Tags: Want | VH1 | Historical | Revisionism

I Want My VH1 Historical Revisionism

Wednesday, 02 January 2002 12:00 AM

… where the first baby of 2002 was actually born to a married couple. Not all that common in urban areas these days.

Remember the Paul McCartney benefit concert last October at Madison Square Garden in New York City? Sure you do! That's where The Hildabeast was so soundly and deliciously booed and jeered when she stepped to center stage for her 20 seconds in the limelight. Well, that memorable moment was included in a VH1 rebroadcast of the McCartney concert Christmas Day. The New York Post is reporting that there was something different about the VH1 broadcast, however. When Hitlary stepped out on stage – no boos! No jeers! The wonderful people at VH1 had edited out all of the booing, all of the shouts of "We don't want you here" and replaced them with general crowd noise.

Oh … in case you didn't know. VH1 is owned by Viacom. Simon & Schuster is also owned by Viacom. Simon & Schuster recently wrote an $8 million check to Hillary … for her upcoming tome of lies.

No surprise, I guess.

I hope some of you managed to read this bit of idiocy over the weekend. We learn from NewsMax.com that the New York Times has signed on to the effort to rehabilitate the image of Bill Clinton.

What are some of the most admired institutions in the United States today? That would be our public safety forces and our military. People are once again proud of our men and women in uniform. Once again, it's in to be in.

So – as part of the Clinton legacy-rebuilding project Michael O'Hanlon, writing in the New York Times, has decided that Clinton somehow deserves the credit for our renewed pride in the American armed forces. O'Hanlon writes that Bush is "on the verge of winning a war with the military that Bill Clinton bequeathed him." He adds, "It is still Bill Clinton's military that has actually been winning the war."

Can you believe this? Bush is getting high approval ratings for his handling of the war on terrorism, and the New York Times is trying to convince us that this credit should actually be going to Bill Clinton? Yeah, the same Bill Clinton who was asleep at the "war on terrorism" switch for eight years.

O'Hanlon is factually wrong. It is NOT the same military that Clinton left on Jan. 20. It is substantially different.

The biggest difference is in leadership. No longer do our U.S. armed forces march to the orders of a commander in chief who once expressed his "loathing" for them. Now it's a new commander in chief, one who appreciates the military and the role it has played in securing our freedoms.

Since Clinton left and Bush stepped in, military morale has soared; pay has been increased, retirements of key personnel have slowed, and years of training and equipment neglect are being addressed.

This is NOT Clinton's military.

How far will the Clintonistas go to resurrect his failed legacy? We await the next attempt with pregnant anticipation.

Denouncing racial profiling is a convenient way for some people to avoid having to face the fact or bear the consequences of the reality that those who share their racial, religious or cultural heritage are responsible for an inordinate amount of crime or other wrongdoing.

If you're a devout Muslim in the United States, it's safe to say that you have faced some additional problems traveling by air lately. There are several different responses you might have. On the one hand you could condemn those of your faith who engage in the senseless murder of civilians and work diligently to have these people identified and arrested.

If this is just too difficult for you, or if the fact is that you are not unsympathetic to the terrorist cause, you could just stand around and scream "racial profiling" every time you're singled out for a thorough airport screening.

Is racial profiling racism? Of course not. Racism is a belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another. Law enforcement doesn't pay special attention to air travelers of Middle Eastern appearance because of any belief in racial superiority.

They pay attention to these travelers because ALL of the people who have been engaging in terrorist activities of late, including ALL of the people involved in the attacks on New York and Washington, were of Middle Eastern appearance or descent.

Do the words "common sense" mean anything to you?

Racial profiling is a prejudicial act, not a racist one. You're working an airport screening station and you see someone who appears to be of Middle Eastern descent. Knowing that ALL of the airline terrorists have been Middle Eastern, you make a judgment – call it a PRE-judgment – that this person is more likely to harbor ill intentions than the 85-year-old blue-haired woman standing behind him. So, if the choice is between searching the man or the blue-hair – common sense says you go with the man.

Here's your hypothetical situation. Let's say that you have a community where all of the people – and I mean ALL, 100 percent – come from one of two different ethnic backgrounds. You have 50 percent Middle Eastern Muslims and 50 percent Pennsylvania Quakers living in this town. Nobody else.

You're the county sheriff. You've just received word that someone from this particular town is about to head for a big city, where he will attempt to board an airliner with explosives and try to blow it up. Time is very limited. You only have time to question half the residents of the community. You can either question all of the Muslims, all of the Quakers, or randomly pick among the entire community.

Whatchagonnado? You know that ALL acts of airline terrorism were committed by Muslims. You also know that Quakers have taken a vow of nonviolence and live a completely passive lifestyle. Who are you going to question?

If you tell me that you are going to try to question members from both groups because you don't want to racially or ethnically profile the Muslims, then I will tell you that you are a damned fool who has lost touch with all reality.

Law enforcement has limited resources. These resources have to be used in the most efficient manner possible. That means sometimes you have to choose between two individuals to be searched or questioned, and that choice should be made on probabilities, not political correctness.

Let's stop the damn whining and get after the terrorists.

It's CULTURAL profiling. It's not the race or ethnic background of these individuals that attacks the interest of law enforcement … it's their culture they are presumed to come from.

Think about this for a moment and you'll see that I'm right. Do you think that blacks are involved in a disproportionate percentage of violent crime in this country because of the color of skin? Do you think that the people who hijacked those airliners and flew them into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers did so because they were from the Middle East?

No on both counts. These people committed these acts not because of where they were born or because of the color of their skin, but because of the cultures in which they were raised. Whether it's a culture that glorifies violence, promotes religious intolerance, tolerates predatory sex or promotes the murder of innocent civilians as a religious act, the people who evolve from those cultures are worthy of special attention when security is the issue.

Now – the people at risk of being "culturally profiled" are going to strongly resist the entire concept of culture profiling … and for good reason. You can't do anything about your race, but you can do something about your culture. If your difficulties are caused by your skin color, there's little you can do to change things. If your problems are caused by your culture ... well, you get the picture.

Did you watch the crowd at Times Square in New York City on New Year's Eve? Did you see that crowd spontaneously break out in a song? Was that song our so-called national anthem? Nope, it wasn't. It was "God Bless America."

That song called "The Star Spangled Banner" is our national anthem in name only. The real, de facto national anthem of the United States of America is "God Bless America." Let's make it official.

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Pre-2008
… where the first baby of 2002 was actually born to a married couple. Not all that common in urban areas these days. Remember the Paul McCartney benefit concert last October at Madison Square Garden in New York City? Sure you do! That's where The Hildabeast was so soundly...
Want,VH1,Historical,Revisionism
1409
2002-00-02
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved