“Obviously a Major Malfunction” – 25th Anniversary

Tags

Christa McAuliffe, Dick Scobee, Elison Onizuka, Greg Jarvis, Judy Resnik, Mike Smith, NASA, Ron McNair, Space Shuttle Challenger

I wrote this three years ago on my previous blogsite at Blogger. I’m reposting it in observance of the day  25 years ago when we lost the Space Shuttle Challenger and all seven astronaut crew members on board.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

“OBVIOUSLY A MAJOR MALFUNCTION”

In the din and dynamics of campaign literature hitting our mailboxes and candidate calls ringing our phones on this night before the BIG FLORIDA PRIMARY, I’m taking a moment or two to reflect on something else remarkable about Monday.

It was seventy-three seconds after lift-off, on January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded, killing its entire seven member crew, which included a high school teacher, the first private citizen to fly aboard the craft.

I was working with NASA as a public information officer attached to the press site at Kennedy Space Center. My job that morning — deliver pre-launch commentary at the communication console inside Launch Control at the Cape.

I began my shift at the microphone at about the time the tanking operations got underway. Millions of pounds of pressurized hypergolic fuels were being pumped into the behemoth at Launch Pad 39-B as the seven astronauts breakfasted before suiting up for the big event. I would continue the launch commentary until the astronauts arrived at the launch pad. Mission control in Houston would pick up the commentary once the shuttle cleared the tower at lift off.

It was cold in the pre-dawn hours. It was still dark when I left my home bundled in a winter coat. I could see my breath — unusual for Florida.

When I arrived at the LCC (Launch Control Center), NASA Public Affairs news chief Hugh Harris was already seated at the communications console, headset on. I slid into the chair beside him and opened my 3-ring binder containing the launch sequence that I would be talking to.

“No anomalies” he advised me in NASA-speak, meaning everything was proceeding normally. I took over the mic, offering comments as the launch team hit significant milestones in the countdown sequence. And so it went as the clock ticked forward toward an 11:38 a.m. liftoff.

The suited-up astronauts began to leave their crew quarters in the Operations and Checkout “O and C” building, about three miles away. NASA and media video cameras were trained at the exit way where they would do the “walk-out”, waving at the cameras and an assemblage of cheering workers as they made their way into the silver Airstream “Astrovan” for the ride to the launch pad.

As they approached the tv cameras, I keyed the mic. Here’s my voice describing the astronauts’ walkout:

Little did I know those words would be heard thousands of times in the aftermath of the shuttle explosion, as TV news programs replayed the last moments we saw the Challenger Seven alive.

There was concern among the Launch Control team about the cold temperatures at the launch pad. A team was sent to break up the ice build-up under the shuttle. An infrared camera focused on the aft field joint of the right Solid Rocket Booster revealed the temperature at only 8°F. Discussion centered on concerns continued throughout the morning outside of our comm loop. Ultimately, the fateful decision was made to proceed, and the clock ran steadily for launch.

Finally, we hit the T-minus ten second mark. “Ten…nine…eight…seven…six… we have main engine start”. The excitement was palpable. “Four, three…two…one…and lift-off! Lift-off of the 25th Space Shuttle mission and it has cleared the tower!”

I swiveled around to the glass wall behind me and watched Challenger rise from the pad. As she climbed, a gorgeous billowy white column rose underneath her, twin rockets and main engines brilliantly glowing like blinding sunlight against a cold and cloudless blue sky.

At 68 seconds, the CAPCOM told the crew they were “Go at throttle up”. Commander Dick Scobee confirmed the call. “Roger, go at throttle up.” It was the last communication we would hear from Challenger.

About 73 seconds into the climb, at 48,000 feet over the steely blue Atlantic, Challenger broke apart. The gorgeous contrail split into a Y shape, my first clue that something had gone awry.

As quickly, I saw a single rocket spiral outward, unattached from the mother ship. Fireworks-like smoke and streamers burst forth from the center, tendrils turning a sickly orange color as gravity pulled them earthward. We were witnessing a catastrophe.

I don’t think I breathed. I knew what we were watching was the awful death of seven of our own. The room went silent, except for a few systems managers trying to make sense of their frozen computer screens. Data flow from the shuttle had ceased.

“Flight controllers here looking very carefully at the situation,” reported public affairs officer Steve Nesbitt in Houston. “Obviously a major malfunction. We have no downlink.” After a pause, Nesbitt said, “We have a report from the Flight Dynamics Officer that the vehicle has exploded.”

Contingency procedures were ordered into effect at Launch and Mission Control centers, including locking the doors, shutting down telephone communications with the outside world, and following checklists that ensured that the relevant data were correctly recorded and preserved. All materials including my three-ring binder and my purse were embargoed. Nothing would be carried out until thoroughly examined.

Hugh Harris stepped away to consult with NASA’s Public Affairs director. My console headset crackled. Keying the closed loop button, I answered the call. It was the White House. “The President would like to speak to the nation,” said the voice at the other end. “We’d like some assistance in crafting a statement.”

Pres. Reagan and staff watch TV coverage of Space Shuttle Challenger seach and recovery activity off Florida's coast.

The President and his staff reacted to the news as they watched it on a television in the Oval Office Dining room. In this room, the president may have casual meals alone or with staff and catch the news on television or discuss White House policy. Because this room is usually furnished with a small television, it is often here that the president first sees news events being reported from around the world.

A short time later, President Ronald Reagan appeared on TV monitors worldwide, offering words of condolence and comfort.

In his address to the nation, President Ronald Reagan stated:

“Today is a day for mourning…a national loss…The members of the Challenger crew were pioneers…

The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future…

“There’s a coincidence today. On this day 390 years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and a historian later said,

‘He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it.’

“Well, today we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake’s, complete.”

The days and weeks following the accident went by in a blur of media frenzy and ocean salvage operations. Eventually, I was asked to work with the president’s appointed Rogers Commission, tasked with investigating the accident. My job was to document the entire investigation and author a narrative of it, which was subsequently published in a book titled “The Historical Summary of the 51-L Data and Design Analysis Task Force.”

In the immortal words of President Ronald Reagan:

“The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved good-bye and ‘slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God.’”

To view another excellent video of that day, click here.

Update: This was posted at Free Republic.  To read what others remember of that day, click here.

*****

Posted by Andrea Shea King at 1/29/2008 01:20:00 AM

9 comments:

Anonymous said… 

WOW 

7:10 AM, January 29, 2008

David Kyle said…

Andrea, You certainly have had your share of difficult times. I know you made a difference.

Dave Kyle

4:52 PM, January 29, 2008

Exurban Jon said…

That morning, I was 50 miles away in a Navy classroom in Orlando. I had seen the last launch up close and was bummed I couldn’t go to this one as well. Five minutes before our lunch break, a CPO poked in his head and said, “the shuttle just blew up.” Actually, most of us laughed because the thought was ridiculous. Sophisticated, modern rockets didn’t just “blow up” – at least not in our class’ 19 years watching flawless launches on TV. When we looked at his stunned face we realized it was no joke.

They let us out of class and we all stood there staring at the spiraling smoke trails far to the east. It took about an hour and a half for the wind to blow it all away.

6:18 PM, February 01, 2008

Maureen said…

Thank you for your service. (I wish I could tell everyone who’s worked at NASA that.) 

6:52 PM, January 28, 2009

Anonymous said…

Oh wow. I was a senior in high school and our entire class was watching. We Wyoming kids were so excited because our teachers were so excited. It took a while for it all to sink in as to what happened that day. However, I can tell you that many of my classmates are teachers now . . . some who hadn’t even thought of that profession. I wonder if that day was part of what made the difference?

9:58 PM, January 28, 2009

CJ said…

Andrea, I was in Jr. High School in jacksonville, FL when this happened. I remember our teacher taking us out to watch the launch trail and being very confused when the single plume turned into many. Our teacher quickly ushered us back inside the classroom. She had a strange demeanor for the rest of class. I didn’t find out exactly what happened until that night.

10:27 PM, January 28, 2009

bill7tx said…

My wife was there, on the beach south of Canaveral, watching with her father and her sister. Her mother had died during heart surgery the week before, and they had gone to watch the launch to try to get out from under the grief for a little while. It didn’t work out that way. I was in a meeting in Dallas, and we took a break to watch the launch. I will never forget the sick feeling when the shuttle blew up.

It must have been even more terrible for you.

10:48 PM, January 28, 2009

Mike Kelley said…

What was NASA thinking, launching a shuttle on one of the very rare cold mornings in Florida? Up here in the North, we know that any machine is much more likely to fail when it is cold. What a waste. 

7:16 PM, January 29, 2009

Greybeard said…

Ahh Mike, those questions have been asked over, and over, and… This is another of those days where you remember EXACTLY what was going on in your life-

My 3 year old son had suffered from ear infections all his life. We finally got sick of him being sick and the operation to insert drainage tubes in his ears was scheduled early that morning. He was groggy when we left “same-day-surgery” and beginning to wake up when we got home and turned on the TV, just in time to see the “Y” Andrea refers to. It was stressful trying to deal with a rightfully fussy child while listening to the news of this catastrophe.

Several months later I attended the birthday party of my former helicopter student. His Mother, with a sly smile, said “I have someone I want you to meet”, and took me across the room by the hand. In front of the gentleman she wanted to introduce me to she said, “I figured one pilot would have plenty to say to another”.
I knew something was up, and asked “So, what do you pilot?”
“A mini-sub”.
And I proceeded to talk for most of the evening with the guy NASA hired to pick the pieces off the ocean floor.

No one gets outta life alive.
Those that take huge risks sometimes leave us far too soon…
But bless ‘em for taking the risk, so that the rest of us might learn.

2:23 PM, January 30, 2009

24-hour deadline to send RR birthday greetings to Nancy Reagan!

. . . .

Photoshopped by Politico

While President Ronald Reagan’s name and visage is being invoked to sell Socialist policies (something that must have him turning in his Simi Valley grave), his own son writes that his father had Alzheimer’s disease while still president.

Poor Nancy.  This must be developing into an annus horribilus.

Here’s one way we can let her know that we hold her late husband in higher esteem than this.

Send me your personal birthday message to Mrs. Reagan on the occasion of her “Ronnie’s” special day — his 100th birthday observance coming up on Feb. 6th. We’ll print your messages on patriotic stationery and include it in a package wrapped with a red, white, and blue bow and send it to Reagan family friend Burt Boyar who will hand deliver it to Mrs. Reagan.

Because this is RR’s 100th, I’m sure you’ll want to make this a memorable moment for First Lady Nancy Reagan.

But hurry!  DEADLINE to send your birthday wishes is tomorrow night at midnight — THIS FRIDAY, Jan. 28.  Send your comments to me at Radiopatriot@gmail.com

. . . . .

 

 

They walk among us.

Tags

Domodedovo, Moscow, National Security, Stratfor

. . . . .

Related:
Sleeper Cells in the USA
Dave Gaubatz
January 26, 2011
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8528,css.print/pub_detail.asp

“The Moscow Attack and Airport Security is republished with permission of STRATFOR.”

Read more: The Moscow Attack and Airport Security | STRATFOR

By Scott Stewart

The Jan. 24 bombing at Moscow’s Domodedovo International Airport killed 35 people and injured more than 160. The attack occurred at approximately 4:40 p.m. as passengers from several arriving international flights were leaving the airport after clearing immigration and customs. The attacker (or attackers; reports are still conflicting over whether the attack was conducted by a man or a man and a woman together) entered the international arrivals hall of the airport, a part of the facility that is outside the secure area and that is commonly packed with crowds of relatives and taxi and limo drivers waiting to meet travelers.

Once the attacker was in the midst of the waiting crowd and exiting passengers, the improvised explosive device that he (or she) carried was detonated. It is not clear at this point whether the device was command-detonated by the attacker as a traditional suicide bomb or if the device was remotely detonated by another person. The attack was most likely staged by Islamist militants from Russia’s Northern Caucasus region who have conducted a long series of attacks in Russia, including the Aug. 24, 2004, suicide bombings that destroyed two Russian airliners.

The Domodedovo attack serves as a striking illustration of several trends we have been following for years now, including the difficulty of preventing attacks against soft targets, the resourcefulness of militants in identifying such targets and the fixation militants have on aviation-related targets.

Soft Targets

By definition, soft targets are those targets that are vulnerable to attack due to the absence of adequate security. Adequate security may be absent for a number of reasons, including disregard for the threat and lack of competent forces to conduct security, but most often soft targets are “soft” because of the sheer number of potential targets that exist and the impossibility of protecting them all. Even totalitarian police states have not demonstrated the capability to protect everything, so it is quite understandable that more liberal democratic countries do not possess the ability to provide airtight security for every potential target.

Moreover, some measures required to provide airtight security for soft targets are often seen as intrusive by citizens of countries where personal freedom is valued and the financial cost associated with providing such security measures is often seen as excessive. There is an old security truism that states: “If you try to protect everything all the time you will protect nothing.” Because of this reality, policymakers must use intelligence gained from militant groups, along with techniques such as risk assessment and risk management, to help them decide how best to allocate their limited security resources. While this will help protect the targets the government deems most sensitive or valuable, it will also ensure that some things remain unprotected or under-protected. Those things become soft targets.

While most militants would prefer to attack traditional high-profile targets such as embassies and government buildings, those sites have become far more difficult to attack in the post-9/11 world. At the same time, the relentless pursuit of terrorist operatives by the United States and its allies has resulted in the degradation of the capabilities and reach of groups such as al Qaeda. Today the threat posed to the West stems primarily from grassroots militants and jihadist franchises rather than the al Qaeda core. While this has broadened the threat, it has also made it shallower, since grassroots operatives are far less capable of spectacular and strategic attacks than the professional terrorist cadre of the al Qaeda core.

The combination of increased security at hard targets and the reduced capabilities of militant operatives has resulted in militant planners shifting their targeting toward softer targets, which are easier to attack. As a result of this shift, targets such as hotels have replaced embassies and other hardened sites in militant target selection.

Generally, militants prefer to attack soft targets where there are large groups of people, that are symbolic and recognizable around the world and that will generate maximum media attention when attacked. Some past examples include the World Trade Center in New York, the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai and the London Underground. The militants’ hope is that if the target meets these criteria, terror magnifiers like the media will help the attackers produce a psychological impact that goes far beyond the immediate attack site — a process we refer to as “creating vicarious victims.” The best-case scenario for the attackers is that this psychological impact will also produce an adverse economic impact against the targeted government.

Unlike hard targets, which frequently require attackers to use large teams of operatives with elaborate attack plans or very large explosive devices in order to breach defenses, soft targets offer militant planners an advantage in that they can frequently be attacked by a single operative or small team using a simple attack plan. The failed May 1, 2010, attack against New York’s Times Square and the July 7, 2005, London Underground attacks are prime examples of this, as was the Jan. 24 attack at Domodedovo airport. Such attacks are relatively cheap and easy to conduct and can produce a considerable propaganda return for very little investment.

Shifting Fire

In Russia, militants from the Northern Caucasus have long attacked soft targets, including buses, trains, the Moscow Metro, hotels, a hospital, a theater, a rock concert, shopping centers, apartment buildings, a school and now the soft side of Domodedovo airport.

In the case of Domodedovo, the past two attacks involving the facility are a clear illustration of the process by which militants shift to softer targets in response to security improvements. In August 2004, Chechen militants were able to exploit lax security on the domestic side of Domodedovo in order to smuggle two suicide devices aboard two targeted aircraft, which they used to blow up the planes. In response to that attack, security at the airport was increased. The Jan. 24 Domodedovo attack seems to have confirmed the effectiveness of these security improvements — the militants apparently believed they could no longer smuggle their suicide device aboard an aircraft. However, they adjusted their targeting and decided to conduct an attack against a vulnerable soft spot — the arrivals hall — located in the midst of the hardened airport target.

From a tactical standpoint, the attack at Domodedovo was a logical response to increased security designed to keep explosives off aircraft. This attack also demonstrates, significantly, that the militants behind it maintained the intent to hit aviation-related targets, a fixation we have discussed for some time now. One reason for this fixation is the impact that aviation-related attacks have on terror magnifiers. This was seen in the international response to the Domodedovo attacks, which was much larger than the response to twin suicide bombings of the Moscow Metro in March 2010. Even though the Metro bombings produced more fatalities, they did not resonate with the international media as the airport attack did. This media response to the most recent Domodedovo attack was presumably enhanced by the fact that it killed several foreigners.

This difference in international reaction is significant, and will certainly be noted by militants planning future terrorist attacks. In all likelihood, it will also serve to solidify their fixation on aviation-related targets and on soft targets such as arrival halls that are located in the midst of harder aviation targets. It must be noted, however, that this concept is not altogether new: Militants have long targeted the soft area outside airports’ security hardlines. Ticket desks were attacked by the Abu Nidal Organization in Rome and Vienna in December 1985, and more recently the El Al ticket desk at Los Angeles International Airport was attacked by a gunman in July 2002 and an unsuccessful car bomb attack against the main entrance of the international airport in Glasgow, Scotland, was conducted by a grassroots jihadist in June 2007.

In the wake of the Domodedovo attack, security has been increased in the arrival halls of Russian airports — a step that has been instituted elsewhere in order to make the traveling public feel secure. However, such measures are costly and will tie up security personnel who will then be unavailable to protect other sites. Because of this, these measures will likely be short-lived, and airports will return to “normal” in a matter of months. Furthermore, even when security is increased in areas such as arrival halls, the very nature of airports dictates that there will always be areas outside the rings of security where people will congregate — either to meet travelers or as they wait to clear security screening. While the threat can be pushed away from the airport building, in other words, it cannot be completely alleviated. Because of this, there will always be soft areas that are impossible to protect using traditional security measures. However, facilities that employ non-traditional security measures like protective intelligence and countersurveillance will be able to protect this type of soft area far more effectively than facilities relying solely on physical security measures.

The bottom line for travelers and security managers is that plots to attack aviation-related targets will continue and the array of aviation-related soft targets such as ticket desks and arrival halls will remain vulnerable to attack. A persistent, low-level threat to these targets does not mean the sky is falling, but it should prompt travelers to take some simple steps that can help minimize the time spent on the soft side of the airport. And, as always, travelers should practice an appropriate level of situational awareness so they can see trouble developing and take measures to avoid it.

‘When discussions were more reasoned and informed’

Tags

Cloward-Piven Strategy, Donald Rumsfeld, France Fox Piven, Glenn Beck, Milton Friedman, National Review Online, Thomas Sowell

. . . . .

PBS TV Series “Free to Choose” by Economist Milton Friedman
The legendary PBS TV series “Free to Choose” (1980) by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman is now available on Google Video for free (by courtesy of the Palmer R. Chitester Fund).

***

More from this morning’s email (and you’re getting the benefit!)

From Jason:

Many of you, especially you Glenn Beck fans, are familiar with the “Cloward-Piven Strategy”, the leftist-intellectual-couple’s 1966 method of overwhelming the system as a way to replace the federal welfare system with a guaranteed annual “salary”.

National Review Online yesterday posted a clip from a TV series that Milton Friedman produced in 1980, which was part documentary and part intellectual discussion on free enterprise vs. centralization called “Free to Choose”. In one of the discussion clips, Friedman debates Frances Fox Piven (when she was a professor at Boston University) and other academic intellectuals.

There’s also a clip that includes a debate with Thomas Sowell, who becomes extremely agitated with Piven, as does Friedman. These are two of the Right’s greatest intellectuals going up against one of the Left’s most radical and influential intellectuals. (In my opinion, Friedman and Sowell make mince meat of Piven, and Sowell’s attack on her is cheer-worthy.) Substance of the arguments aside, I found it interesting that throughout the discussion, Piven appears to be in a state of constant anger, with an irremovable scowl, which contrasts with both Friedman’s and Sowell’s more relaxed body language and frequent smiles. Just a telling observation.

These short clips, which I thoroughly enjoyed, led me to begin watching the entire “Free to Choose” series. I watched the first two episodes last night, and they were brilliant. (A young CEO named Donald Rumsfeld appears in one of the discussions, along with politicians, business leaders, academics, and other Ruling Class types.)

In my view, there’s no better debater and teacher of free market principles than Friedman. He’s more than an economist, he’s a big picture guy who understands human nature. I certainly relate to the way he thinks, even while he’s 10 times more intelligent and knowledgeable than I am.

This show is 31 years old now, but everything here is just as relevant today. These are timeless principles, and it shows that some things never change.

Watching this also made me long for a period where the discussions on these topics were more reasoned and more informed than what we see today on the cable talk shows. These were intellectual giants who were able to make a coherent argument and carry on a civilized discussion without constant interruption and a desire for sound bites.

So if you have a nerdy streak, like me, I think you’ll really enjoy this.

Here’s a 9 min clip of Friedman and Sowell taking on Piven:

Here’s a clip of Sowell slamming Piven over equality of outcome:

Here is the first of 10 hour-long episodes (I’m confident you can find the other 9 without my help):

. . . . .

The pressure is building.

. . . . .

Still combing through my overnight emails and read this from a trusted friend.  The pressure is building.  Who is Obama?  And who is involved in his cover-up?  Lots of intrigue.  My friend writes:

In its entirety…

White House Insider: Proceed At Your Own Peril

Published by Ulsterman on January 25, 2011 in USA & Canada

Author’s Note: This brief email was the only response finally received from Insider after multiple attempts to obtain follow up responses to our last communication.  I continue to make requests for further clarification.  It should be noted that within Insider’s previous response, they made mention of increased activity and concern surrounding the myriad Obama “birther” questions.  Following that communication, there followed substantially more chatter even by more mainstream media sources regarding the subject.  After some consideration I have decided to publish this message – and continue researching the information surrounding the birth of our current president.  As Insider admits in this most recent message – “there is something there.”

Some information in the following communication has been deleted.

Insider: Can’t respond much at this time.  Too busy with all of the chaos coming at us these days.  May be out of work soon! Crazy stuff.  Simply urge you to lay off the birther angle at this time.  Strongly urge.  To proceed is at your own peril.  Please take warning seriously.  This is not a small town cop shop situation here.  Let someone else try and make name on this one.

Don’t blame you as it was me who brought up subject last time. Since then heard repeated rumors/confirmations of attempted “purge” coming down the pike.  WH/media going on the offensive bigtime on issue. Has already started as you probably know. Talking very specific, very confrontational, very scary stuff here.  Don’t wish to drag you into that.  Much bigger fish are circling this.  They can survive what could be coming.  Not sure about me.  Let the big players handle this now.  This thing will either break out big or disappear.  Apologize for past doubt/ridicule.  There is something there.  100% certain of it. God help us.

Respond more in 1-2 weeks. Have much better grasp of situation at that time.  Too crazy right now.  -Deleted- was as shocking a moment in career.  WH and union thugs are kicking our ass and now this.  Never seen anything like it.  People who thought -deleted- were tough have no idea.  This is whole other level. Too old for this.  Too dumb for this.  Or both.

Give me a few weeks to see how it shakes out.

. . . . .

I’ll have a Jack Cashill and Glenn Beck with my coffee, thanks.

Tags

Glenn Beck, Jack Cashill, WorldNetDaily

. . . . .

UPDATE:

JACK CASHILL will be joining us tonight on The ANDREA SHEA KING SHOW at 9pm ET. Be there.

http://Blogtalkradio.com/ASKShow

---

---

Obama’s Republican Guard

Earlier this morning as I poured a cup of coffee, I heard Glenn Beck plaintively asking for the millionth time “Why doesn’t the media report this?  Any media?  Any media?” And I know he’s including Fox News in that question.  He has to be.  The Fair and Balanced Roger Ailes’ operation seldom picks up the facts Glenn tosses their way.

Settling in with my fresh cup and my computer, I scan through my emails — one catches my eye.  It’s from Jack Cashill, and subject is “Obama’s Republican Guard”. Hmmm…

I clear out all the superfluous (read: junk) mail and cull the overnights to a manageable level, before returning to Jack. Clicking on it takes me to his latest piece, published at WorldNetDaily.

There it is.  Everything I’ve been complaining about — everything Beck’s been railing about — the subject of countless conversations I’ve had with others.  How many times have you wondered — like me — why Glenn is the only one taking the stings and barbs in pursuit of the truth?  And guys like Cashill — who do amazing research that reveals corruption and cover-ups at the highest levels — are ignored and shunned.

So, just who is Obama’s Republican Guard?  Jack knows.

Click on that link, and you will too.

. . . . .

OUCH! Project Shining City turned down by CPAC

Tags

Bill Miller, CPAC, Jack Kemp, Jeff Bruzzo, Paul Szemanczky, Project Shining City

. . . . .

CPAC “too good for bloggers”

• Posted by Jack Kemp on January 25, 2011 at 11:00pm
• Send Message View Jack Kemp’s blog

A week or so ago, one of my editors, Jeff Bruzzo of New York-based ProjectShiningCity.org, was organizing a trip to Washington to attend the CPAC conference of the American Conservative Union in mid February. He contacted three of his writers – myself, Paul  Szemanczky and Bill Miller – to travel with him to Washington. Since we have media passes, Jeff assumed we would be issued media credentials for the conference. Project Shining City writers have covered national events, interviewed Governor Christie of New Jersey and Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center and been the exclusive source of video for Glenn Beck at his rally last October at Six Flags in New Jersey, all  on HD Video. The website also features the writing of Elizabeth Letchworth and Lloyd Marcus, names familiar to conservative website readers.

A few days later, all four of us received a rejection email letter from a public relations person for CPAC, Dave Mohel. The central part stated:

January 21, 2011

Dear Jack,

Thank you for your interest in obtaining a media credential to cover CPAC 2011.   From year to year we have come to look forward to participating in the conversation to broaden the definition of “media” in a continually expanding way, where traditional broadcast media and print reporters, radio talk show hosts, established bloggers, documentary filmmakers, video journalists, and freelance journalists on assignment combine to create an exciting on-the-record environment.

However, because we cannot place your request for credentials in one of our either traditional or emerging media categories or criteria, we cannot accept your request and would encourage you to instead register as a general attendee.  You are still welcome to cover the event.
END OF QUOTE

I wrote back to Mr. Mohel, stating my credentials, including my writing at American Thinker over 200 times and my articles being featured at Tea Party Nation, my interview of Brent Bozell on internet video and asking him what was his definition of “emerging media.” I also contacted the Editor of American Thinker who said he that “they have never given AT the time of day. ” Contacting Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, he replied that “They trashed us last year when we did our convention.  I am not happy with them being in bed with GOProud or Islamists.”

By this time, I was forming the opinion that CPAC was looking for media people with deep mainstream media connections to even sit in attendance at one of their speeches. This was reinforced when Jeff Bruzzo, the Editor of Project Shining City, replied to Dave Mohel by emailing to state his and his other writers’ experiences and requesting once again media passes. He waited a number of days for a reply.

That wait for media passes ended early this Tuesday evening with no message of any kind from Mr. Mohel, making the only practical course for the four writers from Project Shining City to do was cancel our hotel reservations (at a different hotel than the CPAC conference). I also had to email Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com to tell her we four (and Elizabeth Letchworth) wouldn’t be going to the premier of the film “The Ground Zero Mosque Movie” at the conference and to release our five tickets.

The fact is, CPAC has become a RINO conference with a non-RINO keynote speaker as a cover. You could say the keynote speaker is an attempt to “put lipstick on a pig,” to borrow a phrase.  Both Sen. DeMint of South Carolina and Gov. Christie of New Jersey have decided not to attend this year’s conference. The Heritage Foundation,  The Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America will also skip CPAC this year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/jim-demint-chris-christie-…
The Huffington Post speculates that the cancellations were caused by the inclusion of the gay group GOProud.

They could well be right.

It would have been great to meet some major conservative figures either again or for the first time, but perhaps it all worked out for the best. I’m sure there are other conferences and speeches the Project Shining City (and Tea Party Nation) members will attend in the future where we will meet Sen. DeMint, Gov. Christie, Ann Coulter and others.
On September 11th, 2009, I met both Lloyd Marcus and Ann Coulter in Bridgeport, Connecticut, as the Tea Party
Express arrived on its way to Washington, DC, the next day. Ann arrived on her own and spoke on stage as some losers across the street tried to either drown her out or distract her with big speakers blaring music in their second floor window. When the local police crossed the street behind the Fairfield County Courthouse to confront the mischief makers, they saw who was on the way and immediately turned off their music. I believe the voices of the Tea Party Network and Project Shining City will be just as difficult to silence – even for the “prestigious” CPAC gathering and their public relations man.

Am I comparing myself and other writers here to Ann Coulter? I will answer a question with a question. Does some organization have the right to silence us because we’re not Ann Coulter? The answer to both questions is NO.

. . . . .