OH YEAH, WE'RE THE BAD ONES. I FORGOT.

You know, a lot of people look at me like I’m some kind of KKK racist when I say things like, “the Western civilization is the best” or “what in the world do the Muslims have to offer anybody?”

Well, this story proves a lot. We have a bunch of American soldiers basically picking on Iraqi prisoners. These prisoners weren’t being put through any physical pain, they were being scared and humiliated. Now, this certainly isn’t good, but no fingernails were being pulled out or families being killed.

Yet, we, the evil infidels, have launched an investigation and the General in charge of the prison where this happened has been fired. In how many of these “equal” societies in the mid-East would this have happened?

Right. Zero.

These animals not only would have tolerated this kind of behavior, it was standard operating procedure. Yet, we in the West who are so inhuman, who deserved 9/11, have put ourselves under the microscope. The next time you run into an apologist for 9/11, before you break their teeth in, remember they think that the animals that put a plane into the Pentagon were better than the people who are outraged and prosecuting some soldiers for picking on a bunch of killers.

THAT OBJECTIVE MEDIA

Looking at today’s Washington Post, I couldn’t help but be slapped in the face with the ole’ “Liberal Media Bias”. Check out this story by Tina Brown filed under “Other News” in the Politics section:

“Taking the GOP Bait, Hook, Line and Stinker”

This “news” story is all about the evil Republicans picking on poor John Kerry. We get such in-depth reporting and unbiased writing as:

“The Republican attack machine -- again -- has made the right calculation: Hit 'em with trivia. Bait the hook with the absurd "issue" of whether it was medals or ribbons that Kerry hurled over the wall when he was a 27-year-old hothead. Then watch the media bite -- they'll do it every time -- and let Kerry rise to it and blow it. Presto, a thrice-wounded, decorated war hero running against a president who went missing from the National Guard is suddenly muddying up his own record on the morning talk shows. Shades of 2000, when Bush jokily bowled oranges down the aisle of his campaign plane while Gore argued about whether he did or didn't say he invented the Internet.”

Yeah, real objective. In one paragraph we hear about the "incessant Republican attack machine”, how Kerry is a decorated war hero and the President “went missing” from the National Guard.

MICHAEL MOORE, IDIOT

Ah, Michael Moore. Is there a more sanctimonious S.O.B.? I don’t think so. I stumbled across his “Letter from Mike” written on April 14th on his website and couldn’t believe what I saw.

“First, can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things? Those are not “contractors” in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE. They are there for the money, and the money is very good if you live long enough to spend it.”

So, all the people who have built the schools, opened the hospitals, got the oil flowing, etc. are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE? Moore is such a pig, I can’t even comment on it.

“Halliburton is not a "company" doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested -- or worse.”

Ah, Halliburton. Even though this company is doing great work, has extreme oversight by the government and has been denied contracts, they’re still evil.

“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.”

If there is justice in this world, one day a soldier will rip out Moore’s heart and show it to him before he dies so he can see how black it is.

“I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the Army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on. They Fed Ex the footage back to me each week. That's right, Fed Ex. Who said we haven't brought freedom to Iraq! The funniest story my guys tell me is how when they fly into Baghdad, they don't have to show a passport or go through immigration. Why not? Because they have not traveled from a foreign country -- they're coming from America TO America, a place that is ours, a new American territory called Iraq.”

I wanted you to see this whole paragraph before I talked about it because it flails about, going in many directions, saying nothing. He mentions that he gets tapes sent to him by Federal Express and than, in that smarmy tone that IS Michael Moore, says:

“Who said we haven't brought freedom to Iraq!”

Well, doesn’t that actually prove we have brought freedom to Iraq? Oh, Mikey was saying that sarcastically. So there shouldn’t any FedEx service from Iraq? Or is FedEx just another of your WAR PROFITEERS? If so, why do you use them? Am I asking too many uncomfortable questions, Mike?

“There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”

There’s Mike again, wishing for more American’s to be killed. Why anyone would give this ghoul the time of day, I don’t know.

OH, THEY'RE GONNA' HATE ME NOW

Today was the annual “March for Woman’s Lives” on the mall in Washington, DC. Of course, this march has NOTHING to do with woman’s lives; it has everything to do with the killing of children.

Tim Graham, of Media Research Center fame, mentioned in the Corner at National Review that the coverage in the Washington Post on Saturday was fairly balanced. Of course, because he has been looking at liberal media everyday for ten years, he has become numb. The coverage was typical.

The story in the metro section was really all about Gerri Santoro. Gerri was the poster child for the pro-abortion movement in the late Sixties. Gerri had a “do-it-yourself” abortion in 1967 and it went completely wrong. She ended up bleeding to death, nude with a towel tying to stop the bleeding, in a motel room. The picture of her face down, fetal position body was used to show how we needed legal abortions in all states.

Now, let me say one thing. I cry for her terrible death. As much as I feel for her baby’s death, I feel for her.

That being said, let’s check out what we learn from the Washington Post:

“Gerri Santoro was one of her younger sisters, bubbly and trusting, the mother of two girls by a man who abused her and them. They separated, Santoro had a relationship with another man and became pregnant. When she was more than six months along, her husband contacted her: He was returning to her Coventry, Conn., home in hopes of reconciling.

Santoro panicked, her sister said. When he saw she was pregnant, she feared, he might kill her. Leona scraped together $700 and told her to hide. Instead, the man by whom she was pregnant borrowed a set of medical instruments and a textbook from a work colleague. When the procedure went wrong he fled, leaving Santoro to bleed to death at a Norwich, Conn., motel.“

What? She was, “more than six months along”? That means she was into her THIRD tri-mester. She was out to have a third-trimester abortion, practically a partial-birth abortion! And I’m supposed to think I should respect her and protect her right to “choose”? I don’t think so! She wanted to kill her nearly full-term baby because she had slept around like a two-bit slut and was afraid her husband would find out. Sorry, Charlie, that’s not working for me.

Of course, she IS a perfect poster child for the pro-abortion crowd. She wanted a late term abortion on demand. No matter how much the baby-killers want you to think they are only reasonable people, they really aren’t.

I may have offended people by not empathizing with a dead woman, but when that dead woman is a bad woman, I can’t feel too sorry for her. I wish she hadn’t died, but I wish that because I wish she wasn’t killing her baby in the process.

PEOPLE NOT LIKE US

I'm not too sure what to say about this story. Two gay men...climb a tree...naked...sex...taunting police...

All I know for sure is I don't like it and I blame the loss of social norms.

And people call me the freak.

TO THOSE UNABLE TO BE HERE...

I haven’t written much this week and I apologize. To make matters worse, this isn’t going to be much of a post. What I mean is that this isn’t going to have much from ME, but it is still going to be an incredible post.

I have been blogging for about nine months now, and often I think I’m just the cat’s meow. At that point, I usually run across something that humbles me and puts me in my place.

That happened today.

Scrappleface is one of the classic blogs. And today, it had this:

“38 Million Not Expected at DC Abortion Rights Rally

(2004-04-21) -- Although several hundred thousand abortion rights supporters are expected to march in Washington D.C. this coming Sunday, a spokesman for a major special interest group said its members would not attend the rally.

The American Association of Aborted People (AAAP), a political inaction committee, said none of its 38 million members would participate in the protest march.

"Since the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, our ranks have swelled by about 1.4 million per year," said the unnamed AAAP spokesman. "So, we should be at the center of any debate about abortion. Unfortunately, none of our members could tear themselves away to attend the rally. But we'll be there in spirit, if not in body."

It’s the subtle stuff like the “unnamed” aborted spokesman that shows the utter genius of people like Scott Ott.

I stand in awe.

"PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!"

John Kerry is your typical Democrat in that he spouts off like a busted hydrant all the platitudes about the “rich paying their fair share.” Here’s a quote from remarks he made to the AFL-CIO:

“I am going to ask America’s wealthiest people – those making over $200,000 a year – to pay the same fair share they paid under Bill Clinton.” (emphasis mine)

This comes as no shock to anyone who has been around Democrats for more than five minutes. What might come as a shock to you is John Kerry declines to pay his fair share when given the chance.

In Kerry’s home state, the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, the legislature passed a law that allows those civic minded people to pay a higher tax rate if they want to. The true Democrats of the state can elect to pay at a rate of 5.85% instead of the 5.3% if they feel they haven’t paid their fair share to education and health care. Of course, as you would expect, the people who time and time again elect Ted Kennedy to the Senate have volunteered to pay this extra tax at a rate of mere 500 to 1,600,000. And of those 500, guess how many rich Senators from the People’s Republic have volunteered to pay their fair share?

Zero.

Here is a copy/summary of Kerry’s 2002 tax return sent to Howie Carr by the Kerry campaign. As you can see, the taxes Kerry paid were at the 5.3% rate ($7,386 on $137,480). Now, as for Kennedy, a blogger has what I am sure is a copy of a news story that indicates no one in Hyannis paid the alternate tax and, as the blogger points out, Hyannis’ leading citizen is Teddy K.

Kerry/Kennedy – they want YOU to pay their fair share.

APOLOGIES

Why people like Nicholas Kristoff want to make it so easy for me, I don’t know. Week after week they come out and say such nonsense as to paint a target of stupidity on there backs. In today’s New York Times, Kristoff imagines a conversation George Bush could/should have had after the infamous Aug. 6 memo.

Kristy envisions a perfect world where some mysterious CIA briefer, who seems to be psychic, has a conversation explaining the bin Laden may be wanting to use planes as missiles. George Bush, in a state of awe at this larger-than-life briefer, immediately rallies the forces and:

“…light[s] a fire under the bureaucracy. Let's kick butt.”

Kristoff admits that,

“Such an imagined conversation is a bit unfair because it has the clarity of hindsight.”

He then calls for George Tenant to be replaced (no complaint from me there) and for George Bush to offer,

“…an apology or a hint of remorse would show leadership and salve our hurt. Mr. Bush should recognize that acceptance of accountability is not a sign of weakness.”

Ah, here is the key to the whole editorial. It was all written to show the failures of George Bush and how he should apologize. Apologies are all the rage with Democrats. They feel pity for a child rapist who apologizes and cries for his deeds. Remember Bill Clinton’s Africa tour of apologies? The “African-American” community is looking for an official U.S. government apology for slavery. And it just drives the liberals nuts that George Bush won’t apologize for 9/11, that he would dare to blame the HIJACKERS, of all people, for the death of 3,000 people. What is he thinking?

And so it is with Kristoff. Well, I have an idea for you, Kristy. If you need an apology so badly, why aren’t you looking for one from President Bill Clinton. After all, for eight years, he didn’t do jack-squat about bin Laden. He even rejected bin Laden when he was offered on a silver platter from Sudan. He did nothing about the attacks in Saudi Arabia, the USS Cole, the FIRST World Trade Center attack, etc. It seems to me, if any President should be on TV crying and begging forgiveness from the families of the victims, it should Bill Clinton.

Well Nicky, how about it? Are going to ask for an apology from BJ Clinton? I’m not holding my breath.

"I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!"

As a fiscal conservative, I welcome the New York Times into the fold. The Times editorialized today on the waste and shear stupidity of pork barrel spending. Of course, I’m sure it was just a coincidence that all of the legislators mentioned were Republicans. It was mere oversight that projects such as $4,337,000 for the establishment of a Geographic Information Center for Excellence, requested by Robert Byrd, (D-West Virginia) and $3,300,000 for Remote Rural Hawaii Job Program – Inouye, (D-Hawaii) were not mentioned.

Look, the New York Times never calls for a decrease in Big Government spending, except when they refer to tax cuts as spending. It’s only when they feel they can get in a few shots a Republicans (not that the Republicans don’t deserve it here) that the Times sees the fiscal light. The hypocrisy is sad, but not unexpected.

UMAMMA BEEN LAYIN'

Our friends (and I mean that sincerely) at MEMRI have translated the purported Osamma Bin Laden recording offering a peace treaty (not truce or cease fire) with Europe. Aside from the outlandishness of it, after all, they tried to bomb a Spanish bullet train AFTER the elections, it contained a few goodies:

"It suffices to see the event that shocked the world - the killing of the wheelchair-bound old man Ahmad Yassin - Allah's mercy upon him - and we pledge to Allah to avenge [his murder] on America, Allah willing.”

Oh, now they’re all shook up over the killing of an old man in a wheelchair!! What did Umamma say about the murder of Leon Klinghoffer? Was he all in a flutter then? Klinghoffer was celebrating his Anniversary with his wife, not planning the death of Jews!!! And notice it’s America he’s after because Israel killed the Hammas terrorist? That makes Bush’s support of Sharon yesterday even more important. They want us dead no matter what and it’s crap like this that make me and a lot of American’s want this bastage even more dead.

"This war makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction [of Iraq], such as Halliburton and its sister companies...”

Oh, Halliburton. Think Umamma’s been listening to Kerry, Dean and the New York Times? No wondering anymore. Good work, you true Americans, I mean maroons.

"I hereby offer them a peace treaty, the essence of which is our commitment to halt actions against any country that commits itself to refraining from attacking Muslims or intervening in their affairs, including the American conspiracy against the larger Islamic world.”

Uh, France…you just outlawed those burka headscarf-things, I think the “intervening in their affairs” means you.

"President Bush and his ilk, the media giants, and the U.N. ... all are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous member. Allah willing, we will persist in fighting them... “

Media giants? UN? That means no matter how much Tim Robbins cries that he isn’t like us or how much Kofi-boy tries to thwart us, you’re both still in the crosshairs. And I bet you want those baby-killers, the US military, to protect you still, don’t you? Ungrateful bastards.

"MISERY, MISERY, ALL I SEE IS MISERY!!"

John Kerry is just plain miserable. He’s gone out and searched through the myriad of factors that make up our economic life and cobbled together seven that make George Bush look bad (“No!!”) and at the same time make Clinton and Carter look good. He looks at the cost of fuel, health care, college, median income, personal bankruptcies and homeownership to judge if people are better or worse off.

He calls it the Middle Class Misery Index.

As Michael Graham points out, Kerry has to create his own misery index because using the traditional Misery Index (inflation plus interest rates) makes the country under George Bush look downright ecstatic and prosperous. The Bush Misery index is 7.7, compared to a second term election index for Bill Clinton 8.4.

Whatever, you say, the indexes Kerry has picked are important and I would agree. I also agree with Michael Graham when he says why would the cost of fuel be any better indicator of “misery” than say, food prices?

“Nobody would disagree that expensive gasoline and health-care costs are bad news, or that fewer bankruptcies would be a good thing. But in addition to the fact that, adjusted for inflation, the price of gas is relatively low, is it any better a measure of the health of the middle class than, say, food prices? Rent prices? The cost of clothing?

A fair-minded person could put together an economic index using these three indicators, along with net tax rates, new business starts, the Dow Jones average, and home-equity values and get a completely different result. What would it prove?

This is why, since the Johnson administration, the "Misery Index" has been a combination of the two most broad and important indicators: unemployment and inflation; Do you have a job and how much is your paycheck really worth?”

To me, Kerry’s Misery Index also shows what a Big-Government-As-Babysitter Democrat John Kerry really is. He blames rising costs in all of these on George Bush:

- College tuition
- Health premiums.
- Gasoline prices
- Plus Bush is also responsible for increased personal bankruptcies.

How exactly is it George Bush’s fault that states spent money like it grew on trees and then raised the cost of college tuitions when the tree died? If it is his fault, shouldn’t the blame be put on Bill Clinton, because he was President when states were increasing spending at untenable rates?

And health care? Again, why is it George Bush’s fault? What is he supposed to do, try to pass tort reform to cap crazy lawsuits and reduce malpractice premiums? Oh, wait, he is doing that, it’s Kerry who is voting against that. Moving on then, nothing to see here…

Gasoline prices? So maybe George Bush is responsible for the increased driving done over the winter, using up the winter mix quicker than expected. Kerry may be right here, after all, people were out spending more because of the tax cuts and positive economy.

Finally, personal bankruptcies. Why are people going bankrupt? Because people are out of work and prices are going up? The traditional Misery Index seems to say no. Maybe it’s because we like to spend irresponsibly and then walk away from our debts, saying. “It’s not my fault!” coupled with NO social stigma against walking away from your debts. (Remember my “loss of social norms” post.)

What John Kerry wants is Big Government to be responsible for all of these. A true Massachusetts liberal stance. A conservative, even a mediocre one like George Bush, would look upon these as no place for Big Government.

JUST A FEW THINGS....

Just a couple of small things with no long-winded garbage from me.

“It’s about time!!”, yelled Jonah’s couch. (Inside joke)

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

The Washington Post hails the breakaway Republicans in the Virginia House for voting to allow a tax bill to go to conference. The Post says,

“After a megadose of special-session histrionics in the Virginia House, enough delegates came to their senses yesterday to end the chamber's obstinate opposition to higher taxes -- allowing negotiations with the state Senate to proceed.”

I wonder if the Post would say the same thing if it said this:

“After a megadose of special-session histrionics in the Senate, enough delegates came to their senses yesterday to end the chamber's obstinate opposition to voting on President Bush’s Judicial nominees -- allowing a vote in the Senate to proceed.”

Oh, that’s different, I’m sure.

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

It’s too bad the President spoke last night because it took the heat off the September 11 Commission, a commission that has been reduced to partisan attacks (as witnessed by the grilling of Condi Rice by Bob Kerrey - must be the sound of the name) and little investigation.

Attorney General Ashcroft appeared before the commission and dropped a bombshell about one of the commission’s members, Jamie Gorelick. As Asst. Attorney general under Clintoon, she was the one who created the wall between the CIA and the FBI, the same wall people have been blasting Bush about. Here’s part of what he had to say:

“My second point today goes to the heart of this Commission's duty to uncover the facts: The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents. Government erected this wall. Government buttressed this wall. And before September 11, government was blinded by this wall…

This memorandum established a wall separating the criminal and intelligence investigations following the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the largest international terrorism attack on American soil prior to September 11. Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the Commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission.”

SLAM!!

"SAVE THE CHILDREN? THAT'S, LIKE, HARD AND STUFF"

Nicholas Kristoff penned a little editorial today in the New York Times about abortion. It seems we’re supposed to feel sorry for seven women in Portugal who are on trial for getting abortions. It seems Kristoff thinks Portugal should be seen as warning to:

“Americans who, like Mr. Bush, aim to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Now, to be fair, George Bush has never said he is out to overturn Roe v. Wade, Kristoff just throws it out there like that’s job #1.

Anywhoo, these are the sobering lessons:

“The first is that abortion laws are very difficult to enforce in a world as mobile as ours. Some 20,000 Portuguese women still get abortions each year, mostly by crossing the border into Spain. In the U.S., where an overturn of Roe v. Wade would probably mean bans on abortion only in a patchwork of Bible Belt states, pregnant women would travel to places like New York, California and Illinois for their abortions.”

Two things to mention here. Firstly, we shouldn’t pass laws if they are “difficult to enforce”? Well, considering the number of murders that happen every year in Detroit, maybe it should be de-criminalized, after all, it looks difficult to enforce. Secondly, Kristoff just admitted what the pro-death crowd has for years dare not mention – namely, overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn’t criminalize abortion, just leave it up to the states. Planned Non-Parenthood and their ilk always talk like abortion would be illegal in the United States if Roe v. Wade were overturned, repeating the lie so much most people have begun to believe it.

More sobering lessons:

“The second is that if states did criminalize abortion, they would face a backlash as the public focus shifted from the fetus to the woman. "The fundamentalists have lost the debate" in Portugal, said Helena Pinto, president of UMAR, a Portuguese abortion rights group. "Now the debate has shifted to the rights of women. Do we want to live in a country where women can be in jail for abortion?"

Uh, Nicky, where exactly do you live? The whole abortion movement is already about the woman!!! “Woman’s right to choose” sound familiar? How about “reproductive rights”? You’re such a maroon!

Kristoff, like most liberals, want to pretend they are troubled by abortion and have given it a lot of thought.

“Like most Americans, I find abortion a difficult issue, because a fetus seems much more than a lump of tissue but considerably less than a human being. Most of us are deeply uncomfortable with abortion, especially in the third trimester, but we still don't equate it with murder.”

Whenever somebody says this, it’s obvious they have given almost NO thought to abortion. Just a few hours of thinking and an honest, intelligent person will realize that life begins at conception. Oh, did I just say "honest and intelligent"? Well, then I guess I shouldn’t expect too much from New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff.

I leave you with this piece of brilliance:

"Forbidding abortion doesn't save anyone or anything," said Sonia Fertuzinhos, a member of the Portuguese Parliament. "It just gets women arrested and humiliated in the public arena."

Except for the baby, of course.

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

I've just touched upon this subject this week, not given it the time it deserves. But, courtesy of Amy Welborn and her incredible blog, I was directed to the American Center of Law & Justice and it's PBA case updates that are filed. Now, the ACLJ is hardly a non-partisan group, but like I said before, motives don't chnage the truth.

Would that I was not preaching to the choir!!! Please, check out the ACLJ updates and see how the abortionists are forced, often by Judge Casey in New York, to admit in plain english what they are doing. And then let's all ask Jane Fonda Kerry how he stands on Partial Birth Abortion.

"IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!"

Remember Rachel Corrie? She was the anti-Israeli activist who was taught one last time the laws of physics when she thought she could stop a bulldozer by standing in front of it. The “activists” and their ilk all blamed the Israelis for the ensuing squashing and everyone else (those with brains) just shook their heads and placed the blame of Rachel’s now flattened shoulders.

Well, her parents are in the news this time and now they’re blaming the bulldozer.

Sunday, Rachel’s group, the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led organization, with Rachel’s parents as keynote speakers, held a rally outside of Caterpillar Corporation, the makers of the bulldozer. The rally was in protest of the Caterpillar bulldozers being used to demolish terrorists homes.

And we wonder why kids are so screwed up? Look at their freekin’ parents!

"NOBODY CAN TELL ME HOW TO BE A CATHOLIC!! NOT EVEN THE CHURCH!"

Well, John Kerry has stepped in it again. Responding to a questioner at a panel of local newspapers about some criticism of his tepid Catholicism, he replied:

"Who are they?" he demanded of his questioner. "Name them. Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?"

He added: "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."

Let’s get the stupid and inconsequential stuff out of the way. He meant John XIII, not Pius XIII and I don’t care at all he made that mistake. It’s irrelevant to the great problems nestled in his angry remarks.

Problem #1. He demands, “Name them.” I guess I would start off by saying it doesn’t matter who said it. Kerry is trying to show that the people who said it have ill-motives, i.e., they hate Kerry and therefore have no right to ask a question. As Jonah Goldberg over at National Review Online has pointed out, the liberals have switched the emphasis on a statement from consequences and results to motives. Only those pure of heart dare question a policy.

Look, just because the person who turned in the rapist was a burglar, it doesn’t make the rapist any less guilty. Just because it was someone like Rush Limbaugh you brought up all of Kerry’s pro-abortion votes, it doesn’t mean Kerry wasn’t violating Church teaching.

Problem #2. Technically, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does allow for the death penalty. The Catechism states,

“2267. The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”

Now, in defense of Kerry, Pope John Paul II has said there is no defense for capital punishment in the civilized societies of today; it is not the “only” option available to protect the innocent. And of course, the Pope is right, AGAIN.

Problem #3. Kerry’s pronouncements ex cathedra. When Kerry says:

“My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am”

He’s completely wrong. This is a common misconception of Catholics. I’m not sure where it started, but it is pretty wide spread and I think it comes from too much time sleeping in on Sundays, no Sunday school, weak priests afraid to speak of sin, wishing desperately it was true and mis-reading the Catechism. Here is the passage that has caused all the trouble:

“1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."

You can see how just that bit can absolve all kinds of people from following Church teachings. Of course, anything taken out of context can do that. Let’s look at other pertinent passages to put that in context:

“1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.” (Emphasis mine)

“1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”

Clearly, The Church says it's teachings supercede the "conscience" of a single person, a Catholic cannot follow his conscience and "reject the Church's authority and teaching"." If Kerry were a good or honest Catholic, he would understand this. But, he is neither. John Kerry is a “cafeteria Catholic”, picking and choosing what to follow, ignoring the rest. He should just come out and admit as much and leave the Church.

Of course, should he continue speaking authoritatively about Church teachings, he’s going to push a priest too far, and in a history making photo-op, he will be denied the Eucharist and told to confess his sins and abandon his sinful ways before coming back for Communion. Perhaps Kerry recognizes this – that’s why this weekend he chose to receive Communion from a protestant minister, again, flaunting Church Teaching.

KILL 'EM ALL

Ah, the New York Times. So liberal, so out of touch with the rest of the country when it comes to abortion, oh, I mean, “basic reproductive rights”. In an editorial today, the Times fears:

“the Republican campaign against women's basic reproductive and privacy rights reached an ominous new stage last week. “

What is this ominous stage? It was the signing of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Yes, a common sense law that protects a child in utero was distant steps of jack-booted storm troopers, led by George Bush and Karl Rove, coming to trample on our civil rights. It’s all part of:

“…the administration's anti-choice agenda…”

You know what? Proving the old adage that just because you’re paranoid that doesn’t mean people aren’t out get you, the Times is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!! Thank God for people like George Bush, Rick Santorum and everyone else who work tirelessly to chip away at the mass slaughter of our youth. For all of President Bush’s faults, I salute him for his unwavering advancement of the pro-life cause.

The editorial also goes into the court challenges of the Partial Birth Abortion Law. It quotes Dr. Amos Grunebaum, who was mentioned in Mel’s Diner last week. The Times quotes him as saying:

“He also noted that the removal of an intact fetus, which the bill supposedly takes aim at, is sometimes the safest procedure, since it is less invasive, thereby reducing the risk of infection and other complications.”

What the Times didn’t mention were these quotes from Dr. Grunebaum:

“He said the law was so vague that it could outlaw virtually any type of abortion performed during the second trimester because the fetus is sometimes still alive as it is brought outside the body.”

And this one...

“He said doctors used to hide the fetus from women after an abortion before studies in the late 1970s and early 1980s showed that women grieved less after a failed pregnancy if they get to see the fetus.

"It is the same as any baby dying. People want to hold the fetus," he said, adding that he goes so far as to put a cap on the head of the fetus just as he would a newborn.”

Yet, he sleeps at night.

If the Times editorial board had any conscience, any sense of right and wrong, we wouldn’t get this final quote:

“The administration's defense of its "partial birth" ban and the new "unborn victims" law have a common theme: profound disrespect for women.”

How about these laws show a profound RESPECT for CHILDREN.

FALLUJAH

Probably the biggest story this week was the vicious, inhuman, barbaric attack on the four American contractors in Fallujah. I don’t have to go into the details on the attack, everyone knows them by now.

First of all, it’s obvious that these people are animals. I mean, they are sub-human, literally. And what I mean by “these people” are the beasts that did this and the people that support them. Do I mean all Muslims? No, I don’t think so. Of course, it does seem like Muslims do things like this pretty regularly. Suicide bombing comes to mind. But, that isn’t supposed to be talked about, all people are equal, no society is better than another, yadda, yadda, yadda.

The part of this story that is not being reported on is what didn’t happen. No retaliation, no overwhelming response. In a testimony to the greatness of the United States, there was no vengeful retaliation. Not that there wasn’t a call for one from some of the more irrational in this country, but the military ignored the crazies. In cultures less advanced than ours, like the ones the Fallujians want, attacks like this wouldn’t be tolerated. The Nazi’s used to pick ten civilians for every soldier killed and shot them. Remember Tiananmen square? That was purely peaceful, and the tanks were called in. Stalin killed people by the village full and then destroyed the village itself. Hollywood’s good buddy Castro just executed seventy or so people a few years ago. And let’s not forget the Fallujites buddy, Saddam. He gassed whole villages, he had dogs tear apart Generals who MIGHT not be loyal.

And what was the American response? Did we send in some B-1’s from Minot with MOAB’s for Fallujah? During the attack, reporters say the vermin danced for the cameras until an American jet screamed overhead, then they scattered back into their holes. Did the jet bomb and strafe the crowd? Did the marines send in the tanks nearby to decimate the people?

No.

The military that our resident war hero, Jane Kerry accused of war crimes held their fire because nothing would have been accomplished. The poor contractors were already dead and sending in the tanks would have caused many, many civilian casualties, put the Marines in unnecessary danger and inflamed the situation. That kind of response doesn’t do much to satiate the revenge desires, but it does accomplish more than just random killing.