Thanks Dr. Hovermale! Shjort history of Haiti

Thanks Ralph,




My liberal friends? I don't receive comments. I would like to pro or con; however not kibitzes.;)



Sam

----- Original Message -----

From: Ralph Hovermale

To: 'Sam Kegley'

Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 6:52 PM

Subject: RE: A Small Reminder of History of Haiti









www.skegley.blogspot.com



Subject: A Small Reminder of History of Haiti





Here is Dan’s response to my recent note about Haiti! For your information from an eye-witness on current happenings.



Regards,



Ralph







To: Ralph Hovermale

Subject: Re: A Small Reminder of History of Haiti







Very biased "History", more fiction that fact. The French were eliminated from the island because they were as brutal as they could be. The French ending slavery would have been a joke to these people. There lives would have changed very little. Mulattoes not aligned with the french were not harmed. Actually, Mulattoes were the first leaders of the new nation, not negroes. The US occupations of Haiti were for political reasons, not for the "nation building" claimed. The 1915 invasion (WWI) was to stop the Germans from building a coaling station for their naval fleet, not for humanitarian reasons. The roads and infastructure that was built was not for the benefit of the local inhabitants, but for the use of the Marines. The U.S. left in 1934, not at the request of the Haitian government, they left because there was no longer a reason to be there and U.S. was in the middle of the Great Depression. In 1973, the US came back at the request of Jean-Claude Duvalier (Baby Doc) to exploit cheap labor for the tourist industry and manufacturing (baseballs, etc.). Also, it allowed Baby Doc to line his pockets with all the tax dollars he could collect from these industries. This continued until Baby Doc was overthrown in 1986. In 1991 Jean Bertrand Aristide was elected president. He was deposed later that same year in a military coup after it became know that Aristide was plotting to disband the Army. Clinton sent Colin Powell and 25,000 Marines down in 1994 to re-instate Aristide as president at the urging of the U.S. black caucus. Clinton did this for political reasons to displace memories for his failure in Somalia and to have a military victory on his record for re-election time that was rapidly approaching. The most recent invasion was when I was in 2004 and I, as you know, was smack dab in the middle. Bush sent US Marines to remove Aristide as president. It is widely believed that Bush thought Aristide was WAY too friendly with Castro and Chavez and a potential future liability. Bush used the political unrest as an excuse to "rescue" Aristide and replace him with a government hand picked by U.S. politicians.



Every time the U.S. has been involved in Haiti in the past has been for politically motivated reasons, not humanitarian concerns. The U.S. does not leave a country because they are asked. Lets be real, the U.S. leaves when there is no longer a political or financial reason for them to be there. So much for the short "history" of U.S. involvement in Haiti. Ha!



Dan



"If God is your co-pilot, you need to switch seats."



Daniel T. Hovermale



Helicopter Pilot



Helicopter Minit-Men










--- On Sun, 2/14/10, Ralph Hovermale wrote:





From: Ralph Hovermale

Subject: A Small Reminder of History of Haiti

To: "Ralph Hovermale"

Date: Sunday, February 14, 2010, 8:10 AM







I’ve received this from several sources. Pardon if it is a repeat for you.



Dan, you’ve lived there recently, do you agree?



Regards,



Dad



Here is a comment from Robin Thomas’ post.



(Sounds a lot like New Orleans to me.



Found this online at wiki:



"Political insecurity and the failure of Haiti's governments to invest in developing the country's natural and human resources has contributed significantly to the country's current state of underdevelopment. U.S. efforts to strengthen democracy and help build the foundation for economic growth aim to rectify this condition. The U.S. has been Haiti's largest donor since 1973. Between FY 1995 and FY 2003, the U.S. contributed more than $850 million in assistance to Haiti. Since 2004, the U.S. has provided over $600 million for improving governance, security, the rule of law, economic recovery, and critical human needs. The President's budget request for FY 2007 was $198 million. U.S. Government funds have been used to support programs that have addressed a variety of problems. Additional information on U.S. assistance to Haiti can be found at http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2006/77358.htm."



If they gave this much money to local communities in the states maybe we could keep some American jobs here in America.)










A small reminder of history.







In the 1700’s what is now Haiti was called the “Jewel of the Caribbean,” and supplied about 40% of the world’s sugar.

In 1791 the government of France passed legislation to phase out slavery in its Caribbean colonies and grant the former Negro slaves citizenship. Rather than becoming citizens, Haiti’s Negro population mass murdered all whites and Mulattoes who could not flee the Island in time. In 1804 only full blooded Negros remained and Haiti became the first Negro ruled nation.



The Haitian revolution dominated America’s debate over slavery. While both the north and the south agreed that slavery should be ended, southerners and a large percentage of northerners universally opposed having a large population of freed slaves living in their midst.. The Haitian “Revolution” was fresh in every one’s mind.





Flash forward to 1915. The “Jewel of the Caribbean” is now a desolate cesspool, that is exporting almost no sugar. The United States decides to “take up the white man’s burden” and send the US Marine Corps to rebuild Haiti’s infrastructure and feed it’s starving population. The United States gave huge amounts of money to Haiti and over-saw the building of 1,000 miles of road, telephone lines, modernized its port, and helped Haiti to start exporting sugar once again. The US also put an end to the thousands of bandits along Haiti’s border with the Dominican Republic. The US left in 1934 at the request of the then stabilized and very ungrateful Haitian government.





Haiti immediately sank straight back into total desolation strife. In 1973 the United State once again began playing a huge role in Haiti, giving the Island huge sums of money in handouts each year. In 1994 the Clinton administration once again sent the US military to Haiti to rebuild the Island’s infrastructure. In 1995 the Peace Corps went to Haiti in large numbers to train the Haitians in job skills. The US government spent almost one Billion providing food and job training to the Haitians between 95 and 99.





So when Obama says that Haiti has our “full, unwavering, support,” they have already had our full support since 1915..











I wonder how long it’ll be before we’re asked to leave again?











"Life is tough....it's really tough when you're stupid!" -- John Wayne

Thanks Judi Cole!

*This is from my cousin who lives in Florida - another skeptic, imagine


that!

*

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: JAY BOGGS

Date: Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Subject: no snow?

To:





*For once, an editorial gets it right...*

*Jay*

**

*1. RFK Jr. Said Global Warming Means No Snow in D.C.*

Back in September 2008, environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote an article

raising the alarm about global warming and the resultant lack of winter

weather in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, Feb. 8, as the nation’s capital dug out from under a ferocious

snowstorm, The Washington Examiner reran an article from last Dec. 21,

published as Washington was struggling to dig out from under an earlier

snowstorm.

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell

larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the

planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in

Washington, D.C.,” wrote The Examiner’s Online Opinion Editor David

Freddoso.

He quoted from the article written by Kennedy, a lawyer specializing in

environmental law, which ran in the Los Angeles Times: “Recently arrived

residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters,

might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on

Ballantrae Hill in McLean [Va.], with a rope tow and local ski club.

“Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a

sled.”

He reminisced about ice skating on a Washington canal, “which these days

rarely freezes enough to safely skate."

“Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into

think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing

that global warming is a fantasy.”

Freddoso observed on Dec. 21: “Having shoveled my walk five times in the

midst of this past weekend’s extreme cold and blizzard, I think perhaps RFK

Jr. should leave weather analysis to the meteorologists instead of trying to

attribute every global phenomenon to anthropogenic climate change.”

Last weekend’s snowstorm paralyzed the Washington area, knocking out power

to thousands of homes, closing schools and businesses, and shutting down the

federal government.

Dulles International Airport near Washington received a record 32.4 inches

of snow, and a town in Maryland close to D.C. was blanketed by 40 inches.

Another snowstorm walloped Washington on Wednesday. As of 2 p.m. that day,

the snowfall total for the season had surpassed the 54.4-inch record set in

1899, and it rose to 55.6 inches by 4 p.m. in the city and to 72 inches at

Dulles.

Thanks Dr. Hovermale!

Real Conservatism Is About Principles, Not Personalities


By Christopher G. Adamo

February 11, 2010



It was an odd week for a staunch conservative to be in agreement with Barack

Obama. In the wake of Republican Scott Brown's dramatic Senate victory in

Massachusetts, Democrat leaders were stunned and shaken. But as usual, they

quickly gathered themselves and coordinated a strategy of interpreting

Brown's election in terms that they hoped would minimize damage to their

agenda. And this effort was led, of course, by Obama himself.



In keeping with this ploy, the Narcissist in Chief attempted to proffer the

absurd notion that somehow, a hard-right turn in Massachusetts was actually

a ringing endorsement of him. According to Obama, "The same thing that swept

Brown into office swept me into office." And for those who might have missed

his meaning he added, "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not because

of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over

the last eight years."



Nevertheless, the lone grain of truth in Obama's statement vastly

overshadows his transparent attempts at obfuscation and self-aggrandizement.

The towering reality of this situation is that his ascendancy did not result

in any way from those overblown speeches of the last year or two (Obama's

empty promises of "hope and change") but from a public rejection of the

general national course plotted by President Bush and those

all-too-compliant Republican "moderates" in the Senate and House.



Neither the 2006 mid-term Democrat gains nor the 2008 electoral catastrophe

represented any national shift to the left. Rather, they embodied a

widespread backlash against a Republican Party that had done too little to

combat such treacherous ideas. On one major issue after another, from

outrageous spending binges (which admittedly, now seem minuscule in

comparison to the abominable fiscal excesses of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi cabal)

to the attempts at granting amnesty and defacto citizenship to the twelve

million plus illegal aliens, to the abject abandonment of constitutional

principle in implementing campaign finance "reform," Heartland America felt

completely betrayed and forsaken by virtually the entirety of the GOP.



Republican majorities in both houses, supported by a Republican President,

simply should not have allowed such legislative atrocities to occur. Yet the

Beltway-insider mindset prevailed over traditional Republican principle, and

the sentiments of those lowly peasants in the hinterlands were cast aside.

So in November of 2006, and again in 2008, angry and disenfranchised voters

responded in kind on Election Day. But lest anyone misrepresent their

motivation, the conservative upsurge of the past year should have dispelled

every doubt as to the true sentiments of those at the grassroots.



The "Tea Party" movement, mocked and maligned by Democrat mouthpieces and

their media minions, is alive and well. Traditional America, seeing its

heritage being obliterated and the constitutional foundations of the nation

decimated, is rising up and making known its resolve to restore such things

for itself and its posterity. "Politics as usual," either from the Democrats

or the Republicans, which translates into societal breakdown and the

institution of the "nanny state" (either on the fast track or one that is

somewhat slower, depending on party) has been soundly rejected.



At this crucial time, it is imperative that the authors of this movement

remain steadfastly committed to principle, and not be swayed by prominent

personalities. And at such a time, it is not surprising that Arizona Senator

and former Presidential candidate John McCain is among the attempted

"hangers on." But what did come as an enormous shock and disappointment was

the willingness of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to aid in this

subterfuge.



Up for re-election this year, McCain suddenly found himself in a truly

contested primary race against former Republican Congressman and

conservative powerhouse J.D. Hayworth. By all rights, McCain has committed

more than enough treachery against conservatism to warrant a voter-sponsored

retirement. And it is inarguable that, on an issue-by-issue comparison,

Hayworth is much more closely aligned to Palin than McCain has ever been. So

for Palin to labor on behalf of McCain's reelection effort represents a

devastating blow against those principles.



Even more reprehensible is what this episode says of McCain's abject

disingenuousness as a politician. By calling on Palin at this time, he

proves his knowledge of what resonates with voters, and what adjustments to

his reputation would help his electoral bid. Yet that is an image that

Hayworth, not McCain, actually deserves. Were McCain to be honest with his

base and consistent with his past, he would instead have asked Joe

Liebermann, a Connecticut liberal, or Arlen Specter, the former "RINO" now

turned Democrat Senator from Pennsylvania, to visit Arizona and burnish his

image for the voters. For it is with their likes that McCain's true

sympathies lie.



Sarah Palin has received nothing but vitriol from liberal Democrats in both

parties, including many from McCain's own staff. Even members of his own

family have expressed complete contempt for the precepts that define her.

Conversely, real America has ignored such derision and consistently rallied

in support of her.



For whatever allegiance she feels towards the man who reluctantly chose her

as a vice-presidential running mate (his first preference was Liebermann),

Palin offers her loyalty at great expense to the very movement of grassroots

conservatism sweeping the nation that she so eloquently sought to advance in

her Nashville speech on February 6.



America will have lost a great opportunity, both in real substance and

symbolic significance, if Hayworth loses to McCain in the Arizona Primary.

And with so much hanging in the balance, Palin needs to be publicly asked

which of her guiding principles align more closely with McCain as opposed to

Hayworth, and therefore how a McCain re-election would benefit her vision

for the nation.



Ultimately, as the reality of that event (if it does indeed transpire), and

Palin's complicity in it, sinks in with the American people, it is her own

connection to them that will have been fatally undermined. Those fighting to

restore the freedom and goodness of this nation will have no other choice

but to move beyond this breach of trust, and remain committed to their

principles, or face a potentially insurmountable setback to their effort.



---



Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and

is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an

e-commerce business that markets American made products including the

incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact

information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at

www.chrisadamo.com



--------------------

Thanks Dean,




We all know that lib politicians have a fear of math. The repubs have the same. Out with all of the elitists, bring on the Tea Party candidates.



Sam





----- Original Message -----

From: Dean Williams



Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 11:01 AM

Subject: Clunker math





Clunker Math -- Think of it this way:

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gas consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to about 5 million barrels of oil; and 5M barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

Hence, we spent $8.57 for every dollar saved.

I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with health care, though.

Two OLD Portsmouth guys and email discussions

Jack,




I am ready for the USA to leave the Middle East, except that osama and the Saudi Arabian king would prefer that. I have a friend just returning from several years over there who believes this. Those are the Wahabbi leaders of the terrorists who seek our demise and we are merely being led to the woodshed for a thrashing. If they permit parts of America to survive so that they may thrive here, it will be by their own plans.



Anon Ymous said: "There is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us that it ill-behooves any of us to find fault with the rest of us." I think Anon was Confuscius' cousin, but that is the lack of history consciousness in me.



Whatever- I still believe that the Christian recognized God is in control. He loves even old Torjan warhorses.



Sam





----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack H Plymale" To: "Sam Kegley" Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Fw: 2010 - We're Going to Take Back America





All true Sam, I'm just not sure that the electorate, generally, have the interest to seek out the sincerely patriotic and honest ones , in both parties.and continue to support them . Even through the times when their opinions diverge slightly. I also feel we should be in no war whose objective is not to win.. We have paid gillions for weapons to end wars. Let's use them every time or let the enemy have their way anytime..I gave our country( make that -they took) almost four years of my time in two different wars. I really am not excited about the necessity having to,now, pay for this BS going on in the middle east.



On 2/13/10, Sam Kegley wrote: Yes Jack, but these wars aren't cheap today either. I don't know what each man's gear costs but it is so much nore than in WWII or Korea or Viet Nam. The elitist so-called representatives on both sides have been helping them selves to the treasury with wreckless abandon. Ruthless lawyers and a lack of tort reform make really rich people out of the likes of Edwards.



Vote as many out of office as we can.



The liberal ones for sure!



Sam





----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack H Plymale" To: "Sam Kegley" Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 6:29 PM Subject: Fwd: Fw: 2010 - We're Going to Take Back America





Sam your part is a little over 35,000 dollars. At 11:06 this morning the national debt stood at12 Trillion,357 Billion+. Even if we were willing to pay our part, at least twenty million illegal aIeins won't pay theirs, those on the welfare rolls won't pay theirs, people in prison won't pay theirs. Then we have that great unwashed group who would pay it if they had it, but don't.. When our monetary system is finally destroyed,,,,,,, Do you wanta shoot marbles or whata ya got to trade? I blame our present guy for a lot of this and it's rising continuation, but anyone who refuses to see GW as a major contributor to that particular problem isn't looking for a solution just someone else to blame.Jack P.



---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sam Kegley Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:18:08 -0500 Subject: Fw: 2010 - We're Going to Take Back America To: Sarah Rapp Cc: jackh.plymale@gmail.com



GGGRRRREEEAAATTTTT! Sarah! I will do my part to take it back. I hope osama and the Saudi Arabian king don't blow up the country first. This is the time to take America down while we have no, or rather an imposter, Commander in Chief.



Sam

----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah Rapp Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 9:32 AM Subject: Fw: 2010 - We're Going to Take Back America













----- Forwarded Message ---- From: T. J. Du PuySubject: 2010 - We're Going to Take Back America








This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm