Dems must think the Enquirer’s stories about Always-the-Bridesmaid John Edwards and his shenanigans may have some credibility:  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/46637.html.  He may not get to speak at the Dem convention unless he clears up the mess.  Can anyone say DNA test?

Record chill in Maui (64 degrees–Hey!  It’s Hawaii!) puts a damper on “Global Warming:”  http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/506834.html?nav=10.  Algore will no doubt say the cooling is a direct result of the warming due to the influence of the global framistat on the planet’s thingamajig.

Speaker Pelosi’s book isn’t selling much better than mine:  http://drudgereport.com/flashnpb.htm.  Then again she is too busy trying to save the planet to promote her book whereas I am only trying to save the United States.

Mist, the Chinese word for filthy air, is back in Beijing, as if it ever left: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_china_pollution.  A new Olympic sport could be synchronized breathing!

Former President Bubba blames the economy for “unhealthy eating:”  http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/08/06/news/080708lrclintonfood.txt.  Smile when you say that, Bubba, and move away from that Big Mac and supersized fries!

In case you missed them:

A.  McCain’s video featuring Paris, Britney, and Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/mccain-ad-links-paris-hil_n_115841.html

B.  Kathy Hilton’s Objections to A:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-hilton/mccains-celebrity-ad-friv_b_116593.html

C.  Paris Strikes Back Video:  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Paris_Hilton_responds_Really.html

D.  Sadly, no feedback from Britney or her mom.

Let’s see if I have this straight.  McCain’s camp puts out a video comparing Obama to a “rock star,” which features cameos of Paris and Brit, who certainly make it more attractive.  Paris’ mommy takes offense at the frivolous waste of money showing her daughter in a video.  Paris retaliates by putting out her own video ridiculing McCain’s age.  Britney says nada.

Questions: 

A.  Isn’t Barack a rock star or at least a rock star wannabe so what’s wrong with putting out that video?

B.  Does billionaire Obama-backer Kathy never waste any money and why didn’t she take offense at Paris’ other video, you know, the one showing her baby really and graphically demonstrating the art of, umm, putting out? 

C.   May we anticipate more videos from Paris with most of her clothes on in support of Obama?

D.   Re: Britney, Leave her alone!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWSjUe0FyxQ

The IVC, Iraq Veterans for Congress, http://iraqvetsforcongress.com/, is an organization formed in 2008 for the express purpose of  giving a voice to those who served their country on the battlefield and who now wished to serve it in our government.

This “squad sized” detail is not composed of the usual egocentric politician-types.  Rather, it is peopled by seasoned patriots who have not only served but who have seen the enemy and, contrary to Pogo, who know the enemy isn’t us. 

According to IVC founder, Kieran Lalor,  “IVC is more than a group of Republican candidates who served in Iraq, and we are here for something other than our respective Congressional races.  We want to be a voice for thousands of U.S. military veterans, their families, and hardworking patriotic Americans who are tired of seeing veterans mistreated and their mission slandered.  . . . I wanted America to have a reliable, unified voice from twelve [now seventeen] candidates who are uniquely positioned to offer  a knowledgeable, credible rebuttal to the Democrats, the mainstream media, and the constant message of defeatism and mistreatment of our troops.”  

Military service in and of itself does not qualify anyone for elective office.  What it does do is demand some attention from the American public as partial payment for that service and for the dangers and risks to which these patriots and their families were exposed on our behalf. 

If you wish, you may render that payment by visiting Lalor’s website, http://kml2008.com/home.htm, considering his positions, and perhaps contributing to his campaign and to other IVC candidates.  Unfortunately, money is the prime mover in elections and his opponent is supported by many Hollywood celebs, MoveOn.org, and the power of incumbency.

Isn’t it time America paid its debt to these summer and winter soldiers?

Love him or loathe him, defend him or despise him, one thing no one can ever do is dismiss Rush Limbaugh. 

Today, August 1st, 2008, a month after signing a new, eight year $400 million contract, marks his 20th anniversary as a nationally syndicated talk radio host, a truly unique accomplishment.  Of course, mere longevity in that field in and of itself does not confer greatness–though it, too, is remarkable.  Limbaugh’s greatness lies in the influence he has had on American conservatism. 

It’s long been a given that our national media is liberal-infested to the point that news in that media can no longer be described as journalism; indoctrination and brainwashing are far more fitting.  For 20 years now, Limbaugh has provided the voice that conservatism lacked for so many years, an alternative which we lacked until 1988.

In the process, he paved the way for many others who, for the most part, pale in comparison but he did make their voices possible, he did enable them.  He is oft imitated but never even close to duplicated.

Unlike many of his ditto-head followers, I see him as a flawed human being,  just as we all are.  His personal life, his four divorces, and apparent greed,  (see previous article on Limbaugh),  do not detract from his outstanding achievements and contributions to this nation.

Today, as Democrats attempt to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a misnomer if there ever was one, Rush stands as the primary reason why that doctrine should never be reenacted.  Should they succeed, America will once again be thrust back into the Dark Ages of liberal propaganda without the recourse of conservative rebuttal.  (See “Why the Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair” –http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm)

While you’re at it, visit Limbaugh’s website, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html, where you can judge for yourself whether we need him, not just for another 8 years, but for at least 20!

May God bless you, Rush.  Keep that one-half of your brain tied behind your back until you really need it and never forget what you always say, that your talent is on loan from God-d!

Sigmund Freud famously asked the question, obviously in frustration, “What do women want?”  He never did answer his own question and I would suggest that most women would respond with either, “You have to ask?” or, “It’s none of your business!” or, “We want you to stop asking stupid questions, that’s what!”  Personally, I wouldn’t dare to even ask.

Making an educated guess in answer to the question, “What do gays want?” I would say, first and foremost, to be accepted.  Whether that response involves acceptance as normal, or as a variation on the norm, or simply as people I wouldn’t venture to say but that isn’t really relevant since gays, homosexuals, lesbians have been well on their way to societal acceptance at all levels for some three decades now.  Whether that’s a good thing or not is another question.  I’ll save my answer to that for another day.

Today’s topic demands an understanding of how gays got to this point in the first place.

Over half a century ago, Karen Hooker conducted a study on biological determinism which many believe led to “normalizing” homosexuality (http://mybitchingarea.blogspot.com/2006/09/nature-vs-nature.html), which isn’t quite true.  In fact, the American Psychiatric Association, the APA, continued, for sixteen years after being aware of the Hooker study, to classify homosexuals as sexual deviants in its DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  It took until 1973 before the APA changed its diagnosis and expunged homosexuality as an abnormal mental disorder (Section 302 in the DSM II).

What happened in those intervening sixteen years to cause this re-evaluation?  In 3 words: agitation and  intimidation by the gay community and pusillanimity on the part of the APA.  (For details, see http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php.)

(For the rest of this article, please see http://genelalor.com/)