Paris Hilton engaged

OK. I admit it. I have a thing for Paris Hilton. Now I find out she's engaged. I am disappointed. My friends don't understand my attraction to her. Frankly, I don't either, other than the fact that I think she is incredibly beautiful. I saw an interview with her over the weekend and she doesn't fit the most important criteria that I would require in a mate. She is dumber than a bag of hammers. Oh well, it isn't that I would have ever met her in my life, so no use crying over spilled milk, as it were............. On another note, several postings back, I posed the question, "why do people hate George W Bush so much?" that WASN'T a rhetorical question. I really want to know. And don't answer me by spewing that same tired old liberal crap that is more or less the Democrat party line these days. Give me hard and fast reasons, and be prepared to back them up with actual FACT! Just a thought here, but maybe I haven't received an answer to this question because no one who hates Bush really knows why.

memorial day

memorial day. When i was a liberal hippie, back in the day, as they say, i was against the war. not this one. The one in Vietnam. There were those who hated the soldiers who fought in that war, and called them baby killers and worse. Thankfully, I was not one of those. I was against the war, not against the soldiers. I have the utmost respect for the men of the armed forces and always have. So, if you are reading this today and you are free, thank a soldier. the sacrifices they have made to allow you to protest the war, or Bush, or anything else you are passionate about, are worthy of your respect, even if you don't think the government is. So, while you are celebrating this solemn day eating your fried chicken and barbeque ribs and enjoying the day, take a moment to reflect on the reason why you are free to do so. For their sake.

See what I do when i have too much time on my hands?

Your Political Profile

Overall: 85% Conservative, 15% Liberal

Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

How Liberal / Conservative Are You?

Here's an interesting piece

Your Linguistic Profile:

75% General American English

10% Dixie

10% Upper Midwestern

5% Midwestern

0% Yankee

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

Meet Brian Chontosh

i found this in my e-mail this morning. It was sent to me by someone who got it from someone else. i don't know the origin.

Maybe you'd like to hear about something other than idiot Reservists and naked Iraqis.

Maybe you'd like to hear about a real American, somebody who honored the uniform he wears.

Meet Brian Chontosh.

Churchville-Chili Central School class of 1991. Proud graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Husband and about-to-be father. First lieutenant (now Captain) in the United States Marine Corps.

And a genuine hero per the secretary of the Navy and myself.

At 29 Palms in California Brian Chontosh was presented with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery the United States can bestow. That's a big deal.

But you won't see it on the network news tonight, and all you read in Brian's hometown newspaper was two paragraphs of nothing. Instead, it was more blather about some mental defective MPs who acted like animals.

The odd fact about the American media in this war is that it's not covering the American military. The most plugged-in nation in the world is receiving virtually no true information about what its warriors are doing.

Oh, sure, there's a body count. We know how many Americans have fallen. And we see those same casket pictures day in and day out. And we're almost on a first-name basis with the pukes who abused the Iraqi prisoners. And we know all about improvised explosive devices and how we lost Fallujah and what Arab public-opinion polls say about us and how the world hates us. We get a non-stop feed of gloom and doom.

But we don't hear about the heroes.

The incredibly brave GIs who honorably do their duty. The ones our grandparents would have carried on their shoulders down Fifth Avenue. The ones we completely ignore. Like Brian Chontosh.

It was a year ago on the march into Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee. When all hell broke loose. Ambush city.

The young Marines were being cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades. And the kid out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it was up to him. So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line his humvee came under direct enemy machine gun fire.

It was fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish.

And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them.

Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M16 and a Beretta and 228 years of Marine Corps pride. And he ran down the trench. With its mortars and riflemen, machineguns and grenadiers.

And he killed them all.

He fought with the M16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo.

At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion.

When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon's flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more.

But that's probably not how he would tell it. He would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he got them out of trouble. Hoo-ah, and drive on.

"By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service."

That's what the citation says.

And that's what nobody will hear.

That's what doesn't seem to be making the evening news. Accounts of American valor are dismissed by the press as propaganda, yet accounts of American difficulties are heralded as objectivity. It makes you wonder if the role of the media is to inform, or to depress - to report or to deride. To tell the truth, or to feed us lies.

But I guess it doesn't matter. We're going to turn out all right. As long as men like Brian Chontosh wear our uniform. I say, hear hear!

Slow news day

Memorial day weekend, and it's a slow news day. I can find things in the news to talk about but nothing really jumps out at me. So I will just post some of my personal rants. First, if you go down the page and hit the link to May 2005 and scroll down to my post on Ted Kennedy, you will see proof positive that often I don't think about stories that I comment on. Apparently, base closings are a good idea. My first reaction to the base closing thing was: we are at war...Seems to me we could use all the bases that we have, but I wasn't considering the operating costs of keeping bases open. But I still think Ted Kennedy is reprehensible as a senator and a jerk as a man. Believe me, I was being kind. 2nd, I came up with an idea the other day while driving: since a lot of people drive with a cell phone glued to their ear,(and I am sometimes one myself) I propose making the license tag number the same as the vehicle owner's cell phone number. This way, we can call the driver up and tell him what we think of his driving, or maybe even get to know each other while stuck in a traffic jam. Imagine being able to just call someone and say something like, "if you insist on driving 10 mph below the speed limit, while don't you drive on the 4-lane interstate instead of this curvy hilly little 2 lane hiway where no one can pass you?" just something I think about from time to time.

Law and Order under fire

Ordinarily, I don't post 2 comments on the same day but I couldn't let this one go by. "Law and Order", the television show, has ignited controversy among the conservative republicans and pundits. I just saw the clip in question. A police officer in the drama makes this statement: "Maybe we should put out an APB for anyone wearing a Tom Delay T shirt". This, needless to say, has the republicans indignant to say the leaast. All of the conservative talk show hosts have leaped onto the bandwagon as well. I am going to disagree with them. This is a tv show. the person who says it is an actor. The line is part of a script. These are things that script writers do to make the show believable and plausible. It is certainly no stretch of the imagination to think that there may be some police officers that actually have that sentiment. Especially when we and they are constantly inundated with leftist hate speech regarding Tom Delay in the media. This whole thing should be viewed as simply what it is: entertainment. There is no use in trying to pretend that regular people, including police officers, don't have political opinions. I think we should let this go and worry about things that really matter, like the stalling of John Bolton's appointment to the United Nations by the democrats, who, if you'll remember, promised NOT to fillibuster the presidents appointees.

Rainbow Parties

Michelle Malkin has published a column reviewing a new book that is supposedly written for pre-teens and young teens. it is called "rainbow party" here is a excerpt from her column that will explain it:..........Here's a rich irony: I'm writing today about a new children's book, but I can't describe the plot in a family newspaper without warning you first that it is entirely inappropriate for children.
The book is "Rainbow Party" by juvenile fiction author Paul Ruditis. The publisher is Simon Pulse, a kiddie lit division of the esteemed Simon & Schuster. The cover of the book features the title spelled out in fun, Crayola-bright font. Beneath the title is an illustrated array of lipsticks in bold colors.

The main characters in the book are high school sophomores supposedly typical 14- and 15-year-olds with names such as "Gin" and "Sandy." The book opens with these two girls shopping for lipstick at the mall in advance of a special party. The girls banter as they hunt for lipsticks in every color of the rainbow:

"Okay, we've got red, orange, and purple," Gin said. "Now we just need yellow, green, and blue."
"Don't forget indigo," Sandy said as she scanned the row of lipstick tubes.
"What are you talking about?"
"Indigo," Sandy repeated as if that explained everything. "You know. ROY G. BIV. Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet."
"That's seven lipsticks. Only six girls are coming. We don't need it."

What kind of party do you imagine they might be organizing? Perhaps a makeover party? With moms and daughters sharing their best beauty secrets and bonding in the process?

Alas, no. No parents are invited to this get-together. A "rainbow party," you see, is a gathering of boys and girls for the purpose of engaging in group oral sex. Each girl wears a different colored lipstick and leaves a mark on each boy. At night's end, the boys proudly sport their own cosmetically-sealed rainbow you-know-where bringing a whole new meaning to the concept of "party favors." .... This attempt at sexualizing young America is something I predicted long before I created my blog. When president Bill Clinton announced to the world that oral sex doesn't count as real sex, I knew eventually that idea would filter down and become a problem for parents, having to explain to their children that the president lied, which presents a moral dilemma. On one hand you are supposed to trust your president to do the moral and right things but on the other hand you don't want your daughter engaging in group oral sex. Thanks Mr president. To save your own hide you have corrupted and endangered an entire generation. I hope you are proud of yourself.

I had an epiphany

Republican senator George Voinavich broke down in tears during his speech opposing the nomination of John Bolton yesterday. Obviously,he is very passionate in his concern for America's role in the United Nations. But did this unusual display of emotion do anything to convince anyone that John Bolton is not the right man for the job of ambassador to the United Nations? It seems to me that it would have the opposite effect. If I was a senator who was on the fence about Boltons nomination, I believe Voinovich's speech would cause me to vote in favor of Bolton. I would want a forceful, firm, unwavering ambassador who will represent his country with conviction and certainly not a whining over-sensitive senator. In fact, it scares me that someone with such minimal control over his emotions even has a position of authority in our senate. It is no surprise to me, then, that the esteemed senator from Ohio opposes Bolton. They are complete emotional opposites!

A New Look

I have decided to start capitalizing the letters on my posts that are supposed to be capitalized. After all, all I have to do is use spell check and that makes it easy. You can see it in this post and the following post. Now if I can just figure out how to indent for paragraphs and make lists.

Stem Cell Research

Again, I must confess ignorance about a subject that is currently volatile. I am talking about the latest legislation regarding stem cell research. At first I wasn't exactly sure as to where I stand on this issue. I was sure about how I feel about using cells from aborted fetuses. Since I am firmly pro life I can see how those who lobby for stem cell research could conceivably approve of aborting babies specifically for harvesting stem cells. Therefore I knew I was against that. Also, I am against cloning babies for the express purpose of harvesting stem cells for research. But, I reasoned, what would be wrong with using the cells of babies that have died of natural causes or were miscarried? That premise disturbed me somewhat, but I didn't know why. And then I wondered if there is any other way of obtaining stem cells other than using dead babies. So, for once, I did some research. I found on a web site, a medical doctor, Edmund Pellegrino, MD, is the John Carroll professor of medicine and medical ethics at The Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center. He addressed the subject and this is what I learned: ................................ Within the last year, a great deal of evidence has emerged that indicates that stem cells can be obtained from a variety of sources. You don't have to create an embryo, or destroy one, to obtain such cells. Not long before the British gave their support to embryo cloning, studies conducted in England and the United States and published in a range of leading journals including Science, Nature, and Hepatology found that stem cells can be obtained from adult humans, using sources such as bone marrow cells. These cells would still have the all-important pluripotentiality of stem cells -- the ability to develop into heart, lung, or brain cells, or any cells that you desire, with the proper manipulation........... This quote can be found at WebMD so now I am totally against using any dead babies for the purpose of harvesting stem cells, for research or otherwise. If we can get stem cells that are usable for research from adult bone marrow, then why don't we? It seems to me that proponents of using aborted babies for stem cell research must have an ulterior motive. Otherwise, there is no reason for the debate in the first place. My question would be: what would that motive be?

dems and republicans agree?

am i the only one that sees the folly of the latest move by the senate? it seems that 7 democrat and 7 republican senators met behind closed doors to reach a bi-partisan agreement on the judicial filibuster issue. from what i understand (and i may not be completely accurate on this) the democrats have agreed to allow an up or down vote on 4 out of 10 judicial nominees without holding them up with a filibuster, and also not to filibuster any more presidential appointees except in "extraordinary circumstances" .....hellooooooo? aren't the majority of senators, both dems and republicans, attorneys? and aren't attorneys the most adept at finding and exploiting loopholes in the law? this is no compromise. the democrats have won the right to filibuster any and everyone they choose and if anyone tries to bring up this agreement, all they have to say is this nominee falls under the "extraordinary circumstances" exception. i, for one, am sick of all this political infighting in the senate. how long has this been going on now? however long it's been, that's how long nothing has been done in the legislature of this country. the only way this is going to stop is if the voters of this country say, "enough is enough. vote 'em all out of office and start fresh"

kids vs bus driver

when i first saw the video of the altercation between the school bus driver and the 2 teenage brothers, i didn't know what my position would be on the issue. obviously, both sides are guilty to some degree. then i saw a portion of the interview with the children's father. i now have a position on the issue. the childrens father said, and i quote, " mark saw the look on his (the bus driver) face and felt threatened." i admit that, upon hearing that, i literally laughed out loud. and then i was outraged. the situation is clear here. these kids have been spoiled by their parents to the point that they don't feel they need to be held accountable for their behavior. exactly when did the rules change? when did respect for one's elders go out the window? when did respect for authority become abhorrent? so the 15 year old saw the look on the bus driver's face and felt threatened so that excuses him for standing and PUNCHING HIM IN THE HEAD? i am not going to say blame the parents here. i am going to say blame the kids AND the parents. the parents raised (and i use that word loosely) their kids to be disrespectful and ignore authority and then they expect us to excuse their children for criminal behavior. but the kids had a choice, too. they could have chosen to obey the bus driver and avoid this whole mess, but instead, they chose to react violently to a situation that need not have been present. i hadn't mentioned this yet but the incident appears to have been started by the younger of the two children (13) cussing the driver out, seemingly without provocation. did the parents teach them to cuss as well? i am betting they did. what i saw in the video was the bus driver assisting another child with his seat belt and then the younger boy began the verbal abuse. now, their parents, many other parents, and of course the media are all upset that the driver got a minimal punishment and the boys are charged with assault. well i say, for once, the charges are justified. the only thing i would do different is handcuff the kids father and allow the bus driver to punch him in the face. and when he's finished, give me a shot at him. after all, he is the perfect example of a lot of what is wrong in america today.

star wars

i took my son to the new star wars movie last night. it was entertaining. yes, there were some lines that you could intrepret to be anti-bush, but i don't think it was intentional. i think george lucas, whatever his political philosophy, wisely left politics out of this film. it was just entertainment, which is all that it was intended to be. i enjoyed the movie, the special effects were great, the dialoque corny in many places, but all in all, i liked it. is it worthy of an academy award? not by the standards set by the lord of the rings: return of the king, but i won't say the special effects shouldn't win a nod. best thing about it in my opinion is: it doesn't require a lot of thinking. it is a wonderful fantasy escape. it certainly kept me from finishing the dishes.

registered sex offender lists

recently, on several different radio talk shows, there has been some discussion about the registered sex offender web sites. even here in the hagerstown area, i have heard and read some comments about the discovery that some registered sex offender has been found living in someone's neighborhood, much to the surprise of the people who logged on and checked. in virtually every case the person expressed indignation that the offender is present in his or her neighborhood where there are children living. almost all have suggested that the offenders should be made to move somewhere where there are no children around. while, i agree, we should be made aware of the offenders presence in our areas, i cannot bring myself to demand that they be moved out of the area. i have a question for those who would have the offender move. where do you suggest they go? where can anyone move to where there are no children at all? i understand there are adult only communities and apartment complexes around, but most of those are high rent, and after checking the web site in my area i find most of the offenders are living in low rent areas and i sincerely doubt that is by choice. anyway, even if they were all moved to adult only communities, they still have the ability to drive or even walk to communities where children are present. no, i don't think that moving them away is any solution. the only recourse that i can think of is keeping watch over your children and the offender, making sure your children understand that they must stay clear of the offender. as i have stated before, there is no cure for pedophilia so all we can do is be ever vigilant. after all, moving them away from my children only helps keep my children safe, it doesn't keep yours safe. this is a problem that all people need to work on together.

make a comment please

call me an egomaniac. twice now, i have attempted to add a counter to this page to display the number of hits i get. neither time have i been successful. apparently, it is even harder to learn how to add a counter than it was to learn how to post a picture on here. maybe i'm an egomaniac but i would like to know if my blog is being read. i need to know if anyone cares about my opinion. call it egomania if you want. since i can't seem to find a way to put a counter on here than the only way i have of knowing if anyone is reading this is for them to make a comment on what i write. if you are reading this please post a comment in response. you can agree with me or you can disagree. you don't have to comment specifically on any one post that you read. you can just write, "hey, i read your blog" and that's all. it doesn't matter. call me egomaniac. say i'm stupid, or ignorant, or brilliant, or insightful, or dangerous. but say something. anything. i just need to know if i am being read.

why hate?

by the way, does anyone know why the democrats hate the president? i have asked several libs why they hate him so much and i have yet to recieve an answer.

who is representing you?

today's comment will start with a history lesson. in 1776, the declaration of independence was signed by 56 members of what is known as the continental congress. these men were duly elected as representatives of the original 13 colonies and they were effectively the voice of the colonists. each man had the confidence of his respective colonies and they acquitted themselves well. the colonies, at that time, were under the rule of king george III of england and were being forced to pay taxes to the crown without the benefit of representation in the english parliament. for this reason, the colonists revolted. taxation without representation was one of the major reasons why we fought the british to gain independence. now, i told you that story to tell you this one: today, we have the house of representatives and the senate. these are representatives that are duly elected by the people of their respective states to represent us in congress. they were originally intended to be our voice in government. ideally, because we are represented, we can be taxed. the problem with this nowadays is, we are not being represented. they are republicans and democrats and they have long ago abandoned the people who sent them to washington. both republicans and democrats are in direct opposition to each other on just about every issue. no longer do the houses of congress represent the people but rather they seem to be only concerned with stopping the opposition party from winning an argument. taxes pay these people's salaries. it is time that we, as a nation, put an end to this insanity. we are now experiencing the very thing that our forefathers fought to stop. we are being taxed without proper representation in congress. i say if they refuse to represent us, we should refuse to pay their salary. maybe if we stop paying taxes they will get back to the business of representing us.

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS

the senate confirmation hearings have begun for george w. bush's judicial appointees today.... God save us.

what's up with the L A times?

after newsweek printed a bogus story about the qu'ran being desecrated in guantanamo bay, anti american riots all over the muslim world caused the deaths of 17 people and injured hundreds more. now the LA times has also printed an unsubstantiated story about the same thing. what are they thinking? it's not enough that their story is based on heresay evidence and probably isn't even true, but apparently the times doesn't care if more people die as a result of their irresponsible journalism. all this story will do is incite even more riots and anti american sentiment among the muslims around the world. did they not see what resulted from newsweeks article? do they care? there has to be a reason for this. maybe they are hoping they will anger some muslim american enough for him to attempt an assasination of the president. i wouldn't put it past them.... .the media hates the president so much that they have already lied to hurt his image. is there anything they won't do in this insidious hate campaign? i am beginning to think there isn't.

insurgent attacks

i don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but more iraqi citizens are dying in iraq than american soldiers these days, although it seems the insurgent attacks are growing more frequent. i guess that blows the theory that the attacks are motivated by the american prescence in iraq, or as one blogger postulated, by the so called abuses of abu ghraib. simple fact is: the insurgent attacks are motivated by the desire to kill and maim and nothing more. the reason they are doing it in iraq is because it makes the american media place the blame on our president rather on the insurgents themselves where it rightfully belongs. i am thinking that if the media would stop using the attacks as a platform from which it can spew it's hatred of bush, the attacks would lessen, if not stop all together. i will say it again. george w bush is not the one to blame for the acts of radicals in other countries.

biased media

once again, the media has overstepped it's bounds in it's erstwhile efforts to undermine the confidence we, as americans, should have in our country and our leaders. this time it is newsweek magazine. how low the media will sink to instill it's hatred of the president into the hearts of the naive majority here in america! here is the gist of the story: WASHINGTON, (May 16) - Muslims in Afghanistan gave Washington three days to offer a response to a Newsweek story that claimed the Islamic holy book was desecrated at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, but the magazine apologized Sunday for the report, which prompted deadly riots across Afghanistan last week.
Reaction across the Islamic world has been strong, with daily demonstrations since the May 9 story came out. At least 15 people died in Afghanistan after protests broke out Tuesday following the report that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, placed Qurans in washrooms to unsettle suspects, and in one case ''flushed a holy book down the toilet.'' this is (and i say this in the kindest way i know how) a blatant lie. the only reason i can think of for newsweek coming out with this story was to unflame and incite hatred against america and in particular, george w bush. newsweek has apologised but that does little to assuade the suffering experienced by the numbers of family members left without loved ones as a result of newsweeks vicious lie. my opinion is this: if the media hates america so badly, why don't they all just pack up and move to afghanistan or iran or north korea. i am sure they would be welcomed with open arms in those countries.

priest takes a stand

this was reported on aol news today: ST. PAUL, Minn. (May 16) - A Roman Catholic priest denied communion to more than 100 people Sunday, saying they could not receive the sacrament because they wore rainbow-colored sashes to church to show support for gay Catholics.
Before offering communion, the Rev. Michael Sklucazek told the congregation at the Cathedral of St. Paul that anyone wearing a sash could come forward for a blessing but would not receive wine and bread. i think this is a particuarly bold and courageous stand for decency taken by rev. sklucazek. homosexual behavior is repeatedly condemned by the bible, the book on which all christian religions are based. unfortunately, many religions have convieniently ignored this sample of the doctrine in deference to the increasingly powerful voice of the gay community. while i'm not going to get into judeo christian dogma at this time, i will interject that, while you can choose to be selective on what the word of god means to you, as far as god is concerned, it hasn't changed. since he is the one who made the rules in the first place, he is obviously the only one who can change the rules. another observation: sodom and gommorah were destroyed by god primarily because of the rampant homosexuality that was going on there. i must admit i don't believe that ALL of the inhabitants of those two cities were homosexual, although they could have been. i believe those two cities were destroyed not only because of the homosexuals residing there, but also because of the tolerance that the hetero-sexuals that lived there had for the lifestyles of those around them. it's time we, like rev. sklucazek, took a stand for what is moral and right and stop being so afraid of offending.

ted kennedy

just heard a sound byte on the radio of ted kennedy opposing the closing of a military base. wait a minute. isn't supporting the military kind of un-democrat? i thought the dems were decidedly non militaristic. well, i won't complain. at least this time he is on the right side. by the way, has anyone noticed that most people refer to the democrat party as the democratic party? as far as i'm concerned there is a definite difference between the democrat party and a democratic party, and lately i believe the democrats should be calling their party the communist party, as their politics are certainly more communistic than democratic. i am democratic but i'm certainly not a democrat. oh, and one more aside. isn't super swimmer teddy the same ted kennedy that opposed the installation of wind turbines near his home because it obstructed his view of the scenery? not very democrat there either.

another babe for the list

just thought of another babe i'd like to date.....kim komando

warning comes too late

i just heard on the radio that a flight from france to logan international airport in boston was being diverted to banghor, maine because one of the passengers' name showed up on a "no fly" list. the report went on to say that the names on the passenger manifest were cross referenced against the no fly list but the match wasn't discovered until an hour after the flight had taken off. it further stated that this is common. all passenger lists are cross checked after the plane has taken off. the "no fly" list was instituted after 9/11 as a precaution against further terrorist attacks. somehow there seems to be something wrong with this picture. if the goal is to keep potential terrorists off the plane, how does it serve the intended purpose to check the lists only after the plane is airborne? if a terrorist was going to strike he would already be on board, and there is no way to prevent him from at least attempting a hijacking at that time. well, i am sure this news has to be a comfort to the passengers aboard the plane to know that the airline is aware of this man's prescence on their flight. my god, is there no end to the incompetence of the airlines and the governnment?

Scare Prompts Evacuation of White House, Capitol

Offices Reopen After Authorities Say Plane Posed No Danger


WASHINGTON (May 11) - The U.S. Capitol and White House were briefly evacuated Wednesday after a small plane entered restricted airspace over the city. Security officials in several other government buildings, including the Treasury Department and the U.S. Supreme Court, ordered people to safer locations.
President Bush was away from the White House, biking at a Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Beltsville, Md. Congressional leaders were moved from the Capitol.A small Cessna aircraft breached the security zone over Washington, several law enforcement officials said, prompting alerts across the city. The plane was approached by a fighter aircraft and veered away, according to a Federal Aviation Administration official speaking on condition of anonymity.
But in the meantime, armed security officers raced through the Capitol shouting for people to leave. ''This is not a drill,'' guards shouted as they moved people away from the building.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., was on the Senate floor when police told him they needed to evacuate. ''They said get out of here, so I ran. There's no joking about this kind of stuff,'' Shelby said.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert was on the House floor talking to members when the evacuation siren went off. He left quickly with his security detail.
Two large black armored SUVs often used by House and Senate leaders sped away from the Capitol as a military jet flew overhead.
''People were surprised. I was surprised,'' said Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, who was on the House floor when the evacuation began. ''There was so much commotion in the gallery. People were yelling in the gallery. We thought something had happened in the gallery, and then the alarm came to evacuate.''
Sarah Little, an aide to Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. said the order to evacuate came over the special pager devices that every congressional office has. ''They said ... there is an imminent aircraft threat,'' she said.
The incident sparked a flurry of emergency activity throughout the capital, which was targeted on Sept. 11, 2001 and has been under a heightened state of alert since then.
Washington's Reagan National Airport has been closed to general aviation since the Sept. 11 attacks. In the 3 1/2 years since then, hundreds of small planes have flown within the restricted airspace around the capital - a 15 3/4-mile radius around the Washington Monument.
However, it's rare for fighter jets to be scrambled.
In the most dramatic incident since the Sept. 11 attacks, thousands of people fled the Capitol, packed with members of Congress and other dignitaries, when a plane flew into the restricted air space just before the funeral procession for President Ronald Reagan last June.
A communications breakdown led federal officials to believe the plane might be targeting the Capitol, but it turned out to be carrying Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who had been cleared to fly into the area.
05-11-05 12:47ED...........all i can add to this is: it's a good thing the pilot wasn't a middle eastern muslim.....we would have had to apologise and buy him dinner.

more on abu ghraib

i came across this story on aol this morning. i was going to try to explain it but i don't have enough time and frankly, i can't keep the whole thing straight in my mind. it's just too soap opera for me. but anyway, i copied some of the article for your viewing pleasure...........: (May 10) - In a military courtroom in Texas last week was a spectacle worthy of "As the World Turns": Pfc. Lynndie R. England, the defendant, holding her 7-month-old baby; the imprisoned father, Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr., giving testimony that ruined what lawyers said was her best shot at leniency; and waiting outside, another defendant from the notorious abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Megan M. Ambuhl, who had recently wed Private Graner - a marriage Private England learned about only days before.
To some, the grave misdeeds at Abu Ghraib, where the three soldiers worked for six months in 2003, have become a twisted symbol of the American military occupation of Iraq. But the scandal is also one rooted in the behavior of military reservists working at the prison, an environment that testimony has portrayed as more frat house than military prison, a place where inmates were routinely left naked and soldiers took pictures of one another simulating sex with fruit.
The reservists' treatment of Iraqi prisoners and their entanglements with one another - pieced together from documents, court testimony, e-mail and interviews - have produced a dark soap opera, one whose episodes have continued to play out in the months since the scandal erupted, and culminated in the Texas courtroom last week. college.
Private Graner, 36, a Pennsylvania prison guard and a former marine, had rejoined the military in a burst of patriotism after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
He was fresh from an ugly divorce in 2000. His ex-wife, Staci Morris, had taken out three protective orders against him, and after he was arrested for harassing her in 2001, Private Graner admitted that he had dragged her around by her hair.
He introduced the two women, and Ms. Morris said she felt "selfish relief" that with someone new, her ex-husband would stop being obsessed with her. And she liked Private England, finding her quiet and adoring.
"If he was as charming with her as he is with most women at the beginning, I can understand it," Ms. Morris said. "Charming, compliments, you name it. The things you would love to hear as a young woman."
Just after the 372nd received orders to go to Iraq in February 2003, Private Graner, Private England and another soldier had a last party weekend in Virginia Beach. They drank heavily, and when their friend passed out, Private Graner and Private England took turns taking photographs of each other exposing themselves over his head.
In Iraq, Private England was disciplined several times for sleeping with Private Graner, against military rules. She flouted warnings to stay on the wing where she worked as a clerk, and spent most of her nights in the cellblock where he worked the night shift.
One night in October, he told her to pose for photographs holding a leash tied around the neck of a naked and crawling detainee. He e-mailed one home: "Look what I made Lynndie do." The now infamous pictures of detainees masturbating, he said, were a birthday gift for her.
Specialist Ambuhl, who has been discharged from the Army, was Private Graner's partner on the nightshift. If he and Private England were loud and bawdy - they made a video of themselves having sex - Ms. Ambuhl was soft-spoken and serious. Private England had joined the army to see the world; Ms. Ambuhl had already been on college study trips to Kenya and the Galapagos Islands. She had worked as a technician in a medical laboratory in Virginia, where she grew up, and like Private Graner, signed up to defend the nation after Sept. 11.
She had been involved with another soldier in the unit. But by late December, she had ended that relationship and started one with Private Graner. In e-mail messages, the two dreamily recalled their nights stolen away in the crowded prison cells where the military police lived.
"I was missing u too," she wrote just after Christmas 2003. "When I heard your voice coming up the stairs, it made me happy and kinda nervous too (good nervous)." She reassured him that she would not get back together with her ex-boyfriend.
But Private Graner had not completely cut off relations with Private England. On Jan. 2, 2004, he was caught sleeping in Private England's quarters and demoted.
A few days later, Ms. Ambuhl e-mailed him again. "I really do care about you," she wrote. "It's just that part of me says I just got hurt from a relationship so don't put myself in the position to get hurt again."
She fantasized about when they might be truly alone. "Is it going to feel strange for just the two of us to be in a room together, with no chance of anyone walking in??" she wrote a few days later. "Just kidding, I can't wait." They talked about taking a leave together in February.
But on Jan. 13, a soldier slipped investigators a disk with the graphic photographs of detainees. The investigation began the next day.
Private Graner, quickly identified as the ringleader in the abuse, e-mailed his father in early March to discuss the accusations against him, then popped "more good news:" Private England was two months pregnant - he spelled her name Lynndee - and the pregnancy would most likely get them sent home from Iraq.
They found out she was pregnant two days after breaking up.
"I stopped seeing her back in january but when all this garbage came out i started seeing her again," he wrote. "chances are very good that it is my child....o well....daddy what did you bring home from the war????"
Ms. Ambuhl sent Private Graner e-mail in mid-March, after stumbling over old photos of them. "it seems like a dream that we were ever together, if you could call it that."
"doin ok lately?" she asked. "U seem kinda distant." She let off a flash of exasperation with Private England. "We never tried to exclude u and England," she wrote. "You never wanted to go to chow or anything with us. And she does exactly what you do so you can't help that."
Private England - but not Private Graner - was sent back to the United States because of the pregnancy. The Army moved Private Graner and Ms. Ambuhl, along with four other soldiers under investigation, to a tent apart from the rest of their unit. And they resumed their relationship.
In April, Ms. Ambuhl e-mailed Private Graner an article headlined, "Study Finds Frequent Sex Raises Cancer Risk." She added, "We could have died last night."
Privates England and Graner were no longer speaking when their son was born in October. She named him Carter Allan England.
Ms. Ambuhl, who had by then pleaded guilty and been discharged, was subpoenaed to testify at Private Graner's trial at Fort Hood, Tex., in January.
On the stand, prosecutors forced her to acknowledge the relationship, and accused her of lying to protect Private Graner.
"You don't want your friend to go to jail, do you?" the lead prosecutor, Maj. Michael Holley, asked.
"No, sir," she said quietly.
The two spent evenings together during the trial, and it was there that Private Graner proposed. He was convicted, sentenced to 10 years in a military prison and demoted from specialist to private. He had earlier been demoted from corporal.
Ms. Ambuhl had gone back to work at the laboratory and was living with her parents. They accompanied her to Fort Hood for the wedding in April. Another man stood in for Private Graner, because he had begun serving his sentence and Ms. Ambuhl, as an admitted co-conspirator, is not allowed to see him.
Private England heard about the wedding from her lawyers, who heard about it from a reporter the Friday before her trial was to begin. She had worked out a plea agreement that limited her time in prison to 30 months, and the jury could have given her less time. She planned to have her son live with her mother while she was in prison.
Ms. Morris, Private Graner's ex-wife, had been subpoenaed to tell the jury that Private Graner was a bad influence, and over pizza in a hotel room, she befriended Private England. She told Private England that she regretted not warning her away from him at the beginning.
"She said, 'I guess I should be grateful for Megan?' " Ms. Morris recalled, "And I said, 'Yeah, honey, you should be.' "
The day before his testimony, Private Graner sent a note to reporters saying he regretted that "Lynn" had pleaded guilty and hoped her plea would get her a light sentence. Private England did not return any such affection. She leaned down to a courtroom artist sketching Mr. Graner: "Don't forget the horns and goatee."
Prosecutors advised defense lawyers against putting Private Graner on the stand, but they did it anyway. He testified that he had ordered Private England to remove a prisoner from a cell by a leash and that it had been a legitimate military exercise. This presented what seemed to be a contradiction - a defendant pleading guilty but presenting a witness who testified that she was innocent. The military judge threw out her plea agreement and ordered that the court-martial process start over.
"It's nothing you did," the judge, Col. James L. Pohl, told her, "It's what he did."
Private England turned to Ms. Morris. "Well, he screws everything up, doesn't he?" Ms. Morris recalled Private England saying.
"I have to agree with you," Ms. Morris replied.......... my take on this is as follows:
apparently, the people who decided women should not be allowed in the armed services, particuarly in combat situations, had foreseen the inherent problems of having male and female soldiers within access to one another. men are still men and women are still women and they will do what men and women do. how much of this scandal would have been avoided if all of the prison personnell had been men, as originally intended before womens rights advocates got involved? women have no place in combat and i think this story is probably one of many examples that prove i am right. we will no doubt hear more and more of these kind of stories as we contimue to allow women to be placed into situations where they have no business.

gasoline prices

i am not a conspiraty theorist, but something is definitly up with gas prices. they blame it on the price of barrels of crude oil, but i think that theory is suspect for a couple of reasons. number one: the price of gasoline varies according to the location of the gas station. i can travel to 4-5 different towns within the space of an hour and the price will vary as much as 10 cents a gallon from one town to the next. if the problem is the price of barrels of crude, all gas stations would sell it for approximately the same price give or take a couple of cents. reason number two: prices of other oil products and by products have not gone up proportionately. motor oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid, even by products like plastic haven't increased the same rate as gasoline prices. if the reason for raising gas prices was the price of the source shouldn't all oil related products go up at the same rate? no, something else is the reason. i can only surmise, but i bet it has something to do with greed. who's greed, i can't say. i won't blame it on the president. there are enough liberals out there to do that and i don't really think he is that evil. or greedy. if it was opec that is making the prices go up, then all oil related products would go up too, after all, why waste your chance to make even bigger profits? i don't know. any one have any theories? let's hear them.

happy mothers day

what can i say about my mother? she lives 1200 miles away from me and i never get to see her anymore. i miss her. my mother is stronger than most women, i believe. she is rather unemotional in comparison to most of the women i have met. i remember when i was a kid, i used to go to her to ask for things i wanted because i was sure that she be more of a pushover than dad. it wasn't till i was an adult and a father in my own right that i realized that my father was the soft touch. my mother was hard as nails, but somehow managed to fool me into thinking she was easier to con than dad. hooray for her! she is a genius. she saved my dad from making many wrong decisions out of compassion for his children god only knows how often. i remember many times stopping her as she walked through the house and giving her a warm hug because i loved her so much. once she caught me hitting a girl, and i don't remember what she said but i know i never ever hit a woman again and never will. she taught me integrity and to be honest and helped me find christ simply by being christlike. she told me one time that women as a rule wouldn't make good bosses because they were too emotional and yet she would have made an excellent boss in her office and was disappointed more often than she would admit to when she was passed over for promotion. i regret that i didn't do a very good job of saving those special memories that most people have regarding their mother. my dad died on a monday morning in my mother's arms, but 2 days later she entered through her churches doors as she always did whenever the church was open the sae way she always did, with a warm smile, greeting everyone with a true christian love. dad was the only man my mother had ever dated, and they were married for 52 years and she loved him with a love i know i have never experienced. the evening of his memorial service, left alone in her now empty bedroom, mom lifted her eyes toward heaven because she knows that is where he is, and said, "well, dad, are we having fun yet?" i don't know what that means to you but i know what it means to me. HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY, MOM.

figured out how to put my picture on here.

now, if i could just figure out how to put this picture in my profile instead of as a post......

me
Posted by Hello

homosexuals

ok. this will get me in trouble. once i was having a nice pleasant discussion with a group of people and it got ugly very quickly because i happened to voice my opinion about what apparently is a sore subject. what did i say? i simply mentioned that i didn't believe anyone was BORN gay. and i still don't. all of a sudden i was intolerant, ignorant, hateful, neanderthal, bigoted, stupid,.....i forget what else i was called. even the woman who broached the subject by mentioning that she was a lesbian admitted she WASN'T born that way. but she insisted on regurgitating the same old pro-gay line that homosexuals are born as homosexuals. i know that these days my opinion is an unpopular one but i stick with it. NO ONE IS BORN GAY! now, i didn't say i don't like gays, and i didn't say they were wrong. i simply said that in my opinion, i didn't believe people are born that way. i believe people choose to be that way. some people say, " why would i choose a lifestyle that subjects me to ridicule and persecution?" and i have to admit, that premise did stump me for a while, but then i realized that i know someone else who chooses to suffer. my ex wife. she is not gay, but she chooses to suffer. she has what i refer to as munchhausens syndrome. that is a condition where someone makes them selves suffer or appear to suffer to get attention. my wife used to tell everyone about how bad off she was, from a failing marriage to money problems to a intolerable boss, and on and on and on. if it wasn't one thing it was another. fact is, things were never as bad as she made it appear. one time, the condition got so bad, that she actually believed she was pregnant, and the psychosis was so strong that she even got fat. she literally began to LOOK pregnant! it all came to a head when she felt labor pains and insisted i take her to a hospital. her "pregnancy" lasted all of 2 months, if that long. when the doctors and nurses at the hospital finally convinced her she wasn't pregnant, they were able to talk her into seeing a psychiatrist. i said all that to say this. some people DO choose to suffer. i don't understand why, but it does happen. at any rate, that is my explanation for why one would choose to become a homosexual. there maybe, and probably are, a myriad of other reasons, but one reason that doesn't hold water is the theroy that they are born that way. all evidence that homosexuality is genetic is suspect. one so-called doctor claomed he had discovered a gene. another claimed he had discovered a gland that was different in homosexual men and not present in heterosexuals. in both of these cases, and indeed, in all of those cases, it has been since revealed that those doctors were gay themselves and that the evidence they claimed to have to support their theories was manipulated. in other words, there has never been any credible evidence that gays are born that way. there is, however, plenty of evidence that childhood traumas are a major factor in determining if someone eventially exhibits homosexual tendencies, such as rape by an adult when they were children, an absent father, or a dominant mother, to name a few. now, i know that i have opened up the proverbial can of worms on this subject, so let me say, for the record, i do not hate, nor am i afraid of homosexuals. i have known many people in my lifetime, both male and female, who were homosexuals and, as a rule, i have liked them and considered them friends. in fact, offhand, i can't think of any of them i didn't like, but i still will go on record as saying they are not born that way, they chose their lifestyle, either consciously or unconsciously. now let the firestorm begin. i think i'm ready for it.

cinco de mayo

oops. i completely forgot to say anything about yesterday's 2 events....events? whateva....cinco de mayo celebrates the historical significance of the mexican army killing some 20,000 french soldiers...or is it 5,000? i don't know, but it happened in 1862, while we were 2 years embroiled in the american civil war. at any rate, it makes me wonder....does the french army EVER win without help? also yesterday was the national day of prayer. i certainly hope you said your prayers for the country yesterday and hope you say them everyday, because i don't, and someone needs to take up the slack. my one twisted thought to tie the two events together? celebrating mass slaughter on the same day we ask the lord's blessing? how ironic. i wonder if shirley dobson considered the date when she was making the plans for the national day of prayer this year.

i am not a dittohead

after i typed a comment on another blog that is hosted by a self described "republican moderate"(see: a liberal who is too wishy washy to admit he should be a democrat), he made the comment that i was parroting rush limbaugh. that brings to my mind a couple of different observations. first, the comment i made was my own. i had not heard what rush's take on that issue was previously, and in fact, i still haven't heard him mention his thoughts on the matter, other than report what the press is saying about it. so i wasn't repeating anything rush said. i am afraid you have only me to blame for the opinions i express. the other observation i must make is: no matter what you think of rush limbaugh, it has becoome painfully obvious that he has become the standard for what makes one a conservative or liberal. seems if you agree with him, then you are a right wing conservative, and if you disagree, you are a liberal. this borders on diefication of rush, and i, for one, am not ready to surrender my soul to him. until, of course, he recognizes that i am always right.

i am 74% republican

I am: 74% Republican.

"To you, Fox News really is 'Fair and Balanced'."

Are You A Republican?

the problem i have with rush

i am a conservative. i have stated that for the record in previous posts. but i have an issue with conservative radio talk show hosts and their opinions of liberals. rush, and hannity, and laura graham, and others seem to think that liberals are malevolently trying to bring about revolution in this country because they are simply evil people. i don't share this opinion. having once identified myself with liberalism, i believe they really do have the best interest of the country and it's people at heart. they do care about the united states and the environment and animals and human (civil) rights. they really do want to make improvements to our system of government and to our lives. they really do care. i believe they are, on the whole, basically good decent people but they are misguided. the problem is not what they believe are the issues affecting the quality of life in the world, but rather in the solutions to the issues. more taxation and additional redundant legislation is not always the best solution to the issues facing us but it seems to me most liberals have no other answers. in short, in my opinion, the major difference between liberals and conservatives is the liberals tend to want the goverment to solve all our problems and the conservatives want us to stand on our own two feet and solve the problems ourselves and face the rewards or consequences of our own decision. this makes more sense to me than depending on the government to do the work for me. i guess that is the reason i am not a liberal.

precious doe identified

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (May 5) - Four years after a little girl's headless body was found, police identified an Oklahoma woman as her mother and charged her Thursday with murdering the child who became known as Precious Doe.Police said it was the girl's stepfather who actually killed her with a kick to the head and then used hedge clippers to sever her head. He was being questioned in Muskogee, Okla.
His wife, Michelle Johnson, was charged with second-degree felony murder and endangerment of a child's welfare. Prosecutor Mike Sanders said more charges were ''very likely in this case, very soon.''
Police said it was a tip that let them identify Erica Michelle Maria Green, who was almost 4.
''The little girl that we've known for four years as Precious Doe finally has a name,'' Police Chief James Corwin said...................................i am from kansas city. i was living there when this child's body (and head) was found. what i said from the outset was this little girl was murdered by her own mother, or parents. otherwise, someone would report her as missing. she has to have a mother, father, brothers and sisters, uncles, aunts, grandparents etc....how can a child go missing without any relatives asking questions about why they no longer see her around? i am glad to see this finally has a resolution in sight. but i don't understand something. maybe someone can explain it to me. if erica was killed by her stepfather, why is there no mention of his arrest? why has her mother been arrested for murder and not him? well, i suppose it' s too early to say with any certainty that he won't be arrested but i find it strange that he has been identified as the one that actually committed the act but the mother was arrested. makes me sit up and say, "what the......?"

guest post

my son, john, is a skateboarder, and a pretty good one too. i am very proud of him. when he was 15 (he's 16 now) he wrote this article and posted it on a skateboarder site. i think it's pretty insightful for a 15 year old kid. here it is: "I hate Bam Margera, usually I am okay with money-hungry jerks and the other 5% of the entertainment industry (after all, it's only their job), but Bam Margera does kinda bother me... Like some parents said, he promotes a negative image of skateboarding to kids and to the adults who chase skateboarders out of the spots. He is saying it's okay to cause trouble and to be a moron. Have you seen the latest video games? The commercials promote stealing and vandalism and all sorts of immature, elementary habits. Why would anyone be grateful to a person who tarnishes their sport like that? He is a horrible role model and only a half-decent skateboarder. Tony Hawk was ok. He was a revolutionary vert skateboarder and a great role model for kids. He promoted a good image and made the skateboarding industry way more money then Bam Margera ever will...but now he's seen slashing tires in the Tony Hawk's Underground video game commercial. Skateboarders in the limelight have sunk to an all time low, trying to attract kids by luring them in with disrespect. The skateboarding industry is becoming what all of those store shop keepers and men in suits always thought it was...some cheap hobby for kids who think they're punks" not bad, huh?

B T K

i must confess that i am ignorant about the rule of law and jurisprudence to an extent. take the matter of dennis rader, also known as btk, the serial killer in wichita, kansas. he stood mute on his plea on tuesday, so the judge was obliged to enter a plea for him. inasmuch as mr. rader has already confessed to these murders, my question is why did the judge enter a not guilty plea for him? shouldn't he have entered a guilty plea and simply continued on with the sentencing, thus saving the taxpayers the expense of a trial with a foregone conclusion? that is a rhetorical question needless to say since no one reads my ranting anyway. however, should anyone actually read this comment and has an answer to the question, feel free to enlighten me. i have more than a passing interest in this case as i was raised in wichita, kansas and was living there when mr rader was terrorizing the city. as a matter of fact, his first victims were personal friends of friends of mine, although i did not know any of his victims personally. my mother still lives in wichita, and i have 2 siblings who live in the suburbs there.

runaway bride

since i didn't get a chance to make a comment yesterday, i am making 2 today. originally, i wasn't going to comment on the runaway bride but i heard three things related to the story yesterday that i believe will make sense out of what she did. first, i understand that her family more or less owns most of the town of duluth, georgia. which means they are wealthy.which means she is probably used to getting away with whatever she wants. i realize that sounds like a generalization but, given her age and the tremendous chutzpah that she had to have to attempt such a thing gives me the idea that she basically is a spoiled little daddy's girl, used to getting her own way and used to not having to take responsibilty for her actions. second, it has been reported that she has done this kind of thing before. third, she bought the bus ticket a week before she disappeared which would seem to indicate she had made plans and it wasn't just a spontaneous joyride to clear her mind. with that in mind, and given that the entire town was concerned and half expecting her abused, lifeless body to be found in a shallow grave somewhere indicates a selfishness on her part unparraelled. if she isn't made to pay some consequences, any consequences, justice will not have been served. that's all i have to say about that.

the real abuse of abu ghraib

yesterday army reservest pfc lindie england of west virginia became the latest sacrificial lamb in the ongoing united states effort to prove to the world that we are the most civilized and humane nation on earth. how sad that she will be going to prison solely because she was coerced into posing in some ill advised photos. she is, of course, a scapegoat. merely a concillatory gesture to convince the rest of the world that "we care". unfortunately, our efforts to demonstrate our humanity to mankind is not percieved as such by the peoples of the world, but rather a weakness. as a result, terrorists will no doubt become emboldened and will probably step up their attacks on innocent american civilians abroad. even as the announcement was released that pfc england was going to plead guilty, terrorists released a videotape of yet another innocent civilian pleading for his life. he will most likely be beheaded as so many have before and yet, the american media will celebrate the incarceration of a minor player in the mere humiliation of some iraqui prisoners of war at abu ghraib and still no outrage about the inhumane treatment of our people will be heard from them. what is wrong with this picture? in my humble opinion, the atrocities committed by the nation of islam will continue until america decides that we have been treated with contempt and disrespect long enough and then act on that decision by kicking some serous tail in the middle east. let's start by treating our most infamous prisoner of war, saddam, the way he would treat us. i don't think i'll have to describe that. let's stop being the wussies of the world now, before we go past the point of no return and regain the respect we garnered at the end of world war II.

babes i want to date

• i am single for the 3rd time and i have been thinking lately about the kind of woman that i would most like to date. i will say this: i find intelligence very sexy, so, my choices are not neccessarily what most people would call beautiful, although in my eyes they are. intelligence is my first criteria. the positions are interchangeable so here goes: condoleeza rice. she is sooooo intelligent and a conservative and classy. ann coulter. conservative author...very intelligent and beautiful as well. geena davis... member of mensa and a beautiful actress, although she is not conservative, but what the heck. as long as she keeps her political opinions to herself, i think her and i could have a nice time. being a liberal is the only reason she isn't first on my list. laura ingraham...another one that doesn't make number one on the list but nevertheless, if the future of her boobs weren't uncertain, and, if she wasn't about to get married in the near future......well, enuff said. i can't think of any others offhand. when i think of some more i will add them. keep in mind that these are only fantasy dates. i will never even meet any of these ladues much less date them, and that is why i left my jeannie off the list...she is no fantasy...she is real and i love her.