Soapbox Archive

By Michael Laris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 14, 2004; Page A06
MOON TOWNSHIP, Pa., Oct. 13 — Lynne V. Cheney, wife of Vice President Cheney, accused John F. Kerry on Wednesday night of “a cheap and tawdry political trick” and said he “is not a good man” after he brought up their daughter’s homosexuality at the final presidential debate.

What the fuck?…he’s not a good man for mentioning what was already brought up in the vice presidential debate? She should blame her husband for adding their daughter to the list of topics. Dick Cheney brought it up when he failed to tow the party line on August 25, 2004 and put his own two cents in about Bush’s little pet project of a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage.

From cnn.com Wednesday, August 25, 2004

At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,” when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. … People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

“The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage,” he said.

Mary Cheney, one of the vice president’s two daughters and an official of the Bush-Cheney campaign, has been open about her lesbian status. The candidates were asked if they believe homosexuality is a choice, and President Bush did not mention Mary Cheney. Then Kerry said, “If you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.”

Oh how awful of Kerry to suggest that Mary Cheney is just being who she is…the gall of that man for suggesting that there isn’t something horribly wrong with Lynne Cheney’s daughter. That is just so disrespectful!

Lynne Cheney issued her post-debate rebuke to a cheering crowd outside Pittsburgh. “The only thing I can conclude is he is not a good man. I’m speaking as a mom,” she said. “What a cheap and tawdry political trick.”

Yes it’s really is a cheap trick for him to suggest that the government has no business meddling in the bedrooms of consenting adults, and that everyone including Lynne Cheney’s daughter should have equal rights to see their life partner in the hospital and to share custody of their partner’s biological and/or adopted children. I mean if you just simply ignore the divorce rate you’ll know that marriage is just so damn sacred that it should only be between those who can have intercourse in the only acceptable fashion!

Steven Fisher, communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay and lesbian political organization, said Kerry “was speaking to millions of American families who, like the Cheneys, have gay friends and family members.”

Kerry’s running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), also made a reference to the sexual orientation of Cheney’s daughter, during the vice presidential debates, and Republicans complained that it was an underhanded way of trying to hurt the Bush-Cheney ticket with religious conservatives.

If this hurt the Bush-Cheney ticket with the religious conservatives it’s their own fault for not following the wholly babble to the letter. They should have had Mary Cheney put to death when she came out of the closet.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. — Lev.20:13

I just can’t even believe that gay marriage is a political issue. The government should have absolutely no part in marriage (that includes tax relief/penalties for being the focus during a religious ritual). Marriage is strictly a religious union that should only be recognized which ever church performs the ceremony. If the religious clubhouse door has a “no gays allowed” sign, and you’re a homosexual that wants a marriage find a more accepting place. If you want the government to recognize your union whether gay, straight, or undecided you should be able to get a legal contract called a civil union! As long as all participants in the contract are of the determined legal age and are not signing under duress who the fuck gives a shit!!! Nobody seems to mind collecting taxes from homosexuals…they pay into the system they should have the rights, and privileges from the government that go with it.

Bush and all his denials…one that really stood out immediately was when the arrogant jackass denied saying that he really didn’t give a rat’s ass about catching Osama.
This transcript of last night’s debate was taken from the official White House website:

SENATOR KERRY: Yes. When the President had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of him, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped. Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught, dead or alive, this President was asked, where is Osama bin Laden? He said, I don’t know, I don’t really think about him very much, I’m not that concerned. We need a President who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Gosh, I don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. That’s kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course, we’re worried about Osama bin Laden. We’re on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We’re using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

My opponent said this war is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement. No, this is a — war is a matter of using every asset at our disposal to keep the American people protected.

If I were a Bush supporter I would be wondering why he didn’t even attempt to explain the logic behind letting Osama’s allies take care of catching Osama, but then again I have this annoying habit of using my brain instead of allowing the TV to be my wet nurse. No where does Bush ever deny or explain outsourcing the job of capturing Osama to the same people that were very recently good buddies with Terrorist Leader number one. The royal idiot only laughs and calls the words Kerry quoted, which are easily found on the official White House website dated March 13th 2002, an exaggeration. The imbecile gave a strong 5 second rebuttal focusing only on the “I’m not that concerned” quote, and used the highly advanced third grader’s argumentative tactic of, “nu uh I didn’t say that”.

Question: Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part — deep in your heart, don’t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won’t really eliminate the threat of –

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is — really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he’s just — he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is — as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide — if, in fact, he’s hiding at all.

So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There’s going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I’m just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We’re tough, we’re strong, they’re well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Question: But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became — we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we — excuse me for a minute — and if we find a training camp, we’ll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That’s one of the things — part of the new phase that’s becoming apparent to the American people is that we’re working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we’ve got more work to do. See, that’s the thing the American people have got to understand, that we’ve only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don’t know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it’s going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I’m not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

I’d really like the pres. to explain why he outsourced the terrorist hunting job he seemed so eager to let our own troops do to the friends of Osama (the terrorist we’re supposed to be after). From the Washingtonpost.com April 17, 2002 page A01 By Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writers

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan’s mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December.

After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command, describe the episode as a significant defeat for the United States. A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war’s operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda’s leader. Without professing second thoughts about Tora Bora, Franks has changed his approach fundamentally in subsequent battles, using Americans on the ground as first-line combat units.

In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to promises to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing al Qaeda fighters. Franks did not perceive the setbacks soon enough, some officials said, because he ran the war from Tampa with no commander on the scene above the rank of lieutenant colonel. The first Americans did not arrive until three days into the fighting. “No one had the big picture,” one defense official said.

This is straight from The White House, unedited from their own site as of 10:50am (Pacific Time).

President Signs Defense Bill
Remarks by the President at the Signing of H.R. 4613, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005
Room 350, Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building

9:56 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated.

America and our allies are fighting a new kind of war against a different kind of enemy. This conflict places great demands on the men and women of our armed forces, including our Guard and Reserve. They have met every test. They’ve risen to every challenge.

President George W. Bush signs H.R.4613, The Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building Thursday, Aug. 5, 2004. The bill commits 391 billion dollars for the Department of Defense. “In the last three years, our military men and women have struck a series of decisive blows against the enemy,” said the President. “They have relentlessly attacked the al Qaeda network. They’ve killed or captured many of its leaders. They’ve destroyed its terror camps. We’re disrupting its plans. We’re doing our duty.” White House photo by Eric Draper. The war also places demands on those of us in government. We took an oath to protect our country. We have a solemn responsibility to support the servicemen and women who defend us in the field of battle. The Defense appropriations bill I will sign today commits $391 billion toward meeting that responsibility. With this legislation, America’s military will know that their country stands behind them as they fight for our freedom, and as they spread the peace. No enemy or friend can doubt that America has the resources to prevail, and we will.

I want to thank the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for his steadfast and strong leadership of our — of our Pentagon. Mr. Secretary, thank you.

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz for joining us today. I appreciate the other members of the Pentagon team who are here. I appreciate Jim Roche and Les Brownlee representing the Air Force and the Army. General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is with us. I appreciate the Chairman. I want to thank all the military generals who are here, who run their respective — respective branches of the services. Thank you all for coming. Thanks for your leadership.

I appreciate Senator John Warner representing the United States Congress. Senator Warner is a strong leader when it comes to matters of defense. He’s the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. I want thank you for that, sir.

America’s military is fighting in many theaters, yet always for the same cause. We seek to preserve freedom and peace for ourselves and for our friends.

In the last three years, our military men and women have struck a series of decisive blows against the enemy. They have relentlessly attacked the al Qaeda network. They’ve killed or captured many of its leaders. They’ve destroyed its terror camps. We’re disrupting its plans. We’re doing our duty.

We’ve ended regimes in Kabul and Baghdad that supported and harbored terrorists and threatened America. They have helped to launch the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan on the path to lasting democracy and liberty. They have helped friendly nations build the strength and institutions necessary to fight terror. At this hour, our troops are staying on the offensive against al Qaeda. We’re taking the fight to the enemies — those who can’t stand the thought of a free Iraq and free Afghanistan. Our troops are making America safer, and we’re grateful for their sacrifices.

President George W. Bush greets military personnel after signing H.R.4613, The Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building Thursday, Aug. 5, 2004. White House photo by Eric Draper. These great achievements have come at a cost of human life and grief. America is grateful for the families of those who mourn a loved one. We will honor their memory by completing the mission and making the world a more peaceful place. We have made a commitment to the men and women of our armed forces. We will support them. We will provide them fair pay and good treatment. We will continue to ensure they have the tools they need to defeat the enemies of today. We will develop the weapons and systems to meet the threats of tomorrow.

The bill meets these commitments — first, by providing more then $103 billion to the greatest source of American strength — our service people and their families. This appropriation is the fourth of my administration to include a pay raise for our troops. This year’s raise of 3.5 percent brings the total pay raise over the last four years to nearly 21 percent. This money is well earned, well deserved, and well spent.

The bill also fulfills my pledge to eliminate the costs that too many service people have had to pay for off-base housing. It’s a real boost to the quality of life for our military families. The excellence and professionalism of an all-volunteer force has never been higher. America must do all we can to encourage these special Americans to stay in uniform. And that starts with taking care of their families.

Second, this bill meets our commitments by making sure that our armed forces have every tool they need to meet and defeat the threats of our time. This bill provides $25 billion in emergency appropriations to support current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the front lines in the war on terror. This money will buy more armored Humvees, more ammunition, more fuel, more spare parts. It will upgrade our helicopters with the latest equipment, allowing them to fly more safely in the dangerous theaters.

This bill helps America maintain the peace around the world and keep our commitments to our allies. It funds construction of three new state-of-the-art guided missile destroyers to patrol the seas; 42 new F/A-18 fighter aircraft to guard the skies. It provides $4 billion for new C-17 strategic air lifters, which will increase our ability to move forces quickly over long distances. And $200 million will buy more Predator unmanned surveillance aircraft to track and hunt our enemies.

President George W. Bush walks downs the steps of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after signing H.R.4613, The Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 Thursday, Aug. 5, 2004. “The bill meets these commitments — first, by providing more then $103 billion to the greatest source of American strength — our service people and their families,” said the President in his comments. White House photo by Eric Draper. This bill provides $10 billion for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational. This will fulfill a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago. America and our allies face a deadly threat from ballistic missiles armed with the world’s most dangerous weapons. And we will deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people.

Recent history has shown that threats to our shores can emerge from failing states half a world away. By acting early to end a crisis, we can make our world safer. That’s why this bill provides $95 million to help the people of Darfur, in western Sudan. Brutal militias there are causing human suffering on an immense scale. The new funding will provide famine relief, assistance for refugees and other humanitarian aid. Yet not amount of aid can substitute for true and lasting peace. The Government of Sudan must stop the violence of Janjaweed militias, and all parties must respect the cease-fire and allow the free movement of humanitarian workers and supplies.

Third, this bill meets our commitment to America’s Armed Forces by preparing them to meet the threats of tomorrow. Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. We must never stop thinking about how best to defend our country when we all must always be forward-thinking.

In case you missed that let me re-print once more:
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. ”

That’s probably the first time I’ve ever agreed with dubya. I don’t know why I’m so shocked those words actually fell out of his mouth…I just never expected the smirking chimp to be so brutally honest about the harm caused by his administration.

I couldn’t have asked for a better Freudian slip. I hope Kerry uses this quote in his TV ads.

Over the past few years, new ideas and new technologies have increased the precision of our weapons, reduced battlefield casualties, and lessened the toll of war on innocent life. This bill continues that progress by funding the technologies that are changing the way we fight wars in order to keep the peace, technology such as: the Army’s Future Combat System, which will give every soldier precise tactical information in the heat of battle; the Littoral Combat Ship, which will increase the reach of our Navy into hostile shores and waterways; the versatile and cost-effective Joint Strike Fighter; and Wideband Satellite laser communications that will improve the ability of our forces to communicate over great distances.

I appreciate the solid and bipartisan support of this bill. I appreciate both people — people of both parties coming together to support our troops. We’re doing our duty to the people who are out doing their duty to defend us and make the world a more peaceful place. The message is clear: In a time of conflict and challenge, America stands behind our military.

By taking care of our service people in uniform, by addressing the threats of today, by preparing for the threats of a tomorrow, this bill will help make America a safer place. And so I’m pleased to sign the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

Thank you all for coming. (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.)

END 10:07 A.M. EDT

You now cannot say “bum” on the radio. On Seattle’s 100.7 KQBZ The Buzz they were playing a South Park sound byte. The one that goes, “We shall have such a gay time, and when I say gay I mean festive not penetration of the bum.”

So lets all bow before Lord Ashcroft the word Nazi and get out our dictionary of newspeak so that we may cross out our bums.

I agree with part of this, but not all (see below)….

After hearing that the state of Florida changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver’s license with her face covered this is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper. He did quite a job; didn’t he? Read on, please!

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the “politically correct” crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

The above I agree with to a certain extent, but multicultural communities dilute our sovereignty and identity? Here is the definition of sovereignty:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.

We still have the constitution and are still independent from other countries. I don’t see how adding different cultures to the mix diminishes the law and independence of a country, and the mixture of other cultures is what created America’s identity. Just look at what we eat! Pizza (America’s version of Italian food), Hot dogs (America’s version of German food), Ketchup (derived from the Chinese ke-tsiap, a pickled fish sauce), Cheesecake (believed to have originated in ancient Greece), Tacos, Teriyaki…

“In God We Trust” is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

By an Act of Congress, U.S. currency has carried the motto “In God We Trust” only since 1957. In 1955, Congress passed a law requiring that “In God We Trust” appear on all U.S. coins and currency. The first paper currency with the motto appeared in 1957. This was right after the McCarthy era, during the early Cold War, when no congressperson had the balls to stand up and remind people that our government was supposed to be secular so that anyone could practice their own beliefs.

“In God We Trust” did appear occasionally on a few coins, starting with a 2-cent piece in the 1860s, probably in an attempt to put “God” on the side of the north during the Civil War. In 1956, an Act of Congress adopted “In God We Trust” as a national motto. The original motto, “E Pluribus Unum” (”out of many, [come] one,”) celebrating plurality, still appears on the Presidential Seal and on some paper currency, and should be the only motto…notice the original is a godless one?

This country was NOT founded on Christian principles:

U.S. treaty signed by President Adams. In 1797 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli, in which it was declared:
“As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility [sic] of Mussulmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” This treaty was written under Washington’s presidency, and it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.

Our nation was founded as a secular government. There is no mention of any deities in the Constitution.

The First Amendment begins with these words:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .” The two clauses are referred to, respectively, as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

President Thomas Jefferson coined this phrase “wall of separation between church and state” in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802. It has since been widely picked up and invoked in major Supreme Court decisions.

Through the country is runs on a majority rules theory the Bill of Rights was created to protect minority groups. I use the following two examples to show that Christian religions also evoke the first amendment right to freedom of religion not just the non-Christians.

In 1890, bible reading was outlawed from Wisconsin schools. — A Roman Catholic family objected to the exclusive use of the Protestant King James Version of the bible. The court barred all bible reading from Wisconsin public schools. [State ex rel. Weiss vs. District Board, 76 Wisc. 177 (1890)].

The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed student-initiated prayers at high-school football games in 2000. The Texas lawsuit was taken by a Catholic family and a Mormon family who had children who were being harassed by the born-again majority in the public schools.

If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don’t like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every! citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

The phrase “under god” was added in 1954 as a response to the “Red scare”. Congress figured that adding “under god” to the pledge would separate the real Americans from those evil heathen atheist commies. The original pledge was first published on September 8, 1892 in the magazine “Youth’s Companion” with no reference to a deity. I see no reason to add god to a pledge to one’s country, and would prefer going back to the original pledge. Those that wish to add a deity to the pledge to their country may, but a our secular government should keep it out in order to serve all!

This is an email I’ve received a couple times:

By Rick Mathes

Last month I attended my annual training session that’s required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.

After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: “Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven.

If that’s the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?”

There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, “Non-believers!”

I responded, “So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven.Is that correct?

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, “Yes.”

I then stated, “Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!”

The Imam was speechless. I continued, “I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who
tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?”

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the ‘Diversification’ training seminar were not happy with Rick’s way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim’s beliefs.

I think everyone in the US should be required to read this, but with the liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized. Please pass this on to all your email contacts.

This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well known leader in prison ministry.

So you think Christianity is some how better than other religions?…Christians aren’t supposed to like infidels either just look at the your own holy bable - I mean bible…

2 Chr. 15:13
That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Dt. 13:6 - 10
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

But you say, “Christians don’t have to follow the Old Testament!” Really?…Are you sure?

Mt. 5:18-19
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Lk. 16:17

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Here’s what a friend says about Christians not following the Old Testament:

I’ve heard the argument that Jesus came to make a new covenant with man and in so doing, wipes away the OT, or something along those lines, but for any Christian to claim that the Old Testament isn’t relevant or whatever is just crap. If the Old Testament was no longer relevant, why was it canonized? For reference? It’s the word of God, no? Was God wrong for 39 books and a couple thousand years? The only reason Xians make that argument (about the NT replacing the OT) is as an excuse for all the hideous, angry-God, polygamous, incestuous, murderous shit in the OT.

Cursing, sexual innuendos, the explanation of current sexual slang, and playing a children’s potty training tape with the words “doodie and poopie” on the radio and showing nipples on TV will make your innocent child’s head explode but censoring internet porn would be a violation to free speech. I’m confused! Oh but sexual innuendos shown on commercials such as, the Herbal Essence woman faking an orgasm is absolutely fine. And the explanation of current sexual slang on TV is ok as long as it’s on Oprah, which airs right when kids get home from school. Do they just throw these things in a hat and mix it around to decide what they will claim is in yours and your child’s best interest? Either allow free speech or be more clear and consistent in governmental parenting!! If the thought police are to be invoked like in George Orwell’s 1984, make sure to pass out dictionaries containing the newspeak and remove all the horrible un-words.

I can’t figure out why Ashcroft is even pushing this again. There is software that can be placed on the computer a child uses…it works as well as hiding porno mags and sex toys in the top shelf of the master closet, or paying for full cable TV while expecting the kids to never sneak up late to watch HBO, Cinimax or some other late night soft porn station.  At some point parents will just have to break down and explain it all to the kids themselves, which is called parenting - it’s what parents should do not the government.

As a kid, the first time you were in a library with a group of friends what were the first two words you looked up in that huge unabridged dictionary that sits on that tall stand in the middle of the room?…Shit and Fuck… When you became a little more sophisticated, say in junior high, you’d look up fag, faggot, and maybe orgasm. Fag and faggot were actually a disappointment in the 80’s editions. Are we going to go back in time? Will censoring the dictionary be Ashcroft’s next conquest? Should Webster and the libraries that carry copies be fined $50,000 per book and instance of each profane word for placing material that is “harmful to minors” within easy reach since the dictionary defines slang meanings such as fuck off you fucked up fuck head?

High Court Upholds Block of Web Porn Law
Jun 29, 11:14 AM (ET)

By ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.

The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton and now backed by the Bush administration. The majority said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect because it likely violates the First Amendment.

In considering the issue a third time, the court did not end a long fight, however. The majority voted to send the case back to a lower court for a trial that could give the government a chance to prove the law does not go too far.

The ruling in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term that ended Tuesday with no announcements that any of the nine justices would retire. The year’s marquee cases involving presidential power to deal with suspected terrorists were announced Monday, and for the most part represented a loss for the Bush administration.

The majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there may have been important technological advances in the five years since a federal judge blocked the law.

Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for them while keeping that material out of the hands of children.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Kennedy.

Tuesday’s pornography ruling is more nuanced, but still a blow to the government. It marks the third time the high court has considered the case, and it may not be the last.

The ACLU and other critics of the antipornography law said that it would restrict far too much material that adults may legally see and buy.

“We’re very pleased with the decision,” ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said. “The status quo is still with us and the court made it safe for artists, sex educators and Web publishers to communicate with adults without risking jail time.”

Beeson said that after repeated losses in court, the government may choose to drop any further defense of the law. There was no immediate word from the Bush administration.

The law, which never took effect, would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is “harmful to minors” within the easy reach of children on the Internet.

The law also would have required adults to use access codes and or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online.

For now, the law, known as the Child Online Protection Act, would sweep with too broad a brush, Kennedy wrote. “There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech” if the law took effect, he said.

Kennedy said that filtering software “is not a perfect solution to the problem of children gaining access to harmful-to-minors materials.” So far, he added, the government has failed to prove that other technologies would work better.

In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer said the law is constitutional and should be upheld.

Restrictions about who would be covered by the law and how it would be enforced “answer many of the concerns raised by those who attack its constitutionality,” Breyer wrote.

Congress had tried repeatedly to find a way to protect Web-surfing children from smut without running afoul of the First Amendment.

The justices unanimously struck down the first version of a child-protection law passed in 1996, just as the Internet was becoming a commonplace means of communication, research and entertainment.

Congress responded by passing COPA, saying the new law met the Supreme Court’s free-speech standards.

The ACLU challenged COPA immediately, arguing that the replacement law was every bit as unconstitutional as the original. The law has been tied up in the courts ever since.

The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of Web sites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. The ACLU argued that its clients could face jail time or fines for distributing information that, while racy or graphic, is perfectly legal for adult eyes and ears.

Material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment. Adults may see or purchase it, but children may not.

A Philadelphia-based federal appeals court has stuck down the law twice, on both broad and fairly narrow grounds.

The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218.

This is a snippet from a news report about Abu Ghraib:

Bush blamed a “few people” for the abuses and defended the conduct of U.S. occupation forces…

A friend’s comment on this portion of the news story:

That’s bullsh!t and Bush knows it. These abusers are a product of the system. The system trains soldiers to do violence while at the same time demeaning the enemy to make him easier to kill. What the hell do we expect? That U.S. soldiers would treat Iraqis with dignity and respect? What Bush finds appalling isn’t that this is happening, but that it got out and the public now knows about it.

My thoughts about how it may have happened:

I really don’t think it has anything to do with military combat training, or military dehumanizing tactics (I don’t think they use those as much anymore since most of the combat is done at a distance with “smart bombs” and stuff).

I have a friend who was sent to Afghanistan. He wanted to do his part to “pay them all back”. He felt that everyone in the Middle East had their own part in the terrorist attacks (he told me that himself).

Between living in Oklahoma, working as a cop, and being in the guard for ten years he’s been so thoroughly brain-washed by the “greatest President ever” that in his first email to me from Afghanistan he said something like, “You wouldn’t believe how these heathens live.” They weren’t even human to him. I don’t think this was the military’s doing…just the environment(s) he had been in. I didn’t bother answering that email. After being there for a while and actually interacting with these “heathens” I think he’s looking at it a bit differently.

I hate to say this about a friend, but he’s never been the brightest bulb (did I ever mention that on one of the many occasions that he was drunk, he thought it would be a good idea to parasail behind a car going down the Alaskan Highway?…he hit a tree…right in the crotch). In school he repeated the third grade, and the tenth, and then dropped out after that. He actually had to study before passing his GED, and he only joined the guard because his ASVAB wasn’t high enough for regular Army…unfortunately I’m not joking! (In his defense I must say he does very well when he’s interested in the subject, like flying.)

Having been in the military I can safely tell you he is a prime example of the majority of the enlisted…especially those that reenlist. Given the type of people I really don’t think it would take much on an instigator to convince a group to join in on humiliating the “heathens”. It probably started small and just kept escalating. BTW most cops are ex-military…*warning slight sarcasm approaching* really it’s America’s finest protecting us in all directions.

If you ever want to get paid to take a three to five-year course in sociology and human sexuality join the military…I didn’t say it paid much.

I don’t know when this happened. I must have slept though something. I can’t believe it isn’t just toddlers that have to be in a car seat, but any child under 8 years old or under 80lbs. (Car Seat Laws) It may be safer, but why does it need to be a law? Do we really care if someone else isn’t putting their kid in a perfect air purified, bullet proof bubble? Were consumers not spending enough on car seats?

A California bill has been proposed by Marco Firebaugh to prohibit smoking in a car with passengers under 18. I’m a non-smoker and hate the smell as much as the next non-smoker. I grew up with a father that smoked like a chimney. I hated the smell in the car and couldn’t get fresh air in the house. When I was twelve we were living in Juneau AK, where at times there were fire bans because cloud cover would trap the smoke, so even outside I couldn’t get fresh air. Durring that time there were two occasions when I woke up and felt like I couldn’t breathe in at all.

After graduating high school I joined the military. I was sent to in to get a fit test for a respirator to wear for my corrosion job. As part of the physical I had to blow into a tube as hard as possible to measure lung capacity. The doctor asked me, “Are you sure you’re not a smoker?” My lungs were at 80% of what they should have been, and I still think this is a stupid law. If this bill passes it’ll just be another form of random tax collection, like speeding tickets, seatbelt, car seat laws.

All we need are parents fighting a nic-fit with three screaming in the back adding to the pressure while they navigate through gridlock. This is bound to bring down the road rage!

Seriously though Smokers don’t just smoke in the car with their kids. They smoke at home too. What about all the other noxious fumes in the world like car exhaust and the “new car smell”, which by the way is created using formaldehyde.

Over the years it’s just slowly gotten stricter and stricter. First in the mid eighties airplanes became smoke free. Then there were designated areas at work places, now it’s banned in restaurants. Bars are starting to get pinched too. Bars!! Of all places – the place you go to get drunk off your ass. Why not just make smoking illegal, you know, like the other drugs? The war on drugs has worked so well for the rest of them. (Did you notice the sarcasm?)

Where kids are concern I think we should just stick to the basics: physical abuse, molestation, rape, and murder - things that are done intentionally to harm. What is the obsession with making everything safe for people we don’t even give a shit about? There are so many things that can kill us. We can’t control it all! We should have an agency that collects data, offers the information so people are aware of the risks, and the rest should be buyer beware!

Proposed bill would prohibit smoking in car with child passengers
By Alexa H. Bluth — Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 4:53 pm PDT Monday, April 26, 2004
California lawmakers are considering a bill that would make California the first state in the nation to prohibit smokers from lighting up in a private car when children are present.
The proposal by Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, D-South Gate, has drawn the ire of Republican lawmakers who say it goes too far in attempting to police personal behavior.
Supporters, however, call it a crucial stride toward protecting the state’s children from the damaging effects of second-hand smoke.
“It just seemed to me that it was one effective, intelligent way to reduce the risk to kids,” said Firebaugh, who said that asthma is common among children in his home district in southeast Los Angeles.
Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia, called the measure “big brother government.”
“Government is going to raise our kids for us because parents don’t know what’s best? That’s a very scary thought,” Mountjoy said.
The measure would allow officers to ticket drivers found smoking a pipe, cigar or cigarette in a car with children 18 or under present.
For more details, see Tuesday’s Bee.