aid, but when I read the first line of the following my reaction, WAS a startled.

I'm on the same side as Hilary Clinton?

But its really a good sign, I mean if the US Senator whose helicopter in Afghanistan,when she did a tour of the country, was given the nickname buy the troops, "Broom Stick One" I mean if SHE is opposing a Leftist Cause, it must have overwhelming opposition in the Country.


At the Time of this post, 10:20 PM CDT Saturday 24,2005 here are the results so far of the Newsday poll.

2.1%
Yes, it will be a learning tool. (274 responses)

96.8%
No, the site should be used as a memorial only. (12469 responses)

1.1%
Not sure. (143 responses)

12886 total responses

We can do better folks, spread the word.

Speaking of word here is the word from the New York Post and Take Back the Memorial dot Org on Hillary Clinton's Position.

HILLARY COMES OUT AGAINST FREEDOM CENTER

By DEBORAH ORIN

EXCLUSIVE



WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday dealt a crushing blow to the International Freedom Center planned for Ground Zero, saying she wants the project canned for failing to listen to the 9/11 families.

"I cannot support the IFC," Clinton declared last night in a strongly worded statement in response to an inquiry from The Post.

Her tough comments are Clinton's first significant remarks about the controversy raging at Ground Zero over the Freedom Center, which 9/11 families and other critics fear will become a center of anti-Americanism.

"While I want to ensure that development and rebuilding in lower Manhattan move forward expeditiously, I am troubled by the serious concerns family members and first responders have expressed to me," Clinton said.

"The LMDC [Lower Manhattan Development Corp.] has authority over the site and I do not believe we can move forward until it heeds and addresses their concerns."

The family members of victims, as well as unions representing the city's cops and firefighters, want nothing less than the Freedom Center being booted from Ground Zero.

Given her influence, Clinton's hard line could spell doom for the Freedom Center's hopes of remaining at the World Trade Center site.

Clinton spoke out the day after the IFC released a plan intended to save its spot at the site, but it was met with immediate opposition from 9/11 families.

Clinton won't support any plan unless the families and first responders back it, said her spokesman, Philippe Reines.

Many relatives of 9/11 victims denounced the Freedom Center plan as an insult to the 2,749 people who diedat the Twin Towers because it would paint them as a little more than a footnote to the world's march toward freedom.

The families, cops and firefighters say the IFC's plan to use hallowed land at Ground Zero to highlight poverty as a barrier to freedom diminishes the tragedy of 9/11.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also voiced concern yesterday and called for a compromise ? although he didn't state flat-out opposition to the Freedom Center.

"There's got to be a way to meet the families' sincere and real needs and build a center that honors the freedom that the victims died for. We hope that the LMDC will find some common ground quickly," Schumer said.

Gov. Pataki ? who wields strong influence over the LMDC, which will soon decide the Freedom Center's fate ? is traveling abroad and has yet to take a stand on the Freedom Center's latest proposal. Pataki has said thathe won't support any plan that offers a forum for anti-Americanism.

Clinton's opposition means that the anti-IFC push is now a bipartisan cause. Three New York Republicans ? Reps. John Sweeney (Saratoga), Peter King (L.I.) and Vito Fossella (S.I.) ? are already challenging it as a "blame America first" project.

Yesterday, the trio of Republicans formally requested a congressional oversight hearing as a step toward blocking the IFC from getting any of the $2.7 billion in federal funds allocated for Ground Zero.

"The whole thing was hijacked. If you asked people on the street what they wanted at Ground Zero, this would be the last thing that they wanted," Sweeney said.




Hillary's home run

|

TAKE BACK THE MEMORIAL - VOTE IN THE NEWSDAY POLL
Topic: 9/11

I just recieved this message from
Take Back the Memorial dot Org

Newsday is conducting an online poll regarding the IFC. Vote Now! And Make Your Voice Heard!


News Day Poll

Freedom Center rejoins fight to stay at Ground Zero
BY MONTY PHAN
STAFF WRITER

September 23, 2005


A 49-page report released Thursday on a controversial plan to house a freedom museum at Ground Zero detailed how the International Freedom Center intends to address the Sept. 11 attacks as part of a wider historical context, again drawing the ire of victims' families, who say such exhibits don't belong there.

The report, which the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. had asked to be submitted by Thursday, said the Freedom Center would have exhibits dedicated to "the international outpouring of solidarity and sympathy for the victims of Sept. 11"; a tribute to "great documents of freedom," including the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta; and "The Freedom Walk," a concourse "offering a physical and emotional journey through the history of freedom as a global narrative of hope."

By choosing to examine Sept. 11 as an "essential element" of "the story of freedom," the plan has disappointed and angered many victims' families, who believe that the center is unrelated to the terror attacks. Tom Bernstein, the museum's chairman, defended the plan, saying that by telling the story of Sept. 11 "in the context of greater history," it would "honor those who were lost."

"The alternative is a very narrow one, in our view, and doesn't stand the test of time," Bernstein said.

The museum will present the plan at a meeting of the LMDC Families Advisory Council next week and at two public meetings. The LMDC then will use the feedback to determine whether it will keep the museum at the site.

Anthony Gardner, who heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families, said he doesn't object to the museum's message, but instead its location on hallowed ground. He and other family groups had hoped the museum would agree to relocate, just as the Drawing Center -- another museum that was selected to be housed at Ground Zero but that families had objected to -- already has said it would do.

"We maintain that it doesn't belong on the site," Gardner, who lost his brother Harvey Gardner in the attacks, said of the Freedom Center. "It doesn't belong on sacred ground. Politics do not belong on this sacred place."

But Bernstein said the museum never considered moving, especially because so many people had given time to "try to do the right thing" with the museum.

Poll: Freedom Center debate
Freedom Center backers say it will help people understand 9/11 sacrifices. Victims’ families say controversy surrounding the museum will dishonor the dead. Do you think it belongs at the WTC site?

1.9%
Yes, it will be a learning tool. (31 responses)

97.2%
No, the site should be used as a memorial only. (1548 responses)

0.8%
Not sure. (13 responses)

1592 total
(At the time of this post)

|

Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
You are Joshua Abraham Norton, first and only Emperor of the United States of America!

Born in England sometime in the second decade of the nineteenth century, you carved a notable business career, in South Africa and later San Francisco, until an entry into the rice market wiped out your fortune in 1854. After this, you became quite different. The first sign of this came on September 17, 1859, when you expressed your dissatisfaction with the political situation in America by declaring yourself Norton I, Emperor of the USA. You remained as such, unchallenged, for twenty-one years.

Within a month you had decreed the dissolution of Congress. When this was largely ignored, you summoned all interested parties to discuss the matter in a music hall, and then summoned the army to quell the rebellious leaders in Washington. This did not work. Magnanimously, you decreed (eventually) that Congress could remain for the time being. However, you disbanded both major political parties in 1869, as well as instituting a fine of $25 for using the abominable nickname "Frisco" for your home city.

Your days consisted of parading around your domain - the San Francisco streets - in a uniform of royal blue with gold epaulettes. This was set off by a beaver hat and umbrella. You dispensed philosophy and inspected the state of sidewalks and the police with equal aplomb. You were a great ally of the maligned Chinese of the city, and once dispersed a riot by standing between the Chinese and their would-be assailants and reciting the Lord's Prayer quietly, head bowed.

Once arrested, you were swiftly pardoned by the Police Chief with all apologies, after which all policemen were ordered to salute you on the street. Your renown grew. Proprietors of respectable establishments fixed brass plaques to their walls proclaiming your patronage; musical and theatrical performances invariably reserved seats for you and your two dogs. (As an aside, you were a good friend of Mark Twain, who wrote an epitaph for one of your faithful hounds, Bummer.) The Census of 1870 listed your occupation as "Emperor".

The Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, upon noticing the slightly delapidated state of your attire, replaced it at their own expense. You responded graciously by granting a patent of nobility to each member. Your death, collapsing on the street on January 8, 1880, made front page news under the headline "Le Roi est Mort". Aside from what you had on your person, your possessions amounted to a single sovereign, a collection of walking sticks, an old sabre, your correspondence with Queen Victoria and 1,098,235 shares of stock in a worthless gold mine. Your funeral cortege was of 30,000 people and over two miles long.

The burial was marked by a total eclipse of the sun.

(I feel oddly akin with this guy, tried to disolve Congress? And stood up for the downtrodden? Cool!)




Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
From the fecund loins of Rum and Monkey.

|

Don't Get Stuck On Stupid.
Topic: Out of Flyover Land
I have to say this is a refreshing change,
Link LGF

to Link The Political Teen

(Hat tip: Instapundit)

“You are stuck on stupid, I’m not going to answer that question”

- - General Honore to reporter."

Transcript and audio HERE
at Radioblogger.

Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters. We are moving forward. And don't confuse the people please. You are part of the public message. So help us get the message straight. And if you don't understand, maybe you'll confuse it to the people

Male reporter: General, a little bit more about why that's happening this time, though, and did not have that last time...

Honore: You are stuck on stupid. I'm not going to answer that question. We are going to deal with Rita


Lot of "Stuck on Stupid" going around these days.

Do check the links for the video AND the full text of the transcript.

Mind you this is not the ONLY time the Press has gotten chewed out by this man.

Monday, September 05, 2005

LT. GENERAL RUSSEL "RAGIN CAJUN" HONORE TAKES THE PRESS TO THE WOODSHED

"That's B.S. It's B.S.," Honore raged.

"I can tell you that is B.S. We have got 300 helicopters and some of the finest EMS workers in the world down there.

"You need to get on the streets of New Orleans, you can't sit back here and say what you hear from someone else."

Read more here
'John Wayne dude' general blasts Katrina complaints as 'B.S.'
BATON ROUGE, United States (AFP) - Lieutenant General Russel Honore lived up to his 'John Wayne dude' nickname, blasting complaints that red tape or poor security were snarling relief efforts as "B.S."

and see the press conference

HERE

|

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 7:25 PM CDT
| Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 3 June 2007 7:21 AM CDT