About Me

Name: The Chopping Block
Location: Piscataway, NJ
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Brian Williams and the main stream media

No better example of why americans are turning off their nightly news--
 
From Brent Bozell--
 
The fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina recalls a horror show on two levels. There's the actual disaster, which killed hundreds of people, and then there's the media smear job on the Bush administration and first responders. No one should forget pompous grandstanders like "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams signing off three months after the floods from the Lower Ninth Ward: "This is a neighborhood that's been left to die."

How those network anchors loved hurricane hyperbole! Williams, for one, lectured the nation that the hurricane should "necessitate a national discussion on race, on oil, politics, class, infrastructure, the environment and more." He underlined that a top local radio station decided not to air President Bush's remarks from the city since "nothing he could say could ever help them deal with the dire situation unfolding live in the streets of New Orleans, where people were still dying during his visit."

It never mattered to these nattering nabobs that, as Popular Mechanics magazine documented, Katrina spurred by far the largest and fastest rescue effort in American history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall, rescuing an estimated 50,000 residents.

Not content to attack Bush on just his own program, Williams took to comedy shows to unload more spin. He lectured to Jon Stewart on how cities less black than New Orleans would have seen a lot more helicopter rescues. Williams proudly took that attack directly to Bush three months after the storm. "After the tragedy, I heard someone ask rhetorically, 'What if this had been Nantucket, Mass., or Inner Harbor Baltimore, or Chicago or Houston?' Are you convinced the response would have been the same? Was there any social or class or race aspect to the response?"

On the first anniversary of Katrina, Williams repeated the mudslinging, citing radical-left black professor Michael Eric Dyson in Bush's face: "A lot of Americans are always going to believe that that weekend, that week, you were watching something on television other than what they were seeing, and Professor Dyson from the University of Pennsylvania said on our broadcast last night it was because of your patrician upbringing, that it's a class issue."

Bush shot back: "Dyson doesn't know. I don't know Dyson, and Dyson doesn't know me."

But Williams didn't care. His cartoon was perfect.

Williams later appeared on PBS and boasted, "You can't give distance. I don't mean that in a Jets vs. Sharks way. I'm not an adversary." That's laughable. He insisted Bush "appreciates the swordfight of a crackling good conversation."

Now watch Williams "swordfight" with Barack Obama. He's gone from musketeer to Mouseketeer. On the fifth anniversary of the hurricane, Williams deferred to the statesman before him by asking about the lack of a national conversation: "Katrina was about so many things. It was about class and race and government and the environment. Whatever happened to that national conversation we were supposed to have about it?"

Is that all the toughness Williams could muster? That's how he "crackles" now? See his crackling swordfight over the BP oil spill and Obama's lack of effort: "It's getting baked in a little bit in the media that BP was President Obama's Katrina. And it's also getting baked in that the administration was slow off the mark. Is that unfair?"

What about our disastrous economy? Surely Williams would challenge Obama here. "Do you have anything new on the economy?"

Instead of tough questions, Williams felt Obama's pain that too many Americans misunderstand his religious faith: "Mr. President, you're an American-born Christian, and yet increasing and now significant numbers of Americans in polls, upwards of a fifth of respondents, are claiming you are neither. A fifth of the people, just about, believe you're a Muslim. ... This has to be troubling to you. This is, of course, all-new territory for an American president."

That's not even a question! But it's all in a day's shoeshine for Brian Williams. He loved slinging "racist, classist" mud on Bush, but he was so distraught by Obama's-a-Muslim rumors that he replayed the poor-Barry exchange a second time the next night.

Why is this arrogant partisan the leading evening-news anchor in America? He drew 7.2 million viewers last week, as the ratings continue to decline. That's not unexpected when an anchorman can't be bothered to ask tougher questions to this president than his makeup artist would.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Left's Desperation

As I read through the comments on Town Hall, I find that many of them are from left wing nut jobs that come here to spew their anger and hatred for all things conservative.  I have to say it is annoying because it seems to me that the easiest way for them to avoid all our ideas is to not come here in the first place.  I have visited huffy post and don't see much right wing nut job commenting (although to be truthful, I couldn't stand it there long enough to really search all the columnists articles.)
 
So why do they come here?  Well, it is pretty obvious and it reminds me of my younger days when I was very liberal in my thinking.  I remember my anger at the conservatives and right wingers because I perceived that they had all the power and I had none.  I would write letters to the editor lambasting the power structure and those who I perceived were abusing it.  It is apparent to me now, that the stronger the feeling of powerlessness, the stronger the anger.
 
As we head into the fall elections, look to the left to become more desperate.  Their hatred, filth and anger will be overwhelming.  I expect that we will see more of it right here on our townhall site.
 
I used to pass it by, but, as I am tiring of reading it, I have decided to respond to them.  Just like when I am driving on the highways, when I witness something really stupid and dangerous to me and my family, I blow the horn.  I do not sit back and let them think what they did was okay.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

the Jihad and Sharia law in America

 
A Jihad (religious war) has been waged against the United States  for over 30 years.  It began when Islamists overran the American embassy in Tehran in 1979.
 
The purpose of this jihad is to impose sharia law on America.   Although we are more aware of the Islamists that employ mass-murder attacks, we should be equally diligent in our battle against those that prefer a gradual takeover of our institutions — our legal, political, academic,  and financial systems, as well as our culture.  The goal of both is the same--the total destruction of american law and the imposition of sharia law on all americans. 

The success of the jihad will be the death of freedom and America as we know it.   In Islamist ideology, sharia law is used to Islamicize a society — for Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a comprehensive socio-economic and political system.  Sharia law embodies principles and punishments that are abhorrent to Western values. Its foundation is anti-American.  Islamists believe that Americans should not be a free people with liberty to govern ourselves.  They believe that all people should become Islamists and practice sharia law.

The problem with that is that Sharia is anti-freedom (no more religious freedom, no more freedom of speech etc) and anti-equality. It subjugates women and brutally punishes transgressors, particularly homosexuals and apostates. While our law forbids cruel and unusual punishments,  the brutality in sharia sanctions is not gratuitous, but intentional: It is meant to enforce Allah’s will by striking example.

Islamists, violent or not, think they have good reasons to destroy the West.  Islamists believe that they have been commanded by Allah to kill, convert, or subdue all who do not adhere to sharia law.   They believe that resistance to sharia is offensive to Allah, and that a powerful example must be made of those resisters in order to induce the submission of all — “submission” being the meaning of Islam.

We must understand that they are absolutely determined to win. There is no “moderate” sharia devotee, for sharia is not moderate.  In response to the world wide  outcry against the stoning of an Iranian woman who was convicted of adultery,  the mullahs’ great concession  was that she will be hanged instead.
 
Islamism is not a movement to be negotiated with,  it is an enemy to be defeated.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Nutty Left and Religious Freedom

I just don't understand why the left comes out swinging against Christians and their practices (Christmas etc), but stands firmly behind Muslims to practice their religion.  If you are a secularist who believes religion is so hurtful to our society, then why don't you include Muslims in your tirade?  The answer is that it has nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with perceived power.  The secularists feel that the Christians have the power and they don't like that, they want it.
 
It just seems strange that the left wingers fight like hell to keep the creche out of the town square, and fight like hell to keep the mosque in the town square.
 
Believe me, if 9/11 attackers had been Catholic, and the Pope wanted to build a Catholic church near ground zero, the left wing would have gone ballistic.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Letter to Obama--Keep It Simple Stupid

 

48 years ago, I played tight end on the school football team. In the third quarter of our last game, a nail biter that would determine the state championship, we were one touchdown ahead of the only other undefeated team in our conference, when I wrenched my knee and limped back to the huddle.  

While in our stance before the hike, the trash talk from the other team was all about targeting my injured knee in order to get me out of the game. That very play, all three defensive men in my zone went after my knee…the defensive end, the tackle and the outside linebacker. My teammates, seeing what was happening, issued their own trash talk to the other team to leave me alone, and then proceeded to gang up on the perpetrators. With the protection of my teammates, my knee was no longer singled out for destruction and we went on to win that game and the state championship.

13 years before that game, two years after WWII and shortly after the nations of the world had decided to form a new Jewish state in Palestine called Israel, a group of Arab men, all representatives of their respective country governments, sat in a room in Cairo and dedicated each of their countries to the destruction of the new Jewish state in Palestine. To that end they ordered arms and supplies for their armies and put an Iraqi general in charge of all five armies. His role was to use the armies in a coordinated effort to push the Jews into the sea and in so doing destroy Israel.

At the same time, an arab religious leader in Jerusalem was organizing the arabs in and around Palestine in his own effort to rid the land of the jews. His goal was the same, push the jews into the sea, in other words, the total wiping out of the jews in order to prevent the new jewish state from ever gaining a foothold on the land. His name was Haj Amin Husseini and he was the mufti of Jerusalem. All of Palestine’s Arab men were under his command and willing to die for him.

Both of these organizations were of the opinion that there was only one solution to the Israel situation—the state of Israel must not be allowed to begin, or once begun, not be allowed to survive—and they would use every means at their disposal to see that Israel was destroyed.

Fast forward 62 years to 2009,  the Arabs presently in power in the Mideast feel exactly the same as they did 62 years ago on the eve of the birth of Israel—that Israel has no right to be a state. They simply refuse to accept Jewish sovereignty anywhere in the land of Palestine. According to the scholar, Fouad Ajami, there is no change in the Arab attitudes towards Israel. This is a fact that Obama and his team seem to overlook, or turn a blind eye to. 

During his campaign, Obama stated his desire to sit down with the Mideast leaders and negotiate. And now, during his first 8 months, it seems that he is willing to do more than that—he seems to be messing with the commitments previous administrations have made to Israel. His constant meddling on the subject of building more settlements and his hard line on that issue, and his public position of wanting to negotiate with the Arabs,  has put Israel in a worse position than ever before, and has emboldened the Arabs. The way Arab leaders see it is that America has taken their side, or at least, if that is not an accurate assessment, has stopped standing blindly behind whatever Israel wants to do.

This change has made the situation for Israel very tenuous. If anything, it has made the tinderbox that is Israel/Arab relationships very near the firing point.

My message to Obama and his team is simple—stop all the meddling with the various logistical aspects of the peace process and make a simple statement to the world. Just like my teammates did for me, tell the Arabs—“Mess with Israel and you mess with the United States.”

It is human nature to attack the weak spot of your enemy. Arabs know this, and they see that Israel is now weaker than at any time before. One of the reasons that Israel has prospered and become one of the most successful, prosperous democratic countries in the world is that they have a teammate that was willing to threaten the enemy. If we now appear to not be the strong arm teammate we once were, Arabs will not hesitate to take advantage of the change and attack.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jane Fonda and Ted Kennedy

As a Marine veteran of the Vietnam war, I can tell you that nothing undermines the morale of the fighting man on the front line more than the arrogant, self riteous, liberal who will do anything and say anything that will advance their own guilt ridden agenda. I hold Fonda and Kennedy equally responsible for helping the morale of the north vietnamese communists. Fonda's role is well known; less known (or remembered) is Kennedy's inexcusable public attack on the military after Hamburger Hill. In my opinion it was this public attack that began the decades long downward slide of the American will to win wars.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Islamic Threat to America--Frog in the Water

Allen Hunt is right.  Islam and Sharia law is the greatest threat to our national freedom and liberty that exists for us right now.  I used to teach students that if you throw a frog into hot water, it will jump out, but if you put it in cold water and turn up the heat, it will never jump out and will die.  That analogy can be used with the threat of Islamic desires to take over America and indeed, all the freedom loving countries of the world.  Since I cannot state the danger any better than Peter Hammond, I have reprinted his information:
 

 Islam as a System

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:
The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.. www.frontlineorg.za/books_videos/sti.ht

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'

When politically correct and culturall y diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they
will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

>From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influe nce in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amste rdam - - Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

>From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- M uslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France , the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity.. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
 
Wake up America.  They are coming for you, maybe slowly, but they are coming.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Well Well, Hypocrisy at its Utmost

As reported by Drudge and Breitbart here is Pelosi saying she is a fan of those who disrupt meetings...

http://www.breitbart.tv/06-flashback-pelosi-tells-anti-war-protesters-im-a-fan-of-disruptors/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why We Are Yelling At Our Politicians

 

All the posters who think that yellers and screamers are caused by their misunderstanding of the healthcare proposal are wrong.

The reason that we are seeing such civil discord at the town hall meetings between citizens and politicians is because the average citizen is frustrated with politicians. They feel politicians are arrogant, condescending and two faced. They feel as though politicians have a habit of dismissing you as ignorant when they are answering your question. Politicians have the ability to speak cleverly and charmingly in front of an audience and the average citizen does not. They spend their lives speaking, whereas the average citizen spends his life working at a job that does not involve speaking to large crowds. 

In addition, politicians are skilled in pretending to answer the question, but not really doing it. 

Therefore, when confronted by a politician who treats audience members like a children (you do not know as much about this proposal as I do), not getting your question answered and muddying up the discourse with rambling side stories that get everyone off the subject, the average citizen becomes frustrated and some of them resort to yelling. It’s their only weapon

Talk show hosts, newscasters and opinion makers are asking all the yellers and disrupters to stop and ask questions and enter into a dialogue. The problem with that is that it will then allow the politicians to sweet talk, double talk, and basically say nothing.

And what is wrong with that you say---Well, then the politicians will never get the message about how angry we really all are about socialized medicine being jammed down our throats.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The 1984 Woodstock Crowd and Pelosi

It was ok for the Woodstock crowd to tear down fences, overwhelm the town of Woodstock, allow drugs all through the concert, scream at police and forment violence against the Vietnam War, but that same group, now in their 60s, and as liberal as they ever were, doesn't want their opponents to use the same tactics they did during the 60s and early 70s.  No, for the right wing opponents of health care and socialism in general to use the very same tactics as the radical liberals did is somehow now "un-american".  The very same liberals who just recently defended their protests of Bush with "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism", now feel as though dissent is unamerican.  They want to stifle dissent.  To them, to protest their policies is to be a Nazi.
 
I always thought that the book 1984 represented right wing policies of crushing individualism and blind following of the State, but I am now convinced that it actually better represents the left wing agenda.
 
Big Sister is Watching
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Suing Your Alma Mater

So the young lady got a college degree and now can't find a job.  During a recession.  During one of the driest employment markets in recent history.  So, let's sue the school for false promises.

That is ridiculous.  The college is there to provide an education, not a job.  Career Services is just one of the many services provided by a college, not a guarantee of job placement.  They bring opportunities to the campus but they don't force recruiters to hire their students.  There are several reasons why she might not have a job, in addition to the lousy economy:

1.  Monroe is a terrible school.  It offers combined GED/AA degrees as well as BA degrees and boasts a liberal admissions policy.  You can either take classes on the Bronx or New Rochelle campus or take your classes online through distance education.  You can get your high school diploma and an associates degree in 13 months!
2.  Lets see her grades.  Maybe she has bad grades from a crappy school.
3.  Her whiny attitude.  If she sues the college over this, maybe she'd sue her employer if someone got a promotion over her.

I wouldn't hire her, would you?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Beer

 

Obama’s invitation to Police Officer Crowley to have a beer with him and Professor Gates (and I phrase it that way on purpose) is very much the same situation that happened to me while working at a large university here on the East Coast. 

Having been publicly and verbally abused by a management coworker for actions I took that I believed to be in the best interest of the students, but were diametrically opposed to his philosophies, I was invited by our boss to meet with him in order to “talk over” our differences. It became immediately clear that my boss sided with my co-worker and the conversation was a farce with the two of them speaking to me with similar arguments and philosophies, and me listening. It is hard to negotiate with a co worker who has the exact same position as your boss and your boss is right there across the table from you. It was clear from the beginning that this was not kiss and make up, but more like, “don’t you see where you were wrong and he was right”. Done politely and courteously, but still, when it comes from your boss, you have to listen. 

This will not be a two way conversation between Gates and Crowley. It makes no difference whether beer is served or not. Officer Crowley is in a situation where it is 2 on 1 and the best he can do is to keep his mouth shut.

Good luck officer. You are going to need it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Respecting the Cops

In the summer of 1973, just 3 short years after leaving Vietnam and the Marine Corps, I attended the Watkins Glen Summer Concert along with 600,000 others.  On the way back, I stopped my Ford Van to pick up some hitchhikers and was pulled over by a New York State Trooper.  He approached my driver's side window and bellowed at me "Do you always stop in the middle of the road, sweetheart".
 
Well, the only thing I heard was "sweetheart" a derogatory term used by Marine Drill Instructors to berate boot camp privates.  I guess it might be akin to the N.. word amongst us Marines.  Anyway, I immediately went on the offensive and told him "Don't call me sweetheart, I'm a Marine Vietnam veteran and..."  That was as far as I got.  He reached two burly arms through the window and tried to drag me out through the opening.  Failing that, he yanked the van door open and pulled me out, threw me face first up against the side of the van and drove one knee into my back to hold me there.  Then, yelling to every one of the hitchhikers to "freeze", he proceeded to pile them all into the van and told me to follow him. 
 
With his car in front and two state trooper cars behind me, he took me to a school house where hundreds and hundreds of people sat around outside waiting, as it turned out, for their time before the judge who had set up court in the gym.
 
The trip to the court took about 10 minutes and I guess in that time he had a chance to think about what I had said to him because when we got there, he came up to me and told me that he was taking me to the front of the line.  He told the judge I was a Marine veteran.  I paid my fine and left.
 
Lesson:  when stopped by the police, shut your mouth, answer their questions, and respect them and what they are trying to do.
 
To bad Professor Gates and President Obama didn't learn that lesson long ago.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Real and Present Danger to America--EMP Attack Would Leave Millions Dead Within Weeks

For all my concerns about education, military strategy, intelligence failures, cultural deterioration, etc, this danger may well be the biggest and most fearful of all.  And as the writer points out, if we are indeed transported back in time to the 1880s, we are ripe for an immediate invasion by China who would overwhelm Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Austrailia, and New Zealand while Russia overwhelms Europe.  Goodbye to the West!! 
 
 
Unready For This Attack

By Jon Kyl
Saturday, April 16, 2005; Page A19

Recently a Senate Judiciary subcommittee of which I am chairman held a hearing on a major threat to the American people, one that could come not only from terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda but from rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea.

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the American homeland, said one of the distinguished scientists who testified at the hearing, is one of only a few ways that the United States could be defeated by its enemies -- terrorist or otherwise. And it is probably the easiest. A single Scud missile, carrying a single nuclear weapon, detonated at the appropriate altitude, would interact with the Earth's atmosphere, producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating down to the surface at the speed of light. Depending on the location and size of the blast, the effect would be to knock out already stressed power grids and other electrical systems across much or even all of the continental United States, for months if not years. Few if any people would die right away. But the loss of power would have a cascading effect on all aspects of U.S. society. Communication would be largely impossible. Lack of refrigeration would leave food rotting in warehouses, exacerbated by a lack of transportation as those vehicles still working simply ran out of gas (which is pumped with electricity). The inability to sanitize and distribute water would quickly threaten public health, not to mention the safety of anyone in the path of the inevitable fires, which would rage unchecked. And as we have seen in areas of natural and other disasters, such circumstances often result in a fairly rapid breakdown of social order.

American society has grown so dependent on computer and other electrical systems that we have created our own Achilles' heel of vulnerability, ironically much greater than those of other, less developed nations. When deprived of power, we are in many ways helpless, as the New York City blackout made clear. In that case, power was restored quickly because adjacent areas could provide help. But a large-scale burnout caused by a broad EMP attack would create a much more difficult situation. Not only would there be nobody nearby to help, it could take years to replace destroyed equipment.

Transformers for regional substations, for example, are massive pieces of equipment that are no longer manufactured in the United States and typically take more than a year to build. In the words of another witness at the hearing, "The longer the basic outage, the more problematic and uncertain the recovery of any [infrastructure system] will be. It is possible -- indeed, seemingly likely -- for sufficiently severe functional outages to become mutually reinforcing, until a point at which the degradation . . . could have irreversible effects on the country's ability to support any large fraction of its present human population." Those who survived, he said, would find themselves transported back to the United States of the 1880s.

This threat may sound straight out of Hollywood, but it is very real. CIA Director Porter Goss recently testified before Congress about nuclear material missing from storage sites in Russia that may have found its way into terrorist hands, and FBI Director Robert Mueller has confirmed new intelligence that suggests al Qaeda is trying to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. Iran has surprised intelligence analysts by describing the mid-flight detonations of missiles fired from ships on the Caspian Sea as "successful" tests. North Korea exports missile technology around the world; Scuds can easily be purchased on the open market for about $100,000 apiece.

A terrorist organization might have trouble putting a nuclear warhead "on target" with a Scud, but it would be much easier to simply launch and detonate in the atmosphere. No need for the risk and difficulty of trying to smuggle a nuclear weapon over the border or hit a particular city. Just launch a cheap missile from a freighter in international waters -- al Qaeda is believed to own about 80 such vessels -- and make sure to get it a few miles in the air.

Fortunately, hardening key infrastructure systems and procuring vital backup equipment such as transformers is both feasible and -- compared with the threat -- relatively inexpensive, according to a comprehensive report on the EMP threat by a commission of prominent experts. But it will take leadership by the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies, along with support from Congress, all of which have yet to materialize.

The Sept. 11 commission report stated that our biggest failure was one of "imagination." No one imagined that terrorists would do what they did on Sept. 11. Today few Americans can conceive of the possibility that terrorists could bring our society to its knees by destroying everything we rely on that runs on electricity. But this time we've been warned, and we'd better be prepared to respond.

The writer is a Republican senator from Arizona and chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security.


 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Growing Menace of China

From a British Newspaper
 

I think I am probably going to die any minute now. An inflamed, deceived mob of about 50 desperate men are crowding round the car, some trying to turn it over, others beating at it with large rocks, all yelling insults and curses.

They have just started to smash the windows. Next, they will pull us out and, well, let's not think about that ...

I am trying not to meet their eyes, but they are staring at me and my companions with rage and hatred such as I haven't seen in a human face before. Those companions, Barbara Jones and Richard van Ryneveld, are - like me - quite helpless in the back seats.

If we get out, we will certainly be beaten to death. If we stay where we are, we will probably be beaten to death.

Our two African companions have - crazily in our view - got out of the car to try to reason with the crowd. It is clear to us that you might as well preach non-violence to a tornado.

At last, after what must have been about 40 seconds but that felt like half an hour, one of the pair saw sense, leapt back into the car and reversed wildly down the rocky, dusty path - leaving his friend behind.

By the grace of God we did not slither into the ditch, roll over or burst a tyre. Through the dust we churned up as we fled, we could see our would-be killers running with appalling speed to catch up. There was just time to make a crazy two-point turn which allowed us to go forwards and so out-distance them.

We had pretty much abandoned our other guide to whatever his fate might be (this was surprisingly easy to justify to myself at the time) when we saw that he had broken free and was running with Olympic swiftness, just ahead of pursuers half hidden by the dust.

We flung open a rear door so he could scramble in and, engine grinding, we veered off, bouncing painfully over the ruts and rocks.

We feared there would be another barricade to stop our escape, and it would all begin again. But there wasn't, and we eventually realised we had got away, even the man whose idiocy nearly got us killed.

He told us it was us they wanted, not him, or he would never have escaped. We ought to be dead. We are not. It is an interesting feeling, not wholly unpleasant.

Why did they want to kill us? What was the reason for their fury? They thought that if I reported on their way of life they might lose their livings.

Livings? Dyings, more likely.

A Chinese supervisor cajoles local workers as they dig a trench in Kabwe, Zambia

Peking power: A Chinese supervisor cajoles local workers as they dig a trench in Kabwe, Zambia

 

These poor, hopeless, angry people exist by grubbing for scraps of cobalt and copper ore in the filth and dust of abandoned copper mines in Congo, sinking perilous 80ft shafts by hand, washing their finds in cholera-infected streams full of human filth, then pushing enormous two-hundredweight loads uphill on ancient bicycles to the nearby town of Likasi where middlemen buy them to sell on, mainly to Chinese businessmen hungry for these vital metals.

To see them, as they plod miserably past, is to be reminded of pictures of unemployed miners in Thirties Britain, stumbling home in the drizzle with sacks of coal scraps gleaned from spoil heaps.

Except that here the unsparing heat makes the labour five times as hard, and the conditions of work and life are worse by far than any known in England since the 18th Century.

Many perish as their primitive mines collapse on them, or are horribly injured without hope of medical treatment. Many are little more than children. On a good day they may earn $3, which just supports a meagre existence in diseased, malarial slums.

We had been earlier to this awful pit, which looked like a penal colony in an ancient slave empire.

Defeated, bowed figures toiled endlessly in dozens of hand-dug pits. Their faces, when visible, were blank and without hope.

We had been turned away by a fat, corrupt policeman who pretended our papers weren't in order, but who was really taking instructions from a dead-eyed, one-eared gangmaster who sat next to him.

By the time we returned with more official permits, the gangmasters had readied the ambush.

The diggers feared - and their evil, sinister bosses had worked hard on that fear - that if people like me publicised their filthy way of life, then the mine might be closed and the $3 a day might be taken away.

I can give you no better explanation in miniature of the wicked thing that I believe is now happening in Africa.

Out of desperation, much of the continent is selling itself into a new era of corruption and virtual slavery as China seeks to buy up all the metals, minerals and oil she can lay her hands on: copper for electric and telephone cables, cobalt for mobile phones and jet engines - the basic raw materials of modern life.

It is crude rapacity, but to Africans and many of their leaders it is better than the alternative, which is slow starvation.

Congolese risk their lives digging through mountains of mining waste looking for scraps of metal ore

The Congolese risk their lives digging through mountains of mining waste looking for scraps of metal ore

 

It is my view - and not just because I was so nearly killed - that China's cynical new version of imperialism in Africa is a wicked enterprise.

China offers both rulers and the ruled in Africa the simple, squalid advantages of shameless exploitation.

For the governments, there are gargantuan loans, promises of new roads, railways, hospitals and schools - in return for giving Peking a free and tax-free run at Africa's rich resources of oil, minerals and metals.

For the people, there are these wretched leavings, which, miserable as they are, must be better than the near-starvation they otherwise face.

Persuasive academics advised me before I set off on this journey that China's scramble for Africa had much to be said for it. They pointed out China needs African markets for its goods, and has an interest in real economic advance in that broken continent.

For once, they argued, a foreign intervention in Africa might work precisely because it is so cynical and self-interested. They said Western aid, with all its conditions, did little to create real advances in Africa, laughing as they declared: 'The only country that ever got rich through donations is the Vatican.'

Why get so het up about African corruption anyway? Is it really so much worse than corruption in Russia or India?

Is it really our business to try to act as missionaries of purity? Isn't what we call 'corruption' another name for what Africans view as looking after their families?

And what about China herself? Despite the country's convulsive growth and new wealth, it still suffers gravely from poverty and backwardness, as I have seen for myself in its dingy sweatshops, the primitive electricity-free villages of Canton, the dark and squalid mining city of Datong and the cave-dwelling settlements that still rely on wells for their water.

After the murderous disaster of Mao, and the long chaos that went before, China longs above all for stable prosperity. And, as one genial and open-minded Chinese businessman said to me in Congo as we sat over a beer in the decayed colonial majesty of Lubumbashi's Belgian-built Park Hotel: 'Africa is China's last hope.'

I find this argument quite appealing, in theory. Britain's own adventures in Africa were not specially benevolent, although many decent men did what they could to enforce fairness and justice amid the bigotry and exploitation.

Chinese building workers in Zambia

Taking over: Chinese building workers in Zambia

 

It is noticeable that in much former British territory we have left behind plenty of good things and habits that are absent in the lands once ruled by rival empires.

Even so, with Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Uganda on our conscience, who are we to lecture others?

I chose to look at China's intervention in two countries, Zambia and the 'Democratic Republic of the Congo', because they lie side by side; because one was once British and the other Belgian.

Also, in Zambia's imperfect but functioning democracy, there is actual opposition to the Chinese presence, while in the despotic Congo, opposition to President Joseph Kabila is unwise, to put it mildly.

Congo is barely a state at all, and still hosts plenty of fighting not all that far from here.

Statues and images of Joseph's murdered father Laurent are everywhere in an obvious attempt to create a cult of personality on which stability may one day be based. Portraits of Joseph himself scowl from every wall.

I have decided not to name most of the people who spoke to me, even though some of them gave me permission to do so, because I am not sure they know just how much of a risk they may be running by criticising the Chinese in Africa.

I know from personal experience with Chinese authority that Peking regards anything short of deep respect as insulting, and it does not forget a slight.

I also know that this over-sensitive vigilance is present in Africa.

The Mail on Sunday team was reported to the authorities in Zambia's Copper Belt by Chinese managers who had seen us taking photographs of a graveyard at Chambishi where 54 victims of a disaster in a Chinese-run explosives factory are buried. Within an hour, local 'security' officials were buzzing round us trying to find out what we were up to.

This is why I have some time for the Zambian opposition politician Michael Sata, known as 'King Cobra' because of his fearless combative nature (but also, say his opponents, because he is so slippery).

Sata has challenged China's plans to invest in Zambia, and is publicly suspicious of them. At elections two years ago, the Chinese were widely believed to have privately threatened to pull out of the country if he won, and to have helped the government parties win.

Peking regards Zambia as a great prize, alongside its other favoured nations of Sudan (oil), Angola (oil) and Congo (metals).

Peter Hitchens with Michael Sata

Fighting back: Peter Hitchens with Michael Sata, the opposition politician nicknamed 'King Cobra'

 

It has cancelled Zambia's debts, eased Zambian exports to China, established a 'special economic zone' in the Copper Belt, offered to build a sports stadium, schools, a hospital and an anti-malaria centre as well as providing scholarships and dispatching experts to help with agriculture. Zambia-China trade is growing rapidly, mainly in the form of copper.

All this has aroused the suspicions of Mr Sata, a populist politician famous for his blunt, combative manner and his harsh, biting attacks on opponents, and who was once a porter who swept the platforms at Victoria Station in London.

Now the leader of the Patriotic Front, with a respectable chance of winning a presidential election set for the end of October, Sata says: 'The Chinese are not here as investors, they are here as invaders.

'They bring Chinese to come and push wheelbarrows, they bring Chinese bricklayers, they bring Chinese carpenters, Chinese plumbers. We have plenty of those in Zambia.'

This is true. In Lusaka and in the Copper Belt, poor and lowly Chinese workers, in broad-brimmed straw hats from another era, are a common sight at mines and on building sites, as are better-dressed Chinese supervisors and technicians.

There are Chinese restaurants and Chinese clinics and Chinese housing compounds - and a growing number of Chinese flags flapping over factories and smelters.

'We don't need to import labourers from China,' Sata says. 'We need to import people with skills we don't have in Zambia. The Chinese are not going to train our people in how to push wheelbarrows.'

He meets me in the garden of his not specially grand house in the old-established and verdant Rhodes Park section of Lusaka. It is guarded by uniformed security men, its walls protected by barbed wire and broken glass.

'Wherever our Chinese "brothers" are they don't care about the local workers,' he complains, alleging that Chinese companies have lax safety procedures and treat their African workers like dirt.

In language which seems exaggerated, but which will later turn out to be at least partly true, he claims: 'They employ people in slave conditions.'

He also accuses Chinese overseers of frequently beating up Zambians. His claim is given force by a story in that morning's Lusaka newspapers about how a Zambian building worker in Ndola, in the Copper Belt, was allegedly beaten unconscious by four Chinese co-workers angry that he had gone to sleep on the job.

I later checked this account with the victim's relatives in an Ndola shanty town and found it to be true.

Chinese sign in Zambia

Evidence of China is never very far away

 

Recently, a government minister, Alice Simago, was shown weeping on TV after she saw at first hand the working conditions at a Chinese-owned coal mine in the Southern Province.

When I contacted her, she declined to speak to me about this - possibly because criticism of the Chinese is not welcome among most of the Zambian elite.

Denis Lukwesa, deputy general secretary of the Zambian Mineworkers' Union, also backed up Sata's view, saying: 'They just don't understand about safety. They are more interested in profit.'

As for their general treatment of African workers, Lukwesa says he knows of cases where Chinese supervisors have kicked Zambians. He summed up their attitude like this: 'They are harsh to Zambians, and they don't get on well with them.'

Sata warns against the enormous loans and offers of help with transport, schools and health care with which Peking now sweetens its attempts to buy up Africa's mineral reserves.

'China's deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo is, in my opinion, corruption,' he says, comparing this with Western loans which require strong measures against corruption.

Everyone in Africa knows China's Congo deal - worth almost £5billion in loans, roads, railways, hospitals and schools - was offered after Western experts demanded tougher anti-corruption measures in return for more aid.

Sata knows the Chinese are unpopular in his country. Zambians use a mocking word - 'choncholi' - to describe the way the Chinese speak. Zambian businessmen gossip about the way the Chinese live in separate compounds, where - they claim - dogs are kept for food.

There are persistent rumours, which cropped up in almost every conversation I had in Zambia, that many of the imported Chinese workforce are convicted criminals whom China wants to offload in Africa. I was unable to confirm this but, given China's enormous gulag and the harshness of life for many migrant workers, it is certainly not impossible.

Sata warns that 'sticks and stones' may one day fly if China does not treat Zambians better. He now promises a completely new approach: 'I used to sweep up at your Victoria Station, and I never got any complaints about my work. I want to sweep my country even cleaner than I swept your stations.'

Some Africa experts tend to portray Sata as a troublemaker. His detractors whisper that he is a mouthpiece for Taiwan, which used to be recognised by many African states but which faces almost total isolation thanks to Peking's new Africa policy.

But his claims were confirmed by a senior worker in Chambishi, scene of the 2005 explosion. This man, whom I will call Thomas, is serious, experienced and responsible. His verdict on the Chinese is devastating.

He recalls the aftermath of the blast, when he had the ghastly task of collecting together what remained of the men who died: 'Zambia, a country of 11million people, went into official mourning for this disaster.

'A Chinese supervisor said to me in broken English, "In China, 5,000 people die, and there is nothing. In Zambia, 50 people die and everyone is weeping." To them, 50 people are nothing.'

This sort of thing creates resentment. Earlier this year African workers at the new Chinese smelter at Chambishi rioted over low wages and what they thought were unsafe working conditions.

When Chinese President Hu Jintao came to Zambia in 2006, he had to cancel a visit to the Copper Belt for fear of hostile demonstrations. Thomas says: 'The people who advised Hu Jintao not to come were right.'

He suspects Chinese arrogance and brutality towards Africans is not racial bigotry, but a fear of being seen to be weak. 'They are trying to prove they are not inferior to the West. They are trying too hard.

'If they ask you to do something and you don't do it, they think you're not doing it because they aren't white. People put up with the kicks and blows because they need work to survive.'

Many in Africa also accuse the Chinese of unconcealed corruption. This is specially obvious in the 'Democratic Republic of the Congo', currently listed as the most corrupt nation on Earth.

A North-American businessman who runs a copper smelting business in Katanga Province told me how his firm tried to obey safety laws.

They are constantly targeted by official safety inspectors because they refuse to bribe them. Meanwhile, Chinese enterprises nearby get away with huge breaches of the law - because they paid bribes.

'We never pay,' he said, 'because once you pay you become their b**tch; you will pay for ever and ever.'

Another businessman shrugged over the way he is forced to wait weeks to get his products out of the country, while the Chinese have no such problems.

'I'm not sure the Chinese even know there are customs regulations,' he said. 'They don't fill in the forms, they just pay. I try to be philosophical about it, but it is not easy.'

Unlike orderly Zambia, Congo is a place of chaos, obvious privation, tyranny dressed up as democracy for public-relations purposes, and fear.

This is Katanga, the mineral-rich slice of land fought over furiously in the early Sixties in post-colonial Africa's first civil war. Brooding over its capital, Lubumbashi, is a 400ft black hill: the accumulated slag and waste of 80 years of copper mining and smelting.

Now, thanks to a crazy rise in the price of copper and cobalt, the looming, sinister mound is being quarried - by Western business, by the Chinese and by bands of Congolese who grub and scramble around it searching for scraps of copper or traces of cobalt, smashing lumps of slag with great hammers as they hunt for any way of paying for that night's supper.

As dusk falls and the shadows lengthen, the scene looks like the blasted land of Mordor in Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings: a pre-medieval prospect of hopeless, condemned toil in pits surrounded by stony desolation.

Behind them tower the leaning ruins of colossal abandoned factories: monuments to the wars and chaos that have repeatedly passed this way.

There is something strange and unsettling about industrial scenes in Africa, pithead winding gear and gaunt chimneys rising out of tawny grasslands dotted with anthills and banana palms. It looks as if someone has made a grave mistake.

And there is a lesson for colonial pride and ambition in the streets of Lubumbashi - 80 years ago an orderly Art Deco city full of French influence and supervised by crisply starched gendarmes, now a genial but volatile chaos of scruffy, bribe-hunting traffic cops where it is not wise to venture out at night.

The once-graceful Belgian buildings, gradually crumbling under thick layers of paint, long ago lost their original purpose.

Outsiders come and go in Africa, some greedy, some idealistic, some halfway between. Time after time, they fail or are defeated, leaving behind scars, slag-heaps, ruins and graveyards, disillusion and disappointment.

We have come a long way from Cecil Rhodes to Bob Geldof, but we still have not brought much happiness with us, and even Nelson Mandela's vaunted 'Rainbow Nation' in South Africa is careering rapidly towards banana republic status.

Now a new great power, China, is scrambling for wealth, power and influence in this sad continent, without a single illusion or pretence.

Perhaps, after two centuries of humbug, this method will work where all other interventions have failed.

But after seeing the bitter, violent desperation unleashed in the mines of Likasi, I find it hard to believe any good will come of it.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »