Can I get a HOLLA! from the boys and girls for FRIIIIIIDAY!

and can I get some people admonishing Ann Coulter for her vicious attacks on 9/11 widows?

"Coulter writes in a new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act “as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.”

She also wrote, “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.” "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/07/entertainment/main1690954.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1690954

Ms. Coulter does have one thing right, 9/11 didn't just happen to one group of people; the sadness and heartache belongs to us all, so how about we leave the politically motivated attacks for all us wanna-be pundits and politicians.

This small percentage of women claimed input into the structure of our national defense purely on the fact that their husband's died on 9/11. They are a tiny minority of the people who lost loved ones on that day.
Attack them for their loss? No.
Minimize their loss? No.
Give them control of how we structure our military and intelligence agencies? No.
It is interesting that people who also lost people that day are given NO media coverage when they voice views politically at odds with the "Jersey Girls".

Kahn,

so should I take your statement to mean you are admonishing Ann Coulter for her words, and will you be asking her for an apology?

Whether you agree with her or not, there's no denying that Ann Coulter is a publicity whore who will say anything over the top just to sell books. Those statements really demean her views and those who share her views. But - they keep her in the spotlight! Where's the next book signing?

Anne Coulter is worthless.

Now that al-Zarqawi has assumed room temperature, the Libs will be back on Haditha like white on rice. Axis said as much in a previous thread, and it's actually one of the few times he's said something that I took at face value.

Well, Libs, be careful what you wish for because I think the Haditha story is about to get veeeeery interesting:

Haditha Media Errors Exposed

To keep this straight-forward, I'm taking this item by item. It proves there are false reports being told by some Iraqis as regards Haditha. Unfortunately, the AP and the MSM appear to be gleefully reporting them without checking their facts.

From the AP today:

At about the same time, a man who stepped out of his nearby house to see what was happening at Ayed Ahmed's home was shot and wounded, according to al-Hadithi. Aws Fahmi, 43, was left to bleed on the street for about two hours before a female neighbor dragged him to safety, al-Hadithi told the AP. Fahmi's family was not able to take him to a hospital until two days later, al-Hadithi said.

Someone must have forgotten that Aws Fahmi was quoted ten times in this WaPo piece from May27, as a witness. Not once did he claim to be involved, let alone shot. Are we to believe he forgot? Or that the WaPo wouldn't tell the story of a man shot and left to die in the street by our Marines?

This is just the tip of the iceberg, folks, and, undoubtedly, one of the reasons the investigation is taking so long. Stories keep changing -- lots of inconsistencies. Go read the whole thing.

Personally, this is the first time I've heard of these "Jersey Girls." I'm guessing they get a lot more press in New York.

And Kahn, they do not want control of our national security. They are just pressing Congress and the White House on issues like port security, which is still severely lacking.

Also, considering Bush and Co. often invoked the memory of those killed on 9/11 when building his case for war in Iraq, I see no reason why these women should have their voices heard in regards to what our government is doing to protect our homeland.

If you disagree, fine. But to say something like "how do we know their husbands weren't thinking about divorcing these harpies?" is... I don't know.

Throw Coulter out with the trash.

RS,

Maybe this is all a big lie told by the local villagers. I have a hard time with that theory though.

From what I've read, details are coming out that a small amount of marines did this killing while others stood watch.

Let's say this is all a big lie. I have a hard time thinking that Congressional and military leaders from both sides of the aisle would have grave and somber reactions what they've seen in the investigation if all the US soldiers said one thing, and all the villagers said another. At the very least, there would be some skepticism in their words, but that's one thing I have not heard from any officials who have seen details of the investigation.

My guess -- and it's just a guess -- is that there has to be some testimony from Marines that corroborates the villager's testimony.

But, we'll see.

Also, that site counts this as an inconsistency:

Update 4: Another inconsistency: compare

“The Americans knocked at the door,” she said on the video released this week by the human rights group, which is not well-known outside of Iraq. “My father went to open it. They shot him dead from behind the door, and then they shot him again after they opened the door.”

Safa said one attacker shot at other family members. She said she hid in a bedroom by the bodies of her mother and siblings. “I pretended to be dead.”

SAFA YOUNIS, FAMILY KILLED (through translator): A bomb exploded on the street outside. We heard the sound of the explosion, and we heard shouting. We were inside the house when U.S. forces broke through the door. They killed my father in the kitchen. The American forces entered the house and started shooting with their guns.

I don't know what the discrepancy is supposed to be. I know plenty of homes that have doors that lead directly into the kitchen.

Again, we'll see.

Spook,

Not to go being a contrarian or anything, but did it occur to you that the reporter Ellen Knickmeyer sounds like a pretty white name, I would argue that you're not going to find too many white reporters on the beat in Iraq. More than likely the story was brought to her from a "runner", where she provided questions, and the runner asked them, and brought them back.

One of the debates in Congress right now is whether or not to make the phase-out of the inheritance tax permanent. This article has some of the best reasons I've heard for doing so.

Again, we'll see.

Hopefully we will, Tom. If a few Marines went berzerk and killed a bunch of innocent people, they ought to be punished.

Did anyone see the special last weekend on drug (pharmacuetical) counterfitting? It is appalling that so much money is made on knock off drugs that include lipitor, cancer fighting drugs, etc. Lives are in danger when baking soda is used instead of cholesterol lowering ingredients.

I'd like to see something done to prevent this. Anyone else agitated with ideas for prevention?

It has been reported that Zarqawi was alive (for a short time) after the bombing, so the bastard suffered and knew he was going to die at the hands of the infidels. Priceless.

Coulter is a profiteer of other person’s misery. She is the lowest of the low.

Spook, the estate tax affects about 1% of the population. Teddy Roosevelt proposed the tax. If congress wants to increase the exemption for small business or family farms, than I would be in favor of that, but please the exemption now is at $2-million.

TEO - Wrong. Ann was making a very valid point. If you look and listen to the interviews she was trapped into a few bad phrases. Which of course you and the media have seized upon to minimize her otherwise valid points. Also, I notice that there has been much creative liscense with what she did say.

The mere fact that these few ladies lost their husbands does not mean that they get to write national policy.

There are only 2 things assured in this world, death and taxes. And the Democratic party exists to make sure that they stay that way.

I'm glad to see the liberals here are calling Ann Coulter names, for calling people names. Come in from the playground children - it's time for lunch.

I'm glad to see the liberals here are calling Ann Coulter names, for calling people names. Come in from the playground children - it's time for lunch.

Ann Coulter is right on the money.

Look, in any given population, there is going to be a percentage of unhappy marriages. The odds are very strong that at least ONE of the husbands at the WTC was seeking a hit man to kill his wife.

What on Earth gives THAT woman, spared her life by the evil plans of Osama bin Laden, the right to oppose the President's policy? The sheer lack of gratitude of these wives is despicable. They need to shut up.

As for the DEATH tax, it doesn't matter that it only affects 1% of the population. It matters that it affects the most IMPORTANT 1%. Look, if this only affected truck drivers, teachers or some other middle-class grunts, I wouldn't care. But the children of the richest, most productive americans are under attack and we must defend them or the economy is truly lost, comrade.

With Haditha, I love how Dumb Shipley jumps to the conclusion that anything happened at all, and then extrapolates that maybe, maybe, maybe we don't have the whole story. Whole story? There IS NO STORY! Grow up.

And I like the special touch of saying, if the reporter is white they must have the story wrong. Why are you so anti-white, Dumb?

All this ties together. America was founded by white, rich, Christian men. Low-lifes posting here have been assailing that class; America is a Christian nation and they hate America. We made America and America is here to serve us.

Today's Unhappy Front Pages

Takes a little time to load

"With Haditha, I love how Dumb Shipley jumps to the conclusion that anything happened at all, and then extrapolates that maybe, maybe, maybe we don't have the whole story. Whole story? There IS NO STORY! Grow up."

And people wonder why I have such a low opinion of many right-wing bloggers.

Calling me "Dumb Shipley" and telling me to "grow up" in the same paragraph where you show an utter lack of understanding of the facts in the Haditha case... well, I applaud you, CoC. You may have just written the single-most idiotic paragraph I've read on a blog... and that's saying something!

Wait! I spoke too soon. We have a new winner.

"And I like the special touch of saying, if the reporter is white they must have the story wrong. Why are you so anti-white, Dumb?"

Maybe I am dumb... WTF are you talking about?

Axis, this is for you

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060607/beattie.gif

Someone get the Thorazine for Conservative, he's gettin' uppity again.

Kahn,

Oh so you're saying that her stupid comments are the media's fault? I don't think you were giving Murtha the same benefit of the doubt when he went off his meds a little too early

LOL hypocrites make me laugh!

It would be amazing (and hilarious) if one of the Jersey Widows sued Coulter for libel...

Anyways, I was listening to Ann Coulter on Boortz the yesterday, and she did make at least one valid point: that when you enter the political battlegrounds, your views are not untouchable regardless of who you are, what you did, or who you lost on 9/11. I completely agree with this sentiment.

Losing a husband on 9/11 doesn't give someone complete moral authority, but when someone engages in a political debate, it is just sickening to watch them lower themselves into slanderous/libelous attacks on another person in an attempt to skewer their credibility.

Ann Coulter can disagree with and refute the Jersey Widows' arguments and actions all she wants (that is what free and open debate is all about), but insinuating such disgusting things as them enjoying their husbands' murders is morally repugnant and vile.

Does anyone else feel bothered by the fact that the media is flashing around images of Zarqawi's corpse?

It's great that he's dead, but I don't want to be bombarded with images of his corpse while I am eating breakfast...

actually I have to believe CoC is really a liberal and acting as a agent provocature as not true conservative could espouse what he does and live with himself!!!!

Spook said: "One of the debates in Congress right now is whether or not to make the phase-out of the inheritance tax permanent. This article has some of the best reasons I've heard for doing so."

It seems to me that the article you sited was confusing two issues: (1) the estate tax itself, and (2) loopholes available for avoiding it. The main argument is that because loopholes exist, and because only some people take advantage of them, then the tax itself should be eliminated. The alternative -- that the loopholes should be eliminated -- isn't discussed at all.

Personally, I am against the notion of wealth being able to be transferred from one generation to the next. It seems to me that America is all about personal responsibility and individual initiative. The idea is that no matter who one's parents are, every kid should have the opportunity for a decent education, and if they work hard, they should have the opportunity for success. That's the American way, IMHO. Making it easier to pass on one's wealth to future generations creates an aristocratic class based on geneology, not accomplishment. And that, it seems to me, is exactly the state of affairs that prompted the American Revolution in the first place. It also seems to me that it saps personal motivation. The more it happens the more Paris Hiltons, various Kennedy kids, etc., we will have. Thus, I am against repeal of the inheritance tax, but I am for eliminating loopholes that allows some to dodge it.

Ohio, don't blow the inside joke! I get my best laughs when War and keef agree with CttC.

Georgia,

I say the same thing about seeing Ann Coulter while sitting around my breakfast table.

Ric,
Let's not confuse inbred air-heads (Hilton) with the family farm, or the family pharmaceutical company. My father’s company had to be chopped up and the pieces sold to pay the taxes. As a result, everything he spent his life working for to pass on to his sons was gone in the final heartbeat of his fatal heart attack.
Whereas I agree that wealth should be earned, I also believe that it is not up to government to decide where the fruits of one’s lifetime should be designated; if Dad wanted the company to go to the American Nazi party, or the Socialist Workers’ Party or to be bequeathed to the family pet that’s not for you or the government to decide.

Rico,

I would love to see a reality show with the Kennedy kids and Paris Hilton fighting in vats of cow-blood to find a c-note, that just might redeem my faith in television as something worthwhile.

TAX wages just once, when earned; combined Fed, state, local.

NO OTHER TAXES; personal, business, or otherwise.

this would flush the TRUE combined tax rate out into the open.

when the citizens saw how much they actually pay...no politican could escape the wrath.

no govt will ever do this for that reason.

Ohio Loser

"actually I have to believe CoC is really a liberal and acting as a agent provocature as not true conservative could espouse what he does and live with himself!!!!"

Dude, learn the language. The term is "agent provocateur" and I believe you meant "no conservative" not "not conservative."

Considering your deplorable use of English makes the meat of your post unintelligible, I'll translate it. Here's what you were really saying,
"I don't have any viable argument for what you are saying, so you must not really MEAN what you are saying. I'll just make some hay and call you a liberal."

Let's see how well that works: Ohio Loser is really a conservative because he is too stupid to be a liberal.

1. I can't imagine being called a conservative really bothers you, and

2. No one is too stupid to be a liberal because that well goes so deep.

“…it is not up to government to decide where the fruits of one’s lifetime should be designated;…”

Who are you kidding Bane? The Fed, state and local governments decide all the time. The inheritance exception went from $600K to $2-million since Bush took office. That said, I am in favor of additional exemptions for small business and farms under limited situations. Better yet, off-set all revenue losses with cuts in spending.

Georgia Fag

I agree. I hope the Jersey Cows sue Ann Coulter for slander, because when she wins it will grind you liberals into the dirt.

The truth is a perfect defense.

After Ann shows these hags as the vindictive, Hate-America, petty witches that they are, the courts will likely jail them for sedition.

Since it is now known that Zarqawi was only mortally wounded and knew that he was going to die, I have the a question for the Christians on this blog.

Prior to dying, if Zarqawi renounced Mohammad and violence and pledged his love to the lord Jesus Christ, and pleaded for forgiveness and meant it would God forgive Zarqawi?

What if he was baptized and/or given rights before he died?

Barfey

Why do you work so hard to shut down this economy? Can you really hate Bush so much that you would kill the American Dream?

It has been shown time and again that when you put more money into the hands of the people who earn the most money --- the top contributors to GDP --- the economy improves.

It is bad enough that the great entrepreneurs are taxed in their lifetime. But then the children of these great Americans, through no fault of their own, find themselves taxed on money they didn't even earn! Liberals tax you when you earn money and they tax you when you don't earn money. They just tax indiscriminitely.

CtoC
Love when all you do is correct my typing mistakes... but how can one reply to:

All this ties together. America was founded by white, rich, Christian men. Low-lifes posting here have been assailing that class; America is a Christian nation and they hate America. We made America and America is here to serve us.

All the Irish, German, Italian, Slovak, etc. immigrants who came here don't count for anything...you see yourself as some kind of Lord and Master over others “America is here to SERVE us"

Come now!!!!!

CtoC "America was founded by white, rich, Christian men"

Seems you may be rewriting history, but most credit the 'founding' to those who came on the Mayflower.. Doubt they were all RICH and only MEN

CtoC "America was founded by white, rich, Christian men"

Seems you may be rewriting history, but most credit the 'founding' to those who came on the Mayflower.. Doubt they were all RICH and only MEN

Barney,
First off, I wasn’t talking to you.
Next, what are you talking about; State and local inheritance taxes?
Finally, regarding Zarqawi, that very thing happened to my cousin Abdul, and he told me that Jesus forgave him, but God and the US military was a little more hard-nosed.
Are you really this stupid, or are you making a joke here?

Tom Shipley

This is for you in regards to Ann Coulter...a little cartoon for you

http://newsbusters.org/gaggle/2006-06-07.png

Ohio Drinker

You can't really be as stupid as that, can you? I guess you can...

This great nation wasn't founded by the people who landed at Plymouth Rock. Perhaps the English COlony was settled by them, but the founding of the nation was done by the men -- the rich, white, Christian men --- who set down the laws and infrastructure of the nation.

And those Irish, Italians and other non-natives did not found the nation either. They partook in the bounty of the nation and helped grow the nation, but the nation was FOUNDED by rich, white Christian men.

What are you, stupid? (oops, asked and asnwered already)

Barney, I'm not in technical disagreement with you on the death tax. For a little perspective (and to avoid a lot of re-typing) here is an exchange I had this morning at The Strata Sphere:

Hmm the Death Tax

Tell me folks did any one see a spike in government revenues from the death tax when Sam Walton of Walmart fame passed from this earth?

I mean 30 or more percent of his estate should have caused a blip on the radar.

Actual effect was zilch , nada, zero and so forth.

The real effect of the death tax is on those that meet the minimums but don’t have enough to do the tax avoidance planning.

The mega money people know how to protect their stash.

The numbers being bantered about are high spook numbers of net value obtained if you considered the upper 1 percent to be subject to the tax. It is a total spin smokescreen, relying on any even superficial review of reality.

Wow am I suprised.

Left by MerlinOS2 on June 9th, 2006

****************************

Actual effect was zilch , nada, zero and so forth.

Slippin’ a little Spanish in on us, Merlin? Catering to the illegals who read this? Heh, just couldn’t resist, in light of SYN’s comments above.

Actually, your analysis about who pays the death tax and who doesn’t is right on the money. It would be interesting to see just how much of Sam Walton’s estate ended up in Federal coffers — not much, I’d wager, certainly not 55%. But die and leave behind a small tool and die company worth, oh say, 5 million, and see whether or not it stays in business after your kids sell it (or liquidate it) to pay the inheritance taxes.

I and over 98% of the population will never accumulate enough wealth to have to pay inheritance taxes, but that doesn’t make the tax any more right or fair. There is just something inherently repugnant to me about the government taking 55% (or 46%) of an individual’s estate at the time of death. (It’s just not their @$#%^&*! money!!) It does sound, however, according to the Yahoo News article AJ linked to, that there are some potential compromises on the table that most everyone could live with, but I’m not holding my breath. “Tax breaks for the rich” has been slogan numero uno (a little more Spanish lingo for you, Merlin, heh) for the Donks for about as long as I can remember. I don’t see them giving it up anytime soon.

Left by Retired Spook on June 9th, 2006

************************

Retired Spook

Those who actually pay the death tax were earning above average incomes over thier lifetimes. Thus they already were paying the highest marginal tax rates on the money they were accumulating. Sort of like a salmon heading upstream. When they die the goverment wants a large percentage of what they have already paid taxes on.

I have to admit though..I have an interest in this because I fit in your 2% group. But I am sheltered in many ways and that tax will have zero effect on my estate.

Fumbling around for some spanish lingo..nah

Left by MerlinOS2 on June 9th, 2006

***************************

The Haditha story is beginning to unravel faster than a cheap suit More here

Bane

Give it to him good!

Did you see how Barfey tried to drive a wedge between us in his earlier post? He is just desperate to get any traction to any of his feeble "arguments."

Keep tough, Bane, these commies are flailing in retreat!

I don't agree with CC...in fact I said last night he's really a liberal just like Keefer is (not keefer).

You guys have been great at the fraud voter game for years, why would that change on a blog where you guys take on other personalities.

The liberal hypocrisy never ends, whether it is in the voting booth, anchoring the nightly news or posing on a blog.

Bane of Liberals' Existence ---My father’s company had to be chopped up and the pieces sold to pay the taxes

I would suggest that some of the failure here was your father's fault.. a good lawyer could have easily protected the faily business and insured that it passed to the 'kids' or ever bypassed them if they had not interest or talent to a holding shell to be passed to the grandchildren.

But then again maybe he was one those individualist who felt only he knew how to run the shop and no damn lawyer was needed to tell him how to aarrange his affairs.

Just a thought - but I know many small business so protected by certain forms of 'keyman' insurance, well designed pension plans that have key man accrued bebefits paid tax free to the company to provide taxes... in fact most business do not need tax changes as they have found all the loopholes.

Warrior,

Franken did not call for Karl Rove to be executed. On letterman, he JOKINGLY said that it looks like Rove and Libby would be executed because GW Bush said outing a CIA agent is treason and treason is punishable by death.

Also, during his shtick, he says "Yeah. And I don't know how I feel about it because I'm basically against the death penalty, but they are going to be executed it looks like."

So, the cartoon incorrectly mistates what Franken was jokingly saying.

Coulter's statements on the other hand had not purpose by to spread vitriol.

http://newsbusters.org/node/2424

What are the exact phrases that Ann Coulter said that are wrong? And do those few items (if you can identify them) mean her argument is illegitimate? OR, does the response to her comments PROVE her argument is correct?

I think the reactions prove she is right.

FYI, The richest families in government almost all Democrats) like the Kennedy's, the Kerry's, and others have protected THEIR inherited money and the money they plan to pass on by putting them in overseas trusts. So.... they want to tax, but not pay the taxes themselves.

Warrior

How can you turn on me like that? I am as tried and true a conservative as you are likely to find.

Don't buy into this divisive BS the libbies on here are pushing. When it comes from their insane mouths I can take it, but it really cuts when it comes to my own brethren questioning my politics.

“Barney,
First off, I wasn’t talking to you.
Next, what are you talking about; State and local inheritance taxes?”

Bane, I didn’t know that I needed your approval.

All income is taxed in one way or another, so why is an inheritance any different? The survivors didn’t earn it. The reason, as stated by rico, was to prevent an accumulation of wealth by a few (the lucky sperm club). If Bush wants to take $2-trillion out of the federal coffers, than off-set the loss.

"Coulter's statements on the other hand had not purpose by to spread vitriol."

Ugh, "had NO purpose BUT to spread vitriol."

Kahn,

Don't have the exact quotes, but these are pretty close. And these are the ones that stick out for me:

"I've never seen women enjoy their husband's death as much."

"Who knows whether or not their husbands were planning on divorcing these harpies or not?"

One rule I have is you don't talk about other people's family. I don't care if you're left, right, or a Orkian. Have the respect not to talk about a person's private life in that way. ESPECIALLY in light of what these women have gone through.

Just digusting in my book.

Coulter's point (which could have been made without these comments) is that these women are in the limelight because of their husband's deaths.

Is John Walsh not allowed to go after America's Most Wanted because his son was decapitated? I guess he's "enjoying" his son's death as well.

Just a thought - but I know many small business so protected by certain forms of 'keyman' insurance, well designed pension plans that have key man accrued bebefits paid tax free to the company to provide taxes... in fact most business do not need tax changes as they have found all the loopholes.

OG, I guess you make my point. If most businesses have "found all the loopholes", then the tax must not generate enough revenue to be worth the fight that the Donks are putting up. Right?

Bane, can I assume your father didn't incorporate?Not Chapter S. I mean a real corporation.

I appreciate your plight, and I don't mean to make light of it. But it appears that even you admit that there are two competing ideals here: (1) all men are created equal, and as such should be afforded equal opportunity to succeed to the extent possible, and; (2) I am my father's son/daughter, and thus should be entitled to the rewards he worked hard to create. That's a stark dichotomy and one that is not easily reconciled.

The first (all men are created equal) is the ideal that is, IMHO, the one that set our country apart from all others when it was initially conceived. However imperfect the concept may have been applied initially (in other words, the concept of "all men" was interpreted somewhat more narrowly than it is now), it was a radical concept at the time. And it has been an exceedingly successful one because it intrinsically fosters personal initiative and innovation. Prior to that virtually every society was predicated on some notion of inherent, congenitally conferred priviledge. That to me suggests that there is a natural predeliction to think that way. Thus there is an inescapable tension between those two schools of thought -- one promotes initiative and invention, the other promotes protecting what you already have. And because of it, there's no question that there's a balancing test necessary.

I readily acknowledge that I didn't flesh out position in my previous post. This one won't do it much justice either. But at least it goes a little further. Either way, my primary intent is to get people to think about the true nature of the debate.

But I have two general questions. The first is to me -- Do I think all the issues surrounding the inheritance tax worthy of modification? Absolutely. But having said that, I'm not in favor of its repeal. I would like to see the loopholes closed and at that point the structure changed. I don't see passing on some wealth as a problem. Passing on "obscene" amounts (that is, amounts that absolve the progeny of actually having to engage in worthy endeavors to perpetuate their existence) is.

The second is to you: You're a bean counter. Your father was obviously a successful businessman. Didn't either of you see the inevitable coming? I don't mean to imply anything, I'm just asking. There's so many ways currently available to transfer wealth (particularly if you appreciate the inevitable and/or see it coming). Apparently that didn't happen. So I have to ask why. Again, I hope you don't take offense at my question.

Conservative,

The white guys who founded this nation where Diests.

"In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest" (August 6, 1816). "

How about the Jefferson Bible?

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823). "

or how about this doosey?

"In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33). "

How about Washington?

"Mercer asked if "Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all..." (John Remsberg, Six Historic Americans, p. 103). On August 15, 1835, White sent Mercer this reply

In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you (Remsberg, p. 104)."

"As for Washington's membership in the vestry, for several years he did actively serve as one of the twelve vestrymen of Truro parish, Virginia, as had also his father. This, however, cannot be construed as proof that he was a Christian believer. The vestry at that time was also the county court, so in order to have certain political powers, it was necessary for one to be a vestryman."

"In a separate submission to the New York Times, Conway said that "Washington, like most scholarly Virginians of his time, was a Deist.... Contemporary evidence shows that in mature life Washington was a Deist, and did not commune, which is quite consistent with his being a vestryman. In England, where vestries have secular functions, it is not unusual for Unitarians to vestrymen, there being no doctrinal subscription required for that office. Washington's letters during the Revolution occasionally indicate his recognition of the hand of Providence in notable public events, but in the thousands of his letters I have never been able to find the name of Christ or any reference to him" (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 129-130"

Ric,
For openers, I was in collage when my father died, if dad were alive today his business would be protected. The company was a sole-proprietorship; today it would be a LLC. He was only in his 60’s; he was a terrific businessman, but lousy at estate planning.

But, that’s not really the point; you and Baloney are looking at this from the perspective of the child who wishes to inherit the fruits of the father’s work. I’m looking at it from dad’s perspective. All of his adult life he felt that his immortality was what he left behind; and before he died he was proud that he could leave to his sons the company he built, and the resources he accumulated. He wasn’t making money to take it with him; he worked all his life to make his sons’ lives better than his.

Now assume that dad inherited the family farm, and wants his son to take it over on his passing; now assume that it’s the family department store, with your family’s name over the door. You and dad are dentists, or doctors that own a medical practice, or lawyers O’Ryan and Son, Dad paid taxes on every cent of income (and the local government doesn’t collect taxes on revenue, Barney-bonehead) and yet when he assumes room temperature, the government comes in and re-taxes the entire asset before it can be passed to the heirs (and local authorities don’t collect taxes on inheritance, Baloney-bonehead). Now, what gives them the right to take whatever they deem, from the assets already taxed?

With all due respect, Ric (Baloney, you can go screw yourself) who are you to decide how much is too much to pass to your children? Will you make this regressive; if dad had 4 sons he can pass on $2.0 million, but if he had 14 sons it could be $7.0 million; and what of the grandchildren? And what of his church and his charities, and what of the family pet, Fluffy? Will you deny Dad’s right to leave the bulk of his estate to his faithful cat?

Being a bit selective, aren't we?
"During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible. His “Inaugural Address” was filled with numerous religious references, and following that address, he and the Congress “proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Divine service was performed.”
Finally, in his “Farewell Address,” Washington reminded the nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. . . . The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.

Washington - indisputably a constitutional expert - declared that religion and morality were inseparable from government, and that no true patriot, whether politician or clergyman, would attempt to weaken the relationship between government and the influence of religion and morality.

Or why not cite the actions of the entire body of Founding Fathers? For example, in 1800, when Washington, D. C., became the national capital and the President moved into the White House and Congress into the Capitol, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building for Christian worship services. In fact, Christian worship services on Sunday were also started at the Treasury Building and at the War Office."
From James Madison and Religion in Public

by David Barton

TEO, "The white guys who founded this nation where Diests." You certainly swallowed revisionist history. Most of the "white guys" where devout Christians and only a minority where Diests. I believe Thomas Jefferson was one of them.

Bane/KttR,

Point taken gentlemen, but you obviously see that our country was not lockstep christians, infact a portion of the major founders attributed with the majority of political theory had views that did not include Christ as the basis for this country, so to me when someone says that this country owes its roots to christians you miss the fact that our founding fathers, atleast a portion of the corner-stone founders saw it quite otherwise, and made many public and private remarks stating that the man should be ruled by laws, not books and mythology.

I receive this letter via email yesterday. Just want to share it with you. If this letter doesn't open your eyes as to what is going on here in the USA, that we are becoming second class citizens and quickly losing our rights, that Illegals have more rights than we do. If we don't start to speak up and take a stand, or just don't care to defend our country we will lose everything that is important and great about our country.

Subject: THIS IS NOT RIGHT

Here is a letter that a friend of mine here in Emporia is hoping that
the local paper, THE EMPORIA GAZETTE, will publish. Please feel free to
pass this on to anyone who you think might be interested. Due to
security concerns, I will not include his name.

Dear editor: (Due to the nature of my service and as a security issue
please withhold my name, if at all possible.)

I am a member of the Kansas Army National Guard. I am a former marine
as well. I returned home from 15 month's active duty in Kosovo last
January. I am scheduled to re-deploy June 4 th of this year for another
18 months and I will be serving in a war zone which I am not at liberty
to disclose. I volunteered for this duty as an opportunity to serve my
country again.

On Monday, May 1st, I was at the Lyon County Fairgrounds to observe the
immigration rally. On my truck I proudly displayed both the American
flag and the flag of the United States Marines.

Within minutes of arriving at the parking lot I was approached by no
less than 4 law enforcement vehicles and several officers. I was ordered
to immediately remove the flags from my vehicle.
When I attempted to ask why, an officer replied, "Shut your mouth and go
home". I was told if I didn't comply that I would be arrested without
delay for disorderly conduct. There was no opportunity to reason with
the police. I was given an ultimatum and was forced to comply or forfeit
my freedom.

I'll not go into the obvious implications that this incident raises. I
will leave it to you and to your readers to explain how it is that as a
citizen and solider I was not allowed to display the flag of the nation
that I serve and protect. Meanwhile I stood in a sea of flags from
foreign nations, some waived by hand, others attached to vehicles. I was
also profanely insulted by one of the demonstrators who himself was
flying a Mexican flag from his vehicle.

I would ask that each of you who read this ponder the inference of the
actions of the officers in question, what it says about our country at
present and the ominous implications of the future.
The immigration issue is not a joke; it is a matter of huge proportion
concerning the security of our nation and the safety of our people.

I have seen a lot in my military career and many things have moved me
deeply but not until this heartbreaking incident was I literally reduced
to tears. The disrespect and outright hatred shown to me by both the
demonstrators and by the law enforcement officers of my own hometown was
heartrending.
Some might question just exactly what I am serving for. I hope you can
find the answer in your own hearts. My conviction to serve still does
not waver.

Bonnie

jwr,
I don't find a record of Kansas National Guard currently serving in Kosovo, the last Kansas Guardsmen returned from Kosovo in December 2000.
But, I'm just going by the Kansas National Guard website.

http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060608/NEWS09/606080387/1001/NEWS

Something we can laugh at, bye

God Bless Ann Coulter for having the courage to come out and attack the widows who have questioned President Bush! What is it with these "broads," as Ann calls them? They should be honored that their husbands were sacrificed in a disaster of incomprehensible proportions that President Bush was able to use to his advantage in his efforts to get re-elected. They shouldn't be allowed to use 9/11 to promote a political cause, unless of course it's a conservative political cause.
And isn't it funny how Ann made jokes about their grieving nature? If you can't laugh about a woman losing her husband and a kids losing their father, then what the hell can you laugh about?

How many of you reactionaries would be so quick to endorse Ann Coulter if she looked like Harriet Meiers?

Something we can all laugh at:
http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060608/NEWS09/606080387/1001/NEWS

jwr,

All I can say is WOW! I can't remember when a post hit me between the eyes like yours did. As a retired veteran, I can relate to how the letter writer must have felt. As an American, I can't relate to the rationale used by the police officers. Surely the potential exists for future confrontations like this to end in bloodshed, and that would be tragic.

Tom....Franken did say that on the Today Show. That's the point of the cartoon. Matt Laurer fawning over Franken's comments but apparently having a significant problem with Coulter's.

Jack Demons

Be careful, or someone might think you are being sarcastic.

Frankly, though, I applaud what you say. Indeed, who ARE this Jersey Cows that feel the death of their "loved" ones (TBD) entitles them to special rights in making government policy.

In a time of war, we must all get behind the President, and these "broads" are definitely using their 15 mins. for harm.

I, too, find the so-called grief of these insurance-policy queens to be amusing...though the treason involved takes the edge off my mirth.

Bane,
Your response pretty much confirmed my suspicions. And although you didn't say as much, I'm also guessing that your father's heart attack was very much unexpected.

I don't have an easy answer for you. All I can do is point out some things upon which we apparently contend. But before I do that let me state for the record that I am not fundamentally opposed to most of Bush's tax cuts. I'm not even fundamentally opposed to an overhaul of the whole estate tax situation either. In both cases, however, I think the political emphasis has been more on symbolism than real substance. And I am fundamentally opposed to the repeal of the estate tax. Let me explain.

In general, tax cuts are politically easy. After all, everyone is in favor of paying less taxes. Everything else being equal, you'd have to be brain-dead not to be. The hard part is balancing them with spending cuts. And in the present case, the opposite has happened -- tax cuts have occurred in the presence of spending increases. And that's only on the federal level. Some "taxes" (actually, some obligations, particularly by way of education) have been deferred to state and local levels (and thus must be paid for by state and local taxes) -- a fact which I consider close to criminal on the part of our federal legislators. It is tantamount to robbing Peter to pay Paul. I've communicated at some length with my congresscritters on that subject. But it is, indeed, another (lengthy) subject.

Back to the subject at hand...

You said: "But, that’s not really the point; you and Baloney are looking at this from the perspective of the child who wishes to inherit the fruits of the father’s work. I’m looking at it from dad’s perspective. All of his adult life he felt that his immortality was what he left behind; and before he died he was proud that he could leave to his sons the company he built, and the resources he accumulated. He wasn’t making money to take it with him; he worked all his life to make his sons’ lives better than his."

Okay, this may be a little hard to say without royally pissing you off. But I think it's worth saying anyway...

Are you saying that your father judged his worth on basis of the worldly possessions he thought he would leave behind? More to the point, is that the sum parcel of the legacy you believe he intended to leave you? If it's true, I don't know what to say. And if it is, you might want to reconsider your priorities. But I don't think it is. I think, when all is said and done, you appreciate the intangibles that he left you -- the attitudes, thoughts, opinions, and hopefully above all the morals that you carry around with you every waking moment of your every day -- and you understand them to be more invaluable than any monetary legacy that he may have conferred.

I do. Even now, 20 years after his death, I look at the world through my father's eys. I am him, at least in miniature. My father was a great man, and the best I can ever hope to achieve is a fraction of what he achieved as a person. Granted, I make more money than he ever did. More importantly (at least to me, and I pray to him as well) I did it in the way he always wanted to do it: I have had my own company for the last 20 years. Without him I would have never tried. I mean that figuratively -- through the incentive that he instilled in me. He died while I was setting the business up, so he never saw it come to fruition. He never quite succeeded himself, so I did it for him. I did it for myself as well, of course, but I managed through the hard years because it was important to me, for his sake, not to fail. I stood on his shoulders, and now he's the angel that stands on mine. I become more like my dad with each passing day. And that, to me, is the proper way to construe familial legacy.

Having said all that, perhaps in my case it was easy. When my dad died all he left us was alone (note the chords of the Temptations welling in the background, lol!). I exaggerate, but that's how it has worked out. 20 years hence, my mom is still alive. Now my siblings and I are contributing to her care. We're glad to do it, of course. But it does bring up another completely different issue -- namely, where would she be without us? But that's another topic.

jwr said: "I receive this letter via email yesterday. Just want to share it with you."

I received the same exact email last month. So far I haven't been able to track down its authenticity. Then again, I didn't try all that hard. It has kind of a "flavor" to it, if you know what I mean. Kansas National Guard? In Kosovo? Can't divulge the friend's name for security reasons? This supposed incident occurred at the Lyon County Fair? Hmmm...

The same email has been reproduced on various blogs verbatim as well. I dunno, it smells fishy to me. Something doesn't compute.

CttC said: "Jack Demons... Be careful, or someone might think you are being sarcastic."

Has anyone ever pondered what Steven Colbert might look like in a blonde wig and a slinky black coctail dress?

Methinks we have a new species of troll under our bridge.

The gift that keeps on giving. Murta announces he is seeking the position of House majority leader! Yehaw! MSM carry the ball please, keep on giving. Play up your favorite! Yehaw!

What a team. Pelosi, Dean, Kerry, Murta, Kennedy, Schumer, Gore. Yehaw! Keep on giving! MSM support the nutcases.

It is clear that C to the C is not conservative, merely parading around as one and making a mockery of the true conservatives on this site.

C to the C -- Not cool man. Now show your true colors.

it smells fishy to me. Something doesn't compute.

I had the same initial reaction, Rico. In fact, before I posted my earlier response, I searched about 6 different ways on snopes.com and came up with nothing. Later I came up with this on a Goggle search of "Kansas immigration rally". Like you, I'm thinking it doesn't pass the smell test. I would like to think it's not true.

Third,

As it turns out, I'm reading Coulter's new book right now - it is the first Coulter book I've ever purchased; wanted to see what all the fuss is about.

What most strikes me as I'm reading it is that as a matter of over-the-top statements, Coulter's comments on the Jersey Girls are (a) rather short and (b) not nearly as over-the-top as other Coulter statements in the book. Methinks we've got an example here of highly selective outrage...I'll be reviewing the book here on the blog once I've finished it.

All of you lefties who are down on Ann Coulter don't seem to be offended by the many lefties who have called for the assasination of the President and the VP, or called either or both of them all sorts of vile and repugnant names.

Coulter's point is well made, if a little over the top. These victims have been elevated to the status of liberal sainthood. Anyone who dares challenge their pronouncements is committing political blasphemy.

And in fairness to Coulter, the whole paragraph should be quoted:

After getting their payments jacked up, the weeping widows took to the airwaves to denounce George Bush, apparently for not beaming himself through space from Florida to New York and throwing himself in front of the second building at the World Trade Center. These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all of our lives reduced. But they believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparantly, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths do much.

And, of course, the whole chapter is about how the Democrats use people like the Jersey Girls because of their supposed imperivious moral stature - people who, like Sheehan, Murtha and Cleland are supposed to be immune to criticism because of what happened to them or what they did in the past.

What the Democrats are really upset about is the fact that people are not allowing people to be used as a political bludgeon without any sort of counter-actions.

For the cut-and-run crowd, cut-and-run to where? British Coalition forces have this to come home to-

Is this Saudi Arabia or Britain? Pictures-
UK Muslims: "British Police Go To Hell"
"Tony Blair Crusader"
Muslim misogyny in East London

Islam is transforming the United Kingdom into an Islamic nation. Sad. It is a Global War on Terrorism and national security is not a political issue.

Anne Coulter is worthless.

Ann Coulter for president, Tommie! Tommie is as worthless as the biased DBM.

The Jersey Girls sure do enjoy making money and fame off of dead people...

Anne Coulter is worthless.

Ann Coulter for president, Tommie! Tommie is as worthless as the biased DBM.

The Jersey Girls sure do enjoy making money and fame off of dead people...

Ann Coulter is our Michael Moore, with one major difference--Ann's radicalism is based on fact, while Moore's is based on propaganda and a dumbed-down following. Like Tom Shipley. And Ash. And Barney. And axis. And TurdEye. And jack demaris. And any other kook who doesn't think without marching orders from Harry Reid-tard...

Global War on Terror: The Homefront

VIDEO: California, USA or Saudi Arabia? Yossi Olmert (brother of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert) speaks at University of California, Urvine.-VIDEO

PICTURE: Saudi Arabia or Canada?-Canadian Women dressed in Burkas

PICTURE: 17 Canadian Muslim Terror Suspects

Rosie DiManno-Toronto Star: Canada! "Take a good, hard look at what’s going on here."

Picture-London: Muslim in mock suicide bomber outfit

LONDONISTAN: HOW BRITAIN'S HABITUAL APPEASEMENT OF ISLAMISM REAPS TERROR-June 4, 2006

National Post-Canada
"TORONTO - A Canadian counter-terrorism investigation that led to the arrests of 17 people accused of plotting bombings in Ontario is linked to probes in a half-dozen countries, the National Post has learned."

"Well before police tactical teams began their sweeps around Toronto on Friday, at least 18 related arrests had already taken place in Canada, the United States, Britain, Bosnia, Denmark, Sweden, and Bangladesh."

Ah Ann Coulter made some ridiculous statements in the MSM. I doubt even she believes them. She just wanted to sell her book. She is probably laughing at how easy it was.

Here is my favorite AC quote:

"Just make the argument. Be a man. Step up to the plate."

Well if anyone knows about being a man, its that tall skinny blonde chick that wears short skirts and an Adams apple!

Interested in what different bloggers' opinions are on the theory of Peak Oil. I believe it's reality and, fortunately, a rather non-partisan issue.

Anyone have any thoughts on Peak Oil?

I am particularly interested in its impact on the market.

Gee, another Republican special interest victory, the end of net neutrality has passed the house.

Good job, now it just needs to pass the senate and then the Telcos can hold the internet for hostage, slowing it down to a crawl unless people pony up big $$$ to them

------------------

Commentary: Keep the Internet neutral, fair and free

By Craig Newmark
Special to CNN

Friday, June 9, 2006; Posted: 6:04 p.m. EDT (22:04 GMT)

Editor's note: Craig Newmark is the founder and customer service representative of craigslist.org, an online community that helps people find jobs, places to live or other services unique to their city. In 2005, Time magazine named him one of America's most influential people.

Mike McCurry presents an opposing viewpoint in an accompanying commentary.
story.newmark.jpg
Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist.org, wants to keep the Internet "neutral."
Ad Telecommunication
Refurbished ADC equipment. Buy, sell, new, used refurbished equipment often...
www.firsttechcommunications.com
ADC Telecommunications: Company Info
Go to Hoover's for information on operations and products, financials, officers,...
www.hoovers.com
ADC Telecommunication
Find Deals on adc telecommunication and other Computer Hardware at DealTime....
www.dealtime.com
More Useful Links
• Online Book Stores
• Fresh Flowers
• Women's Apparel

RELATED
Commentary: Mike McCurry argues again 'net neutrality'
• House passes telecommunications bill
• Coming soon: The Web toll
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Yahoo! Incorporated
BellSouth Corporation
Wireless Phones
Internet Service Providers
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This?

(CNN) -- Most Americans believe that if you play fair and work hard, you'll get ahead. But this notion is threatened by legislation passed Thursday night by the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow Internet service providers to play favorites among different Web sites.

Here's a real world example that shows how this would work. Let's say you call Joe's Pizza and the first thing you hear is a message saying you'll be connected in a minute or two, but if you want, you can be connected to Pizza Hut right away. That's not fair, right? You called Joe's and want some Joe's pizza. Well, that's how some telecommunications executives want the Internet to operate, with some Web sites easier to access than others. For them, this would be a money-making regime.

Next stop is the Senate. If this becomes law, your Yahoo Inc. e-mail account could operate more slowly, unless Yahoo ponies up big bucks to the major telecommunication companies that bring the Internet into your home. By the same token, your craigslist classifieds (I'm the Craig from craigslist) could grind to a halt, unless my company pays up. This is not fair.

Telecommunication companies already control the pipes that carry the Internet into your home. Now they want control which sites you visit and how you experience them. They would provide privileged access for themselves and their preferred partners while charging other businesses for varying levels of service.

But why change a good thing? Right now, the Internet is a level playing field for everyone. The wonky term for this is "Net neutrality." When the Internet is neutral, everyone can use it, just like everyone can use public roads or airwaves. All businesses on the Internet get an equal shot at success.

Here's how Susan Crawford, a professor of cyberlaw and intellectual property at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, puts it:

"Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along? The traditional telephone model has been that the telephone company doesn't get paid more if you have a particularly meaningful call -- they're just providing a neutral pipe."

That's the gist of the issue. The telecom executives tell us that they can be trusted to play fair to let all companies, and not just their paying partners, be equally accessible from homes eve