THE FIRST STEP TO ENDING ABORTION AND BILL SALETAN HAS MADE IT

A most incredible op-ed piece from the LA Times today by William Saletan attacking the proposed partial-birth ban. He tries (unsuccessfully) to portray President Bush, Rick Santorum and the rest of us with a conscience as a vast cabal out to abolish a right to privacy. He was able to make this tenuous mental leap because Roe v. Wade was based on a right to privacy. His logic is all backwards because he’s saying if a (abortion) follows from b (right to privacy) and a is removed then so is b. Example: Mike is a chef and he bakes cookies. The cookies (a) follow from Mike being a chef (b). If you say I can no longer bake cookies, that doesn’t mean I’m not a chef anymore. Who said liberals must be logical anyway?

Perhaps Saletan realized his arguments were flawed because at the very end he switched to new tactic. Look at this from the last paragraph:

“This is where Santorum and his allies hope the abortion debate will end: the abolition of individualism through the redefinition of freedom and happiness.”

A bit over the top, huh?

Saletan has some Santorum quotes that are un-referenced, I believe because Saletan is taking the phrases out of context, like all of the Liberals did when Santorum spoke of the consequences of finding a Constitutional right to gay marriage. You can read those and decide for yourself, I have the feeling we are looking at another Dowdism here.

THE BIG NEWS, though, is from a telling paragraph in the middle of the piece. In commenting on the pro-lifers framing the debate over infanticide and not abortion, we get this telling admission:

“Why do Bush and other pro-life politicians obscure this? Why confine the debate to infanticide, not abortion? Their immediate concern was constitutional: A Supreme Court committed to Roe — which the Rehnquist court is, at least for the moment — could nevertheless uphold a ban on infanticide. And politically, they just didn't want to reopen the broader question of abortion rights. To separate the two issues, they had to convince the public that the killing [bolding mine]in a partial-birth abortion takes place outside the woman's body.”

Is it just me? Am I reading this wrong or did Saletan just say abortion is killing? By differentiating abortion and infanticide only by where the killing takes place, does that not admit abortion is killing? You’re darn-tootin’ it does!!! I didn’t spot this the first two times I read it, it seems Saletan and his editor didn’t either.

Thank you William Saletan for coming right out and admitting that abortion is killing. THAT'S the first step to ending abortion and you have just made it.

THE TRUTH ABOUT PRESIDENT BUSH, PT.2

The left just lies and lies and lies. I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone with any character would want to be a liberal. I couldn’t wake up in the morning and face the day knowing that I will be spreading and defending untruth after untruth.

Case in point – look at this from an alleged NEWS story from MSNBC about the White House/CIA leak hullabaloo:

“The controversy planted roots in January, when Bush said in his State of the Union address that British intelligence officials had learned that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium in Africa. The citation was used by Bush to back up the administration’s claim that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States.” (Bold added)

The administration did NOT say Iraq or Saddam Hussein were an immediate threat. This is the quote from the 2003 State of the Union address:

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option”

What the President is saying is that Iraq is NOT an immediate threat, but to wait until they become one is folly. Yet, the liberals trot out the “immediate” threat claim over and over again.

On a side note, I found some interesting claims made by the UN cited in the speech:

- “The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax…”
- “The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin…”

Interesting, considering how the left claims we made up the “threats”, I didn’t realize Karl Rove commanded the United Nations, too.

"HE'S NOT A LIAR, HE JUST DOESN'T TELL THE TRUTH ALL OF THE TIME"

Every day, I go to Lucianne.com to get a good idea what kind of stories are out there. Lucianne.com allows their registered members to post links to stories found out in cyberspace that day and let those same members comment. What makes this such a resource is the number of stories you can find. Most of you remember the story of Carl Miner, who didn’t even vote for himself in, What if you had an election and nobody showed up?” I got that from Lucianne.

Today at Lucianne, what should I find? A story from the LA Times. It seems the LA Times is a font for more people than just me. Joshua Micah Marshal has an editorial where he thinks “conservative hit machines “ have “cranked into action “ to derail the Wesley Clark nomination. Now, ole’ three name thinks this because the TRUTH about Clark’s flip-flops have made the news. Marshal’s main conservative hit man is Howard Fineman from Newsweek because he had the audacity to bring up Clark’s claim he would have been a Republican if only Karl Rove had called him back. When Fineman asked Clark to confirm this quote, Clark said he was only joking. The two Republican’s who Clark said this two said he didn’t seem to be joking at all. C’mon, what kind of joke would that be? If it wasn’t true, the whole thing makes no sense. The only way it could make sense is if Clark was saying he didn’t have a clue what (Republican or Democrat) he was, it was up to the toss of the coin. Does that make Clark a good person? I don’t think so.

As further proof that that the Republican are out to “get” Clark, the White House checked the phone logs and found that Clark had never called Karl Rove. Marshall finds this proof that Clark was only joking and he thinks that’s a good thing. If it’s true, that means Clark is as shallow as a pond in August (see the above paragraph), but Marshall thinks this somehow vindicates Clark.

Whatever. The whole column tries to make the Republican’s out to be some kind of evil force trying to convince the world that Clark is a liar. What he doesn’t seem to understand is Clark is doing that – the Republican’s are just putting the spotlight on his lies. Karl Rove didn’t make Clark vote for Reagan and Nixon, he didn’t make him say he would have supported the war in Iraq and then the very next day say we would never have supported it. And Karl Rove didn’t hold a gun to Clark’s head to make him say he had received a call from the White House on September 11 to claim Iraq was involved in the attacks. Nor did Rove make Clark switch his story to a Canadian connected to some think tank and it wasn’t necessarily on the 11th or 12th. And it wasn’t the Republican hit machine that made him claim he was snubbed by Karl Rove. Clark is an idiot and a liar. He loves power more than his mother and no one should let him forget we see right into his black heart.

MY QUESTIONS FOR ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

When do you PERSONALLY believe life begins? Is it at conception? If not, when EXACTLY do you believe life begins and why do you feel the baby was not alive one second before that? If you believe it is at viability, than you must believe that life begins sooner now than it did 100 years ago, correct? You must also believe that life begins sooner at Boston Children's Hospital than in Nigeria, correct? Is that racist?

Have you ever heard of Arthur Laffer? If so, please explain the Laffer Curve and the reason why you believe we are left or right of the x point?

Is Iraq better or worse off as a whole now than two years ago?

Please explain why the "brain drain" that affected Europe after they went to a single-payer healthcare system won't happen in the United States if we did the same thing?

Who is the leader of Afghanistan? Iran?

Please name the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Who would you replace, if anyone, and why?

What is the core business of Halliburton Corporation?

Who do you most closely associate yourself with; Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes?

What policies of the Clinton Administration, if any, do you think contributed to the economic boom of the 90's and which of those would you want to implement as President?

Was Ted Kennedy responsible for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne?

What is stagflation?

Are you concerned that the Federal Reserve is not under the control of the Federal Government?

What are the pros and cons of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America?

If you could, would you abolish the income tax and what would you replace it with and why?

Is it better to impose a democracy on a conquered country like the U.S. did in Japan or let the people of the country decide what form of government they want and why?

Who is on the $50.00 bill?

Do you personally believe the first amendment to the Constitution requires a separation of church and state or requires a separation of church from state and why?

THE PROLETARIAT MUST RISE UP AGAINST THE BOURGEOISIE OR THE RICH STINK!

No one has ever accused the New York Times of being a paper that defends wealth. In fact, this icon of old money hates people who have money, unless they’re liberal Democrats and then the Times just never references the money, like if it’s not mentioned, it doesn’t exist.

Along those lines, we get this headline in the Business section today:

“Top 1% in '01 Lost Income, but Also Paid Lower Taxes”

Never mention anything that might show the rich in a good light without making sure they still seem like the bad guys. The article is telling in that it contains all of the unfairness, tax wise, I have been harping about for years, but doesn’t seem the least bit embarrassed by the inequities, like the top 1% paying 34% of all income taxes DOWN from 37 ½ % the year before and 27 ½ cents of every dollar earned going to Big Government. The Times doesn’t even grasp that they are telling the whole world these people are paying the most in taxes and any tax cut will affect them greater than everyone else. They don’t grasp that because they know that and don’t care. In fact, they want the rich to be stiffed even more.

And in a final dig, look at the first line of the last paragraph:

“While the tax cuts that President Bush championed in 2001 will give the most benefits to the top 1 percent in income, those cuts had not taken effect in 2001.”

Instead of just saying the tax cuts had no bearing on the lower wealth and tax collections, they want to make sure everyone understands the party line – Bush takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

Ah, the Times, how you marginalize yourself. Maybe that’s why you have a whole website dedicated to tracking your lies and misconceptions.

THANKS FOR CALLING, NOW DROP DEAD!

Chelsea Lowe, I'm sure, is a quiet, mild mannered, bleeding heart liberal. She is also a freelance writer who, in the LA Times today, tried to make us all feel bad for our feelings of disgust and animosity towards telemarketers. She tugs at our heartstrings with her tales of getting that telemarketing job when she needed it the most:

“[Telemarketing] supported me through graduate school, an ad agency layoff and a fledgling freelance career. I was unemployed when I started, broke and living in a place I called "the mouse house." “

Aww, is that special. Maybe you should have gotten a degree in something useful instead of comparative theology or under-water basket weaving. Then you could have gotten a real job instead of a harasser-for-hire.

She made her calls for a non-profit organization and was surprised that she was still treated as a pariah when she called to interrupt dinner, like non-profits can do wrong or something. Then we get this little bit berating:

“A little tip: It's unwise to give an organization your address and phone number, then berate the low-level employee into whose hands that information falls. I made note of mean people's numbers with an eye toward some clever revenge. I never carried out these ideas; I just liked knowing I could. Maybe I'm funny that way: Mistreatment seldom brings out my better impulses.”

Two tips, babe. “I was just following orders” didn’t work at Nuremberg and it isn’t going to work here. You make the call, you take the fall. More importantly, was that a threat? So, what you are saying is never help your precious little non-profits, of which I am sure you are so proud of, because they will harass you until you die and then sometime after? Is it too much for us to think that when we help somebody, they won’t turn on us and start harassing us?

Which brings up another point. Not once in her little piece did Chelsea say the calls we get aren’t harassing. She knows better than that – because they are. Everyone, I mean everyone, recognizes these calls as harassment. Yet, the telemarketing cabals are shocked and horrified to find they are hated as human beings. Am I to feel sorry that these people will loose their jobs if the Do Not Call list passes Constitutional muster? I don’t think so. Try acting as considerate human beings, don’t call after 6:00 PM, hey, even use the mail, and then we’ll talk about getting some respect. But, before that, you all deserve to be treated as the parasites and fleas that you are, sucking the lifeblood of kindness from every American who bothers to have a real job.

ARS GRATIA ARTIS

It’s nice sometimes to be ahead of the pack. In one of my earliest posts at Mel’s Diner, I commented on modern art and how I dislike it. One of my comments was that people just pretend to like this stuff so they won’t fell left out.

In the Sept. 20th The Spectator, Tom Utley makes almost the same point. He wasn’t talking about modern art, he was talking about some of the classics. But his point was that people pretend to like art that they really don’t because they feel they SHOULD like it.

It’s good to know that people from across the water are coming to Mel’s Diner.

THE U.N. IS UN-GOOD

The United Nations is useless. Let me rephrase – the United Nations is useless when it comes to security. It might MIGHT be adequate at relief missions, maybe – but when it comes to security, it is an unmitigated disaster. It’s finally been forced into it’s role as an international Salvation Army, without the selflessness.

But you wouldn’t think so if you got your news from the LA Times. In an opinion piece today by Stephen Schlesinger, the director of the World Policy Institute at the New School University, he believes the UN is vitally important and relevant. It’s quite sad, actually, to see a classic liberal try to hold onto his elitist icon like a robber baron onto his summer mansion. Schlesinger says:

“People forget that before the U.N.'s founding, there was no truly functioning international organization (except for the creaky, faltering League of Nations). This meant that for many decades there was no place for nations to go in global crises.”

Like Rwanda did? Or maybe Afghanistan? Speaking of Afghanistan, didn’t the Soviet Union act unilaterally there? Was that a “fork in the road”, as Kofi Annan calls Operation Iraqi Freedom? Did that mean the end of the world like we hear today? And what about Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands, was that unilateral action? What did Schlesinger’s precious UN do about that? While they discussed and formed committees, I believe Margaret Thatcher acted unilaterally to kick their skinny, Latin butts then, too.

Just like the United States did since 9/11.

Proving Schlesinger is an absolute moron and a liberal, look at this:

“President Bush himself has slowly come to this realization in the Iraq crisis. He is now seeking to reinvolve our fate with the U.N. because it offers political legitimacy for the American occupation of Iraq. “

President Bush is not looking for “political legitimacy”; that’s what spineless liberals who care more for world opinion than American security look for. The United nations couldn’t offer legitimacy to wiener roast, never mind a military operation.

CIVIL DISCOURSE

Vice President Cheney was in Manchester last night at a fundraiser ($200,000) and the anti-war protestors where out in mild force. After work (Hmmm….do these protesters have jobs), I went to see my friend Diane, who came up from Mass. to film the protest. As I was walking up and down the line looking for Diane, they started to chant, “Recall Bush!! Recall Bush!!”. Well, what was I supposed to do? I started chanting, “Four More Years!! Four More Years!!”

It went over like a lead balloon.

Most people either didn’t hear me or ignored me, but I did get the attention of a few of them. I know this because someone said to me, “I don’t think so!” and another voiced his opinion with, “F**k off!”

That’s civil discourse on the left.

ABCNBCPBSNPRCNN

Two little stories worth looking at together. The first one is a Gallup poll that shows Americans are now evenly split on whether the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over. This is down from a high of 76% to 19% back in April. The same poll shows Bush’s approval rating down to 50% with 47% disapproval.

The second story is from The Hill. I bi-partisan congressional group has returned from a three day trip to Iraq and discovered the Press are seriously slanting the news. The Hill article quotes almost exclusively from the Democrats and we get things like this:

“Some of the media reports led him[Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.)] to believe that “it was Vietnam revisited,” he said. But he said there was “a disconnect between the reporting and the reality.”

Marshall also claimed that there now are only 27 reporters in Iraq, down from 779 at the height of the war. “The reporters that are there are all huddled in a hotel. They are not getting out and reporting,” he told The Hill.

He added, ‘The good news is not being reported in the conventional press.’”

“Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the committee’s ranking member, said, “The media stresses the wounds, the injuries, and the deaths, as they should, but for instance in Northern Iraq, Gen. [Dave] Petraeus has 3,100 projects — from soccer fields to schools to refineries — all good stuff and that isn’t being reported.””

What they didn’t get into was why the press was like this. It could be they are just lazy, but I suspect something more basic. I suspect they want us to loose. Sitting in their hotel, wearing their “Not My President” , “Selected, not Elected” buttons - more than anything they want the United States to fail. They relish every soldier killed and secretly hope for some massive attack that forces public opinion down to the point we pull out like Bill Clinton did in Somalia. But, in the mean time, they just present one bad thing after another because it’s working. The sheep I call Americans are starting to believe we are on the run in Iraq and get the feeling we should get out.

I hate the press – I really do.

GUNS, GUNS, GUNS

Back to the font again today and I wasn’t left high and dry. The New York Times has an editorial bemoaning the Federal Government’s shielding gun manufacturers from being sued every time a gang-banger gets killed. Now, I respect the Times’ right to believe that gun makers should be responsible for the irresponsible use of their products. I think they are completely wrong (are you surprised?), but I respect their opinion.

What I can’t respect is the “paper of record” drawing analogies where obviously there is none. Check out the first paragraph:

“It's puzzling: a society that figured out that it could not stem the use of alcohol and tobacco by minors without punishing the people who profit from those sales still has not done much to keep the wrong people from owning guns. Now Congress is poised to take a step back from that goal.”

Holding liquor stores and bars responsible for not selling liquor to minors is not the same thing as holding Smith & Wesson responsible to the sniper killings by those two gay, black men in Washington. The analogy is incredibly wrong on many levels; the correct analogy should would then say:

1. The gun store that sold the rifle was responsible for not selling the gun to a minor.
2. Or, holding Seagram’s responsible because Junior went into his mommy’s liquor cabinet, downed a fifth, stole the car and ran over the neighbor.

The Times goes on and on about how so many local gun laws are bypassed by people buying the weapons out of state. If only Congress would act on that, maybe gun deaths would go down!! I have an idea, how about if we make the interstate trafficking in guns illegal, wouldn’t that make the Times happy? Obviously not, because that’s ALREADY illegal!!

No, the New York Times just wants people to be relieved of personal responsibility and at the same time put the screws to businesses.

MICHAEL MOORE AND THE FREAK FEST

Yesterday I went to Jim Hightower’s Rolling Thunder Down Home Democracy Tour. It was really just a liberal freak fest, a collection of pro-choice, anti-Bush, earthy-crunchy, campaign finance reform, anti-Israeli special interest groups. Oh, and Michael Moore, too.

There was a center stage where one liberal group after another got up to yell about George Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Yep, Halliburton is still the star chamber organization of choice for these people and they’re not going to take it anymore!

Some dude early on made a crack about Jehovah Witnesses that would have had the ACLU out in fleet force if a Conservative had said it. This guy, whose name I didn’t catch, said pretty soon in New Hampshire we would have so many candidates knocking on our doors,

“You’ll open it and it will be a Jehovah's Witness and you’ll say, "Come on in!’ because you’ll be so happy it’s not a candidate”

Whatever, just thought it was kind of funny.

But the keynote speaker was Michael Moore, filling in for Jim Hightower, who couldn’t make it due to a death in the family. Michael’s whole schpeel was that the majority of Americans are just like him and all of the other morons there yesterday (I was there…does that make me a moron?).

Moore was in fine form. As many of you know, his “documentary” Bowling for Columbine, is full of inaccuracies, some of the most common involve mixing two separate instances into one to make this combined action seem terrible. And darned if he didn’t do that again. To liberals, John Ashcroft is the devil. So, in putting Mr. Ashcroft down, Michael Moore said,

“Before being sworn in as Attorney General by Clarence Thomas, he smeared himself with Crisco in some kind of fundamentalist rite”.

This brought howls of laughter and knowing nods from the troops - too bad it isn’t true. Mr. Ashcroft will have himself anointed the night before taking an oath of office, I’m sure in an effort to start his job off as close to Christ as possible in an effort to do his will. It’s no stranger than we Catholics having ashes rubbed on our foreheads on Ash Wednesday. In is autobiography, John Ashcroft said that the night before he took is Senate seat for the first time he wanted to do this but had no oil except for Crisco. His father, a pastor, said the type of oil was not important and they could still anoint his forehead. It was not before he took the oath of office to be Attorney General, but why start letting the truth get in the way now?

He also said the Democrats are having such a hard time because their candidates are such wimps; the Democrats have nothing to stand up for. The Republicans, on the other hand,

“..are up at the crack of dawn saying, ‘What group are we going to screw today?’”

Oh, sure, they’re the party of equality and niceness.

A final quote from Michael Moore:

“Who took the fun out of fundamentalism?”

We know who put the mental in it, Mike.

BTW, I have two pages full of pictures from the Freak Fest if you would like to check them out.

"ME NOT NEED TO THINK - IT TOO HARD"

I went to Jim Hightower’s Rolling Thunder Down Home Democracy Tour as it thundered into Manchester. A bigger group of freaks and liberals I have never seen. To make it even better, I went with Lisa and her mom, which many people remember I went two rounds with over Tim Robbins and Iraq. I need to say, I really like Lisa’s mom (Diane) and just because she’s a liberal elitist, that doesn’t mean she’s not nice.

I’ll have a whole post about this with links to pictures later, but I think I can squeak in a quickie today.

I stopped at the NARAL booth and it was staffed by two women (want to see my surprised face?) and as I talked to them I asked (gently) “When do you think life begins?” They both told me they didn’t feel they could say that and the bigger issue was making sure all babies are wanted, etc. I said I understood, I was just asking when they PERSONALLY felt life begins. The younger one said, and I quote,

“It’s not up to me to say when life begins”.

She felt it wasn’t up to her to say when she felt life begins.

That’s the face of the Pro-Choice movement. It’s a that kind of a lack of intelligence that has lead the pro-abortion movement into the corner it is in today.

"DRUGS! - GIMME MY DRUGS!"

The New York Times Editorial board are either liars or dumb. Maybe both. Today they had a little editorial on importing prescription drugs from Canada. They're not sure if it’s such a good idea, but:

“...it could provide a useful nudge to the industry to revise its global pricing policies to spread the burden more fairly. “

That sounds reasonable, right? I mean, if the drug companies have some huge, secret meeting where they say, “Let’s charge Canada $5.00, Mexico $3.00 and the suckers in the US $12.00. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!”, that’s not fair, is it? Hillary warned us of those evil drug companies ten years ago!! She IS the most brilliant woman on the face of the earth!

This whole pricing scenario is common among the great unwashed and the editorial boards of the United States. It’s also not true, as even the Times pointed out in their little ditty:

“Imported drugs can be a great bargain because pharmaceutical manufacturers exact their highest prices from American consumers and sell the same products for much less in foreign markets, where prices are driven down by price controls or hard bargaining by governments”

Price controls. If something is sold in one place where the price is regulated and also in another where it isn’t, the unregulated place will subsidize the other. This happens everywhere there are subsidizes; just ask any landlord who suffers under rent control.

Let’s do a simple example: Let’s say Mulholland Pharmaceuticals has a allergy medicine that I need to sell for $8.00 a bottle. I sell 2,000 bottles in Canada and 4,000 in the United States. Together, that would be a total of 6,000 bottles and $48,000. Big Government in Canada says I can only charge $3.00 in Canada. So, I only make $6,000 in Canada where I need to make $16,000. In the United States, I would normally make $32,000 selling the 4,000 bottles at $8.00, but I need to make up that $10,000 I’m short from Canada, so I kick the price up to $10.50 in the US, so I’ll make the $42,000 I need to subsidize Canada.

It’s delicious irony that the people who are always clamoring for subsidies finally are on the subsidizing end. Well, it would be, if they understood a bit of it, but they don’t.

ZZZZZZ.........

Derrick Z. Jackson’s editorial in the Boston Globe is stupid. He tries a New York Times kind of “AH-HA” about Dick Cheney and that tired excuse of a pummel, Halliburton. Vice President Cheney said on Meet The Press:

"Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now, for over three years."

Senator Lautenbergs office immediately released Cheney’s financial disclosure forms that show he has received deferred salaries each year since leaving Halliburton and will continue to do so for years to come.

AH-HA!

The key word here is “deferred”. As Cheney’s office pointed out, that salary was already earned, he’s not receiving payments for anything current. He is due this because of an option he took BEFORE becoming Vice President to receive payouts in the future, much like an annuity. But to Jackson, this is not at all what it is, it’s a lie.

Jackson also mentions the 433,000 stock options Cheney still holds, but downplays the fact that they are in a charitable trust. A trust in which Cheney can do nothing with the options.

Jackson also seems shocked, shocked! That Halliburton gave “$280,000 to Republican candidates for office in the first half of 2000. It gave less than $10,000 to Democrats.” Ah, so that must be proof of…of, well, something. How about the donation split of the AFL-CIO, huh?

Get a life Jackson, and drop that Z, ok?

NEW YORK TIMES, PT. 2

Well, the New York Times struck again. This time they felt we all needed their sage opinion on a most gruesome of procedures, partial-birth abortion. Not surprisingly, they think the proposed ban is just terrible. It’s all a lot of blah-blah-blah we have heard from the Times over and over again, so I’m not going to tackle that again. What I want to point out is their last paragraph:

“These are precisely the defects that led to the Supreme Court's rejection of the Nebraska statute. But that does not seem to trouble the measure's backers, starting with President Bush. Their actions show a troubling disrespect not just for the rights of women, but also for truth, and the rule of law.”

Specifically, look at the list sentence and ask yourself, what about the rights of the baby? The baby that could very well live outside of the mothers womb at the point it’s skull is crushed and it’s body is tossed in the trash.

THE NEW YORK TIMES, PT.1

There’s an editorial in the New York Times they probably wanted to title, “AH-HA!” The editorial is a rabble-rousing bit about how the Bush administration came out and said there is no direct evidence connection Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. Of course, the administration never said there was either, but because 69% of Americans feel there was a connection, then President Bush wasn’t doing enough to dispel it.

First of all, we do need to stress the administration DIDN’T come out and claim a connection. I, for one, never thought Saddam had anything to do with the attacks, but I always felt he would do it if he could. Wasn’t there a cruise missile attack by Bill Clinton because Saddam was planning a “terrorist” attack on former President Bush?

First of all again, The New York Times is doing EXACTLY what they are accusing Dick Cheney, et al of in this editorial – not exactly saying something, but giving the impression they did. They never come right out and say the Bush Administration lied, but they sure do hint at it.

“White House aides will tell you that Mr. Bush never made that charge directly. And that is so. But polls show that lots of Americans believe in the link. That is at least in part because the president's aides have left the implication burning.”

“Mr. Cheney was careful then not to claim that any evidence really linked Mr. Hussein to the 2001 attacks. But he drew a convoluted argument about Mr. Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda and suggested in closing that he was not telling all he knew because he did not want to reveal top secrets.”

But, then again, The New York Times is not known for it’s application of it’s rules for others to itself.

To cap it, they slip in a little lie to make sure we all get the point. Well, it’s not a lie per se, it’s an assertion and the evidence to prove it doesn’t prove it at all:

“President Bush himself drew a dotted line from the 9/11 attack in declaring the end of hostilities in Iraq. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," Mr. Bush said.”

There is no dotted line there! He was saying the greater war on terror is moving right along, not object one (Iraq) was connected to object two (9/11).

YOUR VOTE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

A funny as all get-out story out of Arkansas and it wasn't Wesley Clark, although that's kind of funny, too. Carl Miner ran unopposed for a school board seat in Mississippi County - and managed to get exactly zero votes.

0.

None.

In fact, not a single person from the entire district voted - not even Miner.

Miner believes he still gets the seat because he ran unopposed, but I'm not sure. I think a special election will have to be called because no votes were cast. It's not a tie, so maybe Miner is correct, but I'm not sure.

GENERALLY DUMB

Wesley Clark – boy is that guy a winner. Check out this quote from Meet The Press:

“Secondly, the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country. So I think that the tax cuts were unfair.”

Where can we start with this? Firstly, it convoluted and almost nonsensical. What does, “When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.” mean? I think he left out some of what he wanted to say, but I’m not sure. I’ll let it pass because he was on TV and winging it, but it’s still confusing.

But all of you, I’m sure, see the money quote.

“I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation”.

No wonder the media are fawning all over this guy – not only does he espouse their fantasies, he’s dumb as a stick, too. This country was founded on the principle of almost NO taxation. It took an amendment to the Constitution, number sixteen, in 1913 to even make an income tax LEGAL. 125+ years after the founding. Hello? Is there anybody home, General?

You would think he and his supporters would be embarrassed by this idiocy. But, no. Without even trying, I found two websites (Draft Clark for 2004 and Women for Clark) for drafting Clark proudly displaying it. I guess it’s not illegal to be mind-bendingly stupid, I just wish their vote didn’t count as much as mine.

This man is what Bugs Bunny would call an Ultra Maroon

I'M 41% GEEK!

You are 41% geek

You are a geek liaison, which means you go both ways. You can hang out with normal people or you can hang out with geeks which means you often have geeks as friends and/or have a job where you have to mediate between geeks and normal people. This is an important role and one of which you should be proud. In fact, you can make a good deal of money as a translator. Normal: Tell our geek we need him to work this weekend. You [to Geek]: We need more than that, Scotty. You'll have to stay until you can squeeze more outta them engines! Geek [to You]: I'm givin' her all she's got, Captain, but we need more dilithium crystals! You [to Normal]: He wants to know if he gets overtime. (I do believe that is WWE Superstar Hurricane Helms in the picture above)

Take the Polygeek Quiz at Thudfactor.com

WASN'T "ALICE IN WONDERLAND" WRITTEN BY A GUY NAMED CARROLL? IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW....

Well, the insanity continues. James Carroll, son of an Air Force General, ex-priest, antiwar activist, author, playwright and all around loon has an editorial in the Boston Globe today that is off the charts. It’s your typical anti-Bush, anti-America belch that we see all over the media, but this one pulls out all stops. In an effort to be heard over the orchestral tuning we know as “opinion” in the liberal papers, Carroll blows his French Horn as loudly as possible, abandoning any semblance of hitting notes for just the loudest screech possible.

It seems the terrible friendly fire accident that lead to the death of ten Iraqi policemen was the final blow to his sense of reality. Wait, I’ll let Jimmy C. explain:

“This “accident" was not, in fact, an aberration. The killing of allies and of innocents is part and parcel of what the American occupation involves now. Death has overtaken strategy.”

Oh, because there are no Iraqi soldiers left, our guys are now killing civilians, because, hey, they’ve got to kill somebody, right? Carroll’s next paragraph proves this:

“Whether the soldiers who killed the Iraqi policemen "intended" the act or not is irrelevant. American pietism excuses dastardly outcomes when they are committed with good intentions, but morality is measured more by consequences than purposes. No US soldier is "innocent" in this enterprise”

See what I mean, he’s out of his mind!! All I can picture him is running around the room, waving his arms about over his head, making monkey noises.

Maybe a glimmer of sanity made it through the blackness of incomprehension, because for a brief second, Carroll tries to backtrack, only to go deeper into that good night:

“But every US soldier in Iraq has been taken hostage. The hostage takers are not the terrorists but the small clique of Bush administration officials who have violated US tradition, international agreements, and the sacred trust that commanders owe their soldiers.”

Because America is always wrong, we get this line:

“…there was no "right" way to invade Iraq and there is no "right" way to occupy it. Iraq belongs to Iraqis.”

He either thinks the Iraqi people were living in a panacea of freedom, love and happiness under Saddam or he just doesn’t care that they lived under a tyrant of the first degree.

And of course, John Ashcroft is the devil:

“The Justice Department is increasingly an instrument of repression. On the eve of elections, the American people are in the grip of a vast ennui.”

He then gives a list of what is to be done, including:

- “The troops must simply be removed from Iraq”
- “All funding for the American occupation, including the $87 billion Bush requested last week, must be opposed. Military appropriations must be cut off.”
- “Just as Bush has kidnapped our young people in uniform, he has captured the flag. For now, the way to take it back is to take it down.”

The last thing wasn’t something the hippies should do, but I think a new thought just hit him, so he threw it in:

“Mortal danger becomes apparent. Bush policies have reinvigorated suicide bombers across the world while simultaneously igniting a new round of nuclear proliferation. The prospect of that combination -- nuclear weapons in the hands of suicidal fanatics -- poses the greatest risk in human history. Bush himself has thus become the ultimate suicide bomber.”

He ends the whole WTO protest of a rant with a call for “resistance” and turning the whole “momentum of Bush's war back upon itself” - which can only mean he wants to liberate something.

Probably his mind.

THE TRUTH ABOUT PRESIDENT BUSH

I’ve decided to start a post that I will update often. It’s a list of the lies the left tell about President Bush. My purpose is to expose the lies they are telling over and over again in an effort, often successful, to convince Americans that they are in fact true.

Lie #1. The infamous “sixteen words” in the 2003 State of the Union address. I thought this had so thoroughly debunked that the left had dropped it. Unfortunately, they are still using it. The hyper-liberal organization MoveOn is currently using it in an ad in the New York Times. So, lets go over it again:

The Lie: George Bush misled the entire world when he said Iraq was trying to by uranium from Iraq. This was, in fact, not true – Iraq did not try to by enriched uranium.

The Truth: This is the full quote from the State of the Union address:

“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”

As you can see, George Bush claimed THE BRITISH had intelligence of the attempted purchase. In fact, the British still stand by that. So, George Bush never claimed as fact that Iraq tried to buy uranium and lied about it. Everything he said was TRUE, at that time, the British did have intelligence about Iraq’s activities.

MOOMOO-WHAT?

It may come as a surprise to most of you, but politics isn’t all I think or care about. To any of you who actually know me, my family comes first. She Who Must Be Obeyed, The Little Princess and Boy Wonder are number one in my life. Aside from them, I have varied and somewhat odd likes. I like professional wrestling (Y2J rules!), Lionel trains, Manowar, Motorhead and reading. I love reading and not just books by Ann Coulter (hubba-hubba). Some of my favorite books might just shock you.

I love the Moomins.

The Moomintroll series was written by Finnish author Tove Jansson. The Moomintrolls are small, peace-loving woodland creatures who live in the forests of Finland. Love of these books is similar to the love of Norman Rockwell paintings. I could spend two years explaining why the Moomin books are so great, but that might not be quite long enough.

So, if you ever get a chance to lay your hands on Comet in Moominland or Finn Family Moomintroll, DO IT. Don’t ask questions, don’t go home to think about it, don’t let kids or old ladies get in your way, get them. Sure, they’re kids books, but so is Huckleberry Finn, do you think that’s too young for you?

Didn’t think so.

NO BIAS HERE, YOU'RE TALKIN' CRAZY TALK!!

I went to the font just a few minutes ago and darned if it wasn't gushing forth. The New York Times has an editorial about McCain-Feingold and they were shocked, shocked! to find it wasn't the dream come true they thought it would be.

What they decided to do is list some of the excesses we find in campaign fund raising and, I know this will come as a shock, the Republicans seem to be the bad guys. I know, coming from the Times, this is so out of character.

Listing abuses, they come up with seven Republican examples to two Democratic. This, in spite of the Democrats coming out on the loosing end of the campaign finance disaster, I mean reform. The average "soft nominee" excess donor was giving to the Democrats. Yet, in listing abuses, the Times makes it a two-to-one abuses, Republican to Democrat.

The press is so wildly liberal, it's scary. Yet, in fits of delusions, they claim a CONSERVATIVE bias in the news. It makes me wonder - can they sleep at night? Do their lies bother them? Or have they found some magic elixer that assuages their guilt?

Seriously, I write a whole lot of stuff here, but I really do wonder - how can they live with themselves?

REALITY USED TO BE A FRIEND OF MINE

Quick – who is Wesley Clark? Most people I ask can tell me he was a General. And then nothing. I thought he was a General in Desert Storm or something; I really didn’t know a thing about him. What I did know was that there is a lot of hub-bub surrounding his potential entrance into the race for the Democratic Presidential nominee.

I had read that he could change the dynamic of the race. I read that Howard Dean (Ho-Ho to his friends) was trying to get Clark to come on board with as VP. I was getting Clark, Clark, Clark. Will he? Won’t he?

Then it hit me…

Nobody knows who he is. I’m a political junkie – had no clue. Some people I asked couldn’t even tell me he was a General. My father-in-law, a Democrat to the core, State Rep. from Vermont, was calling him Ramsey Clark.

General Wesley Clark is an inside the beltway phenomena. Nobody 40 miles east of DC has a clue who he is. We have always suspected that the Beltway People are WAY out of touch with America and I think this whole Clark business proves it. They are all talking to each other about this Ike-type, not realizing he’s as well known as Dennis Kucinich to most of America.

And I thought Hollywood was Never-Never Land.

NEW LOOK

Yes, Mel's has a new look. The archives will still look like the original Mel's Diner, so don't be too surprised. I hope you like the new look - if you don't, oh well.

The content is still good, though.

MORE HOWARD (MOE HOWARD?)

I watched all of five minutes worth of This Week with George Stephanapolapolous. They were doing a story about Howard Dean on the campaign trail and I learned two interesting things.

1. Commenting on Dick Gephardt’s broadside last week, Howie said he was, “disappointed in Dick” and said the attacks were, “pathetic politics of the past”. So what exactly do you mean here, Howard? That what people have done in the past has no relevance on the campaign? Does that mean you will stop talking about the War and tax cuts, being they are both in the past? Or do you mean only YOUR past? Or was this one of your famous nonsensical sound bites?

2. Howard also told Georgie that he was baptized a Roman Catholic, became an Episcopal and is now a Congregationalist. When asked how he became a Congregationalist, Howard said he left the Episcopal Church over a mile-and-a-half bike path. Even fawning George was confused by that. I have no other details, my mother-in-law turned off the TV at that point, but leaving your church over a bike path shows some serious convictions – NOT.

ABSOLUTELY NUTS

The New York Times has once again come through for me. It has an editorial today so full of craziness, I have to believe it was written as kind of a parody. It’s all about poor Washington, DC. It starts off with this:

“The 500,000 people who live in Washington, D.C., are accustomed to being humiliated by Congress, which dictates everything from how the city spends its tax dollars to how it collects the garbage — while denying Washingtonians a vote in the body that runs their affairs.”

But do they tell you why? No. It’s because DC is supposed to be the seat of government and the Congress doesn’t want the city to be held hostage by a State looking for favors from the Federal Government. Or do they mention every time Congress gives the city some autonomy, DC is incapable of taking care of itself. Remember the crack-smoking mayor?

Next paragraph we get this:

“Thanks to this dictatorial oversight, the District of Columbia is the only city in the country that is barred by Congress from spending locally raised tax dollars to provide abortions for impoverished women.”

Oh, boy. What the times doesn’t mention is DC hospitals already perform 960 or so abortions for every 1,000 births. No, I’m not making that up; the hospitals can barely keep ahead of the carnage.

Next paragraph:

“This year, Congress is trying to force the city to send about 1,300 public school children to private, mainly parochial, schools at public expense over the objections of the school board and a majority of the city's elected officials, including Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city's nonvoting representative in the House.”

The Times fails to mention that the voucher program is traditionally supported by the people who actually have kids in the school system. Doesn’t it make more sense to be on the side of the parents instead of Eleanor Holmes Norton and her cronies?

How about this doozy?

“This proposal is antidemocratic, but its faults run deeper.”

The Times never explains exactly how parents having the choice of what school to send their kids to is antidemocratic, but did you really expect them too?

Finally,

“This proposal sends the wrong message by funneling public money to private schools at a time when public schools are broke. It also brings attention to the fact that the Bush administration has failed to finance fully its vaunted public school initiative, No Child Left Behind, which was supposed to remake public education but is rapidly becoming just so much window dressing.”

Broke? Washington, DC currently spends more than $11,500 per student, the highest in the country and one and a half times more than the national average. Oh, and they score the lowest on SAT scores, too.

Thank you, New York Times editorial board, your insanity keeps trouble makers like me busy. Too bad many people think YOU are the sane ones.

MORON

In doing some research for my previous post, I discovered this little gem from Howard Dean:

“To those who question his foreign policy credentials, Dean said he would not shy from going to war to protect America's interests but he said Saddam Hussein could have been contained without force.”

Contained? Uh, Flipper, we “contained” Saddam for twelve years, are you telling me that was a good thing? All the time we were accomplishing your goal of containment, there were prisons for children, there were mass executions of children, there were disappearances of so many people that videos of executions are being bought by Iraqis hoping to find some news of there loved ones. During twelve years of containment, Iraqis were being starved while palace after palace was being built. During twelve years of containment, brides were being raped and murdered by the Hussein boys.

This is what you want? You are such a moron, it’s confounding. It’s really starting to show that you have no real experience at leadership, you were a glorified mayor. Please go back home (is that Vermont or Park Avenue?) and keep you idiocies to yourself so you don’t hurt anyone.

I CALL HIM FLIPPER!!

Howard Dean seems to have a new description attached to his name. Replacing “straight talker” we’re beginning to see “flip-flop”. MSNBC had this headline this morning:

Dean weighs flip-flop on spending

In the Democrat debates, Dean was attacked by the other candidates for flip-flopping on the retirement age, the Cuban embargo, gun rights (there OK in rural areas, but not cities) and of course his squirming just this week over his remarks about Israel. It seems there isn’t a side of an issue Dean isn’t on.

Like most of his contemporaries, he seems to have no firm positions but one – the tax cuts must be repealed. Great, so all I know about you is you want my money – that sure builds confidence.

LET NOT THEIR DEATHS BE IN VAIN

In the World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2201, 2,774 people were killed (plus 10 animals, I mean “alleged terrorists” as our friends in Reuterville call them). Of that, 370 of them were firefighters and police officers. That means almost 13.5% of the people killed ran INTO the building. 370 people showed no concern for their own lives, they just did what they could to help people they didn’t know. I know of one story about an off-duty fireman whose truck was found along the side of the road outside of the city, where he had abandoned it to get back to help the people in the buildings.

He died when they fell.

We must remember this. We must remember the sacrifices. We must remember there are people out in the world who want YOU dead. They want YOU dead because your are free. They want YOU dead because you make the world a better place and don’t live under oppression.

And there are people out there who would die to protect YOU.

It’s for them that we must not falter in Iraq.

It is for the victims of 9/11 that we must not falter.

Many lives have been given for our safety and to let it fail is an insult to our dead brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters.

An unforgivable insult.

OK, THEN...

Strange note out of Mexico. A South Korean lawmaker by the name of Lee Kyung-Hae fatally stabbed himself during an anti-WTO rally/protest. Waving a banner that said, “WTO kills farmers”, he climbed a fence and plunged a knife into his chest.

Memo to Lee:

WTO doesn’t kill farmers, protests do.

TWO YEARS LATER...

Two years ago, I was sitting in the dentist chair, listening to the radio reports of the World Trade Center towers coming down. I have to tell you, I was stunned. It made so little sense to me, I couldn’t be all emotional about it. My mind couldn’t grasp the idea that these two landmarks of America had disappeared, with thousands of people being killed. Getting back to work, I hear that the Pentagon had been attacked and planes were “missing”.

We’ll, two years later, we’ve made progress. Thanks to strong leadership, we have not only launched retaliatory attacks, we have started an entire operation to crush terrorism, wherever it is found. I am all for that, and so are most of the people of this country.

Unfortunately, the people of this country have lost their sense of reality. They are wondering what’s taking so long – how come we’re not done yet? The liberal media are the worst offenders of the lot, seeing and hoping for defeat around every corner, blowing small events out of proportion, checking their day-timers for the “win” date.

This is not going to be a quick process.

This is not going to be error free.

This is not going to be cheap.

This is not going to be without American blood.

This is not going to be without future terror attacks on American soil.

World War II took us almost four years to win with an enemy willing to fight us old-school style. Rooting out rats is not quick and easy; it takes fortitude. Fortitude is something America used to be overflowing with. America was built on raw courage, self-reliance and no thoughts of surrender.

I’m not sure we have that anymore. I’m very sure it doesn’t reside in the liberals of this country; I hope the rest of us have enough to make up for the vacuousness of the weak-willed.

To quote President Bush, “May God bless the United States of America.”

"GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM!"

On Saturday, Gray Davis said to a supporter at a rally, "you shouldn't be governor unless you can pronounce the name of the state."

Now, even the most under-educated Democrat can see this is a remark that disparages immigrants. Davis basically said, “We don’t need your kind here”. Under normal circumstances, this is the kind of comment that really gets the press going. They just love it when they find a politician making blatant racist statements like that.

But hardly a peep.

That’s because he has the get-out-of-jail-free card, the D after his name. Democrats can be racists all they want and it’s OK, because, you see, the Democrats are for the little people. They are for the poor immigrants who come to this country and are under the heel of the white, male, corporate power structure. If they make a few intemperate remarks along the way, oh well.

Jesse Jackson talks about “Hymietown”, Robert Byrd refers to “White Niggers”, Cruz Bustamante supports MEChA, Gray Davis doesn’t need their type and that’s OK. Trent Lott fondly talks about his old, dying friend and the world stops, time warps and Democrats are so offended, they have to rally.

It is must be MUCH easier to have no morals, no sense of right or wrong and have willing executioners in the media.

POSTING

I'm sorry the postings have been so sparse lately; I am swamped at work. The scarcity will continue through this week, but I'll be back up to speed by next Monday.

DEMOCRATS

The Democrat’s treatment of Miguel Estrada was despicable. These people (and I have a hard time calling them that over this) have no sense of morals. They lied, out and out lied, about what they demanded from this fine man. They treated him like a criminal. They flaunted all that is right, all that is good, all for their own special interests. I take that back, all for one special interest – abortion.

So, bad people do terrible things to protect homicidal behavior. Is that where we are headed? It is if you’re a Democrat.

Good on you.

HE'S RICH, FRENCH-LOOKING AND FAKE - I CALL HIM CHEEZ WHIZ

John Kerry is an idiot. I have paid little to no attention to the French-looking Democrat from Massachusetts, who, if you haven’t heard, served in Vietnam. That being said, I did read a story about the launch (again) of his Presidential campaign and a handshake stop he did here in New Hampshire and boy, that was enough!!

Firstly, he’s calling his campaign “American Courage”. Have you ever heard of something so silly? Perhaps CBS can send him some tapes of Dan Rather’s newscasts when he was wearing those sweaters and ending each show with, “Courage”. That was a very low point of the Tiffany network and it seems Kerry is trying to recapture that.

I’m not even going to get into his crying at the diner in Derry. What bothered me was the woman who made him cry. Check out this:

“Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts and a Vietnam combat veteran with a reputation for aloofness, lost his composure when Barbara Woodman of Concord told him how she was battling to educate her children after being laid off from a publishing company.

"I don't care how many jobs I have to work, those kids are going to college," she said. "And if I can, I'll do whatever it takes to make this country stronger." “

Uh, Barbara, have you ever heard of student loans? Life is tough for a lot of people and their kids manage to get a college education. This was just a tug on the heart strings story, it had no bearing on anything. The choking up by Kerry was one of three things:

1. A lie for the cameras
2. A real choke on a piece of muffin
3. A real choke with no sense of reality.

Moving on, look at this quote:

“"Today, we pick up the newspapers and we read that President Bush is thinking of doing the very thing that I've been saying we should have done from the beginning," Kerry said of Bush's decision to go to the United Nations for help in Iraq.

"I say to America, we deserve a president who gets it right from the beginning before young men and women are killed," he said. "They were wrong. Dead wrong. They should have listened to (Secretary of State) Colin Powell. They didn't and now they're trying to recoup." “

Not even John Kerry is so stupid that he doesn’t remember the months spent on the whole “19th resolution” thing with the United nations. So here, to claim we didn’t ask the UN to join us is a plain, out-and-out lie.

John Kerry is a haughty, French looking, crying Democrat liar. Oh, and he served in Vietnam, too.

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN - REALLY

President George W. Bush has come through again for all people who happen to be blessed with a conscience. Last week he instructed the State Department to withhold money from all organizations that promote abortions.

President Bush has always been a friend of the most helpless of all human beings and because of that, he is ridiculed and hated by the liberals and the willing executioners. Even in this, a small but symbolic stand against the death of children, we get this:

“Said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund: "The world's poorest women and their children again are bearing the brunt of Bush's obsession with appeasing his domestic political base. This is the real face of Bush's compassionate conservatism."”

Two things are worth noting from this. Ms. Gloria is so wrapped up in the liberal agenda, she is incapable of believing that someone may actually have a moral compass and be able to think for himself. She lives her entire life as a lie and couldn’t possibly believe that someone may not actually be “appeasing his domestic political base”.

The second thing worth noting is the absolute hysteria by all of these groups when the United States declines to pay for killing babies. Each time groups like NOW, NARAL and Planned Parenthood act like paranoid schizophrenics, they prove Rush’s point that all they want to do is kill as many babies as possible.

Look at this quote and tell me what’s wrong:

“At this time, the face of HIV/AIDS in Africa is a young woman, and family planning services are integral," said Terri Bartlett, vice president of Population Action International, a research-based advocacy group in Washington. "They are all reproductive health care services."”

Notice how abortion isn’t mentioned, it’s called “family planning”? How can anyone call killing your children “family planning”? It’s like calling the 9/11 attacks “urban renewal”. And “reproductive health services”? How healthy is this for the baby? These liberal’s aren’t even acting like human beings. You know, they count on us Conservatives to treat them with respect they don’t deserve and surely more than they show us.