Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Arizona Citizen Explains Law and America to PB State Attorney Barry Krischer

This whole case is such a sad travesty of justice. This idiot prosecutor is so blatantly playing a partisan politics game it's pathetic. Will somebody please stop this cretin?

Thank you, Rush for taking on this guy. Many people may not appreciate it, but I believe the end result will be that our medical records are indeed going to be more secure from the likes of this cowboy attorney in the future, and it will be thanks to Rush Limbaugh for fighting this.

Even a poll in the Palm Beach rag that has been such an advocate of the prosecutor shows it's 9 to 1 in favor of Rush


Monday, April 12, 2004

No War at Any Cost?

This quote from today's Neal Boortz page got me to thinking:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill."

For those who keep touting that nothing is worth going to war, I'd like to remind them that their entire ability to even think such thoughts, much less spew them out loud is due to war.

Were it not for war, we'd still be speaking the King'ss English as subjects to, and serfs under -- gad -- Queen Elizabeth, and a long line of Kings and Queens.

Were it not for war we'd be speaking French and suffering under the likes of Chirac.
Were it not for war we'd be speaking Japanese or German as subjects to the Third Reich.
Were it not for war -- or the serious threat of it -- we'd be speaking Russian and working for the state.

Were it not for war we would not have the freedom to sit on a bar stool and criticize our leaders. We would not have the luxury of enjoying the freedom to vent our opinions.

Yes there is no question that war is a terrible thing. It's painful. It's destructive. It kills.

But having no sense of what you have been handed is even more fightening to me than war. People seem to think their freedom is just there, like air. Well folks it's not just there. It's there because of the blood of thousands of men and women who have given their lives to its cause. Do not take it for granted.

Were it not for war, those who would destroy us for who we are and what we've accomplished -- through all our past wars -- would do their best to kill all of us "infidels".

Just remember that the next time you feel like spouting 'No war at any cost.'



Saturday, April 10, 2004

This was passed along to me from a former boss. We became friends and have kept in touch over the years. Thanks for making me think, again, Bill. :-)


There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.....
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

[Let me interject my own comment here. The comments below are meant to be made from a perspective of the big picture. The message is not intended to trivialize the deaths of those who have given their lives in this war on terror. The loss of life and the suffering of the families of every soldier and civilian who has died is not to be taken lightly. Every single life lost is a terrible tragedy. All Americans should be grateful for the sacrifices they have made in the name of protecting our freedom , and say a prayer for the families who have lost loved ones in this war. Their sacrifice for our freedom has earned our eternal gratitude. We will never forget them.]

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.

If you have any doubts at all, hopefully this will help put things in perspective for you:

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. It was started by terrorists long BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at some of the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us on September 11, 2001, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

[Not to mention having stifled, prevented, foiled or stopped any further attacks in the U.S. so far! -Larry]

Worst president in history? Come on! Get real! The only ones who could spout such drivel are the ignorant, the feeble-minded or politicians who are outright lying to further their own political agenda.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our military is the GREATEST FORCE on EARTH.

[And their Commander in Chief, President George W. Bush is the man needed to continue to lead them.]

Take a look at this post by Evan Maloney.
Quantum Democrats

I enjoy Evan's thoughtful writing. I especially like the videos he does showing just how silly and ignorant many of the vocal libs really are. Take a gander around his web site and I think you'll get a laugh or two.


Wednesday, April 07, 2004

I think this article kinda says it all about Kerry. What person with a functioning brain could possibly support this guy?

You may not like Bush or what he does, but I'll say this much for him. With all their efforts, the libs have come up with nothing of any substance to fault Bush on. Oh they've tried and tried and tried, but the man is basically squeaky clean and, in my mind, comes off as being a no-holds barred, up front straight shooter. I don't agree with everything he's doing, but at least I feel he's being honest about it. And you certainly know where he stands on the issue.

With Kerry you never quite know where he's going to be today. Like many of the dems, he plays to the audience he happens to be in front of. And he plays to segments of the pobulation, or "classes" as Kerry refers to them. There's the "black" vote, and the "middle class" vote and the "women's" vote. Bush usually just refers to us all as Americans. I like that.

Manila Folder
From the April 12 / April 19, 2004 issue: John Kerry's 1986 wimp-out in the Philippines.
by P.J. O'Rourke
04/12/2004, Volume 009, Issue 30

"Just as today Kerry is brave sailor/bold war protester; foe of Saddam/friend of Hans Blix; political underdog/entitled nominee; big government liberal/corporate tax-cutting conservative; rider of Harleys/marrier of Heinz; and, incidentally, still a real jerk."

Manila Folder


This topic will be coming to light soon too, unles you only watch ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN or read the New York Times, of course.

Navy Commanders to Cast Doubt on Kerry's War Record

"Several Navy officers who supervised Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry when he commanded a swift boat in Vietnam are preparing to publicly question his war record - including the circumstances under which he was awarded three Purple Hearts - a noted Vietnam War historian revealed on Sunday."

Say what you will about Bush serving in the National Guard, but I don't fault him for it. It's a legitimate way to fullfill your service duty and he's certainly not the only one who found ways to avoid getting shot at in the swamps. Do you suppose if Bush had served on a Navy ship that stayed offshore and just lobbed missiles the dems would still be criticizing his service because he didn't get swamp mud between his toes?

Am I less of an American or a human being than John Kerry because I was 4F'd out of the service in 1970 due to my medical problem?



I don't know if you follow Neal Boortz, but he's more of a Libertarian and his commentary is always short and pithy and almost always right on with my view. You can also catch him on the radio. His page is updated daily so his comment below will disappear. I wanted to share it with you because I think it summarizes the whole 9/11 "discussion" and the ridiculous claims that Richard Clarke are making about President Bush being lax on the terrorist and particularly Al Qaeda issue. Nobody was more lax than Clinton.

It reminds me of the comment Bill Mahr made about the US being cowards as compared to the terrorists who flew the planes into the buildings, when all we did wa lob some missiles from 3,000 miles away. He took a lot of heat for that remark, but it was mostly because people misunderstood what he was saying. I believe he meant to be critical of the Clinton administration and their lack of attention to a growing problem. But the point is the Clinton administration WAS cowardly toward terrorism. Clinton did not want to get involved in any way, shape or form. I'm convinced he even swept the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building and the shoot down of Flight TWA 800 under the rug for fear they might have been a terrorist attack (or he knew they were). I believe they were. Al Qaeda raised its ugly head in no uncertain terms in 1993 when they bombed the World Trade Center. Their intent was to bring that tower down then. What did Clinton do? Lobbed a few missiles into Afghanistan and then called Monica back. Yeah, it was a high priority alright.

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze Today's Nuze

"Tuesday, April 6, 2004


Let's review.

You are former president Bill Clinton. Your chief anti-terrorism guy, Richard Clarke, says that Al Qaeda was an absolute top priority during the final years of your term. In fact, Richard Clarke writes a book and testifies under oath telling everyone who will listen how focused you were on Al Qaeda while you were president.

So .. it's the end of your eight years in the White House. December, 2000. You are writing a report detailing your views on the major security threats facing the United States as you leave office. The report, which Richard Clarke helped you write, is 45,000 words long. That would be 168 pages using Microsoft Word, and if published as a book it would be about 220 pages long. Now that's quite a lot of words describing what you think are the major security concerns the next president needs to be aware of. And guess what? In all of those 45,000 words you don't mention the name 'Al Qaeda' even one time. The greatest security concern facing America; isn't that what Richard Clarke said? And you don't even mention it one time in your report? Richard Clarke says that Condi Rice looked confused when he mentioned Al Qaeda ... but he didn't manage to get any reference to Al Qaeda included in your final report on security threats?

What do you expect the American people to think? No ... wait. I'll tell you what they think. They think Richard Clarke was lying. They think he lied when he said that Al Qaeda was one of your top national security priorities. Now, after hearing this about your final report, they not only think Richard Clarke was lying, now they know he was lying.

Nice going."


Tuesday, April 06, 2004

Very interesting article linked on Boortz' page today.

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

Why I joined the N.R.A.

I too am an NRA member, not because I've been robbed (I have), not because my house has been broken into (it has) and not because I am some wacko gun nut (I'm not. I've never fired my guns more than for basic practice).

No, I'm an NRA member because I refuse to stand by and let some idiot like Chuck Schumer or Sarah Brady pass laws that removes my right to protect myself, my family and my property. It's called insurance. It's something you don't need until you need it. This is America and I'll be damned if I let anyone tell me whether I can own a gun or not. It's not just that the Constitution says so. The Constitution did not give me the right to own a gun. The God-given right of self-preservation already existed long before the Constitution. What the Constitution says is that the government, in no uncertain terms, 'shall not' interfere with that right.

If you're not a member of the NRA you should be. It's an organization of some 4 million every day folks who believe we ought to uphold what the Constitution says. We ought to be free and live together in harmony. But when someone chooses not to live in harmony and wants to harm us, it's our duty to protect ourselves and our loved ones from them. What could make more sense than that? Would somebody please tell me what's 'radical' about that?

The argument about "assault rifles" and "armor piercing bullets" is a bunch of smokescreen hog wash intended to crack through common sense and get you to say 'Hey, yeah, why do they need assault rifles?'. Once they get you that far, it's just a little step and they'll have you saying 'Yeah, why do they need guns at all?'

Like free speech, you have to accept the extreme. You can't have a 'little' free speech. Either you have free speech or you don't. You can't have 'some' of the "right to keep and bear arms". Either you do or you don't. Whether the Founding Fathers anticipated the development of semi-automatic weapons or not is totally irrelevant. The RIGHT still exists regardless of the technology of the day. The notion that we are relegated to carrying flint-fire muskets is as ludicrous as the empty-headed politicians and daytime talk show hosts who profess it.

Join the NRA today, right here, right now. Is your freedom worth $25 a year?



Sunday, April 04, 2004

Amadeus Wow, we attended the 2004 season


Wow, we attended the 2004 season opener at the local HART Theater last night *Waynesville, NC) and it sure was a treat to watch! We were on the front row for the first time. We usually sit near the back. It was very different being that close. I really got into watching the actors act, rather than taking in the whole play as one big scene. It was fascinating.

HART Haywood Arts Repertory Theatre

Steven Lloyd, HART's Executive Director plays Antonio Salieri and a youngster named Michael Ackerman is Amadeus Mozart. We also enjoyed seeing our new friend Mark Mounce (who played the King in The King and I), as one of The "Venticelli".

Here's a brief entry by Steve from HART's website about the play:

HARTBeat: Spring 2004 Newsletter

Backstage by Steven Lloyd
I get to step on stage again in our next production, the celebrated Broadway play, “Amadeus,” by Peter Schaffer, taking on one of the theatre’s greatest characters. Antonio Salieri may well be remembered because of this play. In the late eighteenth century, Salieri was one of Europe’s most famed composers. He died in 1823, at the height of Beethoven’s creativity, and was a court composer under Emperor Joseph II of Austria. By the end of his life, he had watched his work fall out of favor, and an obscure rival’s take his place. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart had died nearly forty years earlier, a pauper who could not get his work produced. In the last years of Salieri’s life, his fame a faded memory, Salieri astonished the world by claiming that he had murdered Mozart.

Mozart had died young and impoverished. He could get no commissions, and he was buried in a mass pauper’s grave after alienating virtually everyone around him. In his youth, he had been the child prodigy of Europe, playing before kings and writing his first major works as a small child. How and why did he fall so far while creating his greatest works? And why would Salieri have wanted to see that fall occur?

This is the story of “Amadeus.” It is the story of a man who declares war on God and the consequences of that war. The play has won virtually every award there is, had two Broadway runs, and been turned into an Oscar-winning Best Picture. Salieri has been performed by Paul Schofield, Ian McKellan, Martin Sheen, and F. Murray Abraham, Mozart has been played by Tom Hulce and Tim Curry, among others. It is a big, glorious production, and may be the most elaborate play we have ever had as a season opener. Look for elaborate costumes and sets to match. It is filled with music, although not a musical, and will draw you into not only the life, but the work of these extraordinary characters.

A very different side of Peter Shaffer will appear later in the season in “Comic Turns” when we present his hit “Black Comedy.” The connections to the playwright continue with Shaffer’s other works: “Equus” and “Lettice and Lovage.” HART produced “Lettice and Lovage” back in 1996, and Michael Ackerman, who is playing our Mozart, starred in the UNC-A production of “Equus” recently. Many of you may also remember Michael for his performance in “Rope” last season as well.

“Amadeus” is being directed by Bernie Hauserman, who also oversaw “The Price” last season, and the cast includes Casey Dupree, Melanie Allen, Mark Mounce, John Winfield, Tom Gregory, Tom Dewees, John Gould, Jack Ross, Arthur Clevenger, Bob Baldridge, Tyler Ross, Joanne Gregory, Leanna Jones, Ley Bellows, Lizz Wood and Jessica Howell. A slight warning – Mozart is a rather naughty character and he pops out with some rather vulgar phrases to contrast with the lovely music, so be prepared. He is, as Salieri would say, a filthy creature.

I'm really enjoying the plays put on by this theater. Steve Lloyd is a remarkable force and this was the first time I got to see him on stage. I'm looking forward to the rest of the season. Me, a play goer. Who da ever thunk?



Saturday, April 03, 2004

My husband wants to stop using Yahoo

"My husband wants to stop using yahoo because of this article. Would like your thoughts on the matter. "

Do You Yahoo? Al Qaeda Does -- GOPUSA


Well those towels heads use, ah, towels too and I ain't giving those up. They drive cars, use roads and have watches. The 6,000 members of the Yahoo group they mention means there's 6,000 of them with computers, using the internet, writing emails and all probably on Windows. Are we going to give up the internet, email and computers?

This is not like a boycott of the French for their antics re: the Iraq war. Boycotting Yahoo is not justified in my opinion. The article describes Yahoo as being "purveyors of terror". That's nonsense. Whoever wrote that article ought to buy a dictionary (unless terrorists use dictionaries too) and look up the word purveyor. It means a provider, supplier or procurer. Yahoo is not providing, supplying or procuring terror. And why single out Yahoo? Google, MSN, AOL and many many others have e-groups and chat areas.

While Yahoo may take some heat for this, I truly hope they stand their ground, as they have defined themselves merely as the conduit. They are NOT the messenger, they are merely the means. Before the internet, spies put coded messages in the classifieds in the newspaper. Does that mean we should have given up newspapers? Or banned newspapers? Terrorists use cell phones too.

Yahoo is no more at fault here than car makers and road builders are at fault when someone robs a bank and uses them to get away.

Yahoo is defending the right of Free speech as a God-given right, and which is especially spelled out as a guarantee in the Constitution. You can't have "some" free speech. It's all or nothing. (John McCain, are you listening?). In order to defend OUR free speech they HAVE to take an all or nothing approach. It's better for them to stay neutral and just be the vehicle.

Now if terrorists really are plotting attacks and such, then it's the government's job to "tap the lines" (and believe me they can/will and are) and listen in. But it's not Yahoo's job to watch or monitor the traffic in their thousands of groups, or emails. I'm far more disturbed at Google, announcing they were going to "monitor" all of the traffic in their new email service they're launching, with the intent of shoving ads at you that are related to your conversation (e.g., I send you an email that says 'My tummy's been hurting' and you receive an email with an ad shoved in it for Pepto Bismal). Do you want all of your email monitored? I don't. Once they start monitoring it, Pandora's Box will be opened and the next thing is the government will want them to keep tabs on email for other reasons.

BTW, using Yahoo is a pretty stupid and open (unsecure) method of transmitting information, particularly if you're planning to bomb something. I highly doubt there is a lot of serious plotting going on there. There are many more secure or hidden ways to transmit information. One would be the grandaddy newsgroup, Usenet. It predates all online chatter groups and is still out there, yet most newbie internet users have never even heard of it.

More likely nothing more than a lot of hate talk and anti-American chatter is going on in Yahoo groups. Hell, you can get that from any liberal weenie TV show or Hollywood wonk. Tune into AirAmerica and you'll get plenty of it. And tell him not to throw out his TV, VCR or radio. :-)

That's my