If you are unable to view html within your email program please use the following link to view Chuck Muth's latest News and Views: http://chuckmuth.com/newsandviews/nv.cfm To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.chuckmuth.com/remove X-ListMember: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________ CHUCK MUTH�S NEWS & VIEWS April 27, 2004 To view the HTML version of today�s News & Views, just go to: http://www.chuckmuth.com/newsandviews/nv.cfm _____________________________________ BEATING A DEAD HORSE �Weapons of mass destruction? Another dead horse. Whether you were pro-war or anti-war had nothing to do with WMDs. . . . For most pro-war Americans, the need to whack Saddam was more important than the pretext on which he was whacked.� - Columnist Mark Steyn BLIND IGNORANCE �It is not a formidable argument that the only terrorist threat to the United States resided in Afghanistan. That�s thinking with blinders on - and with no sense of history.� - Columnist Jay Ambrose OPEN SEASON �When four contractors get lynched and hung off a bridge in Fallujah, poor, foolish Sen. Robert Byrd may think it's time for an �exit strategy,� but most Americans want to see the thugs who did it hunted down and killed.� - Columnist Mark Steyn UNLEASH THE THUNDER �President Bush has decided against mounting a full-scale attack on insurgents in Fallujah because the administration is worried about how it would make us look in Iraq and throughout the Arab world.� I'll tell you how an assault on Fallujah would make us look.� It would make us look strong, determined and decisive.� And not attacking the insurgents in Fallujah will make us look weak and indecisive. The only way the Islamic terrorists in Iraq are going to be crushed is if we unleash the full strength of the United States military.� This nibbling around the edges business with joint Iraqi police and Marine patrols ain't cutting it.� Time for a little shock and awe.� - Talk show host Neal Boortz, 4/26/04 FORGET THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS �Sooner or later the Baath remnants, jihadists and criminals who have used Fallujah as a sanctuary have to be killed. They can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with, because for them a peaceful transition to Iraqi control after June 30 means defeat.� - Wall Street Journal editorial, 4/26/04 UN-SCAM ��(I)t's clear that Washington never really had a chance of winning U.N. Security Council support for military action there because prominent people in France and Russia were being paid off by ex-dictator Saddam Hussein, who was stealing money from the Oil for Food program.� - Washington Times editorial, 4/26/04 RUDY TO THE RESCUE? President Bush appointed U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte to the newly created position of Ambassador to Iraq. The New York Post has since suggested that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) be the president�s choice to replace Negroponte at the United Nations. And James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal thinks it�s a killer idea, as well. �Apart from the president himself, it's hard to think of any more powerful spokesman and symbol for America's war on terror than Rudy Giuliani, and not only because of his inspired mayoral leadership after Sept. 11,� writes Taranto in his Best of the Web column. �Giuliani took a stand against terror even when it was unpopular. In 1995 he ordered security to eject Yasser Arafat from Lincoln Center, in an era when the terror boss was being feted at the White House and lavished with Nobel Peace Prizes.� Taranto also points to Rudy�s prosecutorial background as being particularly valuable in making sure the evolving UN Oil-for-Food scandal doesn�t get swept under the carpet. What do you think? Should the President tap Giuliani for the UN ambassadorship? If so, should Rudy accept the job? Or should he stick with electoral politics and focus on either the New York governorship or Hillary Rodham�s U.S. senate seat in 2006? Share your views on the Discussion Board at: http://blog.chuckmuth.com/blog/ THE OL� DOUBLE-STANDARD...AGAIN The September 11 Commission has rejected a request by members of the U.S. Senate for commissioner and former Clinton deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick to testify before the commission in light of recently revealed evidence tying her to a government policy which tied the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies. Commission spokes-spinner Al Felzenberg justified the decision by saying Gorelick had already been interviewed by the commission in private. Funny, Condi Rice had also been interviewed in private by the commission, but that didn�t stop the Bush-whackers from demanding she testify in public, as well. It�s actually a GOOD thing that not only won�t Gorelick testify, but that she won�t resign from the commission either. As long as she�s there and stonewalls against public testimony, anything that commission puts out in its final report - which undoubtedly will be highly political and decidedly anti-Bush - will be seen as the partisan hatchet job that it will be. So stay, Jamie. Frankly, you�ve become a �useful idiot� for the Bush team. KERRY STIFFS UNION AIR TRAVEL Paul Bedard of U.S. News & World Report notes in his Washington Whispers column that John Kerry�s presidential campaign - you know, the one being bankrolled by union �soft� money these days - is using a NON-union campaign jet to transport the candidate here and there. This isn�t sitting well with Paul Hallisay, political director for the pilots union, who stated plainly, �We would like to see him flying a union carrier.� Just another example of the two (or more) faces of John Kerry. SURVEY SAYS! This fall, airports may consider replacing the government-run TSA airport screeners with private companies. Is it time to re-privatize the airport security checkpoints? * Yes * No * I�m a Kerry Democrat...Yes AND No Cast your vote by clicking the �Survey Says!� tab at www.citizenoutreach.com VILLAGE IDIOTS SCRAP PLEDGE The Board of Trustees for East Nassau, New York, have decided that the 10-seconds or less it takes to say the 31-word Pledge of Allegiance could be better used to discuss various town projects and problems...so they�ve scrapped reciting it before board meetings. Mayor Robert Henrickson says the decision isn�t some kind of political protest; just that saying the pledge simply takes too long. �Given the fact people are pressed for time, my whole goal is to move the meetings along and try to remove things that are duplicative and generally not really necessary," said Mayor Robert Henrickson. Yeah, right. HONEY, I SHRUNK THE GOVERNMENT...NOT �You think Republicans are for smaller government?� Well, then why don't you tell me just why in the last 75 years or so not one Republican administration has ever cut the size of government.� Isn't it about time to put this lie -- myth -- whatever you want to call it away?� - Talk show host Neal Boortz, 4/26/04 THE SPEECH POLICE A number of you jumped all over the notion of using the FCC as a sledgehammer against Howard Stern, supporting new rules slapping broadcasters with huge fines for what somebody somewhere might consider to be �indecent� speech. In that regard, Howard Stern is an easy target. But a few of us, including Rush Limbaugh, warned that once you start down this slippery slope, what constitutes objectionable speech could take you places you never intended to go. And it didn�t take long to prove our point. The FCC just announced its decision to fine a radio station $4,000 to punish a pair of DJ�s for an on-air prank pulled on Cuban dictator Fidel Castro last June. The hosts tricked the dictator�s office into an interview with them before calling him an assassin. Castro then unloaded on the pair with a stream of vulgarities. And for that, the speech police have cracked down hard...on the radio station. Isn�t that the sort of thing you would expect out of Castro himself, rather than an arm of the American government? This censorship movement is VERY dangerous folks. I mean, you can�t even call a communist assassin a communist assassin any longer? Be careful what you wish for��cause you just might get it. STUPID IS AS STUPID LEGISLATES �If freshman State Rep. Derrick Shepherd (D) gets his way, (Louisiana) will soon criminalize -- yup, criminalize -- the wearing of pants too low. Shepherd filed a bill this past week that would make it illegal for a person to wear �his pants below his waist and thereby exposing his skin or intimate clothing.� If the bill is adopted, violators would face a fine of up to $500 and/or up to six months in jail. ��I'm sick of seeing it ... The community's outraged. And if parents can't do their job, if parents can't regulate what their children wear, then there should be a law,� explained Shepherd to the New Orleans Times-Picayune. From a fashion sense, I also dislike the style Shepherd wants to ban...(but I) agree with the old advice from former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura: �You can't outlaw stupidity.�� - Ron Gunzburger, Politics1, 4/26/04 SUPERSIZED PROPAGANDA Morgan Spurlock�s anti-McDonald�s �documentary� has spurred a New Hampshire woman to go on a 30-day Mickey D�s diet to lose weight and make a point about the �doom, alarmist, anti-everything attitude of certain individuals and organizations who want to control my life, your life, everyone�s life with little regard for individual tastes, freedom of choice and personal responsibility.� Read all about it at: http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040425-102733-3523r.htm MAJORITY RULES The University of Pennsylvania�s National Annenberg Election survey interviewed 28,446 people between October 7 of last year and April 19. And according to their results, 71 percent of people living in households without guns support continuing the Clinton-era assault weapons ban; and 64 percent of folks living in households with guns also support extending the ban. Well, I guess we need to recognize and accept that the majority wants this kind of gun control, so naturally we need to craft a constitutional amendment to define what constitutes �arms.� I mean, constitutional rights don�t matter, right? What matters is what the majority thinks is right, right? Marriage amendment supporters HAVE to see this slippery slope they�re starting us down. You do NOT have to support gay marriage to oppose FMA. Once this box of amending the Constitution for social policies is opened, the left can and WILL use it for all kinds of really, really bad things...like gun control. And our side will have forfeited the argument that we shouldn�t tinker with the Constitution. PLEASE...I know a lot of you hate the idea of gay marriage...and most everyone else just wants the issue to go away (me, too). But this is NOT the way to address the issue and folks pushing for this �camel�s nose� amendment refuse to drop it. So we can�t quit either. This isn�t so much a gay issue or a marriage issue...it�s a constitutional issue. And when it comes to our nation�s governing document, the true conservative position should be: Defend it, don�t amend it. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chuck Muth�s News & Views is published by Citizen Outreach, a non-partisan, 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. The opinions and views expressed in Chuck Muth's News & Views reflect those of the writers, editors and columnists therein and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Citizen Outreach, its officers, directors or employees. Published by: Citizen Outreach Chuck Muth Editor/Publisher 611 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, #439 Washington, DC 20003-4303 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE, just go to: http://www.chuckmuth.com/newsletter/ To be REMOVED, go to: http://www.chuckmuth.com/remove/default.cfm Or send your request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make a secure online contribution to Citizen Outreach, go to the �Donate� page at www.citizenoutreach.com.
