I kid you not:
“I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq,” said Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Palestinian terror group. “I hope also she will maintain her husband’s policies regarding Palestine and even develop that policy. President Clinton wanted to give the Palestinians 98 percent of the West Bank territories. I hope Hillary will move a step forward and will give the Palestinians all their rights. She has the chance to save the American nation and the Americans’ life.”Sometimes you can tell a lot about a candidate by who supports them, ya know?
I wonder if the Clinton campaign will include that in their TV ads. I can see it now... "Hillary - The Terrorists' Choice."
I kid you not:
Yet another example of the leftymedia ignoring anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions of what is going on in Iraq:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20071026-01
October 26, 2007
Iraqi Army at Besmaya Installation Support San Diego Fire Victims
By U.S. Army Sgt 1st Class Charlene Sipperly
Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq Public Affairs
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Members of the Iraqi Army in Besmaya collected a donation for the San Diego, Calif., fire victims Thursday night at the Besmaya Range Complex in a moving ceremony to support Besmaya's San Diego residents.
Iraqi Army Col. Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1,000 to U.S. Army Col. Darel Maxfield, Besmaya Range Complex officer in charge, Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, to send to the fire victims in California.
The money was collected from Iraqi officers and enlisted soldiers in Besmaya. In a speech given during the presentation, Col. Abbass stated that he and the Iraqi soldiers were connected with the American people in many ways, and they will not forget the help that the American government has given the Iraqi people. Abbass was honored to participate by sending a simple fund of $1,000 to the American people in San Diego, to lower the suffering felt by the tragedy.
Sure, $1,000 isn't much to us, but to these people, it's probably a lot. And the gesture itself is very noteworthy.
But don't look for it in the leftymedia.
It is official.
The Army has released documents showing the results of their investigation of "Shock Troops," and the allegations contained therein.
The results: Scott Beauchamp lied through his teeth, and TNR printed it without checking.
The documents were originally on Drudge, but have been removed for some reason, but Little Green Footballs has them.
#3 is the most interesting to me. I've never gotten that much thrill out of reading transcripts of phone calls.
Heads should roll at TNR now, but they probably won't. However, no thinking person will accept TNR's word for anything for a long, long time.
I've got mixed feelings about this one:
On the one hand, rules are rules, and these rules have been in place for 3 years, so if the folks in the state parties weren't aware of them, they always could have picked up the phone and called the RNC to ask.
WASHINGTON - Republican Party leaders on Monday recommended punishing five states for shifting their nomination contests earlier, moving to strip New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming of half their delegates.
At least one state, South Carolina, is considering legal action in an effort to keep its delegates to next year's Republican National Convention.
Iowa, which plans to hold Republican caucuses on Jan. 3, would not be penalized because, technically, the caucuses are not binding on convention delegates. Nevada, which plans to hold its caucuses on Jan. 19, would not be penalized for the same reason.
"It's very important that our party uphold and enforce the rules that we unanimously voted into place at the Republican National Convention in 2004," said Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee.The rules ban holding votes before Feb. 5
On the other hand, I am not sure that a court battle--which we all know the leftymedia would play for all its worth, while of course never mentioning that the Democrats are doing the same thing--would be good for the GOP at all.
On the whole, I think I am leaning slightly toward the enforcement side. But I reserve the right to change my mind.
Let's see if we can't cause a few more lefty heads to explode (I love that sound):
The Democrats engaged in endless efforts to make sure the war really was lost. They failed. Now it looks as if the war, despite the Democratic Congress's best efforts, may well be won. It's the congressional Democrats who are the losers. And so could be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. Are the American people likely to elect the candidate of a party that has tried its best to lose a winnable war?May I remind my readers that after Vietnam the Democrats only elected two Presidents, and one of those was because of the gross malfeasance of a Republican (if you don't know who I am talking about, blame a history teacher).
Simply put, the public does not put candidates from a party that loses wars in the Oval Office.
Thus, General Petraeus' success is the Defeatocrats' loss. That's why the "General Betray Us" ad, and Rep. Stark's comments, and so on. They are desperate, and thrashing about as desperate people do.
From a milblogger using the nom-de-plume of Greyhawk:
I've been writing about Iraq here for four years now - in and out of country. I've been here during many of the most violent months of the war; from the second battle for Fallujah through the January, 2005 elections, and from the launch of the surge to the present - and I'm not homebound yet. In all that time progress has been achingly slow, and back steps have been mixed with forward - but never the majority. Throughout it all - until now - I've never declared victory, seen "light at the end of the tunnel", or even claimed to have "turned a corner" - you can take your bumper sticker slogans and shove 'em. Over here a tenacious and bloodthirsty enemy has fought a well-designed and multi-faceted campaign against us, perhaps secure in the knowledge that blame for every child they killed or each holy place they defiled would be shifted to us even as they washed the blood from their hands. Their efforts gained support from many quarters (not all of which were anticipated in preparation for or included in response to their actions) and condemnation from few. But the ranks of their opponents - at least here in Iraq - are large and still growing, and theirs are neither. The battles are diminishing but ongoing, losses will be suffered, and blood will still be shed. Still more of their supporters may redouble their efforts. But in short, while I recognize this will provoke immeasurable rage from those who feel we've lost, and consternation among those who know we've won but lack the fortitude to make the declaration at this point in time, I'll say it again: we've won the war in Iraq.Those noises you hear are the sound of lefties grinding their teeth, their heads exploding, and so on and so forth.
Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) today on the floor of the House:
“I yield myself two minutes. Madam speaker, I, first of all, I’m just amazed that they can't figure out -- the Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.”Do I need comment further?
Anyway, several GOP Congressmen have responded... visit the link in the title to read some of their comments.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.
After long complaining that President Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" is alienating and angering our allies overseas, the Democrat-led House of Representatives has passed a resolution that is essentially a slap in the face of one of the few Muslim nations allied with us.
Reaction from Turkey has been swift:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A U.S. congressional panel defied President Bush on Wednesday and approved a measure that he said would damage U.S. goals in the Middle East.
The measure that would recognize the World War I-era killings of Armenians as a genocide had been strongly opposed by Turkey, a key NATO ally that has supported U.S. efforts in Iraq.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee's 27-21 vote now sends the measure to the House floor — unless the Democratic leadership reverses course and heeds Bush's warnings.
At issue is the killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I. Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide, says the toll has been inflated and insists that those killed were victims of civil war and unrest.
ISTANBUL, Turkey - Turkey's top general warned that ties with the U.S., already strained by attacks from rebels hiding in Iraq, will be irreversibly damaged if Congress passes a resolution that labels the World War I-era killings of Armenians a genocide.
Turkey, which is a major cargo hub for U.S. and allied military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, has recalled its ambassador to Washington for consultations and warned that there might be a cut in the logistical support to the U.S. over the issue.
Gen. Yasar Buyukanit told daily Milliyet newspaper that a congressional committee's approval of the measure had already harmed ties between the two countries.
"If this resolution passed in the committee passes the House as well, our military ties with the U.S. will never be the same again," Buyukanit was quoted as saying by Milliyet.
"I'm the military chief, I deal with security issues. I'm not a politician," Buyukanit was quoted as saying by Milliyet. "In this regard, the U.S. shot its own foot."
“The committee’s approval of this resolution was an irresponsible move which, coming at a very sensitive time, will make relations with a friend, ally and strategic partner that have been nurtured over generations, more difficult,” the government said in the statement. “Our government regrets and condemns this decision. It is unacceptable that the Turkish nation has been accused of something that never happened,” it stressed.The truly ironic thing is, the Democrats are showing their own ignorance of history.
- The "genocide" which they are "condemning" occurred in 1915.
- The Turkey we know today wasn't created until 1923.
Nice going, Speaker Pelosi. You're really demonstrating why you and your party are not ready to be trusted with the reins of power.
UPDATE: IBDEditiorials.com has an interesting idea...
An American friend who lives in Turkey says--and I must agree with her--that this is designed to make victory in Iraq even harder, thus helping the MoveOn-ocrats.
But the timing of this resolution simply stinks, and we're made to wonder if this isn't some Democrats' way of making President Bush's Middle East policy even harder to implement.
Americans might not realize it, but Turkey is strategically indispensable. About 70% of our flights into Iraq come from our Turkish base at Incirlik. About 30% of our fuel comes from there.
No wonder Turkey is furious — talking even of shutting down Incirlik, which would cost the U.S. war effort in Iraq dearly and could even delay what appears to be a likely victory there.
Defeat at any cost must be their rally cry.
Update and Bump: More and more commentators are coming to the conclusion that this is designed to screw up our success in Iraq, as seen here, here, and here.
Can the Democrats really be so stupid as to mess up our relations with an ally just because of their hatred of George W. Bush? I wish I could say the idea is laughable, but the past antics of the MoveOnocrats have shown that it is frighteningly plausible.
Update 3 and Bump 2: Looks like Pelosi is starting to lose support, according to the liberal bible, a/k/a the New York Times:
Before Tuesday, the measure appeared on a path to House passage, with strong support from Speaker Pelosi. But by Tuesday evening, a group of senior House Democrats had made it known that they were planning to ask the leadership to drop plans for a vote on the measure.One wonders if these same senior House Democrats would have done so if the light hadn't been cast on their apparent plans to make success in Iraq more difficult by prodding Turkey to cut off access to Incirlik Air Base, through which a lot of supplies for Iraq pass.
This one will probably make your blood pressure rise, unless you're a MoveOn member:
In the early hours of May 12, seven U.S. soldiers - including Spc. [Alex] Jimenez - were on lookout near a patrol base in the al Qaeda-controlled area of Iraq called the "Triangle of Death."
Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack.
Four of the soldiers were killed on the spot and three others were taken hostage.
A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.
For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.
Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.
"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.
"How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?" he asked. "It should be zero."
The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied.
Once again, this is why it is dangerous to have Democrats in charge... they're the ones that are refusing to help streamline FISA regulations in cases like this.
Remember this one come November 2008.
Once again, the newspaper with the slogan "All The News That's Fit To Print" has decided that the story of a hero is apparently not "Fit To Print":
I couldn’t find a story about Lt. Michael Murphy winning the Medal of Honor in the New York Times on Friday, though other New York papers covered the story with pictures and headlines. The Times neglected even to note that Murphy, 29, who lived on Long Island, was a hometown hero, the first person to receive the highest battlefield honor for action in Afghanistan.Nevermind that Lt. Murphy is a native of New York City. Never mind that he's received--posthumously--the nation's highest military award; he is something going right in the War on Terror, and a Marine that lived an exemplary life and died a heroic death, and that they will not honor.
On Friday, the Times instead carried a story headlined “Marines to Conduct Inquiry Into the Killings of Afghan Civilians.” This story was about a court of inquiry being set up to examine the circumstances surrounding the killing of several Afghan civilians by members of a special-operations platoon, in a remote area of Afghanistan, near the border of Pakistan. Some of the Marines involved, who are an elite group of combat-tested troops, are now, of course, hiring their lawyers.
There is a very special irony is this. Why? Because Mikey Murphy and his three SEAL comrades, during their operation, were concerned about the potential of a story just like the one in the Times. They wanted to avoid a situation in which they would find themselves forced to defend a life saving action in a court of law.
I will honor him, though I am not a Marine. Lt. Murphy, ya done good. Semper Fi!
Finally, a chink in the wall of silence from the leftymedia:
They summarize with:
NEWS COVERAGE and debate about Iraq during the past couple of weeks have centered on the alleged abuses of private security firms like Blackwater USA. Getting such firms into a legal regime is vital, as we've said. But meanwhile, some seemingly important facts about the main subject of discussion last month -- whether there has been a decrease in violence in Iraq -- have gotten relatively little attention. A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that "civilian deaths have risen" during this year's surge of American forces.
A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.
This doesn't necessarily mean the war is being won. U.S. military commanders have said that no reduction in violence will be sustainable unless Iraqis reach political solutions -- and there has been little progress on that front. Nevertheless, it's looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus's credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq's bloodshed were -- to put it simply -- wrong.Thank you, WaPo, for admitting it.
Ya gotta love it, a British court has ruled against "An Inconvenient Truth":
[Justice Michael] Burton ruled that the film could be shown to British students, but only on the condition it be accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Gore's "one-sided" views. Burton documented nine major errors in Gore's film and wrote that some of Gore's claims had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration."It's now been proven in a court of law--albeit British--that Algore's masterpiece is hardly good science.
Wonder if the lefties that want us to adopt foreign court decisions will say the same about this one?
There are so many things wrong with this, it's hard to know where to begin.
Since the ruling is from a San Francisco court, of course it is far out of sync with the rest of the nation, but this is a symptom of a larger unwillingness to tackle what is both a law enforcement and a national security issue. And underneath it all is crass politics.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's kid brother, San Francisco U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, issued an order Wednesday blocking the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration from sending letters telling employers who have illegally hired illegal immigrants that they have 90 days to end the illegals' employment before facing punishment.
Breyer declared that the government's plans to mail 140,000 such notices would cause "irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers." But what of the irreparable harm the country is suffering because of the almost complete lack of a rule of law regarding illegal immigration?
Any member of a sleeper cell within our borders planning a future 9/11 knows not to fear being caught in a general roundup of illegals by immigration authorities.
There are scarcely any such roundups, because illegal entry and employment are so out of control — at least 12 million people are here in defiance of our laws — that we have no intention of even beginning to detain and deport that vast population.
Many politicians--mostly Democrat, but a fair number of Republicans as well--are attempting to pander to the Hispanic vote, and thus don't want to be seen as tough on illegals, the vast majority of which are Hispanic. And that pandering is leading to porous borders that any one can essentially walk across--even those who would do America harm.
It's high time, I think, for politicians to stop pandering and start enforcing our laws and keeping the nation safe, else they might find themselves asked tough questions some time in the future, for which they will have no easy answer.
This could almost be taken from today's headlines:
The Democratic platform denounced "four years of failure" in the war effort and the destruction of "public liberty and private right."Yet it was not in 2007 that the above platform was adopted. It was 1864.
Read the whole article to see what happened.
Iraq: The insurgency lives, but it's directed toward al-Qaida, not U.S. and allied forces. A British newspaper, not our legacy media, is reporting that a "transformation has swept" across the Western part of the country.
Reporting from Anbar, the Telegraph's Damien McElroy says the shift in the region "allows Marines to walk through areas that a year ago were judged lost to radical Islam control and hear nothing more aggressive than a late-night game of pool."
"Behind the shutters," he reports, "the Sunni Muslim residents of the province are enjoying the dividends of driving out al-Qaida fighters who had imposed an oppressive Taliban-style regime."
Seems like the quagmire is something that al-Qaida is having to deal with. Or maybe not, since its terrorists are being forced out by the locals, many of whom were America's enemies not too long ago.
Today, the locals talk freely and sometimes cheer U.S. patrols, alert them to locations of weapons caches and turn in anyone who is acting suspicious. In the town of Husaybah, the absence of al-Qaida has led to "an economic revival and restoration of favorite pastimes," writes McElroy.
Gee, now I wonder why ABCCBSCNNNBCNPRPBS didn't report that?
I can't say it any better than this:
Okay, let's judge Obama by his own words.
Barack Obama made a big deal last week of not wearing an American flag in his lapel as other presidential candidates do, saying he didn't need it to prove his patriotism. "I probably haven't worn a flag pin in a very long time," he told a TV interviewer in Iowa.
Now, there's nothing wrong with not wearing a flag pin, and if it were just a personal preference, it would be a nonissue. But Obama had to politicize this, first by sneering at those who wear flags as hypocrites and then using it to woo the fringe left, a key Democratic voting bloc in the primary season.
"My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart," he lectured. "You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals."
"You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve."Senator Obama, how did you vote on the resolution condemning MoveOn's attack on General David Petraeus?
He did not vote.
It was not important enough to him to defend the honor of one of those who serve to show up in DC and cast a vote.
"You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals."Senator, how did you vote on the cloture motion for Senate Amendment 312, which was "To prohibit the recruitment of persons to participate in terrorism, to clarify that the revocation of an alien's visa or other documentation is not subject to judicial review, to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to detain dangerous criminal aliens, including murderers, rapists, and child molesters, until they can be removed from the United States, to prohibit the rewarding of suicide bombings and allow adequate punishments for terrorists murders, kidnappings, and sexual assaults, and for other purposes"?
He voted nay.
He would not permit an amendment to permit the government to detain child molesters.
He would not vote for cloture on an amendment that would prohibit rewarding suicide bombers.
He's right on one thing. He could wear a dozen American flags on his lapel and they wouldn't hide his disdain for the troops and his failure to support American ideals.
I've mostly stayed away from the Rush-Phony Soldiers kerfuffle, but this piece caught my eye:
Senate Democrats who've spent the week attacking Rush Limbaugh received much of their information about the controversy from David Brock's Media Matters as well as from MoveOn.org, which jumped on the attack-Rush bandwagon when it saw some potential for fundraising. That Democrats had not done their homework became clear on Wednesday, when Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid had his staff call over demanding that the Pentagon put liberal radio hosts on Armed Forces Radio. The problem: Armed Forces Radio already broadcasts extensive shows from National Public Radio, as well as the Ed Schulz radio show.That shows just how little Democrats know about the stuff they're speaking about.
"They didn't believe us," says a Pentagon staffer based in the media affairs office.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark was also unaware that Schulz and NPR were staples of the military's entertainment and information broadcasts. And Clark headed the NATO command.
Keep that in mind as election day gets closer.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, a Republican who represented southeastern Virginia for seven years, died Saturday morning after a two-year battle with breast cancer, her office said.
Davis, 57, died at her home in Gloucester.
Davis was found to have breast cancer in 2005 and had a recurrence this year. Her health took a turn for the worse during the past week, her office said.
She became Virginia's first Republican woman elected to Congress in 2000, and she was a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.
"Her determination to fight the disease is an inspiration to all of us," President Bush said in a statement.
"She was a fine example of a public servant who worked hard to cut government waste to ensure the people's money was used wisely," Bush said. "Her common-sense values will be missed on Capitol Hill."
Gov. Timothy Kaine, a Democrat, will schedule a special election, probably before the end of the year, to fill the remaining year of Davis' term, Kaine spokeswoman Delacey Skinner said.
Her first piece of legislation, passed by the House in 2001, increased the life insurance benefit paid to survivors of military members killed on duty.
A gentleman by the name of Bartle Bull, editor of the Middle East Monitor, has penned (typed?) an article for OpinionJournal, giving his own ideas about why we're seeing success in Iraq. He concludes:
The biggest unifier of all currently might be the most predictable one. Help from foreigners is welcome in Iraq. The country's elected prime minister, possessing after Iraq's heroic elections more popular legitimacy than almost any leader in the world, often points out that the Coalition is there as invited guests. When the U.S. Senate passed its disingenuous "plan" for extreme federalism in Iraq last week, the uproar in the country crossed the sectarian divide. Iraq already has a constitution. It was written by freely elected Iraqis and ratified overwhelmingly by the public in a brave vote two years ago.Indeed. And they don't want people in Washington, many of whom have never set foot in Iraq, telling them how to set up their own government.
Thousands of Americans and their allies have died helping to give Iraqis this opportunity. We have shown enormous skill and bravery in helping them fight their enemies, and immeasurable goodwill in sending our young men to protect Iraqi schools, mosques and polling booths. The reason we and Iraqis are winning this war together is that its purpose is to give Iraqis what they want.
The Party of the Donkey is trying once again to kill the the War on Terror in Iraq while at the same time desperately attempting to avoid looking like they're doing so. They're returning to an old method they used in Vietnam--cutting off funding.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's request for nearly $200 billion more to fund the Iraq war will not be approved unless it is linked to a plan to bring home U.S. combat troops by January 2009, the head of the House appropriations committee said on Tuesday.Of course, the "status quo" in Iraq is that we are winning. Both military and civilian deaths are down, fears of a civil war are fading, Al-Qaeda is on the run... and Obey admits he doesn't want to continue that?
Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, told a news conference his panel would not even consider the war funding request until early 2008, by which time he estimates funding for military operations will have run out. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently outlined the request to Congress.
In proposing the new timetable for withdrawing troops, Obey said, "As chairman of the appropriations committee, I have no intention of reporting out of committee any time in this session of Congress any such (war funding) request that simply serves to continue the status quo."
Can he really be that blatant about wanting to lose? Or is he so stupid that he believes the anti-war propaganda rather than the reports from the Pentagon?
Hat Tip: Confederate Yankee
Commenter Mark emailed me this, submitting it for the blog as it was too long for the comments. I reprint it here with but one minor editorial change (in capitalization of one word). The rest is as he wrote it -CCG
Oakland is part of the San Francisco bay area. San Francisco is where many of the 60’s and 70’s peace-nick ‘hippie’ radicals gathered once they ‘found their way’. Flowers replaced rifles. Drugs replaced discipline. “Freedom” meant being free to do anything they wished. “Make peace, not war” became their religion. And God was no longer welcome in the city by the bay. Apparently, Oakland followed suit and there is no distinguishing between the two now.
I read the story about a plane load of soldiers and marines posted at http://christianconservativegeek.blogspot.com/ on September 30th shortly after it was up. I was incensed by the actions of the Oakland International Airport authorities. Incensed to the point of blind, white-hot rage. I bit my tongue and tried to contain the anger. I posted a quick comment to the story expressing that anger and the fact that I would not write more until I could get it under control. Then I thought.
Imagine you are a member of the US military and have been at war for about a year. You return via a chartered airliner to US soil and a US airport on your route refuses to let you into the terminal due to what can only be assumed to be (drum roll, please) ‘security issues’. Apparently, TSA has not screened you. Yes, you, a soldier who has been fighting a war. All you may want to do is buy a Coke, stretch your legs, or maybe even make a quick call home. And the airport will not let you inside the terminal.
Another day, another time and these young souls would have been spit upon. They would have been called ‘baby killer’ and ‘murderer’.
Excuse me, but I thought the Viet Nam anti-troop mentality was done. I thought calling soldiers, sailors, air-men, and marines “baby killer” was out of vogue. I thought freezing military personnel out of society was decided to be ‘beyond the pale’. I thought the citizenry of the US had finally put to rest this ‘hate the troops mentality’ of the 60’s and 70’s peace movement. I thought ‘We the People’ had decided it was noble and generous for a young man or woman to take the oath to serve in this country’s military. I thought…“Oh”, I said to myself with dawning realization.
This is the way cancer works.
We have a choice. Succumb to the disease or fight it. I know which side I’ve chosen, how about you?
A prisoner in New Hampshire filed a complaint regarding the kosher food he receives in prison. The prisoner also included a hard boiled egg with the complaint.
The judge, one James R. Muirhead of the US District Court, issued the following ruling:
No fan I amNow there's a judge who can write.
Of the egg at hand.
Just like no ham
On the kosher plan.
This egg will rot
I kid you not.
And stink it can
This egg at hand.
There will be no eggs at court
To prove a clog in your aort.
There will be no eggs accepted.
Objections all will be rejected.
From this day forth
This court will ban
hard-boiled eggs of any brand.
And if you should not understand
The meaning of the ban at hand
Then you should contact either Dan,
the Deputy Clerk, or my clerk Jan.
I do not like eggs in the file.
I do not like them in any style.
I will not take them fried or boiled.
I will not take them poached or broiled.
I will not take them soft or scrambled
Despite an argument well-rambled.
No fan I am
Of the egg at hand.
Destroy that egg!
Today I say! Without delay!
SO ORDERED (with apologies to Dr. Seuss).