Thank You, Mr. Hayworth!

Congressman J.D. Hayworth, one of the few true conservatives left in Arizona, told President Vicente Fox what President Bush should have said long ago:

“I’m going to step away from diplomatic rules and offer President Fox some straight talk: President Fox should shut up,” Hayworth told HUMAN EVENTS. “He should shut up about all of this because he is only fanning the flames of poor relations between our two nations. He needs to cease and desist.” - Human Events Online December 15, 2005

I'm going to take it one step further. I am not going to give Vicente Fox any advice because it would require that I show him his I.Q. with the use of the biggest finger on my hand. Trust me, that finger is not my index, ring, thumb, or pinkie either!

I am going to say that Vicente Fox is not fanning the flames to poor relations because he is the flame to our poor relations. He insists that by exporting his uneducated, sick, criminal, and otherwise meddlesome paisanos to this nation he is doing us a favor.

Plus, this person for whom a lot of colorful adjectives would seem fitting has the nerve to criticize how we run our nation in any way shape or form? Mr. Fox, I do not see Americans risking their life to go to your nation. Why is that? Maybe it is because there is no need to flee our nation to look for a better life. Perhaps, you should figure that out and try to provide the same for your nation. Last time I checked, you were supposed to be a President.

Until then, Mr. Fox, start cleaining up your cardboard box you call a country and quit breaking into the castle next door! You were supposed to have been someone upon whom Mexicans could rely to make their life better. Instead, you encourage them to risk their life to do here what they should be doing there: earning a living.

You are a disgraceful and a despicable human being, Mr. Fox! Worry about your nation and just be grateful your people have a real country to come to!

Tookie Didn't Deserve To Die!

At least Erwin James thinks so. Well, Mr. James, whether or not Tookie deserved to die is subject to opinion, personal beliefs, and maybe speculation. One thing is for certain: Tookie's victims definitely did not deserve to die!

But, of course, Tookie was a product of his society. None of his activities were his fault:

He was an individual with a limited formal childhood education, and from an early age he embraced violence and crime as a way of life. During his teens, and until he was convicted of murdering four people in 1979, he considered the street his home. He became infamous for co-founding the notorious Los Angeles street gang, the Crips.

You see, if the school Tooke attended gave him a better education, he would not have co-founded the Crips, but maybe he would have been an astronaut or something. God forbid either of his parents raised him better. Dang it, it is society's fault!

Later on, in prison - Williams spent 26 years on death row, six of them in solitary - he became famous for altogether different reasons: he won acclaim for renouncing violence and, in particular, gang-related violence.

I truly hope that Williams reformed of his ways and that he renounced violence, and especially gang-related violence. Does it change anything with regard to his killing four people? Are his victims any less dead now?

Williams wrote seven books in which he consistently preached a message of anti-violence. So powerfully did he communicate this that he was nominated four times for the Nobel Peace prize. It is hard not to accept, on the basis of the evidence, that Williams died a reformed character. Yet even if he had not made the effort to change his life and "reform", I would still struggle to figure out what killing him after he had spent so long in prison - longer, incidentally, than most life-sentenced prisoners in Britain serve - was meant to achieve.

Wow, Williams wrote seven books and preached a message of anti-violence. Everything is okay now. Let's just forget that he killed four people. In fact, maybe the victims' families can invite him to dinner.

Oh, and let's not forget the Nobel Peace prize. I mean, such peaceful people like Arafat got one. I guess killing Jews is pretty peaceful, perhaps we can give one to Adolf Hitler posthumously. And, yes, Jimmy Carter received a Nobel Peace prize. I guess being a half-decent President of The United States isn't necessary for the Nobel. Maybe being a good peanut farmer is all it takes.

While such people as Arafat and Carter (of course, they are not comparable) get Nobels, Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan don't even make the Nobel's radar. These men were able to crush communism in the former Soviet Union without firing a shot. Communism was responsible for killing ninety million people. I guess actually succeeding at something peaceful is not a prerequisite for a Nobel Peace prize.

Heck, since I've never done anything worthy of a Nobel, perhaps someone can nominate me. I wouldn't mind adding that to my trophy case.

I have never been persuaded by any arguments in favour of the death penalty. I wonder about those who champion it as legitimate. Would they be happy to drop the noose, or fire the gun - or, in the case of Williams, administer the injection? Many would say: "Yes, I would." I think we should be worried about those people, the kind of people who say they are prepared to take the life of another, about whom they know little beyond the crime they committed, in cold, calculated and controlled circumstances. We should be worried too about those who carry out the executions on behalf of the state, people who say they are doing their job, or more ominously, "just following orders".

I do not care whether or not you have been persuaded by any such arguments. Thankfully, you are not in charge.

Those who would be willing to administer any means used in the executions are providing our society with a service: they are making sure people like your beloved Tookie will never be able to kill another person. You wonder about those who would execute Tookie, but you defend Tookie for killing four people and say it is society's fault?

Like Williams, it was in prison that I came to understand the sanctity of life. Like Williams, it was in prison that I learned to live a better way. In return, my society showed me clemency. Williams's society was never going to give him a second chance, but he wanted to live. He petitioned the governor of California. Shortly before he died, he wrote: "If Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger grants me clemency, I will accept it as an obligation to society to spend the rest of my life working to reverse the cycle of youth violence."

By the time Tookie realized the sanctity of human life, it was too late. Four people died. His valuable lesson was learned at the expense of four people who did not deserve to die. You fail to mention this.

The governor, of course, turned him down. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Williams's imprisonment (during all his time on death row he pleaded his innocence), putting him to death was a barbaric act, one that no decent society should countenance.

You know what is barbaric? It is barbaric when a man robs stores and kills people. It is barbaric when he brags about killing those 'Buddha Heads to his friends. It is barbaric to co-found a street gang notorious for their killings.

No society, or person, should countenance your defense of a man who killed four people because, well he's reformed and nominated for the Nobel Peace prize.

You see, I am trying to see things from your point of view, but I live in this place called Earth. You might want to visit us sometime.

How Could This Be? Why Should There Be Any Guilt?

Women who have an abortion can suffer mental distress, anxiety, guilt and shame at least five years afterwards, researchers say today. - The Telegraph December 12, 2005

But, why would a woman feel any of those emotions? It's her body and thus her choice, right?

Or could it be that a woman who has an abortion should feel those emotions considering she took the life of an unborn child; her own to be exact?

A study in Norway compared a group of 40 women who had suffered a miscarriage with 80 women who had an abortion, questioning them 10 days, six months, two years and five years after the event.

Although women who had a miscarriage suffered more mental distress up to six months after losing their baby, women who had an abortion experienced more mental distress at the two- and five-year intervals.

Okay, let's use some critical thinking here, shall we? Those women who suffered a miscarriage as opposed to choosing an abortion might not wanted to have lost their children. It would stand to reason that a woman who loses her child to a miscarriage sees all that future she might have had planned for her child vanish in an instant, while a woman who has an abortion looks at her future without the nuisance of an unwanted child.

Later down the road, however, it is quite possible that the woman who had the abortion realizes just what she has done: taken an innocent life. The woman who has a miscarriage deals with her loss and realizes that her life must go on, and she may even want to try to have another child.

Who knows for sure? Well, further reading this article might answer that question:

They found that after 10 days 47.5 per cent of women who had miscarried suffered from mental distress compared with 30 per cent of the abortion group. The proportion of women who had a miscarriage suffering distress fell to 22.5 per cent at six months and 2.6 per cent at two years and five years.

However, levels of distress remained high in the abortion group, falling to 25.7 per cent at six months and 18 per cent at two years but rising to 20 per cent at five years. The women in the abortion group also had high levels of anxiety, guilt, shame and relief.

Again, the women who had a miscarriage did not choose to have a miscarriage. They are mourning over the unexpected loss of their children, whereas a woman who chooses to have an abortion just has to think about her decision. At first, the woman with the abortion might think her choice was a wise one, while the woman who loved her child enough to not kill it just wishes she still had her child developing inside her womb.

Women in the abortion group should have high levels of anxiety, guilt and shame! Their decisions ended innocent lives. I'm not sure why they would feel relief, if but for selfish reasons.

Anna Pringle, from the pro-life charity Life, said the research confirmed that abortion can cause "massive" emotional suffering. "We believe it is time that the Government acknowledges the fact that abortion carries with it psychological risks that can affect women long after the actual event," she said.

Let's not forget the permanent, irreversible affect of a dead person. All the guilt in the world will not bring the kid back.

While this commentary may sound like I'm bashing women who have had an abortion, it is not. I am not judging anyone. For all I know, many women who have had an abortion and feel guilt are now working towards reversing the laws for abortion. I do, however, condemn the actual act of abortion and know that it takes a human life each time one is done. Any woman who is in a predicament where abortion might be a viable option to her should read this article.

The reason why you might feel such feelings of guilt and shame is because your decisions had an everlasting affect on you and that child with whom you could have shared memories.

If there is anyone reading this who has had an abortion, realize that you are not an evil person, but a person who made a terrible decision at one point in her life. As Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," (St. John 8:7). But, through God's love and grace, we can all be cleansed of our sins and work towards being better servants for Him.

Any woman who is thinking of having an abortion, please realize that while life with a child might be rough, your child's life being prematurely terminated will be a lot rougher.

Another Hillary '180.'

In yet another political move for Hillary to make herself something she is not, Hillary is now co-sponsoring an anti-flag burning law.

Senator Hillary Clinton is supporting a bill to make it a crime to burn the American flag -- but she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag desecration. WCAX-TV Burlington, VT

Mrs. Clinton, out of which side of your mouth do you feed yourself? In that one sentence, while it is not a direct quote, you contradicted yourself.

If you want to make it a crime to burn an American flag, why do you oppose a constitutional ban? Why do you wish to keep it a 'freedom of expression' thing in one breath and co-sponsor an anti-flag burning law in the next?

In her public statements, Clinton has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.

The measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.

Mrs. Clinton, if someone intimidates me with burning a flag, he or she will just show his or her ignorance. Since the flag means nothing to that person, it is just material and stiching. By burning that particular flag, you are not hurting anyone, but only destroying your own property.

However, if anyone but touches my American flag in any disrespectful manner on my property or off my property, we will have some serious problems. No one has a right to vandalize my property.

Of course, if that same moron were on my property burning a cross, a flag, or whatever, he or she will meet my hose and I will have to take the proper measures to get the tresspasser off my land. It is that simple!

I do not see why Senator Bob Bennett or Senator Hillary Clinton are even wasting their time passing this particular law. I would like to think that, "intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property," would already be covered by anti-vandalism laws, anti-assualt laws, or maybe even criminal tresspass laws. Could this be both Senators' way of getting some attention by politicizing patriotism?

A New York Times [retrieved from the International Herald] piece puts it quite perfectly in the following excerpt:

Her supporters would characterize this as an attempt to find a middle way between those who believe that flag-burning is constitutionally protected free speech and those who want to ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways.

I would like to know why the New York Times finds it unfortunate that Hillary appears to try to "have it both ways." Why is that so unfortunate? Is it unfortunate because Hillary is not able to fool the American public as easily any longer?

Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.

Is anyone else getting confused by the blatant double-speak going on here? So if Clinton opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning, why is she wasting her time trying to bring this in front of a 'more conservative' Supreme Court this time around? Doesn't Hillary Clinton have better things to do, like criticize Bush for a war she states to support?

Flag burning, while truly disrespectful, is nothing more than people with no real ideas trying to get some attention. While they enjoy the freedoms of this country, they hate those same freedoms that give them the right to be foolish. By offending people who may have took the time to listen to their points of view, they have now lost any credibility as an intelligent person.

These same people who would like to burn a flag would support Hillary through Hades and back. It would behoove her to keep her constituents strongly behind her.

In yet another political move to position herself for the Presidential Elections of 2008, she is trying to make America think she is a conservative. However, Hillary does something or says something that shows her true colors at every other turn and completely ruins the image she wishes to portray. Does she truly expect that we will forget things she publicly says about the president or the war by going public practically the next day with something that might impress us knuckle-dragging conservatives? Thankfully, there are still many of us in this country who have a memory span longer than the regular commercial break.

John St. Michael runs Yes, Another Conservative Blog.

Planned Parenthood Pushing For More Dead Babies In Ohio

According to a Dayton Daily News article by Terry Kinney (Associated Press):

Doctors in Ohio should be allowed to administer the abortion pill RU-486 as freely as in other states, Planned Parenthood lawyers told a three-judge federal appeals court panel Wednesday.

Maybe, Planned Parenthood, the State of Ohio can decide how their doctors will administer the abortion pill in their state. I might be wrong, but I think that is the whole, "let the states decide" thing. If you do not like their decisions, feel free to move to a more pro-death state.

I would also like to think that maybe the Doctors can individually decide when they will implement such a pill that would thus terminate the life of an unborn child.

Or, here is an even better idea: stop killing babies! Yes, the RU-486 pill kills unborn children. Whether that child is 'viable' or not is irrelevant and it has nothing to do with life.

"What the state is doing is forcing physicians to follow a regimen based on outdated science," said Nicole Berner, a lawyer with Washington, D.C.-based Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Did Ms. Berner ever study biology or take sexual education in high school? Even in public schools, conception is mentioned. Embryos are mentioned.

Here is some very up-to-date science: those dreaded fetuses Planned Parenthood seem to abhor so much are developing human beings. The most development that will ever take place in every human being's lifetime is from the moment of conception, a single-cell organism, up until it becomes a so-called 'viable' human being. How can something develop from a single-cell organism into something else if it is not alive?

Now, that little insignificant single-cell organism is a human cell. That cell then divides into a multiple-cell organism. In some cases, the organims divide into two separate organisms. That is what we call twins, Planned Parenthood.

But, guess what, Planned Parenthood? All of those cells are living cells? They are just as alive as any other being made up of cells.

Now, unless something has changed since the beginning of time, that is about as up-to-date as you can get with science.

I would not want to let facts or logic get in the way of your agenda, Planned Parenthood.

Here is another idea you might want to espouse in your whole 'pro-choice' agenda. Maybe you can start pushing a pro-responsible-choice. Everything boils down to a choice. Each choice one makes comes with consequences, either good or bad.

Indulge me a little bit and let me make a comparison. Let's say I make the bad choice to go to a bar, get drunk, and decide to drive home. Now, let's say a police officer sees me driving impaired and decides to pull me over. Well, I don't want to have to live with the consequences of my actions. So, can I be "pro-choice" and choose to do something to the officer to get away from facing the consequences of my first choice to drive drunk (of course, I would never actually advocate such action)?

So, now we have seen how my irresponsible actions and decisions can lead to something I would not like. The best way to avoid those consequences would be for me to - get ready for this - not drink and drive!

The same rings true with the consequences of getting pregnant when you might not want to. With the exception of rape or molestation, sexual conduct is performed by two consenting individuals. Regardless of how responsible of a decision that may be, it is still a decision. After the action of sexual intercourse, it is possible that a woman may become pregnant. According to Planned Parenthood, it is now time to make the choice to let the innocent child live or not. Why? Did that child choose who was going to have sex and thus create him or her? Did that child do anything deserving of death? Why should someone have to die as a consequence of another's actions?

Even in the case of rape, does the child have to die because of the father's sins? No. The man who raped that woman deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, or maybe even have that lifetime shortened a little bit, courtesy of the American criminal justice system. But, that child should be allowed to live in a loving household, whether it be with the biological mother or another family who would make him or her one of their own. As hard as it may be on that woman, it will be even harder on that child if he or she is killed.

Planned Parenthood, perhaps you should leave Ohio well enough alone. Maybe you can even take a good hard look at the real facts and see what your so-called 'operations' are doing. Those lives you take are not yours for the taking. None of your 'up-to-date' science measures up to the true facts about life, nor does it justify your agenda in killing babies!

Hillary, The Hawk!

Susannah Meadows, of Newsweek is sure trying to help bring Hillary into a new light with her article, Hillary's Military Offensive. Anyone with a higher I.Q. than a walnut can see this article is nothing more than a redefining of Hillary. Therefore, most liberals will not.

She may have entered the Senate in 2001 with three strikes against her—she was a woman, a Democrat and a Clinton. But Senator Clinton immediately began a methodical campaign to undo her image as a dovish liberal with no interest in military affairs. Post 9/11, she was quick to recognize that Democrats—and especially one all but openly running for president—were vulnerable on defense issues.

According to Ms. Meadows, America still isn't ready to have a woman in power, so it is an automatic strike against Hillary for being a woman. If this were the case, Ms. Meadows, how did Hillary get elected in the first place? How are any elected officials women?

Her being a Democrat and a Clinton certainly takes away any credibility to her being a hawk.

Now, let's take a better look at the rest of that excerpt. I will provide it again:

But Senator Clinton immediately began a methodical campaign to undo her image as a dovish liberal with no interest in military affairs. Post 9/11, she was quick to recognize that Democrats—and especially one all but openly running for president—were vulnerable on defense issues.

[emphasis added]

A "methodical campaign to undo her image as a dovish liberal..." Is that anything like trying to redefine yourself, or make people think you are something you really are not?

Does this seem strangely familiar to Hillary now trying to be tough on the border?

Peggy Noonan hits the nail right on the head in her December 9, 2004 article, Where Are They Now? Four years after leaving the White House, Hillary Clinton plots her return.

She is taking care of her liberal base while cherry-picking key issues on which she can get to the right of the Republican party. This is most astute and quite effective. For the liberals she produces a steady stream of base-friendly efforts (Special Committee on the Aging, education funding, help for the emotionally disturbed, extended unemployment insurance) and classic pork barrel. To get to the right of the president she talks homeland security and immigration. On homeland security she fights for increased funding, better controls at U.S. ports, tightened security for nuclear power plants and chemical plants. She issues warnings about the use of weapons of mass destruction on American soil. She is a member of the Armed Services Committee and likes to talk about military reform. On immigration she has begun talking tough on border security, accusing the administration of not spending enough, employing enough people, using the best technology. She recently called herself "adamantly against illegal immigrants," by which she no doubt meant illegal immigration, and has been inching toward support for a national ID card.

Hillary may be a lot of things. But, she is not an idiot! She knows that many in America will not remember her past, especially since her beloved media has no intention of reminding you. She also knows that many in America will actually believe what she says and think she is going to deliver.

The second part I emphasized in the second blockquote needs to be studied also. "[A]nd especially one all but openly running for president..." Is there any doubt about Hillary trying to be the president in '08? Granted, she already was president from 1992 to 2000 ('We are the president' anyone?).

Hillary is a great manipulator. She is quite aware that any blue state is going to vote for her because she is their beacon, their guiding light. Hillary also knows that in order to win the next election, she is going to have to try to manipulate those of us redneck red-staters. In order to do that, she has to work on her image. She has to make us believe she is something she is not.

Even Lawrecne Korb understands what Hillary is doing:

"In the wake of 9/11, America will not vote for anyone they do not trust to protect them," says national-security analyst Lawrence Korb. "She grasps that."

EXACTLY! Hillary grasps that she will not get votes from those of us who take our national security seriously. So, what does she do? She changes masks and acts like a hawk now. It is pathetic.

The crime isn't that Hillary is a smart politician, though. The crime is that there are plenty of Americans who are going to fall for her acting. As I stated before, Hillary is no idiot. She knows that many of us will not remember what kind of a person Hillary has been and what she has done in the past. Hillary just has to be the right thing to the right people. She'll convince many, she'll silence the rest.

Again, quoting the Newsweek article:

But impressing the brass and winning over the troops may turn out to be the easy part. If she runs in '08, she'll have to use her military education to stake out clear positions not only on Iraq, but Syria, Iran, North Korea and beyond. So far, she's not getting out ahead. When asked about a strategy for leaving Iraq, she waved off the question. "Nobody has all the answers," she told NEWSWEEK. For now, Clinton is content to let George W. Bush worry about disarming the enemy in Iraq. She's busy enough worrying about disarming her critics in Washington.

Well, Hillary, if you do become the president, you better have the answers! You are content letting President Bush worry about Iraq because you can then criticize him without any recourse. But in order to be a real hawk, you have to be able to do what President Bush has done.

Might I add, while you and your husband were playing president, you had plenty of time to prove yourself to be a hawk. In fact, you had the same enemies. How are we to believe you are going to do anything different now?

It's A War, Senator McCain!

Senator McCain has long ago joined ranks with his fellow Democrats (even though he is not officially a Democrat, he may as well be) to tie our American servicemen and women's collective hands behind their back to actually win this war. Associated Press writer Liz Sodoti writes:

A ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign terrorism suspects is likely to be included mostly, if not entirely, in a final defense bill, a key House Republican said Tuesday. - Yahoo! News

My first response to this was simply, "What?" Am I mistaken here, or are we now supposed to worry about how humanely we treat terrorists who have absolutely no problem killing as many innocent Americans as they wish by any means necessary?

Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record) of California, who is leading negotiations to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions of the measure, said if the ban or another provision limiting interrogation techniques U.S. troops can use are changed, they won't be drastically watered down.

"Nobody wants to do that," Hunter, the House Armed Services Committee chairman, said in an interview. "I expect a good outcome for all parties."

Then why do anything at all, if nothing drastic is going to change? If there should be any change, it should be that when at war, do whatever is necessary to win! I know I might sound a bit too aggressive, but I have this problem with not wanting Americans needlessly dying because we have to be 'civilized'.

Maybe those in the House and the Senate can leave the warfighting to the professionals. No one is telling them how to be professional blowhards; they have already shown their expertise in that field, many times over.

The White House opposes the provisions and has threatened to veto any bill containing them. But President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, has been negotiating with the chief sponsor, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to find a compromise that would satisfy Bush administration's concerns.

First of all, that 'R' following John McCain's name is for RINO [Republican In Name Only]. Secondly, John McCain does nothing but negotiate. But, when he does, it usually costs the Republicans something and gives the Democrats something. Maybe I am wrong, but the Republicans are in the majority, thus it should be time to play by their rules. Instead, with the likes of McCain, the Republicans keep giving concessions to the party unwilling to concede their losses.

Warner, Levin and Skelton back McCain's provisions, while Hunter has questioned the need for them. Hunter, R-Calf., has argued that the United States already has a law that prohibits torture.

If there is already a law prohibiting torture, why is there a need for McCain's bill? Is McCain just trying to get himself back in the political limelight? If so, why does he always have to do so at the expense of President Bush's efforts to actually do the right thing?

What is most irksome to me is that John McCain knows that torture works. A Newsmax article states:

Sen. John McCain is leading the charge against so-called "torture" techniques allegedly used by U.S. interrogators, insisting that practices like sleep deprivation and withholding medical attention are not only brutal - they simply don't work to persuade terrorist suspects to give accurate information.

Nearly forty years ago, however - when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp - some of the same techniques were used on him. And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked!

In his 1999 autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain describes how he was severely injured when his plane was shot down over Hanoi - and how his North Vietnamese interrogators used his injuries to extract information.

"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I did not cooperate," he wrote.

"I thought they were bluffing and refused to provide any information beyond my name, rank and serial number, and date of birth. They knocked me around a little to force my cooperation."
The punishment finally worked, McCain said. "Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."

So, Senator McCain, what is it? Does torture work or not? If it does work, why would you not want to allow your American troops use it to keep you safe?

It would be a lot better if you and your fellow liberals quit trying to make this war another Vietnam. Quit criticizing everything our troops do from the comfort of your ivory tower and let them win this war! Maybe you should just say "thank you" to those who give you the right to be so stupid and let them do their job.

Poor Saddam

I'm truly surprised we haven't heard much from the liberals yet about this. Maybe I shouldn't since any talk about Saddam being on trial and not still in power in Iraq might prove that some success has been made in "Bush's war."

Hamza Hendawi, of the Associated Press writes in his article, Saddam Says He Won't Attend 'Unjust Court' the following:

Saddam, dressed in a dark suit and white shirt and clutching a Quran, complained that he and the seven other defendants were tired and had been deprived of opportunities to shower, have a change of clothes, exercise or go for a smoke.

"This is terrorism," he declared.

Saddam, you deprived people of their lives when you murdered them! You deprived people of their dignity when you raped and tortured them! You are extremely lucky that you were only deprived opportunities to shower, change clothes, exercise or have a smoke.

By the way, what purpose would exercise give you if you were only going to smoke afterwards? I used to ask myself that same question when I smoked a few years ago.

"This is terrorism"? Oh, that is rich. You must have taken that right out of Howard Dean's or John Kerry's playbook. Everything, minus actual terrorism, can be defined as terrorism these days. I guess that whole torture chamber, rape rooms, mass graves and the like were pale in comparison as having to stand trial for the crimes you committed.

The most compelling testimony came from the woman identified only as "Witness A," who was a 16-year-old girl at the time of the crackdown. Her voice breaking with emotion, she told the court of beatings and electric shocks by the former president's agents.

"I was forced to take off my clothes, and he raised my legs up and tied my hands. He continued administering electric shocks and whipping me and telling me to speak," Witness A said of Wadah al-Sheik, an Iraqi intelligence officer who died of cancer last month while in American custody.

I guess this isn't nearly as bad as what Saddam is having to go through. Saddam had better call the ACLU, if they haven't already gotten on a plane headed to Baghdad to defend this great man.

Such treatment of a young woman is gravely offensive in traditional Arab culture...

Such treatment is gravely offensive in any civilized culture. But, so is beheading, blowing up innocent people, burning carcasses. I think you get the picture.

Reading more of this story, one gets the picture of some horrific attrocities that took place at Abu Ghraib. Of course, since these attrocities happened under Saddam Hussein, no American reporter or so-called "human rights organization is going to report about it.

To rebut, however, Saddam stated:

"I live in an iron cage covered by a tent under American democratic rule. You should come see my cage," he told Amin. "The Americans and the Zionists want to execute Saddam Hussein."

If the Americans wanted to execute you, they would have done so when they found you in your spider hole, which was less roomy than your iron cage.

This man is the face of evil and hopefully he will face justice through Baghdad's courts. Nonetheless, his reign is over! Is that alone is not proof enough that the Iraq war has been a success, I do not know what is.

God Forbid The Mexican Government Takes Care Of Mexico!

Mexican migration experts are urging the Bush administration to press ahead with a temporary migrant worker program to improve cross-border security and save the lives of hundreds of people who are dying in their attempts to cross illegally into the United States.

U.S. border control statistics indicate that from January to the end of September this year, 464 people died while illegally attempting to cross the border between Mexico and the United States. That is an increase of 43 percent from the previous year. - Newsmax

Hey Mexico, do you think maybe you can stop looking at another country to take care of your poor? Those 464 people died because you fail to take care of your people. Their blood is on your hands? You even went so far as to make a comic book to encourage your people to cross and possibly die in the desert. Shame on you!

Explain to me just how having a temporary migrant worker program is going to improve cross-border security when your military is running drugs through our country!

Here is more from the Newsmax article:

A heat wave during August is partly to blame for some of the tragedies, but not all. Over the last decade, security along border has been considerably tightened, making it more perilous for undocumented migrants to cross.

The only thing to blame for the tragedies is the people willfully doing something they know to be dangerous. No one has forced any of these people to cross, minus the so-called "parents" who would risk their children's lives to cross the desert!

Efforts to reach a migration agreement between Mexico and the United States were put on the back burner following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States and were shelved when Mexico refused to support the war in Iraq.

So, why should we support Mexico when they won't even support our desire to keep our nation safe from terrorists? Without America, Mexico loses one of its most important means of support!

President Bush, do not reward illegal behavior. Whether Chertoff thinks it is "practical" to deport all the illegal aliens in the United States or not, they do not deserve legalized status. Everything they have gained in the United States was by unlawful means. Their mere presence in the United States is a direct affront to the laws of the nation they chose to enter. They didn't choose to enter the United States because Mexico is too good for them!

I guess there is no need to fix your cardboard box when you can break into a castle nextdoor. There isn't anything blocking your way, so why not?

Mexico, you get nothing! You deserve nothing! Fix your problems and quit being a nuisance to our nation. You are doing less than nothing to help in securing the border, and thus securing the nation that supports you.

This Is Considered Journalism?

BOSTON (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry's public profile and prosecutorial past didn't spare him from performing that most mundane of civic responsibilities - jury duty.

Kerry was not only chosen this week to sit on a jury in Suffolk Superior Court, but also was elected foreman.

The case involved two men who sued the city for injuries suffered in a 2000 car accident involving a school principal. The Kerry-led jury rejected their claim Tuesday, and his fellow jurors said the state's junior senator was a natural leader.

"I just found him to be a knowledgeable, normal person," said Cynthia Lovell, a nurse and registered Republican who says she now regrets voting for President Bush in last year's election. "He kept us focused. He wanted us all to have our own say."

The former Democratic presidential candidate reported for duty Monday and none of the lawyers in the case objected to putting him on the jury.

"I was a little surprised," Kerry said of being selected for jury duty.

"I enjoyed it," he said. "It was very, very interesting and very instructive." - The Associated Press

Well, I'm just surprised that Mr. Kerry didn't flip flop on this one.

I really want to know what was so relevant about Cynthia Lowell's regretting voting for George Bush. Does this have anything to do with the story?

Maybe she would have rather voted for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, like I do. There is nothing in there saying that Ms. Lowell would have prefered to vote for John Kerry. The reader is just supposed to assume that is so.

Why must the media persist on trying to take a jab at President Bush even in insignificant stories like this one? I am quite aware that there are many reasons to criticize Bush, but being childish like this article does is just ridiculous.

This is just another example of the problem with journalism today. No one appears to be reporting, "just the facts." Maybe a few episodes of Dragnet would be helpful to these people.