THE GREAT COOKIE CAPER

Terry Heinz-Kerry-Edwards pulled the psycho, paranoid card this week.  It seems Family Circle has, for the past couple of elections, asked each of the front runner’s wives for a cookie recipe.  All this cropped up after Hillary said she “could have stayed home and made cookies” during the 1992 election.

Anyway, Terry submitted a recipe for something called “Yummy Wonders”.  Well, the test kitchen at the magazine couldn’t get the recipe to work, so they contacted Terry to see if there was a mistake in the recipe.  Terry’s office sent in another recipe for Pumpkin Spice Cookies and called it a day.

The only problem is these cookies taste terrible.

So what does Terry say?

"Somebody at my office gave that recipe out and, in fact, I think somebody really made it on purpose to give a nasty recipe. I never made pumpkin cookies; I don't like pumpkin spice cookies."

Ah, they’re out to get her, I get it.  That crafty Karl Rove, he is superman.  He managed to get into the Democratic nominee’s wife’s office and added “1/4 cup - essence of ass” to her cookie recipe.

Maybe I’m back to voting for Bush again – Karl Rove is unstoppable.

REVEREND JESSE

You would think with the Democratic convention rolling this week, I’d be blogging like a madman.  To tell you the truth, every time I start to watch the convention, I just begin to get frustrated at the lies that come off of that podium.  And I’ve been busy with computers, too.

Anyway, I caught some of Jesse Jackson tonight.  He’s a hoot.  My friend Bill said years ago that he was watching Jackson and figured out what makes him such a unique public speaker:

Jesse Jackson puts the emphasis on wrong syllables in words.

Sure enough, he was doing that tonight.  Now, I watched only about the last three minutes of his speech and I noticed a couple of Jesse Jackson-isms.

First, he had a strange way of referring to the Democratic ticket – “John Kerry Edwards”.  I think, with the stressing of the wrong syllable and mumbling Edwards first name, he was saying (or at least attempting) “John Kerry/John Edwards”, but it sure didn’t come out that way.  It came out like a bad liberal marriage hyphenated last name “John Kerry-Edwards”  I know I’m going to use it.

Second, it seems Jesse didn’t get the memo not to mention Iraq and the troops.  Jesse was rousing the DNC faithful when he said this November it was time to bring the troops home.  There was scattered applause, but you could tell that he had broken the “don’t tell them the Democrats will cut and run” rule.  He’s gonna get yelled at for that.

Lastly, and most importantly, Jesse Jackson convinced me that I should vote John Kerry-Edwards this November.  I know, I know, it’s shocking, yet he said something that proved to me that John Kerry-Edwards is the most powerful presidential candidate ever. 

John Kerry-Edwards can raise the dead.

It’s true.  Jesse Jackson said this November “Ray Charles will play again”.

Now that’s strength, baby.  I’m scared NOT to vote for him.

REPTILES

It’s no secret that I despise the Islamist terrorists who are at war with us right now.  I make no effort to understand the “root causes” of why the attack us with such abandon.  The only root cause I need to know is they hate us and want us dead, beyond that I don’t care.  If they want us dead, then they are a threat – a threat that must be eliminated.  I don’t get caught up in the, “they’re people, too and they love their kids just like we do” mindset.  Aside from that being completely wrong (how many of us dress our kids up in terror outfits for Halloween?), I’m going to look at these people for what they are – killers and killers don’t get respect from me.  That’s why I loved the first sentence from an editorial in The New Hampshire Sunday News today.  This sweet conservative paper, my hometown paper, thinks like I do when it comes to terrorists:

“To read the 9/11 Commission report is to stare into the ember-red eyes of our reptilian enemy.”

I love it – no pretending that these killers are people, too.  These animals are just that, animals.  And no the cute domestic pet-kind either.  To use passenger planes full of families as missiles is not a human thing to do.  They are reptiles.  Reptiles are cold-blooded, meaning they cannot adapt to change in temperature, so they need to live in un-changing environments.  And these reptiles can’t adapt to a world that insists on bringing freedom to people.  So, they try to destroy and kill, all the while yelling, “Allah is the greatest!”  Well, I don’t know who this “Allah” of yours is, the Allah I know would never act like a reptile. Your "Allah" sounds a lot like Satan to me.

And I don’t like Satanists, either.

MORE KERRY ABORTIONS

Abortion makes it again into the diner.  Big John Kerry sat down with Peter Jennings and, surprisingly, Jennings asked some tough questions  It wasn’t a long serious of questions, but all of Big John’s answers were so…Kerry-ish:

“Peter Jennings: You told an Iowa newspaper recently that life begins at conception. What makes you think that?

Sen. Kerry: My personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process is a human being is first formed and created, and that's when life begins. Something begins to happen. There's a transformation. There's an evolution. Within weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in.

Roe v. Wade has made it very clear what our standard is with respect to viability, what our standard is with respect to rights. I believe in the right to choose, not the government choosing, but an individual, and I defend that.”

Here, Big John begins to cover some of his themes when it comes to abortion,ones that get fleshed out later.  He speaks of a “human being” being not a “person” and the concept that he is not responsible for thinking about anything, because the Supreme Court decided for him concerning “viability”.  Just watch.

“Jennings: Could you explain again to me what do you mean when you say "life begins at conception"?

Kerry: Well, that's what the Supreme Court has established is a test of viability as to whether or not you're permitted to terminate a pregnancy, and I support that. That is my test. And I, you know, you have all kinds of different evolutions of life, as we know, and very different beliefs about birth, the process of the development of a fetus. That's the standard that's been established in Roe v. Wade. And I adhere to that standard.”

Here, Big John tries to hide behind the concept of “viability”.  He basically says, “Hey, the Supreme Court says you’re not “permitted to terminate a pregnancy” after viability and I agree with whatever the Supreme Cort says, hey..it’s the Supreme Court!”.  Sure sounds reasonable, huh?  Of course, what the Supreme Court said was you couldn’t terminate except in the case of the HEALTH of the mother and it’s that loophole that allows abortion on demand and it’s the abortion on demand standard that Big John adhere’s to.

“Jennings: If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?

Kerry: No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins.”

Is it at the point where I would say that you apply those penalties? The answer is, no, and I believe in choice. I believe in the right to choose, and the government should not involve itself in that choice, beyond where it has in the context of Roe v. Wade.”

This is a classic.  Big John says the baby isn’t alive because it hasn’t reached “personhood”.  Al Gore, in his fits of insanity, accused George Bush of wanting blacks to go back to the time when the were only three-fifths of a person.  Here, Big John thinks babies equal zero-fifths of a person and not a word from Al Gore.”

“Jennings: Can you imagine yourself ever campaigning against abortion?

Kerry: Well, I don't think — let me tell you very clearly that being pro-choice is not pro-abortion. And I have very strong feelings that we should talk about abortion in a very realistic way in this country. It is a very complicated, incredibly important moral issue that people have to face, also. And if you talk to any woman, as I have, who has faced that choice or who's been raped or who's suffered incest or who's faced that kind of choice, there are huge moral implications.

I think leadership needs to honor that, those moral implications, appropriately, and I think we need to adhere to the standard that Bill Clinton, in fact, so adeptly framed, that abortion should be rare, but legal and safe. And that's the standard that I apply. But I think we should talk more about alternatives to abortion.”

Let’s talk more about the alternatives to gang murders, too, but should it be legal while we have these tea parties?

Jennings: If I were really skeptical, Senator, I would say that when you use the phrase "life begins at conception," you're attempting to speak to those people for whom that is a slogan, making them totally opposed to abortion.

Kerry: Not in the least. It's a belief that is a belief of mine. It's consistent with everything I've always said over 35 years of public life. It is not a new statement, but it is consistent with my personal belief system about who chooses and what happens. I do believe we should talk about alternatives to abortion. I think we should talk about adoption. I think we should talk about, I think it is responsible to talk about abstinence, but I also believe you should talk about proper education of people — sex education.

You need to have proper knowledge about use of condoms to avoid AIDS. You need to be smart about these things. So what we need to do is have an honest dialogue and not succumb to the cynicism that sort of reduces these things to simplicity. It's not simple. It's a very complicated, highly emotional, very searing decision. I don't want the government making that decision for people, and that is a bedrock belief. But it doesn't change what I believe about how life goes on.”

He couldn’t have said anything more telling than,” It's consistent with everything I've always said over 35 years of public life.”  It’s very reminiscent of, “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it”.

THE IRONY CONTINUES

It seems that a single theme has crept into a lot of my current posts – irony.  I love irony, it comes closer than anything else in convincing me there is something to this karma thing.
 
Anyway, sticking to the irony theme, my last post was about pro-abortion people never actually hearing what they have to say.  And in today’s New York Times, feminist Barbara Eherenreich had a doozy.  She was lamenting the fact that abortion - a legal procedure, she hastens to point out – is not something you can actually talk about in pleasant company:
 
“…just not supposed to be mentioned or acknowledged as an acceptable option. An article in The Times on Sunday, "Television's Most Persistent Taboo," reported that a Viacom-owned channel is refusing to run the episodes of a soap opera in which the teenage heroine chooses to abort. Even "Six Feet Under," which is fearless in its treatment of sexual diversity, burdens abortion with terrible guilt. Where are those "liberal media" when you need them?”
 
She doesn’t get into why this is not talked about because then she would have to mention that messy “conscience” thing the Perth clinic was so worried about. 
 
But I digress.
 
She does actually bring up an issue that does deserve some attention – elective abortions in the cases of birth defects:
 
“Testing for fetal defects can now detect over 450 conditions, many potentially fatal or debilitating. Doctors may advise the screening tests, insurance companies often pay for them, and many couples (no hard numbers exist) are deciding to abort their imperfect fetuses.
 
The trouble is, not all of the women who are exercising their right to choose in these cases are willing to admit that that's what they are doing. Kate Hoffman, for example, who aborted a fetus with Down syndrome, was quoted in The Times on June 20 as saying: "I don't look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is. There's a difference. I wanted this baby."
 
Barbara wants these women to recognize that they are having abortions, just like the women who do it for “choice”.  And I agree with her, they should admit they are aborting their child because it has Down syndrome and not try to hide behind some “greater good” shield of conscience assuaging.  
 
The irony comes in when Barbara, in the spirit of fairness, then says she had two abortions in her lifetime:
 
“Honesty begins at home, so I should acknowledge that I had two abortions during my all-too-fertile years. You can call me a bad woman, but not a bad mother. I was a dollar-a-word freelancer and my husband a warehouse worker, so it was all we could do to support the existing children at a grubby lower-middle-class level. And when it comes to my children - the actual extrauterine ones, that is - I was, and remain, a lioness.”
 
Did she just say:
 
“You can call me a bad woman, but not a bad mother”
 
What was she thinking?  Barbara, you killed two of your children!  That makes you a TERRIBLE mother!  And still, you have the audacity, while admitting you killed two children, to say:
 
“And when it comes to my children - the actual extrauterine ones, that is - I was, and remain, a lioness.”

Well, in your defense, some mothers do eat their young in the wild, you lioness.

"NO! NO! NOT THE SOUND OF HAPPY KIDS!"

I sometimes wonder if the pro-abortion crowd ever listens to itself.  Check out these objections an abortion clinic in Australia has to it’s proposed neighbors:
 
“A Perth abortion clinic objected to plans for a childcare centre on a neighbouring property because the sight of children might upset its patients.
 
Marie Stopes International Australia, which operates the clinic in the eastern suburb of Midland, objected to the development of the childcare centre on an adjoining block.
 
In an objection lodged with the City of Swan, the clinic operators said the sight and sound of children playing in a neighbouring property might cause emotional strain for women considering terminating a pregnancy.”
 
It boggles the mind that abortionists would be so blatant to come out and say this.  I mean, what they are asking the city for is a “conscience-free zone”.  Of course, the Mayor, without a touch of irony says this:
 
"It would be an emotional situation for someone who's decided to have an abortion and then the last thing they hear before they enter the clinic is the happy voices of children."
 
I’m at a loss for words and we know that doesn’t happen often.  

RACIST

At a recent Young Republican's meeting, presidential candidate Al Sharpton was there to speak about young, black voters in 2004.  He was shouted down and was told by one member that:

"You're just another arrogant black man -- telling us what we can do -- it's all about your ego -- another f *** ing arrogant black man."

After the incident became public, white members of Congress dismissed the incident and said of Sharpton:

“He ain’t playing with a full deck", said one South Carolina Congressman

“I don’t think he gets it", said another from Maryland

A Rep. from New York said, "not only is he an egotistical maniac, he’s dumber than I thought he was.”

The large media outlets have jumped on this case and demanded that all of the members of Congress who insulted the multiple-election candidate resign immediately or, at the very least, be censored by Congress and go to diversity training seminars put on by the NAACP.

HA HA HA HA HA, in our dreams.

In reality, there was a multi-election candidate shouted at by a special interest group and insulted by various Congressmen, but the man was white and the people doing the insulting were members of a protected class, meaning they were black.

Ralph Nader was the multi-election candidate, the abusive idiot was Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC), the forum was the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressmen huring insults at Nader were all black.  So, because the skin color didn't fit the liberal stereotype of racists, the matter was ignored.

But the media aren't biased in the least.

IRONY

"Blake Champlin, a Tulsa lawyer and environmental activist, died Monday at home when a tree supporting a hammock fell and crushed him"

No comment

MOROONS

You know, stupid people can still be a threat, given the correct weapons.  I'm going to quote the whole story here because it's so short:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A militant group said Wednesday it had taken two Kenyans, three Indians and an Egyptian hostage and would behead them if their countries did not announce their readiness to withdraw their troops from Iraq immediately.

None of those countries are part of the 160,000-member U.S.-led coalition force in the country."

Let's just repeat:

"None of those countries are part of the 160,000-member U.S.-led coalition force in the country."

Brilliant.

CATHOLIC VOTING

I’ve commented time and time again on how the Catholic Church is starting to develop a backbone when it comes to politicians and abortion.  Of course, we have John Kerry to thank for this; his public flaunting of his faith concerning abortion and the Eucharist has forced the Church’s hands.
 
The latest Bishop to get it is Bishop Brunett of Seattle.  He has just published a pastoral letter concerning the issue and has been very clear about receiving the Eucharist:
 
“Even as we acknowledge and support the separation of roles between church and state, we recognize a clear connection between moral principles and political decisions. Whether Catholics enter the public square as voters or public officials, they will make political decisions that necessarily entail moral principles. In some instances, individuals using these principles may in good conscience reach different political alternatives. However, Catholic politicians who suggest that they can disassociate their political actions in principle from their Catholic faith are laboring under a dangerous moral delusion incompatible with the requirements of a solid Catholic faith life.”
 
 I have said many times there is no such thing as private morals and public morals and the Bishop has my back.
 
“With respect to the specific issue of abortion, let me be especially clear.  Catholics, including Catholic politicians, cannot on one hand profess to be in communion with the Catholic Church and on the other hand support abortions.  It is one thing to enter into political discussion about abortion issues; it is another to support and campaign for abortion actively.  In such cases, a clear contradiction exists between the active professing and living of one’s faith and one’s political agenda and actions.
 
Catholic politicians who unambiguously reject Catholic moral values, even if giving them lip service, are adopting a morally untenable position and are choosing a path that leads away from the Church and inhibits their ability to gather honestly with the Catholic faith community to celebrate the Eucharist, the sign of unity and communion with the Lord and His Church.  While upholding the civil law as their office requires, Catholic politicians have an obligation to promote positively the sacredness and dignity of human life within the limits of their authority.  This means, for example, that they must work to reduce and eliminate the perceived need for abortions and to uphold the dignity of the human person, especially those who are poor or marginalized.”
 
Beautiful, just beautiful.  I appreciate the Bishop addressing the abortion issue straight on and very clearly.  The Bishop is also very clear on denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion Catholics.  What he has to say will disappoint some of the more vocal members of the Catholic Church, but he is correct:
 
“For example, Catholic Church teaching on the sanctity and dignity of all life has led some within our faith community to suggest that those who vocally and publicly assume pro-choice positions on abortion should be expelled from the Catholic community and the Eucharist.  That would have the result of denying Eucharistic participation without formal, canonical due process.  This due process requires dialogue and an opportunity for the accused to explain why they feel they can publicly and politically support a position that is patently contrary to the moral principles of our Catholic faith.  Those who persist in such public opposition indicate that they are personally denying their communion with the Church.  In integrity, they should voluntarily withdraw from Eucharistic sharing without the need for formal action by the Church.  With that understanding, however, Ministers of the Eucharist should not take it upon themselves to deny Holy Communion to anyone who presents themselves.”
 
You got that Big John?  You "...should voluntarily withdraw from Eucharistic sharing without the need for formal action by the Church”.  Of course, the Bishop said, “In integrity”, so you, of all people, are not affected.
 
The good Bishop doesn’t only talk about politicians, he speaks to voters as well:
 
“In light of these complexities and challenges, Catholic politicians and voters must remain in dialogue with their bishop, receive guidance for the proper formation of their conscience and determine whether there is consistency between their political lives and the teachings of the Catholic Church rooted in Eucharistic communion with Christ and each other.”
 
Yeah, he just said your political life (voting, volunteering, supporting, etc.) must be consistent with the Church’s teachings.  In other words, YOU CANNOT SUPPORT A POLITICIAN WHO SUPPORTS AND ENABLES ABORTIONS!

Simple as that.

PAUL KRUGMAN, S.O.B.

I expect so little from vermin like Paul Krugman that pretty much anything he blathers on about in his column at the New York Times just rolls right off me. 
 
But today’s column is different.  Mr. Krugman, the thoroughly discredited economics “guru”, develops a snarky little scenario he calls the Arabian Candidate.  In it, he tells of a president who, under the guise of fighting terrorism, is really just an Islamist mole.  The charges Krugman makes are so outrageous, they make my blood boil.  Here’s a sampling:
 
“Once the public's attention shifted, he would systematically squander the military victory: committing too few soldiers, reneging on promises of economic aid.”
 
And just who doles out that “economic aid”?  Is it not CONGRESS, where one presidential candidate “voted for the $87 billion be fore voting against it”?
 
“Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a country that posed no imminent threat. He would insinuate, without saying anything literally false, that it was somehow responsible for the terrorist attack. This unnecessary war would alienate our allies and tie down a large part of our military. At the same time, the Arabian candidate would neglect the pursuit of those who attacked us, and do nothing about regimes that really shelter anti-American terrorists and really are building nuclear weapons.”
 
I am so sick of hearing that the President insinuated Iraq was responsible for 9/11.  He did no such thing.  He said Iraq was a supplier and sponsor of terrorists and we need to wipe out the hornets nest before we get stung.  And was not Iraq a shelter for terrorists?  Where was Abu Nidal? Abdul Rahman Yasin? Abu Abbas?  Paul Krugman's basement?  No, being sheltered in Iraq.  I’m also sick of hearing that he is doing nothing about the countries who are a “real” threat to the United States.  What exactly does Krugman want us to do in North Korea?  Invade against a standing army over a million soldiers?  His liberal icon tried to bribe them in 1994 and now they have missiles that can reach California?  What does Krugman want us to do?  Strangely silent he remains.
 
“Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean trick when our enemies are mass murderers, by creating a climate in which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and starve prisoners, most of them innocent or guilty of only petty crimes.”
 
The irony of a liberal speaking of “moral high ground” would be downright hilarious if he wasn’t, once again repeating the charge that President Bush “created a climate” that allowed under trained soldiers to act stupidly.  If there is anyone to blame for the moral breakdown of our military, it is Bill Clinton, who, more than anyone, created a climate in the military that everything is OK as long as there’s no blue dress.  He decimated the ranks by downsizing the armed forces and left it rudderless.  It has been George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld who took on the thankless job of rebuilding the United States military to it’s former glory.
 
And perhaps the most outrageous charge made by Krugman, and I say charge even though Krugman would say he was only speaking “theoretically”,  is this:
 
“And by repeatedly issuing vague terror warnings obviously timed to drown out unfavorable political news, his officials would ensure public indifference if and when a real threat is announced.” (emphasis mine)
 
That is serious charge, that President Bush’s intention is to “ensure public indifference” to a terrorist threat because the only thing that can be inferred from that is Bush wants people to be killed.

I despise Paul Krugman and call upon the New York Times to publicly reprimand him for this comment, theory or not. (Wasn’t there someone else who spoke of a treason charge against President Bush, but only in theory?) 

PRO DEATH OR ANTI-LIFE, IT DOESN'T MATTER

You know, members of the Pro-Life crowd, which you may have guessed, I am a standard bearer for, a front line soldier, are accused of being dramatic and insensitive to things we know nothing about. As a male, I am often accused of never being able to understand because I can’t have children.

Blah blah blather.

Anyway, there’s no amount of drama we could invent that comes close to the reality of abortion; the horror and the absolute Mengele-like indifference from the anti-life crowd.The New York Times is not a fan of the pro-life movement and often does what it can to denigrate us. So, with that in mind, you have to wonder what got into them to print this piece in the New York Times Magazine. They don’t have any idea how something like this turns people from "pro-choice" to pro-life, it's either simple ignorance or sheer coldness

Uber-feminist Amy Richards tells a story of getting pregnant, finding out she has triplets and going through “selective reduction”, which is exactly what you think it is. I’m going to just quote with little editorializing because I don’t have to:

“My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?

I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ''Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?'' The obstetrician wasn't an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.”

Wouldn’t want to give up that income now, would you, you two-bit, unmarried, sleeping around-slut.

“On the subway, Peter asked, ''Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.''

Not that the kids have to give up their lives.

“He told me that he does a detailed sonogram before doing a selective reduction to see if one fetus appears to be struggling. The procedure involves a shot of potassium chloride to the heart of the fetus. There are a lot more complications when a woman carries multiples. And so, from the doctor's perspective, it's a matter of trying to save the woman this trauma.”

What about saving the kids lives??

“Before the procedure, I was focused on relaxing. But Peter was staring at the sonogram screen thinking: Oh, my gosh, there are three heartbeats. I can't believe we're about to make two disappear.”

At least someone was feeling guilty.

“Two days after the procedure, smells no longer set me off and I no longer wanted to eat nothing but sour-apple gum. I went on to have a pretty seamless pregnancy. But I had a recurring feeling that this was going to come back and haunt me. Was I going to have a stillbirth or miscarry late in my pregnancy?”

Oh, it will come back to haunt you and if I was a better person, I wouldn’t be so happy about that.

"HOW MANY BABIES DID YOU KILL TODAY?"

The tolerant left, what would this country do without them?  Well, as a citizen of this country, I’d like to give it a shot – at least with out the tolerant left from Bainbridge Island, WA.  This beautiful island of the coast of Seattle, untouched by the horrors of real life, showed their true colors during a Fourth of July parade this year.  Walking in the parade with his family, 23 year old wounded soldier Jason Gibson received all the accolades this “left-of-center” community had:
 
"Baby killer!"
"Murderer!"
"Boooo!"
 
Of course, the leaders of the parade came to the soldiers defense:
 
“The Bainbridge Island Chamber of Commerce, which put on the community celebration, permits freedom of expression at the event but asks that parade announcers not act in a manner that is partisan or prejudicial.

Jason's mother, Tamar, says a female parade announcer locked eyes on her son who was walking behind a pro-Republican group called Women in Red, White and Blue. The group supports President Bush and the troops in the fight against terrorism.

According to Tamar, the female announcer sarcastically asked Jason: "And what exactly are you a veteran of?"
 
The mayor of Bainbridge, after a backlash surely unexpected, offered an apology to Jason.
 
"I called him Monday night," Mayor Darlene Kordonowy told me yesterday. "I felt badly about his experience. He was distressed and distraught about what happened when I talked to him."
 
Yeah.  How come it took you a week to apologize?  How come you didn’t call him that day?  Could it be because you didn’t care until you got bad press? 
 
But, it’s the right that’s populated with the “haters”, right?

JADAKISS CAN KISS MY ...

There seems to be a rapper who goes by the name of “Jadakiss”.  This “Jadakiss” thing has a song on his new album called “Why?”.  The key line in this low talent-high beat song goes like this:
 
"Why did Bush knock down the towers?"
 
Much to “Jadakiss” surprise, some of the thinkers out there are a bit offended by this.  What is the well reasoned response from Mr. Jadakiss?
 
"It caught the ear of white America," he said proudly during a phone interview with The Associated Press.”
 
Oh, so as long as he is catching the ear of “white America”, than it’s all cool. So, if I say something to catch the ear of black America, (African-American America?) than that’s all good, too?  All I have to say is the dreaded N-word, and I’ve caught the ear of black America, so that must be OK, right?  Heck, if I use the word niggardly, I can catch the ear of black America and no bad would ever come of me, right? (Paging David Howard) 
 
Well, maybe that’s not what Mr. “Jadakiss” meant, after all:
 
“Jadakiss doesn't really believe Bush ordered the towers destroyed — he says the line is a metaphor, and that Bush should take the blame for the terrorist attack because his administration didn't do enough to stop it.

"They didn't follow up on a lot of things properly," says Jadakiss. "It's the president of the United States. The buck stops with him."
 
Oh.  Well, a quick look into “Jadakiss” history finds this upstanding citizen was arrested for drug possession and possession of firearms.  So, if I were to write a lame song that asked why “J-kiss”
“shot the drug dealer and his baby and raped his girlfriend and danced on his grave and killed his mama and…”
 
that would be ok, because I mean it as a metaphor for all the killing done by rich, black men.
 
I doubt it.

OH, CANADA!!

A favorite theme here at the diner is Canada, specifically, how useless Canada is.  Canada has become so completely dependant on the United States for protection, it has all but eradicated it’s armed forces.  With that thought in mind, this headline from the Edmonton Sun says it all:
 
“Tired navy takes year for a rest”
 
It seems Canada was able to muster one whole ship to help in the Middle East and now it’s coming home with it's single helicopter broken because they're all tuckered out.  (pouty face inserted here).
 
“The Canadian navy will sit out the war on terrorism for one year in an effort to give exhausted sailors a chance to recuperate. HMCS Toronto left the Arabian Sea and the American George Washington Carrier Strike Group July 4 with a broken Sea King helicopter on deck.
 
And the navy has quietly decided against dispatching a replacement ship until spring 2005 at the earliest.”
 
Oh, get this,
 
"It's been a very, very busy six months."
 
Wow!!  A whole six months!  No wonder you guys are exhausted!
 
Look, the entire Canadian navy consists of 16 ships, 4 submarines, 2 tankers and 12 coast guard-type ships.  This, from the country with the longest coastline of any country in the world, 202,000 kilometers.  By comparison, the United States navy has over 300 ships, including 12 aircraft carriers alone.  Heck, the US Coast Guard has 30 cutters, not counting all of the other support ships, all for a coastline of 20,000 kilometers.

Canada is a laughingstock, a pretend nation to be ignored at best, invaded when we have the time.

'THEY LIED!! ... not really"

Ah, the LA Times, perhaps the most liberal of the liberal bias media, steps up to the plate today and bats one out of the park. The front page leads with this headline:

Flaws Cited in Powell's Speech to U.N. on Iraq

“Days before Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was to present the case for war with Iraq to the United Nations, State Department analysts found dozens of factual problems in drafts of his speech, according to new documents contained in the Senate report on intelligence failures released last week.”

The writer, Gregg Miller, goes on and on listing problems the State Department had with the initial draft of the report. What he mentions, just in passing, is this:

“Offering the first detailed look at claims that were stripped from the case for war advanced by Powell, a Jan. 31, 2003, memo cataloged 38 claims to which State Department analysts objected. In response, 28 were either removed from the draft or altered, according to the Senate report, which was released Friday and included scathing criticism of the CIA and other U.S. intelligence services.”

So, Gregg, let me get this straight. The initial draft of the speech, sent to various departments for comments, included assertations of Iraqi threats that some of these departments said my be a little reaching and these flawed accusations were removed from the final version? THIS is supposed to prove what? That the Administration was reckless? That’s what I take from the story, when in fact it shows a deliberative approach to what everyone agreed was a threat to world security.

Look, it’s obvious what you’re trying to do. Giving a laundry list of what was removed from the speech really leaves the impression that these were in the final version and they were all wrong and that “BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED”. What’s that you say, I’m paranoid and putting words in your mouth? What about this:

“The speech also has become a point of reference in the failure of U.S. intelligence. Although Powell has said he struggled to ensure that all of his arguments were sound and backed by intelligence from several sources, it nonetheless became a key example of how the administration advanced false claims to justify war.”

I’d laugh if it wasn’t so terrible.

BLACK-OUT

I was going to write a mediocre blog today on why President Bush should feel completely justified in his decision to once again blow off the NAACP annual meeting this year. Doing some quick research, and discovering such ironic quotes as Julian Bond’s:

“accusing the GOP of "playing the race card in election after election."

I came across an editorial by Gregory Kane. In it, I found he had already done a stupendous job and I should just keep my trap shut. Here’s some of what he had to say:

“Some might correctly surmise that Bush declined an invitation to speak at the NAACP convention because he's been there, done that, and received ad hominem attacks just on the sunny side of slander for his efforts. Why would a man the NAACP Voter Education Fund falsely implied was against prosecuting Byrd's murderers address the organization?

At this point, the NAACP-ers like to say that the Voter Education Fund and the NAACP are different organizations. The NAACP proper, they piously intone, had nothing to do with the Byrd ad. No doubt Bush is still waiting for some public condemnation of that ad from Bond or Mfume.

In fact, Mfume has suggested Bush "get over" the criticism from NAACP leaders.”

I couldn’t top things like “just the sunny side of slander” in a million years. Well, maybe a million, but not during July 2004, that’s for sure.

I said back as far as January 2001 that the African-American leadership should be keeping their heads down and hoping Bush is as forgiving a man as he say he is because they sure threw all of their eggs in the Gore basket and he dropped the basket. With a mere 8% of the black vote going to George Bush and he still winning, he proved the black vote is pretty much irrelevant in Presidential politics. The black community has managed to put THEMSELVES right where they always said “whitey” was trying to put them – in the back of the bus.

So, maybe if Bush was more Clinton or Kerry-like and concerned ONLY with power and electability, the NAACP would be ignored because they just don’t matter and I think that’s what they fear. Fortunately, George Bush isn’t like that, he cares about the African-American community, he just doesn’t care for the self-important, racist do-do’s who call themselves the leadership.

WEEZY

I know I speak for everyone at Mel's Diner (because it's just me) when I say God bless Isabel Sanford. She died yesterday, and as a fan of 70's and 80's sitcoms, she will be missed. I loved The Jeffersons and I know you all did, too. May she meet the sweet reward she deserves and greet the family and friends I know who wait for her.

BOSTON AND AIDS

The family and I went to Boston for a mini-vacation yesterday. We had a good time, the kids loved everything, especially the pool in the beautiful Westin Waltham (just off route 95, close to Raytheon and historic Boston). We did Faneuil Hall (lots and lots of people spending a lots and lots of money for stuff available elsewhere at half the price) and the Boston Children’s Museum. The kids loved it, played with EVERYTHING and tired themselves out.

As a little aside, I was surprised (guess I shouldn’t have been) how remarkably politically correct it all was. There were TWO pretend Latino markets in the museum, an American Indian, I mean Native American exhibit and a whole room dedicated to the physically challenged. There was also a special exhibit, Boston Black, all about the black, whoops, African American community in Boston. That’s fine, but here’s what wasn’t there. An American exhibit, a revolutionary war exhibit, an exhibit on whaling, an exhibit on shipping, etc. Nothing about what made America, particularly Boston, great. It's a kids museum, I know, but we need to start young.

Oh, well, that’s what my kids have parents for.

This morning, outside my door in the above mentioned Westin, there was a USA Today that Katie brought in for me. The first thing I see on the front page is an article named Search for AIDS Vaccine Falters. The first line is this:

“The two-decade search for an AIDS vaccine, the only way to end the global crisis, is all but starting over, researchers here said Monday.”

I began to wave my arms over my head and my wife got that, “Oh no, not again” hurt look on her face when she knows I’m going to start ranting about some perceived liberal thing.

Perceptive she is.

“The only way to end the global crisis?”, I cried. “AIDS is the only “epidemic”, and I use that word for sake of argument, that is COMPLETELY controllable. All you have to do is not sleep around or have sex with someone that does. It’s not like polio that just hits out of the blue, you need to do something specific to get AIDS and we all know what that is.”

I know, I know, the bleeding hearts out there are sobbing into their hankies over how insensitive I am and how I don’t understand what it’s like in Africa and how Gore really won the 2000 election, etc. Look, I do understand that it’s a bit different in Africa, but I also know some African countries have had success against AIDS without a vaccine or mass condom drops for France.

Uganda has a great program, that because it doesn’t rely on letting people do whatever they want and blame America, the left ignores it. It’s called the ABC program and it goes like this:

Abstain from sex until you’re married.
Be faithful to your spouse
Condom if you’re a dirtbag and can’t do one and two.(OK, maybe I added the dirtbag part, but that's what they meant)

So, don’t tell me a vaccine is “the only way to end” AIDS.

"YOU PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE, I'LL PASS ON MINE"

Little John Edwards has been hopping mad for a year now about the “Bush tax Cuts for the Wealthy”. He was especially incensed by the evil Tax Shelters. Cached pages (here and here) from johnedwards2004.com we get little John say things like this:

“Because they don’t even try to hide it. The Bush budget proposed tax-free tax shelters for millionaires that are bigger than most Americans’ paychecks for an entire year. And just last week, Bush’s tax guru, Grover Norquist, said their goal is to abolish the capital gains tax, abolish the dividend tax, and let the wealthiest shelter as much as they want tax-free.”

and:

“And yet this President, who ought to be leading the way, has offered nothing in the way of reform. This last tax bill is a vast giveaway to all the insiders who drove our economy into the ditch. Instead of tackling wasteful tax shelters, the bill actually encourages them.”

You get the feeling that someone like John Edwards would never stoop so low as to hide from paying fair share.

Until you read a little article in today's SFGate:

“Edwards created an S Corporation tax shelter for himself in 1995 that has enabled him to shield some of his income from taxes. The shelter became an issue in Edwards' 1998 Senate campaign.

The Times, citing records it requested and obtained from the Kerry-Edwards campaign, said Edwards paid $9,353,448 in federal taxes on his income of $26,869,496 over the four-year period.

The tax shelter allowed him to avoid paying $591,112 in Medicare tax during the period, the newspaper said. “

$591,000 worth of Medicare taxes dodged? That's sounds pretty bad. To give Edwards credit, he never said people actually paying the Medicare taxes they owe is the way to bring about solvency, in fact he rejected that idea. On the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations website, he said this:

“The Trust Fund is expected to become insolvent in 2026. To fix this, I reject the notion that the only solution to the Medicare crisis is to cut benefits, cut provider payments, or raise taxes.”

But to most of us, skipping out on paying taxes for elderly medical care seems a bit cold and just a bit unfair to the rest of us who just pay instead of shelter our taxes.

Little John Edwards – he believes you should pay his fair share.

"SCHEER HYPOCRISY"

Robert Scheer over at the LA Times has his dress over his head because the new leader of Iraq is an ex-anti-Hussein terrorist:

“…the interim prime minister is a former member of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party who later conducted anti-Hussein terrorist operations on behalf of the CIA — operations in which innocent Iraqi civilians may have been killed — his anointment as leader of a "free Iraq" is being hailed by President Bush as a great victory in the war on terror.

According to several former intelligence officials interviewed by the New York Times this month, the political group run by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi in the 1990s, but financed by the CIA, "used car bombs and other explosive devices smuggled into Iraq" in an attempt to sabotage and destabilize Hussein's regime.”

Oh, no! He was one of the good guys! Can’t have that, can we? If conducting clandestine attacks on a repressive and violent government makes a person unfit to lead, then I wonder what Scheer said about Nelson Mandela? He must have called for the United States to continue sanctions against South Africa. According to Wikipedia:

“Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) (Spear of the Nation) was the military wing of the African National Congress (ANC). Founded December 16, 1961, by the ANC and South African Communist Party (SACP) as the answer to the political, social and economical oppression against blacks by the South African Apartheid regime; future South African President Nelson Mandela was among its leaders. The MK carried out numerous bombings of military, industrial, civilian and infrastructural sites. Notable among these is the January 8, 1982 (to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the formation of the ANC), attack on the Koeberg nuclear power plant in Cape Town.” (emphasis mine).

Well, Mr. Scheer? Were you against Nelson Mandela, too? Now please go back to your room and leave us alone.

"IGNORE THE CASE BEHIND THE CURTAIN"

Our boy John (Robin) Edwards slammed President Bush on how long it took to indict Ken Lay. He said:

"It took three long years to see Ken Lay handcuffed and indicted for what he did," the North Carolina senator said Saturday in the weekly Democratic radio address. "In November, middle-class families will be able to rest assured that John Kerry (news - web sites) will look out for their interests, restore corporate responsibility and put our economy back in line with our values."

I would like to know what Edwards thinks President Bush could have done to speed that up. Any interference by President Bush would surely have been seen by the left as an attempt to hide something and to railroad the case.

Interestingly, Edwards is best known from his trial lawyer days as the man who won the largest personal injury case in North Carolina history (netting him a tidy sum of money, BTW). The Valerie Lakey case took almost FOUR years to hit the courts, what was John Edwards doing? Why was he dragging his feet on this case? Was he trying to hide something or protect someone, maybe a large client perhaps? Or maybe these things just take a long time. Oh, wait, that can’t be true, at least not when it’s about a Republican…

TEPID CATHOLICS

I’ve commented several times in The Diner about the Catholic Church developing a backbone lately and telling the “pro-choice” members of the Church to mend their ways for they are risking their very souls. Agree or be wrong on the abortion issue, but I think everyone can agree the Catholic Church has always stood on the pro-life side and expects the faithful to do the same, so the recent actions shouldn’t seem so alien.

Yet, the “Catholics” on the receiving end seem flabbergasted that the Church should be trying to save their souls. I mean...hello?...saving souls is what the Church is supposed to do, right? It’s not like they're trying produce personal watercraft here. The latest caught off guard by the Church’s action is Missouri Congressman Rep. William Lacy Clay. Congressman Clay hails from St. Louis, home of one of the most vocal Catholic Bishops, Bishop Raymond Burke, who received national attention for telling John Kerry not to try to receive Communion in the Bishops diocese.

In typical modern, liberal, Catholic fashion, Rep. Clay opened his mouth and made a fool of himself several times over. The Associated Press reported Clay as saying:

"I think Archbishop Burke has gone too far; he is now delving into politics," Clay said in an interview on Friday. "Perhaps the Catholic Church should surrender their 501-C status."

Abortion is not a political issue, it is a matter of life and death. And even if it was, Bishop Burke is not trying to tell you to vote, he’s saying if you decide to vote a certain way (pro-killing), then you need to go to confession before receiving communion. The good Bishop is only controlling things in his realm (the Church) not Washington. Starting off with such idiocies, you know that Clay was only going to get better. And he did:

Clay, who attends St. Nicholas Catholic Church, said that if a priest refused him communion, "I would stand there."

"That's such a personal thing, between my God and me," he said. "I think it's an intrusion into uncharted waters that the church has never been in. They don't have the luxury of driving people away from the church right now. It's difficult for them to find priests and nuns, and if they continue on this track, they're going to drive people away from the church."

Let’s take these Three Freedoms to be Stupid comments one by one.

1. “I would just stand there” So, acting like a stubborn four year old will help you how? You’ll just be forced to tell the people in the Church you support the death of children. Not that you would have the guts to do it, anyway. You're obviously all bluster and no guts.

2. "That's such a personal thing, between my God and me," he said. "I think it's an intrusion into uncharted waters that the church has never been in.” Uh, dude, the Priest is God’s representative on Earth, he’s the closest thing to God you’ve got. If you go to receive communion, bread that has been transfigured into the body of Christ being given to you by God’s representative, you aren’t going to get closer to God than that.

3. "They don't have the luxury of driving people away from the church right now. It's difficult for them to find priests and nuns, and if they continue on this track, they're going to drive people away from the church." You imbecile, the Church does not act for political expediency, it doesn’t act as the will of the majority. The Church teaches God’s wisdom and has for two millennia, through times it had the majority opinion at it’s back and times when it didn’t. Only a two-bit, hypocritical politician would say the things that come out of Rep. Clay’s mouth.

Yet, even after all of that, Clay wasn’t done:

Clay said, "I don't represent just Catholics; I represent a very diverse district filled with all types of religious denominations, so I cannot function in an official capacity just as a Catholic politician."

A common refrain from the tepid Catholic politicians. Look, the Church doesn’t give two hoots who you represent, what the Church is saying you can’t be “pro-choice” and still receive communion. If you feel the need to represent “pro-choice” constituents, than at least don’t receive communion. If you insist that you are still a Catholic and have the power to make laws, then you cannot support, encourage and enable abortionists. It was laid out very clearly in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI saying it was especially important for lay people given “particular title to the task...who hold...political power”

Unfortunately, that’s you, Clay.

"CONSERVATIVE" VS "MODERATE" VS "LIBERAL"

A constant refrain heard from the right is that of Liberal Media Bias. Often we are just laughed at by the left, who claim a CONSERVATIVE media bias. Other time, we are quietly told by smart people that they don’t think there is any bias in the news, like the day after the 2002 elections when my friend told me that. Of curse, it was just about an hour later when Reuters had the headline:

“Republicans seize control of Congress”

That’s usually the kind of bias we find, subtle wording like “seizure of power”. Last night, I ran into another case of subtle, probably unintentional media bias.

My wife likes to watch local news and she often watches NECN (New England Cable News) and as we were going to bed, they had a little segment comparing the Vice-Presidential Candidates. I was only half paying attention when I heard Alison King call Dick Cheney a “conservative Republican”. I listened for a few minutes, waiting for her to get to Robin Edwards. When she did, she called him a “moderate Democrat”.

A moderate Democrat? In the National Journal’s ranking of the 2003 voting records, John Kerry was found to be the MOST liberal Senator and Robin came in number 4. 4th most liberal and he was labeled a “moderate”.

Now, to be fair, Robin did have a moderate voting record for the first four years in the Senate, but when it came time to run for President, he went hog liberal wild. Some would say that he did that to win the nomination, but I disagree. I think he started voting his beliefs. You see, at the same time he started running for President, he decided NOT to run for the Senate again. And freed from having to face the voters of North Carolina again, he didn’t need to temper his votes. So, the real John Edwards came out.

THE EDWARDS FAMILY

What kind of a family man is John Edwards? Are he and his wife Elizabeth believers in strong family values? Maybe a little glimpse into that can be gained by piecing together a few stories I found today.

The New York Times posted a puff piece on Elizabeth Edwards just this after noon. In it they describe her as:

“People who know Mrs. Edwards say she is as she appears - a woman who volunteered in the Parent-Teacher Association when Wade and Cate were young, who kept up friendships through a monthly "lunch bunch" in North Carolina. Last week, to celebrate her 55th birthday, she went out to dinner with friends and discussed what clothes she might wear if her husband was picked to run for vice president. Like women across America, she is trying out the South Beach diet.

"Elizabeth is very self-effacing," said Steve Jarding, a former adviser to Mr. Edwards. "I don't think John has the massive ego that a lot of politicians have. But if he did, Elizabeth would absolutely slice it up. It's not her personality to allow it."

Ah, a regular June Cleaver, albeit a rich, lawyer-type one. By now, we all know how the Edwards’ son Wade was killed in a car accident when he was sixteen. After that tragedy, she quit her job as a trial lawyer and stayed home full time. The Edwards’ then decided to have more kids, a tough decision I’m sure, but one I can appreciate. Hey, by that point, the Edwards’ were very wealthy and she would be able to spend some quality time her young children.

Slam the brakes.

According to a transcript from the Charlie Rose Show just after 9/11, Senator Edwards said this:

“I just dropped my three-year-old off at day care and was on my way to the office this morning when the first airplane hit the first tower of the World Trade Center. I got a phone call in my car. “

Day care? I don’t think it’s very “family-valuish” to send your kids to day care when you have more money than Alabama and the wife is staying at home. Sounds to me like they couldn’t be bothered to raise their own kids.

Look, some of us scrape and scrimp so we can get to the point where the mother can stay home with the kids. Some of us would love to have the money these trial lawyers have milked from their clients to be able to stay home and yet, these two couldn’t be bothered.

Family values – Edwards Style.

BORING AND BORINGER

In the weeks leading up to yesterdays news that Johnny picked the other Johnny (referred to as Batman and Robin), the speculation was that Batman Kerry would never pick Robin Edwards because he wouldn’t want someone with more personality then himself on the ticket. I admit, I even bought into that.

Then yesterday I began to think about it.

Does Robin Edwards have more charisma than Batman Kerry? On the surface, it appears so. After all, during the primaries, people spoke of how personable Edwards was. He brought personality and emotion to wherever he was and bah blah blah.

But I doubt it.

Robin Edwards may have stirred the hearts of the faithful during the campaign, but he did it by never speaking to the same people twice. Robin gave the same speech day after day, campaign stop after campaign stop, never changing a word. Even a fairly fawning piece by the New York Times in February said:

“His own aides can be seen mouthing the speech along with him as he talks.”

So, considering that, I ask – could it be possible that, in fact, John Kerry has chosen a running mate even MORE boring than himself?

"KILL THE KIDS, WHO CARES?"

On Sunday, during his “I-can-be-what-you-want-me-to-be” tour of flyover country, Kerry decides he believes life begins at conception:

“Kerry broke new ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Oh. You believe life begins at conception? If life begins at conception (it does), then the baby is alive after conception. Therefore, you must believe an abortion kills a human being. Yet, you support the death of these people, in fact you encourage it. Let’s jump over to your website for just a second. Under “Protect The Right To Choose” we find this:

“John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God. He will defend this right as President. He recently announced he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court. Kerry also believes that we should promote family planning and health plans should assure women contraceptive coverage.”

Notice, like all liberals, he can’t even say the word abortion. It’s pretty clear here, especially with the bit about only pro-abortion judges, Kerry would do nothing to limit abortions, which he believes kills children. But, he is against the death penalty, (which is good) except for terrorists. This is what he said in February of this year at a Democrat debate:

“…that the state should not engage in killing, because they have very bad memories of what happens when the state engages in killing.”

So, he’s got a problem with the “state” engaging in killing, but has no problem when doctors and mothers do it. Kerry is more concerned about criminals than babies.

I say this over and over again, but that’s only because it needs to be said: There are roughly 3,200 abortions a DAY in the United States and John Kerry doesn’t care, in fact, knowing full well that kids are being killed on staggering levels, he supports their slaughter. He is concerned about the 111 people who have been released from death row, though – talk about having your priorities out of whack. He’s a moral-less hypocrite who cares only about one thing – John Kerry.

BJ vs. RUSH

Mike Farrell, our beloved BJ Hunnicut from M*A*S*H, is all constipated over Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, I know, tell you something you don’t already know. This time it’s because Armed Forces Radio carries an hour of El Rushbo everyday.

"Do the right thing." These were Secretary of State Colin Powell's words of advice to the Wake Forest University class of 2004 in his May commencement address. Then Powell issued an incontrovertible condemnation of the actions of U.S. soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners: "Our nation is now going through a period of deep disappointment, a period of deep pain over some of our soldiers not doing the right thing at a place called Abu Ghraib. All Americans deplored what happened there."

Well, perhaps not all Americans. There's at least one American who has publicly praised, condoned, trivialized and joked about the abuse, torture, rape and possible murder of Iraqi prisoners. This American does not appear to be going through "a period of deep pain." This American has instead called the abuse "a brilliant maneuver" and compared it to a college fraternity prank: "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation," he said.

Who is this American so unlike "all Americans"? Rush Limbaugh.”

What Hunnicut isn’t telling you (I’m sure he just overlooked it) is that Rush spent almost the entire three hours that day condemning the abuse that had just come to light. If you remember, at that point all we had were those few pictures like the naked pyramid, etc. When Rush compared them to a “fraternity prank”, he was saying we should not sabotage the whole war effort over something as small and isolated as these few pictures. But, like all liberals, BJ is more than willing to leave out all of the inconvenient facts.

Anyway, Hunnicut is infuriated and wondering:

“Why should American taxpayers pay for the broadcasting of such inexcusable views to U.S. troops? Why, at a combustible moment like this one, would we be funneling Limbaugh's trivializations to our men and women at the front? Does Limbaugh's pro-torture propaganda really qualify as "a touch of home"?”

“Pro-torture”? Come in from the ledge, BJ - everything will be ok. If anyone is pro-torture, it’s the liberals who support regimes like Fidel Castro. Remember your trip to Cuba, BJ? You ended your letter with this:

“The alternative, of course, is to continue our present relationship in the vain (some would say racist, colonialist, imperialist) hope that this government that is not to our liking will fall and those who want to see a return to the old ways will be able to go back and take over. Not only will this not occur, but every day we spend continuing to be the primary force attempting to bring it about through economic strangulation means another day that children will suffer without necessary medicines, hospitals and businesses will labor in darkened halls with Rube Goldberg contraptions attempting to replace their lost technologies, school kids will lack paper and pencils, the social fabric will continue to decay and the people we say we're trying to help will continue to go hungry.

Shame on us.”

Ah, yes. All of Cuba’s problems are because of us.

If Hunnicut wants to get all of the partisanship off Armed Forces Radio, why isn't he not trying to get the several hours a day of NPR pulled? How about the Diane Rehm show? Her website says she’s heard on Armed Forces Radio. She's hardly a member of the VRWC.

Hey BJ, ever consider perhaps Armed Forces Radio carries Rush because he’s a booster and supporter of the Armed Forces and the United States? Maybe the Pentagon is just smart enough to realize that our troops don’t need to hear people like you putting us down all the time and blaming the United States for everything.

Ever think of that, you SOB?

IRAQ - THEN AND NOW

Is it just me or do other people find it funny that Saddam Hussein wasn’t demanding to be tried in courts similar to those in which he tried his enemies? Even he recognizes what willing idiots like Michael Moore, Maureen Dowd, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry don’t – that Iraq is a more humane country than two years ago.

And it’s all because of George Bush.

WINTER SOLDIERS AGAIN

How far can political correctness go? Well, in the liberal stronghold of Minneapolis-St. Paul, it can go beyond the realms of believability. The Minnesota Twins, the most fan friendly team in Major League Baseball, decided that it might be fun and not just a little respectful to our armed services to give the first 5,000 children coming to the game a free GI Joe doll, excuse me, action figure. In an attempt to be not to pro-military, the Twins had Hasbro, the makers of GI Joe remove the machine gun from the figure, although they did leave the belt of hand grenades.

Well, as you might expect, this left the peaceniks with there dresses over their heads.

"It's not a credible way to honor those who've suffered the inhumanity of war,'' said Phil Steger, executive director of Friends for a Non-Violent World, a St. Paul-based group with about 4,000 members in Minnesota.

"One wonders whether a desire to increase ticket sales is masquerading as good intentions. We hope not. Minnesotans' moral sense and empathy with those who have lost life, limb and loved ones in war — soldier and civilian — rejects this kind of opportunism,'' Steger said.

Mary Beaudoin, a leader of Women Against Military Madness, Minneapolis, said she's "appalled'' by the giveaway.

"This is hideous … a bad message to send kids,'' she said. "Kids need to be raised with the values of life, not killing.''

GI Joe – “hideous”? Please, groups of panty-wastes like these are trying to emasculate this country. A few posts ago I wrote about how better people than I spoke of democracy standing because people are willing to do violence to protect it. People remember Col. Nathan R. Jessup’s speech on the stand in A Few Good Men more than any other part of the movie because it resonates truth:

“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”

Everything he said was true and the people, “under the blanket of the very freedom” provided by people with the guns this action figure was denied decry the very existence of a GI Joe action figure, much less the existence of the REAL GI Joe’s who fight and die for them. The very thought that kids might even be exposed to soldiers and Heaven forbid (if they only believed in Heaven) look UP to the members of our armed forces makes them sick. This is what liberalism does to our country.