Cindy Sheehan

I can sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan over the loss of her son. Still, while she continues to act and speak in a rather lunatic manor, I have to point a few things out. First, her son volunteered to join the Armed Forces. It has been since the ‘70’s since we have had the draft. Since he volunteered, it cannot be argued that he did not know what he was heading into. He decided as an Adult to go and serve his nation as a member of the Armed Forces. Secondly, she has already met with the President of the United States. He spent his precious time honoring her son, and she turns around and just craps all over it. All this shows is that she is a selfish, ungrateful woman. Third, she demands that we pull out of Iraq now. This is the epitome of ignorance. If we were to indeed abandon Iraq and the commitment we made to her citizens now, it would only further endanger the lives of every American in the world, including here in the continental States. Finally, I can only conclude that her grief and anger has driven all rationality from her. Her family has disavowed her. Her husband has filed for divorce. The little woman in Crawford is nothing more than an whiner.

The Sad New York Times

It is now absolutely clear that the main stream media, specifically, the New York Times has no morals what so ever. The character of a man is determined by his actions. His actions are the manifestation of the desires if his heart. If we were to apply this truth of humanity to the New York Times, we could determine that there is nothing that is held sacred.

What am I babbling on about? Simple. The Times is investigating the Sealed documentation of his adopted children. I have adopted my daughter; I know something of the subject. The sealing of documentation surrounding any adoption is routine, and in most states mandatory.

This is for one reason only, the protection of the children. Simply put, the political preferences and ideology of the New York Times is more important than the protection of children. Thereby, we can conclude that the New York Times is Anti-Child.

There can be no other conclusion that can be reached. Their blatant and obtuse intrusion into the innocent lives of children is a perverted abuse of the first amendment. There should be members of the editorial board and the Editor in Chief himself that should answer to authorities. The “investigative journalists” should be immediately fired for suggesting any such story. These people should look the children of Roberts in the eye and look Roberts himself and his wife in the eye and beg forgiveness for putting their children in such a position.

To the New York Times, the sacrifice of innocent children is cause and justification for the total destruction a decent and good man. I come to the conclusion that he is a decent and good man for nothing more than he did adopt his children. There is a rather intrusive and probing investigation on the fitness of parents when trying to adopt. Therefore, if the state can approve of him as a fit father for children in dire circumstance, then his character can be assessed as good and moral.

The New York Times seems to think that the crimes of the parents should follow with the children. In this case the crime is conservatism and the punishment is sacrifice of innocent children. The Times and its associates have no conscience. It has no morality, character or objectivity. If there were a way to shame the Times in to acting in a manor conducive to the great journal of record it once was, the time has long passed, generations ago.

It is rather sad to see an institution of once great magnitude perverted to an ideology of corrupt and immoral practice. When these me and women meet God to answer for their life and their acts, may He show more mercy to them then they have to the honorable Roberts family.

KH