To those of you following the Guest Book Saga of Mary, I am happy to announce that it has come to a happy conclusion. I emailed her the other day and she politely responded. I asked permission to reprint her response here in exchange for deleting all the Guest Book entries. See, folks, it just goes to show that people are basically good. We may not agree on some issues, but, I still like her. Here is her letter to me after I asked her to "just be Mary," and quit the little game we were playing.

"Fine, look.

In the spirit of Christmas, I am apologizing. I'm not really as
psychotic as
I might have come off. I honestly haven't been having an easy time
lately
(not that it's your concern or care), but I think I took my anger out
online
as opposed to taking it out offline at someone I actually know. I don't
know
if you've ever done that but it's good therapy at times, but other
times
whoever is in the path of the anger gets the brunt of it.

I'm not a stupid little girl, believe me, but I certainly think some of
the
things that fly out of my mouth come off the wrong way. Perhaps I will
revaluate my political beliefs after Bush's term in office is up? I
don't
think he's doing that bad of a job, considering what has happened since
September. I just don't like the guy. Something about him actually
makes me
ill.

That doesn't mean I dislike all Republicans, I mean....I did like his
father
when he was President. I just dislike this Bush. I don't know if that
makes
any sense? I just assume because he seemed to have such a "colorful"
past
that he was a lying sack of you-know-what.

I'll leave you alone. You can remove whatever was posted in the
guestbook and
know that I won't bother you again, unless it's something "age"
appropriate
and friendly. I might visit your site and read your blog from time to
time....I don't know.....I just thought I'd apologize because I really
feel
like a child for getting upset at you and mouthing off.

After all you are my elder *that's a joke*. Perhaps growing up.....is
something I should look into." END OF HER LETTER.

I was so happy to get this resolved. Thanks, Mary. Now, to uphold my part of the deal, I have to go do some deleting.

Can I just tell you how much I hate Democrats and why I'm not one?

The Democratic Party was the party of slavery. The Southern Democratic states were in favor of slavery, the Northern Republicans were against it.
A Democrat shot President Lincoln.
A Democratic President started Social Security and another envisioned "The Great Society."
A Democratic President dropped the first two and only atomic bombs ever used in wartime. That same President then nearly wiped out our military through budget cuts and then.......

A Democratic President got us into Viet Nam and another one kept us in.
A Republican got us out.
A Democratic President almost started World War III with the Bay of Pigs.
A Democratic President let the Berlin Wall go up.
A Republican got it down.
The Republican Party first championed the Civil Rights movement, while the Democrats fought it.
A Republican President ordered that blacks be allowed into white schools.
A Democratic Governor stood in the doorway of an Arkansas school, facing National Guardsmen, to keep blacks out.
A Republican President stood up to Russia and then forced them to crumble.
A Democratic President raised taxes by the highest percentage in the history of the country.
A Democratic President lied to Congress and the American people, was impeached but stayed in office.
A Republican President lied, got caught, and did the honorable thing by resigning.
The Democratic Party believes you need taking care of from cradle to grave and they know what's best for you.
The Republican Party believes you live in the greatest country in the history of the world and you can do anything you put your mind to. That's why people from all over the world risk their lives to come here.
And when they get here, like the Cubans in Miami, they end up being Republicans. They realize the American Dream.
Democrats have to remind people that they are oppressed and victims of any kind of social injustice they can imagine.

I just don't see what it is about the Democratic Party that people find attractive or what there is to be proud of in being a Democrat.

Nothing to rant about today. Nothing too disturbing in the news. Nothing too funny. Other than the little dialogue that has been brewing in my Guest Book area. I get a kick out of people who think they are smarter than me. Not that I am the smartest person I know, not by a long shot. But, let's face it, some people are just stupid. Me? Eh, I can usually out brain power a good 85-90% of the people I come across on most issues on any given day. Every now and then I have to stand back in awe of some people. If I can tell they are smarter, I end up folding faster than Superman on laundry day. Not too often, but it does happen. It's when the brainless dipshits step up to the plate with Randy Johnson that I have real fun. Mary and Dan is one of those dipshit people. Yes, I know that was grammatically incorrect. Go read. Have fun.
Still, something tells me that I haven't heard the last from them/her.
Later.

I sit here completely stunned. Absolutely flabbergasted. And yet, filled with so many mixed emotions it's hard to describe.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is getitng a new sentencing hearing.

He shot a cop in the face and laughed about it. He threw his own trial, behaving like some psychotic ass-clown, to get an excuse to play the system and live. Now, twenty years later, that shit-ball piece of maggot crap is off Death Row.

In the next few days you'll here all about what the liberal media wants you to think about Mumia the celebrity, Mumia the victim of racism, Mumia the Peabody award-winning journalist, Mumia the political prisoner, essentially, Mumia the victim.

The facts are, Mumia owes his "celebrity" to the fact that he killed Officer Daniel Faulkner. Being black doesn't make you a victim of racism. Mumia never won a Peabody award. Mumia is a criminal prisoner, in prison for killing a police officer. Mumia is a victim of his own actions.

Please, read the facts about the case, read the transcripts of the trial. Decide for yourself if Mumia got a fair trial. Decide for yourself if Mumia deserves to die for what he did. Decide for yourself instead of letting some AP, UPI, Reuters, MSNBC, CNN or CBS liberal mouthpiece give you your opinions for you. So many days go by where all I ever hear people say about an issue is EXACTLY what I just heard Dan Rather, or Tim Russert, or some other talking head say the night before, almost word for word, talking point for talking point.

If you are interested in facts regarding Mumia, I suggest you go to the one place that never wanted to be source of Mumia facts; a site run with cooperation of his widow. She doesn't care if he dies, but she does care that the liberal media have taken the facts of the case and twisted them around in favor of Mumia. All this site does is deliver truth from the jaws of liberal media biased "reality."

www.danielfaulkner.com


Someday, Mumia will have to stand before God and give an accounting for his actions. He will be judged and he will be punished.

A loose translation of yesterday's little love letter to my schizoid, Paxil-popping pal, Mary, is as follows:

"You pathetic piece of dog crap, how dare you call me a Nazi. I've never espoused anything that could be taken as endorsing a Nazi agenda. Go back to your little sad Liberal world where it's cool to get your thoughts from sappy folk song lyrics, and lament that fact that you are a married lesbian, unable to fulfill your dream of a life of rug munching."
Then I closed with some sick remark regarding her mother's fondness for licking my dogs genitals.


That being said, I'd like to officially rid my little soap-box here of this annoying little piss stain called Mary once and for all. I found it funny that she sent her similarly prescription dependent friends to my site to decorate my guestbook with their mindless liberal brain-snot ideas. Now, let's move on tomorrow with some new stuff.

Some bipolar piece of Liberal trash called me a Nazi in my guestbook today. Obviously, she's unaware of what she's talking about and has no appreciation of the magnitude of her accusation. Despite that, however, I thought it would be a fitting tribute to respond to her here. In German. So, if you'll excuse me.....

Sie pathetic Stück Hundescheiße, wie trauen Sie mich ein Nazi anrufen. Was gibt Ihnen den Eindruck, den ich ein Nazi bin? Die Tatsache, daß ich Abtreibung denke, ist das bildet mich ein Nazi falsch? Ich denke nicht. Habe ich alles gesagt, das ich indossieren eine nationale sozialistische Partei scheint? Ich denke nicht. Sie sind uneducated Stück liberale Scheiße. Verlassen Sie, douchebeutel! Gehen Sie zurück zu Ihrer traurigen kleinen Welt der poetischen Songlyrics und schreien Sie rüber die Tatsache, daß Sie ein verheirateter Lesbier sind, nicht imstande, Ihren Wunsch zu erfüllen munch Wolldecke. Ihre Mutter saugt haarigen Kugelsack mein Hundes.

By the way, this reads best in Netscape. IE tends to not recognize some German letters. For example, it makes the "ß" into something completely different.
Tomorrow, maybe I'll translate.

Now that the econ lesson is overe, I can move on to my favorite past-time, poking Liberals in their mushy little hearts.
As the U.S. deploys more special forces in Afghanistan, other forces have mobilized. Professional pacifists have resurrected the moldy cliches and self-righteous pieties of the '60s.

All that's missing is Joan Baez singing "Blowin' in the Wind" and Dr. Spock urging them on.

Last week, anti-war demonstrations were held in a dozen cities. From Los Angeles to Minneapolis, the arguments advanced against national self-defense were depressingly familiar.

Osama bin Laden should be brought to justice before the United Nations, declared a speaker at a Denver rally. And will the Taliban, which has resisted surrendering bin Laden after a month of heavy bombing, hasten to honor an arrest warrant from the U.N. bureaucracy?

"We want to call attention to the humanitarian disaster that is taking place in Afghanistan as a direct result of the campaign to bomb that country. Seven million Afghans are on the verge of starvation," croaked Candice Larson of the Portland, Ore., Peaceful Response Coalition.

News Flash -- Millions of Afghans have been starving in refugee camps for years. They are victims of the Taliban's lunacy. If our air offensive hastens the regime's demise, it will do more to end starvation in Afghanistan than all of the aid packages we've dropped to date.

A speaker in Los Angeles disclosed -- in the hushed tones of revelation -- that the bombing will not solve "societal problems such as police brutality and homelessness." Nor, for that matter, will it end road rage or produce a cure for the common cold.

If, after Pearl Harbor, America had waited to solve its social problems before fighting back, we would now be the westernmost province of the empire of the rising sun.

Violence solves nothing, is the protestors' universal refrain. Nonsense. Violence gave America its independence. Violence saved the Union and freed the slaves. Violence kept Hitler from killing the rest of Europe's Jews.

For the flower-power brigade, there's always an excuse to turn tail and run.

Prior to World War II, isolationists told us Hitler was a nationalist who had legitimate grievances against the West.

During the Vietnam War, campus protestors hailed the Viet Cong as agrarian reformers. It wasn't our war, they wailed. But it was our fight -- and millions of dead Cambodians and Vietnamese, who were murdered by the victors, wish we'd won it.

And the Gulf War? "Blood for oil," anti-war activists chanted. Then they drove away in their VW buses to well-heated homes, paid for with jobs dependent on reliable energy supplies.

The current conflict has pacifists scrambling to find new slogans. The old ones have such a hollow ring.

Are the Taliban thugs idealistic reformers? Is Osama bin Laden an aggrieved nationalist? Does Afghanistan have oil we covet? If the murder of 5,000 Americans on American soil doesn't make it our fight, I'd like to know what does.

But logic is irrelevant to the protestors. Their pacifism isn't an idea they've thought through, but a blindly adhered to belief system.

Pacifism isn't just wrong; it's immoral. Individuals have a moral right to choose not to defend themselves when attacked. They have no right to demand that others commit suicide by proxy.

Not to punish mass murder is to acquiesce to evil. Pacifism is a betrayal of the innocent. It invites more aggression -- witness Munich, witness the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, witness our muted response to other acts of terrorism (the 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut and the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, or the bombing of USS Cole), which surely encouraged al Qaeda.

Is there anyone to the right of Ralph Nader who doesn't understand that not to respond militarily would embolden the terrorists and lead to more demolished skyscrapers?

Pacifism works well -- as long as pacifist pleading goes largely unheeded and anti-war activists remain a distinct minority. Then they can feel noble while others fight their battles and protect their freedom.

Only the battlefield sacrifices of generations of our best and bravest have given us a country where pacifists can bad-mouth America in comfort and security.

Hate to play economist, but I need to respond to some people grilling me about why interest rates aren't lower and when will we see some recovery, etc. (This is for you, Mom. See, between bong hits, I actually did go to class and learn something.)

On Dec. 11, the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve met to discuss monetary policy and cut the federal funds interest rate by another 25 basis points (0.25 percent), reducing it from 2 percent to 1.75 percent, its lowest level since 1961.

Just one year ago, the fed funds rate stood at 6.5 percent. This is the rate that banks charge each other on overnight loans. Hence, it represents the basic cost of funds for the entire banking sector. The spread between the fed funds rate and what banks can loan money at is their profit margin. With home mortgages at 6.5 to 7.25 percent, corporate bonds at 6+/- percent and the prime rate at 5 percent, there is clearly profit to be made.

Theoretically, competition should drive market interest rates down when the fed funds rate is cut. Lower interest rates should increase borrowing, investment and consumption, thereby stimulating economic growth.

Unfortunately, monetary policy is not quite so simple, as Japan's experience demonstrates. There, the central bank has cut the equivalent of the fed funds rate virtually to zero. Yet borrowing has not been stimulated, and the economy has been mired in recession for many years.

One explanation for the Japanese experience is that lower interest rates have not been accompanied by an increase in monetary liquidity. In effect, monetary policy remains tight despite the low nominal interest rates, putting deflationary pressure on the economy. With the price level falling in Japan, even very low market interest rates can be high in real terms.

Economists believe that it is the real interest rate -- the nominal rate minus the inflation rate -- that determines borrowing and lending. If the inflation rate is high enough, as it was in the late 1970s, then it is quite possible for the real interest rate to be negative. In effect, you borrow $1 and pay back only 90 cents. All a borrower has to do is make sure the borrowed funds are invested in an asset, such as real estate, that can be depended upon to at least keep up with the inflation rate.

As long as inflation continues, going deeper and deeper into debt makes economic sense. The problem, of course, is that inflation doesn't continue for long. Eventually, various political and economic pressures force the central bank to tighten monetary policy. At this point, the house of cards built on debt collapses as asset values fall. The result is massive bankruptcies and liquidation of uneconomic investments (see Dallas circa 1985-95.)

The flip side to inflation is deflation -- falling rather than rising prices. Deflation has the reverse effect of inflation on interest rates, causing the real rate to rise above the market rate. Thus if the price level is falling 3 percent per year and the nominal interest rate is 2 percent, the real interest rate is 5 percent. In this case, even a zero percent market rate, as Japan has, would still yield a real interest rate of 3 percent -- equal to the deflation rate.

Of course, the steeper the deflation rate, the higher real interest rates become. Since market interest rates can never fall below zero, they cannot adjust enough to compensate. (Nominal rates cannot fall below zero because anyone with cash can, in effect, earn interest simply by stuffing their money in a mattress.) Thus, deflation severely discourages borrowing and lending. It also discourages spending, as consumers wait for prices to fall further before buying.

Technically, what happens is that the velocity of money falls during a deflation. That is the number of times a given dollar is spent. It is the money supply times velocity that really determines the impact of monetary policy on the economy. During inflations, velocity rises as people try to spend money quickly before it falls further in value. During deflations, it is the reverse, with velocity falling as people hold on to their money as long as possible before spending it.

One theory about why lower interest rates have not stimulated borrowing or spending is because of deflation. Economist David Gitlitz of TrendMacro.com points out that, despite recent increases, the Dow Jones Spot Commodities Index is down 12 percent so far this year, and the Commodity Research Bureau Futures Index is down 16 percent. Gold, oil and even car prices are all falling. This deflationary pressure is sharply reducing velocity, negating the effects of the Fed's interest rate cuts.

Although some economists are starting to predict an early recovery next year, those who believe the U.S. economy is suffering from deflation are much more sanguine. Until the Fed adds enough liquidity to the economy to stop commodity prices from falling, they believe, a sustained recovery cannot begin.

Now, back in school, this was about as far as I could go with any one train of thought before I needed another bong hit and a bag of Doritos. With that in mind, I'm going home for lunch......

Money to the Taliban? I think not. Read this ENTIRE CNN article before you say something stupid. (Ok, I fixed the link, better now.)

As amazing as this may seem to some, there are actually people out there who are unaware of a liberal media bias. To them, the media is "moderate," or "fair and balanced." I like to call these people "idiots."

Some links regarding this topic are better than others. The truly funny thing is, the ratio of sites claiming to expose a liberal bias versus those that claim there is a conservative bias is about 60 to one. Hmmmmm. Must be the "true" vast right-wing conspiracy at work.

Take for example, Dan Rather, stooge of the Democratic Party and Unofficial Clinton Ass Kisser. His own words speak for his contempt for conservatives Republicans and his love of the liberal agenda. Compare and contrast how he uses words to their full affect.

Another example is how different groups are labeled by the press. Here's a good example: (I've met Babe Winkleman, shaking his hand was like shaking a Christmas ham.

Regarding CNN's Founder: Ted Turner insulted attendees at Bernard Shaw’s retirement party, asking those on Ash Wednesday with a smudge on their foreheads if they were "a bunch of Jesus freaks," FNC’s Brit Hume reported Tuesday night.

Hume revealed during his "Grapevine" segment on Special Report with Brit Hume:
"CNN founder Ted Turner, in town last week for a retirement party for anchor Bernard Shaw, left the staff stunned after meeting with them at the network’s Washington bureau. It was Ash Wednesday and a number of those present still had a smudge on their forehead. ‘What are you?’ asked Turner, ‘a bunch of Jesus freaks? You ought to be working for Fox.’ Turner, it may be remembered, stirred controversy a decade ago when he said Christianity is, quote, ‘for losers.’ He apologized for that, but as recently as last August criticized Christianity for being, quote, ‘very intolerant.’"

Sounds like he’s the intolerant one.

And who could forget my favorite gummy smile bobble-head, Katie Couric.

Liberal fattie, Rosie, attacking Tom Selleck. In the meantime, Rosie's bodyguards are armed to the teeth. Guns are bad to protect you, but good to protect her.

So I've been doing a lot of reading latey on Paganism and Wicca. Not because I endorse them, but because I don't and I want to see what would make a rational educated person think that these are ideologies to be embraced. (Just for the record, if there are any editors out there planning to write an article on Paganism, the phrase "out of the broom closet," has been done, and it wasn't clever the first 3,000 times either.) Anyhow, I really enjoyed reading the following because it perfectly reflected everything I had already felt about Paganism, neo-paganism, Wicca, whatever you what to call it:

"Witchcraft is also a magnet for feminists, who identify with its female deity, and for environmentalists drawn by the reverence for nature. It also exerts a pull on the eccentric, the sensitive and the socially disconnected. Wicca ''empowers the marginalized,'' said John K. Simmons, a professor of religious studies at Western Illinois University, who has studied contemporary witchcraft. ''It appeals most of all to the intelligent, poetic young woman who is not necessarily going to go out for cheerleader or date the captain of the football team.''

Perfect analysis. It appeals to the chick who keeps a journal and listens to folk or "new age" music. Essentially, the chick that didn't get enough attention from Daddy, and now gets off on how many people she can try to impress or shock when she states that she's a "witch." It's the religous equivalent of getting a tongue piercing right before going home for Thanksgiving dinner. You get to say goofy crap like "merry meet" and "merry part" and "blessed be." Plus, throw in the fact that there are no overt doctirnes, tennets of belief or oppressive dogma, and you got yourself the perfect crap-ola "religion." I also like the fact that it is made up as it goes. For example, The Scholars and the Goddess "Historically speaking, the 'ancient' rituals of the Goddess movement are almost certainly bunk" By Charlotte Allen, who writes:

"In all probability, not a single element of the Wiccan story is true. The evidence is overwhelming that Wicca is a distinctly new religion, a 1950s concoction influenced by such things as Masonic ritual and a late-nineteenth-century fascination with the esoteric and the occult, and that various assumptions informing the Wiccan view of history are deeply flawed. Furthermore, scholars generally agree that there is no indication, either archaeological or in the written record, that any ancient people ever worshipped a single, archetypal goddess -- a conclusion that strikes at the heart of Wiccan belief."

If you are a Pagan, Wiccan, etc. and have any interest in the history of your "faith," have the brains at least to read this:http://www.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/o/issues/2001/01/allen.htm and let me know your thoughts.

Below are some of my favorite parts, after of course the parts refuting the "history" of Wicca:

"SUCH faith may explain why Wicca is thriving despite all the things about it that look like hokum: it gives its practitioners a sense of connection to the natural world and of access to the sacred and beautiful within their own bodies. I am hardly the first to notice that Wicca bears a striking resemblance to another religion -- one that also tells of a dying and rising god, that venerates a figure who is both virgin and mother, that keeps, in its own way, the seasonal "feasts of the Wheel," that uses chalices and candles and sacred poetry in its rituals. Practicing Wicca is a way to have Christianity without, well, the burdens of Christianity. "It has the advantages of both Catholicism and Unitarianism," observes Allen Stairs, a philosophy professor at the University of Maryland who specializes in religion and magic. "Wicca allows one to wear one's beliefs lightly but also to have a rich and imaginative religious life."

"Diotima Mantineia," age forty-eight, is the associate editor of the Web site The Witches' Voice, found at witchvox.com (she would not divulge her real name, partly because she lives in a southern town that she believes is unfriendly to neopagans). She summed up her feelings on the debunking of the official Wiccan narrative this way: "It doesn't matter to me how old Wicca is, because when I connect with Deity as Lady and Lord, I know that I am connecting with something much larger and vaster than I can fully comprehend. The Creator of this universe has been manifesting to us for all time, in the forms of gods and goddesses that we can relate to. This personal connection with Deity is what is meaningful. For me, Wicca works to facilitate that connection, and that is what really matters."

In a nutshell, matriarchal goddess "religions" are total and complete crap, pushed on and bought by disenfranchised women. They have all the history and significance of Kwaanza. Anyone that buys into an iota of it loses all intellectual credibility with me and most rational beings in a civilized society. If you are a Wiccan you will believe anything, any load of crap that advances your world-view, and that is very, very dangerous.

Hopefully, my brother will know that I am aiming this directly at him.

"Jesus said to His disciples, 'If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself . . .' " (Matthew 16:24).

Individuality is the hard outer layer surrounding the inner spiritual life. Individuality shoves others aside, separating and isolating people. We see it as the primary characteristic of a child, and rightly so. When we confuse individuality with the spiritual life, we remain isolated. This shell of individuality is God's created natural covering designed to protect the spiritual life. But our individuality must be yielded to God so that our spiritual life may be brought forth into fellowship with Him. Individuality counterfeits spirituality, just as lust counterfeits love. God designed human nature for Himself, but individuality corrupts that human nature for its own purposes.

The characteristics of individuality are independence and self-will. We hinder our spiritual growth more than any other way by continually asserting our individuality. If you say, "I can't believe," it is because your individuality is blocking the way; individuality can never believe. But our spirit cannot help believing. Watch yourself closely when the Spirit of God is at work in you. He pushes you to the limits of your individuality where a choice must be made. The choice is either to say, "I will not surrender," or to surrender, breaking the hard shell of individuality, which allows the spiritual life to emerge. The Holy Spirit narrows it down every time to one thing (see Matthew 5:23-24). It is your individuality that refuses to "be reconciled to your brother" (5:24). God wants to bring you into union with Himself, but unless you are willing to give up your right to yourself, He cannot. ". . . let him deny himself . . ."—deny his independent right to himself. Then the real life-the spiritual life-is allowed the opportunity to grow.

What do Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, and Ted kennedy all have in common?

They all used to be Pro-Life. Until, of course, they thought flip-flopping would further their political careers.

AL GORE
Gore used to be pro-life, until he decided it wasn't to his benefit politically.

I now have copies of Al Gore's voting record on abortion, his letters to constituents, and other documents. (everything quoted below and more)

* In 1980, Gore wrote a letter to NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE, supporting the Hyde Amendment.

* On June 26, 1984, Representative Al Gore cast an extremely pro-life vote. While debating the Civil Rights Act of 1984, Representative Siljander
proposed the following amendment.

"For the purposes of this act, the term 'person' shall include unborn children from the moment of conception."
After debate, Mr. Siljander demanded a recorded vote. The amendment was defeated 219 to 186. Among the recorded votes for the amendment was that
of Al Gore. This amendment was in direct opposition to Roe v Wade, not just one against federal funding for abortions. In addition, he denied even
casting that vote on Meet the Press on Feb. 21, 1988, and a Gore advisor stated to U.S. News and World Report on March 7, 1998, that: "Since there's a
record of that vote, we only have one choice. In effect, what we have to do is deny, deny, deny."

* In Iowa and New Hampshire, questions at Gore's open meetings focused on health care and education. In Los Angeles, they ran the gamut from
welfare reform to the environment, as well as a number of questions about Gore's commitment to individual rights, such as gay rights, rights of the
disabled and civil rights. Abortion continued to be an issue for Gore, who was asked by reporters in Venice about comments he made during his 1976
congressional race suggesting that a woman's "freedom to live her own life" does not always outweigh the rights of a fetus.
Source: "Democrats Take Race to West Coast In Costly California, Key Goal Is 'Free Media'"
By William Booth and Lois Romano Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 4, 2000; Page A06 (this is one document I do not have a copy of)

* During his tenure in the U.S. House (1977 to 1984) Gore voted pro-life 27 times and had a 84% pro-life voting record.

* In letters to a constituents, he wrote: "It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current
outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply." (Letters from Sept. 15, 1983, August 22, 1984, )

* In a May 26, 1987 letter to a constituent he wrote: "During my 11 years in congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding for abortions. In my
opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human
life must be protected, and I am committed to furthering this goal."

Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.)
"Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception.... The [Supreme Court's abortion] ruling was unjust, and it is incumbent on
the Congress to correct the injustice." Mr. Gephardt wrote in 1984, "I have always been supportive of pro-life legislation. I intend to remain steadfast on
this issue.... I believe that the life of the unborn should be protected at all costs."

In 1987, however, Mr. Gephardt decided to run for president, and he soon announced that he had discontinued his support for pro-life legislation.
Specifically, he informed the National Right to Life Committee, "I do not support any Constitutional Amendment pertaining to the legality of abortion."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, [D-Mass.], in a letter to a constituent, August 3, 1971
"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of
abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even
at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grown old.

"I share the confidence of those who feel that America is working to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who
cannot protect themselves. I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society's problems -- an inadequate
welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens.

"When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to
provide a decent living for every family and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."

Bill Clinton, in a letter to Arkansas Right to Life, September 26, 1986
"I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe
abortion is wrong."

Reverend Jesse Jackson - he endorsed the Hyde Amendment in an open letter to Congress that opposed federal funds used for "killing infants."
Mr. Jackson wrote the following statements in a 1977 National Right to Life News article
"There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life ... that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest
the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned."

"What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?
What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our
attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure
to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth."

Long day.

If a Japanese pilot had ejected over Hawaii during the attack on Pearl Harbor and then been apprehended, any number of things might have happened to him. Having his Miranda rights read to him is not one of them. Nor would he have been indicted for vandalism of government property. Today, however, as we fight a war against a different sort of enemy, some people have trouble accepting that our criminal justice system is not suited to every task.

You could try enemy soldiers in civilian courts, of course. Everything they do in combat falls into some category of the criminal code -- homicide, assault, trespassing, and who knows what else. You could regard the Wehrmacht as just an oversized German street gang, to be dealt just as we deal with any other street gang.

President Bush has provoked a storm of criticism by authorizing special military tribunals to try terrorists caught in our war against al Qaeda. Some of the complaints, dealing with the specific rules and procedures that the administration proposes, are worth considering. But other gripes seem to miss the crucial point that war is vastly different from law enforcement.

The Constitution and our legal system go to great lengths to make sure innocent people are not sent to prison -- even though that inevitably means some of the guilty will also go free. When you are in a mortal struggle with foreign enemies who have killed thousands of Americans and are trying to acquire weapons capable of killing millions, you don't want to err quite so much on the side of protecting innocent suspects. Your main priority has to be killing or capturing all those who pose a threat, even if a few bystanders suffer as a result.

In an ordinary war, captured combatants could expect to be packed off, without the benefit of due process, to a prisoner-of-war camp for the duration of the conflict. That's what happened to German POWs in World War II. By analogy, al Qaeda terrorists caught in Afghanistan, or even on American soil, could rightfully be imprisoned without trial for as long as this war continues, even for decades. We have no obligation to free them so they can go back to trying to kill us, and we don't have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before we lock them up.

The impression you might get is that terrorists who are not fighting for a sovereign government are entitled to more generous treatment than POWs. Not true. Soldiers, to be eligible for the protections of international law, have to wear uniforms, carry their arms openly, and observe the established rules of war -- such as not deliberately targeting innocents. Osama bin Laden's operatives don't abide by these rules. So, nations attacked by them have greater latitude in dealing with them, not less.

It makes sense for these tribunals to do some things differently from civilian courts. Some parts of the proceedings, for example, may need to be kept secret. One reason is that many informants won't testify in open court for fear that terrorist organizations will kill them or their families.

Another is that we don't want to expose intelligence sources. This week, University of Chicago law professor and liberal heavyweight Cass Sunstein told the Senate Judiciary Committee it would be "a terrible mistake" to force the U.S. government "to choose between (a) letting a terrorist go free and (b) disclosing material that is likely to threaten the safety of the nation's people."

The idea of turning Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants over to military tribunals has gotten qualified endorsements from other legal experts who wouldn't be caught dead at a Republican gathering. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who argued Al Gore's case when last year's election dispute went to the Supreme Court, testified that these tribunals are constitutional and that some of the customary safeguards shouldn't apply. "I think you'd have to be kind of pig-headed not to recognize that insisting on these ordinary rules, doing business as usual, would be too much," said Tribe.

Sunstein agrees that "civil libertarians have gotten prematurely worried." He thinks military tribunals are perfectly acceptable, while recommending some basic safeguards -- such as letting the accused know the charges against him, granting the presumption of innocence, and providing daily transcripts of closed trials, with only genuinely risky information deleted.

The point is not that everything the administration proposes deserves uncritical acceptance. It's that we need to look at this function of our government as an arm of national defense, not as a twin of criminal justice.

Our first goal is helping to win the war and eliminate the threat posed by terrorists. Our second is to dispense justice according to reasonable norms of fairness. Military tribunals, done right, can achieve both.

I'm probably one of the few people you know that owns more sets of novelty teeth than pairs of shoes. I love fake teeth. I have about 9 pairs to fit my many moods, of course. One of the best makers is Dr. Bukk. Sure, they cost a little more, but really, when it comes to novelty teeth, you really can't pay too much now, can you?

http://www.drbukk.com/bukkstyles_old.html

Sure, if you want to scrimp and go cheap, you can always go with a pait of Billy-Bobs. http://www.faketeeth.net/Search.bok?category=Billy+Bob+Teeth These are nice for everyday wear, but not for special occassions. I like the pacifiers, too.

Today, I'm running an article by the great Walter Williams. I've read the book he's talking about by John McWhorter and I think it is very insightful and well written. John has caught a lot of flack for his "Uncle Tom" attitude, as has Walter, but I greatly admire the guts it takes to say what needs to be said. I highly recommend this book to everyone I meet whenever the issue of racism rears it's head. Also, before anyone screams "Racist!", please keep in mind that both Walter and John are black. And now, on with the show.....

Here are just a few of the facts: One study asked middle-class black, white and Asian high school students what was the lowest grade their parents would tolerate their bringing home? Asian students replied A-minus. Blacks said their parents would accept grades lower than both white and Asian students.

Nationally, 74 percent of black students fail to graduate five years after entering college. Black students have the lowest grade point averages both entering and leaving college.

John H. McWhorter, a linguistics professor at UC-Berkeley, offers an explanation in his new book, "Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America." It's a culture of anti-intellectualism among blacks. That's not a very flattering explanation, but to the extent that it has any truth it demands confrontation.

McWhorter argues that black anti-intellectualism is a result of victimology and separatism. Black politicians, civil-rights leaders and white liberals have peddled victimhood to black youngsters, teaching them that racism is pervasive and no amount of individual effort can overcome racist barriers. Peddling victimhood is not new. Booker T. Washington said: "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

McWhorter says victimhood leads to separatism and anti-intellectualism follows from separatism out of a sense that educational excellence is a "white" endeavor. Thus, the "black Cult of Anti-intellectualism casts top scholarly achievement as treachery." Black anti-intellectualism is not a poverty phenomenon. It is observed in sons and daughters of middle- and high-income blacks living in well-to-do neighborhoods attending good suburban schools.

McWhorter tells of typical experiences with his black Berkeley students: many do not attend classes, don't or poorly perform classroom assignments and fail to show up for examinations. McWhorter is black, and even though he makes a special effort to help black students they don't use his generous office hours.

During my 33 years teaching, I've encountered similar experiences. I've aired my criticisms to black students, often getting the response, "Some white students do the same thing." I've typically responded by saying: "A white student goofing off might have a father who's a doctor, lawyer or CEO who can make a phone call to get him a job. Who does your father know?"

McWhorter doesn't argue there is no longer any racial discrimination in the United States, but racial discrimination is not the major problem for blacks today. Instead, it's self-sabotage -- and he's right. Let's look at it. A black illegitimacy rate hovering around 70 percent is devastating but it's not caused by whites. Black people have the nation's highest victimization rates for murder, assault, rape and other violent crimes, but it's not whites who are culpable.

Black students have the nation's lowest academic achievement. That can't be blamed on racism because academic achievement is the lowest in cities where the mayor, superintendent of schools, and most principals and teachers are black, such as Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Detroit. Academic achievement is also the lowest where the most money is spent on education. Washington, D.C., ranks second in spending and ranks 49th in achievement.

John H. McWhorter's "Losing the Race" draws attention to serious problems that black Americans must confront. I, for one, have confidence that if black youngsters spent as much time and effort studying math and English as some of them spend playing basketball, they'd produce the same excellence in math and English. The fact racism kept blacks out of college and professional basketball and football years ago doesn't stop us from today's domination. And the reason isn't affirmative action, it's excellence.
By Walter Williams

The nice thing about pacifists is that there are so few of them.

That's the kind of bait one can't resist tossing upon the waters. It's probably true that there aren't many pacifists - only two dozen showed up for a White House demonstration this week - but most "ists" can't resist responding to insults to their "ism."

Thus, I expect to hear from every pacifist in America, but how bad could it be? At least I won't get slapped upside the head.

And the truth is, on certain days, I'd welcome the visit. On a day when, for instance, I'm youthfully gazing out over non-mortgaged acres of allergy-free daisies framed by a non-coalition rainbow, nuzzling a non-cloned newborn lamb while feeding straw to a non-violent lion. On such a day, a pacifist would be tolerably poetic.

But today, brittle from reality, I'm not in the mood for pacifists. As our Marines go head-to-head with the vermin Taliban in Kandahar; as at least one American boy lies dead in Afghanistan; as New York City firemen and police continue to look for their fallen, and children hug pictures of their slain mothers and fathers, I'm in the mood for Godzilla Returns to Kabul.

Not that I want anyone to get hurt. Ghastly thought. I'd rather we not have to engage this nasty bunch of (insert politically incorrect term of choice), but alas, they started it. They're the ones who flew their airplanes into our buildings and killed thousands of innocent Americans. They're the ones who have vowed to destroy us.

So sorry, but pacifism won't work here. Pacifist demonstrations may work against the occasional repressive government or program, especially if the media are handy, but not against terrorism. In fact, terrorists love pacifists. Think about it. If you were a terrorist looking to make a big splash, what could be more convenient than 5,000 people sitting at their desks in the World Trade Center towers?

How about 20,000 pacifists squatting in the city of Washington, D.C.? If innocence is your target, and terror your objective, pacifists are the terrorist's dream team. Symbolically, it's rich. What's more American, after all, than a war protester? And who's more innocent - symbolically - than a pacifist?

Most Americans don't need reminding that the war protestor gets to enjoy all the benefits of freedom that someone else's unlucky experience with violence has permitted. The pacifist who demonstrates against his own country's military policies is exercising a right that was created with blood and born of violence. Not random violence, like the terrorist act, but violence resorted to out of necessity. That single fact is what makes the pacifist's complaint so unpalatable.

Among those marching against the U.S. military in Afghanistan was Amber Amundson, a 28-year-old mother of two and the widow of one of those who died in the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon. She hand-carried a letter to the White House in which she protested our military response to the attacks.

"I am not doing well," she wrote. "I am hurt that the U.S. is moving forward in such a violent manner. I believe you have a responsibility to listen to me and please hear my pain. I do not want anyone to use my husband's death to perpetuate violence."

America does hear this mother's pain and mourns her husband's death. And no one wishes to judge her political beliefs during such an emotional time. But we should be clear: Pacifism in the face of terrorism is strictly an emotional response.

Fighting back in this case is an act of purest logic: Kill or be killed. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Fortunately, our nation's leadership is acting on reason rather than emotion. We won't invoke Amundson's name if his widow doesn't want us to, but we will defend her life, and her children's, nonetheless.

That's the nice thing about living in a freedom-loving country.

They sing "Give Peace a chance." ( I know I'm repeating myself here, but it's worth it.) Up until 8:43 am, Sept. 11, 2001, we gave peace a chance. Now we're going to give cluster bombs and ground assaults a shot.

When I first heard that President Bush was contemplating an executive order to establish military tribunals to try terrorists, I just knew that many liberals (and civil libertarians) would go bonkers.

They tell us that this is what constitutional rights are all about: ensuring that every scumbag is amply protected; better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted. I know that sounds noble, and I know that sounding noble is the garden-variety liberal's greatest aspiration. But we might want to reconsider that cliche' in light of the potential destruction 10 terrorists could do to millions of innocents.

Please don't convulse into spasms here because I, too, am a champion of civil rights, just not for terrorists. More than that, there is nothing in Bush's order that would deprive them of any constitutional rights to which they are entitled.

Some are suggesting that aliens are entitled to constitutional rights, including trial by jury; so to try terrorists without juries would be unconstitutional. It is true that resident aliens have some rights under our Constitution, though fewer than citizens. Even illegal aliens and foreigners have some constitutional protections.

All of this misses the point, though, because the United States Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue, and its decision did not turn on the citizenship status of the defendants.

During World War II, eight men were trained by the German Reich at a sabotage school near Berlin. In mid-June, 1942, they boarded two German submarines in pairs of four and were transported in the dead of night to our shores in New York and Florida. They immediately ditched their infantry uniforms, donned civilian dress and proceeded to various points in the United States carrying explosives, fuses and incendiary and timing devices. They were on a mission from the German High Command to destroy war industries and facilities when the FBI apprehended them.

President Roosevelt, on July 2, 1942, appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try the defendants for offenses against the law of war and the Articles of War. Their trial commenced within days, and, while in process, the defendants brought a habeas corpus proceeding in federal court (ending up in the Supreme Court) challenging the validity, including the constitutionality, of the trial by military tribunal.

The Supreme Court rendered its decision on July 31, 1942, in Ex Parte Quirin, holding that military tribunals, which had been part of our heritage since the Revolutionary War, may be constituted to try enemies of war, including U.S. citizens, for capital crimes. In fact, one of the defendants (Haupt) was allegedly a citizen of the United States. The question was whether the defendants were unlawful combatants within the meaning of the Hague Convention. If so, they could be tried by military tribunal.

Unlawful combatants include those spies or enemy combatants who infiltrate their enemy's society in disguise (wearing civilian clothes) to wage war by destroying life or property. The defendants pleaded that Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution entitled them to a civilian jury trial. The Court rejected their argument, saying that these constitutional provisions guaranteed the right to jury trial in all cases for which a jury had been guaranteed at common law, but did not enlarge the right to other cases. Since common law did not require a jury trial for trials by military commission or for offenses against the law of war, neither Article III nor the Amendments required it.

Bush's detractors are reduced to arguing form over substance, saying that military tribunals can only be established when there is a formal declaration of war. That is specious for at least three reasons: 1) Congress passed a joint resolution clearly authorizing the president to use his war powers as commander in chief to defeat the terrorists and their sovereign sponsors; 2) The terrorists have declared war against America in furtherance of which they've already committed repeated acts of war dating back to 1993 and continuing to the present; and 3) look at the Court's description of an unlawful combatant, and tell me with a straight face that al-Qaida and other terrorists don't fit it perfectly. No one of sound mind genuinely disputes that we are at war.

Some argue that to try terrorists before military tribunals would be "inconsistent with the cause of freedom." Nonsense. Assuming some terrorists survive and require a trial, the surest way to compromise our freedoms would be to place them in our laboriously slow, civilian criminal-justice system, removing any prospect of swift justice and deterrence.

Now is not the time to be proving that we are sweet, wonderful people, but that we are deadly serious about exacting justice from those who attacked us without provocation or justification.