posted June 16, 2005 10:41 PM            

Wish I could put a microphone in the hand of every socialist/communist/progressive in America and let them spew their tripe over every airwave in America just to hasten the process.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:40 p.m. EDT
Sen. Durbin: Gitmo GIs Behaved Like 'Nazis'

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin compared U.S. troops to Hitler's concentration camp guards on Tuesday, saying that the way American soldiers treated terrorists at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay reminded him of the Nazis.

Citing FBI accounts of terrorist detainees forced to go without heat or air conditioning, Durbin told the Senate:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings."

"Sadly, that is not the case," added the No. 2 Senate Democrat. "This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Durbin's comments outraged radio host Rush Limbaugh, who was one of the the first, along with Laura Ingraham, to broadcast the Illinois Democrat's remarks.

"Senator, I'm embarrassed for you," Limbaugh told his audience. "I'm embarrassed that you are an American. I'm embarrassed that you are a United States senator. This is just over the top for you to draw this analogy."

Limbaugh noted that the heat endured by detainees at Guantanamo is actually less extreme than conditions faced by U.S. troops in Iraq.

posted June 16, 2005 11:35 PM            

So how can anyone call these anti-Bush triumphs impotent?

The answer can be found by looking at the net result of the Democrats' sound and fury – the neighing, snorting, belching, whining, compulsive objections and mountain of undocumented allegations. In two words: Bush won!

Of the seven people he chose to sit on our appellate courts, five have been seated: Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, David McKeague and Richard Griffin. Even if William Myers and Henry Saad don't follow, the president – a former baseball-team owner – will certainly take a "batting average" of over 700!

What Democrats Don't ‘Get'

Americans from 2,500 of our country's 3,000 voting precincts, who re-elected President Bush into office last year, still understand that the aging male Democrats who occupy the Senate and Congress are clearly not driven by interest or passion for our country's good, and that their obstructionist agenda is fueled by irrational rage, deep depression over a decade's worth of electoral losses, and "payback" vengefulness, none of which ever forged a relationship – either foreign or domestic – of any substance.

They see clearly through the soft-spoken, passive-aggressive Democrats and their testosterone-declining orgy of negativism, for instance:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who has said: the president is "a loser"; chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, is a "hack"; and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is an "embarrassment."

Venom spewers like Sen. Robert Byrd, a former KKK member who not two years ago used the word "nigger" in speaking about African-Americans (which, significantly, was ignored by the old media and rationalized by his leftist comrades).

Senators Joseph Biden, Patrick Leahy, Frank Lautenberg and Barack Obama, who have spent their days in elected office not doing the "business of the people" but wasting months on end contorting the English language to discredit a president whose legacy of freeing 50 million oppressed people will live long after their partisan spleens have been forgotten.
By the way, passive-aggressive is a psychiatric term that characterizes the behavior of very aggressive and angry people who cloak their fury in dulcet tones and purposefully sluggish actions, the better to camouflage their burning rage and vindictiveness.

And let's not forget the outright aggressive Democrat opponents of the president like:

DNC chairman Howard Dean ("I hate Republicans, " who are "brain dead").

Sen. Ted Kennedy, who remarked that: "we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." No wonder the Wall Street Journal said he is "cheerleading for America to fail."

Sen. John Kerry, who wants to impeach the president for waging the war in Iraq, which he himself touted and voted for (before the inveterate flip-flopper voted against it, of course).
And let's not forget the few post-menopausal, obstructionist female Democrats in the Senate – like Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary (I'm-not-really-a-liberal) Clinton – who have joined their flaccid colleagues, along with today's version of the three-headed Hydra: representatives Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters and Cynthia McKinney.

What Democrats Can't Stand

Democrats have resorted to the only things they have left in their puny arsenal – not original ideas, bold initiatives or genuine alternatives, but rather name-calling, insults and lies. Surely Teddy Roosevelt would say that they speak loudly and carry a very small stick!

They simply can't stand it that their best efforts have been so impotent and that the successes of President Bush's domestic and foreign policies have succeeded – in an astoundingly short five years – to change both our county and the world!

With three years left in his second term, President Bush – to the everlasting frustration of his Donkey Party rivals – has, on the domestic front:

Revolutionized decades of a failing education system by passing the No Child Left Behind Act, which measures progress empirically, fosters teacher accountability and emphasizes standards and not "feelings," and increased spending for education to unprecedented levels.

Overcome his predecessor's recession by providing Americans with huge tax cuts that, ultimately, led to a recovered economy and, today, a housing and employment boom and a robust stock market.

Provided a $400 billion Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act – the most significant and heavily endowed reform since 1965 – which allows the nation's 40 million senior citizens to obtain medications at reasonable prices.

Signed the Child Status Protection Act, a law involving the children of Vietnamese refugees.

Spearheaded the first reform of Social Security in over 60 years, which most Democrats – after touting personal retirement accounts during the Clinton years – now do what they do best: obstruct the plan with bogus charts and doomsday prognostications.

Chosen for his Cabinet the most diversely ethnic group of people in American history, including those who are Hispanic, Japanese, Chinese and Jewish, as well as several African-American members, two of them secretaries of state!
This partial list of quietly executed but powerful accomplishments goes on and on, many realized before and many after September 11, 2001!

What a Difference Eight Months Makes

After the presidential election of 2000 – which even the far-left New York Times and Washington Post grudgingly agreed was legitimate – President Bush took his oath of office in January 2001. Nearly eight months later, Islamic fanatics murdered nearly 3,000 innocent victims in New York; Washington, D.C.; and Pennsylvania.

Rising like the proverbial phoenix from the ashes of our national tragedy, President Bush both reassured and encouraged our nation in his vow to defeat all nations that support and harbor terrorists. Keeping to his word, he:

Established the Department of Homeland Security. Unprecedented.

Passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. Unprecedented.

Passed the U.S.A. Patriot law to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world. Unprecedented.

Dismantled the Taliban and al-Qaida regimes in Afghanistan by enhancing communication among intelligence agencies. Unprecedented.

Converted a former formidable foe, Pakistan, to joining our fight against terrorism, and succeeded in winning the support of its president, Pervez Musharraf, as well as defanging Dr. A.Q. Khan, who sold nuclear weapons throughout the world before being stopped in his tracks. Unprecedented.

Succeeded in getting former Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi to renounce his intention to continue seeking weapons of mass destruction. Unprecedented.

Liberated 25 million people in Afghanistan. Unprecedented.

Liberated 25 million people in Iraq. Unprecedented.

Set the stage for democratic elections in Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait and Eastern Europe … the list goes on. Unprecedented.

Engineered the withdrawal of 40,000 Syrian troops from Lebanon after 29 years of occupation. Unprecedented.
And what is it exactly that the Democrats have done this same period of time?

Obviously, they've continued to take the attenuated political version of Viagra that the DNC has handed them, with the result that they can't extend their hands, they aren't receptive to meeting halfway, and, when it comes to an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees, they always opt for down!

It's All About Sex

At least that's what Freud said. But in the case of Democrats, it's also about that other aphrodisiac, power. Power to spread their socialist agenda and to convince the American public that John Bolton, an eminently qualified nominee, is somehow not fit for the job because, as journalist Mark Steyn has written, he didn't pass the muster that Pope Benedict XVI also failed to pass, thanks to "Cardinal Biden … Cardinal Voinovich, Cardinal Gloria Steinem, Cardinal Rupert Everett and Cardinal Rosie O'Donnell. …"

Steyn might have added Cardinal Chuck Schumer, who is Jewish, and Cardinal Hillary Clinton (who has often claimed that a relative of a relative of a relative of hers is Jewish), both of whom are still fighting the Bolton nomination, although keenly aware that Bolton was responsible for bringing about the repeal of the anti-Semitic U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism.

But wait a minute. Isn't Mrs. Clinton the same self-proclaimed "moderate" who has a 100 percent rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League, has voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, and still waffles when it comes to alerting parents about abortions being performed on their minor daughters?

No matter. The lust for power has her and her colleagues scrambling to appeal to all constituencies, no matter how contradictory or hypocritical their positions are.

No wonder Bill Clinton's pollster, Stanley Greenberg, recently said that the Democrats' major weaknesses are that "they do not know what they stand for, they don't know their policy direction, they don't know their underlying values, they don't know who they fight for."

This is why former Democrat shakers-and-movers can now accurately be described as impotent wobblers-and-quiverers. It is because they are fixated in the past, trying to relive their intoxicating days of bringing down President Nixon over Watergate (which pales in comparison to Clinton selling nuclear secrets to China) and the war in Vietnam (which America was winning before the lefties in the three-network old media convinced the public we were losing).

But instead of recapturing their long-lost power by formulating cogent policies and engaging in dynamic debate to prove that they really want to improve the Social Security and health-care systems and airline security, solve the illegal immigrant crisis, deal with the selection of appellate-court judges, et al., they continue to demonstrate their impotence by resorting to blind, infantile rage – all the while deluding themselves that the public is too stupid to notice.

Democrats, Listen Up – You Are No Eagles!

At this point in our political history, the typical leftist Democrat is like the rabbit that sees an eagle perched in a tree and is jealous that the bird has the widest possible view of the world and can sit in safety and security, seemingly doing nothing.

When the eagle alights on the ground, the rabbit asks if he, too, can "sit and do nothing, just like you."

"Sure," says the eagle and flies away. So the rabbit sits on the ground doing nothing and all of a sudden a fox jumps out of the bushes and eats the rabbit alive.

There are two lessons here. One is that if you are sitting and doing nothing, you'd better be sitting very high up! And if you're not, you'd better be savvy at negotiating with those above you unless you want to get eaten alive.

No wonder Republicans are now saying "Bon Appetit!"

posted June 16, 2005 11:45 PM            

NEW YORK — Over half of voters think Congress (search) is out of touch with the country, and fewer than one-in-five believe Congress has passed legislation this year that would improve the quality of life for Americans. Clear majorities think the Patriot Act (search) is good for the country and support extending the legislation, which is set to expire at the end of the year. In addition, more than twice as many voters oppose closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay as support closure. These are just some of the findings from the latest FOX News nationwide poll of voters.

The poll shows that 54 percent of voters think Congress is out of touch with what is going on in the country, including almost half (48 percent) of Republicans. These new results are a reversal from previous polling when 52 percent said Congress was in touch and 35 percent out of touch (June 2003).

Given the recent gridlock and intense partisan bickering, it’s not surprising that a 63-percent majority thinks most senators and representatives are currently better described as "petty politicians fighting for personal gain" than as "statesmen doing service for their country" (17 percent). This less than positive view of elected officials could be one reason why voters, by more than three-to-one, favor term limits.

Moreover, 61 percent of respondents say Congress has failed to pass any legislation so far this year that they believe will "improve the quality of life" for most Americans — that’s over three times as many as believe lawmakers have approved legislation that will positively affect Americans’ lives (18 percent).

Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News on June 14-15.

"This anti-incumbent mood among the public has to be frightening for many Republican leaders since it is highly reminiscent of 1994 when Republicans used discontent to take power," comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman. "With so many safe Congressional districts and cozy incumbents, the only likely way to have major change in the makeup of Congress is a 'throw-the-bums-out' movement fueled by a nationalized campaign. Instead of asking voters to oppose their own representative, they can be asked to oppose the Republican majority as whole."

One piece of legislation a majority of voters support is renewal of the Patriot Act. A 57 percent majority says the Patriot Act is a good thing for America, up from 54 percent last year (April 2004). Similarly, support for extending the act is up slightly (3 percentage points), as today 56 percent support and 31 percent oppose renewing the legislation.

By 50 percent to 35 percent voters think the Patriot Act has helped prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

There are clear partisan differences in how voters view the Patriot Act. More than three-quarters of Republicans (76 percent) support extending the act compared to 40 percent of Democrats. Also, Republicans (71 percent) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (33 percent) to think the act has helped prevent terrorist attacks.

Recently, after allegations that troops mistreated prisoners, some critics have urged the closing of the U.S. military prison that houses terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay (search), Cuba. The poll finds almost 6 in 10 voters (59 percent) think the prison should stay open, 22 percent think it should be closed and 19 percent are unsure.

In addition, 43 percent think the prison meets "accepted standards for treating prisoners," while 33 percent think the prison is failing to meet those standards and almost a quarter (24 percent) are unsure.

Prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay are given copies of the holy Muslim book the Koran. If the situations were reversed, and Muslims were holding Americans as prisoners, few respondents think the same sensitivity would hold true: 10 percent believe Americans would offered copies of the Bible, while 75 percent do not.

Anticipating Supreme Court Retirements

When respondents were asked which of the three branches of government they trust the most, the judicial branch tops the list at 33 percent, followed by executive at 22 percent and legislative at 20 percent. A faithful 3 percent say they trust all three branches, 11 percent trust none, and 5 percent say "mixed."

Significant change is expected in the judicial branch with the likely retirement of one or more Supreme Court justices — possibly as early as this summer. Many voters (58 percent) "welcome" changes on the country’s highest court while 28 percent are "uneasy" about the changes.

Many anticipate the retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who has been ailing with thyroid cancer since late 2004. Even though Rehnquist has been on the U.S. Supreme Court for over 30 years and has been chief justice for almost 20 years, many people are unfamiliar with his name. Today 30 percent have a favorable opinion of Rehnquist, 16 percent unfavorable, 29 percent are unsure and 24 percent say they have "never heard of" him.

Just over half (54 percent) say they are comfortable with President George W. Bush selecting the next Supreme Court nominee (31 percent "very" and 23 percent "somewhat") and 43 percent are uncomfortable (15 percent "not very" and 28 percent "not at all" comfortable). The number of voters at ease today with President Bush choosing the next nominee is down slightly from six months ago when 59 percent said they were comfortable and 34 percent uncomfortable (November 2004).

Presidential Job Performance

Overall, President Bush’s job rating is essentially unchanged from late April and currently stands at 48 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove. The president’s ratings continue to show a huge partisan gap, with his approval among Republicans at a lofty 86 percent compared to 14 percent among Democrats and 46 percent among independents.

posted June 21, 2005 06:43 PM            

For Immediate Release
Contact: Melissa Merz
(202) 224-7028
December 17, 1998

DURBIN STATEMENT ON MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ

I fully support President Clinton and our national security team's decision to take swift action against Saddam Hussein.

The attack against this dictator should come as no surprise.

The record clearly shows that he has harassed American and United Nations inspectors, ordered the destruction of important documents in anticipation of inspections and hampered the ability of inspectors to carry out their mission. His defiant protection of his weapons of mass destruction cannot go unanswered.

The mission has bipartisan support, including U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee; U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN); and U.S. Sen. John Warner (R-VA), incoming Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad.

posted June 21, 2005 07:28 PM            

Durbin is terrorist's new best friend
June 21, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

I can understand the Democrats' angst over enemy combatants being detained at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo). Somewhere in the dark recesses of the Democrat mind, the thought no doubt exists that had they been free, there would have been more votes in their column.

But what Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., purposefully miss in their prevarications is what these detainees are and why they are at Gitmo in the first place.

The first detainees were al-Qaida and Taliban forces moved in January 2002 to Gitmo from near Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, home of the prison riot that resulted in America's first casualty of the war – CIA agent Johnny Michael Spann. (Does anyone believe Durbin in any way acknowledges Spann's wife or three children with even a card on holidays or birthdays? I digress).

They are murderers and terrorists in the truest sense of these words. They are not freedom fighters; they are not honorable courageous men being held illegally. They are oppressors and killers who deprived men, women and children of the most basic rights and freedoms. They are also part and parcel of the evil that terrorized America and American interests at sea and internationally for eight documented years before their capture.

They are enemy combatants and, as such, under the laws and customs of war may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. This includes a member, agent or associate of al-Qaida or the Taliban. (See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38, 1942.)

"Enemy combatants" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: Lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive [said] full protections ...

The president has determined that al-Qaida and Taliban members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non state terrorist group that does not receive the protection of the Third Geneva Convention.

– Memorandum from William J. Haynes II, general counsel of the Department of Defense

In a word, the "Gitmo-ites" are not under sovereign flag or country. They are a marauding infestation whose sole purpose is to inflict pain, suffering and anarchy, combined with a visceral hatred of the United States.

Haynes points out that "presidents have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation's history, including ... The Gulf, Vietnam and Korean Wars."

Patrick Leahy can try to downplay Durbin's remarks as being misquotes of the Wall Street Journal, but as Richard Nixon found out, White House and Capitol tape recorders don't lie.

No one should be surprised or shocked by Durbin's recent comments. They were baneful and morally opprobrious, but not out of character for him.

After all, it was Durbin who embarrassed and humiliated all concerned when he "Defamed America's great Emancipator" at the dedication of the Lincoln Memorial, with a crude anti-Semitic joke. It was Durbin and "The Great Sot," aka Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who pooled their limited integrities in "Memogate."

No one can reasonably question Durbin's proclivity to make a fool of himself and humiliate those around him, but prefabrications of how our brave men and women are treating terrorists at Guantanamo Bay is beneath contempt. His sensitivity and concern for the climatic inconvenience of enemy combatants (in an area where the average year round temperature is 80 degrees) far exceeds his concern for same pursuant to American and coalition forces serving in 111-degree average daily temperatures. And as always his absurd allegations against our troops and the president come from unnamed anonymous sources.

So a few observations for Durbin and the anonymous sources he says hello to every morning in the mirror: Prisoners who are freezing or suffering from heat exposure do not pull their hair out, but unstable psychotics do. If temperature extremes were as Durbin invented, why were not more prisoners and our troops affected on some level? Also, if the military aggressively prosecuted offending parties at Abu-Ghraib, why would offenses be ignored at Gitmo?

Another question would be: How many torture cells, gulags, etc. give out Qurans, have specially prepared food according to their religious practices and have picture compasses under their mattresses – so when the loud speakers call prayers five times a day, these directionally challenged genius' know which way to turn to pray.

A final question would be: Why are Durbin and his kind always more willing to believe our enemies over us? Why in their eyes is the U.S. military always at fault? But then again, I answer my own question – enemies of the State always share values, if not goals, in common.

posted June 25, 2005 03:40 PM            

WASHINGTON — President Bush's re-election set the stage for a new Republican revolution. Voters elected a president with big ideas and strengthened Republican control of Congress. "I earned political capital ... and now I intend to spend it," Bush said on Nov. 4.

Congress isn't always buying.

Bush has not unified his party around his plan to overhaul Social Security. A senior Republican senator, George Voinovich of Ohio, helped trigger the opposition that has stalled confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. Republicans helped foil White House plans to bar Democrats from filibustering Bush's judicial nominees in the Senate.

In the House, 50 Republicans voted against Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and 38 broke ranks to vote for ending FBI scrutiny of libraries under the USA Patriot Act. Last week, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., whose district includes the Marines' Camp Lejeune, joined Democrats in demanding a timetable for a pullout from Iraq.

At a White House lunch for Senate Republicans this week, Bush touted votes to limit bankruptcy and class-action lawsuits as big GOP victories. But he's having trouble building momentum for his second-term priorities as he prepares to fill a possible Supreme Court vacancy.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy dismisses talk of tensions between Bush and Republicans on Capitol Hill. On issues such as taxes, defense and terrorism, he says, "There is complete unity. It's a sign of a mature party that we can have disagreements ... and still work together on the big challenges."

The contrast with Bush's first term is striking. Four years ago, he was elected without winning the popular vote. His party had a nine-vote majority in the 435-member House and the Senate was deadlocked. Even so, his two big initiatives, tax cuts and changes in the way public schools are run, passed in his first year.

So why isn't Bush doing better on Capitol Hill now?

The bottom line, according to political veterans and analysts: Republicans in Congress have to run again. Bush doesn't.

Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican who served in the Senate leadership and is a friend of the Bush family, says the president's "uncharacteristic rigidity" on some issues is causing heartburn for Republicans. "They're thinking re-election and the president is asking them to go over a cliff," he says.

Bush's job-approval rating, 47% in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll last week, doesn't help, says Charlie Cook, publisher of the non-partisan Cook Report. "When a president's job approval numbers stay consistently below 50%, he starts losing support on Capitol Hill," he says. "Members of his own party feel free to distance themselves and members of the opposition party are emboldened to attack."

Political veterans suggest three ways Bush could improve relations with Republicans in Congress:

•More talk: The filibuster deal signed by 14 senators — seven of them Republicans — included a blunt public call for more consultation with the Senate by the White House. That was a sign that the White House may not be paying enough attention to lawmakers. So was Voinovich's vote against Bolton.

Simpson recalls that Ronald Reagan used to invite critics for relaxed visits at the White House. "He'd be mixing the drinks," Simpson recalls. He thinks Bush should use "the mystique of the White House" more often to woo Congress. Senators were delighted to be invited for lunch this week. "It's always a thrill," says Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo.

•Say more clearly what he wants: Bush's defenders say controversy always accompanies a tough agenda. "He's put some very difficult issues on the table," says Nick Calio, Bush's former congressional liaison.

But some Republicans think Bush hasn't been direct enough. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has urged Bush to be more specific about his Social Security plan. Says former House majority leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, "This is the biggest issue of our lifetime, the president should take control of it." Armey says Bush did that in his first term with his tax cut proposals. "I remember the meetings. We were working from the president's plan."

•Change the focus: Rising gas prices and continuing U.S. deaths in Iraq have increased pressure on members of Congress. "Thirteen percent of the country thinks Congress is working on issues that matter to them," says Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives. "Every Republican should look at that with real deep concern."

Former congressman Vin Weber, a Minnesota Republican, says skittish Republicans in Congress share the blame for Bush's stalled agenda. "One of the most tempting siren songs in an off-year election is the thought that you can politically prosper by separating yourself from the president," he says. "It ... never works."

Bush's supporters say it's too early to count him out. "With time and effort across the board on issues, you will see the successes start to stack up," says Calio, who predicts Congress will soon approve a highway bill, energy policy and budget.

posted June 26, 2005 03:30 PM              

Left and Right ? Dem and Rep ?

Only one of them can be the good guys, only one can be the bad ?

Little advice their fruity-

TIME TO EVOLVE BEYOND BLACK AND WHITE.

The onnly sad thing is that I cant just laugh at only you. Your mentality unfortinatly is the standard in this Empire.

Thats exactly how your media, press, and polliticians keep you blind and sleeping. You just fall right into their games of every last election-

posted July 01, 2005 02:45 PM            

To put the Supreme Court's recent ban on the Ten Commandments display in perspective, here is a small sampling of other speech that has been funded in whole or in part by taxpayers:

— Graphic videos demonstrating how to put a condom on and pep talks by "Planned Parenthood educators." — sex education classes at public schools across the nation

— Korans distributed to aspiring terrorists at Guantanamo. — U.S. military

— "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers (than the attack of 9/11), I'd really be interested in hearing about it." — Ward Churchill, professor, University of Colorado

— We need "a million more Mogadishus" (referring to the slaughter of 18 American soldiers during a peacekeeping mission in Somalia in 1993). — Nicholas De Genova, assistant professor, Columbia University

— "The entire federal government — the Congress, the executive, the courts — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That agenda includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives. ... If you like the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming. And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture ..." — Bill Moyers' commentary on PBS' "Now"

— "Kiss it." — governor of Arkansas to state employee

— "For most Americans ... (war with Japan) was a war of vengeance. For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism. ... Some have argued that the United States would never have dropped the bomb on the Germans, because Americans were more reluctant to bomb 'white people' than Asians." — Smithsonian exhibit to commemorate the 50th anniversary of VJ Day, later modified due to protests

— "Anglos consolidated their control of New Mexico, acquiring huge holdings from the original owners through fraud and manipulation." — Smithsonian exhibit

— "Ignored were the less honorable aspects of California history — the profiteering, revolts against Mexican authority and Indian massacres." — Smithsonian exhibit, comment on the painting "The Promised Land — The Grayson Family"

— "This predominance of negative and violent views was a manifestation of Indian hating, a largely manufactured, calculated reversal of the basic facts of white encroachment and deceit." — Smithsonian exhibit

— "In the Americas, sugar meant slavery." — Smithsonian exhibit

— Close-up photos of women's vaginas plastered all over a portrait of the Virgin Mary (which The New York Times will still not mention when it describes the "art"). — Brooklyn Museum of Art

— A photo of a woman breastfeeding an infant, titled "Jesus Sucks." — NEA-funded performance

— A photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open titled to suggest the infant was available for oral sex. — NEA-funded performance

— "F—- a Fetus" poster showing an unborn baby with the caption: "For all you folks who consider a fetus more valuable than a woman, have a fetus cook for you, have a fetus affair, go to a fetus' house to ease your sexual frustration." — NEA-funded performance

— Performance of giant bloody tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot feces and vibrators. — NEA-funded performance

— A novel depicting the sexual molestation of a group of 10 children in a pedophile's garage, including acts of bestiality, with the children commenting on how much they enjoyed the pedophilia. — NEA-funded publisher

— Christ submerged in a jar of urine. — NEA-funded exhibit

— A female performer inserting a speculum into her vagina and inviting audience members on stage to view her cervix with a flashlight. — NEA-funded performance

— A performance of large, sexually explicit props covered with Bibles performing a wide variety of sex acts and concluding with a mass Bible-burning. — NEA-funded performance (canceled by the venue in response to citizen protests)

— A show titled "DEGENERATE WITH A CAPITAL D" featuring a display of the remains of the artist's own aborted baby. — NEA-funded exhibit

— A play titled "Sincerity Forever," depicting Christ using obscenities and endorsing any and all types of sexual activities as consistent with Biblical teaching. — NEA-funded exhibit

— Essay describing then-New York Cardinal John O'Connor as a "fat cannibal from that house of walking swastikas up on Fifth Avenue." Also photographs of men performing oral sex, anal sex, oral-anal sex and masturbation. — NEA-funded exhibit

That's the America you live in! A country founded on a compact with God, forged from the idea that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights is now a country where taxpayers can be forced to subsidize "artistic" exhibits of aborted fetuses. But don't start thinking about putting up a Ten Commandments display. That's offensive!

I don't want to hear any jabberwocky from the Court TV amateurs about "the establishment of religion." (1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion — meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion. We've been through this a million times.

Now the Supreme Court is itching to ban the Pledge of Allegiance because of its offensive reference to one nation "under God." (Perhaps that "God" stuff could be replaced with a vulgar sexual reference.) But with the court looking like a geriatric ward these days, they don't want to alarm Americans right before a battle over the next Supreme Court nominee. Be alarmed. This is what it's about.