A Letter From the Editor.
Payne and Pleasure the new collum written by my good friend William Payne. We at The Corner are excited to have William on the staff. Some of his views are controversial, and if you disagree with him you are more than welcome to e-mail him and tell him so. However, as long as I'm running this site, William, as well as any columnist for The Corner have carte blanche to say whatever they want in their columns. If nothing else, it should keep things interesting around here: So without further ado...
His Curtains Are Made Out of Hemp
DALLAS, Texas (Reuters) -- President Bush has a new neighbor in Crawford, Texas -- a peace activist who plans to use his house near the president's ranch as a springboard to speak out on issues such as a war with Iraq. John Wolf, a peace activist from the Dallas area, recently completed paperwork to buy a home in Crawford, a town of less than 1,000 people. He plans to use the facility as an interfaith peace house that can serve as a base to launch peace protests near the ranch Bush calls the Western White House. "I wish the peace house was already up and running," Wolf said. The house, near city hall, is one of the first structures T that visitors to Crawford see after passing along a sign on the highway that welcomes people to town and reminds them it is the "Home of President George W. Bush". Crawford Mayor Robert Campbell told the Dallas Morning News the town will keep a close eye on the peace house. Campbell was not immediately available for comment. "We're not going to let them turn the town into a three-ring circus," Campbell told the paper. "If they want to protest, let them go to Washington." Wolf said people of many different faiths, such as Muslims, Catholics and Quakers, will work out of the house. He plans for the facility to have a peace garden, a media center and facilities for interfaith worship. The house was purchased for $54,000 and is about seven miles away from the front entrance of the Bush ranch. "We are anything but threatening," he said. -CNN.com/Inside Politics
Honestly. I feel sorry for President Bush. Soon enough his hippie neighbor will start having out of control drunken raves in his hppy house or whatever he calls it. No one like should be able to own a home near that of our President. Dirty hippies...
Roe, Roe, Roe v. Wade your boat
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Opening debate in Congress, senators hoping to ban a procedure they call partial-birth abortion expressed confidence Monday that they have the political clout to prevail after an eight-year struggle. "I think the odds are very good," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, who made the measure a top priority of the new GOP majority. Opponents did not dissent on that, and even before the first word was uttered on the Senate floor, the head of an abortion-rights organization was looking past President Bush's promised signature on the legislation to a court fight. "We will challenge it, absolutely, without question," said Kate Michelman, head of NARAL Pro-Choice America. Congress has twice passed legislation banning the procedure, which is a type of late-term abortion that doctors refer to as an "intact D and E." Former President Clinton vetoed the bill both times. Congress appeared ready to pass a third measure in 2000, but halted its efforts after the Supreme Court struck down a state law with many similarities. The House passed a reworked version of the bill last year, but majority Democrats refused to schedule a debate in the Senate. Republicans won control of the Senate in last fall's elections, though, and promptly placed the bill on their list of top 10 priorities. And Bush, in his State of the Union address, asked lawmakers "to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion." Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, a longtime advocate for the measure, said the bill "directly addresses the constitutional problems that the Supreme Court put forward." Michelman disagreed, and also noted that despite strong public support for the legislation in previous polls, voters in three states have rejected late-term abortion bans when given the chance to vote. Emotional debates
Debates on previous legislation along the lines of this year's bill have often been emotional, as supporters described the procedure in gruesome detail and critics called the bill a stalking horse for a broader assault on abortion rights. More of the same seemed in store for this year's debate, as well. "This is legislation that says enough is enough for this kind of brutal, savage late-term abortions," Santorum said at a news conference. "It is important for the American public to understand that President Bush and the Congress have taken aim at a woman's right to choose, and they are relentless in their assault on reproductive rights," Michelman said in an interview. Supporters say the bill is designed to ban one particular type of abortion that they say is customarily performed late in a woman's pregnancy. Critics argue, though, that it would ban more than one type of procedure, and that it lacks an exemption to protect the health of the mother that the Supreme Court has ruled is necessary in limiting the right to abortion that was declared in a 1973 ruling. In a 5-4 ruling in 2000 that struck down a Nebraska late-term abortion statute, the Supreme Court said that law was vaguely worded and created an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion. The court also ruled that the state law was deficient because it failed to provide an exemption for the health of the mother. The new bill's sponsors used an unusual approach to try and address the health issue. Although the legislation is slightly more than 18 pages long, the first 15 pages are rhetorical, stating that a "partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health and lies outside the standard of care."
Well well well. The abortion debate comes up in Congress. I wonder what will happen. First, let me describe the partial-birth abortion procedure to you. Labor is induced. As the baby begins to emerge, the abortion doctor/witch doctor keeps the baby's head just inside the uterus. Then the back of the baby's skull, as he or she is kicking and possibly even crying if it is late enough in the pregnancy, is stabbed by the witch doctor and a vacuum sucks the child's brain out. The baby's corpse is then removed and disposed of. Now I'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the real world (notice that doesn''t ionclude the angry mob over at NOW and NARAL) who thinks this is a woman's "right." Much less a "Constitutionally-endowed right" as those whores (you have to have had an abortion to be in the NARAL management) at NARAL call it. Now, as last I checked, the Constitution and its Amendments don't mention ANYTHING on any topic that has to do even remotely with a woman's "fundamental right" to kill a child. Perhaps those loose constructionalists on the Supreme Court have discovered a new clause in the document that no one else saw. Or, more likely, they wrote a new Amendment that was never approved by anyone but 9 crotchety old people who haven't seen the sun since Hoover was President. Thats the entire logic behind liberals on the Supreme Court- don't let the people decide, write a new constitution youself with each case! Perhaps we should overturn Roe and *******GOD FORBID******* let the people on a state-by-state basis decide. I urge you to support Senator Frist and his drive to outlaw this abominable procedure.
I see London, I see France, I see...hey what's that in Iraq?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite plenty of criticism of France's resistance to U.S. military action in Iraq, Congress so far has done little to move legislation punishing the country for its anti-war stance. Rep. Jim Saxton, R-New Jersey, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, has led the way, introducing bills to discourage American citizens and bar the Pentagon from participating in the Paris Air Show this year. Another Saxton measure would block French companies from participating in or receiving U.S. government financing in any postwar reconstruction of Iraq. But there's no immediate prospect for action on Saxton's bills, and few other signs that Congress plans punitive measures against France. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-California, said last month that irritation against France will not lead to legislative sanctions. "The primary reaction is kind of sadness and disappointment," he said. "There are folks who make rash statements. Those won't be translated into policy." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, is considering a bill that would require labeling on French wine using bovine blood to make murky wine clearer. The European Union banned bovine blood in wine a half-dozen years ago, but older vintages might still contain the material. Hastert's spokesman, John Feehery, said the measure, if introduced, would be aimed more at the trade policies of France and other European countries restricting imports of American agriculture products than at France's role in leading the coalition of U.N. members opposing immediate military action against Saddam Hussein's government.
The reluctance to punish a longtime ally has not stopped the rhetoric. "France and Germany are losing credibility by the day, and they are losing, I think, status in the world," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said last month. "They are walking a fine line that is very dangerous." Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pennsylvania, also an Armed Services Committee member, on Friday sent letters to the French and German embassies in Washington: "Your constant opposition to America's efforts to remove a regime that has continually violated several, if not all of the human rights provisions within the United Nations charter and presents an increasing threat to democracies all over the world is nothing short of appalling," he wrote. He concluded that Americans and Congress "will not soon forget the rank hypocrisy and blatant disloyalty displayed by your country today."
So- the frogs. What are they up to these days? Why, of course! Opposing the United States for no other reason than to get the word "France" in international headlines. An attack on Iraq doesn't concern France in the least of ways. Too bad Harry Truman collapsed to the awesome (haha) pressure of French then-Generalissmo Charles de Gaulle and allowed the French a PERMANENT seat on the UN Security Council. Let's list the military accomplisments of the French:
1. The Franco-Prussian War- France puts up an amazing less-than-a-year struggle that ended with German troops marching down the streets of Paris. The notoriously unstable Third Republic is created afgter the Frenchman spend some time killing eachother in the era of the Commune of Paris.
2. World War I- France is driven back toward Paris. They almost surrender until General Pershing and the AEF and His Majesty's Army drive the Germans back past Rhineland.
3. World War II- After an enduring stuggle of a few months, the French Army --guess what-- SURRENDERS!! Some of the troops get evacuated to the United Kingdom. Frenchman don't even consider even THINKING about perhaps opposing an invasion of their homeland. Charles de Gualle whines and causes problems for Churchill. Americans and Britons once again save France.
4. The First Indochina War- France and its legenday generals who won (haha) the aforementioned wars decided to take on Ho Chi Minh and the evil communist Vietnamese. France and its larger and more technologically advanced army is once again defeated at Dien Bien Phu and practice their favorite skill- SURRENDERING!
Obviously, the French aren't that good at fighting wars. In fact, that might be the reason they don't want to go to war- they'll surrender again. They might just be doing us a good service- not volunteering to fight the war for us. But as for their products being banned, I don't know if any of us could survive that. What if we didn't have French cheeses? We wouldn't have all the products made by mixing milk with all the different kinds of bacteria that can be found in the hairy armpits of French women. All 400-some odd of them. And French Wine- I don't think I could live without the wine made from grapes that have been crushed and squeezed by the bodies of the French- who don't shower. Perhaps if we ban all these products we can make all the Frenchmen loose their jobs and destroy their economy. But they could still sell Saddam and Kim Jong-Il Exocet missiles by the bushel.
Cordially,
William Payne
Bush-Rice 2004!
KBH, Now and Forever!
Send Feedback to William Payne
|
