Time For a Post-War Rally

by Cletus Mooch
November 2, 2003

It's been quite some time since we had a war rally. The last one around here was in the parking lot of the Wherehouse music store here in town. About a dozen Inquisitor readers attended and they went into the Wherehouse and bought Dixie Chicks CDs, then I backed over them in the parking lot with my pick up truck. Man, that was fun, except I did get two flat tires.

President Bush has been getting some grief for the fact that people are still dying over in Iraq. Peronally, I don't see why it's his fault. He's not the one over there fighiting the war. In fact, I don't think he ever fought in a war.

See, what is happening is that Bush called the war over, and the enemy side just isn't cooperating. Under international law, as I understand it, there isn't supposed to be any fighting left once the war is officially ended, but no one ever said Saddam Hussein played by the rules.

The United Nations has decided to get in on the post-war effort, but President Bush really needs to keep an eye on them. I suspect they want to try to get control of the Iraq oil that we took fair and square. There's no way President Bush should let the U.N. take what is rightfully ours now.

I think back to that day that President Bush told Iraq to "bring it on." That was his way of saying, we're not scared of you guys and come on and throw your best punch. I feel bad that a couple hundred soldiers have been killed since then, but you know what they say, "war is hell."

That's why I think we need a post-war rally. It would really lift the spirits up of people who are being bombarded by stories of Americans dying every day halfway around the world. I was thinking it would be a war rally, but we'd have to be fighting in a war for that to happen, so I think a post-war rally is more appropriate.

In the spirit of things, Mrs. Mooch and I are busy working on a banner that says "Mission Still Accomplished" that we want to hang on the local Wal-Mart store. We think it sends the right message to Saddam Hussein. It's just our little way of saying "bring it one some more, if you got it" and showing our continued support for the troops.

• California Appeals Court Meeting "En Banc" (November 2, 2003)
• Arnold and Women's Issues (September 18, 2003)
• Review: "Bowling for Columbine (August 29, 2003)
• The Patriot Police (July 24, 2003)
• Tucker Carlson To Eat Shoes (July 3, 2003)
• Dick On Deck (June 26, 2003)
• Hillary and the Clinton Wars (June 19, 2003)
• Senate Needs to Change Rules (May 8, 2003)
• Dissent During Wartime Is Treason (March 20, 2003)
• Entertainers Shouldn't Have Opinions (March 5, 2003)
• The Great Debate: Saddam Vs. Bush (February 27, 2003)
• Bush Stops Peace March (February 23, 2003)
• The Duct Tape and Plastic Defense System (February 16, 2003)
• Bush Neither "Belligerent" or "Myopic" (January 24, 2003)

by Cletus Mooch
September 28, 2003

This week, all eyes have been on the California recall election. In particular, the focus has been on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said we can't have our recall election after all.

I think this is a horrible mistake by this court, but fortunately Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pete McClintock are trying to fix the situation. What is happening is that the appeals court will be meeting again to review the case "en banc."

If you're like me, you're scratching your head wondering what this "en banc" stuff is all about. I talked to Grover Hilton, whose son is a lawyer over in Tehachapi, and Grover believes "en banc" is just a fancy way of saying that the court is going to hear the case again "in a bank." The "en banc" is Spanish, I think Grover said, for "in a bank" so that makes sense.

The more I thought about it, the more I understood why they would want to meet in a bank. Banks are usually large, very formal looking buildings where serious business transactions take place. Conducting the hearing in a bank impresses upon the judges how important this hearing is and why they need to think long and hard about undoing their first decision to stop the election.

The hearing will probably be at a Bank of America branch in Sacramento, since I understand that's where the court usually sits. I would guess that anyone with an account at the bank could go and watch the hearing, but I am not sure about that.

With the recall election threatening to make laughing stocks out of all of us here in California, I'm glad that the appeals court is acting sensibly with this bank hearing. Hopefully, the case can be heard soon and the recall election put back on track for October 7.

by Cletus Mooch
September 18, 2003

Arnold Schwarzenegger is running to be our new governor, as you probably know. Recently, I learned that he has been criticized by some groups for his attitudes about women.

There has even been some discussion about Arnold having dunked a woman into a toilet. I was very alarmed when I heard about that because I like women. I also like toilets but I do not approve of dunking women into toilets.

Last night on the news, I heard Arnold explain his comment. What happened was that in the movie "Terminator 3," he got into a fight with a woman machine and during the course of the fight he dunked her head first into the toilet.

To me, this makes all the difference in the world. See, dunking a woman into a toilet is most likely a crime. But dunking a woman terminator machine into a toilet is not a crime because the terminators are machines, they're not people. I know this because I have personally seen the first two "Terminator" films and am looking forward to seeing the third. It must be pretty good if it includes a fight of Arnold and a woman terminator inside a bathroom.

The other things Arnold has said about women all have to do with him having had "relations" with them, if you get my drift. I guess on some occasions, more than one "relation" per night. Now, that doesn't bother me too much but that may be because I'm a man like Arnold and I can relate to those stories. I mean, I can't personally relate to them in the way you're thinking, but I understand what Arnold was trying to accomplish by having all these "relations." He was just trying to have a good time, which of course, he has ceased doing since he got married and started running for governor.

I am still voting for Arnold when it comes time to vote. Based on the movies I've seen him in, I think he'll make a great governor. I think you ladies out there should really consider voting for him too. Unless you're a lady terminator, you do not have to worry about him dunking you in a toilet.

by Cletus Mooch
August 29, 2003

This week, I have been asked to write a review of the new movie, "Bowling for Columbine," which just came out on DVD.

I did not see this film when it was in the theaters because it did not play here in Bakersfield. However, I had heard many good things about it and understood that it won one of the Academy Awards for Best Picture, so I was looking forward to seeing it.

I decided to invite some of the members of my bowling team from the East Hills Thursday night league over to screen the DVD with me, as I assumed what we were about to see was a instructional film on bowling.

The DVD does begin with some kids bowling but the bowling ends real soon after the movie gets started. From that point on, it's mostly about guns and not very much about bowling.

There are lots of guns in this movie, so if you like guns, you will probably enjoy the film. Basically, this fat guy goes around and talks to people about their guns. He talks to one of the guys who may have blown up the federal building in Oklahoma, then he talks to some of the kids who were at that high school in Colorado -- I forget the name of the school -- that had that terrible shooting a couple years ago.

He goes to K-Mart corporate headquarters, which I particularly found fascinating. K-Mart is one of my very favorite stores. I've been to all the K-Marts in the central valley but I never dreamed I'd get to see the corporate headquarters. Let me just prepare you by telling you it's very fancy, a lot more so than most of the K-Mart stores.

Anyway, this fat guy talks to the guys that own K-Mart at the corporate headquarters and they end up meeting with some of the kids who got shot in that high school. One of these kids still had a bullet in him from the shooting and is in a wheelchair.

They also had some video footage from that high school shooting where you could see the guys doing the shooting. At least, I think that's what it was. It might have been actors but I think it was real. Very scary stuff.

My favorite part of the movie was the part with Charlton Heston. He used to be the President of the NRA, you know, and is a hero to all of us gun owners. That fat guy wasn't very nice to him. In fact, he made Mr. Heston look like a moron. That part of the movie made me mad. Bart Cleaver almost shot my DVD player when that fat guy was making fun of Mr. Heston.

There was also an interview with one of the ugliest women I've ever seen. Her name is Marilyn Manson and I think she's a rock and roll star.

I think the moral of the movie is that bowling is a lot like guns. With guns, you shoot at things and with bowling, you throw a ball at pins, so you see it's very similar. I suppose you don't keep score the same, and you don't shoot guns in a bowling alley, at least not usually, so maybe there are some differences too. Come to think about it, the movie didn't really didn't have a lot to do with bowling at all.

I probably would have called this "Shooting for Columbine," so that people would know what it's really about, but other than that, I enjoyed the film quite a bit and would give it my highest recommendation.

by Cletus Mooch
July 24, 2003

I'd like to take the opportunity in this week's column to tell you about a new organization forming in Kern County. We're called the "Patriot Police" and we're going to be serving the citizens and residents of Bakersfield and the surrounding cities and towns in Kern County.

As Vice Commandant of the group, I have been authorized by our leader, General Freddy Cornsley, to officially spread the word and offer our services to those in need.

We're a little bit like the police but we're different because we're not policemen. None of us have ever been policemen but we all have guns and General Cornsley has several nice knives that he got at that knife store in the mall. As you probably know, I was a barber in the army for a long time and General Cornsley did time in the National Guard.

Our primary goal will be to monitor the patriotism of the community and take action when we see un-American activity. You know, things like burning the flag and protesting against the President. That's what we aim to stop.

We hope to have our own web site soon, and you can report anyone you suspect of acting un-American to us. We'll have all the contact information available. Duke Higgins has volunteered his pick up truck so we can patrol regularly.

If you sense that anybody is displaying unpatriotic behavior, please get in touch with us. Don't hesitate if it's a friend, neighbor or even a family member. We all know that even our own kin can go astray sometime. Heck, one of my cousins married a Mexican gal a couple years ago.

We've made uniforms for ourselves that are real patriotic. Bert Slagmire's wife, Rosie, has cut up a bunch of flags and sewed them into jumpsuits for us, so we look like walking American flags. It's pretty impressive, if I say so myself.

You can count us to respond in a firm but friendly manner to any all situations. With your help, we'll restore civic pride and responsibility to Kern County and make it the place we all know it can become.

by Cletus Mooch
July 3, 2003

Anyway, he said that if Hillary Clinton's book sold 1 million copies, he would "eat a shoe." That was good for a laugh but now people are starting to remind him that Hillary's book is nearing the 1 million book mark.

As an aside, I am quite surprised to learn that Hillary's book has sold this many copies. As many of you know, I reviewed it in this very column a couple of weeks ago, and I could not give it a strong recommendation. Since it has sold as many copies as it has, though, maybe I should finally break down and read it.

Getting back to this Tucker Carlson shoe-eating situation, I have given a lot of thought as to how Mr. Carlson can save some face. First, I think it's clear that he's going to have to eat a shoe pretty soon. I have gone back and watched his comment, and he was very clever in not stating which shoe he would eat. This leaves quite a few options.

I would suggest that Mr. Carlson consider eating a child's shoe. They're smaller and that's a lot less leather or canvas to eat. On the other hand, I've seen some women's shoes that really don't have much substance to them. Maybe he could find a "less filling" woman's shoe to eat. Of course, sandals would also make a good choice because there's less shoe material.

Whichever shoe Mr. Carlson chooses, I would suggest that he eat a new shoe and not a used one for obvious reasons. I looked on the Internet for shoe recipes that I might be able to share with Mr. Carlson and found several nice ones. Well, actually, they're recipes that call for chicken but I think you could substitute a shoe and get the same effect. A sauteed shoe served with a little gravy over a bed a rice, for example, would probably go down real easy.

Another option is to deep fry the shoe, then serve it with ranch dressing. You can find all sorts of things fried and served with ranch dressing here in Bakersfield, so much so that I never know what I'm eating. Might be zucchini, might be popcorn shrimp, or might just as well be a shoe. Just go a little heavier on the ranch dressing.

One of the guys down at my barber shop tells me that they make these "hemp" shoes nowadays. He said Mr. Carlson might "catch a buzz" if he ate one of those.

Maybe the best suggestion is just to take any old shoe, back over it with the pick up truck until it's good and flat, put some tomato sauce and a little cheese on it, then bake it for a little while. My guess is that it would taste something like a Dominos's pizza.

These are just a few suggestions. I hope Mr. Carlson finds them helpful. Happy eating.

by Cletus Mooch
June 26, 2003

The President is going to have another one of his wishes come true. He's going to get to see his Vice President repeat the stunt of landing on an aircraft carrier.

From all reports, Cheney, who I believe has a heart condition, wasn't too excited about the prospect of landing at sea, but the President teased him enough to make him feel like he had to do it. Vice President Cheney isn't one of those guys who doesn't really like putting on a flight suit and acting like a soldier. They may be on ccount of him finding a way out of serving in the Vietnam War, just like President Bush did.

The carrier that Cheney gets to land on isn't as nice as the one President Bush landed on. This one's called the U.S.S. Herbert Hoover, and it's one of the older models in the U.S. fleet. The Hoover has a much shorter deck, which means the pilots have to apply the brakes on the jets much harder in order to keep the plane from skidding off the end of the carrier. It more resembles a barge than an aircraft carrier.

I am told that Cheney has a custom-made flight suit, since the ones the Air Force uses won't fit him. Cheney's suit is built with the "Sans-a-Belt" elastic waistband technology and is outfitted with a special "rear end reservoir" designed by the Depends company. I don't know what that's all about but let's just say I'd hate to be a pilot stuck in the cockpit with Cheney.

Anyway, supposedly Karl Rove thought it would be a good idea if they had some footage of Cheney in fighter gear, and I guess Mr. Rove knows what he's doing. After all, he's managed to get Bush elected Governor of Texas and President of the USA. Plus, they can always clean up the Vice President after he's lands on the carrier and make him look every bit a war hero as President Bush.

by Cletus Mooch
June 19, 2003

This week I was asked to review Hillary Clinton's new book, "Living History." Actually, I was asked to compare Mrs. Clinton's book to Sidney Blumenthal's recent book, "The Clinton Wars," which I'll have you know was one tall task.

I was more excited to read "The Clinton Wars," which I assumed would be about real wars that Bill Clinton fought in or led while he was President. When the book arrived, however, I was sadly disappointed. As it turns out, President Clinton didn't fight in a war or lead one. I thought I remembered him being the President during the Vietnam War, but looking through the book's index, I didn't see any references that would confirm this fact.

There were lots of mentions of Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater, which as everyone recalls was a big scandal involving Clinton taking a White House intern on a rafting trip without Hillary. From the back cover, I would suppose that Mr. Blumenthal was one of Mr. Clinton's friends, since he has many nice things to say about him and not much good at all to say about the Republicans who impeached him.

Next, I turned to Mrs. Clinton's book. I was disappointed to see that there weren't very many pictures in it. I prefer books with lots of pictures, just to break up all the words. There is a very nice picture of Mrs. Clinton on the cover, looking all serious and all.

In thumbing through this book, I was struck by how small the type was and how many chapters there were. I saw lots of references to President Clinton and to the Whitewater trip that he took with Ms. Lewinsky.

I don't think I can recommend either of these two books. Of course, I didn't actually read either of them since the Blumenthal book is 800 pages long and Mrs. Clinton's book is about 550 pages long. That's close to 2000 pages with very few pictures.

That doesn't mean that I haven't found use for both books. Mrs. Clinton's book is the perfect thing to prop open the door to the guest room, and my wife likes using Blumenthal's book as a foot rest when she's sitting on the couch, since her feet don't otherwise touch the ground.

If you don't need a foot rest or a door stop, though, you might want to think about that new Harry Potter book that just came out.

by Cletus Mooch
May 8, 2003

The Democratic minority in the Senate has been doing its best to prevent confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees, particularly Judges Erik Estrada and Priscilla Owens.

The failure to confirm Estrada, the former star of the TV show "CHIPs," has confused conservatives and liberals alike. Most people I talked to thought he was a really good actor and enjoyed his work as "Ponch" on the TV show. Not too many people knew that Bush had appointed him to be a judge.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said time and time again that Estrada is qualified, and he certainly should know, being the leader of the majority and all. Personally, I think the fact that he portrayed a highway patrolman shows that he has a good sense of law and order and moral character.

I don't know much about Judge Owens except that the Democrats don't like her either. For all I know, she's related to Buck Owens, who lives right here in Bakersfield, but don't quote me on that. I do know that the Democrats dislike her and Estrada so much, they have filibustered them to prevent them from being confirmed.

For those of you who don't know, the filibuster is a sneaky, technical way for Democrats to get their way even though they don't have a majority in the Senate. They just keep talking and talking and talking and don't ever let the confirmation come to a vote. I can't stand people like that, who talk too much.

Senator Frist recently said he might consider a lawsuit to change the rules and do away with the filibuster, at least as it affects getting Estrada and Owens confirmed. One alternative that Senator Frist proposed was to give Vice President Cheney the power to end any filibusters that have gone on too long. This seems to be a fair solution.

In all likelihood, this matter will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, so who knows if the rules can legally be changed. Of course, some of those Supreme Court justices are awfully clever people. Without them, we wouldn't know who won the last presidential election. I'll bet if they think about it hard enough, they can come up with a good reason to end all the filibustering nonsense.

by Cletus Mooch
March 20, 2003

Any U.S. citizen expressing dissent against the President during wartime should be jailed and prosecuted for treason. This is a tough stance, but one that is necessary in order to preserve our democracy.

I recently learned that the Department of Justice is busy drafting what it is tenatively calling "Patriot III," a sequel to the U.S. Patriot Act and it's little brother, "Patriot II," which still has not been passed by Congress. Patriot III will allow the wholesale rounding up of any and all dissenters and protesters on the order of Attorney General John Ashcroft, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Chief Justice Rehnquist, or any other "high ranking" adminstration official.

My understanding is that television and film production will be seroiusly affected by the "roundups," as they are being called, as a substantial number of Hollywood actors are expected to be the first targets of the new act. Several radio talk show hosts have volunteered to fill the gaps on TV left by the absence of such shows as "The West Wing."

Senator Tom Daschle, the Senate Minority Leader, who had the audacity to denegrate the President's diplomacy efforts, and former President Jimmy Carter, who has called for a "peaceful resolution" of the problem, should also be taken into custody and silenced.

During wartime, the President needs to hear only encouraging words. The troops need to be able to pick up the papers and see demonstrators with banners encouraging them to go out and kill their enemies. For these reasons, Patriot III should be used to cause all major newspapers to devote the first page to photographs that support the war.

In due course, some of the liberties constratined by Patriot III would be relaxed. Once the war in Iraq officially ends - which could be years, taking into account the U.S. occupation of the country following Saddam's defeat - all "dissenters" would be released and allowed to resume their lives.

One needs only look at the Vietnam War for confirmation that Patriot III is right for the country. During the late-60s and early-70s, war protesters were so vocal that President Nixon was forced to withdraw American forces from the war. A perfectly good war effort was ruined by public dissent. If not for the public's demand to end the war, we might still have troops in Vietnam today.

The message from the DOJ is clear. The same mistake will not be made twice. Dissenters will either hold their tongues and bury their protests or else face the consequences of Patriot III and the suspension of all liberties.

by Cletus Mooch
March 5, 2003

You have no doubt been hearing a lot from the "Hollywood crowd" opposing the war efforts of our President, George W. Bush. As the President pledges to bring war to the middle east, certain actors, actresses, and rock and roll singers are speaking their minds in anti-American ways.

I'm not sure why these people think they should get to have an opinion. I've been listening to a lot of the talk shows that air on the radio, and the message I'm hearing is that the opinions of actors and singers don't count because they're actors and singers. Their singing and acting counts but their opinions don't, if you know what I mean. If you want an opinion, turn on Rush. There's a guy who gets paid to give an opinion. If you want a song, turn on Charlie Daniels -not Sheryl Crow. Watch an Arnold Schwarzeneger movie -not The West Wing.

I think the only way to teach these people a lesson is to boycott their movies and TV shows and music. I've started compiling a list of things to boycott. This will hit them right where they hurt - in the pocket book. Here's the list:

1. "The West Wing." Don't watch it any more. I think UPN runs one of its comedies at the same time or the PAX network has re-runs of "Little House on the Prairie," which still brings a tear to my eye. Both would be acceptable alternatives.

2. Sheryl Crow's Music. Quit listening to it. She had the nerve to insult every American soldier by wearing a "No War" guitar strap on the Grammys. That's like spitting right in the face of General Tommy Franks. If you have any of Sheryl Crow's records, sell them on eBay.

3. Sean Penn. I'm not real sure I know who he is but I do know he went over to Iraq. If you know anything about him, let me know. I think he's a singer, so if that's right don't buy any of his records.

4. Charlie Sheen. Avoid all of his movies. The only one that's any good is "The Breakfast Club."

If we can get everyone to do just these four things, we can shut down this Hollywood outrage. These people will learn the lesson that you don't mess with real patriots when it's war time.

by Cletus Mooch
February 27, 2003

Saddam Hussein has challenged President Bush to a debate. So far, the White House has refused the offer, but perhaps it should reconsider.

I know that there are some who think President Bush isn't the most eloquent speaker. Heck, I'd go as far as to say he's kind of a boob when he has to talk off the top of his head. No one knows what's going to come out of his mouth. Nevertheless, he means well and the American people usually understand what he's trying to say.

Debating Saddam would be tricky, more so than debating Al Gore, but there are ways the President could win such a debate:

1. Insist that the interpreter be one of our guys. That way, when Saddam gives an answer, the interpreter can deliver the message President Bush wants the American people to hear, even if it's totally different from the answer Saddam gave. It really doesn't matter if the interpreter speaks Iraqi because the answers will all be written ahead of time. Someone impartial, like Don Rumsfeld, would be an ideal intepreter.

Example: "Q: What is your relationship with Al Qaeda?"
"A: We have no relationship with Al Qaeda."
"Interpreted answer: Osama and I play golf every Tuesday."

2. President Bush can be wired with a receiver in his ear, and Colin Powell can feed him with answers that make him sound intelligent. I'm not sure why they didn't do this with the Gore debates.

3. We should insist that Dick Cheney moderate the debate. I would imagine the questions being something like: "President Bush, is your war on Iraq for a noble one, a bold attempt to liberate the people of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam, a quest for liberty and freedom, and yadda yadda yadda etc." and "Mr. Saddam, why have you chosen to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, hide them away where no one can find them - even U.N. inspectors who have been turning over rocks and boulders for weeks on end - and made secret deals with terrorists that we have been unable to verify but which we know you have made because you are such a sick and evil person and, on top of that, we don't like you very much?"

4. We would insist that Tony Blair appear with President Bush, since they are allies against Saddam. All "tough questions" would be referred to Blair.

These may sound like cheap tactics to take in a debate between national leaders but, let's face it, when the playing field's not level, you have to do things to level it.

So, President Bush, if you're reading this, please don't hesitate to accept Mr. Saddam's offer to debate. Follow my strategies and you'll come out much better than most people would expect. The American people - except for the few million war protesters - are 100% behind you.

by Cletus Mooch
February 23, 2003

President Bush showed the peace marchers - or peace standers, if you will - in New York City that he will put up with only so much of these anti-war protests.

When the city denied a permit for an anti-war demonstration, the matter went to court. A couple of lawyers from the Bush adminstration argued in favor of denying the permit for "security" reasons. End result: permit denied. No marching allowed. Standing still permitted.

This is the kind of action I have been arguing for since day one. In times of war - and last time I checked we were all still involved in the "War on Terrorism," not to mention the ongoing "War on Drugs" - certain civil liberties need to be restrained. Two of those liberties are freedom of speech and freedom of association. Dissent can only be tolerated in small doses and certainly cannot be allowed to be communicated by hundreds of thousands of people marching in a street.

These peace demonstrations send out terribly wrong messages. First, they show disrespect to the policies of our duly-elected President Bush. Whatever you think about the man, people should respect the office and all of the decisions made by the man holding the office. Second, they show a country divided instead of a country united in the war effort. This makes it look it like we're not all of one mind in invading Iraq and shows weakness that terrorists will surely exploit. Finally, these demonstrations ignore the high security risks associated with gatherings of radicals. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that several of the demonstrators had inhaled marijuana before coming up with their protest signs.

They had the right idea back in the old days of the U.S.S.R. which tolerated no dissenting voices. President Bush is sick and tired of hearing people criticize his rush to war. For now, the peace marchers are at a standstill. Tomorrow, they may find themselves behind bars.

by Cletus Mooch
February 16, 2003

After years of worrying about how to protect our homeland from biological, chemical and nuclear attack, the U.S. government has finally produced an answer. It's a simple as a trip to the local hardware store and involves little more than a couple rolls of duct tape and some plastic sheeting.

First, identify a room in your house that you want to use as a fallout shelter. We're using a spare bedroom for this purpose.

Second, employ your plastic sheeting and duct tape to seal off all vents and crevices so that no air can penetrate the shelter. The more air tight, the better.

Third, when an attack comes, head for the room and wait until the government tells you to come out. For this purpose, I recommend including a transistor radio or a TV set in the shelter so that you can watch the news and find out when it's safe to emerge from your shelter.

Some people have asked me, "Cletus, what if I'm not home during an attack?" If you're not home, then go home. You have to be near the shelter when the attack occurs. If you're out shopping or driving on the freeway or playing golf, stop what you're doing. Try to limit your breathing until you get to your shelter.

Another question I get, is "Cletus, how do I know when there's been an attack?" This is a tricky one. If you notice a foul odor in the air, then assume the worst and head for the shelter. Otherwise, keep your radio and TV on at all times, tuned to a reliable news source like the Fox News Network.

Lastly, people want to know "Cletus, will plastic and duct tape really protect me from a nuclear or biological attack?" Yes, it will, but only if you have followed the three steps outlined above.

Sometimes, the solutions to our problems are right in front of us. While I wholeheartedly endorse bombing the hell out of whoever we think might want to bomb us, we have to remain vigilant, just in case one of their bombs sneaks through our defense. Don't allow yourself to be caught off guard, when the most practical defense is right down the street at your local hardware store.

by Cletus Mooch
January 24, 2003

Democratic Senator John Kerry has criticized President Bush's "rush to war" with Iraq, accusing the President of being "belligerent" and "myopic" in his attitude and views. I'd suggest Senator Kerry take time to cool off the rhetoric and reexamine his criticisms.

President Bush isn't belligerent. He's just sick and tired of having to deal with Iraq and Sadaam Hussein. Let's face it, this war could have started the week the President was sworn into office. He's been very patient, waiting more than two years to ramp up the war campaign. His patience is at an end.

This is not just about what's good for the country. It's about family honor. There's no doubt that the President has heard a lot of "what I should have done"-s from his father for the last 8 years, and the fact that Sadaam is still in power is just a thorn in the Bush family's pride. Sadaam was heard to laugh out loud when the President's father lost to Bill Clinton a decade ago. Now, it's time for payback.

President Bush isn't myopic. He just has a narrow view of the situation. Understand that this isn't just a matter of what's best for America, it's what's best for the Bush family and the honor of his father. It's what's best for the oil business that keeps our country driving. Maybe it isn't the best thing for our so-called "allies," but the last time I checked, I was a citizen of the United States of America -- not the world.

Germany and France are openly opposed to war with Iraq as long as the situation can be handled peacefully. I say that a peaceful resolution would be wrong for several reasons. First, large numbers of our armed forces are already present in the region. Why send them all that way for nothing? Second, as the year drags on, everyone's attention will turn towards the 2004 elections, and it will be hard to focus on the war. Now is clearly the best time to begin the bombing campaigns. Third, anyone who criticizes going to war for any reason is a weak-kneed liberal dove-loving coward.

Some say that President Bush's policies have put us ad odds with our traditional allies. Maybe that's right, but if the President doesn't think we need France, Germany, Italy, Turkey or any of the rest of those countries, I don't either. Truth is, we could take out all of those so-called "allies" if they got in our way, and maybe that's what we'll do if we have any ammo left after taking over Iraq.

Good conservatives everywhere understand my viewpoint. Senator Kerry would be best advised to take his seat in the Senate and worry about things he can control. General Bush, drawing on his years of experience in the Texas Air Guard, is in charge of this war and the restoration of family honor.