There are days when Joy shocks me as much as Rosie. This woman may be funny at times but her need to belittle the President becomes tiresome. She throws into the banter: The reason she wrote a children’s book “is so the President could read it.”

I have news for Joy: the President would run circles around her in a debate about any issue, as long as there are rules about interrupting. As the President has manners, he might have trouble getting a word in edgewise. Her need to talk over anyone who disagrees with her demonstrates her inability to discuss any difficult issue.

Elizabeth: please speak up and challenge these ridiculous statements.

On IRAN-

Iran has taken 15 British Sailors into custody. Rosie and the Iranian government contend the 15 sailors entered Iranian waters and therefore deserve to be in custody. Rosie compares the situation to the Gulf of Tonkin, which she wants everyone to Google.

Pretty much the rest of the world accepts the fact that these 15 brave soldiers were floating in a dinghy, in Iraqi waters, in order to board boats to look for smugglers. Where does Rosie get her inside information?

Hopefully, the Iranians will recognize the error of their ways and release the men to the British government. As Elizabeth tried to note, there are other issues going on right now in Iran- like the expected expulsion of UN inspectors and the expected sanctions against Iran because they have proceeded with the development of nuclear capability.

Rosie, please consider the following: Perhaps the Iranians are trying to undermine the efforts of the Americans and Brits in order to prevent the Iraqi people from gaining true freedom? Is it possible Iran has been funneling insurgents into Iraq to undermine our troops and the Iraqi soldiers who are trying so hard to pull Iraq out of a burgeoning civil war?

No, no, no.

Elizabeth, the only voice of reason on the show, is just blathering again, like a fly buzzing about Rosie's ear. Rosie must be right: The American government duped the British into joining them in their conspiracy to start a world war with Iran.

Why is it so easy for Rosie to assume the American government is committing atrocious acts? Why does Rosie seem to want to believe the worst about the American government and George Bush? Why does Rosie always seem to take the side of our enemy? Why does Rosie seem so pessimistic about the intentions of our leaders?

What is the likelihood Rosie thought up the Gulf of Tonkin analogy herself? I think there is at least a good chance that Rosie has talking points fed to her before the show starts. Like stand up comedians have joke writers, Rosie must have a political advisor. Her points on these issues border on paranoia. She is either really off the deep end or getting really bad information.

Rosie: Take your own advice and start “Googling” but don’t stop there. Read some of what pops up- and don’t only look at liberal websites that tell you what you want to hear. Then, after you have read up on an issue, try to use some common sense when coming to a conclusion about what you have learned.

Maybe, just maybe, you will see that America is not the enemy of the world and George Bush is not the most dangerous man in the world.

In the mean time, let us all hope that the rest of the world doesn’t give Rosie’s opinion much weight, that those people who Google the Gulf of Tonkin will see that Rosie’s analogy is delusional and finally that the Iranian government will do the right thing and let the soldiers go.

March 26, 2007

Elizabeth Edwards

Rosie and I agree on something: The most important issue in the Edwards dilemma is how all of this affects the children, who are 6 and 8.

It is true that many women get breast cancer every year and that the majority of women will be treated successfully with no cancer recurrence, particularly if it is caught early. If Elizabeth Edwards had just been diagnosed with her initial breast cancer, the discussion would be different.

She has METASTASIZED breast cancer. Only ¼ of the women diagnosed with her type of cancer survive 5 years. Rosie speaks from the viewpoint of a person whose mother died when she was 10. She is being honest about the fact that children want to be with their mom. Every moment they spend together creates memories those children will cherish when she is gone. This is sad for all of them, but most sad for those children.

Elizabeth Edwards said she doesn’t want her legacy to be that she prevented John from becoming the President of the United States. No, she’d rather her legacy be that she put her husband’s campaign before the needs of her children. (And because there are plenty of reasons her husband will not be president, no one will blame her anyway.)

People like the women Rosie mentioned who would vote for Edwards just because his wife has cancer are fools who should stay home on Election Day. His wife’s cancer is not a litmus test. It adds nothing positive to his presidential skill set. It should influence voters to assess the likelihood her illness will impact his ability to be an effective President. If voters elect Edwards President in 2008, statistically, Elizabeth Edwards will not survive the term. How could this not be a distraction?

Being President is one of the most difficult jobs in the world. There are issues to be addressed 24 hours per day. How would this man tend to the needs of his children? Who would tend to his children? Who would the children want to tend to them? The FMLA act wouldn’t really be appropriate. On the other hand, maybe Edwards isn’t really that involved with his kids now, so they wouldn’t care. If that is the case, the voters should know that, much like the media wants to discuss Giuliani’s relationships with his children.

These discussions about all of the people all over the country who face this situation every day and keep going are silly. The average person who gets a terminal diagnosis has no options. The average person, from that other America, can’t take the time to be with her kids because they will lose their home if she stops working. The average person in this circumstance would give anything to have the choice to be with her family, to travel with her kids, to enjoy the time they have together. The average person in this situation is trying to figure out how her family will survive financially when she is gone. Elizabeth Edwards is not like 99% of the women in her situation.

Obviously, we are all going to die. Some of us will die suddenly. There is nothing we can do to prepare for this sort of demise, other than to have our relationships in order to the extent possible. For those people who know they are going to die in advance, they have a gift that shouldn’t be ignored. Elizabeth and John Edwards can take this time to put their children at the center of the world. They can not pretend this isn’t an earth shattering experience for those kids. No positive spin will change this reality.

Elizabeth and John Edwards are in denial about the reality facing them.

Obviously, Edwards is not a man for whom I would have ever voted because his positions on just about every issue are far too liberal for my taste. Prior to this issue, I have acknowledged that he seemed like a nice guy who is obviously a great lawyer. I believed him to be dedicated to his family. As a mom of many, I did give him kudos for his family relationships. Now, I have changed my opinion of him completely: I now see him as an incredibly selfish man who borders on egomaniacal. I am very disappointed in his response to this situation.

To those who say I shouldn’t judge, he gives me the right to judge when he runs for the Presidency of the United States. Voters must judge, it is our responsibility. If he doesn’t want to be judged, he should return to private life and we will all leave him alone.

I hope the people in their lives are being honest about their circumstances. This is an incredible opportunity for the Edwards family to move forward using their public personas to really impact the research, diagnosis and treatments for breast cancer. It is not too late for John and Elizabeth Edwards to do the right thing for their family. I am pulling for them.

Joy makes a quick joke, drawing high fives from Rosie: You Can’t say (female dog) – “You have to say Ann Coulter.” Very funny.

I would love to see Joy (or Rosie) square off with Ann Coulter in a political debate about anything. Let them pick the topic- Coulter could handle it. This could bring the Donald and Rosie together- Trump could arrange and promote the event, which would be a serious moneymaker for them.

Affirmative Action Obvious as Obama Heads Towards Primaries

Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and his wife Janet Langhart Cohen recently released a book, Love in Black and White. They came on the show to discuss their experiences as a mixed race couple throughout their 11 year marriage.

The most interesting comments during their segment were unrelated to their book but focused on their opinions of Barack Obama.

When asked if they thought America was ready for a Black president (which I thought we already had, embodied in Clinton the First), they said yes. After living their lives, anything is possible. America is ready.

The presumption of the question: If Obama is the democratic candidate and loses, it will reflect the inability of America to accept a Black person as president. The real issue in an Obama loss would have nothing to do with race.

The junior senator from Illinois has a mediocre resume with minimal executive experience. If he were a White guy with the same resume, he would be laughed out of the race.

On the other hand, an Obama win would demonstrate America’s willingness to elect a person, lacking in competence and experience, BECAUSE he is Black. An Obama win would be the most extreme example of affirmative action ever seen in this country.

Obama’s candidacy smacks not of the daring and braveness audacity may indicate but rather of its most negative qualities: overconfidence and impudence.

Joy with a funny one liner: Angelina Jolie: She could single-handedly solve the illegal immigration problem.

I thank Jolie and Brad Pitt for calling attention to the plight of children around the world. I hope they someday adopt one of the more than one hundred thousand children trapped in the American foster care system. I recognize one of the real reasons people adopt children from these third world countries is the reality there are no strings attached. There is no fear of biological relatives looking you up and little chance that many of these children will find their bio relatives.

In America, children often know their bio families, they may have siblings who want to stay connected and even when the courts seal records, there is always the chance the records will be unsealed. (For example there is a bill in Minnesota that further discourages adoption through allowing any adoptee over 18 to access his or her original birth certificate. This bill would eliminate the ability of a birth parent to walk away in anonymity. http://ros.leg.mn/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1445.0.html&session=ls85)

Based on my experiences as an adoptive parent, I hope she was counseled on the best-practice of waiting a year between major life changes before adopting any child. Most people seeking to adopt would have been encouraged to wait and in fact many adoption agencies will not proceed with adoption unless there has been a year between major life changes. Jolie has had a very busy couple of years: The adoption of Zahara, the burgeoning relationship with Pitt and the birth of Shiloh. Additionally, she very recently lost her mother, which had to have an effect on her.

It is also interesting that she adopted as a single person, as the entire world knows she is in a committed, domestic relationship with Pitt. Home studies in this circumstance would generally include both parents as adoptive parents. If both parties do not want to be adoptive parents, the adoption should not occur. If both parties want to adopt, Pitt should be there with her.

Ultimately, there are thousands and thousands of couples waiting to adopt children, who receive no passes or benefits of the doubt. They wait, they follow the rules and they hope they will be the next to bring their child home. I hope that neither Jolie, nor the countries seeking to place their children, would do anything to circumvent the practices used to ensure children are placed in the best home possible.

I wish the Jolie-Pitt clan nothing but the best, I also hope that Jolie has the emotional support she needs to ensure that the stresses of the past couple of years don’t add up to push her over the edge- a place she appears to have been several times in the past.

Rosie says Sheila Nevins does all the documentaries on HBO so I know who to blame for the Rory Kennedy debacle.  Now she has a lengthy addiction series airing on HBO.

The crew on The View went around the table discussing the current trend in Hollywood: party, get a DWI / DUI, shave your head, hit someone with your phone…do a quick stint in rehab… All is forgiven, restart party life.

They wondered "What is going on?"  The answer is simple: Hollywood culture is devoid of morality, undermines community standards and promotes the notion that celebrities are better than the rest of us.  These celebrities often think they are above consequence, and sadly often are for a while. It may be fun to live a party life, but eventually this lifestyle catches up with people.  

Eventually one of two things generally happen:  A conscience kicks in and the celebrity begins to behave like a responsible person (often moving away from Hollywood to Colorado, New Mexico or some other nice place­) or the person loses all self control and accelerates their self destructive behavior until hitting a wall or maybe even another person .  

These people are put on pedestals, earn unbelievable amounts of money for very little work, are showered with free meals, drinks and things most people would never consider buying. (By the way, I have no issue with them making as much money as they can. It just amazes me how little they seem to appreciate and protect their success.)

Elizabeth had an interesting idea: perhaps the owners of the networks or film companies should punish these stars for their behavior, in the same way athletes are punished with fines and suspensions.

If only..

March 22, 2007

On American Idol:

Sanjaya lives- “like athlete’s foot”- (Rosie) and the little girl who cried got an additional fifteen minutes of fame on the morning news.

Is Howard Stern’s campaign to vote for the worst working? We will never know for sure if Sanjaya has a legitimate following or if he is the butt of a national joke; that is until we see the sales receipts for the downloads of his first single.

Kelly’s Mom

Kelly’s mom is visiting and she wants to replace BW- its okay with me. Rosie and Kelly’s mom get along fine if they don’t talk about politics and religion- That seems to be a common theme in Rosie’s life.

Tanning

Elizabeth got a spray tan- more info than anyone needed. If EH thinks she has to worry about how she looks in a suit, what does she think when she sees the average woman at the pool? Get a grip about the swimsuit thing: You are a mom now-everything but the fun is irrelevant. And by the way- there is nothing wrong with being “white”- be a trendsetter and show off your natural color. SPF 50 for everyone!

Quiet day on The View today- they’ve agreed to have a nice friendly day in honor of Rosie’s birthday.

On Idol:

Ongoing discussion about how and why 17 year old Sanjaya remains. The crying girl says it all.

Criticizing 12 year old girls for voting for this pop idol wannabe is like criticizing bleeding heart liberals for loving Howard Dean. Their frame of reference is limited to their personal life experience. The more you try to reason with them and explain the error of their ways, the more they dig in their heels. Only time and life experience can save them, and us, from their emotionally driven decision-making. American Idol is a great example of why we deny the vote to most teenagers.

On Yesterday’s Infighting:

Apparently, a lot of people were worried after yesterday’s slap down between Rosie “Elizabeth-you can’t blather” O’Donnell vs. Elizabeth “Can’t we talk Facts” Hasselback.

Rest assured the two remain good friends, despite Elizabeth’s inability to accept Rosie’s viewpoints. They instant messaged their way through the day yesterday. It’s all good. I definitely can feel the love.

Again w/ the compliments about the amazing documentary by Rory Kennedy: Amazingly biased; amazingly incoherent; amazingly disrespectful to the men and women who valiantly serve our country…

Today the focus of the View was on the documentary The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (Appropriately referred to as GAG in this post.) by filmmaker Rory Kennedy.

Of course we begin the interview with accolades by Rosie- It’s an “amazing piece of work.” It is amazing, alright. This documentary asserts that the military personnel who engaged in the disgusting behavior seen in photos and video were mere victims in an overarching plot by the government to humiliate and degrade every person in Abu Ghraib.

Of course the people she finds to support her contentions are those who were convicted of engaging in inappropriate behavior or obvious lefties who have written on the evils of torture, broadly defined as anything that makes a prisoner feel bad.

As I watched the documentary, the effort to whitewash the actions of those individuals while painting broad brushstrokes condemning the military leaders and the President was disturbing to say the least.

Kennedy used several excerpts from an interview with John Yoo, formerly of the Department of Justice and now a well-respected law professor, to try to connect her very gray dots. She seemed to extract portions of his comments to stress the information that would bolster her argument. I have heard Yoo speak on issues related to torture several times. Her use of editing to showcase specific phrases taken from statements made by Yoo do not in any way reflect the level of his scholarship at the DOJ or as a law professor.

Kennedy was haunted by the question of who would do this so decided to do a documentary from the perspective of the soldiers. Her presumption was clear: these soldiers had to be taking orders from above. She thought it would be a psychological film. They all said they did it because they were told to do it.

When I watched the documentary, it seemed these people did it because they could do it. The one person who did give them orders, Specialist Graner, has been punished- sentenced to 10 years in prison for his conduct.

Throughout GAG these people talked about listening to prisoners scream and described their personal conduct but they did not offer evidence they were told to do what they did. There was no evidence presented regarding orders from the chain of command. Kennedy asks us to assume that no person would do these things without an order.

Elizabeth tried to call Kennedy on her efforts to stretch the facts to fit her theory. Kennedy couldn’t answer the questions in any articulate way and instead just said the use of torture demeans us as a nation. She, like many liberals, clings to the Geneva Conventions as the solution to all war’s problems. If only terrorists would agree to also abide by these conventions, they may have an argument. This is like saying in a hockey game, only one team can check. Oh yeah, the Kennedy’s only get football analogies- pretend only one side can tackle.

While agreeing that the acts committed at Abu Ghraib were wrong, Elizabeth pushes her to acknowledge that our entire military is not the problem.

Rosie squashed Elizabeth’s efforts to raise the issues and told her she couldn’t blather. Wow, she is one to talk…

Elizabeth was right. People like Kennedy and Rosie find it very easy to believe that our government is always wrong. Kennedy tried to paint the army as the problem because at the core of it she is anti-military. She seeks to undermine the President and our country through her partisan film-making.

11 low ranking soldiers who have served time for their actions would like us to believe that everyone including Rumsfeld and Bush knew what they are doing. I find it hard to believe that any of the leaders of our military would think it made sense to have low level, untrained people engage in this behavior,  for no other reason than this is the sort of result that could easily be predicted.

By the way, Rosie missed the boat on the whistle blower: The person who blew the whistle was not involved in these acts. Darby got a disc of photos from Graner. When he opened it and saw what was on it he immediately turned it over to his superiors who took action. Rumsfeld thanked Darby. This, of course, can only be more evidence of evil doing by Rumsfeld. The public thanking was to scare him and let others know they shouldn’t do likewise. There is no winning for conservatives.

Conservatives should watch this documentary so they can engage in a discussion about the failure of Kennedy to make her point.

While some in our military have done horrible things, the majority of our soldiers are brave men and women who love this country and the principles so clearly defined by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Kennedy may get accolades from her friends, but many good Americans will watch her documentary with sadness as they understand the truth: her misrepresentations overreach and damage the reputation of our leaders and our country.

She should be ashamed.

The women had a very serious discussion about Barbara Walters’ recent trip to Venezuela to interview its President Hugo Chavez.

BW notes Chavez has called Bush a devil, a donkey and a drunk. Great observation by Rosie: “All things with Ds.” Joy is right- he (Chavez) is not even a democrat.

Joy et al: Please note: More and more democrats aren’t democrats in the historically American sense, they are socialists. This is particularly true of the base. (Think expansive government with the goal to redistribute wealth using a confiscatory tax code…) Based on my recent experience as a law student, some of the more extreme members of the base seem to actually leapfrog socialism to embrace communism.

Anyways, BW was very happy for the opportunity to speak with him as he hasn’t granted an interview since he was here in October. She thinks people will be surprised by the interview. She has already received feedback from people expressing concerns about giving Chavez a venue to air his views- one reason people are concerned- the man is a dictator. Why would that be a concern to people?

She has noticed it is the same kind of response she gets when Castro is interviewed. (Shocking!) BW: “There are those who think he’s, well, done some good and then the people who are here who think he has done a great deal of harm.” (I was not sure if she was referring to Castro or Chavez with that comment, but then again, is there a real difference?)

She acknowledges he is controversial and that he is a socialist who “wants to spread socialism throughout Latin America.”

Barbara, Barbara, Barbara… He is the President of one country in Latin America who has decided that all of Latin America should be socialist. HELLO? ANYBODY HOME? Maybe, just maybe, not all of the people of the 20 countries in Latin America agree with him…

One way he may spread Socialism throughout Latin America will be to eliminate the International Monetary Fund from Latin America and replace it with the Bank of the South. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1981

While I am not necessarily a fan of the IMF, Chavez would have us, and the people in the countries of Latin America, believe the Bank of the South will eliminate the “abuse” that Latin American countries have endured under the Bank of the North. (i.e. the IMF) Chavez has used the wealth amassed from the oil revenue in Venezuela to loan $2.5 billion to Argentina and $1.5 billion to Bolivia, for example. Suddenly, borrowing money from Chavez will ensure the economic prosperity of his Latin American neighbors. Look out, Bolivia! When you can’t pay up, Chavez may become your President, as well.

Joy: “So it depends on your socio-economic status whether you like him or not.”

BW: “If you are poor in Venezuela you like him if you’ve got some money you’re afraid he is going to take your house away.”

Venezuela is not a wealthy country but it does have the 7^th largest oil reserve in the world, as of 2005. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_res-energy-oil-reserves) That being said, the people of Venezuela live in poverty to an extent that we in the United States and the rest of the developed world would not tolerate. The GDP per capita in Venezuela was just over $6000 in 2006. In the U.S. the GDP per capita in 2006 was over $39,000.

Although Chavez probably believes he and Castro are the two people who have the leadership skills necessary to give socialism a chance to work, Chavez should read the history books. Socialism is a failed experiment. It has never worked, anywhere. The only economic systems that will work long term must utilize principles of capitalism and the free market. Over time, the Venezuelan markets Chavez’s government now controls will begin to fail or under perform. Without incentive for personal gain, the average person will decrease their output and become an additional drain on the system. Eventually those taking will far outnumber those giving and the system will implode.

Capitalism may be messy. It may challenge those people who do not want to work. As any parent can tell you, rewarding bad behavior only makes behavior worse. Capitalism rewards the achievers. It is the achievers who pay taxes. It is the achievers who will contribute talent, resources and money to the people of their communities. If the achievers are beaten down, threatened and generally under appreciated, they will cease striving to achieve.

Inflation in Venezuela was 17% in 2006. The earnings of the average citizen can not keep up with the average rise in prices for consumable goods. This may be why Chavez has repeatedly raised the minimum wage and expanded welfare. Not surprisingly, those people living on minimum wage and living on the welfare system voted for him in the last election. He is building a culture of dependence. His policy decisions are designed to guarantee his position of power, not help the poor.

After a break they resume their discussion of Chavez: “He is not crazy. This is a very sane man. He does not hate the United States he does hate George Bush.”

Chavez may be able to convince simpletons that he loves America. Let us use reason to understand: He loves the ground we live on- the terra firma. Chavez does not love the American Dream or the ideas that have made America great. He cannot love these things because they stand in direct opposition to what he craves- a socialist state.

Chavez and others like him have convinced people like Joy to believe that holding elections in which people are able to vote for candidate A or B demonstrates a well-functioning democracy, unless George Bush or some other conservative won. (Consider for a moment how easy it is for liberals to believe that people like Chavez and Castro won legitimate elections- that there was no voter intimidation- but that in the United States, the minority vote is suppressed because of intimidation. Incredible.)

A true democracy is simply rule by the people. Pure democracy is potentially one of the most dangerous forms of government because, unchecked, it allows mob rule and complete suppression of the minority. Also, when people are denied access to information, when the press is not free, when individuals who dissent go punished, there is no freedom.

Bush’s goal has not been to spread democracy around the world. Whether he was right or wrong, George Bush has tried to advance the notion that all people have the right to be free: free to speak their minds, to practice their religious beliefs, to read a newspaper that has not been censored, to keep what they earn… Bush has tried to spread the concepts of freedom found in our founding documents to other countries because he believes that as long as there are governments that squelch freedom, the freedom in America is also threatened.

Back to the View: BW wants us to be sure to remember that Venezuela owns Citgo and they gave reduced price oil to Katrina, to people who needed it in the east.… (Joy piped in "...to hundreds of thousands of people.") BW continues: It’s good PR but it’s also a good thing to do.

I want to personally thank Chavez for all of this good will. It makes up for everything he has ever done to violate human rights, suppress freedom and belittle our country.

To be fair, after all of this praise, BW wants us to note there are some issues: “He wants to be president forever… he has a lot of things that are not quite so wonderful.” Really… that brief comment did a lot to undermine the lengthy discussion in support of the man.

Joy: “He also had a failed military coup first and then he was elected correctly so I know myself.” (See commentary above as to whether Chavez was elected “correctly.”)

Finally we see an actual excerpt from Chavez interview:

On his coffee habit of drinking more than 20 cups a day: “If I had to quit it, I would quit it… I have left home, my kids, I see them every now and then. I left what is dearest to me. I had to abandon them. I do not regret it because my life is devoted to the poor of the earth.”

Note again his belief he is devoted to the poor of the earth, not the poor of Venezuela, not the poor of Latin America but the poor of the earth. This is heavy and heady business: No one would ever expect him to give up coffee: let’s allow him this one vice.

BW then asked: What is the biggest misconception about you?

Chavez goes on about some lady asking him a question and then explains that he doesn’t hate the United States. He blames the media for perpetuating this notion: “They only publish the pictures to demonize Hugo Chavez. I haven’t caused any harm to the people of the United States. What could I do against the U.S. people or against any people of the world? We just want to be friends and we want to extend our helping hand. That’s all.”

Thanks Hugo, but we will be fine without your help.

In conclusion, BW again says that Chavez wants to have a socialistic Latin America, and that he thinks capitalism is the scourge of the world.

When Elizabeth rightly questions how he could be against Bush in terms of business when Bush policies have brought billions of dollars to Venezuela, BW notes: That is not what he is against. Chavez is against the war in Iraq. Also, Bush is an imperialist.

An Imperialist strives to take control of other countries through economic policy or occupation. No one could argue the U.S. is trying to colonize Latin America. One could clearly argue the transfer of 20 million Latin Americans into our country as illegal aliens might be a start on their end.

Also, the United States under Bush has advanced policies that have funneled billions of dollars into the Latin American economies. Again, into their economies, not out of their economies.

History may prove that Bush’s belief he could help the United States by helping these countries was totally misguided.

A rising tide might lift all boats. If the rising tide is a wall of water, all the boats could capsize.

No matter how nice he was to Barbara, I do not want to share a life boat with Hugo Chavez.

Joy wants to know “Why did Bush have to have so much protection when he went to South America?”

I’ll tell you why Joy: The people of Latin America are not free because they do not have access to information, they do not have economic freedom and they do not have a free press. They do not have political freedom. No matter what people like Hugo Chavez try to tell you about their electoral processes, the people of Latin America are not free.

The majority of people in Latin America hear only what their leaders want them to hear. They don’t all have internet access at home or at the local library. They don’t all have televisions and access to ABC news every night to learn about what goes on in the world. People who cannot freely access information can not be free. They hate Bush because they are told to hate Bush. They hate America because they are told to hate America. It really is that simple.

Rosie O’Donnell then interjects her comments on President Bush’s trip to Latin America: “Why did we not see one protest? All over Latin America there were hundreds of thousands of people protesting in the streets and it was not covered on any major news network.” She goes on “He is loathed, this President across the country and across the nation.”

Rosie should actually watch the news. I typed a few words into a search engine and up popped pages of links to news stories describing the protests in detail. Here are just a few examples:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/03/08/bush.protests.ap/index.html

http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_latest/~3/100310020/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17515421/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/08/world/main2546575.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2937197&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030900405.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=nation_world&id=5105970

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0727513320070308

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4990070

http://www.nbc15online.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=cd6f9a5b-0acc-49cf-93e3-84e3cec5a3e1

The vitriol in Latin America may seem to be targeted at Bush but in fact there has been “hatred” of America since well before 2001, long before Bush became President. Anti-American sentiment has been strong around the world for decades because we are the best. America is the leader of the free world. Americans have a better quality of life than people anywhere on the planet. Americans have access to more luxuries every day than most people in the world can possibly imagine. The poorest in America live better than most people around the world. One only has to watch the poor children of the inner cities listening to their iPods while they walk around in $100 sneakers. Our success, our wealth, our boldness and our strength make us the envy of most of the world.

The U.S. GDP per capita in 2006 was over $43,000. Few countries in Central America have a per capita GDP of $10,000. In South America, the wealthiest country is Argentina with a GDP per capita of $14,000. Many Latin American countries have GDP’s per capita of barely $5000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_America#GDP_ranks_as_of_2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_America#Economy_by_country.2Fterritory

The people of these countries want our money. For many of them, their only hope is to come to America, generally illegally, to benefit from our economy. And while many of them hate Bush and America, they risk their lives to come here because of our economic opportunity. Sadly, they are coming here illegally and they are destroying communities in America. They are hurting our education, health care and our social service systems. Many of these people come here not to assimilate and live their own American Dream, but to leech.

They have been taught they have the right to take from those who have because there is a presumed injustice in any disparity of wealth. Forget hard work, forget making responsible choices. Americans do not have the right to hold onto the wealth that has been created through the strength of our free markets and the executed principles of capitalism.

And by the way, liberals who continue to place people like Hugo Chavez on a pedestal, even after he came to our country and referred to our President as the Devil, do not help our country improve its image in the world.. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/index.html)

People could visit any university in the country and view countless t-shirts and posters with images of Chavez, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. If people in America can be so easily manipulated, the poor folks in Latin America are really vulnerable. Liberals like Rosie have tried so hard to poison the public’s mind about the President and about our country, that the battle to turn the sentiment around is fierce.

Joy goes on to express her dismay that people are no longer happy to see our GIs like they were after WWII, when the troops liberated the persecuted. Rosie interjects you won’t see it because it has been 6 years since we have acted like Americans.

Sadly, the American people are denied access to information about the positive reaction of the Iraqi people to our GIs. We have a free press in the United States. That means the press is free to report on what it wants to report, which often means that these embedded reporters choose to show us the stories that undermine our success in Iraq, rather than encourage continued progress. Why would reporters want to slant the information? The obvious answer: politics.

Joy, go to the following websites to see pictures of our GIs being welcomed by Iraqi people and then ask yourself why you haven’t seen these pictures before:

http://www.pbase.com/kburch/the_picture_from_iraq_you_wont_see_in_the_news

http://devildog6771.wordpress.com/2006/08/03/pictures-of-us-troops-in-iraq/

And by the way, teacher’s institute just opened with the help of our military: http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/FrontPage%20Stories/Teachers%27%20Institute%20Opens%20in%20Rasheed.aspx

Any information the government, conservatives or the despised Fox news might mention is immediately dismissed as political propaganda. Sadly, the left has created a no-win situation for America. This does not mean the democrats are undermining the United States, it means the leadership of their party and the vocal far-left is undermining the security of the United States.

Many democrats (and republicans) are oblivious to these issues. In fact, many in America are so disengaged from politics they couldn’t find the Middle East on a map for $1,000,000.

The emotional rhetoric of the left has got to stop. Women like Rosie and Joy need to stop listening to the sound bites and the talking points and spend some time learning about these issues and thinking about the long-term consequences of a weakened America. They need to consider that maybe their negativity, and the negativity of the press, scares people around the world into believing the West cannot be trusted to fight the good fight anymore.

The only country in the world with the ability to protect and defend freedom around the globe is the United States. I am not advocating the United States involve itself in every skirmish around the world. Please note: if tyrants around the world fear we may get involved, we shouldn’t have to get involved. If these tyrants believe we will not get involved, we may have no choice.

As Ronald Reagan warned:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

She acknowledges there are 390 people in Guantanamo and then she asks if Elizabeth remembers that in WWII we interned all the Japanese people because we were afraid. “We’re doing the same thing only worse. And our government is sanctioning torture. The American government is allowing torture. It comes from the President all the way down.”

Does she know that in WWII our government interned over 100,000 people? Check out http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312008/bhjic.html for some information about the Japanese Internment. She would be hard pressed to convince me that detaining 390 people in Cuba is worse than interning over 100,000 people, including children, in the desert.

It’s as though Rosie would have us believe that these detainees at Guantanamo were just minding their own business, being friends with only law abiding, peace loving people and suddenly our government rounded them up in the dead of night and plopped them into a SECRET CIA TORTURE prison.

There is no easy answer as to how to determine which of the 390 people at Guantanamo are still dangerous to our interests but our government must protect us. I am confident that if our government released these people and any of them then participated in an attack on our country, you can be sure there would be an outcry about how we shouldn’t have let them go. This outrage is seen whenever our justice system frees drunks, rapists and pedophiles only to have them offend again.

Elizabeth asks her what we should do. Rosie’s response:

“We should uphold the standards of the Geneva Convention and lead the free world in Democracy.”

I have said enough about the Geneva Convention today but do wonder if Rosie knows that much of the world is not free.

Leading the free world in democracy is not the challenge. The difficulty lies in helping the non-free world move toward democracy and freedom. Many countries in the world, even those who vote at the United Nations, are controlled by dictators who would just as soon kill a dissident than put him or her in prison. If there is not free speech, freedom of religion and a free press there can not be democracy.

America must decide if it is in our country’s interests to promote democratic movements around the globe. Whatever the answer, let’s hope we are right.

Next, Elizabeth asks her how we can fairly interrogate them:

“I don’t think the United States government should ever, ever, ever torture other people.”

The following could be an interrogation session between Rosie and a suspected terrorist:

Rosie: Hello. I am Rosie and I am so glad to meet you. I hope you are comfortable. Can I get you anything? Anything at all?

Suspected terrorist: Well, actually yes. I would like a big glass of Iced Tea. And also, could you please put on a Burqa. I am very uncomfortable being in your presence like this. It is disrespectful to me and my customs.

Rosie: I am sorry. Of course. (She gets a burqa from some lackey.) I hate to ask you, but is there any chance that you might be involved in a terrorist plot to kill Americans?

Suspected terrorist: How could you ask me that? I am outraged! I love America and pray that someday your leaders see the wonder of Islam, convert to our beliefs and agree to live under Islamic law.

Rosie: Well, I am glad you love America and am so relieved to know that you would not commit an act of terror against this country. By the way, we have some real issues we are dealing with in America and I would like you r opinion. An issue near and dear to my heart and family is Gay marriage. The homophobic conservatives, led by our President and Dick Cheney, who thinks his own daughter is immoral because she is a lesbian, just won’t give on this. What do you think?

Suspected terrorist: While your President is an evil man, as is his Vice President who should never go to the Middle East again, they are right about this issue. It is American tolerance of such immoral behavior that will lead to the destruction of your society. We, the true followers of Islam, know that the Almighty will destroy your “freedom” as he did in Sodom and Gomorrah. Death will come to all who practice such atrocities when Sharia comes to America.

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=2104&ln=eng&txt=homosexuality

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla1.htm

http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/homos.htm

http://www.islamic.org.uk/homosex.html

http://www.jamaat.org/qa/homo.html

Rosie: Well, let’s not argue about that. You can’t help that you haven’t been educated about these sorts of issues. I will do everything I can to free you from this horrible place, this SECRET CIA TORTURE prison. I know that after I help you, you will know that we really want to live in peace with you and then you will come to see the ways of the liberal, secular movement in America. Thank you so much for telling me the truth. I am so happy you are not a terrorist.

Suspected terrorist: Peace be upon you.

Wake-up Rosie: There are far greater problems facing America and the world than these 390 aspiring terrorists in Gitmo.

Yesterday was a good day for the View- other than a few bad jokes about Bush and Cheney, they stayed out of politics. They must have been saving up for today- what a mess!!

On Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
Rosie’s overview of the situation is an okay recitation of the facts: “This man has apparently admitted to over 29 things that he says that he was solely responsible for. He did this confession while he was at Guantanamo. He was arrested and put in the care the U.S. in March 2003, He was then in a secret CIA prison and then he was brought to Guantanamo and then he confessed without reporters being present and without privy to a lawyer. He confessed to pretty much everything. He was responsible for the 1993 world trade center, for 9/11 from A to Z, for the shoe bomber… for everything… This man who has been in prison under the care of the United States government since 2003 and he just confessed to all of these crimes.”

The conversation spirals downward from there.

According to Rosie, the very fact that he has been in the care of the U.S. government should tell us all we need to know. He has been in SECRET CIA TORTURE prison.

She uses the picture of him in the paper today to belittle the relevance of his confession: “Doesn’t he look healthy.” She is trying to imply that he looks sick because of all of the torture he has been experiencing at the hands of our government.

Where are her handlers? How has she not seen this picture before? This is the picture the U.S. released of him immediately following his capture several years ago. He was captured in his sleep, hence the mussed hair. If he looks unhealthy it is because he had been on the run, living like a coward in the shadows. They use this picture purposely because it is not flattering. This is common practice in the media. (Ask any conservative how much they like many of the pictures used in print.)

Perhaps Rosie thinks we should let the liberals in Hollywood hire stylists for these people, give them makeovers and then let them talk to reporters and lawyers who will violate gag orders and spew their vitriol, or worse pass on information to other terrorists. (See Lynne Stewert)

Maybe he did give a false confession, or maybe some of his statements are true and some are false. Over the next several days, the media will investigate his statements and tell us what they want us to know.

Has this poor man been tortured? Rosie thinks he has been tortured every day, for years. Do we even know what torture is anymore? Apparently, underwear on people’s heads is torture. When I was growing up, some of the teenage boys I knew thought this was a particularly funny thing to do to their little brothers. They must be the guys working in the SECRET CIA TORTURE prisons.

Elizabeth goes on to make a very serious statement: “If he is admitting to these things, he should be tortured now for having a hand in 9/11.”

This is upsetting to Rosie. She only believes muggers of 100 year old ladies should be tortured. (See the blog posting on the March 12^th episode of the View.) She now clarifies that only if they have it on video doing it and we all saw it…should the mugger be punished to the full extent possible.

Here is the problem- these women should watch the news, read a newspaper… They might not know he is guilty because they haven’t personally seen a video of him conspiring with other fanatics to kill us. The thing is, our government knew, along with governments all around the world, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was an integral member of bin Laden’s network. His involvement has been extremely well documented by many sources. He has now acknowledged his involvement, possibly because he has finally realized his denials are known to be a joke. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed )

This man is not a criminal who should have rights to our judicial system, where he would have access to rules of discovery that would force the government to turn over information about the intelligence used to capture him, including names of informants… where information becomes part of a public record… where liberals with no common sense would advocate for his right to a jury trial. (By the way, the jury would probably need to be a panel of his peers, i.e.12 other fanatical terrorists. This would be the only way to ensure a proper amount of empathy be used to understand his intent.)

WAKE UP!! This man has been and continues to be a terrorist. If we released him today he would rejoin his terrorist friends and renew his efforts to undermine the west. Our military should hold him forever in the SECTRET CIA TORTURE prisons.

I hate beating a dead horse but Rosie and friends should read the Geneva Convention.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (With the possible, and unfortunate, exception of Hamas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas, in Palestine, members of terrorists groups are not members of the armed forces of a Party- a legitimate government. They are not members of an organized militia or volunteer corps fighting as a part of the military arm of a legitimate government.)

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (Terrorist groups are not commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates even though there are loose networks of these people, all fighting for common goals like undermining freedom and non-Islamic religions and destroying the West, for example. Does anyone know specifically who is in charge of the Al Qaeda or the Taliban, right now? Can those fighting for these principles find their “leaders”?

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (Terrorists hide behind civilian clothes so as to surprise their victims.)

(c) That of carrying arms openly; (Terrorists hide their guns, homicide bombs and other Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) under their clothes, in back packs, in trunks of cars or any other place they can find that will result in the most damage.)

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (Terrorists do not follow the laws and customs of war. For example, they have BEHEADED those captured, even if those captured were journalists offering sympathetic coverage of their actions -the Taliban is threatening to kill a journalist in the next two days if their demands are not met. They threaten the lives of the civilians who assist the U.S. or Iraqi military. They do not warn the authorities before attacking targets so as to minimize civilian casualties...)

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (Terrorists are not members of regular armed forces professing allegiance to a government. There is no “authority” that can be “not recognized” because there is no authority than can be recognized. Many of the terrorists in Iraq are believed to be Syrians or Iranians attempting to undermine the success of the new Iraqi government so as to prevent democracy from taking hold in Iraq.)

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. Terrorists do not accompany members of legitimate armed forces. Terrorists hope to destroy as many legitimate armed forces as possible.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. (Terrorists are not members of the Merchant Marine.)

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. (Terrorists are not taking up arms to resist invading forces; the terrorists are the people invading non-occupied territories and they are the people threatening the inhabitants of those territories.)

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. (Terrorists do not belong to the armed forces of the government of an occupied country. The U.S. has interned the terrorists because of the threat they will rejoin other terrorists to persist in their efforts to harm Americans’ interests or America.)

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present A