There is a lot being written these days about Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorists. But have you stopped to consider who the real enemies are?
Given John Ashcroft, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden – which one do you think has the most power to eliminate freedom in this country?
You probably know who Saddam and Osama are but do you know who John Ashcroft is? He is Attorney General of the United States of America and he has some frightening ideas about your freedom. His ideas are that he knows better what is right for you than you do. He had a curtain pulled around the statue of Lady Justice in the Justice Department. Why? Because one of her breasts was bare. He has proclaimed that Playboy Magazine is probably obscene, and therefore illegal. He supported the prosecutions of two men in Houston, Texas, who were engaged in consensual sodomy in the privacy of their own residence, the police burst in and arrested them, resulting in a case that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, who had the intelligence to see that sodomy law for what it was and struck it down. The fact that in this day and age it even had to go that far is frightening.
Here is what he had to say at a recent conference on “obscenity” in Columbia, SC.:
“Obscenity invades our homes persistently through the mail, phone, VCR, cable TV, and now the Internet. This multi-million dollar industry with links to organized crime has strewn its victims from coast-to-coast. Never before has so much obscene material been so easily accessible to minors.
The Internet is perhaps the most pernicious medium for obscenity. The Internet is a double edged sword: on one hand, it is an amazing tool that provides children a wealth of educational resources and gives them access to cultures and ideas that are beyond their everyday experiences. On the other hand, it also serves as a conduit for child exploitation and obscenity that respects no boundaries and recognizes no jurisdictional lines.
It is estimated that nine out of ten children between the ages of eight and sixteen have been exposed to obscene material on the Internet. In most of these cases, this exposure is accidental and occurs when a child – often in the process of doing homework – uses a seemingly innocent sounding word to search for information or pictures.
In addition to harming children directly, obscenity has tremendous consequences for our broader society. For instance, clinical and experimental evidence show a correlation between exposure to sexually violent materials and an increase in aggressive behavior directed towards women.
Child molesters often use obscene material to seduce their prey, to lower the inhibitions of the victim, and to serve as an instruction manual. Pedophiles and sexual predators have perverted the intent of the Internet: they use it to distribute obscenity, engage in sexually explicit conversations with children, and seek potential victims in chat rooms.
Most Americans do not want their homes besieged by an avalanche of obscenity and they support overwhelmingly vigorous enforcement of federal laws against Internet obscenity. The Supreme Court has agreed that obscenity is an appropriate subject for law enforcement.”
OK on the surface this may all sound reasonable to you, but one thing is certain, Mr. Ashcroft is not intent on regulating what children can access on the internet. He is intent on accessing what you and I, as adults, can access on the Internet. And it doesn’t stop there either. You see we call the internet “the information superhighway” and superhighways are designed for fast access and heavy volume. Would you let your child play on a superhighway? Do we really want to reduce the Internet to only that which is safely viewed by children?
And it doesn’t stop there. You see Mr Ashcroft is soundly against abortion, he doesn’t believe that should be a personal choice, he doesn’t want you to be able to get information on RU486 either. Where does this stop? With the “Ministry of Propoganda”?
I tell you where it needs to stop. It needs to stop in 2004. As a general rule I support a lot of George Bush’s policy decisions but I cannot support him as long as he continues to roll over for the Christian terrorists.
I am all for limiting the access of adult content, so that children do not accidentally or intentionally stumble upon it. But as they always do they wear the cloak of “protecting the children” to push an agenda of draconian censorship. Tell me how he has protected the children by covering that statue?
Is this the guy you want playing traffic cop on the information superhighway?
We interrupt the collective orgasm of the “Bush lied” crowd:
to remind them to listen to what former Iraqi weapons inspector David Kay is actually saying, rather than what they want to hear.
The headlines were swift in their condemnation of the Iraq invasion after Kay testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday. “No WMDs In Iraq” and “no stockpiles found” dominated the news of the day. This was going to be the coming out party for the Bush -haters and their buddies on the left. Not so fast.
Kay testified he believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the war, as did the German intelligence service and even French President Jacques Chirac. Now keep in mind, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, used them and concealed them. He was also in clear violation of 12 years of UN resolutions. There is no disputing that. All Kay is talking about is the intelligence not leading them to any WMD since the war ended.
Kay even states in his testimony that the Iraqi security service used the looting after the regime fell to cover their WMD program’s tracks and destroy evidence. He does not believe anyone in the Bush administration deceived the American people, and agrees that removing Saddam Hussein was a good idea that has made the world a safer place. All he is saying is the intelligence wasn’t very good, and needs to be improved. It’s going to be the Democrats like John Kerry that are going to have to answer for cutting the CIA’s budget in the past.
The bottom line: nothing new here, folks. The liberals really had such high hopes for pinning this on Bush in November. Guess they’ll have revert to the old standbys of class warfare and the deficit.
SPEAKING OF THE FRENCH….THIS IS GOING TO GET GOOD
Now we are going to finally start finding out why countries like France, Germany and Russia were so opposed to the liberation of Iraq. They were afraid that they would be exposed and embarrassed for helping Iraq cheat during all those years of UN sanctions. The first report of this is a real bombshell.
According to documents retrieved from Saddam Hussein’s oil ministry, he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the invasion of Iraq. You’ve got to be kidding me….these are the same hypocrites that accused us of trading blood for oil, when it was they who were really concerned about the oil in the first place!
One former ambassador that had long been suspicious of French motives for opposing the war said “oil runs thicker than blood.” It sure does. What a bunch of lying losers. According to the Iraqi Governing Council, the documents list 46 companies, individuals and organizations outside of Iraq that were accepting Saddam’s oil bribes. They include officials in Egypt, Syria, the PLO, the Russian Communist Party and China, among others.
Remember, when somebody says it’s not about the money (or in this case the oil,) it always is.
