Meet Michael John McCrae

Usually, I let this stuff pass. (Usually, I don't read it.) But today's a little different than other days, so...

About the Author: Michael John McCrae is an Independent, Conservative, Christian who has been personally insulted as a voter because John Kerry thinks the "Heart and Soul of America" lays in the "X- rated sexual innuendo" of Whoopi Goldberg. Well, Michael McCrae thinks America is better than that. Michael McCrae believes there is at least some morality left. So Michael McCrae is going to leave this here (until after the election) as a reminder to all of what John Kerry and John Edwards believe the Real America to be. They believe America's "heart and soul" resides in the "X-rated sexual innuendo" of Whoopi Goldberg. You can draw your own conclusions. Email: michael.mccrae@us.army.mil

If you've been reading YWA for any length of time, you already know what I think of Kerry and Edwards.

I'm sure you have already gathered that Michael Conservative Christian McCrae is freaked out about sexuality more than probably just about anything. As though Edwards and Kerry specifically isolated a ribald innuendo as the place where the heart and soul of America lies. (It's lies, Michael, not lays. An egg gets laid. And a lucky man.)

But let's look at what the personally insulted Michael John McCrae is leaving up until after the election, just for some Sunday fun.

In the NUFF SAID Department: I saw an ad for the upcoming CNN John Kerry Special Report: “Born to Run”. I had to wonder; is that born to run to the UN when he gets a boo-boo; or is it born to run away at the first sign of trouble? Never mind that this will be a great, unpaid-for, political advertisement for the “Elect Kerry Campaign”. Never mind too that the President will not get equal free time on CNN boosting his campaign. All you needed to see was the ad for the one hour “Elect Kerry” show. Several people are shown being interviewed and no one is saying anything negative about Kerry. That is CNN being unfair and unbalanced. Nuff said!

I guess Michael missed George's great unpaid-for advertisement, the ABC special with Diane Sawyer. And the Meet the Press interview. And the Fox interview.

And I guess Michael isn't counting all the many hours of CNN coverage of the president's speeches and antics around the world for the past four years.

Frankly, I can't see any reason why the incumbent in any presidential election should need campaign advertising time. If four years of his leadership isn't enough advertisement of what to expect from a man, then what is?

I see everyone liberal is still very concerned about hurting the feelings of France and Germany. Germany should understand that we do not have to leave one, single American in Germany anymore. They are supposedly a world leader for truth, justice, democracy and freedom. They don’t need us anymore. If we move our bases to Poland, and Latvia and Estonia and Bulgaria, we will help the economies of those countries and Germany will have much more room to give in support of their burdensome socialist programs.

So, Michael, honey. Ask yourself the logical question: Why are we in Germany? To bolster their economy? You really think?

...[E]xcept for the United States and a few other like civilized nations, most other nations of the world are ruled by heartless, dictatorial crap-heads who don’t care about the sanctity of life. (If the shoe fits, Pal!)

...And France? Well; who really cares about France besides John Kerry? Nuff said!

Somebody who cares about the sanctity of life perhaps? A Christian maybe?

Arnold, though he was joking, was addressing people who can’t take a joke; unless of course it is an “X-rated rant” from one certain comic.

Let me get this straight...Arnold makes jokes. Whoopi rants. Because Arnold is a bad actor turned governor, and Whoopi is a comedian. Okay, I think I've got it.

I owe Mr. Robert Novak a BIG apology. Novak did reveal the name of Valerie Plame, (with a “P”), but he did not break any law by his action. The whole affair is now shown for the political “liar-fest-to-get- Bush” that it was. I am sorry for ever doubting you Robert. I still wish I knew how much CNN stock you own though. Wilson lied, and it turns out Iraq had approached Niger (an African nation) for some “yellow-cake” (not pound cake or devil’s food cake, which is why Wilson sat at so many “teas” in the first place). The “16 words” so many liberals were having “poo-poo” fits over were actually based in good intelligence after all.

Michael, sweetheart, the lawbreaker is whoever leaked the name to Novak. Thank you for letting us know where Niger is, but the yellowcake claim was not actually based in good intelligence after all. The Senate report actually says that, whether he did or not, there was never any good evidence to indicate that Saddam was attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger. And, by the way, according to the Senate report, and Wilson, it seems that it was Iran that was interested in buying yellowcake.

In a “Washington Post.com” column I read this: “One day after Bush rolled out a new ad blasting Kerry for voting against a law making it separate crimes to kill or harm a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman, [John] Edwards promised a vigorous defense of abortion rights. Kerry “will stand up, fight for and protect every day that he is in the White House a woman’s right to choose.” Edwards said. (Rhetoric On Values Turns Personal, 10 July 2004)

I want to know what one has to do with the other. Kerry will defend a woman’s right to choose abortion, but he refuses to defend a woman’s right to carry her child to term? If someone kills a wanted child, Kerry will not defend the woman should her child be killed by some murderous, evil scumbag? GEE WHIZ!

And, I bet Michael is old enough to vote. What a shame.

Where, Michael, where does Kerry say he will not defend a woman whose child is killed by some murderous, evil scumbag? Michael, the law making it separate crimes to kill or harm a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman (during the commission of certain crimes), would be adding a law defending the fetus, not the woman. It creates a new legal status for a fetus - one equal to that of a person already born. A law that could have some pretty wild ramifications if some advocate of fetus' rights (some caring Christian person perhaps) should decide that any damage to a fetus can be punishable. The law does nothing to protect the woman against the attack in the first place. So it can't be that Kerry was refusing to defend the woman's rights.

In fact, Michael, there was an alternative law proposed and defeated called the Motherhood Protection Act, which would have created "a separate criminal offense for harming a pregnant women and offer penalties matching those in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. By not establishing the fetus as a separate victim, the Motherhood Protection Act still addresses the problem of violence against pregnant women without calling into question the validity of Roe v. Wade." How did Kerry vote on that one?

I did want to comment on the Nader (Yawn!), Dean (Double Yawn!) debate. I think Nader should have a Senate record before being President, don’t you?

You mean like George WTF Bush's Senate record? You couldn't mean like Abraham Lincoln who lost his bid for the Senate. Or like Dwight Eisenhower who went from a life in the military straight to the presidency? Or, is there something personal about Nader that he should be a Senator first?

Attention all Liberals! Understand that the Gay Marriage issue is causing much Southern heartache! Many of your voters in the South who proudly call themselves Democrat, also proudly proclaim the correct form of marriage is that between a man and a woman. More than 70% of the Southern Democrat voting base knows the rule for marriage as established by the one True God of Heaven. Attention all liberals!

Don't ask me.

Let's cut to the conclusion....

I am so glad to be back from Baghdad.

And we "liberals" are so glad to have you back, too. Nuff said!

Well, Michael did publish this at a site called Useless Knowledge.

And, I have wasted your time and mine (but, hey, you know what Cheney would say). I even glanced into a couple other of Michael John McCrae's writings at this site. They were essentially sermons. One discusses being "with us or against us," in effect.

In the scriptures there are: “wheat and tares”, “sheep and goats”, “leavened and unleavened bread”, you know; other forms of Black and White.

...The admonition of scripture is to “examine your own self”. So, in a way, I agree with some of the more current offerings of my readers. I am examining myself as to the truthful content and the fairness of what I write.

I'm going to suggest he failed the exam.

I don’t ever worry about expressing my faith through scripture. The Word of God is the finest tool of truth one can have. A person can ignore it; disbelieve it; rail against it; condemn it; yet, it remains the only truth that will lead one to life eternal.

It is all there in Black and White. I’m a sheep, not a goat.

I can agree with the sheep part.

Okay, I release you now from this Sunday's sermon. Back to your pagan-ass lives. But don't come to me crying when you get your goat certificate.

....oh, do what you want....you will anyway.