Translating Mediaspeak into English

There are so many examples of why what you read in the Crass Media is not written in the language it appears to be. Here is just one, an article about Injustice Souter and what Obam Hussein will look for in a replacement. Like most American Pravda (AP) articles, this is written in Mediaspeak. The English translation appears in red.

Obama hopes to replace Justice Souter by October
By MARK SHERMAN and JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writers Mark Sherman And Jennifer Loven, Associated Press Writers – May 1, 2009

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Friday he will replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter with someone who shares the president's respect for "constitutional values"
someone who shares the president's utter disregard for constitutional values (hence the scare quotes)
and hopes to have "him or her" seated on the nation's highest court by the start of the next term in October. In a dramatic flourish, Obama interrupted spokesman Robert Gibbs' daily press briefing to announce that he had just talked to Souter.

The news of Souter's planned retirement had broken by then, but the White House had said nothing until the president came in.

Obama thanked Souter for his dedicated service, and quickly looked ahead to the nomination of a replacement.
Obama thanked Souter for 1) ignoring the constitution in nearly all his decisions, and 2) waiting for an ultra-liberal President and a filibuster-proof Sin-ate majority to be elected before he retired.

"As I make this decision," Obama said, "I intend to consult with members of both parties, across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October."
"As I make this decision," Obam Hussein said, "I intend to consult with the leftmost 0.01% of Democrats and the de facto Democrats in the Republican Party. Then I will inform the rest of the Democrats and Republicans of what I intend to impose on them and on all Americans by the first Monday in October."

Souter informed Obama of his plans in a brief letter Friday. Obama praised Souter, who is leaving after nearly two decades in Washington. His retirement gives Obama his first pick for the Supreme Court.

Souter's departure is unlikely to change the court's conservative-liberal split. Obama's first pick is likely to be a liberal-leaning nominee, much like Souter.
This part is true.

The vacancy could lead to another woman on the bench to join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, currently the court's only female justice.

At 69, Souter is much younger than either Ginsburg, 76, or Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, the other two liberal justices whose names have been mentioned as possible retirees. Yet those justices have given no indication they intend to retire soon and Ginsburg said she plans to serve into her 80s, despite her recent surgery for pancreatic cancer.

In Philadelphia, Sen. Arlen Specter said he would like to see more ethnic and gender diversity on the high court. "I think that, given the proportion of women in our society, that one out of nine is underrepresented," said Specter, a recent convert to the Democratic Party. "The court could use some diversity along a number of lines," he added, mentioning African-Americans and Hispanics.
Interest groups immediately began gearing up.

But not ideological diversity. He firmly opposed many of Bush's minority, female and minority female nominees for not being firmly aligned with the hard left. And Specter is not a convert. He has always been a Democrat and always will be. What changed is that for once he decided to be honest about his party affiliation.

"Obama's own record and rhetoric make clear that he will seek left-wing judicial activists who will indulge their passions, not justices who will make their rulings with dispassion," said Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Whelan speaks English, not Mediaspeak.

Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said, "We're looking for President Obama to choose an eminently qualified candidate who is committed to the core constitutional values, who is committed to justice for all and not just a few,"
Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Inustice, said, "We're looking for President Obama to choose a completely unqualified candidate who is committed to destroying the Constitution and everything it stands for, who is committed to special treatment for left-wing constituencies and complete indifference to their victims."

Find Your Own Calcutta

NOTE: This board DOES NOT accept solicitations of any kind. If you have something to sell, do it elsewhere. --MM

"Stay where you are. Find your own Calcutta. Find the sick, the suffering and the lonely right there where you are -- in your own homes and in your own families, in your workplaces and in your schools....You can find Calcutta all over the world, if you have the eyes to see. Everywhere, wherever you go, you find people who are unwanted, unloved, uncared for, just rejected by society-- completely forgotten, completely left alone." -- St. Teresa of Calcutta

Should our laws be based on the 10 Commandments?

Should our laws be based on the Ten Commandments? Well, yes and no. The best approach to this question is to take the commandments one by one, and evaluate the constitutionality of each one as if it were a proposed law:

1)YHWH, the Lord thy God. You must have no other gods before me.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Score: 0 out of 1.

2)You must not make or worship idols.
Score: 0 out of 2, same reason.

3)You must not swear falsely by God's name.
Again, our laws cannot establish a religion or favor one religion over another. BUT, perjury is a form of fraud that can do great damage to another person's rights, and that definitely must be criminalized and enforced (Laws do no good if not properly enforced). Score: 0.5 out of 3.

4)Remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy.
Again, government cannot impose religious beliefs or favor one religion over another. Government can, however, require that an employee's work week not exceed six days, unless the work it part-time or short-term. While that should be determined by the states, government may have an interest in requiring employers to allow periodic rest time for their workers. For example, traffic safety and minimizing the societal costs of broken families and "latchkey children." Score: 1 out of 4.

5)Honor your mother and father.
The restoration of the authority of parents to raise their children as they see fit, while of course continuing to criminalize child abuse, is one of the most important things government needs to do to stop meddling in the affairs of private citizens. Obviously that means children are under the authority of their parents. Score: 2 out of 5.

6)You must not murder.
That one is obvious. The most basic responsibility of government is to protect citizens from the unjust use of force. Score: 3 out of 6.

7)You must not commit adultery.
Relationships between consenting adults are none of the government'sbusiness. If the cheated spouse feels aggrieved by the adultery, heor she has the recourse of divorce. Score: 3 out of 7.

8)You must not steal.
It is the responsibility of government to outlaw theft and fraud, and of the courts to require the thief make restitution to his or her victim. Score: 4 out of 8.

9)You must not give false testimony against another person.
To falsely accuse another person of a crime, give false and damaging testimony against another person in court, or to slander another person in such a way as to damage that person's liberty or pursuit of happiness (ability to secure or maintain employment, in modern parlance), is most certainly a violation of that person's rights and a clear misuse of the system that needlessly increases the costs borne by the taxpayers. The government should have a policy of zero tolerance for knowingly committing any of the above torts. Score: 5 out of 9.

10)You must not lust after another person's spouse or possessions.
The government cannot prosecute against a thought or an intention, only against an act or an actual attempt to commit an act. Score: 5 out of 10.

So, the claim made by fundamentalists that our laws should be based on the 10 commandments is --

A HALF TRUTH!!!!!

Me and Spot 

The Original "Yes Virginia" Column

The Original "Yes,Virginia" Column from the Editorial Page of the now-defunct New York Sun, 1897
By Francis P. Church

	"We take pleasure in answering thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of The Sun:
	I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so." Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus? Virginia O'Hanlon
	Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a sceptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
	Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
	He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
	Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if you did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
	You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
	No Santa Claus?Thank God he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!!"

From The People's Almanac, pp. 1358-9.

Francis P. Church's editorial, "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus" was an immediate sensation, and became one of the most famous editorials ever written. It first appeared in the The New York Sun in 1897, almost a hundred years ago, and was reprinted annually until 1949 when the paper went out of business.

Thirty-six years after her letter was printed, Virginia O'Hanlon recalled the events that prompted her letter:

"Quite naturally I believed in Santa Claus, for he had never disappointed me. But when less fortunate little boys and girls said there wasn't any Santa Claus, I was filled with doubts. I asked my father, and he was a little evasive on the subject.

"It was a habit in our family that whenever any doubts came up as to how to pronounce a word or some question of historical fact was in doubt, we wrote to the Question and Answer column in The Sun. Father would always say, 'If you see it in the The Sun, it's so,' and that settled the matter.

" 'Well, I'm just going to write The Sun and find out the real truth,' I said to father.

"He said, 'Go ahead, Virginia. I'm sure The Sun will give you the right answer, as it always does.' "

And so Virginia sat down and wrote her parents' favorite newspaper.

Her letter found its way into the hands of a veteran editor, Francis P. Church. Son of a Baptist minister, Church had covered the Civil War for The New York Times and had worked on the The New York Sun for 20 years, more recently as an anonymous editorial writer. Church, a sardonic man, had for his personal motto, "Endeavour to clear your mind of cant." When controversial subjects had to be tackled on the editorial page, especially those dealing with theology, the assignments were usually given to Church.

Now, he had in his hands a little girl's letter on a most controversial matter, and he was burdened with the responsibility of answering it.

"Is there a Santa Claus?" the childish scrawl in the letter asked. At once, Church knew that there was no avoiding the question. He must answer, and he must answer truthfully. And so he turned to his desk, and he began his reply which was to become one of the most memorable editorials in newspaper history.

Copied from http://www.barricksinsurance.com/virginia.html

Badnarik Arrested BY Professional Criminals in St. Louis

It probably wasn't in your local newspaper, but on Friday, October 8, 2004, the Anti-Free Speech and Anti-Equal Protection people struck again. Since the Committee On Biasing Presidential Debates (CBPD) has set rules of participation only Republocratic candidates can meet, third-party candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) tried to cross a police line to enter the building at George Washington University in St. Louis where the 2nd Presidential "debate" took place, and both were arrested by the St. Louis branch office of the nation's largest and most powerful R.I.C.O., the police.

This reminds me of when I used to get arrested at anti-abortion protests for trying to prevent murder, and also a few times I was arrested in DeKalb County, Illinois, on completely false charges because my pro-life and anti-corruption rhetoric angered public officials and the prominent citizens who were part of the old-boy's network with whom those corrupt public officials were in cahoots. Fortunately, none of the charges got very far in court.

I will not vote for Badnarik or Cobb because they both support keeping abortion legal; however, I do not consider them criminals. Au contraire, the real criminals are the ones who refused to let them debate, and those who have encouraged abuse of police authority by anti-Constitution policies such as the obscene Patriot Act (please excuse my foul language).

Here is a PARTIAL list of the real criminals:

George W. Bush, who repeatedly has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution;
John F. Kerry, who as Senator supported the P****** A** and also wants to force taxpayers to pay for abortion, including partial-birth abortion;
The CBPD, who also ejected lawyers for the Arizona Libertarian Party who were attempting to comply with a court order to serve notice to the CBPD to appear at a hearing on Tuesday, October 12, on a motion to show cause. The CBPD and Arizona State Univ., site of the 3rd "debate" the following day, are being sued by the ALP for violating Arizona's state constitution by violating Badnarik's right to equal protection, and for using tax dollars for partisan political activity on behalf of Bush and Kerry, since the debate is taking place on the campus of a state-supported university;
And, of course, the Injustice Department and its godfather, John Asscrap, who has abused his authority and violated the Constitution more than any of his predecessors in U.S. History, except Janet Nero, who burned Waco and blamed it on the Christains, and whose henchmen kidnapped Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint and forcibly handed him over to Fidel Castro.

Asscrap oughtta know better. After all, he was the one who lost a Senate race to a dead man, because the governor ILLEGALLY promised to appoint his widow; and because, in another gross violation of equal protection, voters who lived in St. Louis (sound familiar?) were allowed to vote later than voters who lived elsewhere in Missouri. If you dead, remember this: in Chicago, you vote for the Democrats; in Missouri they vote for you.

But some people never learn. Asscrap certainly didn't.

Why Libertarian and Constitution Parties should merge

I really think that if a serious challenge is to be mounted to the two-party oligopoly, a certain amount of strategy is in order, as well as a willingness to lay aside differences on a few issues if there is agreement on most issues. Furthermore, not only do parties like the Constitution and Libertarian Parties have to compare their platforms to one another, they also have to compare their platforms to those of the Democrat and Republican Parties.

Libertarians by their very nature will draw most of their votes from the right because Republicans and Libertarians both tend to advertise themselves as supporters of limited government, while Democrats tend to promote Big Government. But if that draw is to have an impact on either party, I believe the Libertarian Party needs to adopt a pro-life stance. If they cannot accept that unborn babies have the same rights as born babies, at the very least they should support overturning Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton and Stenberg vs. Carhart on 10th Amendment grounds, namely that in all those cases the "Senile Court" violated the separation of powers and usurped the authority of state legislatures. The main obstacle to many frustrated conservatives switching to the Libertarian Party is its stance on abortion which is currently pro-choice.

So why isn't Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party drawing more votes from the right? First, the LP is bigger, better known and better organized. The CP is too new to have gained that status. Most people don't even know it was originally the Taxpayer's Party.

Also, while Peroutka's website makes it clear a Peroutka Administration will not infringe on the legislative powers of the states, Peroutka's harsh anti-gay rhetoric leaves some to believe he will try to use government to impose judeo-christian morality on the American people. Even libertarians who believe the Bible do not believe this is any of the government's business, and the CP will not draw very many votes with that kind of rhetoric. People who are both pro-life and anti-gay already have their candidate in George W. Bush. It is people who are pro-life, but support gay rights, who could be swayed by either the CP or a pro-life LP. In a close race that would be a serious wound to the GOP.

Here is where the CP and LP agree:

--much lower taxes
--limited government that only does what is allowed by the Constitution
--the use of our military ONLY for national self-defense, not for nation-building
--absolute freedom of speech and religion, government completely neutral
--an unregulated free-market economy where only outright fraud can be punished by the government
--abolishing the obscene Patriot Act which urinates and defecates on the Bill of Rights (note: Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards voted FOR the Patriot Act)
--end eminent domain and also the extortion of private property by the government using either terrorism or drugs as an excuse
--the issue of same-sex marriages and civil unions should be decided by the state legislatures, not by Congress or the courts. Many LP members also feel this way about abortion and most other issues.


Where the LP and CP disagree:
-- the CP is unapologetically pro-life, while LP members are divided on abortion and the leadership of the LP leans pro-choice. Both parties agree the taxpayers should NEVER be forced to pay for anyone's abortion.
--the LP does not believe the government has any constitutional authority to prohibit drugs; the CP opposes some of the tactics used in the "war on drugs" such as the seizing of property, but does not support legalization.
--the CP believes America is to be a Christian nation within the parameters set by the Constitution; the LP believes the government is to be completely neutral on matters of religion. The CP supports allowing voluntary prayer in schools, for example, while the LP supports privatizing education entirely.

What the CP and LP should agree as a compromise:
--that the Federal courts do not have the authority to impose any aspect of the N.O.W.'s agenda, including abortion, on the American people. The issue of abortion should be returned to the state legislatures, meaning Roe v. Wade and other abortion-related decisions by the SCOTUS must be overturned. Members of the combined party are free to disagree on whether the SCOTUS should emphasize the separation of powers, thus giving unlimited authority to the states, or equal protection, thus encouraging (and possibly requiring) states to extend legal protection to unborn babies;
--that by merging under a pro-life banner, on either grounds, will result in more support from the voters than either party is capable of attracting by itself; and thus a more measurable impact on the Democrat and Republican Parties;
--that the Federal government does not have the authority to regulate sexual orientation or marriage, except to prohibit forcible rape/sodomy and to require that the parties in any sexual relationship, including marriage, have reached a reasonable age of consent as determined by the state legislatures;
--that the Federal government has no authority to prohibit drugs or medication except for those known to be deadly; and that, within reason, states are free to restrict the use of mind-altering substances if they can establish a compelling interest such as a tendency for users to become violent. In any case, a physician must be free to prescribe marijuana or anything else if it is the best treatment for his or her patient, withouth fear of prosecution;
--and that government must be completely neutral on matters of religion and do exactly as the First Amendment says: neither try to establish a religion nor infringe upon the freedom of individuals to express and practice their religious beliefs unhindered, whether on public or private property. As with any other issue, the government's responsibility is limited to acting against force and fraud. In the absence of either the government must keep its hands off.

MM

Which candidate is most mainstream on abortion?

This is one issue where the mainstream media has badly misinformed the public. To some degree Zogby has debunked the Media Myth (and also the "Moderate" Republican Myth) about women insisting on voting for pro-choice candidate. Turns out the women who are so adamant about a candidate's support for abortion rights are a small demographic group making up less than 10% of all female voters: single women 30 and under. The rest are either evenly divided on abortion or slightly lean pro-life, and in any case they tend to choose candidates on other issues like the economy, education and (in this election cycle) terrorism.

The media has been reasonably honest about where the candidates stand on abortion, but very dishonest about where the American people stand. The following rundown will explain where some of the media's dishonest reporting comes from; the rest is just propaganda.

Here is where Americans stand on abortion. All percentages are rounded to the nearest 5 percentage points. When a candidate's position coincides with a particular group, that is where I mention the candidate.

Strong pro-life: 30 percent
About 15 percent believe abortion should be illegal, no exceptions. I have yet to come across a candidate who believes this.

Another 15 percent, myself included, believe abortion should be legal only to save the mother's life. This group would include Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party candidate. It also would include most pro-life libertarians and some Republicans like Pat Buchanan, Rush "Pinball", and the late Ronald Reagan.

Moderate pro-life: 30 percent
Another 30 percent would add forcible rape and incest to the circumstances where abortion should be legal, and THIS is the mainstream position. Adherents include George W. Bush and his father, Bob Dole and probably the majority of Republicans. Problem is, many voters in this group consider themselves pro-choice because they are concerned a ban on abortion would not include those "hard cases". The mainstream media is more than happy to oblige them, of course, and routinely lumps them in with those who are truly pro-legal abortion. Yet they don't make that error for the candidates. I wonder why....

Moderate pro-choice: 25 percent
Among the pro-choice minority, about 25 percent believe abortion should be legal on demand up to a certain stage of the pregnancy, usually 3 months. After that, they believe abortion only should be legal if the mother's life or physical health (and they don't mean the mother has a headache) is in serious danger. Among the candidates in the 2004 Democratic primary, only Rep. Richard Gephardt even comes close to being in this group. Also, people in this group are divided on both whether and when taxes should be used to pay for abortions.

Strong pro-choice: 5 percent
Some people believe abortion, including partial-birth abortion (PBA), should be legal for all nine months of pregnancy for any reason, but that government should never be allowed to force one person to pay for another person's abortion, through taxation or any other means. This hard-core libertarian position is shared by the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik.

Pro-abortion: 10 percent
These are the people who not only believe abortion, including PBA, should be legal for all nine months of pregnancy for any reason, but that taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortion. This group includes John Kerry, Al Gore, "Billary" Clinton, and all the 2004 Democratic primary candidates except Gephardt; and also Ralph Nader, David Cobb, and most Demorats (and "moderate" Republicans) in the Senate. It is also the position held by more than 90% of those who work for the mainstream media: newspaper reporters and editors, TV newscasters, etc. It is the position held by hate groups like the N.O.W., and most disturbingly it is the position held by the United Nations and the European Union.

MM

Draft? WHAT draft?

The liberals' policy? If you can't find something bad about your conservative/libertarian opponent, make something up. No, I am not going to talk about my personal experience running for local office in heavily pro-choice and pro-corruption Sycamore, Illinois. My focus is on recent rumors that Bush intends to reinstate the draft, and this time there won't be any deferments for college. Just like he intends to abolish Social Security. Yeah, right.... You don't ever have to worry about a GOP President eliminating a 7.65% tax on ALL earned income of the working poor.

There actually are two bills in Congress to reinstate the draft, but they are all sponsored by DEMOCRATS. The Senate version by retiring Sen. Ernest Hollings, and the House version by more than a dozen sponsors, ALL Democrats. Sounds like they created the very thing they intend to use to scare young adults into voting for Kerry. The GOP had nothing to do with it.

There is a draft-related bill being sponsored by three Republicans, including Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), but the bill is to eliminate Selective Service registration, currently the closest thing the U.S. has to a draft.

What the Democrats are doing is a version of a common campaign trick used against anti-establishment candidates in Sycamore: have an insider file a false criminal complaint against a candidate and the crooked cops arrest him, send a press release to the local papers and try to use the arrest as a campaign issue. It does not matter which political party the insider is affiliated with, because the "Republicans" in that part of Illinois would be Democrats anywhere else.

MM

Kerry "won" the debate, probably not the election

In 1984, Ronald Reagan certainly was not in his best form. There was no question that Walter Mondale won the debate. Reagan not only did not seem alert or prepared, his performance left wide-open the question of whether the 73-year-old incumbent was too old to be President.

Thankfully, there was a second debate and Reagan did much better. He put the age issue to rest with one of the most famous lines from any Presidential debate: "I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". Mondale was 57 and had been the Vice President; part of the joke was that Reagan was speaking in relative terms. As y'all know (in Texas, "y'all" is a word), Reagan won by the biggest landslide in U.S. history, with only Minnesota and the District of Columbia voting for Mondale.

The mainstream media will say the Democratic candidate won the debate, no matter what. That is why it is significant that the pro-Kerry media also said Kerry's win was not decisive. "Kerry scores, but no knockout" read one headline. The front-runner does not need to win the debate, he only needs to not make any serious gaffes that could undermine public confidence in him.

On http://electoral-vote.com the debate did not appear to change much. Most significantly, the most recent poll of Florida (Sept. 30) showed the pivotal state back in the Bush column by 3 percentage points, almost the poll's margin of error (the debate took place in Coral Gables).

What Kerry could do, if he really wants to win the election, is stop harping on the economy, which the President cannot control anyway; and stop hammering on our involvement in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had to go; and instead, focus on the one thing for which George W. Bush should be not only impeached, but imprisoned for life: the Patriot Act, which is an aggravated assault on the Bill of Rights.

Problem is, John Kerry voted FOR the Patriot Act:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

The only "no" vote on dismantling the Bill of Rights and using terrorism as an excuse, came from Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), with whom I agree on little else. But the one time he did the right thing, he REALLY did the right thing. Also, Sen. Mary Ellen Landrieu (D-La.), who is not of the body (Star Trek joke), did not vote on the Patriot Act. She might not have wanted to risk retaliation by voting no, but at least she did not join the other 98 tyrants in voting yes. That is at least something.

Another thing Kerry could do is change his stance on abortion to something more mainstream, at the very least being willing to ban late-term abortion. But since he is on the submissive end of a BDSM relationship with the bigots of the N.O.W. Klux Klan, that is not going to happen. Bush is far closer than Kerry to mainstream Americans on the issue of abortion. Single women between 18 and roughly 30 are the only demographic group besides billionaires who support abortion as aggressively as Kerry and Clinton; and they make up less than 5 percent of the voters. They should not get to impose their views on the rest of the American people through a White House puppet as they did in the '90s.

Bush has serious problems. Most honest Americans know that. I, myself, am voting for Michael Peroutka, and my second choice is Michael Badnarik. Not because they share my first name, but because they share my basic belief that the authors of the Constitution had it right.

But not all change is good. Replacing Bush with Kerry, in my opinion, would solve none of Bush's problems, and it would create new problems. For that reason I have to consider Bush the lesser evil.

But, and this is a BIG but, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

MM

Blow Me A Kiss (Kerry/Edwards Version)

This and my other parodies can be found here:
http://www.amiright.com/parody/authors/michaelmcvey.shtml

Blow Me A Kiss (Kerry/Edwards version)
©2004 Michael W. McVey
 
Ah, how ya doin', Mr. Kerry?
Hi Mr. Edwards!
(both)What's up, Senator?
 
Well it looks like our wives have dumped us...
Yeah, the ladies left us all alone...
Anything you'd like to say, Mr. Kerry?
There sure is, Mr. Edwards!
 
Johnny, blow me
A kiss as you're leaving,
Johnny,Blow me
Oh, a kiss right now,
Cause if they're going to leave us,
Johnny, I will surely wish
That you would blow me (blow me) a kiss.
 
Come on and blow me, whoa,
A kiss like you mean it!
Blow me, oh, a kiss goodbye.
I really can't remember anything as hard as this,
So blow me (blow me) a kiss.
Wow-w-w-w!
 
So did you find me hard to swallow?
(Not at all!)
Didn't think you could handle everything!
(Sure, I could, Mr. Kerry).
But if you come back tomorrow,
I'll be shooting my wad
Of flowers at your feet.
 
Johnny, blow me, whoa,
A kiss while you're leaving, honey,
Blow me, whoa,
A kiss as you go.
I always thought about you as I was going down
My list, darling, blow me (blow me) a kiss.
(You mean your VP list?)
(Yeah, my list of potential partners, ha, ha!)
 
I'll touch your arms and your elbows,
(ha, ha, they're nice).
I'll rub your legs so tall,
(You've got some long legs too, Mr. Kerry).
I'll pat your neck and your shoulders (ha, ha, ha).
But I want your head,
Most of all! (ha, ha)!
 
Johnny, blow me,
Oh, a kiss as you're leaving,
Johnny, blow me,
Whoa, a kiss as you go....
 
And if you wanna come home,
Senator, that's OK,
Just grab a-hold of this!
 
And Johnny, blow me,
Johnny won't you blow me,
Blow me a kiss?
(Sllllurp!)

Blow Me A Kiss, by Bob and Tom

I couldn't find the lyrics anywhere on the Internet, so here they are:
 
"Blow Me A Kiss"
©1997 by Bob and Tom

Ah, how ya doin' Jerry?
Hi Dean-O!
What's up, Pally?

Well it looks like our girls have dumped us...
Yeah, the girls left us all alone...
Anything you'd like to say to them, pally?
There sure is, Dean-O!

Baby, blow me
A kiss as you're leaving, honey,
Blow me
Oh, A kiss right now'
Cause if you're going to leave me,
Honey, I will surely miss
The way you blow me (blow me) a kiss.

Come on and blow me, whoa,
A kiss like you mean it!
Blow me, oh, a kiss goodbye.
I really can't remember anything as hard as this,
So blow me (blow me) a kiss.
Wow-w-w-w!

I guess she found me hard to swallow,
(Oh, I guess so).
O-ho, she couldn't handle everything,
(ha, ha, she couldn't take it all, Dean).
But if she comes back tomorrow,
I'll be shooting my wad
Of flowers in the ring.

Darling, blow me, whoa,
A kiss while you're leaving, baby,
Blow me,whoa, A kiss as you go.
And always think about me as you're going down
Your list, darling, blow me (blow me) a kiss.

I'll miss her arms and her elbows,
(ha, ha, they're nice).
I'll miss her legs so tall,
(She's got some long legs, Dean).
I'll miss her neck and her shoulders(ha, ha, ha).
But I'll miss her head,
Most of all!(ha, ha)!

Honey, blow me,
Oh, a kiss as you're leaving,
Baby, blow me,
Whoa, a kiss as you go....
 
And if you wanna come home,
Honey, that's OK,
Just grab a-hold of this!
And baby, blow me,
Baby won't you blow me,
Blow me a kiss?
(Sllllurp!)

Why George Bush Should Choose Osama bin Laden as HIS Running Mate

OK, now equal time for the Republicans.

George W. Bush should replace Dick Cheney on the GOP ticket with Osama bin Laden. Here is why:

10: bin Laden was born in another country, but that's OK, Bush was born on another planet!
9: Bush needs bin Laden's money. All the multi-billionaires in the U.S. are pulling for Kerry.
8: bin Laden is even better at hiding than Cheney is. Only Bush knows the whereabouts of either one of them.
7: Like Bush, bin Laden does not believe in the separation of religion and government.
6: The Taliban is very good at punishing people with differing opinions.
5: Bush and bin Laden both deny their connections with Saddam Hussein.
4: With Kerry getting all the votes of singles, Catholics, women, and men under 30, Bush needs all the Muslim votes he can get.
3: bin Laden does not have any history of heart trouble, becuase he doesn't have a heart.
2: To get THIS economy out of recession, Bush not only needs God's help, he needs Allah's too.

And the NUMBER ONE REASON???

1: bin Laden saved Bush's ass in 2001, and Bush owes him a favor in return!!!

Top 10 Reasons John Kerry Should Choose Scott Peterson For VP Running Mate

Here are the top 10 reasons Scott Peterson would be the perfect VP running mate for Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry:

10: Scott Peterson couldn't be much worse.
9: The fact that he's about to become a convicted felon has never stopped the Democrats before.
8: He lives in California, and the Democrats need its 55 electoral votes to win.
7: Like Howard Dean, he killed unborn babies before beginning his political career.
6: He's younger than Dick Gephardt or Joe Lieberman.
5: No one will say Scott Peterson should be at the top of the ticket.
4: He's one of only two men who can abuse the women in his life and still have the support of the N.O.W. Klux Klan. Bill Clinton is the other.
3: Gephardt voted to ban partial-birth abortion, and Edwards missed the vote altogether. Peterson actually COMMITTED a late-term abortion.
2: It does not matter to a feminist that Laci did not consent to the abovementioned late-term abortion. If she shows signs of being pro-life, just make another Terri Schiavo out of her.
1: Because Hillary Clinton has chosen Scott Peterson, and no Democrat in his right mind would contramand her orders!

July 4, 2004

On July 4, 1776, a new nation was born on this earth, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal.

On July 4, 2004, a new blogspot site was born and is dedicated to the proposition that the abovementioned nation has failed to treat all people equal.

For America to be a land of liberty and justice for all, its government must renounce all favoritism and special preferences, and moreover must renounce its longstanding desire to control the private lives of its citizens through laws and policies, and the enforcement thereof, which infringe upon the constitutional separation of powers. Whether it be favoring the female over the male, the rich over the poor, or the born over the unborn, any attempt to protect one class at the expense of another is an abrogation of the principles upon which this country was founded 228 years ago.

Michael McVey