TiffanyAnthony

Social Security Reform.....

2005-01-21T11:22:00.000-05:00

We, the American people, have, before us, and put upon us, a most dishonorable crime. I say crime because if a private citizen were to to do it they would go to jail. The crime I'm talking about is Social Security. It is,in its essence, unethical. A state where the government seizes funds out of ALL of its citizens earnings.

I say dishonor for the obvious reasons and the not so obvious. I say not so obvious because as it turns out, they've {politicans] been spending the money they stole from their constiuents {you & me}and said they were/are 'holding' it for us until we reached the {"retirement"} age.

Upon reaching that age they told/tell us they would re-distribute our money back to us divisely for the existing life of our remaining funds. Oh and they also lie and tell us that our employers "match" the "contribution" {6.2%} that we see subtracted from our checks under the B.S. term, FICA.

Well, I guess "technically" it's not a lie, you see, your employer does match your "contribution" but he matches it with YOUR MONEY!!!!! Your employer takes that 6.2% out of your check before you see a drop of ink on your check much less a penny of the money that, the government & your employer STOLE from you! In all fairness your employer has to do this becuase he'll go to jail if he doesn't. So now, we find ourselves in a crisis. The Social Security account is fast depleting.

It's 2005 now, we're roughly, 35 years away from Social Security depletion. So in 35 years, it'll all be gone, but in 35 years there will be millions of people dependant on Social Security and there will be millions more that will look forward to depending on it. They will depend on it because they have been seeing where they have been involuntarily paying it for their whole working lives. But guess what? It'll be gone. It should be there, but its not, sorry, they spent it ALL!

What to do, what to do? Well ole' G.W. has a pretty GREAT IDEA THAT WE MUST SUPPORT! Privatize accounts for younger workers. It's still unfair as hell because it's only 4% but its a start! And it's a helluva lot better than allowing politicians to continue to plunder our hard-earned funds for their own political use and political projects, whcih they prioritze by how many votes they can get out of it, kinda like political insurance. So here's the deal with the reform proposal...

Bush is proposing to allow "younger" workers the ability to open private accounts and pay themselves the money that currently goes directly to government under the pretense of Social Security. Upon their {government} seizure of said monies, they afford themselves pre-eminent power over our money. Simply, this means that everybody thinks the money is somehow coming back to them when they reach "retirement" age, we tend to think that the money is being kept somewhere, waiting to be reclaimed by {us} its owner, we think it's kinda like a savings account. Of course you assume, also, that any remaining monies in your Social Security account will go to those persons you desire to leave that money to, you know, your family! Oh how wrong you were/are, this is not something that automatically happens. The government decides weather members of your family should get YOUR money after YOU die! Let me repeat...

What happens to your money when you die is not up to you!

Your Social Security benefits are an average percentage of the money you made over most of your working lifetime. There are five major categories your Social Security is used for; retirement, disability, family benefits, survivors, Medicare. With that said there are conditions and "certain" contingencies that have to be met in order for the government to actually pay the money out. The following is a brief description of those contingencies. www.irs.gov/faqs/faq-kw212.html

The bold words are my interruptive commentary, giving you a better idea of what I mean. Injustice, reigns strong and long in our current system, this is just a taste...

Retirement
Benefits are payable at full retirement age -an age we get together and decided on, (with reduced benefits available as early as age 62 ) for anyone with enough Social Security credits - what does "enough Social Security credits" mean? You telling me that people who pay the Social Security tax aren't automatically guaranteed to receive Social Security Benefits?-. The full retirement age is 65 for persons born before 1938. The age gradually rises until it reaches 67 for persons born in 1960 or later. Can you believe this @#*&?

Disability
Benefits can be paid to people at any age who have enough Social Security credits -there we go again, with "enough Social Security benefits"- and who have a severe physical or mental impairment that is expected to prevent them from doing "substantial" work for a year or more or who have a condition that is expected to result in death. Generally, earnings of $800 or more per month are considered substantial. "800 or more per month," how many people fall {will fall} into that category?

Family Benefits
If you are eligible for retirement or disability benefits, -you meet the requirements decided and set by us- other members of your family might receive benefits too -my point here is obvious, notice they used the word MIGHT even though you pay Social Security taxes, your family's security remains precarious, as it is not up to you which persons of your family MAY or may not receive benefits from your money. These include: your spouse if he or she is at least 62 years old - again the government decides how old your spouse has to be to receive your benefits- or under 62 but caring for a child under age 16; and your children if they are unmarried and under age 18, under 19 but still in school or 18 or older but disabled.-hope your kids fall into one of these categories if you are expecting the government to fork over your money to them-

Survivors
When you die, certain members or your family may be eligible for benefits if you earned enough Social Security credits while you were working -of course there is no guarantee that your survivors will actually receive benefits from the money that you earned, but if they do turn out to be eligible, there are only "certain" family members who the government decided your money should go to-. here's where they'll tell you which members of your family are entitled to your money,- The family members include: a widow(er) age 60 or older, 50 or older if disabled or any age if caring for a child under age 16; your children if they are unmarried and under age 18, under 19 but still in school or 18 or older but disabled; and your parents if you were their primary means of support - I hope those persons you want to leave your money to, fall into one of these categories-. A special one-time payment of $255 may be made to your spouse or minor children when you die -gee, thanks, you guys-.

Another little tidbit you may want to know regarding the age of retirement; the government can decide without reason or provocation to delay the retirement age. This is an idea that has been thrown around as a resolution to a foreseen economic crunch caused by Social Security. And make no mistake, their hope, is that, in delaying the retirement age you will die before you reach that age. Thereby, unburdenoning the government, of it's debt to you. If after reading this sentence you are one who is thinking, "wont the money go to my family," please read the preceding passages again! It is imperative that we understand and control government's role in our lives and limit it, not the other way around.

Bush's proposal is for people to own the account that their money will go into and decide for themselves what they want to do with their own money, decide for themselves, how old they should be before they start spending their own money, decide for themselves, which family members they want to leave their money to and certainly decide for themselves how old a family member has to be to receive benefits and so forth. Any opposition to this reform is an open attempt to denagrate the idea of freedom and individuality. Check out the opposers of this reform and then see which party they belong to, you might notice a trend.

We, as a free thinking society, should have the foresight to identify instances when our liberties are being dishonored and our intelligence insulted and we should fight and support anything that will further a free society for our children and grandchildren to enjoy and preserve the ideas of personal Liberties, of which we all have a right.

"Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death"

Hip Hip Hooray, Condi Was Confirmed Today!

2005-01-18T14:13:00.000-05:00

She's in. Condoleeza Rice is offically the new Secretary of State, oh I know yall hate it. Hate to see the first Black-Woman Secretary of State to arise during the Bush Administration. Well attention All "African Americans." This is a great moment in history for us, particularly. We should be, without any restraint whatsoever support this woman. She should be revered by us. She should be held on the pedestal she deserves. And to top it all off it's looking as if she is the one who is though of when entertaining the idea of the first Black President. I have so much to say that I have to spend a bit of time thinking before I really talk to yall about Condi.

Here's How Their Spending our Money

2005-01-15T01:57:00.000-05:00

Okay, Boys and Girls, Here's why you definetly don't want these guys to stay in control of your money. After reading this, you'll have the good sense to want them as far away from your money as possible after you discover how they spend, {OUR MONEY!} This is one of those "just so you KNOW" type columns.

Congress released the annual Fiscal Report Omnibus “Appropriations” Bill, advising us {the American People} of how they collectively decided to spend the money they took from us in taxes, their yearly budget. The decisions are motivated by what they consider to serve the “nation’s best interests”. This year {fiscal} the bill totaled 388 billion the Senate passed the bill on November 20, 65-30 the House later passed it with a 344-51 vote. Obviously, there is a great deal of information but, if I may, I’d like to touch on a few of the specific entities and causes considered by Congress as necessary for “the benefit of the nation.

Well we can start with the $100,000 they allocated for Punxsutawney Philadelphia. The hundred grand is for a “weather museum.” Why, you ask, would they spend that much on a “weather museum?” Well, there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for this, you see Punxsutawney Philadelphi, is the home of the hokey Groundhog Day star, Punxsutawney Phil. Did you know Groundhog day is America's second favorite holiday? I bet you're breathing a sigh of relief now, I bet knowing that, completely disparges your initial reaction, when you thought they had wasted your money! I'm sure you feel much better now!For details on this “national” treasure, Puxsutawney Phil, you can visit http://tiffanyanthony.blogspot.com/2004/11/www.PunxsutawneyPhil.comand/or if you want to stay abreast of the exciting happenings of “America’s second favorite holiday” check out http://tiffanyanthony.blogspot.com/2004/11/www.groundhogday.org Politicians, you gotta love em’! We should definitely put these geniuses back in office, wouldn’t you say?

Oh! It gets better, how bout the $25,000 they “appropriated” for the study of Mariachi Music for Las Vegas Schools! Can you believe this! Hey, I’m just releasing a sigh of relief that Congress had the fortitude and wisdom to acknowledge the doom and peril our nation will surely face if we don’t get on top of this Mariachi Situation. Phew, we really dodged a bullet there! I'll bet you are all breathing yet another sigh of relief because, again, I bet you thought they had wasted your money!

How about the $20,000,000 {yes, I meant to put that many zeros, $20 million dollars} for the Presidio Trust to transform an old army base into a national park. Presidio Trust is a “trust” set up by the government for the “preservation” community to dispense, {at their own unchecked discretion} our hard earned money on various environmental issues. Well sure! Certainly, the HUNDREDS http://tiffanyanthony.blogspot.com/2004/11/www.nps.govof national parks we already have in this country are insufficient. The park is to be built in Terminatorland (California}, a state that already boasts 9 national parks.I'll let you figure out how “transforming” an army base into a national park would hardly fall under the natural category. You will definetly sleep better now, I'll bet, knowing that we are going to get on top of this "lack of enough National Parks" issue, you were probably really worried about it!

Then there’s the $400,000 for the Charity Cultural Services Center to initiate a {get ready for this}: “Skills for Life Program for Asian Immigrants.” What exactly are “skills for life’? And I am I the only one who doesn’t remember us being involved in the decision-making process any Asian Immigrants underwent when they decided to come to this country? That said, how does the responsibility fall on the American people to equip Asian [or any] Immigrants with the “skills” they will need for “life” in this country.

Our politicians are in the nasty habit of preying on the ignominy of the very people who put them into positions of power{the fatuous masses}. They rely on our reliance in them. This erroneously placed trust they enjoy, provides them the luxury of never being called to account for their open, self- propagation. The following is an example of what I mean:

Nancy Pelosi {the dollbaby she is} D-CA, House minority leader, said, “This omnibus spending bill is unwieldy, not reflective of the aspirations and needs of the American people.”

She’s right about that, although I’m not sure if the $591,000 she got for the International Women’s Museum is very reflective of the “aspirations and needs of the American people,” either. Pelosi continued her disturbing display of intellectual idiocy stating, “the Bush administration is systematically dismantling protections for our national parks and forests” {remember the $20 MILLION for the Presidio Trust} Even if you don't like the guy {G.W.}, I think we could all agree that this woman is a delusional, disaster, who wastes our money on "protecting" parks and forests instead of protecting the people in this country.

How is it, that this woman is a Senator!? Note: Pelosi, actually is reflective of the rampant, self-serving, idiology of our current politicians. Most of them squander the money they steal from us. Look for yourself and see which party the idiots tend to belong to.

Yes, it’s the unadulterated, cold, hard, truth of how politicians abuse the power, We, The People, give to them {with our votes} by wasting 388 billion dollars that belong to us, the American people. The same people who continue to put them in power.This and all information on this page can be found at: www.heritage.org/Research/Government, At, http://www.visi.com/you can find and stay abreast of issues that come before Congress and you can also see who “represents” you in Congress. You will be interested to know what decisions were made by your “representative” on your behalf in your local community. Fascinating stuff!

George Bush Gives Us Up To The United Nations!

2005-01-06T13:31:00.000-05:00

While, I'm not a Republican, George Bush has always been my main man when it comes to his role as U.S. President. I didn't agree with all his opinions, ideas and decisions, however, I have adjudicated his character to be one that is deserving of deference & admiration.

I felt this way for different reasons. One being, his position on the war. I thought he proved himself to be a focused leader with knowledge and understanding as to the obligations, the job of President/Commander in Chief calls for. He has had to make very hard decisions, facing an unimaginable, Godless enemy {terrorists}. Under the burdenal shroud of the first successful attack on this country since Pearl Harbor>>Nine Eleven. And should we even mention the pure, open and constant attacks on every aspect of the man's character. The collective contempt held for the guy is downright un-nerving. The grace in which he handles it all is another reason for my affinity for our 43rd President, he seems rises above it all.

But today, well today, he really pissed me off. Why {?} well, today he decided to abandon those admirable principles that enamored me so.

Tsunami in Southeast Asia, terrible, terrible thing, like something out of MGM's latest Blockbuster.

Movie- terrible, like it was'nt real, like maybe really, really good sepcial effects. How does one wrap their mind around the unthinkable. You know how we expect our movies to evoke nightmarish, ghoulish characters, we expect them to chronicle fantastic human suffrage, unimaginable stuff, usually. Did you see "The Day After Tomorrow?" The point being that what happened in Southeast Asia is so terrible, it has reached beyond our finite understanding and entered the world of the infinite. The movie-like events, that we don't really think will ever happened, not because we are unfamiliar with terrific terribleness and suffrage, but because some thing are so terrible, , the severity of the horror is not even something that our minds would even consider. It was an infinite event, an unimaginable terribleness.

The world's collective reaction: Send aid {what else could they do, even Sadaam might have sent a couple million} and of course, twist the {natural} disaster and seize it as an opportunity to lie, assault and steal from American the American people.

EVERYONE as I'm sure most of you have heard has used this unthinkable event to continue the rampant, slanderous, verbal assaults on this country.

We have been called "stingy" in a variety of ways, and, sadly, it's not just the international America-hating world it's those wonderful, patriotic guys and girls here right in our country, Americans, themselves, slam us and lie about us all because they don't like Bush.

I'm angry @ G.W. not because of any kind of "stinginess" I mean why would I dislike him based on a lie. I do like to consider myself a thinking person after all. But let me just proxy you with a few facts about this country and our issues with "stinginess"

Along with the $400 million our government gave, the UNITED STATES' citizens {we, the greedy, evil, selfish, fat, cheeseburger-loving, Chevy & Dodge truck driving, despicable Americans}gave;

- private contributions - $ 200 million
-Catholic relief spices {this is a website that offers monetary and voluntary relief to those who need it} received $100,000 per hour!
- American Red Cross- $ 100 million with constant incoming donations.

And that's just the money from private citizens! Yeah, the world's and our co-patriot's criticisms, did I say "criticisms"? I meant "lies" about this and the people of this country.

Would stats like those be adduced as "stingy" by even the most flagrant idiot?

here's the "little" else we {America!] are doing and giving;

-ships carrying food supplies
-aircraft carriers
-helicopters
-transport planes
-logistical support
-sending disaster assistance teams
-sending supplies & advance teams to Sumantra's Northwest coast
-sending water purification system to Sri Lanka

There you have it folks. A itemized round up of jus how "stingy" Americans are.

Now back to G.W. and his assault against us. He has decided to grant sovereignty to the crooked, America-hating, wouldn't support us against Sadaam, thieving, punks of the United Nations. Kofi Anaan, the general Secretary {the head guy} if the United Nations, demanded that the United Nations be given full power of distributing aid to the tsunami Relief effort.

I absolutely do not agree with the United Nations having control of the world's pooled money intended to aid those in need.

Why I dont agree?

Because of the $64 B-I-L-L-I-O-N they S-T-O-L-E from the Women and Children of Iraq. We cannot forget the egregious "Oil For Food" program, where Kofi Anaan and The United Nations, let me say it again, STOLE $64 BILLION DOLLARS FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE. WE HAVE GOTTEN NOWHERE IN MAKING IN REAL HEADWAY WITH THAT MESS, BUT ONE THING WE DO KNOW; KOFI ANAAN'S SON WAS A PLAYER AND PERSONALLY BENEFITED PROFUSELY! Oh but of course Kofi {as he has stated} didn't and doesn't know anything about that, right? Right

So, Bush, who refused to put our country's security by NOT turning over the decision to invade Iraq to them {lest we not forget that these are the pedastaled, few for which we should have passed their "global test" before acting militarily}

But he turns around and gives our money over to them! Well actually, more, of our money {you did know that our tax dollars are also allocated to these people? You did know, without the United States, the United Nations could not exist effectually!}

So now, they are handling all money intended for tsunami relief. I just hope they actually give the money to the people this time. Damn, I thought of you as never backing down, standing up for your beliefs and values in the face of opposition but now, I just don't know what to make out of this, it absolutely infuriates me. G.W. What the hell are you thinking? I know Condi couldnt've told you to do this, Did she?

Naw, she's way too brilliant and pragmatic, I'm not convinced I could survive such a heartbreak from Condi.

Is It Just Me?

2004-12-22T16:26:00.000-05:00

Or have plain talk and direct truth just completely gone out of style. We are so obsessed with being politically correct and not "offending" anyone that we no longer deal in truth. Our ideas about political correctiveness are totally disconnected to reality. We are a country filled with people from ALL OVER THE WORLD, OF COURSE SOMEONE IS GOING TO GET OFFENDED!

Let me give you an example, I'm listening to Neal Boortz, he's a radio-talk show host, and he's telling his audience how at their office {radio station} they recycle and they have the recycle bins, and they really take it seriously around there. So he goes on to say that there was an issue because one of the recycle bins was labeled "colored paper" this was interpreted to have a racial connotation thereby making it "offensive" because of Black Americans once being know as "colored" in this country! So now because of that unfortunate period in our history the word "colored" is off limits.

You can't even breathe in this country without "offending" someone. In order to get things done and make changes in our lives and our country so that we may continue to evolve, move forward, we must be honest and direct. We have different problems these days, times have evolved, our people have evolved, our problems have evolved and therefore, we should evolve. How can we have or come up with any solutions, when we haven't clearly identified our problems because we refuse to be honest with one another because somebody might get offended! W all need to get over ourselves because life in itself is offensive. We are all pelleted with offenses from the day we are born till the day we die. Life is not perfect and neither are people, we're fooling ourselves if we think we can reach the truth without being truthful.

Just a little mental release from me, I've nothing more to add.

Oh no! I hope I didn't offend anyone.

The Despicable Michael Jackson And Those Who Praise Him

2004-12-20T17:09:00.000-05:00

Isn't it great that we not only live in a country that allows adults to have sex with children and go unpunished but also allows children to regularly stream through the home of a child molester/rapist, admittedly it's an alleged accusation although, that 20 million dollar settlement he paid that other little boy who said that, he too, had a sexual relationship with this cretin, doesn't suggest that this is an "alleged" incident. By the way, the "alleged" part of this argument holds no place of relevance in my argument, as {one of} my heros, Anne Coulter {former us-constitutional lawyer} explained, "innocent until proven guilty, just means you don't go to jail first." It does'nt mean we should act as if these children are lying and that Micahel Jackson didn't really do these things.

What does it say about a society that will overlook such horrible transgrssions just because the man in question can sing and dance really good?

Here we have a grown man who is obviously not, mentally sound, who is unable to let his childhood go and grow up, for a myriad of reasons. He openly professes and often speaks about his love and need to BE Peter Pan! He turns his California estate into an amusement park {which he named "Neverland" you know, home of Peter Pan and Tinkerbell etc..} and we won't even get started on what he's done to his appearance, despite these obvious, red-flag warning signs, our society continues to subject children to this madman. Children{!} the very people who should be protected from this a-hole because the children are the ones who are in danger of him. He clearly has issues that render him unfit to be with children, period.

This, to me, is a no brainer.

So can someone please tell me, no, make me understand why we keep shipping kids out to "Neverland". Jackson's spokeswoman, Raymone K. Bain, said that civic groups and charities bring kids to the ranch at least three times a month! This is preposterous and indicative of why millions upon millions of children are sexually molested or assaulted in this country. Their perpetrators, doing it again and again and again, going unpunished, usually. In order for our justice system to appropriately punish those gulity of child rapists/molesters, they have to kill the child in the process of their sexual attack upon them. The child has to die or suffer insurmountable conditions in order for his/her assailant to suffer true consequences for what they have done!

How many of you would let your kids hang out with this guy? What if he wasn't Michael Jackson, just some weird- looking guy who behaves the way he does and is accused of the things he's accused of? Would children still be allowed around him?

Santa Barbara County authorities have charged Jackson with molesting a boy, conspiracy and administering an intoxicating agent to a minor.

Actually, now that I re-reflect on what he's being charged with I must change my strong opinion on the safety and well being of our children being compromised by exposing them to this man. No, based on reading his charges again, I have decided that I am the ridiculous one, we should not air on the side of paranoia when it comes to our kid's safety, let's give him the "benefit of the doubt." It is I, who have the problem, not society.

Yes, you, society, are right! He is Michael Jackson after all, you folks should absolutely continue to take our children to his house!

Peterson Gets Off The Hook With "Death Penalty" Sentence

2004-12-16T21:22:00.000-05:00

Scott Peterson gets the death penalty, in California of all places, a state that already has over 600 people on Death Row, 641 to be exact, all waiting to be executed. Guess how many prisoners have been executed in California in the last 14 years? 10. Yes, I meant ten. That liberal led, pro-life {as it relates to death row, not abortion} cess pool have only gotten around to honoring our justice system and the jurisprudence of our jurors & judges only ten times in the last 14 years! Get in line Scott. On average, they execute about one-third of a person every year.

You know the thing that really bothers me, well there are a couple of things that really bother me, but let me first say this, SCOTT PETERSON SHOULD BE IN GENERAL POPULATION WHILE IN PRISON,BECAUSE, AS ANY IDIOT CAN DEDUCE, BASED ON THE AFOREMENTIONED FACTS, SCOTT PETERSON WILL NOT BE EXECUTED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HE'LL PROBABLY DIE OF OLD AGE!

The essential idea of prison is taking one's freedom as a punishment for breaking the laws of the land. However, we all know that in the American penal system, when a person goes to prison, they not only have their freedom taken away but there exists, an added danger, punishment, stressor of surviving the sexual and violent inclinations of other inmates. Scott, as we can all see, is quite the looker, a real ladies man or as would be the case in prison, a man's man. Being on Death Row enables Peterson to escape the affectionate, {for lack of a better word} venerable, favorable treatment of those guys serving double life sentences and so forth in the dark, damp, celled, dungeons of Californias own, San Quentin penitentiary.

Oh you know, the collective shower parties {the guys are especially helpful to a fella who drops his soap} or maybe Scott would have preferred a little communal, get together in the broom closet where he could enjoy focused initiation rites administered by big, burly, tattooed fellows who truly embrace the idea of "personal involvement" when helping the new guys get used to life on the Inside.

You know, I'll bet they had special plans for a guy whose in there for killing his pregnant wife and baby and then dumping them into the ocean. What do you think?

But oh no, they won't get that chance because Scotty-boy will be hanging out on Death Row where he will enjoy solitude and sadly, safety. He will not have his life, which will not imminently end, made to be a living hell, so long as he is alive. He should have to suffer and sitting alone in a cell does not cut it! The punishment absolutely does not fit the crime, but whats new? He's on Death Row in California wasting tax-payers money {it costs us more to imprison a person on death row than it does us, to imprison a person in general population because of delays & appeals } and he will be there for at least, many years and will evetually, probably die there, from natural causes however, not execution!

He'll get to spend those long years safely, thinking of what he's done and eventually making peace with it and he'll probably become starkly religious accepting Jesus as his savior and all that, you know how folks do when they go to prison, he'll make peace with what he has done. Not having to look over his shoulder, he'll eat his meals in peace instead of having to endure the social interactions with fellow inmates in the mess hall, he will go un-plagued by such circumstances. Circumstances, that are inclusive in one's punishment when he/she goes to prison in this country. Now that's a true injustice to all of humanity. Scott Peterson, spawn of satan, is authentic, bona-fide, real-deal, pretty- boy, Ted Bundy-like scum.

Oh and I would also like to cite how the media and his attorneys used his mama and her bad health as one of their reasons to plea for his life. Sickenly, during the sentencing hearing, there, presented to the jury were the various faces of Scott Peterson; Scott, the baby; Scott, the boy; Scott, the good son; Scott, the All-American boy. The poor condition of his Mother's health was added to the stockpile of compost used as a viable reason to spare his life. Not blown away? Okay, I'll say it like so, HIS MOTHER'S HEALTH CONDITION IS COMPLETELY, UNDUBIOUSLY, IRRELEVANT TO HIS KILLING HIS PREGNANT WIFE AND BABY {did you know he cut her arms off?} REGARDING THE HEALTH CONDITION OF HIS MOTHER {whom I'm sure is a lovely woman} OR ANYONE ELSE IN HIS FAMILY; WHO THE CARES!? SO WHAT, THANKS FOR SHARING! NOW CAN WE GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE DAY AND KILL THIS SUB-HUMAN? THANK YOU!

Scott Peterson is among the most heinous of us and should be treated accordingly. When a person is sentenced to death, they should immediately be taken before a firing squad {or maybe we should stone them to death [it's gotta be unbearably, painful] or something like that, those theocracies aren't all bad} and executed immediately, the death penalty should mean death.

If not, he should be made to endure prison on the same terms that everyone else has to endure prison. Death Row inmates should not be coddled and humored, by being afforded shelter from the chaos and dramatics of prison life in this country!

Screw The United Nations!

2004-12-01T13:12:00.000-05:00

Recall,in one of my previous blogs, where I wrote about the dishonorable, merit-less, not-to-be-trusted, self-serving, elitists weasels at the United-Friends-of-Sadaam-Nations, who were running the Oil-for-Food scandal? They finally provided us with indefensible fodder to serve as reference-able precedent for argument against them.

Those thinking Americans who consistently insisted on the sheer and obvious capriciousness of the International Circus of the Useless, administrators of all global tests {remember that global test we should have passed before going to war.} The same guys who turned us down over & over again as we repeatedly, appeared before them pleaing for their help, requesting their assistance in ousting Sadaam Hussein The same guys who turn to Americans repeatedly for money, food, weapons, military support, medical supplies, you name it, all to help other countries. And we do help all of the countries that the United Nations present to us as needy. I'll say it again and again, we are the good-guys here folks. Remember that the next time you hear some mindless liberal denagrate our country and refer to the United States’ we-get-nothing-in-return-help we're extending to the Iraqis, as "OCCUPATION."

We now know the reason they didn’t respond to the pleas was because they were actively involved in a conspiracy with Sadaam, a conspiracy that made Sadaam about $23 million dollars richer. In all fairness, those golden uzis, are rather expensive-only the best for Uday and Qusay. Right? {remeber all those pic w/his sons parading and showcasing their uzis, made out of pure gold}

Here's how a liberal would respond to what I just jokingly, wrote in the previous paragraph.

"Aha!" they would yell victoriously. "You see that right there! That just proves exactly what I'm saying. Sadaam was not just some ruthless dictator, he was a concerned dad." This would be yelled at me in a manner not unlike a shrill.

We do ot need the United Nations, they need us! Did you know that a great deal of American Taxpayer money {that's you} goes to this organization. Remember, when I say America is providing food med supplies etc... I am talking about you. About your money, about all of our money that gets spent on these crooket people who have no real intrest in our country outside of desiring our demise and begging for our help! Which they always get!

Thanks Dan! It's Been Fun!

2004-12-01T13:02:00.000-05:00

I tell you, I'm shamelessly pleased that Dan Rather was FIRED from his anchor seat at CBS. Not after he manipulated/created false documents to support a bogus news story he decided to falsely relay to the American people for the self-serving purpose of demonizing President Bush to garner support for the man he personally wanted as President. He's outta there! For all the "Rathergate" details, check out Brent Bozell's article in the Wall Street Journal. www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20040915

A Marine's Journal

2004-12-01T11:57:00.000-05:00

Here's a look at the day to day account of a Marine in the middle of the war. It allows an intimate look at what our boys/girls are going through to protect this country. Brian Taylor did an excellent job of articulating his day to day experiences in Iraq. He has since, returned home to his wife and three children.

Mr. Taylor joined the Marine Corps Reserves in 1996 and was called up for service in February 2002. His enlistment expired in November 2003. He kept this journal while deployed with Fox Company, Second Battalion, 23rd Marines in Kuwait and Iraq. Comments in italics were added after his return to clarify and expand his account and to define military terminology for the benefit of civilian readers. Four-digit numbers followed by "Z" are time codes in Greenwich Mean Time; codes of the format "38RQU 29141756" are 8-digit MGRS grid coordinates indicating his location at the time. it is broken into five parts. It's really insightful and quite thought-provoking. Check it out.

www.opinionjournal.com/columnist/btaylor

"Usama, We Are Not Madrid".....

2004-11-08T19:00:00.000-05:00

The terrorists' plan worked in Madrid, Spain, where three days before their Presidential election they detonated thirteen bombs, at the Atocha terminal during the height of Madrid's rush hour, killing more than 180 people and wounding more than 900. Again, three days before, Spain's Presidential election . The Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, reacted to this unthinkable act much as our own President reacted when America was attacked on 9-11. Vowing, retaliation and recompense. I relay Aznar's reaction to illustrate the type of leader he was, which can be deduced, generally, from his reaction to his country being attacked.

He was not re-elected.

The terrorist bombed the people of Madrid, instilling fear in them. Fear that rendered them powerless, in their minds. It was, for them, an easy decision on election day, they would not anger the terrorists by re-electing a leader who maintains a strong, aggresive position to fight terror. In other words, they chose to appease the terrorists. Give them what they want {abolishment of free will and free thinking} and let's hope, now, they'll leave us alone. It was the terrorists who decided who the Prime Minister of Spain would be. Playing on the powerful, fatuitous masses of Spain, who allowed ruthless, murderers to dictate who their leader should be. It brings to mind Machiavelli's, "the end justifies the means."

Usama bin Laden is no longer able to roam freely in the Earth. When he and his network went after the Trade Centers the first time, under Bill Clinton, they suffered not. They were able to conclude that they could bomb the U.S, and get away with it, without suffering the appropriate consequence {annihilation}. Usama bin Laden saw the ignored oppurtunites, the U.S. were extended and failed to act on. Like the time the Sudanese government had Usama in custody, informed the U.S. that we could come get him and the administration at that time [Clinton] had better things to do and sure enough, subsequently, they attempted to attack us again, but this time, they were sucessful.

Our country has shown, since that time under the current administration [Bush], that you cannot attack us and go on building a strong cellular organization, sending boys to terrorists' camp where they diligently study and learn the colorful art of, bomb-making, hijacking....

Americans have shown that we will not be terrified by the terrorists, who released a tape, right before our election, informing the American people, that they would be watching our Presidential election, state by state and the states that Bush wins will be considered an enemy. Americans responded to the threats of mayhem by voting for the guy the terrorists absolutely, unequivocably, did not want. A general rule of thumb, any person{s} who finds him or herself supporting the guy that the terrorists are also supporting, should wonder, if they've been supporting the wrong guy.

Nonetheless, we showed em', not us, you won't tell us who to vote for Usama!

I Must Admit........

2004-11-01T17:07:00.000-05:00

i'm quite pleased that Usama decided {predictably} grace us with another one of his his tapes, serving -as far as I'm concerned- as a reminder, a reminder of what is truly at stake when we, the American people, elect a new President tommorow. The tape, authenticated by the FBI was delivered to the Al-Jazeera office in Islamabad, Pakistan. Usama, the face of the terrific horribleness that exists against this country and it's citzens made it clear which man he wants to see become our next Commander- in -Cheif. In his ringing endorsement for John Kerry, Usama warns the American people that he will be monitoring the state by state election results. He says, in his message for the Democratic National Party {kidding, }, that he will "spare" any state that votes against George Bush.

The tape was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and translates Arabic media and Internet sites. In MEMRI'S translation the preeminent passage in bin Laden's 18 minute tape, is the passage where he says that the states who vote for Bush will be seen as an "enemy" and that states that who vote against Bush would "have chosen to make peace with us."

How, after seeing that tape, do you still vote for Kerry? The terrorists want Kerry. If you find yourself, politically, on par with the terrorist, reevaluate. Hurry, we vote tommorow. I hope that seeing Usama, the face of terrorism, jogged some of ya'll's memories, I am not understanding how Beslam {terrorists' schoolhouse massacre, where they murdered hundreds of children} did'nt do this, but fine.

The celebrated and revered hero of all the terrorists and all the terrorists networks of the world, Usama bin Laden, decided to let us know, directly, that his guy is Kerry. Why? Why would Usama and the rest of the gang want to get rid of Bush. Could it be, that they know Bush will continue to come after them making it increasingly difficult for them to return to pre Bush days or pre 9-11 days when they enjoyed practiced terrorism with relative ease, you know, the days when terrorism was just a "nuisance," as John Kerry called it in a recent interview with NEW YORKER magazine. Hey look, the terrorists want to restore posterity and peace to their world too and that ain't gone happen under George Bush. Their best chance at restoration; John Kerry. This way they might get a represenative at the United Nations, oh that's right, France and Russia are already there.

The Kerry campaign says that George Bush took his eye off Usama to focus on Sadaam, Kerry often refers to what happend in Tora Bora, accusing the President of letting Usama get away when the U.S. had him surrounded. Kerry goes on to say that he would hunt down and kill Usama. George Bush says the same thing.

Yet, Usama supports Kerry, a man that says he will hunt him down and kill him and all of his other terrorizing buddies. Looks like he should hate them both right? Why would there even be a difference in the way he felt about the two men, their both Americans and they both want to hunt him down and kill him? Usama, it appears, is a great deal smarter than a high number of Americans. Looks like he has done his research on Kerry {an idea that ecscaped most Kerry supporters} and recognizes that the man will not take action against terror the way George Bush has. Maybe it has something to do with his voting record during his 20 year Senate tenure, voting to cut Intelligence {after we the 93' orld Trade center bombing attempt}.......voting against the Strategic Defense Initiative, against the Trident Missile,against the B-1 Bomber,against the B-2 Bomber,against the Patriot Missile, against the Aegis air defense cruiser, the list goes on.... voting not to fund the war... voting against sending our troops protective armour....voting to weaken our military.....saying he believes America has to pass a "global test" for him to act militarily.... etc...the list goes on and on and on. Can't you see why Kerry is the choice of the terrorists? We have all heard the great old adage, "the best indicator for what's going to happen in the future, is what has happened in the past."

Usama, unlike most liberals, obviously, follows politics, even when we arent in the throes of a passionate Presidential race. A Presidential race, where from the onstart has inspired everyone's inner foreign-policy expert to show it's face and Lord, don't even get me started on all the bona-fide, media-educated, political analyst. They know absolutely nothing, can't tell you, outside of what they just heard on the evening news, one fact about any of the issues or the man they plan to vote for and when you offer an contradictory arguement made up of facts, your argument will be angrily dismissed and go unconsidered. Yet they still manage to conjure an opinion, opinions based on rhetoric instead of facts. They have an abundance of thoughts but there seems to be no evidence of any actual thinking. Uneducated people with power, now that's scarier than your pre-teen daughter at an R. Kelley afterparty.

If you intend to vote for Kerry but you know nothing about his record or his positions outside of what he and his campaign have told you, {you may want to check the daily average on that, as it often changes} then please, and I know everybody's telling you the opposite, don't vote. If you are voting for John Kerry because you think Bush is evil, then please, keep the evil you know.

Oh yeah, wanna know what the Kerry camp did before they released a their response to the Usama tape?

They took a poll.

Senator Kerry, how do you respond to the Usama tape?

Ask me again after my guy has told me what you would like me to think

Kerry, Kerry, Kerry

2004-10-30T19:05:00.000-04:00

While there exists a prodigious arsenal of Kerry verbal blunders and lies, there is a particular blunder/lie that is most noteworthy. Let me first take you back to the beginning of the campaign. By the beginning, I mean, when John Kerry officially became the Democractic nominee, after the Democratic convention. Please, recall, at the finale of the convention, before Kerry gave his speech, the audience was treated to a most touching short film by Steven Speilberg. The film was a cinematic expression of why John Kerry is so great and why we should vote for him, the film was centered on his tours in Vietnam and failed to mention his TWENTY year tenure in the U.S. Senate. Apparently his time in Vietnam, 3 months, is more relevant than his time as a Senator, 20 years, it feels shameful, that the political ideology of the masses, is in a state where such a difference has to be pointed out.

Okay, so let's be the dummies they desire us to be and pretend that just because John Kerry was in Vietnam for three months, he would make a better President than Bush. That being said I'll now tell you about a particular part in the film and also on the JohnKerry website, referred to as, "no man left behind," now this was an excerpt describing the event when John Kerry went back into oncoming fire to save a man who had gone overboard.

As Kerry told the story, originally, {you know stories usually go through several phases when this guy tells one} he basically said that while he was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats performing SEA Lords operations on March 13, 1969 in the Bay Harp river. A mime detonated under one of the boats, at which time, according to Kerry, all the boats turned around and fled. All the boats, except the one he was on, he said he was the only one who valiantly remained, saving the life of an overboard soldier and killing one of the Viet Cong that was trying to kill them. And to top it all off, John Kerry, performed these acts of heroism while wounded in the arm.

Out comes "Unfit to Command," this is a book written by all of Kerry's commanding officers and all the guys he served with in Nam. When they had the press conference for the release of "Unfit to Command," there was a media blackout. The Swift Boat Vets for Truth, not one of them, appeared on TODAY, Good Morning America, Dateline, Nightline, 20/20 etc... In "Unfit to Command" they tell a very different story about the time they spent in Vietnam with John Kerry exposing him to be a liar and an oppurtunist. Their recount of March 16, 1969, the "no man left behind" day; yeah a mime did detonate under one of the boats and they did all do the same thing and John Kerry, singularly, did another. They stayed and John Kerry was the one who turned his boat around and headed for the hills. And he did suffer a wound which earned him a Bronze Star, a wound that was, self inflicted {this little detail is left out of Kerry's version}. Oh and the Viet Cong he shot was shot in the back, making it, by laws of physics, impossible for the soldier to have been shooting at him {another detail left out of Kerry's "original" version.}

The entertaining aspect to all this, is that, not only did The Swift Boat Vets not get any media coverage, but since the book came out the Kerry camp has since changed it's version of the "no man left behind" story. It runs parallel to the story the Swiftees told but with twisted wording so that John Kerry still looks great. It is completely changed, though. What does that tell you?

I would also venture to ask why the media would not have these guys on their shows in order to expose the American people to all of the events and happenings surrounding Bush and Kerry. Oh that's right, they only have the people on their shows who write Bush-hating books. I must've seen Kitty Kelly on every mainstream news outlet. She is the wonderful, author of the "The Family; inside the Bush dynasty," where she talks about the President doing cocaine and accuses Laura Bush -who is above reproach- of smoking weed. I believe I saw her on TODAY two days in a row. What does that say to you?

I also feel it is noteworthy to point out that the media's response to the Swift Boats Vets was retchid, as they called them liars and such, a great way to treat our Vets by the way, some of these guys spent years in POW prison camps, where the Viet Cong extended their hospitality, regularly through torture. They even called the doctor, who is with the Swift Vets in opposition to Kerry and was also one of his tending physicians, a fake doctor! They said the man was not a real doctor, demoralizing his name and character, rendering him an unreliable source and not to be believed. I wonder if the attending doctor has to be a real doctor when tending a wound that garners a medal? I guess being a Vietnam Vet makes you a credible candidate for Presidency but not for news stories concerning a Presidential candidate.

Perhaps the Navy was in the habit of placing "fake" doctors in combat during Nam.

Well It Would Appear..

2004-10-30T16:14:00.000-04:00

that I have spoken too soon, in an afore blog, where I mentioned the media not reporting the Usama-Zarqawi link, in an effort to not remind Americans of 9-11. Al-Jazeera, the Middle East's answer to CNN, {don't you just love terrorist funded news outlets?} just yesterday ran another tape from the big kahuna himself, looking well, I might add. Of course, the tape was filled with his usual hate diatribe fettered with threats and warnings, he did, however, take the time to praise Muhommed Atta {pilot of the plane that went into the first tower, in case you forgot}

If we're not reminded of the issue of "terrorism" by the latest, authenticated, Usama tape, then I don't know what you people need to wake up and realize that this is very much a real and imminent threat to our security, to the world's security.

That day, September eleventh, should harbor a place in the forefront of all our hearts and minds. We need to remember folks. We have to, because it's not over. Terrorism, not just Al-Quaeda, but any form of terrorism, is intolerable and completely unacceptable. As long as it exists, we are not safe, our kids are not safe and we must support any effort against it.

Like the honorable, diligent efforts our troops are making in Iraq. They should be honored and revered for what they are doing, not denagrated by their own fellow countrymen who don't like who the President is.

Do You Ever Notice............

2004-10-25T10:46:00.000-04:00

we never really hear anything about the "war on terror" from the media. What we hear alot about is the "war in Iraq". When we do hear the war referred to as, "the war on terror," it is likely to be in commentary or opinion expressed by those who believe the President is doing the right thing.

Just because they say it, don't make it so. The reporting of the violence is brilliantly twisted to deflect memories of 9/11 because it is the singular event that strikes fear and anger in the heart of most Americans and compells us to think, "terrorism." They simply will not acknowledge that this war is about terrorism and they won't report anything that would support the contrast. They do this, by, never referring to present-day terrorist attacks as terrorist attacks. Are the kidnappings and bombings not terrorism? Are the distributed, videotaped beheadings, not terrorism? Oh and the media call the perpetrators of these inhuman acts "insurgents," instead of terrorists. Refusing to refer to the terrorists, as terrorists. Abu Musab Zarqawi, the leader of the pack and currently the preeminent piece of ...., the guy who claims responsibilty for several terrorist attacks and believed to be the one speaking in most of the beheading tapings, is often referred to as a "mastermind," by the media. And just so you know, he also pledged his love and devotion to Usama bin Laden. But I bet you did'nt hear about that, not from the mainstream media, you did'nt and you won't.

Perhaps they think if they don't mention UBL, then we won't remember the numerous attacks against this country borne of that mans's leadership, urging and funding. "The wrong war at the wrong time," when, would be a better time you think, after they attack the U.S. again? If merciless killing of innocent children {many of them were shot in the back and held hostage at which time they were forced to watch those bastards make a tape of themselves distributing explosives all over their SCHOOL} is'nt beneath these bastards, then nothing is. They took over a school folks, they targeted and specifically killed kids. Oh yeah Terrorism is'nt a problem. Just a bunch of hype from the Bush camp to win votes. Maybe the Bush camp was behind that schoolhouse massacre in Beslam, Russia, conspired to trick Americans into beleiving this is a warranted war. Terrorism is clearly a worldwide threat that the U.S. has stepped up to fight {a fight that could've been fought by Bush's predecessors, as terrorism is not a problem borne during the Bush administration.}

The result of our politically biased media, is a failure to report, accurately to the American people so that we may form our own opinions based on un manipulated facts.They could start with correctly calling this mess what it is, a war on terror. We're the good guys folks.

Okay I Wasn't Going To Say Anything But......

2004-10-24T20:19:00.000-04:00

.......my hand has been forced. Of course, I, too, being a stay at home mom, saw the offense committed in Teresa Heinz Kerry's, thoughtless, comments regarding Laura Bush's "job" history, in an interview with USA Today where Mrs. Kerry said she "didn't know if Mrs. Bush ever actually had a real job." These comments attracted widespread criticism due to the fact of Mrs. Bush being a former teacher and librarian {she has her Master's degree in the field.} By the way, the comment about the "real job" was apart of a response to a question that asked about the differences between her and Mrs. Bush. Mrs. Kerry quickly recanted the statement claiming she "forgot" that Mrs Bush had been a teacher and that there was no job more important than teaching our kids. The press' response highlighted the inaccuracy of Mrs. Kerry comments because of the First Lady's professional career.

Mrs. Kerry's apology was remiss, however, as she failed to mention The First Lady's tenure as homemaker and stay at home mom. I guess that time is un-noteworthy and not considered to be a "real job," Mrs. Kerry was right in speaking of the importance in teaching our children, what she neglected to cite in her original statement and in her apology, was the important job of RAISING our children. I'll assume she "forgot" about Jenna and Barbara too, the Bush girls.

The comment made you think you knew how Mrs. Kerry felt about homemakers and stay at home moms, the subsequent apology, made you know, you knew, how Mrs. Kerry felt about homemakers and stay at home moms. It's an infuriating dismissal, because, in fact, there exists, not, a more important job than that of mothering. If raising kids don't constitute a "real" job, then why would people pay others to do it, the nanny market is a profitable and booming one.

Feminism be damned, there are women out here who look forward to, and desire the load of motherhood, women who dedicate their lives to it by staying home and raising their kids. Oh and by the way, a great deal of us are repelled by the idea of bra-burning { pregnancy and nursing necessitate bra usage.}

The "job" that Mothers perform produce doctors, lawyers, statesmen and so forth. The past, present and future of mankind depend on the "job" performance of Mothers.

Has Anyone Noticed.....................

2004-10-24T01:37:00.000-04:00

....how we abruptly stopped hearing about Dan Rather and CBS broadcasting unfavorable reports about George Bush and his time in the National Guard, that were based on false documents. Speaking of documents, whatever happened to Sandy Berger for stealing those classified documents from the White House?

Things that make you go hmmm.

America's First African-American First Lady?

2004-10-23T23:19:00.000-04:00

A couple of months ago, while campaigning for her husband, Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke to a largely, black, audience. When during, what I'm sure, was a heartfelt speech, Mrs. Kerry proclaimed, that she too, was an "African-American." I'm thinking she said this to cultivate a bond between her and her "brothers" and "sisters" in the audience.

Mrs. Kerry is accurate in labeling herself an "African-American" because she was, in fact, born in South Africa. She is now, an American citizen, making her an African-American. This suppressing light-bulb revelation exposes two truths. The first one, obviously, the obvious, is while Mrs. Kerry is technically "African -American" she is certainly opposite of, hmm, let's say, me. A black girl, born and raised in America, also considered to be an "African-American." It shows how utterly inappropriate that label is when referring to a black person born and raised in America. When my Grandmother, who hails from Union Springs Alabama, thank you very much, hears the term, "African American," she says, "I ain't never been to no Africa!" And while I think "African-American" is a better label than "negro," "nigger," "Negroid," "colored" or "afro-American." It is still, however, a label that fails to accurately describe a whole race of people Hmm..... maybe they should call us.....let's see......I'm thinking.......thinking....hey, I know! What about, Americans.

The other dirty little secret let out of the bag by Mrs. Kerry's speech to her "people," is how unbelievably, stupid the Kerry camp must think us "African-Americans" are. The usage of that phrase clearly displayed a desire to appeal to the black vote {hey, I'm one of y'all, now run out and tell all your friends and vote for my husband}.

I guess the Kerry camp figured if Teresa calls herself an African-American, black voters would hold her in the same regard they hold other black folks. I can't speak for my entire race, however, I can say, while I concede to Mrs. Kerry's accuracy in referring to herself as an "African-American," when I see or think of her, I think, white woman. When she speaks, I think, foreign- white woman. Not that foreign- white women aren't perfectly delightful, ya see, they are just absurdly, unrelateable to most black people in America. In fact, I cannot think of a single plight that is common to both black Americans and white, foreign-Women that would produce a bond between the two that would constitute a viable reason for the two parties to share the term, "African American" as it relates to race.

Can you?

Ohhhh So That's Why You Guys Were.........

2004-10-22T20:19:00.000-04:00

acting like that. I'm speaking of those who find decadence in bread and those who always, always, look pissed off. The French and the Russians. In a disclosing article today, the Washington Times , reports, "U.N. hurt by scandals Annan says", the scandal that Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary, refers to are the allegations surrounding U.N. officials, that claims a few of them were in bed with good ole' Sadaam violating the intention of the Oil-for-Food program. The program allowed Sadaam to trade oil for food, medical supplies and humanitarian aid with willing countries. Looks like Sadaam had other ideas and walked away with oh, just ten billion dollars, at the program's close in 2003.

Paul Volcker, head of an independent U.N. investigation panel, and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, released a report yesterday citing France and Russia as the most active buyers in the Oil for Food program. Volcker expressed that the current report is an informative one and is not intended to lay blame at any Frenchman's, oh, I mean, any country's feet. However, investigators are "concerned with determining the extent to which smuggling was known to members of the Security Council other U.N. authorities and other contractors."

CIA's chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer , said Sadaam "systematically undermined the purpose of the Oil for Food Charles Duelfer program in order to acquire banned goods and curry international support to end sanctions." Mr. Duelfer went on to report that Sadaam "particularly" targeted companies and prominent officials in France, Russia and China.

Now why would Sadaam "particularly" seek alliances with those countries you ask? Well, those countries, in particular, {pun intended} are on the Security Council in the U.N. with veto power {you guys are familiar with the U.N. security Council aren't you? Let me refresh your memory, these are the guys who decide whether the U.N. will support a country coming before them seeking to oust a regime or use military force} We saw a lot of these guys in 2003 when the President along with Colin Powell went repeatedly before this very council pleading for the ousting of Sadaam, his crazy sons and maniacal administration {e.g."Chemical Ali," one of Sadaam's top officials}. Of course their pleas were met with a great deal of resistance and ultimately denial.

Maybe, and this is just conjecture, certain members of the Security Council had "particular" interests in Sadaam and Iraq that would hinder them from supporting his demise.

Yeah, Kerry and the liberals are right, the President shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq without U.N. support. They are, after all, the entity that governs the world. Whose morality and integrity is simply above reproach. Yeah. Okay.

If any of this is proven I wonder will Kerry and the liberals continue to tout the "we shouldn't have gone to war without U.N. support" flag. If they abandon that ship I wonder what other reason they'll come up with to un-justify the war in Iraq.

Oh and by the way, these guys would be the administrators of that "global test" we would have to pass in order for John Kerry to go to war.