WMD Found In Iraq

Why is this a surprise?
And why hasn't it been picked up by the mainstream media, since it was published in European presses on the 17th of May?

Sarin: 1st WMD found in Iraq
17/05/2004 17:48 - (SA)
Baghdad, Iraq - A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent exploded near a US military convoy in Baghdad, the US military said on Monday. It was the first confirmed finding of any of the banned weapons upon which the United States based its case for the Iraq war.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155mm artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesperson in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a US force convoy.

"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said. The incident occurred "a couple of days ago", he said. Two US soldiers were treated for minor injuries, Kimmitt added.

Sarin, developed in the 1930s, is the the deadly nerve agent that killed 12 people and injured 5 000 others in a Tokyo subway in March 1995. It is 500 times more powerful than cyanide, and was used to kill millions in the gas chambers of Nazi death camps in the closing stages of World War 2.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said the 155mm round had been rigged as a roadside bomb and was discovered by a passing US convoy.

"Two explosive ordnance team members were treated for minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round," Kimmitt told a press conference in Baghdad.

He said that the deadly agent was produced after two chemicals in separate sections of the shell mixed after it was fired.

"Mixing and dispersal of the agent from such a projectile as an IED (improvised explosive device) is very limited," he said. "The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece."

"The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war."

He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited. Many of the materials used for roadside bombs are believed to have been looted from arsenals after the collapse of the regime in April 2003.

What are the Dems going to do when these weapons begin to show up, apologize to the President for calling him a liar? There's not a man or woman big enough to do that in the whole party. It's going to be interesting to see how they dance around this one.

Associated Press Gold Star Mother Story Is A Lie

You all know that I do not believe an immigrant who has not pledged her allegiance to the United States by becoming naturalized should be allowed to join the Gold Star Mothers.

Turns out, however, that there was much, much more to that story than was reported by the press. Why does that not surprise me -- it's CBS and the New York Times all over again.

Statement Regarding National Media Attention Concerning Ligaya Lagman And "The Denial Of A Gold Star."

The term "gold star" is a term used to recognize the family member of a serviceman or servicewoman who has died in the line of service to their country. As protocol states, the Department of Defense presents to the family, a gold star lapel button, in accordance with each branch of the military's protocol. The gold star lapel button is not issued by the American Gold Star Mothers, Inc.

As to the accusation that Mrs. Lagman's application was denied does not tell the complete story. The application for membership with American Gold Star Mothers was received by the Department of New York. It was not completed or signed by the applicant, nor did it have the required copy of the death certificate and the payment of the first years dues. There were several inaccuracies on the application as to the dates required. A certified letter was mailed to Mrs. Lagman requesting the application be completed in full and returned for approval. To date, we have not heard from Mrs. Lagman, nor have we received any form of communication to the status of her membership application.

To say that the application has been denied is not an accurate statement.

It is also true that the constitution and bylaws of the organization’s founder, Mrs. Grace Darling Seibold, established in 1928, along with fellow charter members, named the organization 'American Gold Star Mothers.'

In Article IV, Section 1 under Eligiblity and Membership states:

"Natural Mothers, or citizens of the United States or the Territorial and Insular Possessions of the United States, (italics mine) at the time of their sons or daughters induction into the United States Armed Forces and died as a casualty, killed, captured, missing in action, or as a result of illness or injury received through engagement in the Armed Forces in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Afganistan, and other Strategic Areas.

On June 12, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed and approved a charter for the American Gold Star Mothers, Inc. granted by the 98th Congress of the United States of America, which states under Powers, Section 2:

"American Gold Star Mothers, Inc. shall have only those powers granted to it though it’s bylaws and articles of incorporation filed in the state or states which is incorporated and subject to the laws of such state or states."

As Congress has dictated above, by it's issuance of the federal charter, by virtue of its name, shall be recognized as "American Gold Star Mothers, Inc."

In the article there is mention to the fact that the membership board voted and discriminated against Mrs. Lagman. It was not a vote taken for membership, nor a change in the constitution. It was only from an outside source that the discussion took place regarding an upcoming applicant situation, and at that time, the board decided not to make an exception to the rule without proper investigation.

American Gold Star Mothers is an all-volunteer 501.c.3 organization with no federal funding or benefits from any government agency. Its only means of income is from membership dues and donations. They are grateful for the outpouring of support from other Veterans Service Organizations over the years who have worked closely with the Mothers, and knows their only honorable intentions comes from the heart.

The Executive Board would like to take this opportunity to apologize for anything taken out of its context in the dissemination of information while being investigated by the media and improperly reported. They would also appreciate the time to seek a remedy to this situation and handle it internally so that the best interests of all, and to future Mothers, can be addressed.

American Gold Star Mothers have received threats, malicious accusations, and disturbing e-mails, phone calls, and faxes. This organization of moms joined to support each other and also to support the veterans who are fortunate to come home. They have spent the last 77 years devoting their time and energy in service to the Veterans Administration, volunteering in VA Hospitals and nursing homes, accruing millions of hours helping those who honorably served their country.

That's really lovely, people. I'm not so proud to be an American when my countrymen do things like that. For Shame...all of you who would turn on that group, whether you think they are wrong or not. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior.

So What Are We Going To Do About Washington Popinjays?

You know how it is when you read something and think, "Yes. That's just how I feel but I hadn't thought about it enough to articulate it?"

That's exactly how I felt when I read Peggy Noonan's latest column in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal (Mr. Narcissus Goes To Washington) online this morning -- especially when she wrote, about public servants and heroes: "People who charge into burning towers are heroic; nuns who work with the poorest of the poor are self-denying; people who volunteer their time to help our world and receive nothing in return but the knowledge they are doing good are in public service. Politicians are in politics. They are less self-denying than self-aggrandizing. (italics mine) They are given fame, respect, the best health care in the world; they pass laws governing your life and receive a million perks including a good salary, and someone else--faceless taxpayers, "the folks back home"--gets to pay for the whole thing. This isn't public service, it's more like public command. It's not terrible--democracies need people who commit politics; they have a place and a role to play--but it's not saintly, either."

I could stand up and cheer at that one! Amen, say I. And hallelujah, someone else has noticed it, too.

Just try to influence your Senators and Congresspeople, for example. We elected those people to be our voice -- and, yes, I understand that they will simply consider one voice and not necessarily act on it. But what if you get together a group of like voices and try to influence that way. Folks, it doesn't work!

These people don't consider themselves voices of their constituents (and by the way, since the votes of people in both houses of Congress affect all the people, why do they not consider ALL of us across the country their constituency? We can -- and do -- affect their elections even if we don't live in their districts. We do that by contributing to campaigns, as in the Daschle defeat of 2004.

These people we send to Congress too obviously care only about themselves rather than their constituents OR the country. The little charade that has been going on in the Senate these past weeks is blatant evidence of that.

I love Noonan's interpretation of the Senator from South Carolina's speech: "Lindsey Graham, who said, 'I know there will be folks back home who will be angry, but that's only because they're not as sophisticated and high-minded as I am. Actually they're rather stupid, which is why they're not in the Senate and I am. But I have 3 1/2 years to charm them out of their narrow-minded resentments, and watch me, baby.'
Oh, excuse me, that's not what he said. That's only what he meant. It was the invisible scroll as he spoke. The CNN identifier that popped up beneath his head as he chattered, however, did say, "Conceited Nitwit Who Affects 'Back Home' Accent to Confuse the Boobs.'

Oh wait, that's not what it said. It said, 'R-South Carolina.' My bad."

As an American citizen I'm tired of being patronized and treated like my Senators and Congressmen think I'm a "boob." I'll match my IQ, my education and my experience with any of them on "The Hill" and dare them to look down on me. I'm tired of receiving form letters and being told that when a number of my fellow constituents e-mail a Senator or Congressman that their e-mails are considered "spam" rather than taken for what they are: expressions of sincere, thoughtful opinion by voters.

It's time we Americans took the country back from the politicians. I honestly don't know how we'll get anyone decent and honest to run in their places because of what the media does to candidates, but it's time we got together and made the effort.

Peggy Noonan wrote, "I personally was dazzled by their refusal to bow to the counsels of common sense and proportion, and stirred that they had no fear of justified insult ('blowhard,' 'puffed up popinjay') as they moved forward in the halls of the United States Senate to bravely proclaim their excellence."

It's obvious from the condition of the country that these self-aggrandizing pipsqueaks need to be replaced. And this isn't a party issue, either -- one's as bad as the other. Have we learned that the ballot box doesn't work? Is it time for a revolution?

No Shame for Gold Star Mothers

There's an interesting blog on GOP Insight this morning, taking to task the Gold Star Mothers organization for refusing to honor the application of a mother whose son died in Afghanistan, but who is not an American citizen. The mother isn't a citizen, that is. It seems she has lived here for 20 or so years and has not chosen citizenship.

The author of the blog is highly critical of the Gold Star Mothers group for rejecting her application. I'm not sure that I agree with the blog writer.

I'm a blue star mother who is thankful every day that the star in my window is blue rather than gold. I'm doubly thankful that I'll be able to take the star down soon when my son retires after long service in the Air Force.

I agree that the soldier who died, Army Staff Sgt. Anthony Lagman, deserves the highest honor, love and respect of his countrymen. I agree with the writer of the blog who wrote, "It does not matter where these men and women come from, their background, their age, their nationality, race, religion, etc. They sacrifice life for their countrymen to ensure that the freedoms we enjoy are preserved, even if they will not get to enjoy the fruits of their labor any longer."

I also agree with Ann Herd, president of Gold Star Mothers, who "said that the organization cannot go changing its rules "every time we turn around." The organization would have accepted Mrs. Lagman if she had accepted the United States and was a citizen.

Who knows what Mrs. lagman's relationship with her son was. We don't know. But we can assume that she didn't value the country much because she never took the time to become a citizen. That's something that isn't that hard to do: you take a few classes to learn something of the history of the country, its values and its society. You learn how the government works and how you can participate. You don't even have to learn the English language -- but you have to take the time and make the effort and then you have to pledge your allegiance to America.

Ms. Lagman didn't think that was important. Possibly she was angry with her son when he went to war; possibly she didn't support him at all. Maybe she did -- but since she has shown no personal allegiance to the country and since her son may very well have served against her wishes, I support the decision of Gold Star Mothers not to accept her application. I'm sure they would reconsider if she decided to become a citizen.

Gold Star Mothers doesn't honor the son; it honors the mother.

Taking Browne Down

It's downright cowardly to post opinions on a blog without allowing comment on them. That's what this fellow called Harry Browne has done. He says he has too many things going right now and doesn't have time for responses but he'll read e-mail. If he's THAT busy, he'll just delete e-mail and no one will see your carefully researched and thought-out responses so I've decided to post mine publicly. I'll quote his statements directly (and put them in italics) and answer each with mine.

Browne writes: "National Sales Tax: I've been opposed to the idea of a national sales tax from the first time I heard of it — so long as it does not involve a dramatic reduction in federal spending. Without a reduction in spending, it is just rearranging the burden of big government (which is also the case for any tax cut that doesn't involve a reduction in spending). And thus is a complete waste of our time and effort if we support it." Yes, government spending should be cut but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Tax collection and tax spending are two entirely different issues. HOW taxes are collected does not affect how government spends the money.

"I've said that, once the poor have been made exempt and all the politically strongest industries have exempted their products from the tax, the rate will have to be at least 30% — and probably even more than that. Because of this, it's very unlikely that the tax will ever even be enacted."
"People who say it can't be done should get out of the way of those who are doing it" Chinese Proverb.
Under the FairTax the poor are not exempt. No one is exempt from anything, which is one of its strong points. With FairTax, everyone pays the same amount on new goods, approximately what we're paying now. However, everyone gets a rebate to keep everyone from paying tax of any kind up to the poverty level. It's a great idea -- NO ONE pays taxes up to the poverty level.

"Now Bryan Russel has written to me to provide a number of other reasons to shun the idea of a national sales tax. Here's some of what he said:• It would hurt the economy because it would be an incentive for people not to buy new products, but to buy used items instead (garage sales etc.) to avoid the huge tax." This argument is an un-thinkiing one. Take new cars, for example. Everyone knows that when you drive a new car off the lot, it depreciates in value by some 20% or more immediately, before you even park it in your driveway. Also, you could rent a new car for less than you can buy one. Neither fact has hurt new car sales at all. People still buy new cars for many reasons that have nothing to do with saving money: They can afford it, or they like the smell of a new car, or they're wealthy and want to show off their wealth. (Like buying a new Cadillac every year!)

"• Immediate criminal element in all retailing. Can you say "black markets"?! " Do we have a huge black market in new cars? The same analogy works here.

"• Endless companies lobbying for their product to be tax exempt or at a reduced tax because it is environmentally friendly or is produced by a minority owned company, etc. In short, we would end up with a complicated sales tax code similar to the income tax mess." Read my lips -- NO exemptions. No need to lobby because there are NO exemptions. The fact that the current income tax has those is what has prompted this move to the FairTax in the first place. Besides, when companies are not taxed on their production, they have a built-in incentive to produce more.

"• We might end up having to carry "tax I.D. cards" because sooner or later the politicians would decide that poor people should pay at a lower rate and maybe rich people would pay at a higher rate." "We might" have to fly to the moon for breakfast, too. "We might" is meaningless fop. Do you have a social security card? That's all you need to get your prebate. Poor people pay less tax because they spend less money. The wealthy buy mansions instead of houses, are dressed by Lagerfeld and Versace instead of Penney's and Dillards. They travel in lear jets, jags and limousines instead of Chevys and Toyotas to places like Monaco instead of Las Vegas. Donald Trump is not going to suddenly start buying at WalMart to save money. Part of the fun of being wealthy is showing off, living high, and spending the money.

"• We would need to keep records of how much sales tax we pay — to make sure someone who is making $200,000.00 a year is not paying only $500 in sales tax and thus must be "cheating" by buying things in the new black market or whatever."
With FairTax only merchants keep records on the tax -- they do that for state taxes now, anyway. And they are repaid a quarter of !% on the dollar for being the middleman. It's easy for everyone to know just exactly how much they do pay because it's right there on the sales slip but it's already paid.

As for tax evasion -- sure. Some people will find a way to evade some taxes. If a person is a crook, changing the tax structure isn't going to change his ways. However, FairTax will bring $350 BILLION of now-evaded taxes into the tax base, along with drug dealers, porn dealers, prostitutes and illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes at all now. Also 40 million foreign tourists a year will pay into the tax base. FairTax will broaden and strengthen our economy far beyond what it is at present.

"• Government regulations would be overwhelming. The government would be prying into inventory books, as well as tracking all goods to make sure the tax is paid. TVs and other high dollar items might have to include microchips to track them to make sure the tax gets paid." That's what the IRS is now. That's part of the reason to get rid of the income tax and install a new and much more visible FairTax.

Perhaps you've noticed that every one of these arguments is a pie-in-the-sky argument, based on myth rather than fact. "What if," "it might," "it would be" -- all naysaying negativism based on false probabilities rather than facts. Silly, ineffective arguments, each and every one.

The FairTax is a consumption tax that gets rid of the IRS and all the attendant time and effort spent on income taxes while funding the government at current levels, including social security and medicare. It solves the social security problem.

It also gets rid of employee taxes and other corporate taxes.

FairTax requires people to pay a tax on new goods and services only without raising those prices significantly. It provides a montly rebate to everyone who holds a valid social security card and thereby assures that no one pays tax on anything up to the poverty level.

The FairTax gives you your entire paycheck to do with as you choose -- spend, save or invest. Whichever you choose of those options is good for the national economy. Pay your entire house payment with pretax dollars.

FairTax strips hidden Federal income taxes and compliance costs and makes US goods more competitive in international markets and brings outsourced jobs home along with foreign companies to the USA since we'll be the only country in the world that doesn't tax productivity.

I think Mr. Browne has been too busy to do his research on the FairTax. And, folks, your comments, pro or con, are welcome on this blog.

Has Oprah Lost Her Cotton Pickin' Mind?

By Debbie Schlussel

Oprah is the affable Joseph Goebbels of daytime talk of chick magazines of Oprah seminars—and every other medium in which the self-anointed high priestess of the religion of Oprah has her hands.

Through all of these, Oprah preaches "how to be your best self" and "live your best life." Unfortunately, a predilection for radical Islam and excusing terrorists is a prominent element of Oprah's "best self."

Cheating husbands don't get off as easy as Islamic terrorists, murderers, and torturers in Winfrey's world.

Take "O" Magazine, Oprah's monthly print version of self-conceit. Like every other month, the cover of the June issue of "O" features Oprah—for the gazillionth time. Unfortunately, also for the gazillionth time, the inside of the glossy mag features Oprah's unique brand of understanding and empathy for terrorists and radical
Islam.

Last month, Oprah's "O" asked readers to understand "The Heart of a Destroyer, "Mohammed Atta. You remember him—the Al-Qaeda ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers who murdered 3,000 Americans.

But that's not exactly the way "O"'s "reading room" wants you to remember him.

Beneath a picture of young Mohammed and his smiling sister on the Egyptian beach, "O" exhorts you to read a book that "sets out to understand the hearts and minds of the men behind the photos" of the 9/11 hijackers, a group of "lonely, exiled young men."

But the fatherless and motherless children who lost their parents to Atta—they aren't lonely, are they?

The book, "O" tells us, "is a simultaneously passionate, compassionate, and dispassionate book that [doesn't] indict Islam."

Just what we need—the CEO of the Oprah Book Club urging America's women to have compassion for Mohammed Atta. On the next Oprah, "Stupid Talk Show Hosts and the Terrorists Who Love Them." (Or is that, "Brave Terrorists and the Stupid Talk Show Hosts Who Love Them"?)

I think Stedman's starting to get jealous.

To add insult to injury, the latest issue, "O"'s June 2005 edition, demands that we understand the pain and turmoil of Yusra Abdu, a teen-age Palestinian would-be homicide bomber, fiancée of Hani Akad, leader of Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group. Akad's group, funded by Libya (one of "O" Mag's "Five Places to See in Your Lifetime"), murdered 27 children and injured 134 when they attacked a Jewish school in Ma'a lot, Israel. Note the map of hate and swastika in the group' s May 22, 2005 Syrian-based newsletter.

But in Oprah's world, Muslims aren't terrorists, and terrorists aren't Muslim (more on that, below). Instead, "O" calls Akad "a charismatic and young rebel." "O" describes the cold-blooded, hateful Abdu and Akad as "a Shakespearean tragedy." Yes, in Oprah's world, Islamic terrorists aren't terrorists. They're James Deans, Romeos,
and Juliets.

And it's not their fault that they're homicide bombers. Or Islam's fault. "O" quotes Saudi-funded Islam apologist John Esposito blaming not Islam, but the desperate "context" of their lives. Reality: Most Palestinian homicide bombers, like the 9/11 hijackers, come from wealthy families, but they hate Jews, Christians, and Americans. That's the "context."

Incredibly, super-heroine Oprah calls this psychobabble-ish, understanding-the-world's-Islamic-terrorists sob-story, "Rescuing the World' s Girls, Part Five." And some people actually have the nerve to say Savioratrix Oprah is conceited.

And what is Oprah's solution? That's easy. Donate to Oprah's Angel Network, "which is awarding a grant to one or more programs that work to prevent Palestinian children from becoming suicide bombers. No thanks. Or donate to UNICEF, "which runs summer camps and trauma programs for Palestinian children." No, actually, UNICEF helps UNRWA (both UN agencies) propagandize future Islamic terrorists from cradle
to grave.

What about Israeli children's trauma? How about donating to some Israeli children who are victims of Palestinian terror and need prosthetic limbs, even face implants—because half of their faces were blown off at the Dolfinarium Disco in Tel Aviv? Not a word about them in "O." They simply don't exist.

Oprah's agenda isn't new. Her unique understanding of Islamic terrorists is manifest in:

* A post-9/11 "Islam 101" show —a pandering presentation featuring Jordanian Queen Rania Al-Abdullah. Rania claimed she doesn't have to wear a hijab head-covering and that honor-killings of raped women doesn't really happen in her country. Of course it doesn't, since "her country" is a swanky Fifth Avenue New York apartment in
the US, where she mostly lives.
* A September 2004 show, discussing the terrorist massacre of children in Beslan, Russia, on which Oprah banned the use of the word Islamic, saying the terrorists "came from the mountains." (Okay, so they were Mountainese terrorists, not Islamic ones.) Oprah stated that the Beslan massacre was "a watershed because terrorists never before killed children." Remember those murdered Jewish kids in
Ma'alot (and throughout Israel) by the DFLP? I'm sure they'd disagree with the "Queen of Daytime Talk." If they were still around.
* An episode on which a guest claimed Jews practice ritual sacrifices of babies. Oprah: "I want to make it clear that this is one Jewish person, so don't go around now, saying to people, you know, `Those Jewish people, they're worshipping .' This is the first time I heard of any Jewish people sacrificing babies, but anyway – so you witnessed the sacrifice?"
* Ignoring the mass-murder, rape, torture, and slavery of Black Christians by Sudan's Arab Muslim government, despite repeatedly teasing a group of Colorado children (who bought some Black Christian slaves' freedom) that they'd be on her show. She told them the issue was "too complicated."
* Refusing President Bush's invitation to serve our country by touring Afghani girls' schools on his behalf. The normally vocal Oprah had "The View's" Star Jones speak on her behalf, saying the Bush White House "used" her.
* Repeated fundraising for "Women to Women, International," a Muslim women's charity that claims it stops honor killings, but whose spokeswoman denies that honor killings have anything to do with Islam. Right. Over the past year, Oprah and her publicity team have pushed Oprah's latest weight loss—to loud, gushy media acclaim.
Oprah, girlfriend, if only you could have gained the weight of a conscience.

The next time we need someone to "Rescue the World's Girls," keep Oprah out of it.

Israel Is And Has Always Been Palestine

From Dennis Miller--

The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in the 1967 war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians."

As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living.

That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course --that's where the real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mid east. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches,Everyone will be pals..

Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the Numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not.

Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea?Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children?

Disgusting.

No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of super models who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11th our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint.

If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan.

Please feel free to pass this along to your friends Walk in peace! Be Happy!

Have a wonderful life

Laus Deo - One Nation, Under God

Did you know that in Washington DC there can never be a building of greater height than the Washington Monument?

And did you know that on the aluminum cap, atop the Washington Monument in Washington DC, are displayed two words: Laus Deo? No one can see these words. In fact, most visitors to the monument are totally unaware they are even there and for that matter, probably couldn't care less.

These words have been there for many years; they are 555 feet, 5.125 inches high, perched atop the monument, facing skyward to the Father of our nation, overlooking the 69 square miles which comprise the District of Columbia, capital of the United States of America.

Laus Deo!

Two seemingly insignificant, un-noticed words. Out of sight and, one might think, out of mind, but very meaningfully placed at the highest point over what is the most powerful city in the most successful nation in the world.

Two simple words. In Latin: "Praise be to God!"

Though construction of this giant obelisk began in 1848, when James Polk was President of the United States, it was not until 1888 that the monument was dedicated and opened to the public. It took twenty five years to finally cap the memorial with a tribute to the Father of our nation, Laus Deo -- Praise be to God!"

From atop this magnificent granite and marble structure, visitors may take in the beautiful panoramic view of the city with it's division into four major segments. From that vantage point, one can also easily see the original plan of the designer, Pierre Charles l'Enfant...a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape, with the White House to the north. The Jefferson Memorial is to the south, the Capitol to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west.

You may wonder why a cross. What about separation of church and state?

Separation of church and state is a modern concept; one that is not in the US Constitution except to state that the state cannot promote a particular church or require citizens to attend specific church services -- as The Church of England was in the 17th Century. The United States of America was founded as a Christian nation, on Christian principles and its founders connected the Christian faith to the nation in a myriad of ways.

So, read on. How interesting and, no doubt, intended to carry a profound meaning for those who bother to notice. Praise be to God!

Within the monument itself are 898 steps and 50 landings. As one climbs the steps and pauses at the landings the memorial stones share a message. On the 12th Landing is a prayer offered by the City of Baltimore; on the 20th is a memorial presented by some Chinese Christians; on the 24th a presentation made by Sunday School children from New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverb10:7, Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6.

When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4th, 1848 deposited within it were many items including the Holy Bible presented by the Bible Society.

Such was the discipline, the moral direction, and the spiritual mood given by the founder and first President of our unique democracy .."One Nation, Under God."

Read now George Washington's prayer for the country:

"Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United states at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean our selves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

When one stops to observe the inscriptions found in public places all over our nation's capitol, he or she will easily find the signature of God, as it is unmistakably inscribed everywhere you look.

You may forget the width and height of "Laus Deo," it's location, or the architects but no one who reads this will be able to forget it's meaning, or these words: "Unless the Lord builds the house its builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain." (Psalm 127: 1)

It is hoped you will send this to every child you know; to every sister, brother, father, mother or friend. They will not find offense, because you have given them a lesson in history that they probably never learned in school.

We are a nation founded in faith and in liberty. One nation, under God. Laus Deo.

Democrats Act Like Spoiled Brats

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's Communication Director Bob Stevenson today made the following statement in response to the Senate Democrats’ refusal to grant consent, effectively shutting down the Senate’s committees and preventing them from meeting after 11:30 a.m..

"What a difference a day makes. Less than 24 hours after he complained the Senate is ignoring issues important to Americans, Democrat Leader Harry Reid today threatened progress on an energy bill, a jobs bill, disaster relief, and a closed intelligence meeting.

"To close down the committees over the judges issue is not only counterproductive, it could hurt Americans looking for work or suffering at the gas pumps.

"Despite any differences over the judges, the American people want their government to continue working on issues important to them. They want the Senate to do its job.

"Despite his suggestions to the contrary, Senator Reid's actions speak volumes. It would appear the Democrats' threat to shut down the Senate has already begun."

Do Unto Others?

The first people to accuse others of lying always seem to be the Dems. And yet, when you look at the record, the lies on any issue come from the left.

Here they go again:

Friends,

Tomorrow the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on John Bolton's nomination as U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Democrat Senators have indicated that they are prepared to pull out all the stops to defeat Bolton.

(Note: in Dem language that means they can say anything they wish, whether it's true or not.)

The "Blame America First" crowd is so desperate to stop John Bolton that they are now stooping to the lowest form of attack - dragging out pornographer Larry Flynt of Hustler magazine to make outrageous charges against John Bolton. With no facts to support their charge, they have blindly accused Bolton of frequently a swingers sex club in New York, and forcing his wife into non-consensual group sex. Read the garbage article here, if you have the stomach for it.

It was bad enough when left wing activists used partisan Bush opponents to fabricate stories about Bolton's work at the State Department, but now they are stooping to the lowest form of character assassination.

Move America Forward.com is getting ready to respond IMMEDIATELY to all of the underhanded tactics by Bolton's opponents. If you can, make a contribution to their TV Ad Account right away.

Unfortunately there are enough "yellow dog Democrats" who are either too lazy or too dumb to question Democratic party leaders and check the facts for themselves so that tactics like this actually do work.

The very best thing you can do is to write or call your congressperson and senators. Tell them you're not going to allow an innocent person to be crucified by lies and to please support John Bolton's nomination.

We HAVE to figure out how to hold these people responsible for acts like this that destroy reputations by lies and inuendo. The courts won't do it; they've held that if a person is a public person they have to expect attacks like this. That should never be true == no one in America should be destroyed by lies. This HAS to stop.

Myths and Lies of Illegal Immigration

By Kathy McKee; January 4, 2004; published in The Sonoran News

Because the pro-illegal alien lobby has a bottomless pit of money and can hire PR people to spin (and fabricate) anything any way, there are an undue number of myths and lies that the public (and many politicians) has bought into. The FACTS are:

1. It is NOT racist to call these people "illegal aliens" In fact, "illegal aliens" is the only term used in federal laws and regulations to describe criminals (and they ARE criminals) who come into our country illegally. They are not illegal immigrants, not undocumented immigrants, not migrant workers, and not day laborers - they're ILLEGAL ALIENS.

2. Mexico is NOT a poor country. It has the fifth richest economy in the world, and by sending its teeming masses to our country, that status keeps on rising. Mexico has more resources per square mile than the U.S. and plenty of money to take care of its own people. Why should the taxpayers of this country subsidize Mexico's corruption?

3. Illegal aliens are NOT necessarily coming here to work. Lou Dobbs recently reported that 33 percent of our prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.

4. Illegal aliens are NOT doing work Americans won't do. What jobs won't Americans do? In most states, Americans still clean their own houses, do their own landscaping, clean hotel rooms, work in restaurants and fast food places, paint houses, DO CONSTRUCTION WORK, work in airports, etc. - just like we have the past 200 years before "our" government allowed these people to invade our country. There are 18 million Americans who cannot find a job, so illegal aliens who are coming here to work do so at peril to American workers.


5. Illegal aliens absolutely do not contribute more than they cost. Certainly the millions in prison and on welfare aren't contributing a dime to our economy, and the ones who are working often are paid in cash with no deductions for taxes at all. The ones who use fraudulent social security numbers and qualify to pay taxes and social security have so many deductions for dependents that they pay little if any taxes. We have seen them pay less than $100 in taxes and get back $4,000 refunds (thanks to earned income tax credits and multiple dependents). The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the average Mexican illegal alien costs U.S. taxpayers a whopping $55,000 each. Some bargain, eh?

6. The economy does NOT depend on illegal aliens. Sure, greedy CEOs (making $50 to $150 MILLION a year) and business owners depend on illegal aliens, but due to #3, #4 and #5 above, the only thing illegal aliens are contributing to is the collapse of our economy and making the rich richer.

7. Without illegal aliens, the price of agricultural products and other goods and services will NOT soar. The definitive study on this subject is the University of Iowa's "How Much Is That Tomato?" The study concludes that 'since labor is such a small component of the end-price of agricultural products (which includes price to the growers, transportation costs, processing /storage costs, grocers' profit, etc.), using minimum wage workers instead of illegal aliens would increase prices of agricultural products by approximately 3 percent in the summer and 4 percent in the winter ... hardly the making of $10 heads of lettuce, $25 hamburgers, $1,000 per night Days Inn hotel rooms like the pro-illegal alien lobby claims.

8. Consumers are NOT benefiting from lower labor costs. Again, it's CEOs and business owners who benefit from taxpayer subsidies for their illegal alien workers. The Big Three automakers say they moved so many jobs to Mexico because their labor costs are 80 percent less than in America. Anybody notice the price of new cars spiraling downward under NAFTA?

So, before you believe the prevalent pack of lies perpetuated by the illegal alien lobby, which makes billions off this government-sanctioned criminal activity, ask yourself who's saying this garbage and look at what they have to gain. Citizens Against Illegal Immigration, just like Protect Arizona NOW, is an all-volunteer, totally grass-roots organization of citizens who are making nothing and have nothing personal to gain from their efforts to fight this corruption. Whose side are you on, and what are YOU doing to save your state and country from this evil?

McKee is the director of Protect Arizona NOW. A former Quaker Sunday School teacher and Volunteer of the Year in a large metropolitan area, she has a 35-year record of charity work and philanthropy largely benefiting minorities.

No Man Is An Island

A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife opening a package. "What food might this contain?" He was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.

Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning. "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"

The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it."

The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house."

The pig sympathized but said, "I am so very sorry Mr. Mouse, But there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured that you are in my prayers."

The mouse turned to the cow. She said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you. But it's no skin off my nose."

So the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap alone.

That very night a sound was heard throughout the house like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness she did not see that it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with a fever. Now everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient.

But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig.

The farmer's wife did not get well. She died. So many people came for her funeral the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them.

So the next time you hear that someone is facing a problem and think that it doesn't concern you, remember that when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk. In the book of Genesis, Cain said about Able, his brother, to our God: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

We are all involved in this journey called life. We must keep an eye out for one another and be willing to make that extra effort to encourage one another.

Speculations on a Runaway Bride

No, I don't think Jennifer Wilbanks should be prosecuted; but I bet her Momma should.

As I see it, Jennifer had been living with her fiance for a while so the commitment was pretty well established. More appropriate than a huge wedding with 600 guests and 16 bridesmaids would have been an elopement, a quick fifteen minutes before a justice of the peace, or a small family service in a church chapel.

But I bet Momma would have none of that. After all, there is social position to be considered. (People with little social position worry about it a lot more than people who have it.)

So The Wedding of the Year must be planned and Momma, with her experience giving parties, etc. is the one to plan it. At first, yes, Jennifer must have what she wants but Jennifer is young -- much too young to know what she wants.

And Jennifer soon learns that it may be her wedding but it's Momma's party.

First there's the selection of the bridesmaids. ("But you MUST ask Kimberley. Her older sister is the President of the Junior League and besides, you sat beside her in nursery school.") Then there must be an usher for every bridesmaid. ("Do we have to invite him? He gives me the creeps even if he is your best friend."

Then there's the dress and the bridesmaid's dresses. Jennifer wants blue, Momma wants the more stylish black. Jennifer says black is too depressing for a wedding, Momma says it's the latest in fashion. They choose black for the bridesmaids.

Jennifer wants a storybook dress with lots of gathers and a full white veil. No, says Momma. A plain, white sheath with a long train is more stylish. Momma is paying so the sheath it is.

There's a caterer to choose; wedding cakes, champagne, favors, flowers. . .gifts for the bridesmaids and groomsmen. What kind of reception? Brunch? Dinner?

Thank you notes...with 600 guests we're talking thousands of gifts. Shower gifts, wedding gifts, odd little gifts of thoughfulness from service people. Each requires a thank you note if your social standing is what Momma wants it to be.

Bridesmaids must give parties for the bride. Showers and teas, barbeques and dinners. Extensive records must be kept -- who is coming, who isn't. Who sent a gift and what was it?

As the time gets closer to the wedding, the pressure becomes more and more intense. Especially when the wedding is a showpiece with the focus on the performance rather than the couple and their committment, everything has to go perfectly. If something goes wrong, there's h... to pay.

The stress on the bride can be unbearable. Concentrating on pulling off the grandiose plans, the bride can easily lose touch with what the wedding is really all about. Instead of a special moment between the two of them, the production takes over. Everyone's occupied with making the wedding come off without a hitch; the bride is honored at so many parties it's a nightmare to keep up. (And the hostess of each of those gets a thank you note, too.)

If the bride is the least bit shy she dreads that walk down the aisle with all those eyes on her and she fervently wishes she had the nerve to run -- with or without the groom.

So she snaps.

I'm sure Jennifer had no thought at all about what would happen when she disappeared. In her confusion she wasn't even aware of the terror she caused her parents and husband-to-be. She just ran. It says a lot about her relationship with her parents that she didn't call them; she called her fiance.

I think the fact that some citizens of her hometown feel she should apologize to them is silly, selfish and stupid. It smacks of jealousy -- or a grab for attention like the beautician who appeared on national TV complaining. Thank goodness local law enforcement seem to be more sympathetic to her emotional stability.

One thing is definitely for certain -- Fox News and the rest of the media should leave the story alone. They've already given it far too much attention. It doesn't deserve more.

With Friends Like Carter and Clinton, Who Needs Enemies

Between the two of them, James Carter and William Clinton, did more to proliferate nuclear weapons in Korea than anyone else, except Kim Jong Il. As Il was starting his nuclear build up in 1994, Clinton sent Carter to see if he couldn't fix the situation. Carter did -- but he fixed it for the wrong side.

Carter cut a deal that gave $4 billion worth of light-water nuclear reactors to Korea (to supposedly provide energy), along with $100 million in oil and $5 billion in economic and food aid.

As a result, by 1999, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea "the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region."

In the original agreement, Kim was supposed to halt his weapons program. It is obvious now just how honorably Kim kept his agreement. Kim, the leader Jimmy Carter called a "vigorous and intelligent man." More vigorous and intelligent, we may assume, than Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton put together.

And now here comes Hillary Clinton, running for President, and claiming to The New York Times that Pyongyang, couldn't arm a missile with a nuclear weapon "when George Bush became president, and now they can."

Hillary Clinton's son wasn't flying SAC airplanes over the Pacific in the 1990s monitoring North Korea and China's launch attempts. Mine was.

Clinton knew what was going on in Korea just as he knew what was going on in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. He let it all happen and for Hellacious Hillary to publicly accuse and blame President Bush for the monsters her husband created by turning a blind eye to problems as they arose, is the worst form of hypocrisy and dishonesty.

With friends like Carter and the Clintons, the US is much better off with their enemies. At least they are honest in their hatred.

More Of That "Man Causing Global Warming" Nonsense

Responsible, professional scientists without political bias and prejudice agree that global warming happens but disagree that man is the cause of it. Quite a few produce true scientific evidence saying that warming is not a significant issue at all. Some responsible scientific information is available HERE.

For a while the issue has lain fairly quietly in the political background but here it comes again, published by that joke in the scientific community, Science Magazine.

James Hansen's latest study ( Global Warming Continues
J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo Science 11 January 2002; 295: 275 [DOI: 10.1126/science.295.5553.275c) has been termed a "smoking gun" that proves humans are causing global warming. In fact it is nothing more that a typical Hansen modeling exercise, the kind he has been trumpeting since the 1980s.

Here's how this one goes, in 7 easy steps.

1.Take some very shaky evidence and a draw firm conclusion. In this case that the oceans are warming. We don't actually know this, certainly not how much, if any.

2. Assume all else in nature is constant. In this case Hansen assumes that solar input is constant, even though solar variability is the hottest thing in climate science today. This assumption made some sense in 1986, it makes none today.

3. Derive a precise value for what is actually unknown. In this case the Earth's heat balance. We have no way of measuring the Earth's heat balance.

4. Demonstrate that the GHG model can be made to reproduce this value. The GHG model can be made to reproduce just about any value as long as it is part of a warming trend. Feedbacks make it very flexible.

5. Conclude that the GHG model is proven. All other possible explanations for this actually unknown value having been ruled out by assumption, see above.

6. Use the proven model to predict the future. It is bad. The heat comes out of the ocean (one wonders why it changes direction). Ice melts.

7. Sound the alarm. Again.

In point of fact the hypothesis that solar variability is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG hypothesis does not do this.

Global warming has been trumpeted as a hot political issue for years. The closest the mainstream media has come to telling the public both sides of the story has been an occasional offhand reference to "dissenting scientists" without presenting the dissention.

If you're interested in the truth about global warming, do the research. Don't depend on the media -- they don't bother with unbiased research; do it yourself. It's a important issue; one that will cost you a lot of money if you don't know who's telling the truth.