In Memoriam --9/11/2001

So many died that horrible day.

One was my classmate at Washington and Lee University, Commander Robert Allan Schlegel.

I would love to tell you he and I were close. That would be a lie.

I would love to share stories of great times together. I don't have any.

What I can tell you is that I remember Rob Schlegel as a good guy, a friend of some friends. I remember him as being a bright guy, sitting a couple rows over and a couple seats back in a US History class. One of those classmates you later wish you had gotten to know when you had the chance.

Rest in Peace.

May all all the victims of September 11 and the many men and women of our armed forces who have died fighting terrorism since that day rest in peace.

And let us not forget those heroes who still live.

Which Party Is Politicizing God?

It is a given that "evilrightwingChristianconservativeRepublicans" are politicizing God. But is it actually true?

Not if you look at this year's Republican and Democrat platforms.

The GOP only refers to God four times.

Echoing a statement of President Bush, the Republican document says freedom is "the Almighty's gift to every man, woman and child in the world" and it says leaders of faith-based groups treat people as "moral individuals created in the image of God."

The other two Republican mentions criticize federal judges for banning "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and quote from a Bush eulogy: "May God bless Ronald Reagan."

The Democrats, surprisingly enough, refer to God seven times.

As for the Democrats, they twice speak of America as "one nation, under God." They say America offers "all the possibilities your hard work and God-given talent can bring." On the environment, the platform twice describes nature's bounty as a gift from God and later says it should be protected as a heritage for "God's children."

Yet another Democratic plank says "each of us should be as equal in the eyes of the law as we are in the eyes of God."

Where are the Atheist Criminal Liberals Union condemnations of Democrat intolerance, and their complaints about Democrat pushing of Christianity on the unbelievers of America?

they don't exist.

Why not?

Perhaps because their condemnations of the GOP are partisan, not philosophical -- or because they know that the Democrat invocations of God are nothing but hypocritical window-dressing designed to fool the unwary.

Journalistic Bias At CNN?

GOP questions activities of Carville, Begala, on behalf of Kerry Campaign.

"It's not like I'm on a news show," Mr. Carville said, adding, "Why can't I host the most polemic talk show on television?"

Well, because JOURNALISTS and NEWS PERSONALITIES are supposed to remain formally neutral in political campaigns. You would have a fit if Joe Scarborough or Sean Hannity became advisers to the Bush campaign, made appearances for and represented them, and then claimed that it was irrelevant to their jobs. You would rightly be claiming that allowing them to keep their shows would be providing aid to the Bush camp -- as CNN does by keeping you and Begala on the air. That is our gripe here -- not that you are an active and partisan Democrat.

Secret Laws?

We can argue about whether or not John Gilmore is right in his suit to end mandatory ID checks at airports. He argues government mandated checks are no different than the internal passports that some totalitarian governments require. I find that debatable, though I agree with his assertion that showing identification does absolutely nothing to make air travel safer.

But Gilmore is absolutely right on one point.

"The hardest question to answer is 'show me the law, the regulation, and the rule that requires this,' and none of them could, and never have," Mr. Gilmore said.
The government maintains that there is a law prohibiting the disclosure of SSI, and administration officials have the power to prohibit the disclosure of any information that would "harm transportation security."

Get that -- the government is unwilling to disclose the law, the regulation, or rule that actually requires that identification be shown, despite admitting that showing is legally required!

It gets even more hairy in court.

The Justice Department says it will identify the law in a court case brought against it and the Homeland Security Department by Mr. Gilmore, but only if the secret reasons for its top-secret status remain under a court seal.
"The government would also file and serve a redacted, unsealed version of the brief as well. That procedure will adequately safeguard any sensitive security information [SSI] while permitting this court's independent review of the merits of plaintiffs' claim," said the request filed by the Justice Department on Sept. 3.

In other words, not only are We, The People, not allowed to know what the law, regulation, or rule is, but We, The People, are not even allowed to know why we are not allowed to know what the law, regulation, or rule is -- and they are willing to disclose such information to a court only on the condition that We, The People, are not allowed to know the arguments that support not allowing us to know why we are not allowed to know what the law, regulation or rule is.

Sorry, folks, but such a situation is the absolute betrayal of the concepts that underlie our system of government.

Edwards Demands Bush Answer Memo Questions

As questions swirl about the authenticity of new documents about President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, John Edwards wants to put focus on Bush, not the documents.

President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.

“I think they are reasonable and legitimate questions the White House ought to answer.”

Excuse me, John, why don't you answer the questions about your campaign's connections to these apparent forgeries.

And while you are at it, how about explaining to the public about your deferments and your failure to serve at all before you start questioning the service of a man who fulfilled his obligation in the National Guard.

And could you also get John Kerry to answer questions about his medals, his efforts in support of the Vietnamese Communists, and the six year delay in his discharge?

But She's Pro-Choice, Don't You Know?

Well, the face of "right to choose" hypocrisy looks an awful lot like Ellen Barkin. She currently tars in Palindromes, a film fanatically attacking pro-lifers as extremists and terrorists. In it, a twelve year old runs away from home after becoming pregnant, to avoid being forced to abort by her mother. The girl is then cared for by a Christian woman who protects her, her child, and her choice to become a mother.

But who is the fanatic here?

Barkin said this about the situation faced in the film at the Venice Film Festival.

"I am the mother of a 12-year-old girl and I can tell you unequivocally that if my daughter was pregnant, I would take her kicking and screaming to have an abortion," Barkin said at a press conference Tuesday to publicize her new movie.

Well, I thought that the rhetoric of the abortion industry was that of choice. What we are hearing here is that the actual issue is abortion -- and it doesn't matter if it is wanted or an assault upon the person of the pregnant female.

Liberal Teachers Ignore California Standards

Franciscan friar Junipero Serra founded the mission system that led to Spanish settlements all up and down the California coast. It also led to the conversion of many Indians to Christianity. This is something the IrReligious Left has never forgiven.

Well, they've gotten into some California classrooms, and are intent of destroying the documented historical picture of Father Serra and replacing it with a PC image that portrays him as a genocidal exploiter of the California Indians.

A priest in the Franciscan Order of the Catholic Church, Serra was the driving force behind Spain’s colonization of California, and he's well remembered in the state’s grade-school textbooks.

But some elementary school teachers and activists say Serra took advantage of Native American labor, and through his leadership, the Golden State’s adored missions had devastating effects on thousands of Indians who lost their freedom and lives building and maintaining the 21 Catholic sites.

While Serra could become California’s first saint, some teachers are providing their own perspective, forsaking the mandated textbooks and letting 8-year-olds act out scenarios that portray Serra as a trickster and even, in a few extreme cases, a purveyor of genocide.

Will the state of California act to stop the miseducation of its children, and the defaming of Father Serra and the other missionaries who brought Christianity to California?

Bush Met His Service Obligation Early -- When Did Kerry Meet His?

Byron York makes an important point in The Hill today. As much as the Bush-haters want to focus on one year of Bush's Texas Air National Guard career, they miss the bigger picture. George W. Bush met his service obligation, and did so early.

See if you can follow the math here. Guard members were required to obtain 50 drill points a year for that year to "count". That means his 6-year hitch required that he rack up 300 points. How did he do?

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

Now I will concede that he did agree to that in his initial contract -- but it is interesting to note that there was clearly no problem there. His 1968-69 calendar year shows him earning 253 points. The 1969-70 period is even more productive. Bush earned 340 points based upon his time training and drilling.

Now we hit two years when he was not on active duty -- 1970-1971 and 1971-72. What happened then?

He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot.

In other words, by May of 1972, George W. Bush had about 140% of the points he needed to accumulate.

May 1972-May 1973 is the period folks question. What happened then? Yes, Bush stops flying (not a good thing, in my book). We've known that. But he still ekes out 56 points -- meaning he met the obligation for the year. He spent most of June and July of 1973 on duty, giving him 56 points for that year as well. In other words, for the sixth straight years he performed a creditable year of service. He requests and receives an early discharge so he can continue his education, and that request is granted in light of his completion of the mandated duty. He receives an honorable discharge, and he gets it early because of his diligence.

In contrast, John Kerry doesn't receive his discharge until the summer of 1978, six years later than scheduled. Why the delay? We don't know, because John Kerry won't allow the records to be released that would answer the question. We do know that during this time he was zipping off to Paris to consort with the enemy, and that he found time to travel the country promoting the enemy's peace plan and make speeches that defamed his fellow servicemen. Why the delay, Senator? Were you a deserter, or were you simply AWOL?

Teresa Opens Mouth, Shows Over-Inflated Ego

We all know that the elite on the left think they are superior to the rest of us in the unwashed masses. Teresa Heinz Kerry is possibly the best living example of this sort of arrogance. She has now made it clear that there is only one reason someone could oppose John Kerry's plan to socialize the health care system.

"Only an idiot wouldn't like this."

Isn't it clear? No need for debate or discussion -- conform to the platform or you are mentally defective! What next, Teresa? An involuntary psychaiatric commitment for dissenters, until they see the errors of their ways?

All paid for by the government, of course.

FORGERIES!

By now it seems quite clear that the documents used by CBS to "prove" preferential treatment of the young George W. Bush are fakes. The technology doesn't lie, folks, and the following facts lay to rest the possibility that the document is legitimate.

"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

* The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
* The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
* The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
* The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
* The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

Add to that the statements of the son and widow of Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, (conveniently dead since 1984) that they doubt the authenticity, and you have a real mess. CBS has called them Killian's "personal files", but offers no explanation as to how or where these were obtained. It is clear that they did not come from the family, so that leaves us asking some serious questions about the source of the documents.

Democrats View Women As Incapable, Inferior

Mary Katharine Hamm perfectly illustrates the liberal view that women are incapable of caring for themselves without the help of liberal men. Such paternalism, we thought, was the hallmark of a bygone age, and certainly outside of the realm of "good liberals" who see women as equal. But scratch the surface and you will find it there.

Hamm, a Heritage Foundation staffer, was introduced to a former DNC staffer while out with friends. during the course of the conversation, the following exchange occurred.

“All right,” I said, “as a young person working on Capitol Hill, making a modest sum of money, what do you and the Democratic Party have to offer me? What are you gonna do to help me move from one class to another?”

Brad looked at me as if the answer were self-evident. I raised my eyebrows and waited for his answer.

“Well, you know, as a female…”

He must have noticed the wicked smile spread across my face. If I were a better actress, I would have gone for outrage, but I asked:

“As a female… what?”

He mumbled something about women’s and minorities’ rights and “leveling the playing field.” Check mate, DNC Brad. Just to make sure I understood correctly, I ran over his points. I need the Democratic Party to help me move up in life. I can’t be expected to do it all by my little lonesome. And why not? Because I’m a girl.

DNC Brad had a slightly sheepish look on his face. He had just let slip one of the most blatantly sexist things I’d ever heard in person, and before I repeated it, had apparently been secure in the fact that he occupied the moral high ground.

I explained to Brad that I simply don’t believe I need the help of men like him and the government to make it in life, nor am I up for forking over my tax dollars to cheapen my achievements with a special set of girly rules. And so our conversation ended, a polite parting of ways. I picked up my lukewarm beer and moved on.

Had the story stopped there, one might be excused for thinking that Hamm had stumbled across one of the few remaining unenlightened individuals remaining in the Democrat Party. But her examination of the contents of the 2004 Democrat Party Platform is devastating. She repeatedly shows how the Democrats view her as incapable of fending for herself because of her sex.

First, “we support affirmative action to redress discrimination.”

That must have been what DNC Brad was talking about! The DNC is going to force people to give me all kinds of goodies I may not deserve simply because I’m incapable of earning them on my own. And why can’t I do it? Because I’m a girl!

Looks like this DNC thing really is the next train out of Oppressionville. Here’s another way they’re going to help me: “We believe a day's work is worth a day's pay, and at a time when women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, we need stronger equal pay laws and stronger enforcement of them.”

Now, I can understand that because I’m just a girl, the DNC would figure I’d take this statistic from them without question, but it turns out I can Google with the best of them, men or women. This figure comes from a 2002 census survey, which compared the yearly median earnings figure of full-time working women to the median figure for men. So the census folks took two lists that include everything from burger-flippers to CEOs, stuck a pin in the middle of each list, compared them, and that’s supposed to determine equal pay for equal work? If women really do offer equal work for 23 cents less on the dollar, why does anyone bother hiring men?

The point being that there may be sexual discrimination in pay, but there are also plenty of other possible reasons for discrepancies. The DNC would force employers to ignore those other reasons and pay me a certain salary simply based on my gender.

And last, “because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose… regardless of her ability to pay.”

Clearly, I cannot be expected to protect myself from an unwanted pregnancy, and should I decide to have an abortion, I can’t be expected to take responsibility for even paying for it. Why not? You guessed it—Because I’m a girl.

No wonder all the liberal women I’ve ever known felt like someone was keeping them down. I never imagined there were so many things I can’t do because I’m a woman until I read the DNC platform. But isn’t this the party for women? I hear time and time again that I can’t be a self-respecting woman without being a Democrat.

I beg to differ. It is precisely because I’m a self-respecting woman that I don’t need Brad’s condescension cloaked in kindness. I want to earn what I get, deserve what I earn, and decide exactly what I do with my earnings instead of handing that responsibility off to a political party. I am capable of that and much more, because I’m a girl.

Bravo, Mary Katharine! And not just because you are a girl, but because you have cut to the very heart of Democrat sexism.

DFL Distributes Bush/Hitler Bumper Sticker

We Republicans have been held responsible for the speech of groups we do not control. We've also were told that there was a proven link between the Swift Vets and the GOP because someone dropped of a hand-made flier at GOP headquarters promoting an event that some of the vets would be appearing at.

Well what about this? A sticker reading "Bush/Cheney - Most hated world leaders since Hitler" was distributed by Democrat Farmer Labor Party state headquarters in Minnesota. Even when they were removed from view, one GOP visitor to the office was still able to get one from office staffers.

Minnesota Republicans are outraged.

"DFL Party Chair Mike Erlandson must immediately cease the distribution of these hateful bumper stickers," GOP Chairman Ron Eibensteiner said Wednesday.

THe DFL, on the other hand, acted as typical leftist do by blaming the victims of their smear campaign.

"These kinds of shenanigans by the Republican Party only prove the point that George Bush has no record to run on, so his party will employ games to distract our attention away from the real issues facing Minnesotans," Erlandson said.

In other words, I stand by the message of the bumper sticker, and am mighty angry that the GOP caught me and decided to go public with the party's actions.

Gotta Love Some Families

Hurrah for the McIntyre family of Locust Fork, Alabama. These are the sort of folks that the Democrat elitists can never understand.

Daughter Brandi was interested in joining the military, so Navy recruiter Wendy Chunn paid a visit to the family. That got son Jamie interested. She's going as a culinary specialist, while he is headed for training in the nuclear engineering field. That led their father, Kerry McIntyre, to decide to reenlist in the Navy Reserve. He then persuaded his wife, Angela, to join with him. In a matter of weeks, the entire family enlisted in the Navy.

Go Navy!

Just A Reminder

Remember -- violence and mayhem is a standard tactic of the left. Whether we are talking about the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the Sixties Weather Underground and Black Panthers, or the German National Socialists.

As I pointed out the other day, one pro-Kerry leftist in New York carried a sign advocating the murder of the president without a word of objection from his peers.

Now comes this little tidbit from West Virginia.

The Secret Service was contacted Friday to help investigate a shot fired at the Cabell County Republican headquarters in Huntington.

Supporters of President Bush had gathered at the 4th Avenue headquarters Thursday night to watch the president accept his party's nomination. About two minutes into the speech, someone fired a shot through the front window of the building.

Nobody was hurt, but there was plenty of anger in the aftermath.

"This is pretty low and shows how desperate the Democratic Party is," said Republican Amanda Beach.

Local Democrat officials claim to be shocked, shocked, that such violence might be seen as political.

Bobby Nelson of the Cabell County Democratic Executive Committee disagreed. "I hope it doesn't take on a political connotation, that this was done for politics," Nelson said. "I'd like to say it was some random thoughtless act."

Yeah, Bobby, through a sign in the window of GOP headquarters advocating traditional marriage and into a crowd of Republicans, right as the President started to speak. If the situation was reversed, we would have John Kerry demanding that George Bush account for every Republican volunteer in the US -- and his 527 and internet surrogates would be insisting that Karl Rove had ordered up a Special Forces sniper team to intimidate black voters.

The President will be in Huntington on September 10. If you are anywhere nearby, make a point of turning out to offer support.

Stripping Power From Rapists

Imagine this scenario, horrible as it is.

A woman, maybe someone you love, is raped. She ends up pregnant by the rapist -- rare, but possible.

Abortion is not an option for her, for whatever reason. She chooses adoption.

But there is a hitch. The father -- the rapist -- must terminate his custodial rights. And he will not do so, unless his victim agrees not to file charges or testify against him. There would be no justice for the victim, and the rapist would be free to rape again.

That can't happen in North Carolina, thanks to Representative Sam Ellis. The legislature recently passed legislation to automatically terminate the parental rights of convicted first and second degree rapists in that state. They can be regained only if the rapist petitions a court and proves that the restoration would be in the child's best interests. A mighty high burden, don't you think?

The scary thing? It took FOUR YEARS to get it through the legislature! Four years to decide that a criminal has no right to control the life and dictate the choices available to his victim!

Contact your legislators, folks. Demand legislation like this in your home state.

And tell them they had better not take four years to pass it.

Kerry/Edwards Diplomatic Failure -- And The Election Isn't Over Yet!

John Edwards proposed a Kerry Administration ( brrrrrrrrr!) plan for Iran to have nuclear power but not retain the material necessary for nuclear weapons. This was seen as a shift from the Bush Administration position of treating Iran as a sponsor of terrorism seeking nuclear weapons. It was a bold, radical plan.

And it has failed. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi has rejected the nuclear non-proliferation plan. Thus we see the first John Kerry foreign policy failure -- his first foreign policy success was the undermining of US policy in Vietnam and the destruction of US-allied South Vietnam -- and it comes before the election.

Senator Edwards told the Washington Post that the proposal would represent a "great bargain" for Iran -- and that should Iran reject it, a Kerry administration would be forced to conclude that Iran actually was, as the Bush administration now contends, actively pursuing the weaponisation of nuclear materials.

In other words, Bush is right, and Kerry/Edwards lacks what it takes to form a coherent, security-focused foreign policy.

Clinton Under The Knife -- Please Pray

Via ABCNews

NEW YORK Sept. 6, 2004 — Former President Bill Clinton was in the operating room Monday for heart bypass surgery, a hospital source told The Associated Press.

Preparations for the surgery began at about 6:45 a.m. at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia in upper Manhattan, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The operation was expected to last until noon or 12:30 p.m. EDT.

ACLU Whines Over TV Denial For Death Row

Proving conclusively that the system for capital punishment in Texas meets all relevant standards under the Constitution, Texas ACLU officials are now expending effort to demand that death row inamates be given television privileges. The request has been dismissed out of hand by Texas Board of Criminal Justice Chairwoman Christina Melton Crain.

Noting that Texas is the only state that does not allow condemned prisoners television access, ACLU prison project litigation director Yolanda Torres first raised the issue in May.

"We believe it is significant that every other death row in the country has successfully developed and implemented policies and practices that allow death row prisoners access to television, while at the same time maintaining the safety and security of their employees and institutions," Torres wrote.

Crain's response was, in my opinion, perfect.

"I appreciate the passion and energy that you bring to matters for which you advocate," Crain wrote. "But as the Board and the current Administration do not wish to entertain this issue further, dialogue between you and me on this subject is now closed."

ACLU representatives are up in arms over a government official not kowtowing to their demands to coddle murderers.

Meredith Martin Rountree, the Texas ACLU's prison project director, believes Crain's decision is based on misguided popular opinion.

"TDCJ's job is not to pander to public misunderstandings and misconceptions about criminal justice," Rountree said.

Actually, as government officials in the state of Texas, it is their job to run the prisons the way we Texans want. Until and unless there is a right to watch Oprah buried somewhere in the text of the Constitution, we don't want the killers to have televisions. And they work for us, Rountree, not the UnAmerican Criminal Liberals Union.

Heck, if we had our way these killers would get one bullet to the base of the skull immediately upon the denial of their first and only appeal.