Tuesday, May 31, 2005

BREAKING NEWS; Deep Throat Uncovered

Linda Lovelace unavailable for comment. (And no, I didn't steal that from Fark, but I bet it is there by now.)

The EU-SSR Constitution Goes Down in Flames

This is a good thing, despite how the MSM may spin it.

PARIS -- French voters rejected the European Union's first constitution Sunday, a stinging repudiation of President Jacques Chirac's leadership and the ambitious, decades-long effort to further unite the continent.

Now the question is, will Black Jacques Chirac, who seems to know best for everyone, listen to his own people?

Chirac, who urged voters to approve the charter, announced the result in a brief, televised address. He said the process of ratifying the treaty would continue in other EU countries.

"It is your sovereign decision, and I take note," Chirac said. "Make no mistake, France's decision inevitably creates a difficult context for the defense of our interests in Europe."

"...creates a difficult context for the defense of our interests in Europe.", I hate to remind you, but your IN Europe.

Anyhow, as any good communist, the powers behind the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will keep taking votes till they get what they want.

EU leaders in Brussels, Belgium, vowed to continue their effort to have the constitution approved.

Hey, they should talk to Christine Gregoire, she knows how to keep counting the votes till they come out the way you want.

Kerry Signs Form 180

And its damn well about time. We could have put a lot of questions to rest a LONG time ago.

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Jan. 30, Kerry told host Tim Russert that he would sign the form known as SF 180, but did not say when he would do it.

It took him a solid 110 days to get around to it, and then only after a continuous drumbeat of demands from some conservatives.

A Kerry spokesman told the Washington Times the form is now in the hands of the Navy, where it will be processed before being passed to the National Personnel Records Center. The process could take a couple of months.

Even the Animals Support Their Cause

Yeah, right. It seems that Allah isn't sending his chosen warriors enough warm bodies to carry bombs to spill innocent blood any more. The jihadists have had to resort to training fido to carry Allah's chosen instrument against the infidels.

Terrorists in Iraq are having such a hard time recruiting new suicide bombers that they're now using suicide-bomber dogs.

If it wasn't bad enough killing innocent people, the islamo-fascists are now murdering poor defenseless animals.

According to the Dakuk police chief, Colonel Mohammed Barzaji, the insurgents wrapped an explosive belt around the dog's body and detonated it as the convoy passed through the town, which is located south of Kirkuk.

"The dog was torn apart by the explosion which caused neither injury among the soldiers nor any damage," Barzaji told the Australian, adding that the bomb had been detonated outside a Shiite mosque.


I thought the muslim people were so behind these blood thirsty lunatics that they were willing to through their life way to kill the infidels? What happened? The "Uncle Usama wants you to strap explosives to your ass." posters aren't working anymore? Or has NewsSneak's koran flushing article so inflamed the passions of domesticated animals, that they must join the jihad?

What's next? Can we expect a group of super models to strip nekkid in Baghdad to protest the jihadists using animals as suicide bombers? Is PETA going to sic their terrorists on the islamic terrorists?

Its not time to Usama and Zarkowi and the rest of the Al Quieda leadership to put up or shut up. Strap a bomb to your ass and die for Allah, if you are that passionate about it.

Saturday, May 28, 2005

How Would the ACLU Take This One

In the ever so enlightened Europe, a notable pro-American author is being persecuted in the courts for daring to say things that might possibly be offensive to Islamo-fascists.

ROME -- Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who has made waves by denouncing Islam in her books, is to face trial for purportedly insulting the Muslim faith in her latest work, a court in Northern Italy ruled yesterday.
A judge refused a request by prosecutors to throw out the case, brought by the president of the Muslim Union of Italy, Adel Smith, and ordered magistrates to proceed in the matter, Agence France-Presse reported.

The prosecutors tried to get the case dismissed, how telling is that if the prosecuting lawyers don't want to move forward? How bad is it when the muslim community can sue an author because they don't like what she writes?

The magistrates have until tomorrow to formally charge Miss Fallaci, the author of "The Rage and the Pride," a post-September 11 polemic over the dangers of Islamic extremism, with "insulting religion."
The accusations stem from her last book called "La Forza della Ragione," ("The Force of Reason"). Mr. Smith says the book -- not yet available in English -- contains "words that are without doubt offensive toward Islam."

Offensive toward islam? If that were the criteria in the U.S. numerous authors would be out of work for publishing writings offensive to Christianity. This is why the founding fathers included both the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech in the first amendment. So where would the ACLU be on this issue? Would the support the right of an author to write anything they want about a religious movement, or would they support the rights of the Islamo-fascists in quelling "intolerant" speech that questioned their religion? Oh, and can someone explain to me why the left keeps pointing to Europe as an example of what America should be?

h/t Ace.

Talk About Persistence

Two WWII era Japanese soldiers were discovered in the pacific.

Japanese officials arrived on the Philippines island of Mindanao on Friday to unravel the mystery behind two aging men believed to be former imperial army soldiers who have lived in the mountains since the end of World War II.

The two men, who could be Yoshio Yamakawa, 87, and Tsuzuki Nakauchi, 85, both members of the 30th Division of the Imperial Japanese Army, were carrying several articles that indicated they were former soldiers, officials said, without elaborating.

And we have people griping about spending four months in Iraq, these guys were on station for sixty fricken years!

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Cracka Insurgent Declares Hickjad Against NewsSneak

Upon discovery that Newsweak had once again impugned upon the honor of his native country, this cracka went a-huntin' for evidence. Lo and behold, another blogger had already bagged his quarry, but you should still look this one over. Thanks, Gaijinbiker.

Nice. There's our flag, broken and in a trash can. Front cover. Big, bold, and shameless: "The Day America Died." And, as Gaijinbiker notes, this appeared on the cover of Newsweek's foreign editions, and not the one printed here in AMERICA THE DEAD, which instead cloaked itself in a sheep's wool of Oscar nominee innocuousness. But who cares anymore if anyone wins anything, including the fight against Islamofascism? This is the day AMERICA DIED. Right, Newsweek? Game over, dude.

What does it take to get through to Newsweek? The First Armored? A daisy-cutter? A hickjad by this lone blogging cracka insurgent? This is not journalism. This is political porn for the Hate America First crowd, pimped, primped, pumped and primed for the foreign public by the 'good' people at NewsSneak.

Makes me shake my head. What an arc for our nation's symbol of pride: Francis Scott Key writes a song about it, Marines plant it on the top of Mount Suribachi, Newsweek tosses it into the trash with the coffee grounds and their crumbling credibility.

UPDATE 5-25-05: Blogger keeps farking up the link by adding in "http://blogger.com/" before the url. Cut and paste the link into your browser to check it out till I can figure out how to fix it.

My New Shit List

Excuse my language, but that's what it is, a shit list. This shit list are the senators who undermined Bill Frist, and the rest of the senate Republicans (as well as the people who voted for them) by"cutting a deal" with moderate Democrats.

Topping the list is our old friend John McCain from Az.
John Warner (VA), Mike DeWine (OH), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lincoln Chafee (RI), all agreed to vote against the nuclear option. (h/t Rightwing news.

Yup, you read that right, my own Mike DeWine was among the turncoats who gave away the judiciary to the Democrats. Guess what Mike, I won't be voting for you in the next cycle, and you can bet, I will be looking to get you out of the senate.

The deal allows for "up or down votes" on four of Bush's nominees. The deal also calls for no future filibusters for judicial nominees, unless there are "extraordinary circumstances." Which for the Democrats could mean that they don't like the Judge's hair cut (see the Bolton nomination for example).

All of this is to, in the words of John McCain "protect the rights of the minority." Well, if the minority can exorcise such power, why the hell do we bother to vote?

Monday, May 23, 2005

Pedophile into Celebrity

At a time when Michael Jackson faces child molestation charges, the current media darling is a pedophile. If you have bothered to turn on the T.V. in the last few days, you know by now that Marry Kay Letorneau married her child victim. You know, for a long time I "po-po'ed" my parents lamenting at how our society was circling the toilet bowl. Now, however, I find myself increasingly astounded at how blazee we have become to such things.

Yes, grampa would drop over, stone dead after seeing the latest "Old Navy" commercial. Sure, ma, we are all headed to hell in a hand cart, whatever that is. But now, the media has turned a woman who molested a 13 year old boy into a celebrity. ET has their cameras right there as convicted sex-offender gets married. But they have the cameras there as Michael shows up at court too. What is the deal? Why is Marry Kay celebrated as a hero, while Jackson is vilified? If it hadbeen Mark Letorneau having sex with a 13 year old (girl or boy, you pick), would ET have been there to interview him when get got out of prison? Or would they have been there to crucify him? The powers that be in the media need to make a decision. Are they going to pull the handle and speed our way down the toilet, or are they going to try to get us out of the bowl.

Saturday, May 21, 2005

A Tyrant and his Tighty Wighties

Much ado has been made over the Sun publishing of pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underwear. Cries of foul have been coming from all over the world, including people in the U.S. I just have one question, what is the big frickin' deal? O.K. so its not in the best taste. Its just some pictures of a dictator in his dicktoter, but from the way some people are talking about it, pictures of Saddam in his shorts is a war crime. Hell, you can turn on the TV in the U.S. and see much more. And what guy hasn't spent a Sunday afternoon in his jockeys watching football (before we get married, at least for most of us). Yeah, we would probably be embarrassed if someone got pictures of us, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. Here goes the media blowing another story way out of proportion, in hopes of making the U.S. look bad.

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Do the Henry Two

In a recent column, Richard Cohen comes to the defense of Newsweek:

Newsweek, I am here to tell you, simply made a mistake. Well, actually two. The first was the item itself, which was apparently incorrect and also not appreciated for its cultural punch. No one seemed to understand that when you allege that the Koran had ben flushed down a toilet, it might trigger riots in the Muslim world.

Okay, then, Rich. Given that the outcome of various religious crusades which occurred hundreds of years before America was ever founded is apparently sufficient reason for Muslims to fly planes into said country's buildings, doesn't it seem that a contemporary toilet-flushing of the Koran might lead to trouble with its followers? And absolutely no one at Newsweek grasped this inevitability? Even for a moment?

And then the magazine failed to issue a full-throated retraction and grovel in the manner expected from any institution that gets something wrong, especially the media.

Grow up, Rich. This is a perfect example of the MSM media (and you) coping an attitude whenever you guys are pulled up short for failing to do your jobs correctly. As an indirect result of this journalistic mess, people died in rioting. What if they had been American soldiers? What then? We still don't know what to expect in terms of fallout from this blunder. Abu Graib (which Newsweek obsessed over for far, far longer than Saddam's mass bonepits) is a squib next to this bomb.

The rules for this sort of thing, as Dan Rather can attest, require total abasement, an approximation of what Henry II did after the murder of Thomas Becket in 1170. Only a shortage of monks - 80 of them flogged the king - males this an impractical precedent.

Unlike Dan, Henry was a man about it, at least. Do the Henry Two, Dan!

I confess I've detected no overall antiwar slant in Newsweek...

See Abu Graib comment, above.

Rich goes on to condescendingly spare his readers "any harangue today about the mistakes and lies that got us into Iraq in the first place." Yeah, thanks, Rich. Iraq and Lebanon are better places for people like you. But Rich then wonders why Ann Coulter didn't do the Henry Two for her "mad screed" written after the 9/11 attacks in which she advocated invading Islamic countries and converting them to Christianity. I don't know, Rich, but it isn't exactly The Kingdom of Heaven out there. Christians aren't exactly girding their loins for war in fabled Outremer and elsewhere to convert the heathen. But they and non-Christians are being picked off, blown up, and beheaded so that Muslims may be able to vote, work, raise families, and lead normal lives.

Not that Newsweek takes notice overmuch. Which might be good, because it probably wouldn't get it right.

And Ann would probably beat the monks up, anyway.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Pull the Friggin Trigger Already!

Today the Senate is debating the so-called Nuclear Option (more appropriately called the constitutional Option). Harry Reid had some very nice words to say about the "time-honored tradition" of the filibuster. It would have been a very nice speech if it was even slightly accurate.

Oh mind you, the content of his speech was factually accurate. The conclusions where wholly inaccurate. Senator Reid recounted the illustrious history of the filibuster, describing how it was used to encourage social change within the United States. Ironic that, since the filibuster has never been used to block judicial nominations. And the present use of the filibuster by the democrats to block progress in the senate.

After that, Senator Reid spoke eloquently about how Washington and Jefferson described the function of the Senate. I am paraphrasing Reid as he quoted Washignton and Jefferson;

Jefferson asked Washington, "What is the function of the Senate?"

Washington replied "Why do you pour your coffee into a saucer?"

Jefferson said "To let the coffee cool down."

Washington answered "That is the function of the Senate, to cool the government down."

Reid's interpretation of this statement is that the senate is supposed to cool off the majority, not allow them to pass their agenda wholesale. What Senator Reid is ignoring is the fact that the Senate was originally designed to represent the state's interests in the Congress. The House of Representatives has always been elected by the citizens of the U.S. The number of representatives a state has is proportional to its population. Thus, the House represents the interests of the "common man" in the federal government. The Senators on the other hand were originally appointed by the govener of the state and each state was allowed two Senators. The senate then, was to function as a rational side to "cool down" the populist side which could be swayed much more easily by public opinion rather than "cool down" majority rule.

Finally, Senator Reid completely ignored the fact that the filibuster is not in danger. With all his talk of the damage that would be done to our system of government if the constitutional option were invoked, he never mentioned that the option would not affect the filibuster. The change that the republicans are suggesting would only occur for judicial nominees. The filibuster would remain, more or less intact. Specifically, the senate would change the rules for over riding a filibuster during a judicial nomination.

When a senator begins a filibuster, the filibuster can be ended if 2/3 of the senate vote to stop it. For judicial nominations, the rule would be modified. If a senator invoked a filibuster, a vote would be taken to end the filibuster, requiring a 2/3 majority. If that failed, a second vote would be taken requiring only a 1/2 majority. Thus, if more than half the senate supported the filibuster, it would continue. And filibusters during voting on for a bill would be unaffected.

It is time for the republican majority in congress to get off their collective asses and represent us. We, the people, elected them to pursue an agenda, not the agenda of the democratic party. If the democrats persist in stone walling that agenda, then they risk becoming more marginalized.

Tastes Great, Less Whipping

This is Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's response to WDIV-TV's report that the city of Detroit has spent $130K over three years on bottled water for city employees:

Slavery is over. It is. We don't need to wait for massa to tell us to get some water. If my employees want water, they're going to get water...I think it's money well spent.

I had my doubts about Detroit's "hip-hop" mayor from the moment he assumed control of the city; he's exceeded them. The bottled water controversy is just one of many apparent financial discrepancies and misappropriations that have occurred on his watch. I've only noted this particular one because his exccedingly cynical reply appears to have been ripped straight from former Detroit mayor Coleman Young's Greatest Hits: The Race Card Collection. Uh, yeah, Mr. Mayor, slavery is over. Simon Legree isn't lurking near the drinking fountain. But thanks for clearing that up. And while we're at it, let's hang a slogan on said H20 product: how does "tastes great, less whipping" sound to you?

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

It's Not The Dog, it's Darth Rove

Good golly! Have the liberal no shame whatever? Newsweek drops a serious bomb with the whole Koran in the toilet nonsense, but then the liberals in their granola induced delusions put Karl Rove behind the whole thing.

I may have missed someone else making this point, so if this is repetitive please accept my apology. But here's my point: Newsweek getting "caught" like this has Karl Rove's stink all over it. Am I the only one who sees this pattern at work?...one that is destroying the credibility of the press? Not that the press hasn't made its own mistakes (thanks NY Times/Jason Blair)...but when it comes to "big news" stories where The White House gets to shout "How dare you!" because sources turn out to be shady (even though the facts of the story are never refuted)...

What?!? So now Karl Rove hired Jason Blair, made him falsify stories, then outed him? Next thing you know the liberals will have Karl Rove behind the sinking of the Main, Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassinations. Granted I could probably spend my time better getting yard work done than hacking away at this blog, but you would think that the liberal masses would find something better to do than insert Karl Rove into every misstep the MSM or the Democratic party take.

H\T Rightwing News

Don't Blame It On the Dog, Newsweek

Nice attempt at blame-shifting, Newsweek.

Apparently determined to smear the US and its fighting men in the interest of 'mainstream journalism,' Newsweek let fly with a stinker of a story and is now trying to blame (kinda-sorta-you know-subtly-but-not-too-subtly) the resultant bad smell on the dog. Or Abu Graib. Or Western Civilization in general.

But the fact remains that Newsweek rushed the story into print, did not double-check its sources, and was entirely too credulous in regards the claims of America's enemies. People died in the resultant (and tiresomely predictable) Muslim rioting. What other reprecussions may follow is anyone's guess, but I am willing to say this: Salman? Mr. Rushdie? Might be time to check back into the crawlspace again...

Newsweek likes its little arrows and pithy comments. Here's one for them, arrow pointed down: Newsweek stumbled, MSM credibility further crumbled.

Saturday, May 14, 2005

Zoiks!

It appears that feed of the blog was disrupted for several days. I'm sure it was a communist plot to prevent the voices of crackas from being heard! But they failed! Hahahahahahaha! Ha!

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Star Chamber

This from today's Detroit Free Press:

Brasilia, Brazil - South American and Arab leaders opened an unprecedented summit Tuesday to foster cooperation aimed at undercutting the international influence of the United States.

Long story short, some top dogs from 34 (!) South American, Middle Eastern, and north African nations met for the first-ever Summit of South American-Arab Countries. Don't know about you, but there's a vague missiles-in-Cuba feeling to the whole affair. A bunch of clunky, corrupt, and backward Arab regimes having a little cloak-and-dagger is nothing new, but when a bunch of clunky, corrupt, and backward South American regimes also becomes involved, it starts shaping up like a huge game of Clue. Question: who whacked Uncle Sam? Answer: Everybody.

South America's has been drifting for some time now, however. Venezuela is basically Cuba with oil and Hugo Chavez is Manuel Noriega with access to Clearasil. But according to Huáscar Terra do Valle, Brazilian lawyer and writer, Brazil is also on its way to a form of neo-Communism ; achieved through evolution as opposed to revolution. I guess central planning and Soviet-style shortages never lose their appeal for some people - as long as they don't have to live with the results. The fact that this whole Star Chamber-style affair took place in Brazil speaks volumes.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

"South Park" Conservatives?

Shtrumgruppa and I have talked about whether or not we qualify as "neocons." This was a term I believe was created to be a derogatory name for a small sub group of conservatives who tend to be hawkish on defense issues. Being a "recovering liberal," myself, I do believe that the term does fit. However, now there is a new term that has been invented to describe the newer trend in conservative punditry and blogging, the "South Park Conservative."

This term I have problems with. While I have been known to enjoy the occasional episode of South Park (I even use Cartman as an example in one of my lectures), I am not sure the term is appropriate. The problem as I see it is that South Park, isn't conservative. As Michelle Malkin put it "South Park" may be "politically incorrect." But "politically incorrect" is not always a synonym for "conservative."

That sums up my displeasure with the term, but also highlights a liberal fallacy. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me "bad." If you disagree with a liberal, you are automatically classified as a conservative, and as Howard Dean has told us, being conservative is bad. South Park takes aim at both conservative and liberal issues. I personally don't know, and can't really tell what the political slant of South Park is. Hell, discussing the political slant of a cartoon series like South Park is ridiculous to me. You can call me a neocon, but please don't all me a "South Park Conservative."

You Want Some of Dis?

The ever so tolerant mouth-piece of the "Religion of Peace" is, once again, making peace ovatures toward the U.S.

The spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is warning the U.S. to stay out of his country's business – and, in particular, its nuclear program, which is set to resume this week.
Speaking on a tour of southeast Iran, Khamenei called the U.S. "arrogant," "rude" and said the country "deserved a punch in the mouth."


We deserve a "punch in the mouth," eh. Why is it that these countries seem to like to resort to bar room diplomacy? The U.S. is routinely criticized for employing "gun-boat" diplomacy, but here is a country on the edge of acquiring nuclear weapons offering up a knuckle sandwich. This is the part where the Middle East nations don't understand us. We may be leary of wielding the "big stick" for fear of becoming, that which we loath, a totalitarian bully. But that doesn't mean we won't use "the big stick."

Europe doesn't get it either. This is why, North Korea, Iran (and before that Iraq and Libya) don't take them seriously.

Iran announced yesterday it is likely to resume uranium enrichment-related activities next week, following a breakdown in negotiations between the Shiite regime and the European Union.
Tehran's announcement after talks in London with European negotiators yielded no results. France, Britain and Germany, acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union, were seeking guarantees from Iran that it will not use its nuclear program to make weapons.

Guarantees that it will not use its nuclear program to make weapons?!? What the hell do they need a nuclear program for? Sure, if they had a vibrant industrial economy, or houses with electricity and running friggin water, they might need nuclear power. But they don't! They don't have any use for all the power that would be produced in a nuclear program. The end goal of the program is to produce nuclear weapons. And what would a radical Islamic country, in close proximity to Israel do with nuclear weapons? My seven-year-old can see that scenario without my help.

So, if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants to talk smack. If Iran really wants to through down. Bring it on. We will end what they start. Lets just hope it isn't a cold can of nuclear whup-ass we have to open on them.

Monday, May 02, 2005

Awwww Crap! It's Back

The Boston Post is, once again, airing the patently false claim by Jerry Lembcke that the "soldiers were spat upon when they returned from Vietnam" story is a myth.

STORIES ABOUT spat-upon Vietnam veterans are like mercury: Smash one and six more appear. It's hard to say where they come from. For a book I wrote in 1998 I looked back to the time when the spit was supposedly flying, the late 1960s and early 1970s. I found nothing. No news reports or even claims that someone was being spat on.

Mr. Lembcke's myth is a myth. Did you ever try, maybe, talking to a soldier from that time period? Maybe the reporters, who opposed the war, weren't reporting on this at that time?

What I did find is that around 1980, scores of Vietnam-generation men were saying they were greeted by spitters when they came home from Vietnam. There is an element of urban legend in the stories in that their point of origin in time and place is obscure, and, yet, they have very similar details.

Ok, it's an urban legend because they all sound similar? How many different ways are there to be spat upon? This isn't the story of a friend who's brother's friend's uncle was at "lover's lane" and found the murderer's hook when he got home from groping his girlfriend. One issue with the urban legend is that it happens to someone else. I KNOW soldiers from the Vietnam era who tell numerous stories of being spat on. Not all of them went to Vietnam. They were spat upon for wearing the uniform in public. The lies go on though.

Like many stories of the spat-upon veteran genre, Smith's lacks credulity. GIs landed at military airbases, not civilian airports, and protesters could not have gotten onto the bases and anywhere near deplaning troops. There may have been exceptions, of course, but in those cases how would protesters have known in advance that a plane was being diverted to a civilian site?

Bzzzzzzt, thank you for playing. The military then, as now, frequently employs chartered civilian airlines to transport troops. Most of these flights originate and arrive at the same airports. It would be easy for protesters to find out which flights troops were on, as it is today when supporters greet flights of troops returning from Iraq. Not to mention that you don't have to have an organized protest to spit on troops.

The persistence of spat-upon Vietnam veteran stories suggests that they continue to fill a need in American culture. The image of spat-upon veterans is the icon through which many people remember the loss of the war, the centerpiece of a betrayal narrative that understands the war to have been lost because of treason on the home front. Jane Fonda's noisiest detractors insist she should have been prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, in conformity with the law of the land.

That's because the war was lost on the homefront by people giving aid and comfort to the enemy. From a military stand point, the war was a victory. The U.S. military won the majority of engagements. The Tet offensive, which is portrayed by the media is the breaking point for the U.S. in reality broke the NVA and Viet Cong. And, despite the media claims, we hadn't lost the "hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese people. Just look at the people who fled the communists after the U.S. politicians abandoned them.

For the rest of the article, Lembcke engages in some psychoanalysis psychobable nonsense. This is wishful thinking on the part of liberals from the time period. By trying to revise history, repressing the memories of spiting on our troops, denying their own betrayal of their friends and family, they can live with their damaged conscience. The fact is, Jane Fonda did go to North Vietnam. Her and John Kerry's words were used to demoralize our troops. Protesters did spit on veterans returning home from the war.

My Internet Access isn't that Good

Can someone please explain this to me?

Thousands of other inmates access the Internet indirectly using inmate telephone and mail privileges and a network of family, friends or activists.

So, is that what I have to do to get cheap (free) internet access? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall any constitutional provision for internet access. Why should tax payers foot the bill for internet access for criminals which allows them to contact liberal wack jobs or worse yet their victims?

Arizona inmates successfully challenged a state law that prohibited helping inmates access the Internet. The law was passed after a murder victim's family complained about the killer's Internet pen pal ad.

Naturally, the ACLU is on board with this idea.

"They're sentenced to death, they're not sentenced to silence," Lamourie said. "Even if just one was (innocent), how can we silence someone who's going to be killed in our name?"

Easy, shut them up. He murdered someone! He made the choice to take the life of another human being. (Maybe if he killed a mink, they wouldn't be in such a hurry to stand up for him.) By doing so, he forfeited his rights. All of them. He isn't going to "be killed in our name" just for the fun of it. He is not like every other citizen of the U.S. and thus eligible for constitutional protections.

Let's look at this from the other side. What if the family of the murder victim (victims themselves, which should be important in the culture of victimization) were to publish a web site with pictures of the murderer and information about him? Would the ACLU support the rights of the victims to speak out about the criminal who victimized them? Somehow I doubt that the victim's right to "free speech" would trump the criminals right to privacy.