No Thanks, Joan Baez

(AP Photo)

Joan Baez smiles in 1967.

October 16-20, 1967: Stop the Draft Week organizers lead 3000 marchers to the Oakland Army Induction Center on October 16, 1967. The sitting protesters force draftees to climb over them in order to get inside the building. As inductees enter protesters hand them leaflets, ask them to change their minds and to refuse induction and join the protest. When marchers refuse police orders to leave, police attack them with nightsticks, injuring 20. Forty demonstrators are arrested, including the folk singer Joan Baez.

It always amuses me when Vietnam era hardcore Lefties are baffled when they're held accountable for their past behavior.

John Kerry



Jane Fonda

Joan Baez

From The Washington Post:

When rocker John Mellencamp performed for the recovering soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on Friday night, a couple of things were missing. He squelched his typically blistering rhetoric against the war in Iraq. Also MIA, as it turned out, was folkie and antiwar activist Joan Baez, who says she was disinvited from the event by Army officials.

In a letter that appears today in The Washington Post, Baez says Mellencamp had wanted her to perform with him and that she had accepted his invitation.

"I have always been an advocate for nonviolence," she writes, "and I have stood as firmly against the Iraq war as I did the Vietnam War 40 years ago. . . . I realize now that I might have contributed to a better welcome home for those soldiers fresh from Vietnam. Maybe that's why I didn't hesitate to accept the invitation to sing for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"In the end, four days before the concert, I was not 'approved' by the Army to take part. Strange irony."

Strange?

What's strange?

Is it strange that the Army remembers how Baez lambasted the soldiers serving in Vietnam and how she spat at them, figuratively speaking, upon their return home?

Where's the irony?

I don't find it ironic that she's being held accountable for her disgraceful behavior.

Reached by telephone yesterday at her home in Menlo Park, Calif., Baez, 66, said she wasn't told why she was given the boot, but speculated, "There might have been one, there might have been 50 [soldiers] that thought I was a traitor."

Oh, poor baby Baez. She's a victim.

Boo hoo.

Read the details on the arrangements and contract for the Baez appearance at Walter Reed here.

..."One of my more cynical friends said, 'They let the rats in, why not you?' " Baez said, laughing, referring to a recent exposé of living conditions at Walter Reed.

And she wonders why she wasn't welcome?

...After the concert, Baez said, Mellencamp left her a message to say, "I hope you're not mad at me." Her response: " 'Of course not. It's an honor to be turned down by the Army.' . . . But I would have been happier getting in . . . I thought times had changed enough."

So what exactly happened?

The answer -- since Walter Reed's officials aren't talking -- is blowin' in the wind. (Sorry, we couldn't resist.)

I don't care what happened.

What bugs me is that these fringe Lefties think that they can divorce themselves from their past actions.

What's she talking about when she says, "I thought times had changed enough"?

Does she mean she thought the Army had forgotten?

Obviously, it didn't.

Here is the Baez letter to the Editor that appears in The Post today.

She writes:

Regarding the April 28 Style article "At Walter Reed, Mellencamp Shuts His Mouth and Sings":

Recently, John Mellencamp invited me to be his guest at a concert for recovering soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I said yes immediately. Only later did I realize how the passage of time had informed my decision to join him.

I have always been an advocate for nonviolence, and I have stood as firmly against the Iraq war as I did the Vietnam War 40 years ago. During that war, I could not, in good conscience, have "sung for the troops." Doing so would have meant condoning a war that was tearing soldiers, civilians, this country, Vietnam and, in some senses, the world, apart. I do not regret that decision.

What I do regret is having ignored the needs of the men and women who returned from Vietnam. For some who were relatively unscathed, it seemed possible to get on with life, with or without all of their limbs intact.

But it's clear that, for many, returning was hell.

I realize now that I might have contributed to a better welcome home for those soldiers fresh from Vietnam. Maybe that's why I didn't hesitate to accept the invitation to sing for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the end, four days before the concert, I was not "approved" by the Army to take part. Strange irony.

JOAN BAEZ
Menlo Park, Calif.

I don't get her reasoning.

Baez is as against the war in Iraq as the one in Vietnam.

Forty years ago, she "could not, in good conscience, have 'sung for the troops'" because that would have meant condoning the war. To this day, she doesn't regret her decision to turn her back on the troops.

Yet, Baez wanted to sing for the wounded troops from the Iraq war. Wouldn't that be condoning that war?

Many liberals don't understand the notion of personal responsibility. They don't get that actions have consequences.

I wonder why Baez felt it was necessary to go public with this.

Why make a big deal out of being banned from performing?

Is she trying to embarrass the Army?

She's not. She's embarrassing herself.

Strange irony?

Milwaukee School Board: NO HANDCUFFS

A program allowing limited use of flexible handcuffs to restrain violent students in the Milwaukee Public Schools had a very brief life.

The flexicuffs proposal set off a firestorm of criticism.

All that outrage has been rewarded by the Board's vote to drop the flexicuffs policy.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The new Milwaukee School Board voted late Tuesday night to repeal the approval the prior board gave less than two weeks ago to allow handcuffs to be used by safety aides on out-of-control students.

The action came on a 5-4 vote at 11:25 p.m., after a five-hour meeting.

Five hours! Yikes!

The action approved Tuesday night calls for board President Peter Blewett to appoint a task force on safety and violence to report back to the board in July and for a permanent board committee on safety to be created.

A task force and a committee is a circuitous route to take to make the schools safer.

...The handcuff policy has sparked lengthy debate in recent weeks, with many school officials saying it would be a tool that school safety aides need to deal with increased violence while opponents, largely from African-American organizations, said it would make things worse.

Where are the African-American organizations when it comes to addressing all the violence at MPS?

Cue the crickets.

...A letter calling for the handcuff proposal to be repealed, signed by two state senators and seven state representatives, was read to the board by state Sen. Lena Taylor.

The letter says, "The use of flexicuffs to restrain students adds a criminal stigma to what may in most cases be an emotional loss of control."

Safety aides would not be adequately trained to use the plastic cuffs and MPS would be vulnerable to lawsuits, the letter says.

The signers are Taylor and Sen. Spencer Coggs and state Reps. Pedro Colón, Jason Fields, Tamara Grigsby, Frederick Kessler, Barbara Toles, Annette Polly Williams and Leon Young. All are Democrats from Milwaukee. Several were present at the meeting.

This "criminal stigma" stuff is a joke.

Act like a thug then you get treated like one. That's not a stigma. That's a consequence.

If "an emotional loss of control" means that a student is putting others in danger, then such an outburst calls for action and restraints.

In the larger community, violence is often born of "an emotional loss of control." Cuffs are in order in those instances. Why not at school?

Anyway, I fail to see how the "criminal stigma" of flexicuffs is a bad thing when a student is acting like a criminal. That's an important lesson.

It should be remembered that students would NOT routinely be put in flexicuffs. Such measures would be reserved for rare cases.

Wendell Harris, chairman of the education committee of the Milwaukee chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said: "We will not rest till this issue is taken off the table. . . . There will be no compromise to re-enslaving our children."

With all due respect, what a load of crap!

"Re-enslaving our children" -- Give me a break!

This proposal was never about treating students like slaves.

That rhetoric is ridiculous, though it was very effective in getting people riled up over the cuffs policy. (Five hour meeting!!!)

Harris makes it sound like the Milwaukee School Board wanted to put African-American children in shackles, for no other purpose than to demean them and make them feel like property that could be bought and sold.

THAT'S ABSOLUTELY INSANE!

It's extremely troubling that the flexicuffs proposal caused so much upset but the routine violence in the schools is virtually ignored.

When was there a five hour meeting about brawls, drugs, and LOADED guns in the public schools?

When was there a five hour meeting about truancy?

When was there a five hour meeting about the drop-out rate?

The flexicuffs proposal didn't deserve the attention it got. The fact that students are not graduating and getting the skills they need to get jobs or pursue higher education is the real disgrace.

Among remarks from speakers were calls for a recall of Andrekopoulos and a student strike if the policy is not repealed.

This is so lame!

Andrekopoulos backed down. He wimped out. He did what the mob against flexicuffs wanted. Why would they want to recall someone they can so easily manipulate?

And the student strikes are really stupid.

Adults were suggesting that the students walk out of class? There's a brainless idea!

So many students aren't learning as it is. Why suggest that they take more time away from the classroom?

A worthy strike would be a walk-out by students demanding that the violent students be controlled or removed from the school so the others can go about getting an education.

If only all this energy that the flexicuffs proposal brought out could have been harnessed to actually improve the schools.

If only parents would be as interested in monitoring their children's educational performance and being aware of their children's activities as they were over the cuffs.

Then, maybe there wouldn't have been a need for the Board to suggest trying the flexicuffs in the first place.

Prayers for Charlie and Family

Mequon -- Firefighters responding to a neighbor's 911 call of a condominium fire Tuesday afternoon found the body of Katherine B. Sykes, the 87-year-old mother of Milwaukee radio talk show host Charlie Sykes, inside the residence.

Charlie Sykes confirmed in a statement Tuesday that his mother died in a fire at her condominium.

Jn 10:27-30

Jesus said:
"My sheep hear my voice;
I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.
No one can take them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all,
and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.
The Father and I are one."

Bush Does the Right Thing, Dems Don't

When President Bush vetoed the war funding bill that the Democrats designed to ensure a defeat for the United States of America in Iraq, he sent a strong message to the nation's enemies -- our enemies in Iraq, our enemies in al Qaeda cells around the world, and their allies here at home, the Democrats.

Bush refused to play political games with the lives of our troops, the lives of the Iraqis, and the long term future of the Middle East and our country.

He put the enemies of America on notice -- The U.S. will not surrender.

In an address to the nation, Bush explained his veto and the consequences of the Dems' strategy.

Transcript

THE PRESIDENT: Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits -- and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach, and that there are not enough votes to override a veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message. And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

It makes perfect sense. The President had to veto the bill.

Anyone should be able to see what the Dems have done and why.

Anyone should be able to understand that it's time for the Dems to quit playing political games.

Anyone should be able to see that the Dems are refusing to behave responsibly. Instead, they're putting personal political expediency ahead of principle.

Here's how some of the Dems responded to Bush's veto, only the second of his presidency.

HARRY REID: "If the president thinks by vetoing this bill he will stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken. Now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war."

JOE BIDEN: "I favor a relentless push on the president, with every penny the troops need, because this guy is not going to change until the Republicans up here crack. That is happening, but it may take until September."

JOHN EDWARDS: "Congress should send him another bill with a timeline for withdrawal, and if he vetoes that bill Congress should send him another until we end this war and bring our troops home."

ROBERT GIBBS, SPOKESMAN FOR BARACK OBAMA: "Senator Obama is focused on putting pressure on members of Congress to override the president's veto. It's obvious now that the president is too stubborn to move and the only way to change the direction of his war is to change Congress."

PHILIPPE REINES, SPOKESMAN FOR HILLARY CLINTON: "She is focused on the current efforts to enact the legislation that provides funding for our troops while changing course in Iraq."

CHRIS DODD: "He will continue to seek opportunities to stand up to the president on his failed policy, end the war and bring our troops home."

Simply put, as the Dems continue to push for defeat in Iraq, they are making it clearer to the public that they're not fit to handle foreign policy.

American Idol President Bush

Tonight's American Idol ended with a message from President and Mrs. Bush.

They thanked the Idol audience for raising over $70 million to alleviate poverty in Africa and here in America.

President Bush also thanked the celebrities that took part in the effort, mentioning Bono by name.

The President suggested that he should sing a song. Mrs. Bush remarked that it wouldn't be a good idea. The country has already seen him dance.



Mrs. Bush said that we don't need to hear him sing.

How many televised entertainment shows can get the President and First Lady to appear? Not many.

$70 million is A LOT of money. I think it was appropriate that the President acknowledged the incredible fundraising that took place on the show last week.

Oh, yeah. I should mention this. Bush addressed the nation earlier today, about 5:00 pm CDT.

He vetoed the war funding bill and commented on the Democrats' disgrace. More on that later.

MAY DAY: A DAY WITHOUT LATINOS

In Milwaukee, today is the second annual "A Day Without Latinos" march.

The march coincides with demonstrations across the country.

Organizers of the second annual "A Day Without Latinos" regional march and boycott expect thousands of people to participate in today's rally in Milwaukee.

The march will begin at noon at 1027 S. Fifth St. and will go to First Street and then north to Wisconsin Avenue, east toward Lake Michigan and closing with a rally at Veteran's Park from 1 to 2 p.m.

Last year, a crowd estimated at 70,000 people marched in the May 1 rally, which focuses on a National Day of Action for Fair Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

"This is a critical moment in the civil rights struggle for immigrants. The people are sending a strong message that we need and want a law passed this year that will address an outdated and discriminatory immigration system that is hurting and terrorizing working class families through raids and the politics of hate," said Christine Neumann-Ortiz, director of Voces de la Frontera, which is organizing the march.

That's a very poor choice of words.

The U.S. government is "terrorizing working class families through raids and the politics of hate."

I'm not saying that we don't need immigration reform, but to suggest that upholding our laws is akin to a terrorist act doesn't win me over.

From the Associated Press:

Demonstrators demanding a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants rallied around the nation Tuesday, hoping to spur Congress to act before the looming presidential primaries take over the political landscape.

From Phoenix to Detroit, hundreds of people carried American flags in the streets.

Organizers say immigrants feel a sense of urgency to keep immigration reform from getting pushed to the back burner by the 2008 presidential elections.

"If we don't act, then both the Democratic and Republican parties can go back to their comfort zones and do nothing," said Angelica Salas, director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. "They won't have the courage to resolve a major situation for millions of people."

Hours before the march was set to begin in Chicago, dozens of demonstrators began arriving carrying American flags, signs and placards, including one that read "We may not have it all together, but together we can have it all."

...Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean was scheduled to speak in Miami to a coalition of immigrant groups, while Ricardo Chavez, the brother of famed agricultural labor leader Cesar Chavez, was expected address crowds in Milwaukee.

America is a nation of immigrants. It's also a nation of laws.

These protests are about ILLEGAL immigrants. The U.S. doesn't owe the privileges of citizenship to people here ILLEGALLY.

I found these photos from demonstrations in Chicago to be interesting.


Demonstrators hold a wooden cross filled with nails, each representing a family or family member affected by immigration reform, that were driven into the cross during a demonstration in downtown Chicago on March 7, 2007. The debate over immigration reform has heightened and there is mounting evidence that even sanctuary cities like Chicago aren't such safe havens anymore. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed a record 187,513 undocumented immigrants from the country in 2006, a 10 percent increase from the previous year, the agency reported. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)

Using the Christian symbols of the cross and nails isn't a powerful representation of the lawbreakers. It's offensive.

And what's wrong with a 10 percent increase in removing ILLEGALS from the country?

That's a good thing.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is doing its job, upholding the law.

Undocumented immigrants are by definition here ILLEGALLY.


Demonstrators protest outside the offices of Immigration and Custom Enforcement in Chicago, Illinois in April 2007. Thousands of activists were due to march across the United States on Tuesday to demand immigration reform, but the rallies were expected to be smaller than last year's huge protests.(AFP/Getty Images/File/Scott Olson)

"NO BORDERS FOR WORKERS"???

A sovereign nation has the right to make and enforce its laws.

We have a right to patrol our borders.

This photo from California caught my attention.


Day laborers Lorenzo Organista, right, and Aura Ovando, left, both recent immigrants, hold up an American flag at the Day Workers Center of Mountain View in Mountain View, Calif., Tuesday, May 1, 2007 as they prepare for an immigration demonstration later in the day. Demonstrators demanding a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants rallied around the nation Tuesday, hoping to spur Congress to act before the looming presidential primaries take over the political landscape. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

We're equal, but we aren't all American citizens.

I can't go to another country and demand that I be granted all the same rights and privileges granted to its citizens.

American citizenship is not a birthright of the world's 6,592,345,738+ people.

Look at this pic from a protest in LA.


Demonstrators rally downtown Los Angeles, Tuesday, May 1, 2007. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

These protesters want to end the War on Immigrants and the war in Iraq.

They're multi-tasking!

No wonder Howard Dean and the Dems are pandering to ILLEGAL immigrants. At least some ILLEGALS are on the same page as far as the Democrats' retreat and surrender U.S. foreign policy goes.

And this photo reveals a pattern that I'm seeing from demonstrations around the nation.

There's much more AMERICAN flag-waving than last year. These American flags aren't defaced or flying upside down. They're proudly flying.


Moises Cruz Joaquin waves an American flag attached to a caulking gun during an immigration reform rally in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday, May 1, 2007. A crowd of about 500 people showed up for the rally. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

It's just like the 4th of July, minus the fireworks of course.

OOPS!!!

These protesters didn't get the memo to leave the Mexican flags at home this year.


Gabriel Callejas waves an American and Mexican flag as he marches around Lake Eola Park with about 500 other protesters during an immigration reform rally in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday, May 1, 2007.(AP Photo/John Raoux)


A protester holds up a Mexican and an American flag during an immigration reform rally in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday, May 1, 2007. A crowd of about 500 people showed up for the rally. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

______________________________

Updates from the Milwaukee protest.

The first of the thousands of participants in the "A Day Without Latinos" march are now reaching Veterans Park on Milwaukee's lakefront.

Once the rest of the marchers arrive - officials are giving varying estimates of 30,000 to 60,000 involved in the march - a program will begin and will feature Ricardo Chavez, leader of the United Farm Workers Union and brother of the late Cesar Chavez, along with religious, union and community leaders.

Here's more.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri

There are unconfirmed reports that another one bites the dust.

BAGHDAD -- Iraqi officials have received reports that the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq was killed by Sunni tribesmen, but the chief government spokesman said Tuesday the information has not been confirmed.

The statement by spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh followed a welter of reports from other Iraqi officials that Abu Ayyub al-Masri had been killed. Iraqi officials have released similar reports in the past, only to acknowledge later they were inaccurate.

U.S. officials said they could not confirm the reported death.

Al-Dabbagh told Al-Arabiya that word of al-Masri's purported death was based on "intelligence information," adding that "DNA tests should be done and we have to bring someone to identify the body."

But he refused to say unequivocally whether Iraqi security forces have the body, citing security restrictions. Accounts were vague about when and where al-Masri supposedly died.

"We will make an official announcement when we confirm that this person is Abu Ayyub al-Masri," he said. "The Iraqi government will work to identify him."

U.S. spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said the U.S. command was looking into the reports.

"Obviously I hope it's true," Garver said, pointing out that previous Iraqi claims had proven false. "We want to be very careful before we confirm or deny anything like that."

...Al-Masri, an Egyptian militant also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, took over leadership of the terror network and was endorsed by Osama bin Laden after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed last June in a U.S. airstrike in Diyala province.

Notice how often terrorists use more than one name.

Al-Masri is this guy:

"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house - which is called the White House."

--ABU HAMZA AL-MUHAJER

I guess we'll have to wait for DNA tests to determine if al-Masri or al-Muhajer is resting under those olive trees.