Wednesday, June 29, 2005
I just downloaded these headlines published in the New York Times :
"Citizens Reveal Hate of Americans"
"Loss of Victory in Country Through U.S. Policy Feared"
"Locals Declare Americans Hated"
Is it really going that bad in Iraq? Don't they realize we are trying to rebuild their country and guide them to self-government?
Here are some excerpts from each of the articles:
"According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone."
"Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments."
"Bitter resentment and deep disappointment was voiced over the Americans' first six months of occupation, though there was some praise for the improvements in transportation, health conditions, book publishing and entertainment."
Oh wait...I got it wrong...READ HERE
Movie theater attendance is down for the year: Losing Audience.
Some blame internet piracy, others blame rental outlets like Blockbuster, some even blame the leftist lean of Hollywood as having alienated "red" state residents. I think it probably a combination of all of these with a heaping helping of celebrity stupidity resting snugly on top of the pile.
Look at Russell Crowe's actions during the release of Cinderella Man. Was it really necessary to throw a phone at the working stiff behind the counter?
How about Tom Cruise? In a case of "the left-eating-the left", the liberal MSM has implied Cruise is gay (I thought that didn't matter to lefties), that Katie Holmes is only an ornament to distract us from his gayness, and that he is a freakshow of the religious variety (now I get it; it was the religion thing that turned liberals against you.)
Cruise disses Brooke Shields, then berates Matt Lauer while he's pimping the release of War of the Worlds...good move, Maverick. Maybe you should have jinked more to the left...next time highlight your campaign contribution to Barbara Boxer.
What to do? How can Hollywood recapture the audience? Maybe on the political side of the equation they should save their emotive art for acting rather than politics.
I'm not against freedom of speech, but too many sheeple see an actor take up a cause, then jump on the bandwagon themselves. The Referent Power of actors is a powerful force for the weak-willed (sort of like that Jedi mind trick that doesn't work against Huts.) It analogous to those Holiday Inn Express commercials...
"I'm not a brain surgeon, but I played one on TV. I'm so glad the Senate Subcommittee on Brain Surgery asked me to speak today."
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Hmmmm...I'm sort of conflicted. $42K is pretty good pay, but I've applied for other jobs paying $60K and $72K respectively.
One guy told me to take the teaching job, then if the other companies want to hire me I can just quit. But I'd really feel like I was letting the college down if I left mid-semester - ETHICAL DILEMMA ALERT.
I guess I should sleep on it.
MEGABRAD, I sent you a check for the anti-terrorist Death Ray. I assume there is no shipping and handling cost (since it's space-based and all...)
After actually visiting Gitmo rather than just opening mouth-inserting foot (see Teddy Kennedy) an entire Congressional delegation now thinks Gitmo is OKAY with them.
I'll just paraphrase two:
Sen Ron Widen D-Oregon -- supports keeping Gitmo open. He feels better about our troops housing insurgents rather than sending them back to their home countries of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.Agrees they are not "garden-variety" criminal suspects and need our special attention.
Ben Nelson -- well run and organized camp. Everything they heard that was negative was far different from what they found, Manner of interrogation - no torture no deprivation - though interrogations can be lengthy.
Wow, see what can happen when you actually know what you're talking about.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Of course, I've been saying this for some time. Liberals have been saying "Well, we have a right to moan, groan, bitch, and complain, especially if it hurts Bush."
But, it doesn't hurt President Bush, he's not running for re-election and he doesn't care what the Media wing of the Democratic Party spouts (see also: overwhelming majority of the Main Stream Media).
Liberals try to use the issue of violence in Iraq like it's some eye-opening revelation...
NEWSFLASH...it was never a secret that Iraq would remain violent for some time after the liberation.
In an era when we can Instant Message someone across the world, where we can pop dinner in the microwave for 2 minutes, where we expect people to answer our e-mail as if it were a telephone call, Americans have lost the sense of "time".
While stationed in Europe, I learned an axiom: "Europeans think 200 miles is a long way, and Americans think 200 years is a long time."
I attended to each word the President said during that time, because it was my troops and I that would be deploying there. At that time I told my troops to expect to be in Iraq for 10 or 20 years before everything was stabilized. For those to whom military service is still a riddle (Bai Ling) seemed to expect it to take two weeks, then we'd be out.
In April 2003, just after the liberation, President Bush addressed a group of Iraqi exiles in Dearborn, Michigan. He knew and stated that "It'll be a hard journey, but at every step of the way, Iraq will have a steady friend in the American people." Will they? Not on the Left.
The Future - Don't Say You Weren't Warned Just Because You Weren't Listening
Just to forewarn the boisterous blowhards of the Left (see Teddy Kennedy), get ready, listen closely....you will probably see this again, and I don't want to hear you say that you weren't told:
"It ebbs and flows," Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday (26 Jun 05)." "The progress on the political side is so threatening to the insurgents that my guess is it could become more violent between now and the constitution referendum and the election in December."
There, you've been warned. We have no space-based anti-terrorist ray that wipe out all opposition in Iraq. The first large import to Iraq has been foreign mercenaries and it will take time to step on them like the ants they are.
Guess what the House of Representative just passed...yet another Democrat sponsored method to segregate the populace. H Con Res 71 is a resolution to name June as Carribean-American month. What's next? South American-American Month, maybe Upper Siberian-American Month, and let's not forget the Lower-Canadian American Month...we get alot of those in Minnesota and Washington state.
Yeah, that's what we need, to be more and more divided by cultural labels. Let's parse and divide America into our component parts until we are little enclaves of culturally specific groups, rather than one nation indivisible.
I have always thought the idea of hyphenated Americans reduces the great Melting Pot into a cold kettle filled with oil and water -- one element constantly separating and pulling away from the other.
"French-Canadians" are a good example of this. As Quebec separated itself from the rest of Canada through language, they also grew apart from the rest of their nation. In 1999, just before a referendum on secession, the Quebec Premier implored his fellow Frenchies to "start the process toward becoming a recognized nation state, whereas its people, language, culture and political institutions will be able to protect their own identity within the global community." That referendum failed, but in today's polling, Quebecois (keh bek'kwah) favor secession by 51% to 49%.
I'm part Irish (provides my oversized, Kennedy-like jawline), part German (provides my short temper), and part Serbo-Croatian (no clue on this one), and so you might think I am just jealous and want an Irish-American month, or German-American month, or the dreaded Serbo-Croatian-Heinz 57-Mutt-American Month. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Though I value Irish Whiskey, German bratwurst, and Serbo-Croatian pirogies (yum), the appellation that brings me the most pride is the title "AMERICAN".
One Man Speaks
Even though he ran from the police, was intoxicated and belligerent, and took a thorough beating, still one man was able to articulate the bright light of reason. The greatest thing to issue forth from the mouth of Rodney King was "Can't we all just get along?"
Dividing us into our integral parts is ego-centric at best, destructive at worst.
Let's face it, we are a mongrel nation...but a pack of mongrels are the toughest dogs in a fight. (sorta' kinda' paraphrased from the movie Stripes.)
Saturday, June 25, 2005
The movie is hilarious, if you get the joke (I know most of you did). And I was struck by how some of the lines are pertinent, even today. Here are some excerpts from the meeting of the Film Actor's Guild:
Alec Baldwin: "My fellow actors we live in a dark time. The world is becoming more and more violent and the idiots in charge are making it worse. What the world needs is an international advisory committee who truly understands local politics...namely us..."
Janeane Garafalo: "As actors it is our responsibility to read the newspapers and then say what we read on television like it was our own opinion."
It is then that Alec Baldwin introduces their new partner in world peace -- Kim Jong-Il.
At the end of the movie, Gary "the Actor" Johnston (new to Team America) squares off against Alec Baldwin. At first Gary is afraid. He reveres Alec Baldwin as the greatest actor who ever lived. He knows that he can't out-act Mr Baldwin. Gary starts by stating the obvious: that Kim Jong-il is a bad man. The crowd only "boos".
Baldwin retorts, using one of his cliched axioms: "The truth is, Team America fights for the billion dollar corporations. They're just as bad as the enemies they fight."
It is then that Gary resorts to "shock and awe". The vulgarity of his response will shock you (as other parts of the movie certainly do), but the analogy will awe you with it's accuracy. It gets the attention of Kim Jong-Il's audience (and those watching the movie).
After the final monologue by Gary "the Actor" Johnston, Kim Jong-Il knows he is defeated by the logic of the argument and screams "Do something 'Arec Bardwin'." Alec Baldwin knows he is beaten. He resorts to the Film Actor's Guild (F.A.G.) criticisms against "global warming and corporate America".
The audience is no longer buying his tired and trite blanket derision of Team America. Kim Jong-Il blows off "Arec's" head with an AK-47.
And that is the lesson of Team America. Sometimes we have to be shocked in order to hear a message in a new way and break our existing paradigms. Some view Team America as callous smut. But, the political satire of Trey Parker and Matt Stone is based on shocking you into seeing the deeper meaning of their argument. They also did this in "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" regarding censorship and racism.
"Team America - World Police" is one long running joke, pointing out America's occasional ham-handedness when addressing evil dictators. It also laughs at the blindness of those who think peace will solve every problem. While we all wish this were true, realists understand that we don't live in a perfect "Walgreens" world. The world is infested with little men who will always strive to better their position by exploiting weaker men (the "P" word in the movie).
Most liberals can't see the satire. In fact, most of their reviews just talk about marionette sex and foul language...sheeaaahhh, that was the point.
Not for kids...I give it 4 out of 5 stars.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Hey, whatever happened to that other place...you know, the one just to the right of Iran...lots of mountains, and...oh wait, that's Afghanistan.
While we've been so focused on Iraq, we forgot that there is another place we're wiping out terrorists:
Yes, thanks to the summer thaw on top of those big mountains, we are still whacking jihadis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and the boys keep sending hundreds of terrorists our way.
Osama/Usama (whatever), to borrow a quote from Col Trautman in Rambo, "You send that many don't forget one thing...a good supply of bodybags."
NOTE TO OSAMA
Osama, the Bush Doctrine is working to eradicate all those who think they are tough enough to kill women and children. Welcome to the real world; one where evil is rewarded appropriately.
Please remember, there are those who think they can negotiate with you. Do with them as you please. I, however, realize that the old-fashioned country butt-whoopin' you've been taking should have brought you to the bargaining table long ago. You cling to a distorted belief that Allah will somehow "win the day" for you in the end.
Brainwashing, then throwing young Arab mercenaries into the teeth of machine guns, precision bombing, and artillery is quite a good plan to keep us from concentrating on finding you. Your version of OPERATION HUMAN SHIELD is quite entertaining...you're quite the "strategyrist".
But, with all the "martyrs" we've sent to "paradise" they should have run out of virgins by now. Sorry, no virgins for you. (But we will whack a few camels to keep you company in the afterlife.)
Thursday, June 23, 2005
The liberal members of the Supreme Court, yeesssss, the LIBERAL members voted to deny private property rights - something our country thrived on -- and allows cities to TAKE YOUR HOMES if they have an "economic plan" that benefits the community.
The socialists out there (see Democrats) will think "Great, All for the common good". But in fact, corporations and large companies will benefit from this the most. It is the big retailers that will move you out, showing the local boroughs, townships, etc, how much more tax revenue they can collect from shoppers.
It is the mostly conservative justices that voted for individual rights, losing 5-4.
I found this while searching for "Liberal Predictions Iraq" on Google...thanks to Ann Coulter for her memory (and Lexis-Nexis). Sort of long, but worth the read:
"It's always important to get liberals to stop complaining long enough to make a hard prediction.
This week we will review liberal predictions on bringing democracy to Iraq.When they weren't claiming the Iraq elections would not take place at all
— and, even if they did, the people wouldn't participate
— liberals were telling us that if we let those crazy Arabs vote, the Iraqi people would elect extremist Islamic mullahs hostile to the United States.
Well, the Iraq National Assembly completed filling out the cabinet this week, and it can now be said that this was liberals' laughably wrong prediction No. 9,856. (Or No. 9,857 if you count their predictions of ruinous global cooling back in the 1970s, which I don't because that could still happen.)
Iraq's first democratically elected government in half a century has a Shia prime minister and a Kurdish president and several Sunni cabinet ministers. In fact, toss in a couple of dowdy lesbians from the Green Party and it would look a lot like Vermont's state house.
Fat Muqtada al-Sadr saw his radical Shiite movement humiliated in the January elections. According to a recent poll by the International Republican Institute, two-thirds of Iraqis say Iraq is on the right track.
The minority Sunnis, who once held sway under Saddam Hussein and were told by American liberals to expect major payback from the Shiites under a democracy, were chosen by the majority Shia government for four cabinet positions — including the not insignificant position of defense minister. Plus, the Sunnis might get a fifth if they can convince Rep. Ali Abu Jeffords to switch parties.
One of the Sunnis picked for a cabinet post turned it down on the grounds that he thought he was chosen simply to fill a Sunni quota. "I don't believe in sectarianism," he said, "I believe in democracy."
So I'll be moving to Iraq soon to live in a country that forcefully rejects quotas.
Also this week, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said he would like a woman as his fourth deputy prime minister. It's as if the Taliban has risen from the dead!Apparently — like John Kerry and the Democrats — I guess the Muslim extremists just didn't get their message out.
Although "Green Zone Veterans for Truth" were also a factor.What we've learned from this is:
Talking to liberals is much more fun now that we have Lexis-Nexis.
In a Nov. 9, 2003, news article, The New York Times raised the prospect that "democracy in the Middle East might empower the very forces that the United States opposes, like Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt."
Democracy in the U.S. might have put John Kerry in the White House, too, but you'll notice we didn't abandon the idea.
One difference is that the Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt were not democratically elected.
Still, the Times said that "something similar" happened in Iran when "domestic pressures" installed the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. By "domestic pressures" in Iran, I gather the Times meant "the Carter presidency."
Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin claimed to be talking about "grim Iraq realities," explaining to her readers that if elections were held, the new Iraqi government "will likely be dominated by religious parties. If the economy stays bad, radical Islamic parties could do well."
So you can see how leaving the tyrannical Hussein dynasty (slogan: "We're the rape room people!") in place was preferable to that.
Winning the category of Most Wrong Predictions in the Fewest Words, Joe Conason predicted in the Sept. 27, 2004, New York Observer: "a series of horrifically violent confrontations in Iraq's cities, a postponement of the January elections, a wider call-up of National Guard and Reserve units, or even a renewed military draft." And if Bush won a second term, Conason said: "Beware the 'November surprise' that will begin to bring home the true costs of his feckless adventure."
Conason's feeble litany of harebrained predictions reads like a haiku of bum steers. No increase in "horrific" violence, no postponement of elections, no draft, no "November surprise." (OK, there was one "November surprise" — but only for the Democrats. It happened on Nov. 2.)
Winning the category of Most Wrong Predictions, Lifetime Achievement Award, Katrina vanden Heuvel (Queen of the May at the fun-loving Nation magazine) said invading Iraq would lead to "more terrorist retaliation, undermine the fight against al-Qaida and make America less secure and possibly unleash those very weapons of mass destruction into the hands of rogue terrorists in Iraq."
What weapons, Katrina? (Katrina lied, kids died!) Hey! Wait a minute! How can rogue terrorists in Iraq detonate bombs? They're all too busy flying kites with their children! Hasn't she seen "Fahrenheit 9/11"?
After we invaded Iraq, Katrina predicted the U.S. would stay in Iraq as a colonial power — as the only nonimperialist superpower in the history of the world is wont to do. As we paved the way for elections, she said, "You know, if there are elections in Iraq, it's very likely it will not be secular democracy."
But it's not fair to quote Katrina. She still thinks the Soviet Union's planned economy failed because the farmers had 70 years of bad weather. Liberals' current prediction is that Hillary will be able to do a planned economy right."
P.S. You can add to these "predictions" that George Bush and Tony Blair would be thrown out of office....sorry again libs. No matter where your "feelings" and hyperbolic speech led your sheeple, Bush and Blair won decisively.
So, if you made it all the way down here, thank the smartest woman in the world...and it ain't Hillary.
This from Rovian Conspiracy:
Looks like the American people are smart enough to ignore Big Dick Durbin and Teddy "Gastric Bypass" Kennedy:
Fat Bastard called Iraq a quagmire (again, ho-hum). No, oh wide besotted one, a quagmire was what your brother got us into in Vietnam. But it wasn't his fault. The media was allowed to frame the argument, and turn public opinion against the War. Precipitating an early withdrawal from Vietnam allowed Pol Pot to kill millions in Cambodia. To give you an idea of how the media is now trying to frame the argument in Iraq, watch them accentuate the negative, but give ethereal coverage of terrorist acts (Abu Ghraib vs suicide bombing of children).
Next, watch them count the war dead. We're up to 1725 now. But, think back to 1968, the year about which John Kerry lied, stating he was in Cambodia; in that year we lost 1383 troops PER MONTH. By comparison, this battle in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) is an enormously successful operation. In fact, military historians characterize this as one of the most succesful operations in military history (Book). Anyone who has the slightest bit of knowledge regarding urban warfare recognizes this; those who debate this claim, do so out of emotion rather than facts.
And that's what the Dems are all about...emotion. Karl Rove called it right last night. (NY Times). Today, watching C-SPAN 2, I saw the junior Senator from Massachusetts (see Loser of Last Presidential Election) or (Liar about being in Cambodia in 1968 when Nixon was President[Nixon took office in 1969]) or (see John Kerry) bemoaning the destruction of unity in the country after 9/11...bemoaning Karl Rove for this rending of the tranquility.
Well, dear readers, I think that I previously outlined who really broke the peace. See "Dicky Sobs" (above) if you still have questions.
It seems the Left is even more hypocritical than even I first thought.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) kills hundreds (maybe thousands) of animals each and every year... Read Here
Their excuse: they have other financial conerns to look after, so keeping these animals in shelters is............ inconvenient.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Today the House of Representatives is debating a Constitutional amendment to prevent physical desecration of the flag of the United States (most often by burning at the hands of radical fundamentalists). Critics believe the amendment will restrict free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
I am agnostic on this point.
Though the First Amendment protects free speech, not all speech is protected. You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, you cannot slander someone in public, you cannot lie to a police officer during an investigation...
To me, the Flag is merely a symbol. I do not worship the Flag. It is sacred, but in a secular kinda' way. However, burning the Flag does symbolize hate; an emotion we should remove from public discourse whenever possible. Whether you hate this country, hate a recently passed law, or hate the Iraq War, the reason for burning the Flag is based on hate.
Hateful actions inflame passions. In this already uncivil world, should we not limit offensive, objectionable speech, at least to preclude an equal and opposite reaction? Maybe...like I said, I'm not emotionally attached one way or the other.
In this case, I believe arresting and fining folks for Disorderly Conduct are sufficient sanctions against flag-burners. I also believe that, if you burn a flag in public, and get your ass kicked, you have assumed that risk and should take the ass-kicking without being able to file charges of assault. Sound extreme? Not to me.
I fought for our flag over the last quarter century. I protected your right to speak. And when your speech was offensively obnoxious, I fought for the right that others could call you an idiot. If you take a physical action against the symbol of free speech, I would protect the physical actions of those who would stop you.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Senator Richard "Big Dick" Durbin came before the Senate just a few moments ago and apologized for comparing Nazis, Pol Pot, and Soviet gulags with the actions of our troops at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Holding back tears, but sobbing under his breath, Durbin finally seemed to understand his absurd analogies. Or did he?
Durbin was contacted by Richard Daley, Democrat Mayor of the largest city in Dick Durbin's home state of Illinios. Daley had the decency to chastise Durbin for his remarks; and when Daley speaks, everybody in Illinois listens.
What about Durbin's emotional affectation; was it real? I believe so, but not because he felt sorry for his prior speech. Durbin's emotions were energized by his frustration at being in the minority party (see Democrat). He knows that if he served in the majority, he never would have had to apologize. Being marginalized and threatened with censure are the only things for which he is TRULY sorry.
I have been watching the partisanship build in our government ever since George W's first election. Rather than trying to win people to their side, the Democrats have only become more volatile and fanatical.
After 9/11 our country was united. If you must point to one thing that precipitated this change in demeanor, it was a letter by former Senator Tom Daschle in January 2002 that told other Democrats that Bush was too popular. In order for them to regain the House and Senate, they should attack him on his strengths: honesty and ability to relate to the common man. Thankfully, Tom Daschle lost his seat in the 2004 election due to his obstruction and partisanship.
If you check the rhetoric of Democrats after January 2002, you'll find that's exactly what has happened. Disenchanted sheeple gobbled up the propoganda so voraciously that today you'll find myriad websites decrying Bush as a liar. EXAMPLE: Tax cuts were painted by Dems as only for the "rich", yet today, the "rich" pay a higher percentage of the tax burden. The Democrat response to this fact: "the rich got more money back"....
Shyeah..do the math boneheads. If you made $231,000 and paid $90,000 in taxes, then, your taxes were cut by 4%, you saved $10,000 in taxes ($80,700 paid). What the Dems won't admit is that it takes 26 people making the same salary as me to contribute $80,000 in taxes. So, one "rich" couple is paying 26 times as much in taxes as I am...and somehow Democrats think they should pay more. Democrat's theory: Let's penalize success, but give free welfare to the lazy...good plan. Maybe Democrats need some schooling on Elizabethan Poor Laws so they can learn from history.
Anyway, before I go on far too long...check one more thing. Check the vitriolic expositions by Senator Teddy Kennedy since 2002 (you know, the guy who wanted to eat babies in the second Austin Powers movie). Off-the-wall, over-the-top, bizarro world (uhh, I can't think of any more trite phrases) rants at full volume by a guy who inherited all of his money from a bootlegger. He is obviously acting, because no one in their right mind can be so unhinged.
Is d'is da' best d'ey gots? Apparently so, because lots of moonbats and Kool-aid drinkers have taken up their cause. Shhhh, secret meeting in the basement of Congress tonight, be there.
Monday, June 20, 2005
This morning I responded to the below post by kccasem2003 at the site "Warning - my daily rounds"
He, of course, deleted my response...funny how that happens when you prove the Left wrong. If you can get through his muddled diatribe, you can read my response at the bottom.
More EVIDENCE that Bush & Co. have Commited CRIMES against the U.S. & World
Ok, so the question has been proposed to me................WHO would I like to see become the NEXT President of the USA. This is something I've thought about and believe me, I watch as much as I have time for when it come to Congressional and Senate hearings and debates. I also read as many articles as I can on the current situation that concern our current administration. As far as I can see right now, I really can't say who I like at this time. First of all, let me say that I consider myself niether a democrat nor a republican. I just want someone in charge that is going to put the needs and concerns of THIS country and my fellow contrymen at the top of his/her priority list. The healthcare and unemployment rate in this country are beyond appalling and the illegal immigrant problem is crippling our healthcare system as well as bringing untold diseases into the USA. The war in IRAQ was a COMPLETE LIE to the rest of the WORLD and one of the BIGGEST MISTAKES this country has ever made. Minimum wage has not seen an increase in over 8 years!! What was once the most POWERFUL and RESPECTED nations in the WORLD has become a JOKE!! The RICH continue to get RICHER and the middle class which BUILT this country are quickly FADING INTO OBLIVION. I've said this for years and I still say it today.................."How much frigging money does one person really need to survive and have a good life?" Its absolutely ridiculous to see some of our BIG Corporate hot-shots rake in millions or billions of dollars a year and not even blink when they shut down a factory to send jobs overseas so they can make even MORE money!! I don't want to get too far off subject here but I just watched a program Friday night that really sent chills up my spine. I'm sure most of you have heard of Morgan Spurlock, or at the very least his movie called, "SuperSize Me" Well Morgan has a new weekly series on the F/X channel here called "30 Days" When I first saw the commercials, I thought, "here we go, another stupid reality show." Well,, Friday I was flipping through the channels and it happened to be about the only thing on so I decided to check it out. The premise of this weeks show was to live for 30 days in Columbus, Ohio and work for minimum waqe for a month. After watching Mr. Spurlock and his wife struggle to survive on minimum wage for a month, it's no wonder we have the problems we do in this country. They had absolutely NOTHING when they started out and after BOTH of them made visits to the ER with NO MEDICAL BENEFITS when the show was over they still had NOTHING even though they both worked 2 jobs each for most of the month!! WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!............IT'S TIME TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll continue to keep an eye on what happens in the political world and if and when I see a candidate that meets the above criteria I will surely let you ALL know.
MORE documents continue to surface that are incriminating and making Bush & Co. look more and more guilty of CRIMES against humanity.
Yeah, I know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...here was my response:
Perhaps you should read a book on Economics (probably spelled Ek'nomics at the skool you attended.) You would quickly learn:
1) Economists who study capitalist markets recognize that 5% unemployment is really full employment. There are always those who are out of work or transitioning between employment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_types#Cyclical_unemployment
2) The minimum wage has always been, and will always be an entry-level, unskilled labor wage. If you are trying to raise a family on minimum wage there are job training programs to help you (since you didn't help yourself when you attended skool.)
3) Unemployment in France is 9.6%, in Germany it is 10.7%, in Belgium it is 8.1%. Hmmm. where would you rather live? In that same Ek'nomics book you just picked up, you'll find that social-democracies tax their folks with such profligacy that they remove seed capital from the economy. Recessions are longer; unemployment is higher.
Let's face it, compared to other industrialized nations we are spoiled in this country. Some of us are smart enough to understand that; others just like to hear themselves bitch.
Mr Clinton said the test for judging whether harsh treatment of terrorist suspects was justified was whether it challenged the “fundamental nature” of American society. If the answer is Yes, you have already given the terrorists a profound victory.” Financial Times
Let's see, Bill Clinton, who, like his Democrat predecessor Jimmy Carter, did nothing to stop terrorism during his administration, now says we should let the poor, misguided jihadists out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Perhaps Mr Clinton is now promoting Chappaqua as the next American Gulag site...does anyone know how much land he owns in New York?
Defense of Gitmo as an Institution of the Geneva Conventions
What really stumps me is the continous quoting of the Protocols of the Geneva Convention. Those conventions were written so that signatories would treat each other's prisoners and cultural sites with respect. Have the terrorists treated our civilians, contractors, or soldiers with respect? No.
One glaring omission by the MSM is the Geneva Convention concept of "proportional response". Since terrorists targeted American civilians in New York and Washington, we are permitted to employ a proportional response to stop them from doing this again. In Israel they built a wall. For the GWOT we incarcerate them until the military campaign is over. Mr Clinton seems not to understand this.
Bill, had you served in Vietnam, or read a book about John McCain, or seen the movie about his life, you would know that he was a Prisoner of War for 5 1/2 years. Others spent upwards of 7 years in captivity. We have kept the current jerkies for about 3 years, so I don't want to hear your liberal pity-party about the length of their stay, either.
The Jihadis Who Cried Wolf
Those who buy-in to the claims of torture at Gitmo cannot prove their assertions. Why not? Here's the Table of Contents from Section 12 of the Al-Quaeda manual:
XII - Prisons and detention centres
If an indictment is issued and the trail begins, the brother has to pay attention to the following
* The brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them
* Complain to the court of mistreatment
* Make arrangement for the brother’s defense with the attorney
* If the state security investigator to testify against the brothers lures them, they may be treated gently and should be offered good advise
* It is possible to resort to a hunger strike
* Take advantage of visits to communicate with brothers outside the prison and exchange information
* Brothers should create an Islamic programme for themselves inside the prison
* The brother in prison should be a role model in selflessness.
* In prison, the brothers should memorise the Koran
How do you know that anyone was tortured at Gitmo? Will you take the terrorist's word?
Gitmo is not Abu Ghraib. In Abu Ghraib the military uncovered the abuse from immature Army reservists long before the MSM did so. The Army punished those involved. Because of Abu Ghraib prisoners at Gitmo are almost coddled.
But Abu Ghraib allows you to make the logical leap that torture is occuring in Gitmo. To you who claim this, I challenge you to prove it.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Yesterday, a group of Moonbats met in the basement of the House of Representatives to discuss how to overthrow the government through the use of the Downing Street Memo. You may not believe this, but they were all Democrats.
John Bonifaz of AfterDowningStreet.org - Chief Moonbat and intellectually lazy man who only reads the part of the Downing Street Memo that he finds useful (see previous post Downing Syndrome).
Rep John Conyers D-MI - co-wrote "Warrior-King" with Chief Moonbat John Bonifaz. The book was an attack on the Bush Administration, of course.
Former Ambassador Joe Wilson - Democratic Donor and long time foe of Bush Administration. Excoriated by the Senate Intelligence Committee for his lies and ineptitude. See Here and in the Senate Record pages 44-46, 52, 57-58, etc, etc.
Ray McGovern Former CIA Analyst - Moonbat former Spy who hasn't been in the CIA since 1990. Has no idea about what intelligence was current at the time of Sept 11, 2001. Yet, McGovern claims that the Bush administration knew 9/11 was going to happen. How exactly did you know that, Ray? He provides weak testimony when pointing out the the FBI Director knew of arab men taking pilot training, while George Tenet was telling Bush that Bin Laden wanted to strike America. If he had been in the CIA, he would have known that the "Wall" strengthened by Jamie Gorelick in the Clinton administration stopped this information from moving from one agency to the other. Also part of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- is it any coincidence that this self-aggrandizing moron uses the initials "VIPs" for his organization? Tell us all how really important you find yourself, Ray.
Rep Charles Rangel D-NY - who previously stated that American troops were deliberately killing civilians in Iraq...long time foe of Bush Administration.
Rep Nita Lowey D-NY- She complained that they were meeting in the basement of the capitol because the majority party (see Winners of Elections) would not let them hold the meeting in the chambers. That's because you don't deserve more than a broom closet for your bitterly partisan pouting...get over it.
Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen American soldier -- her son, Casey re-enlisted in the military in August 2003 knowing he would certainly be going back to Iraq. He was killed in action. As a military veteran over the last 25 years, I can only give her a little advice:" I know you hurt; we all hurt when we lose our brothers and sisters let alone a child, but quit dishonoring the sacrifice of your son; you are an embarassment to his memory. If I had been killed in Iraq and my family acted like this, I would come back just to haunt them.
Rep Barney Frank D-MA - Long time foe of Bush administration. (Heard whining, "I want to be in the majority again, sob, sob.)
Rep Jerrold Nadler D-NY - Long time foe of Bush administration. Thanks for losing 100 pounds Nads; now, you're down to 302 pounds. I was wondering why you and Jabba the Hut never appeared at the same place, at the same time.
Rev. Lennox Yearwood of Progressive Democrats of America - whoah, who could imagine a liberal group like this would ever attack the Bush Administration.
Stephen Cleghorn of Military Families Speak Out - The label of their website states: "Military Families Speak Out is an organization of people who are opposed to war in Iraq and who have relatives or loved ones in the military." Hmm, nope, no bias there.
Rep Marcy Kaptur D-OH - By the way, thanks to your fellow Ohioans who put Bush way over the electoral votes needed for a second term.
Rep Hilda Solis D-CA - Yet another shortsighted antiwar whiner in need of publicity. She's still mad at her parents for her first name.
Rep Jan Schakowski D-IL - Dick Durban's favorite Illinois politician.
Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange - also started Code Pink - women against violent responses to just about anything. Her sterling leadership managed to get 5,000 women to march on Washington to stop the Iraq War. Reeeeeaaallly, 5,000, huh? I could get more sterno bums to march on Washington for free beer (and get the same results).
Rep Maurice Hinchey D-NY- This is the Moonbat who claimed Karl Rove "planted" the CBS Memogate story with Dan Rather. Known as "New York's King of Comped Travel" for all the trips he's taken using lobbyist dollars.
Rep Sheila Jackson Lee - Democrat from ??? Who? Is she still in Congress or just hanging around with all the other Democrats in the basement?
Rep Donald Payne D-NJ - Again,... who???
Their message for the evening (in the basement) was basically, "you damn Republicans impeached Clinton for lying under oath; now we'll invent some lies so we can impeach Bush."
Good luck with that, moonbats...and don't catch cold in that damp basement. Which, coincidentally, is the same place your party has been heading in the last eight elections.
It seems, Big Dick's buddies at the Cook County Sheriff's Office covered up the beating of shackled inmates into unconsciousness, the dragging of inmates through burning piles of paper and debris, and other atrocities...atrocities far beyond the playing of rap music to jihadists.
Read more about the torture HERE.
My hat is off to the Captain.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Big Dick compared American soldiers to Nazis when describing the conditions at Gitmo. Rather than simple hyperbole, we think Big Dick is just posturing to precipitate a Gitmo closure so that he can move the facility to Chicago, Illinois.
Big Dick's staff put out the following statement:
"No, Senator Durbin is not really trying to have Gitmo relocated to Chicago...though Chicago does have plenty to offer. For instance, if you look at this map, we have THREE hospitals to help treat all that dreadful torture (University of Illinois, St Anthony's AND Mt Sinai): New Gitmo
Kennedy's camp laughed at the suggestion that Islamic fundamentalists would be taken to ST ANTHONY's or MT SINAI, charging that Durbin has no cultural sensitivity for the jihadists.
Durbin's camp pulled out their Talking Points and immediately derided the weather in New England, stating it was simply too cold for terrorists who are used to living in desert climates. Durbin has promised to use Amtrak to move insurgents to Florida during the winter months.
This bidding war is far from over, but it looks as if Durbin's camp feels confident they can get Gitmo moved to Illinois. Durbin already has architects drawing up plans for the new detention center called "Ill-mo".
As always, this news is brought to you by Amnesty International and the Democratic Party
Big corporations have the R&D resources to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. At the same time that California is meeting federal air quality requirements by mixing their gasoline with ethanol, Barbara Boxer wants to ensure she reserves the ability to "stick it" to yet another corporation. Even though current science states that ethanol is safe, Ms Boxer reserves the ability to penalize companies at some unknown point in the future, likely when the first hint of problems are discovered by some future, advanced technology.
In a time when we are seeking to increase our energy independence, Senator Boxer can't help but take another "shot" at Big Business.
Democrats, in general, mistrust corporations and are obsessed with holding them to a higher level of accountability than other business entities. You won't find them hounding a local auto repair shop about their disposal of anti-freeze, but when a corporation is involved, it's a' huntin' time.
I've got a better idea for Ms Boxer's sponsorship...test ethanol using today's existing technology, declare it safe or not. If found safe, indemnify companies who produce it based on today's science, not some indeterminate future technology. If you don't do this, you impede the desire to innovate. Why should companies spend R&D money if Democrats will undoubtedly and inevitably try to impose unrealistic future-based accountability measures?
You can do that Ms Boxer, or, if you are so worried, you can stop using ethanol in California and watch your smog plumes grow.
Fortunately many of her colleagues agree with me and tabled her amendment.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
While working on the computer, the TV was on, but I wasn't really watching it...at first. Then, the strident bitching of a liberal caught my attention.
The show featured a woman from the Bayou and a woman from California who had traded families.
The Louisiana woman was laid back, polite, and tolerant of the views of the vegan family she had moved in with. The family set her up to meet her counter-part's friends. She brought them gifts from the Bayou; ornamental voodoo dolls, airbrushed T-shirts, and small preserved alligator heads. The friends were horrified. Not only were they vegans who didn't wear leather, they proudly proclaimed their protest activities against all animal cruelty. The Bayou woman tried to explain the different lifestyle of her environment; they didn't care. The popcorn blonde, silicone-breasted bimbos couldn't comprehend how someone could be so cruel to poor little alligators. They even catch-and-release insects. Whoooooooaah!
The California woman joined her Louisiana family and took little time to turn into an uptight, rude, and intolerant harpy. In the Bayou, shrimp, crab, crawfish, and oysters are all fruits of the environment and parts of the culture. Cajuns commune with their environment better than liberals commune with their smog-filled Megalopolises. The boorish California Queen, with her Sideshow Bob hairdo, berated their choices of food and remarked that the son could stand to lose a few pounds.
If the California Countess ever looked in the mirror she might notice that she has quite a pot-belly herself and a ridiculously saggy flat chest (her friends obviously haven't directed her to their plastic surgeon.) She might also notice that her husband is an anemic, underfed pencil-neck that wouldn't survive one night around men of the Bayou. She thought that maybe she had succeeded in "planting a seed" about her "superior" lifestyle to the people of the Bayou...not if they heard her voice and looked at her not-so-superior body.
The producers did a great job of matching totally opposite people for this show.
The thing I noted most was that everyone from California seemed to be the least tolerant folks I've ever seen on TV. Maybe that vegan diet has affected their brain chemistry, but I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant of everybody. I wouldn't be surprised if we found these folks wearing white hoods and burning crosses in a McDonald's parking lot.
Monday, June 13, 2005
The Chicken Little Party emphasizes the negative...shrilly...speciously...interminably...
When will they learn that we can control economies that threaten us using the very simple economic mechanisms that we invented?
Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post misses the mark again...Fred's Slanted World
In his latest irrational work of pretentiousness he attempts to defend media bias.
According to Fred, Americans are better than the terrorists, so the media must objurgate even the smallest mistakes of soldiers, while glossing over the acts of the insurgents.
Let's look at this from another perspective. Let's imagine that each bad act is a vote in an election. The election is for the hearts and minds of the world. However, in this election, each vote you get pushes you into an infamous limelight...the type of light that surrounds all armed conflicts.
By suppressing the votes of the terrorists, the MSM keeps American soldiers in that limelight, and thereby, public contempt. The more often they retread the same steps, the farther they push our soldiers.
Meanwhile, terrorists can do whatever they want -- such as, let's say -- violating almost every protocols of the Geneva Conventions and traditional laws of war. Even when insurgents blow up women and children, the media covers it once, then forgets it. How does Abu Ghraib compare to the killing of innocent women and children? Why did the MSM dwell on Abu Ghraib yet continues to provide ephemeral coverage to murder? Does the media see these as comparable in any way?
This extreme lack of balance is the clearest evidence of the media bias that Fred Hiatt both defends and admits to.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
I propose we construct a new facility in a location that will receive broad political support. This location will garner the contracts needed to build the new facility, raising employment and representing quite a windfall for the politician who permits us to build in their hometown.
I propose Hyannis Port (pronounced Hi Anus Pot), Massachusetts as the site of the next "American Gulag". Senator Teddy Kennedy should be elated to accept this boon to employment, right in his own backyard. Further, he can walk over and check the conditions of the prison anytime he wants. As the realty agent I would, of course, require a 10 percent commission.
Take a look at this beautiful property; close to the ocean, with lovely sunrises, and exclusive access for those rascally little jihadists: Teddy's Backyard
The area is serviced by Barnstable Municipal Airport; close to recreation facilities for the enemy-combatants (Hyannis Port Golf Course); and has a hospital (Cape Cod) to help our fundamentalist friends recover from all that "brutal" torture. Field trips to Aunt Betty's Pond will allow the terrorists to enjoy the great outdoors.
Fine dining is available at a variety of local restaurants. (Pork has been taken off all of the menus to help further accommodate our new residents, sorry Teddy.)
This message brought to you by Amnesty International and the Democratic Party
Feeding the Sheeple
Here's an example printed in the MSM from the Downing Street Memo:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
The MSM reveals this sentence, concluding that intelligence was "invented" to justify the invasion of Iraq. What the MSM leaves out is the following from the same memo:
"On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
Sooooo, the issue of WMDs was "invented", yet the battle planning considered the apparent possibility of WMDs being used against our troops? Does anyone see the problem here?
The MSM made an assumption based on an amorphous sentence in the memo, but ignored the fact that US battle planners were specifically worried about WMD employment against our troops.
Which perspective is correct? Why would US battle planners worry about a threat they knew didn't exist? The answer: they wouldn't, especially not in this formerly secret memo.
"John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action."
"John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real."
But Saddam didn't allow inspectors to reenter even after George W gave him his 48 hour warning. Certainly he must have known Bush was a man of his word and a man of action. Undoubtedly he understood that these were the last 48 hours he would be in power. Still, he refused to allow entry into Iraq -- violating terms of the Gulf War surrender and numerous UN Security Council resolutions.
The Real Scandal
Scoundrels in France, Russia, and the UN collected millions of dollars in bribes from Saddam Hussein. They were paid to look the other way while Saddam and his sons tortured, raped, and murdered his own people.
These were Saddam's last hopes of stopping a US invasion. These blackguards had dealt with Clinton and Gore over the last 8 years and believed they could use public opinion to once again sway the US ...They, like their evil benefactor, gambled and lost. It's time to prosecute those who took bribes to protect a tyrant.
Similarly it's time to hold the media accountable for their attempts to spin information for their own use. The title of this post is not meant to equate the MSM to people with Down's Syndrome (including my Uncle Donny). I would never disparage people with Down's Syndrome by comparing them to the intellectually lazy.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Howard Dean does a fine job of embarrassing the Democratic Party on his own, he doesn't need my help. I refuse to rub Democrats' noses in it, read it on Drudge (linked on the right side of this post).
In a speech by Jesse Jackson, the Rhymin' Reverend stated that "urban Black youth should learn Spanish...rural Mexican youth should learn English... because they are neighbors."
So, we are to learn a new language, in our own country, because we have neighbors? While Europeans do this by necessity, and Americans likely wish they could speak more languages, is this something Jesse really wants to add to our public schools? We have a hard enough time with teaching English Literature in our public schools.
He continued by spitting out these bits of genius:
"English is a great language, but let's not make it sacred or heavenly"
"Jesus didn't speak English"
"The Ten Commandments were not written in English"
No, Jesse, those communications occured using the language of the region. Jesus didn't translate his message into Spanish (or Italian) either...I believe he spoke Aramaic.
Perhaps Jesse should go to South Central Los Angeles and try to convince urban Black youth to learn Korean (since the Korean population is so large). Aren't they neighbors also? I'll bet that will go over well.
Or maybe he could visit San Francisco and convince everyone to learn Chinese, since China Town is such a large part of that city, (20 percent of San Francisco residents are Chinese, only 14 pecent are Hispanic.) San Franciscans will then be fluent in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Of course, Filipinos are at 5 percent and rising, so maybe learning Tagalog is next.
One of the biggest problems of the public schools in Phoenix (where I live), is the inability to teach immigrant children through the language barrier. In recent years the state has finally concluded that the only way to integrate these kids into American society is to teach in English Only. Arizonans realized that giving these kids a crutch for not assimilating into our society only holds them back and relegates them to living, working, and playing in communities that primarily use Spanish.
Again, the CONS have absolutely NO strategic vision regarding the welfare of this segment of our population. While trying to make the near-term easier for immigrants, they condemn them to be a permanent underclass throughout their lives. Of course the CONS count on this since they pander to "underclasses", considering them their "base". Once you perceive yourself as part of that category, CONS' promises of a socialist utopia look much better. Why work when all you have to do is increase taxes on successful people?
Sunday, June 05, 2005
The ACLU has taken a cue from the Supreme Court's reversal of the Arthur Anderson conviction and is shredding a wide variety of its documents.
Arthur Anderson was the accounting firm at the center of the EnronCOrp financial scandal. A lower court found that Anderson executives shredded documents, thereby impeding a future investigation of the Enron scandal. SCOTUS unanimously found that these documents were shredded before any indication that the documents would be needed for an investigation, and that they followed Anderson's internal policies for destroying outdated documents. Regardless of the decision, Arthur Anderson has been destroyed by the scandal....28,000 people lost their jobs.
Now the ACLU is following the precedent and shredding its paper trails. In fact, Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director had a shredder in his office.
That seems a bit hypocritcal for an organization that has always lobbied for strict document retention, helping pass a public records law.
In the wake of this ACLU confetti party, Janet Linde, who used to oversee the ACLU's archives, resigned last month...hmmmmm.
Friday, June 03, 2005
In my unit we rotate through deployments every six months. We are gone for six months, then pegged for another deployment six months after our return.
Six months is an inordinately long time for Air Force units. Before Iraq our standard deployment length was 90 days. (I have to give serious props to the Army and Marines since they have been doing year-long deployments throughout their history.)
Anyway...when deployments are announced we fill virtually all of our slots with volunteers. Why? Are we too dumb to understand the danger? I'm enlisted and have a Bachelor's in one discipline and a Master's in another...I don't think I'm any dumber than other college grads (I know, that's not saying much.)
We are instead, realists. For 12 years, since 1991, we deployed thousands upon thousands of troops to the Middle East to keep Saddam in check. Every year, we knew we could expect implementation of OPERATION DENY THANKSGIVING -- that was Saddam's November movement of troops toward Kuwait or the Saudi eastern oil fields, and we would massively increase our presence on the Arabian peninsula. Year after year Saddam toyed with us, always threatening his neighbors.
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton deployed us on peacekeeping missions to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Africa. He sent us on anti-drug deployments to Central America and nation-building in Somalia and Haiti. He did nothing about Saddam Hussein except throw more troops into the Gulf as a deterrent. It was during the Clinton administration that military retention bottomed out. The troops voted with their feet. This is not an opinion, it is objectively measurable. To retain personnel, enormous reenlistment bonuses became standard. Many of those bonuses no longer exist. Why?
Today, retention is high, though new recruits are harder to find (I believe the recovered economy drives a cost-benefit analysis in the minds of some teens and parents.)Those who are serving have high morale. They appreciate a mission that has removed two serious threats in the Middle East. They know they are making the world safer, though the birthing pangs of democracy can be significant (as all change has the potential to be). One only has to search history to recall the birthing pangs of American democracy.
And so, to the critics of the Iraq War I say: you are (again) on the wrong side of history. Many of you value your own freedom, but are so distracted by the "oil" issue that you don't believe in bringing democracy and stability to an historically violent region. You are complicit in abandoning other human beings to the torture of dictators...where is your conscience?
To those who ask "why not fix Africa too?" I would point to the dearth of viable infrastructure necessary to sustain an infant democracy. Haiti was a good example of trying to build a democracy where infrastructure was poor. For as smart as Bill Clinton was supposed to be, his lack of common sense led to ultimate failure in Haitian nation-building.
You have to pick your battles well. We can fix Africa, but we'll need the help of every industrialized nation to do so. (LIVEAID ain't gonna cut it.) Meanwhile, we have a leader with the horse-sense to know what is possible and what is not.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
In my "Comments" I have been having a great exchange with Kankean of http://spaces.msn.com/members/kankean/. We have been asking whether God and Science can exist together.
My views are fairly straight-forward and fall on the side of believing that the beauty we see in nature is not accidental. Now, you might think me ego-centric since it is my opinion of Nature that defines a Living God, and you may be right. But, I am not alone.
A great site to visit for other opinions is http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/scientists.html. This website explores the harmony between leading scientists and their belief in God.
Nature is only one expression of a real God. I have also seen prayers answered -- coincidence you might say. One of the greatest "coincidences" was the devout prayers and repeated assurances by the Smart family of Utah that Elizabeth Smart was still alive after her 2002 kidnapping.
Of all the abducted children I've have seen on TV, I was struck by the almost obstinant faith of the Smart family as they assured the nation that their daughter still lived.
Of all the parents of other abducted children, I had never seen that much faith. I truly felt sorry for the Smarts. Having worked in law enforcement for the last 25 years, I knew that Elizabeth's body would someday be found; abused and discarded. As an investigator I knew that the first 48 hours were critical to uncovering leads that would solve the case. Days went by...weeks went by...months went by....still no Elizabeth. We forgot about Elizabeth, knowing the worst had surely happened, but the Smart family kept their faith.
In March of 2003 Elizabeth Smart was found alive and well.
I was wrong...happily so.