“Keep America American” may not be a very catchy slogan, but who can condemn the goal of seeking to preserve the great American culture? Chris Matthews can and did when he characterized the Mitt Romney slogan as calling for a return of the days of the Ku Klux Klan. Apparently, Matthews’ opinion of his country is the same as that of a certain Reverend from a certain Black Liberation Theology church in Chicago. There once was a time when Democrats and Republicans alike were equally and unabashedly proud of their country and clearly pro-American. Sadly, this is no longer the case.
Michelle Obama said she was never proud to be an American until her husband won the nomination of the Democratic Party and promised to transform America into something it never was. There once was a time when this alone would have doomed his candidacy. Sadly, this is no longer the case.
On September 11, 2001 the United States was viciously attacked by an external enemy. Like Pearl; Harbor, it came as a surprise and killed approximately the same number of people. Like Pearl Harbor, the nation came together, united around a common foe. But it was different this time. Some first responders refused to ride in fire trucks that displayed the American flag. Some apartment dwellers brought action against their neighbors for hanging the flag from their windows. A high school student proudly turned her back on the flag and remained silent as the rest of her class recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
There was a time when a proliferation of such anti-American incidents would not have followed an event like 911. Sadly, this is no longer the case.
These attitudes are rare among Republicans. They seem to come almost entirely from the Democratic side. Where are the good old Democrats who loved their land and wanted to improve it, not transform it? Where are you? The radicals have stolen your party. Stand up and take it back. Your country needs you.
Image via Wikipedia
Paul Krugman couldn’t bring himself to say one single decent thing about one single human being in his New York Times column on the tenth anniversary of the World Trade Center tragedy. Thousands of real heroes, 2.977 victims, every one innocent, a solemn day of remembrance and this Nobel Prize winner cannot put his ideology aside to say one word in honor of the dead. He uses the day only to vent his anger. Hate consumes a man’s soul.
Forgive me for my immodesty, but I ask you to compare what this high school graduate wrote in the post below to what the New York Times just published by a Princeton professor with a PHD. Now tell me, if you were the publisher of the world’s paper of record, which writer would you hire and which one would you fire? Would you go with the PHD or the common man?
Here at Random Thots we often call the New York Times to task. To be fair, the Times also does some wonderful work. We borrow from them today because they have written a series of 911 tributes that is beyond our meager resources to produce.
To catch her early flight on Sept. 11, Amy E. Toyen arose in Boston at 4 a.m. so she could arrive in New York City at 6:45 a.m., in plenty of time to attend the trade show in Windows on the World at 1 World Trade Center. Ms. Toyen, 24, was demonstrating a software product of her company, Thomson Financial in Boston, when her fiancé, Jeffrey Gonski, got a call at 8:58 a.m. — his caller ID showed it was her cellphone — but when he answered, no one was there.
They were engaged to be married next June 16. Mr. Gonski had met Ms. Toyen at their alma mater, Bentley College in Waltham, Mass., and had managed to pull off an elaborate proposal. Last spring he planned a vacation with her to Canada, then surprised her at the airport with a flight for two to Ireland — her favorite place. Then he stunned her again by proposing there, in a romantic locale on the Dingle Peninsula. How could she possibly have said no?
“We had just ordered her wedding dress,” said her father, Martin Toyen. “She was so happy in her life — a woman in love, who loved her job.
The one thing I will not forget was a cell phone conversation from a young Asian girl talking to her mother and complaining of the unbearable heat. Cast modesty aside, her mother said, take off your top. The girl replied, I can’t. I tried, but it’s melted into my skin and my skin comes off with it. Then the building fell.
911 is very real to me. I keep my photo ID for Building 2 on my desk. We should never forget.
When you see a headline like this one from the Baltimore Sun, “Republicans deny medical aid to 9/11 First Responders ” the first thought that should come to anyone’s mind is – why? And there is always a reason why. But it often takes some effort to find it.
In this case, the first thing that came to my mind is “no they don’t”. The headline is a not so subtle propagandic phrase. What the Republicans are denying is this particular proposition for expansion of certain medical benefits. There are just four objectives that drive political actions, power, money, election/re-election and the good of the country. Meanness does not further any of these objectives; however, painting your opponent as being mean, does.
Democrats could have passed the bill in July. Democrats controlled the Senate; Democrats controlled the House. The party that controls the House sets the House procedural rules for each bill. The vote was 255 in favor to 159 opposed. Why didn’t it pass? The New York Times explained
“Democrats used rules requiring a wider majority for approval to prevent Republicans from offering amendments on the floor that would embarrass Democrats in an election year”
And further stated,
“the federal government has been appropriating money on an annual basis to monitor the health of people injured at ground zero and to provide them with medical treatment. But the bill’s supporters said there were problems with the year-to-year approach, including that money for the program was subject to the political whims of Congress and the White House.
So, if we are to believe the New York Times, it was the procedural rules set by Democrats in charge that killed the bill. And it was done to prevent certain “embarrassments” to Democrats in an election year. See above, paragraph 2, objective 3, “election/re-election.”
Also according to the Times, the 911 first responders have been getting funds from the federal government all along. No one, neither Republicans nor Democrats have denied medical benefits to these heroes. The bill is less about the first responders (objective 4) than it is about power, money and election/re-election (objectives 1 to 3).