9/11 - Never Forget (the Liberals sure did!)

While the Obama cronies (which keep getting bigger with more looney czars added, while only one so far quit - he must have really screwed up - is that even possible in this administration - who knows, may be he's the only one who paid his taxes - that would look bad for the rest of the future crooks-in-waiting) attack everything that moves, and manage to have more lives, by hypnotizing the American public - don't look behind the curtain - while trying to recognize 9/11 without criticizing terrorists (which we can't say anymore) or offending anyone who attempted to blow us up - it's important for the intelligent people (unfortunately seems to be only those who didn't vote for the Messiah, though we are starting to see some cracks with the least amount of buyers remorse - though it seems like the "attacks" - basic pillow fights - are from those on the left, who can't believe we're not entirely Socialist by now - give it time, comrade!!!

9/11 - Never Forget!!!

Censorship Rears It's Ugly Head - Again, and Again, and...

Recently heard about the removal of a column by Pat Buchanan from MSNBCs website which extend from his current book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unneccessary War, because of an uprising of condemnation from various organizations. As Michael Calderone states from Politico.com:

"Pat Buchanan has received a lot of criticism recently for his column marking the 70th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland, where the conservative pundit questions whether Hitler has gotten a bum rap.
By extension, MSNBC, where Buchanan is a commentator, has taken heat for promoting the column on its website. In the revisionist piece -- "Did Hitler Want War?" -- Buchanan argues that other countries, such as Poland, should be held responsible for the invasion, and later escalation of World War II. Hitler, he claims, wanted peace and wasn't out for world conquest. David A. Harris, President of the National Jewish Democratic Council, condemned MSNBC's promotion of the "deplorable" column and urged that it be removed from MSNBC.com.
Well, now the network has pulled it. (Indeed, the old link is dead). Harris, in second statement, said that "MSNBC took the responsible action and removed Pat Buchanan's column," while adding that "no worthy news organization should employ and promote a commentator who engages in such vile fiction." An MSNBC spokesperson issued a statement to POLITICO: "An editorial decision was made to remove the column from msnbc.com. Pat is a contributor to MSNBC, his syndicated column does not speak for the network or represent the views of MSNBC"

While I've had an opportunity to read the column in question (it is available on Pat Buchanan's blog site, which is linked with the title, but who knows how long) - I thought there were interesting points and can see while Buchanan calls Hitler a beast, his questions have made many uncomfortable that they are even questions, and there were many areas that I had to disagree with, particularly the points that give you the impression that Hitler was "forced" to attack, and didn't want world domination at all, which I disagree with strongly, having read all the historical texts, and Mein Kampf itself. What I found most fascinating were the comments after the column - removing the absolutists who condemned Buchanan because he dare mention Hitler in any non-negative light, and those who found conspiracies other either the Germans or the Jews or (fill in the blank) to blame for all the world's ills, I recommend reading the more knowledgeable comments presenting info allowing us to debate and make our own decisions.

I personally feel Hitler was truly a madman of epic proportions, so vile in his attempt to create and preserve the master race, that all in his way must be destroyed, for him to truly feel success, and world domination was definitely on his mind, as he felt a german "motherland" including all of europe, including Russia, that no conquest would be unfathomnable - that having been said, I have a concern about censorship - any kind of censorship. Reading his article, allows us to read the comments and discussions after having read it, rather than the debate from hearing snippits or self-determined summaries of what may/may not have been said.

It's interesting, that we seem to come together when it comes to Government censorship (for the most part) but when it's a ideology, whether left or right, that is pushing for censorship, we turn the other way, ignoring the outcome. That's sad, because that is usually the most insidious of them all, and before you know it, we'll censor everything that may offend or question, or even (gasp) make someone think - and we wouldn't want to have that, would we???

My New Favorite Idiot: Melissa Lafsky

After all the lionizing of the "Liberal Lion," just when you thought every single angle has been covered, you read this from a couple of our favorite kitty litter sites, the Huffingtonpost.com and Opionistas.com, that basically states the Mary Jo Kepechne would have thought dying was worth it, for the elevation of Teddy Kennedy's career - are you kidding me? This from the person who is the new editor of Freakonomics blog with the New York Times (which used to be one of my favorite books). I am including this post entirely, as I have to believe that the aforementioned sites would have the decency to remove this column, but of course, what am I thinking, they are the Huffingtonpost.com and Opionistas.com - the more offensive, the better:

"The Footnote Speaks: What Would Mary Jo Kopechne Have Thought of Ted's Career?
Melissa Lafsky, August 27, 2009, Huffington Post

We're comfortable with moral relativism in this country -- or, at least, we love us a good "sinned and redeemed" narrative. And, for the most part, we realize that there are few lives on which we can slap a "Good" or "Evil" label and expect it to be accurate.
Which, let's face it, is one of the reasons the Ted Kennedy story is so fascinating. The huge achievements, weighed against the huge sins. Forty-six years of history-book accomplishments on everything from Civil Rights to the Americans with Disabilities Act to gender equality. Disabled? Poor? A member of any minority group? Then chances are your life is at least somewhat better because of Ted Kennedy. And for anyone who started to lose faith in the left's seeming impotence over the past decade (cough cough) he provided a pretty strong reason not to throw in the towel.
So now he's dead, and we do what we do when a Kennedy dies: read and write obsessively about him. Some of the obituaries are point-counterpoint parallels of sin with salvation. Then there are obsequious, grandiose bromides like:
He was a Rabelaisian figure in the Senate and in life, instantly recognizable by his shock of white hair, his florid, oversize face, his booming Boston brogue, his powerful but pained stride. He was a celebrity, sometimes a self-parody, a hearty friend, an implacable foe, a man of large faith and large flaws, a melancholy character who persevered, drank deeply and sang loudly. He was a Kennedy.
Good grief.
But in all the florid or scalpel-sharp prose, there's one constant: Peeking out from the center of the story is the matter of his playing a major part in the death of a 28-year-old woman.
Mary Jo wasn't a right-wing talking point or a negative campaign slogan. She was a dedicated civil rights activist and political talent with a bright future -- granted, whenever someone dies young, people sermonize about how he had a "bright future" ahead of him -- but she actually did. She wasn't afraid to defy convention (28 and unmarried, oh the horror!) or create her own career path based on her talents. She lived in Georgetown (where I grew up) and loved the Red Sox (we'll forgive her for that). Then she got in a car driven by a 36-year-old senator with an alcohol problem and a cauldron full of demons, and wound up a controversial footnote in a dynasty.
We don't know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she'd have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don't know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.
Still, ignorance doesn't preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn't automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted's death, and what she'd have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.
Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it.
This post originally appeared on Opinionistas.com."