The Wacky Racers? From the Bring Them Home Now Tour website:
"We are currently at a significant turning point in how the American public views the war in Iraq. As the death toll in Iraq rises, Cindy Sheehan’s vigil near President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, has captured the hearts and minds of thousands of Americans."

Hearts & minds? Sure. More like bemused attention. It's kind of like the Michael Jackson trial or OJ's freeway chase. You know there are better things you should be doing with your time but you have to look.

Like the freak show at the circus we never know what sideshow act we'll see next: the Bearded Lady, Al Sharpton, Martin Sheen, or Jo Jo the Dog-Faced Boy.

Like a lot of other things, the entertainment value is on the decline.  ¶ Wednesday, August 31, 2005 0 comments

  Liberal Spin Vs. Reality Ready for more from Circus Sheehan?

The first photo below is what you will see in most liberal media outlets regarding "Saint" Cindy's touching and poignant meeting with the "Reverend" Al Sharpton.












Almost brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?

Here's the REAL photo.







Turns out this tearful moment of "prayer" was just another photo op for easy publicity. It's a toss-up which of these two hucksters is more loathsome and despicable.   ¶ Tuesday, August 30, 2005 3 comments

  Where's Our Foreign Aid? "Now I'm calling all citizens from all over the world
This is Captain America calling.
I bailed you out when you were down on your knees
So will you catch me now I'm falling?"

So sang The Kinks in 1978. One of my favorites by the Davies brothers of Britain is especially relevant this morning.

In light of the devastation on the US Gulf Coast and considering that we are ALWAYS on the scene providing aid and money when disaster strikes anywhere in the world, I want to know, "Where are you world?"

"I stood by you through all of your depressions
And I lifted you when you were down.
Now it's your chance to do the same for me,
I call your office and your secretary tells me
That you've gone out of town."  ¶ Tuesday, August 30, 2005 2 comments

  Obsessive Canonizing - 30 Aug 05 Sgt Missick:

"After a truly long day, I was sitting with a friend of mine, Spc. Trevino, in the bunkers right behind our tent. ... Apparently, his girlfriend back home has been getting an increasing number of young men who are trying to get her to agree to a date. She stubbornly refuses every time, much to the happiness of Trevino, but that doesn’t seem to stop these guys. Finally, he joined an online community she belongs to, kind of like a blog, and made a very poignant statement. On the comments section of the page, he posted a picture of him returning one day from work: filthy, sweaty, and with his M249 machine gun in his hand. Under the picture he posted the caption, “What have you done for your girlfriend today?” I don’t think anything could have been more fitting.

I was reminded yet again of the people that are never far from my mind, the people back home that are the real reason why I proudly endure whatever it is the Army forces us to face. Although most of my readers agree that this war was crucial for the changing world that lies before us, it is hard for soldiers to think in any other terms than it being a necessity to preserve and sustain the security and safety of all of you back home. Clearly I am not saying that as soldiers and American’s we should not think critically about this war. I do however wish to make the following point: If we are indeed sacrificing the small and large moments alike with our families, and putting ourselves in harms way, then we must believe in the cause, and at least find the benefits that it reaps for Iraqi’s and American’s alike. To ignore this and oppose our efforts here is to begin to sense a futility in our efforts and our personal trials. With so many positive developments, I know that the latter is not the case, and that wearing this uniform, in this place in time, will carry a significant and positive effect that will echo the call of freedom throughout history."

  ¶ Tuesday, August 30, 2005 0 comments

  Obsessive Canonizing - 29 Aug 05 American Soldier

"I know that I will be sent back at some point. It is an inevitable fate that I gladly accept. I don’t know what it is. I cannot comprehend not serving. I just can’t grasp trying to avoid going back. I know it puts a burden on my family, it holds up my employer but dammit if it weren’t for willing Soldiers. Then all of this would not exist. We live in a time when people want to hurt all that we have. We haven’t had to defend our beloved country is years. It’s time to mount up and accept that this is not going away."

  ¶ Monday, August 29, 2005 1 comments

  Heck Yeah, I'm American!

You Are 95% American

You're as American as red meat and shooting ranges. Tough and independent, you think big. You love everything about the US, wrong or right. And anyone who criticizes your home better not do it in front of you!

  ¶ Sunday, August 28, 2005 1 comments

  DadManly Refutes Liberal Lies Thanks to DadManly for another terrific post, this time in his own words.

"We have had astounding victories in the field. We took out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in time frames and with so few losses and collateral damage as to be unparalleled in history, by any Army in the world. It is true that building a democracy in a basket case such as Iraq has not been easy, there have been setbacks, but no one who watched history unfold on 30 January of this year could think that this effort has been anything but an outstanding achievement. The Soldiers who are fighting this war are re-enlisted in record numbers, and helping the military exceed re-enlistment quotas. Does this sound like the poor, misguided minions who have so spectacularly failed in their objectives...

You will not find a significant number of Soldiers on the ground who will agree with this assessment. Something close to 75% of Soldiers supported President Bush in the last election. They may not all agree with the war, or how we're fighting it.
(Many want us to be tougher, meaner, and less careful about civilian casualties, I might add. America has always had a "Nuke the Bastards" attitude about our enemies, and Soldiers reflect these views no less than their civilian counterparts in the heartland.)

But there is one thing a huge majority of Soldiers know in their hearts. This President is proud of them, cares for them, fights for them, and tremendously respects their service, and sacrifice. Those that hate him will never see it, for their own antipathy blinds them."

Again, please surf over and read the whole thing!  ¶ Sunday, August 28, 2005 10 comments

  Yes, Hussein WAS a Threat! "...Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver.

"[I] am a prisoner of what I actually do know about the permanent hell, and the permanent threat, of the Saddam regime. However, having debated almost all of the spokespeople for the antiwar faction, both the sane and the deranged, I was recently asked a question that I was temporarily unable to answer. "If what you claim is true," the honest citizen at this meeting politely asked me, "how come the White House hasn't told us?"
I do in fact know the answer to this question. ... Just say plainly that we shall fight them everywhere they show themselves, and fight them on principle as well as in practice, and get ready to warn people that Nigeria is very probably the next target of the jihadists. The peaceniks love to ask: When and where will it all end? The answer is easy: It will end with the surrender or defeat of one of the contending parties. Should I add that I am certain which party that ought to be? Defeat is just about imaginable, though the mathematics and the algebra tell heavily against the holy warriors. Surrender to such a foe, after only four years of combat, is not even worthy of consideration." - Christopher Hitchens   ¶ Sunday, August 28, 2005 0 comments

  Honor Them! Makaha Surf Report has a terrific post about the quality of the people who serve in our military. Please go read it in full.

130,000 men and women do it every single day, they don't do it for money, they don't do it for fame, they do it because they believe in something. They believe in an idea, an idea that America has a responsibility to do what we can to fight hatred, oppression and evil. We are a blessed nation to have so many give so much for so little in return. I am inspired everyday I am with them.

They come from everywhere and nowhere, little towns, our largest cities, and countries near and far. They joined for many reasons, money, adventure, education, and patriotism. But ponder this; On September 11th, 2005 it will have been four years since 9/11, most military enlistments are 4 years in length for the initial term. That means that the men and women in uniform today (a majority of them) are here because they want to be. They are here to fight and to win, the bear this out, while the Army is having a small problem with initial recruits, it is having no problems whatsoever in retaining its combat veterans. Ponder fact number 2: The U.S. military now has the largest pool of combat veterans in the world today. Since 9/11 we have cycled nearly one million total soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines through Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other fronts in the War on Terrorism. These combat veterans by and large are electing to stay and continue the fight. That speaks of the American character and the uniqueness of the American experience.

Throughout our history we have been a nation of rejects and castoffs. We as a people are the ones the rest of the world tried to persecute, or the ones that wanted more than the rigid social castes of much of the globe, or we were daydreamers and adventurers. We found all that we wanted and more in America, we found a land where birth did not equal status, where a poor man could become rich if he worked hard and was a little lucky, and we were a land where one's belief's didn't matter. The heart of a man or woman was judged by the actions of that person. You find that spirit in the Army today(the branch I am most familiar with), I have seen Russian boys and Nigerian girls transform from castoffs of the Old world into models of American character. I met a young man from Lebanon that joined the U.S. Army after 9/11 because he could not understand the level of evil it took to attack the beacon that is America. In my travels I have met men and women that believed so greatly in our country they were willing to risk their lives just to be one of us. I have never been prouder to be an American as when I am in their company, yet at the same time, I feel a small amount of despair. The despair is in the fact that so few of our own young people are willing to put their life on the line for liberty and freedom. We still have enough that are willing to do their duty for our nation, but it still troubles me.

I have spent nearly a year in Iraq in my three tours here, and my spirits are always buoyed by watching my countrymen and potential countrymen at work and at play. They go out everyday and face mortal peril, they go out and have to confront the evil of our time, they go out and see friends killed or maimed for life. They do that and still they smile much more than they scowl, they show love and compassion to the Iraqi people instead of fear and hatred. They still believe in the mission even after nearly 1900 of them have been cut down in the sands of Mesopotamia. Being here with them reinforces my beliefs in humanity and my idealism, with brave and selfless men and women such as these, anything is possible. The fires of human passions are often at their hottest in war, the fires of evil seek to scorch and destroy all that is good, in our men and women I see the fires of righteousness in action. Good done for the sake of good, selflessness for the sake of your brothers and sisters in arms, sacrifice in the name of love, and honor in a battle against those without honor. I truly have been blessed these last 2 and 1/2 years, I have lived in the company of heroes. Heroes of America, heroes to the downtrodden and dispossessed, heroes to the persecuted and brutalized, heroes descended from the peoples of every nation under heaven.

HONOR THEM

(Thanks to DadManly)  ¶ Saturday, August 27, 2005 10 comments

  The Real Reason - A Rant (UPDATED) Fred Barnes on Fox "She is entirely a creation of the mainstream press. She has no moral authority. She has no political authority. Why are they doing it? It’s August. They hate Bush. And they’re using her as a mascot to attack him." (Paraphrased)

Quislings. Benedict Arnolds. They hate Bush. Period.

That is the plain and simple answer for the massive (excessive) media coverage of "Mother" Cindy and Camp Shameless. She is merely the latest ammunition in the war against our President. When they have spent her usefulness they will leave her in the dust and rush toward the next anti-Bush cause celebre.

It was the reason behind the drunk driving charges that leaked just before the 2000 election, and it was the reason the Dems fought like mad to steal that election.

It was the reason behind the Abu Ghraib ruckus.

It was the reason behind the faked, libelous National Guard memos.

It was the reason behind every story about Jenna and Barbara's partying.

It was the reason behind the 9/11 Commission.

It was the reason behind the so-called "Able Danger".

And it is the reason behind the media circus that is Cindy Sheehan.

The left, their liberal media and the Democratic party hate Bush. They want to discredit and destroy him. They will stop at nothing to do it. Even if it means losing the war on terrorism. Even if it means inviting terrorists to attack us again and again.

They don't care about anything else. All other consequences are secondary to acheiving their goal of tearing Bush down one front page story at a time.

What kind of Americans are you? You are no better than the Tories or the Vichy French. You do not derserve to live in the refuge of liberties bought and paid for by the blood of better men and women than you could ever hope to be.  ¶ Saturday, August 27, 2005 1 comments

  Like A Virgin It dawned on me today what "peace" Mom Cindy Sheehan is.

I saw this picture ...


... and realized: She has become - for the liberal media, the anti-war hippie peaceniks and the hate-Bush fringe left - the Blessed Madonna. As soon as I saw the photo I was instantly put in mind of Mary, the mother of our Lord, reaching out her hand in blessing. Tell me that's not what it looks like "Saint" Cindy is doing in this staged photo op.  ¶ Saturday, August 27, 2005 1 comments

  "Peace" Mom Channels Dead Son Cindy Sheehan: "And I can just hear him saying, 'George Bush, you are really an idiot. You didn't know what you were doing when you killed me. You didn't know what you were getting into.'

"I know that they are in heaven, and I know that that's why this movement is growing because we have tens of thousands of angels behind us that are supporting us, that are saying, 'Well, you know we died and that was really crappy, but we hope that our deaths are going to make the world a better place,' and it's up to us to make sure that it does."  ¶ Friday, August 26, 2005 1 comments

  More You Won't See on The MSM (Updated) Here's a sound bite the liberal media won't be playing over and over. Why? Because they want to destroy public support for President Bush and the war for liberty in Iraq. Quotes like the following show the way REAL Americans feel about the issue.

"I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country." Tammy Pruett of Pocatello, Idaho, whose husband and five sons are serving or have served with the US military in Iraq.

Now tell me, why does "Saint" Cindy get a free bully pulpit provided by the "mainstream" media. Why don't people like Mrs. Pruett get round the clock coverage of their every move? One reason may be that Mrs. Pruett is taking care of her family instead of trying to become the next Jane Fonda or Abbie Hoffman.

God bless you, Tammy, and may God protect your sons as they finish their noble mission.

UPDATE: One of the sheep tried to tell me the mainstream media is covering this with "thousands" of stories. Using Google News search I found 250 references to "Tammy Pruett" ... as opposed to 14,000 + for "Mother" Cindy.

Yeah, that's fair & balanced.

  ¶ Friday, August 26, 2005 2 comments

  Bethany Berry & Camp Reality (Updated) Eric Pfeiffer at National Review has a great story about the growing protest movement down at Crawford, Texas. No, I don't mean Camp Cindy, that refuge for left-over hippies. I'm talking about Camp Reality.

The founder and driving force behind Camp Reality is a 17 year-old young lady named Bethany Berry. ANd yes, Miss Berry definitely has "skin in the game" as "Saint" Cindy likes to put it. Her father, John Berry, is a chaplain with the US Army, currently serving in Iraq. "Before being shipped to Iraq, John served as the Methodist preacher in Crawford. [Bethany has] lived in Crawford for about two years and didn't hesitate to add her name to the counter-protest movement. 'I'm just here supporting my president and my Dad.' Berry said."

"We have a Palestinian man down here supporting the president. He is driving to Dallas and back to bring us a generator so we can have power and maybe a fan or something to cool off. He says that despite what you see and hear in the media his people want to be free and they want the U.S. in Iraq," Berry says. "They realize by us being there we are providing security and helping improve everyone's lives. We also have a 9/11 survivor who has been visiting the site. These are the stories you're not hearing about everyday."

Why isn't the mainstream (i.e., liberal) media giving round the clock coverage to patriotic Americans along with the pacifists and appeasers? Because it doesn't prop up their anti-Bush, anti-America bias, that's why!

UPDATE: Lefty nuts are trying to convince me the pro-America protests are getting good coverage compared to the "peace" protests. Right. I found 2 references to "Bethany Berry" and 79 to "Camp Reality" at Yahoo News Search. Only found about 15,000 for Cindy and Camp Casey. Gee, why would I complain?

  ¶ Friday, August 26, 2005 1 comments

  With "Friends" Like This Yeah buddy, with friends like the Italians who needs enemas.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was informed of - and thus gave at least tacit approval of - a plan for Italian Red Cross workers to "treat" four terrorists and to hide them from American military forces. This treachery was to secure the release of two kidnapped Italians, Simona Pari and Simona Torretta.

Italians negotiated with terrorist "moderators" to save four wounded terrorists who were being sought by the American forces. Italian Red Cross workers smuggled the killers to a Baghdad hospital, hiding them under blankets and cases of medicine to sneak them through two US checkpoints. In addition to harboring these killers, Italian Red Cross doctors provided medical care, operating on the terrorists.

The Italian government has claimed that the chief of the Italian Red Cross had acted on his own and the government "never conditioned or oriented his action, which … was developed in complete autonomy." But he had informed the government of the deal and the decision to deceive the Americans.

And these bastardi are our "allies"???

Can this Italy really be the same nation that gave birth to the hero, Fabrizio Quattrocchi. I hope that you remember him. He was the Italian baker, working as a security guard in Iraq, who was kidnapped and murdered by terrorists. They tried to use his murder as propaganda by videotaping his death. They took him to a field and had him dig a grave. But rather than beg or grovel, Quattrocchi stood and tried to pull off his hood, shouting, "Now I'll show you how an Italian dies." Al-Jazeera chose not to air the video, saying it was too "gruesome". The truth - it made the terrorists look like the murderous thugs they are, and showed a man of courage defying them. No propaganda value to be had there.

I wonder how Quattrocchi would react to this latest appeasement and treachery by his mother country. We should deliver a stern message to the Italians, "Thanks for your help, but we'll get along fine without you from here on."  ¶ Friday, August 26, 2005 0 comments

  This Says It All More from Eric Pfeiffer at "The Buzz"

It seems that, as usual, the left is tolerant of everyone except those who disagree with them. When "Mother" Cindy returned to their big "peace" protest in she had "a bite to eat, ... joked with her supporters, mocking the Bush supporters standing outside “Camp Casey II.” A few of the protesters walked outside the campsite to engage in hostile “dialogue” with the Bush supporters.

In an unintentional moment of irony, one of the protesters screamed in a bit of self-righteous rage, “What are they doing here? They can’t protest!”"

Don't you just love the stupidity of these fringe left-wing nuts?  ¶ Thursday, August 25, 2005 0 comments

  Will The Real Cindy Please Stand Up? Part 2
Much has been made in the liberal media of "Saint" Cindy's return to Crawford. Of course all they show you is the grieving mother. Pictures like this one:










Funny that they haven't shown the ones like this:











Eric Pfeiffer of National Review's "The Buzz", "Despite the press handlers’ claims that Sheehan was physically exhausted, she appeared in good spirits. Most of the photos I have seen in the media today reflect the moment where Sheehan was crying. I do think this is somewhat misleading. While she is certainly entitled to her grief, most of the scene was quite jovial, which is not reflected in the mainstream media’s coverage. I’m not denying Ms. Sheehan her right to a cathartic moment, merely bringing you the full story and facts from the ground."  ¶ Thursday, August 25, 2005 0 comments

  "Who is Calling Them Children?" Don took issue with a comment I made on his blog.

I said, "Every person I know in the military is an adult who voluntarily made the CHOICE to serve the country and took a solemn OATH to follow the orders of the President. Stop portraying them as children. Stop pretending they were all tricked into military service. Stop trying to convince us that a small minority of parents who are using their own childrens' honorable service as a springboard for their fringe ideas should have the authority to set policy for this nation. Last time I checked George W. Bush was President, not Cindy Sheehan or Al Franken."

Don replied, "James: Where do you get the idea that anyone is "portraying them as children"?
I'm used to hearing the same two or three insane Bush regime talking points over and over and over again, but this one doesn't make any sense.
Other than the voices in your head, who is saying that?"

So I quickly went back to a few of the things I'd read recently that give that impression.

"But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." Maureen Dowd, 10 Aug
"There is nothing more painful or more heart breaking than a parent losing a child. ... cold reality of war is that someone’s child actually dies ..." - Greg Szymanski, Columnist, Lewis News
"...quit forcing innocent children to suffer so we can allegedly fight terrorism somewhere besides America." Cindy Sheehan
"I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have." - Cindy Sheehan
"He’s said that my son -- and the other children we’ve lost -- died for a noble cause." - Cindy Sheehan, 11 Aug
"What we as Moms need to stop doing is giving our children to the military industrial war complex... It is up to us Moms to make sure our children are whole and safe. We can start doing this by always opposing the wars that bury our kids before us. So what I am saying to the people who want me to go home and take care of my kids: I AM taking care of my kids, and yours, too. " - Cindy Sheehan, 22 Aug
"Every person, war fan, or not, who has had a child killed in this mistake of an occupation ... Getting on with my life means a life without my dear, sweet boy." - Cindy Sheehan, 15 Aug
"Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for? ... Why are our nation's children still in harm's way and dying everyday when we all know you lied? " - Cindy Sheehan, 20 Aug

Ironically, Cindy wants it both ways. She wants to say America's children are dying for oil, but when told she should be taking care of her living children she says, "I have news for all of these people, my children are adults... We as mothers need to stop buying into the load of misogynistic crap that our children need our constant presence in their lives so they can thrive and grow."
So, wasn't Casey an adult? He was nearly 25. Why did he need his Mom to drive him to Canada? (That's what she said she wanted to do.)  ¶ Tuesday, August 23, 2005 2 comments

  Cindy Doesn't Speak For A Whole Lot Of Folks Does anyone else find it interesting, and reassuring, that the organization "peace" mom Cindy Sheehan co-founded, Gold Star Families for Peace, boasts less than 70 members who are relatives of service members killed in Iraq? That amounts to about 3 percent of the families of those killed, if every member of GSFP represented a different soldier, which I'm sure isn't the case.

And I thought no good news could come from this circus.  ¶ Monday, August 22, 2005 6 comments

  Adults Only Mark Steyn, writing for the Chicago Sun-Times expounds on something that has bothered me for quite some time. It is the liberal media's insistence on referring to those in the military as children and focusing on the parents of those killed. As if these proud volunteers were snatched from their cribs and cut down before they were weaned. Most of the folks I know in the military are no younger than their early twenties and many of them are in their thirties and forties. Hardly children.

And yet the media insists on portraying them as babes, too young to make responsible, informed decisions about the course of their lives. The Cindy Sheehan sideshow has created a cottage industry for the anti-America "peace" movement out of this misrepresentation. Most of the men and women I know in the military did not enlist straight out of high school. Many of them had careers before joining up. A lot of them had college degrees. Many of them reenlist (Casey Sheehan did!) multiple times. You'd have a hard time convincing me they were deceived by their recruiters about what they were getting into.

"The infantilization of the military promoted by the left is deeply insulting to America's warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd's purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that "of course" they "support our troops," because they want to stop these poor confused moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine."

"They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as "children." If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he's a wee "child" who isn't really old enough to know what he's doing."

"Casey Sheehan was a 21-year old man when he enlisted in 2000. He re-enlisted for a second tour [at the age of 24], and he died after volunteering for a rescue mission in Sadr City. Mrs. Sheehan says she wishes she'd driven him to Canada, though that's not what he would have wished, and it was his decision."

Indeed, points that I have tried to make when commenting on others' blogs. Those in the military are adults. My father enlisted in the Army at the age of 17. By the time he left for Korea and war he was 18 and married, with a baby on the way. He was old enough to drive a car, old enough to buy a drink, old enough to marry and father a child. He was certainly old enough to determine the course of his life. The liberal media does a disservice to our military men and women when it insults them by labeling them as children and implying that they are not mature or responsible enough to make informed choices.

To that I say, "Grow up!"  ¶ Monday, August 22, 2005 1 comments

  Get A Grip, Goodman Columnist Ellen Goodman is one person I can count on ... to always say something wrong. In this weeks column she joins the coalition of those lefties trying to canonize "peace" mom Cindy Sheehan.

"So the question is not whether the president will talk with her. He won't." Yes, he did. Last spring. Cindy got an opportunity most parents who've lost children in this war never will. She wasted that moment by deferring to what "Casey would want". Sorry about that. Why should she get a second audience? Especially when she's already told us all what she'd say and ask. Most especially when she's already told us all the answers she would demand. Sorry Cindy, you had your shot. Now go home.

"Until now, the rallying cry ''Support Our Troops" meant ''Support the War." One seemed inseparable from another. Criticizing the war felt like criticizing the troops," says Cindy. "But on a dusty, hot road in Texas, Sheehan worked to sever this link."

Wrong again, Ellen. A typical lie of the left is "I support the troops but I'm against this war." Sorry, can't be done. If you believe this then either you believe all those in the military are simpletons and buffoons who didn't know what they were getting into and are now forced to follow orders they disagree with. Or you believe they are all mercenary pawns of U.S. foreign policy who have no honor but do what they do for the joy of killing and to earn another buck.

The truth is this is a volunteer military. They enlist knowing they are the tools used to protect our interests and advance them around the world. They know they may be called to put themselves in harm's way and even die for those interests. They take an oath to "follow the orders of the President and of the officers appointed over" them. Whether or not they agree with a particular mission, operation or war is irrelevant and immaterial. They pledged a sacred oath. They have the courage to honor that oath. The least the anti-war left could do is have the courage to admit they want the military to trade their honor in for their political views.

If you oppose the mission the military is executing then you also oppose the military themselves. They willingly enlisted and they willingly carry out their orders. If you want to support the troops then support them, but quit trying to straddle a non-existent fence.  ¶ Sunday, August 21, 2005 0 comments

  "Must...Stop...Making Sense!" Totally like whatever, you know?
By Taylor Mali (www.taylormali.com)

In case you hadn't noticed,
it has somehow become uncool
to sound like you know what you're talking about?
Or believe strongly in what you're saying?
Invisible question marks and parenthetical (you know?)'s
have been attaching themselves to the ends of our sentences?
Even when those sentences aren't, like, questions? You know?

Declarative sentences - so-called
because they used to, like, DECLARE things to be true
as opposed to other things which were, like, not -
have been infected by a totally hip
and tragically cool interrogative tone? You know?
Like, don't think I'm uncool just because I've noticed this;
this is just like the word on the street, you know?
It's like what I've heard?
I have nothing personally invested in my own opinions, okay?
I'm just inviting you to join me in my uncertainty?

What has happened to our conviction?
Where are the limbs out on which we once walked?
Have they been, like, chopped down
with the rest of the rain forest?
Or do we have, like, nothing to say?
Has society become so, like, totally . . .
I mean absolutely . . . You know?
That we've just gotten to the point where it's just, like . . .
whatever!

And so actually our disarticulation . . . ness
is just a clever sort of . . . thing
to disguise the fact that we've become
the most aggressively inarticulate generation
to come along since . . .
you know, a long, long time ago!

I entreat you, I implore you, I exhort you,
I challenge you: To speak with conviction.
To say what you believe in a manner that bespeaks
the determination with which you believe it.
Because contrary to the wisdom of the bumper sticker,
it is not enough these days to simply QUESTION AUTHORITY.
You have to speak with it, too.
----------------------------------
Amen! (Thanks to The Dawn Patrol)  ¶ Saturday, August 20, 2005 0 comments

  * * * SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!! * * * Do you support our men and women in uniform? Do you believe that pulling them out of Iraq now would embolden the terrorists and dishonor the sacrifices of our dead and wounded? Do you disagree with Cindy Sheehan and want to stop the so-called "peace" movement in its left-wing tracks?

Go to MoveAmericaForward

They are sponsoring the "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy" tour which is on it's way to Crawford, Texas the week of 21 August. They will show that there is a great deal of support for this war and our President among the families of our soldiers who have been killed. Losing a child in war does not turn one from a pro-America conservative into a socialist, appeasing liberal.

Please go to the MoveAmericaForward web site and educate yourself and provide whatever support you can.

And remember, it's okay to "preach to the choir." That's how you get them to sing.  ¶ Saturday, August 20, 2005 0 comments

  Need More Evidence? Need more reasons to disagree with Cindy Sheehan and doubt her motives? Something the "mainstream" (i.e., liberal) media hasn't been mentioning while they canonize her is the speech she gave back in April at San Francisco State University.

Seems the International Socialist Organization, Students Against War, and the Campaign to End the Death Penalty at SFSU sponsored a "lecture" by Lynne Stewart. Stewart is a terrorist defense lawyer was convicted of conspiracy and passing fatwas (Islamic religious edicts) from the "Blind Sheikh," Omar Abdel Rahman to his terrorist followers in Egypt’s Islamic Group. Rahman is the bloodthirsty terrorist behind the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 that left six Americans dead and more than 1,000 people injured. Of course, Stewart bills herself as a “Civil Rights Lawyer and Political Prisoner.”










The following is quoted from coverage of the event by Lee Kaplan:

"Sheehan said she considered Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch, the lawyer who defended an innocent Black man accused of rape in the book and film “To Kill A Mockingbird.”
'They’re not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror,' she said. 'The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush.' She claimed 'it costs $66,000 to recruit one soldier, not including training, and $49,000 a year to house a prisoner, yet only $6,000 per year is spent to educate a child in California.' (Recruiting costs are actually $15,000 per soldier, the cost of housing a prisoner in California for one year is $26,000.)
Sheehan continued, '9/11 was Pearl Harbor for the neo-conservatives’ agenda' and declared the U.S. government a 'morally repugnant system.' Then she raged:
'We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!'
While one might dismiss some of Sheehan’s hyperbole due to grief over her son’s death, a little research about Casey Sheehan revealed that contrary to being tricked by military recruiters, Casey Sheehan had re-enlisted in the U.S. Army voluntarily when he was 24-years-old, after serving his first hitch successfully. Casey Sheehan was in fact a hero who received a Bronze Star. He was attached as a mechanic to the artillery division of the 1st U.S. Cavalry in Iraq. When a convoy of soldiers from Casey’s unit was attacked in Sadr City by insurgents, Casey volunteered to join a rapid rescue force to get them out. His commanding sergeant told him he did not have to go into combat, because he was a mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was quoted telling his officer, 'I go where my chief goes.' He was tragically killed during the rescue attempt. The source for this story? Cindy Sheehan herself.
I also visited an army recruiting office on my way home and asked about Casey being promised a job as a chaplain’s assistant only to be thrust into harm’s way. The recruiter explained to me that on re-enlistment, the Army’s B.E.A.R. program (Bonus Extension and Retaining) guarantees everything in writing. If Casey was a mechanic during his first hitch, that was the only thing he would have been guaranteed per his re-enlistment contract. Further research showed that a chaplain’s assistant is a combat infantry position, whereas Casey was deployed in a non-combat job as a mechanic. Casey Sheehan sought combat duty for his country and should be honored for it, not used as a symbol of how evil the United States is."

  ¶ Thursday, August 18, 2005 0 comments

  Real American Moms I'm sure you've seen Cindy Sheehan said, "I don't want [Bush] to use my son's name or my name to justify any more killing." and "Quit saying that U.S. troops died for a noble cause in Iraq, unless you say, 'well, except for Casey Sheehan.' ... You do not have permission to use my son's name."

Well guess what? The shoe is on the other foot. As part of the so-called "Camp Casey" near Bush's Crawford ranch, the Cindy coalition erected a "memorial" of crosses with the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. Apparently all the families of those men aren't all that supportive of Cindy's anti-America stance.

Debbie Argel Bastian, mother of Air Force Captain Derek Argel, buried at Arlington last week, demanded that her son's name be removed from Cindy's "memorial". "I'm livid about it. Derek would not want to be remembered that way." Sheehan REFUSED to remove Argel's name offering instead to move it out of the front row.

The family of Marine Corporal Matthew Matula was so enraged at their son's inclusion in the "memorial" that they drove 150 miles from Spicewood, TX to remove his cross. "It aggravates me to see them using other people's names to further their cause," said Matula's father, Matt. "He's not a victim, he's a hero and I think that everybody that's serving our country [are] heroes." Matthew's mother, Toni, said, "For people to use his name against it is not what he died for."

Maureen Dowd said, "...the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." Great! Which parents? The Matula and Argel families both "buried children killed in Iraq and they oppose Sheehan." So let's listen to them for a while.  ¶ Thursday, August 18, 2005 0 comments

    ¶ Thursday, August 18, 2005 0 comments

  Their True Colors Have you heard about Rowena Jhant? Probably not, and I doubt you will.

Rowena is a mother from Waco, Texas and a Bush-backer. Seems she was driving by the so-called "Camp Casey" where anti-Semitic, anti-Bush leftie Cindy Sheehan has picked a spot for her 15 minutes of fame, and saw the crosses and US flags that had been run over earlier by an anti-anti-war protestor.









Being a good American she didn't think it was right to leave them on the ground. So she stopped to pick up the flags and crosses.

Guess who protested and accosted her? Guess who tried to stop her from honoring our precious flag and those sacred crosses?









You guessed it! All those wonderful "peace" protestors. (Rowena is in the blue blouse.)










God bless you Rowena, you're a great American!

  ¶ Wednesday, August 17, 2005 0 comments

  Will the Real Cindy Please Stand Up Will the real Cindy Sheehan please stand up? I swear it's getting harder every day to weave through the tangled drama the left wing media is trying to weave.

Is Cindy an angry & grieving mom, trying to spare other families the pain she feels? Is she a rabid left wing nut using her patriotic son's death as a bully pulpit for her anti-Semitic bilge? Is she a naive and gullible tool of the "we hate Bush" liberals like Joe Trippi & Michael Moore?

Since it is impossible to criticize or analyze Cindy's motives and actions without being branded and demonized as an uncaring war-monger by her adoring fans let's just let Cindy, and her supporters, speak for themselves.

Cindy Sheehan: ...he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.

David Duke, racist Klansman and politician, Aug 14th: Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and other’s sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America. ... Her son was betrayed and his life lost by government officials who treasonably created and continue a war for Israel and the Jewish supremacist agenda rather than that of the United States.

More from Duke in response to a patriotic mom: Her son was killed because our leaders lied to us. He died because they are servants of the pervasive Jewish supremacist power in American politics and media. ... This is because the whole world knows (everybody but US citizens who are under the control of Jewish media) that the war was unjust, based on lies, and was orchestrated by the Jewish Neocons who have loyalty to Israel over America. Cindy Sheehan is courageous enough to sacrifice her reputation, her privacy, strong enough to endure being savaged by the Zionist warmongers in the media in this country ... The Jewish-dominated, pro-Israel media has done an effective job of conflating patriotism with a war for a foreign nation ...
(Please go to the links to read all his garbage. It was taking up way too much of this post!)

Cindy to Keith Olbermann on CNN: ...if [Bush] would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don't want to give them any hints.
(So, she doesn't really want to talk to Bush. She doesn't really want answers. She wants to stay in the spotlight.)

More Cindy: You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism.

That lying bastard, George Bush, is taking a five-week vacation in time of war. You get that maniac out here to talk with me in person.

The other thing I want him to tell me is 'just what was the noble cause Casey died for?' Was it freedom and democracy? Bull***t! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East.

It’s okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it’s – yeah – and it’s okay for Iraq to occupy – I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it’s not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon. They’re a bunch of f***ing hypocrites!

I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bull***t to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: This country is not worth dying for.

9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have.  ¶ Wednesday, August 17, 2005 0 comments

  Moral Authority "...the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." So says that brilliant and wise philosopher , Maureen Dowd.

Wrong, Little Mo. Truth and morality are absolute, but they are not dictated by any mortal, not even grieving parents. Right and wrong are not determined by emotion, by feelings, or by who hurts more.

Cindy Sheehan is untouchable because the media have elevated her, using her status as "a mother who lost a son in Iraq", to sainthood. Casey Sheehan was a man in his 25th year, old enough to make his own decisions. He enlisted in the Army in 2000 and reenlisted in 2004. He was sent to Iraq in a noncombat position as a mechanic. He volunteered to go on a dangerous rescue mission.

Does this diminish his sacrifice? No. Does it invalidate the pain his mother feels? No. But it certainly calls into question how well her protests and the political grandstanding of the "peace" movement are paying honor to Casey and what he might have wanted.

Thank God, there have always been men and women willing to pay the price for liberty, even at the cost of their lives. Based on what we can learn of him and his service, and not what his grieving mother says now, Casey Sheehan was one of those. Did he want to die? Not likely. No one I know in the military does. But we know that, as Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."

I am sorry for the pain Cindy Sheehan suffers. I am equally sorry for the pain of the families of the nearly 2,000 Americans who have given their lives for the freedom we are delivering to the people of Iraq. I hope that others will grieve with my family if I die in my service to this country. But that pain is what accompanies the cost of freedom. It does not change the rightness of the mission our country has undertaken. It does not dictate that we end this struggle and leave the people of Iraq to be ruled by a different breed of tyrant than the one we destroyed.

Cindy Sheehan is entitled to grieve. That is something no one can, or should, try to deny her. She is entitled to her opinion and to express that opinion. But her opinion is just an opinion, no matter how many people share it, no matter how great her loss or how profound her grief.

She is still wrong.  ¶ Tuesday, August 16, 2005 0 comments

  Justice For All? DeRoyal Carter, January 1, 1975 - August 13-2004

Please click the above link and read the about the very suspicious death of DeRoyal Carter. Read the facts, form your own opinion, and then ask yourself if his death was investigated in a proper manner. Ask yourself if everything seems to be on the up and up in Tuskegee, AL. Ask yourself is it really likely a young man would take out his shoelaces and use them to hold his pants up so he could hang himself.

It saddens and sickens me that, in 2005, Southern lawmen can still get away with the kind of evil coverups, and sham investigative efforts that they did 50 - 60 years ago. Why isn't the FBI investigating this as a civil rights case? Why didn't it get attention during the anti-lynching business in the senate? Why isn't the mainstream media, who love to seek ratings and stir up trouble with racially charged stories, all over this one?

Yeah, you can tell I've already formed an opinion about this. My opinion is the "mainstream" media should have been, and still should be all over this. They couldn't wait to smear then-Governor Bush and the entire state of Texas over the Byrd case.

Thanks to Ben at Hungry Blues.  ¶ Sunday, August 14, 2005 2 comments

  The Answer Cindy Sheehan says she wants to ask President Bush, "Why did you kill my son?" An unreasonable question considering her son was killed by Shiite militia firing small arms and rocket-propelled grenades in an early morning ambush of the convoy.

A reasonable question would be, "What did my son die for?" In fact Mrs Sheehan asked President Bush in April of 2004 to "make her son's sacrifice count for something." What did Casey and the other 1,841 (as of Aug 10) Americans killed in Iraq die for?

Mohammed and Omar at Iraq The Model have the answer:

Ma'am, we asked for your nation's help and we asked you to stand with us in our war and your nation's act was (and still is) an act of ultimate courage and unmatched sense of humanity.Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families. ... Our fellow country men and women were buried alive, cut to pieces and thrown in acid pools and some were fed to the wild dogs while those who were lucky enough ran away to live like strangers and the Iraqi mother was left to grieve one son buried in an unfound grave and another one living far away who she might not get to see again. ... We cried out of joy the day your son and his comrades freed us from the hands of the devil and we went to the streets not believing that the nightmare is over. ... I recall seeing a woman on TV two years ago, she was digging through the dirt with her hands. ... Her tears mixed with the dirt of the grave ... "All I want to know is the place of their grave." Why was this woman chosen to lose her dear ones? Why you? Why did a million women have to go through the same pain? ... You are free to go and leave us alone but what am I going to tell your million sisters in Iraq? ... But I am not leaving this land because the bad guys are not going to leave us or you to live in peace. They are the same ones who flew the planes to kill your people in New York. I ask you in the name of God or whatever you believe in; do not waste your son's blood. We here have decided to avenge humanity, you and all the women who lost their loved ones. ... We are in need for every hand that can offer some help. Please pray for us, I know that God listens to mothers' prayers and I call all the women on earth to pray with you for peace in this world. Your son sacrificed his life for a very noble cause. No, he sacrificed himself for the most precious value in this existence; that is freedom. His blood didn't go in vain; your son and our brethren are drawing a great example of selflessness.God bless his free soul and God bless the souls of his comrades who are fighting evil.God bless the souls of Iraqis who suffered and died for the sake of freedom.God bless all the freedom lovers on earth.

Casey Sheehan died for the same thing that Americans have been willing to die for for 230 years. Liberty. If there were any other ransom to pay for that prize than the blood of patriots & heroes any mother would gladly pay it. But when ruthless and bloodthirsty tyrants and murderers roam this Earth or rise to poistions of power with vast armies and arsenals at their disposal there is no other recourse than for good and honorable men and women, like Casey Sheehan to stand against them and defeat them.

That is what he died for. That is what Casey Sheehan's sacrifice counts for.  ¶ Friday, August 12, 2005 0 comments

  Important Questions Planned Parenthood - Golden Gate, those oh-so-tolerant wits behind the hatefilled, anti-Christian "A Super-Hero For Choice" cartoon, offer the following counsel at their web site.

Deciding if Abortion is Right for You
Before you decide to have an abortion, you should ask yourself these questions:
How do I feel about being pregnant?
How do I feel about being a parent?
When do I believe life begins?
What does my religion say about abortion?
How do I feel about abortion?
What type of procedure would be done? Do I know the physical risks?
What agencies offer abortion services?
How much does an abortion cost? How will I pay for it?
How might this decision affect me in 5 years? 10 years?
Who can I talk to about my decision?
How does my partner answer these questions?

I've got a better question:

Deciding If Sex Is Right For You
Before you decide to have sex, you should ask yourself these questions:
Am I married? (If the answer is "No," stop here. Sex is not right for you.)
How do I feel about getting knocked up?
Am I even remotely ready for the enormous emotional, physical and financial responsibilities of being a parent?
What does God's word, the Bible, say about having sex?
Why do I have so little respect for myself that I'm willing to have sex with someone who hasn't made a lifetime commitment to me?
How might this decision affect me in 5 years? 10 years?

  ¶ Friday, August 12, 2005 0 comments

  Something Is Rotten In Crawford

First, I do not post this to denigrate Cindy Sheehan nor to diminish the validity of any pain she feels over her loss. She is a mother who has sacrificed a son on the altar of freedom. She is entitled to whatever feelings she may have about the wrongness of his death, the war, the President or any other related issue.

What I want to know is why did she change her story?

In 2004 Cindy Sheehan met with the President after the death of her son Casey in Iraq. Here is what she said then, according to the June 24, 2004 edition of THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA:

" 'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.' " The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith. The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected. For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle. For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again."'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

Sounds like the words of someone who supported the President and acknowledged his sense of responsibility and sorrow for her son's death. Someone who felt appreciation for the time he took to comfort a grieving mother.

But not anymore. Now Sheehan has become the darling of the left-wing media and hate-America Lefty fringe groups like MoveOn.org, AirAmerica and DailyKos. Now Sheehan says,

" 'Why did you kill my son?' " In a CNN interview, she says the President "acted like it was party" when he met with her. "It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey." He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one. 'Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party. ...[He] came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies."

Now, that doesn't sound anything like her description right after the meeting. More importantly , it sounds nothing like the experiences of other families of the fallen or of those wounded soldiers that the President has met with. My personal opinion is that someone on the fringe Left, someone like Michael Moore, Joe Trippi or another left-wing nut, got to Ms. Sheehan and convinced her that she would make a perfect sympathetic figurehead for the anti-Bush, anti-war protestors. And there would be nothing wrong with that, except for the change in her stance and her words.

Something is rotten with this whole thing and I'd like someone to ask Cindy Sheehan to explain what, or who, motivated her complete reversal of opinion.

  ¶ Friday, August 12, 2005 0 comments

  Make Believe Faith Apparently the Democrats are pulling out all the stops in order to appear to look like America. From Hillary's bogus lean toward the center to Kerry's making his short stint in Vietnam the cornerstone of his failed campaign they don't understand why we see right through them.

Their latest propaganda campaign involves religion, an area which typically favors conservatives and Republicans (with good reason!) Democrat Jack Scott, a California state senator said, "I don't think God is either a Democrat or a Republican. The moral values that I really care deeply about is justice for the poor and peacemaking and so that's the reason that I wouldn't call the Republican Party the party of religion."

Democrats have started their scheming to get the religious right on the left by holding a meeting of "Democratic religious leaders" in July with the goal of bringing back the religious left. (I guess that means more zealous pro-abortion nuts?) A page was also added to the party's website to appeal to religious voters.

Of course the Democrats claim this isn't a new found spirituality but that godly principles have always been quite obvious as a part of their platform. (I wonder if they mean the principle of abortion on demand as birth control , or the principle of complete acceptance and rights for deviant lifestyles?)

Of course, anyone who's watched politics at all will see this for what it is. A blatant and clueless attempt by the foundering and dying party to try and fool some of the more gullible in our country into actually thinking they have values compatible with the majority of Americans. Why? Fox News has the answer: "Conservatives have traditionally embraced religious issues, often giving Republicans the image of being the more "pro-God" party. ... In the 2004 election, many voters cited "morals" along with candidate stances on issues like gay marriage and abortion as key to their election picks. These so-called "values voters" overwhelmingly backed President Bush... "  ¶ Wednesday, August 10, 2005 0 comments

  Rising to New Heights of Low Just when you think the pro-abortion, anti-life Left can't seek any lower they do something that restores your faith in their hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Case in point: CNN has agreed to run an anti-John Roberts ad produced by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League - Pro-Choice America. The ad is completely false. Using images of the 1998 bombing of a Birmingham abortion "clinic" it accuses Roberts of supporting "a convicted clinic bomber" and excusing "violence against other Americans."

Roberts did support the bomber, and many other defendants, in a civil case that had absolutely nothing to do with the bombing. In fact his support took place seven years before the bombing occurred! In a brief in the 1991 case, Roberts argued abortion clinics had no standing to bring a suit against pro-life protestors using a 120 year-old federal anti-discrimination law. Roberts position was that blockading clinics was already illegal under state laws. Later, the Supreme Court agreed with Roberts in a 6-3 decision.

That is a far cry from NARAL's specious claim that Roberts "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber." In fact, Roberts did not support the behavior of the pro-life blockaders but instead said they were trespassing. Roberts point was that a suit couldn't be brought using the federal anti-discrimination law because both women and men were being blockaded.

NARAL dishonestly gives the false impression that John Roberts took a position as an attorney that condoned abortion clinic bombings. This is completely false. In fact, as Associate Counsel to President Reagan, Roberts wrote a memo condemning such acts and saying the perpetrators "should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

It remains to be seen whether the mainstream media will have the courage and integrity to decry and expose NARAL's blatant lies. If CNN's acceptance of the ad for broadcast is our first indication I'm not going to hold my breath.

(Thanks to Drudge & factcheck.org)  ¶ Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4 comments

  Where's PETA When We Need Them? Have you heard about the latest tactic the terrorist murderers in Iraq are using? Dog bombs. Our troops use their dogs to detect explosives and bombs and regard them as friends and heroes, but not the bad guys. They rig these poor pups with explosives and hope that they will approach our soldiers so they can detonate them.

Someone at PETA really needs to get on the ball here and condemn this practice. Maybe they could even send some of their folks over to protest like they did at KFC here last week. They could even liberate these poor draftees of the jihad.

Seriously though, even Muslims, who consider dogs unclean, condemn this new atrocity. "How can they use these lovely pets for criminal and murderous acts?" asked Rasha Khairir of Baghdad.

Even the spokesman for the hard-line Muslim Scholars Association said, "Our religion does not permit us to hurt animals, neither by using them as explosive devices nor in any other manner."

The practice of bobby-trapping dead animal carcasses as IEDs isn't new in Iraq, but the use of live animals is a recent and disturbing twist. Al Mada, a daily newspaper carried an editorial cartoon recently depicting a Baathist terrorist trying to convince a terrified dog to don a belt bomb. "It is such a simple task," he says. "All you have to do is to put on this explosives belt, repeat the party's slogans, and may Allah have mercy on your father's soul!"  ¶ Wednesday, August 10, 2005 0 comments

  Risk Free Guarantee? I was browsing around today, looking for something else, when I came across an article so ridiculous and ill-informed that I had to comment.

The article is a rather bland, unconvincing piece titled, "Gunning For College" by Beth Shulman. It can be found, believe it or not, at TomPaine.com. Ms. Shulman is the author of "The Betrayal of Work: How Low-Wage Jobs Fail 30 Million Americans." (While I agree with the title premise, I'll bet I disagree with her on the how and why.) If you wish to read the entire article I've linked it above. I will pick and choose my "favorite" passages for comment.

Ms. Shulman opens with an emotional appeal,

"What should you have to sacrifice to get a college education in the United States? Isn't it hard enough to get good grades and high SAT scores? Should you have to risk your life as well?"

A good question. My father used his GI Bill benefits to help pay for his college education. Benefits earned, in part, during six months of front-line combat in some of the bloodiest days of the Korean War. He also bears the scars and permanent, partial disability of five combat wounds.

My father earned his GED in the Army. Since he was disabled his tuition and books were paid for via his GI Bill. He received a living allowance of $200 per month. My father completed his Bachelor's Degree in just three years. Because of his high grades, his fourth year was credited to his Master's Degree in Education Administration, which he completed in only five summers. During that time he was asked to do his Master's thesis on "A Comparison of the Legal Requirements for Teachers in Texas and the Other States." It became part of part of the largest study, at that time, of "Teachers and Education in Texas," commissioned by the Texas Legislature.

My father lived with my mother and their three small children in a house of three small rooms on 5 acres south of Burleson, Texas. They raised much of their own food plus eggs and milk. His commute to Texas Christian University was 70 miles round-trip. He further contributed to his own education by working weekends as a limousine driver between Fort Worth, the Amon Carter Airport, and Dallas. Two twelve-hour shifts every weekend. He was only paid 12 dollars per shift, plus tips. There were hardly any tips. Between runs he studied. My mother did most of the work at the farm but my father did help with milking and other things. That, Ms. Shulman, is what you have to be willing "to sacrifice to get a college education in the United States."

Of course, my father also didn't drive a brand new car, have the latest home entertainment or computer equipment, designer fashions or spend his money "clubbing" every night, so he probably sacrificed more for his education than most students are willing to today.

"And as the cost of attending college rises, the financial benefits of enlistment in the U.S. military may entice potential recruits.
Certainly, the numbers are clear about the value of college. Without a college education, it is hard to make a good living in America today. Yet the cost of college has priced many young men and women out of the market. It is no accident that military recruiters are out scouring America's working-class suburbs, offering enlistment bonuses to high school graduates. A promise of college tuition is very enticing to teens whose parents just don't have much money."

Educational benefits have long been used to attract recruits. They also help to offset the low pay that military members are willing to accept in exchange for the honor and privilege of serving their nation. Shulman says it's "hard to make a good living" without a college education. It's also "hard to make a good living" without determination, initiative, hard work, and personal responsibility. Not coincidentally those are also necessary to achieve a good education. Just ask my father about that.

What Shulman says next really gets my hackles up.

"America needs to find ways to guarantee college for everyone, whether they become soldiers or not. ... If we believe in equal opportunity in America, we need to ensure other options. ... We need to ensure that all high school students who qualify for college can go, regardless of their family financial status."

What? Guaranteed college for everyone is a constitutional right? That clause is missing from my copy. (Along with the "right to privacy" that makes abortion a right.) Guess what, Beth. America has "found ways" to guarantee college for everyone. America does "ensure other options." You can apply for financial aid, you can apply for the thousands upon thousands of scholarships available, you can serve in the military and take advantage of tuition assistance and the GI Bill, you can - hold on to your hats folks - get a job and pay your own way. (Gasp!) There's a novel concept.

"With these large payoffs from college, the military enlistment bonuses seem like a lifeline for high school graduates who otherwise couldn't afford to go to college. Yet do we really want a society in which the only way for young men and women to afford the cost of a college education is to agree to risk their lives?"

As I pointed out there are other ways to pay for college besides what Shulman refers to as the "lifeline" of military service. And in answer to her rhetorical question, no, what we want is a society that is so noble and right that good men and women are willing and eager to devote their lives, and even give their lives, to ensure that this society continues. Thank God, that is what we have.

"Certainly, many young men and women enlist today out of a patriotic desire to serve their country. But for others, signing up for America's armed forces may be the only way they see to get the money they need for a college education and for the future good job it will make possible."

I'm happy to see Ms. Shulman make at least passing deference to the primary reason that most of the military people I know serve. Patriotism. A love of their country, flowing from a belief in, and devotion to, the principles on which she was founded. Patton said, "The highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms for one's country." For me, that sums up the primary motivation for military service. It is an obligation that I owe for the many opportunities and liberties that life in this country affords me. It is a privilege that I am worthy to bear the responsibility of ensuring that those opportunities and liberty continue for myself, for my children and for future generations. What it is not is "a way to get money for a college education." I realize many view it as nothing more than that. This is obvious by the number of spineless individuals in the military who suddenly and mysteriously become "conscientious objectors" whenever the winds of war begin to blow. Anyone who joins the military out of a need or desire to get money for college is misguided and makes a serious mistake.

Ms. Shulman proves the folly behind enlisting to get money for college by this statement:

"Although the demand for a college education has increased as its potential returns have soared, Kane shows that the increase in U.S. college attendance was disproportionately among wealthier individuals. Over the past two decades, the richest quarter of Americans increased their college enrollment by 12 percent, while those at the bottom rose by only 5 percent, expanding an already large enrollment gap."

So, all these poor, underprivileged kids are enlisting to get money for college, yet college enrollment in this group has risen a mere 5 percent? Somebody needs to tell these kids to find another way to get money for college.

I think Ms. Shulman is probably citing the wrong statistics. She needs to look at college enrollment among the military's junior enlisted ranks. I'll bet it's a lot higher than 5 percent. I'd also like for her to explain the high percentage of enlisted members who come into the service already having earned a degree, as well as those who stay long past their initial term of service, even after earning one, or several, degrees.

Could it be that there is more motivating military service than just college money? I am happy to report, for America's sake, that the answer is a resounding, "YES!"  ¶ Tuesday, August 09, 2005 0 comments

  "Unfactual" Facts I love Howard Dean! Just when you think there's nothing to post about, the goofy Dr. Dean raises his screaming head and hands you some ammunition.

"We have to be pushing our version of the facts because their version of the facts is very unfactual," Dean said Monday night at a fundraiser in Vermont. First of all, "unfactual" isn't even a word! (And this guys a doctor?) About the only thing he said that rang true was, "We need a message." No kidding, Howie.

Actually they have a message. Unfortunately for them it is so at odds with the values and opinions of most of America their support is dwindling. Their message is, "The Democrats at times have lost their way. We are trying to decide what our core values are." At least that's what Barak Obama said back in July. Dean's "unfactual" version of the facts is that the Deanocrats have a message, that they have core beliefs, and that those beliefs are shared by most Americans.

But the fact is most Americans aren't in favor of abortion on demand as birth control. The fact is most Americans don't agree with the policy of keeping minorities under-educated, under-paid and under-achieving for the sole purpose of maintaining a Democratic voting bloc. The fact is most Americans are offended by a political party whose sole talking point is "We hate Bush." The fact is most Americans have core beliefs and values that don't change every time a new poll comes out.

"Vote by vote, precinct by precinct, door by door, year by year and election by election, we will take this country back for the people who built it." Gee, Howie, I must have missed that day in American History when they taught that America was built by the ACLU, NOW, NARAL and MoveOn.org. I thought America was built by a bunch of thinkers who believed in individual liberty and wrote those thoughts down in a Constitution.

Finally Dean says, in a deluded display of wishful thinking, "The face of the Democratic Party is such that it looks like all of America will look in 2050." Only if America looks invisible in 2050, because that is my fervent prayer for the Democratic Party. The good thing is they'll achieve their own extinction through attrition and their own misguided lack of real direction.  ¶ Tuesday, August 09, 2005 0 comments

  Look, Up In The Sky "When Pigs fly!" is a phrase often used to refer to things that are unlikely to ever take place. Well, look out below because Left-wing, liberal ideologue Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) is on the right side, and the Right side, of a critical issue.

Back in June the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution (again) by legislating from the bench (again) that private property rights are secondary to potential tax revenues. In Kelo v. City of New London, they declared that the government could take the property of one citizen and give it to another private citizen or developer if it would generate more revenue for that government. So much for a "government FOR the people."

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states, "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note the phrase "public use" above. Is taking private land to build a highway "public use"? Yes, it benefits the public. Is taking private land to build a hospital, post office, or other building "public use"? Yes. Is a City giving it's governmental power of eminent domain to the private New London Development Corporation in order to take an entire residential neighborhood of Fort Trumbull, Connecticut for private development "public use"? Sorry, I don't see it. Where is the public benefit? I certainly see the benefit to the NLDC, but I hardly think that should have been a consideration.

Neither does Rep. Waters. "Government should be in the business of protecting private property," she said to National Review's Rich Lowry, "Private property is precious in America." Well, it should be, and on this I agree wholeheartedly with her.

Lowry continues, "Waters is a longtime scourge of eminent domain. A few years ago the L.A. Unified School District wanted to take a park and private homes in the community of South Park to build a new school (which at least is a legitimate public use). Waters made it clear that if eminent domain were used, the residents, many of them low-income, would appeal it property by property, holding up the process for years. "We backed them off," she says. If anyone is trying to grab your home, you could do much worse than have Waters — whose public mood seemingly fluctuates between outraged and irate — on your side.
She is acting on a crucial insight — the right to property is the most important check on governmental power and abuse, especially for the poor and vulnerable. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People filed an amicus brief in the Kelo case arguing against expanding eminent domain and recalling that it was often used in 1960s "urban renewal" projects to dispossess black property owners — "'urban renewal' was often referred to as 'Negro removal.'" Indeed, the naked logic of the Kelo decision is to take property from working- and middle-class people who aren't in a position to build big-box stores, casinos or condos and give it to wealthier interests, who can create more tax revenue and inherently have more political influence. Poor property owners usually don't have the wherewithal to fight back. "I think they'll just be run over," Waters says.
Alabama just adopted a law prohibiting the state and its localities from taking property for private development. Delaware has tightened its law, and even Connecticut — home to the dispute that spawned Kelo, when homes were to be taken for a Pfizer development — is suspending its use of eminent domain while it considers whether it has taken it too far (quick answer: "yes"). Congress is considering denying federal funds to support any projects that involve taking property for private use, and Waters is supporting two of the Republican-sponsored Kelo backlash bills. "I'm working with people I've never worked with before," she says.
...the Court has done the property-rights cause an unintentional favor by highlighting takings for private use that have been going on for a long time without much public notice.
The Court has also got Maxine Waters's back up, which is never advisable."

  ¶ Saturday, August 06, 2005 0 comments

  Ignoring the Constitution ... Again "A candidate's or nominee's ideology should be fair game whether it's religious or secular in nature, whether it's rooted in conservative Catholicism or liberal feminism." So says Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young in "Why Roberts Religion Matters".

Senator Dick Durbin will be relieved to hear that. According to the L.A. Times, during a meeting with Judge John Roberts the Senator inquired about the potential conflict between Roberts' beliefs as a Catholic and the law, specifically regarding the death penalty or the murder of unborn children.

Apparently Young and Durbin are not very well acquainted with that bedrock of American government, the U.S. Constitution. (That or they're counting on the liberal courts to make some more changes to what the founders really meant.)

Let's see what those vaunted "dead, white guys" had to say about one's "religious ideology" being "fair game," shall we.

Article VI, Clause 3: "...all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

To paraphrase, "no religious test required as a qualification for judges EVER." Looks pretty clear to me. But not so to Ms. Young. Seems she understands the Constitution differently than it's been read for over 200 years. "The context makes it fairly clear what the original intent of this clause was. An officeholder could not be required to take an oath or perform a religious ritual affirming his allegiance to a particular religion or denomination, or even a general belief in God."

I don't think so, sister. Let's look at it again. "...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification..." The two clauses are clearly distinct and separate. Judges SHALL be bound by oath or affirmation BUT NO religious test shall EVER be required.

"No religious test" doesn't mean a nominee or candidate shouldn't be discriminated against if they happen to be Jewish or Catholic (though they shouldn't.) It does forbid questioning a candidate about their beliefs that derive from their particualr faith. And yes, that makes questions that amount to an "abortion litmus test" (or gay rights) unconstitutional.

According to Manuel Miranda, writing in the Wall Street Journal, "Requiring an oath or affirmation in taking public office was the Framers' nod to God, the requirement that no particular set of religious beliefs be required of office holders was their nod to their painful experience with the religious intolerance of England." Why was such protection necessary? Because England had passed two Test Acts which, while not specifically excluding Catholics from office, sought to bar anyone who believed in the fundamental Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

Young says, "The question is whether a jurist's or politician's religion should play a role in his or her views on law and policy." No, it isn't. The question is whether our legislators will hold themselves to the clear intent of the Constitution.

  ¶ Saturday, August 06, 2005 1 comments

  Some Honest Journalism Man, I just love being from Texas! As you know, many in media refuse to call a terrorist a terrorist. Reuters' Steven Jukes, stated in a memo, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word 'terrorist.' To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack." Right. The truth "adds little" to a story. Whatever.

The BBC's editorial guidelines read, "Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. ... Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom." What a cop-out!

And a memo at Canada's CBC said, "Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. ... By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren't faced with the problem of calling one incident a "terrorist act" ... while classifying another as, say, a mere "bombing."

Well, not so in Texas. Like our President some of the press in my great state aren't afraid to tell it like it is. Witness the following from the Dallas Morning News.
----------------------

Call Them What They Are: Those who murder Iraqi civilians are terrorists
Friday, July 15, 2005

Two words not uncommon to editorial pages are "resolve" and "sacrifice," especially as they relate to war.

Today, this editorial board resolves to sacrifice another word – "insurgent" – on the altar of precise language. No longer will we refer to suicide bombers or anyone else in Iraq who targets and kills children and other innocent civilians as "insurgents."

The notion that these murderers in any way are nobly rising up against a sitting government in a principled fight for freedom has become, on its face, absurd. If they ever held a moral high ground, they sacrificed it weeks ago, when they turned their focus from U.S. troops to Iraqi men, women and now children going about their daily lives.

They drove that point home with chilling clarity Wednesday in a poor Shiite neighborhood. As children crowded around U.S. soldiers handing out candy and toys in a gesture of good will, a bomb-laden SUV rolled up and exploded.

These children were not collateral damage. They were targets.

The SUV driver was no insurgent. He was a terrorist.

People who set off bombs on London trains are not insurgents. We would never think of calling them anything other than what they are – terrorists.

Train bombers in Madrid? Terrorists.

Chechen rebels who take over a Russian school and execute children? Terrorists.

Teenagers who strap bombs to their chests and detonate them in an Israeli cafe? Terrorists.

IRA killers? Basque separatist killers? Hotel bombers in Bali? Terrorists all.

Words have meanings. Whether too timid, sensitive or "open-minded," we've resisted drawing a direct line between homicidal bombers everywhere else in the world and the ones who blow up Iraqi civilians or behead aid workers.

No more. To call them "insurgents" insults every legitimate insurgency in modern history. They are terrorists.
--------------------------

Amen, and God Bless Texas!  ¶ Thursday, August 04, 2005 0 comments

  Susan Torres, May She Rest In Peace









Susan Torres was a 26-year old mother to two-year old Peter and a vaccine researcher at NIH in Virginia. On May 7th, Susan, who was 17 weeks pregnant, collapsed. She was diagnosed with stage four melanoma and her family was given no hope for her recovery. Her husband Jason and her family made the difficult decision to keep Susan on life support until her baby could be safely delivered.

Yesterday, August 2, Susan Anne Catherine Torres was delivered by Caesarean section. Baby Susan weighed 1 pound, 13 ounces and was 13.5 inches long. There were no complications and she appears healthy. Of course, being so tiny, she will be monitored in the neonatal intensive care unit for some time.

Susan's husband, Jason Torres, had quit his job in order to stay by his wife's side. Shortly after his daughter's birth Jason gave his consent for Susan to be removed from life support. The family bade goodbye to Susan Wednesday morning as final sacraments of the Catholic church were given.

Before the birth of his niece and his sister's death, Justin Torres of The Fact Is wrote,

"In this midst of this tragedy and the grief that lingers like a context, like a fog, over every conversation and meal and moment in the hospital, we have hope. Doctors believe that they may be able to save this baby, keeping Susan alive long enough to deliver the child prematurely. It is no more than a fighting chance, far less than a certainty, that the baby will live. But we have hope. Keeping this baby alive is Susan's last act of love, one that has been tremendously moving to watch even as it makes you question everything you thought you knew about the fundamental justice of the world.

But this is where abortion, and the utilitarian mindset that it engenders concerning the sanctity of human life, steals its way into this tragedy. I think of it as "the moment," the little whisper of hesitation, shared not just by the doctors but even by my family. It's the moment in which you think, is this right? Are we doing the right thing? Wouldn't it just be better to let go, start over, find closure?

Once the soothing clichés start, it is difficult to make them stop. You have to force yourself to remember: this is a child's life. And children are always a good thing, devoutly to be wished for and fiercely to be fought for.

For my family, the moment was no more than a hiccup. Still, it is clear that for some of the doctors involved in this case, the decisions my brother and Susan's parents have made are foolish. That is the effect of abortion: that it has in various, subtle ways sapped the intrinsic human impulse to fight for the good of children.

I don't wish to be too harsh, and I certainly do not wish to suggest that these doctors - many of whom have taken enormous and personal interest in Susan's case - are in any way agents of the culture of death. These doctors are trained to assess chances and deploy resources where they are most effective. I respect that. We are here to fight; it's their job to tell us the truth and give us their realistic assessment. And many of them are fighting alongside us, to my immense gratitude.

But I wonder. Fifty years ago, medicine could not have done what we are trying to do. But I suspect that if it could have been done, no one then would have hesitated. The answer would have been, Of course, we must try to save the child, because saving children is what medicine is meant to do.

Thirty years after Roe, we have not yet fully come to understand all the ways that abortion has distorted our culture, coarsened it, made it less loving and less noble. The moment of hesitation I describe is the culture of death whispering insinuations at us. It is important that we continue to shout truth from the rooftops to drown out its voice."

A fund was established to help defray expenses not covered by insurance. You can still give to The Susan M. Torres Fund.  ¶ Wednesday, August 03, 2005 0 comments