Toby Keith and the Lyrics

It seems that country music star Toby Keith is having a bit of a problem with ABC television. He was scheduled to perform for an ABC Fourth of July special, but his appearance was canceled at what Keith calls "the 11th hour." ABC denies that Keith was ever scheduled, but admits that they do have problems with the lyrics of the song he was going to sing.

What lyrics? Well – here's just a sample:

Justice will be served, and the battle will rage.

I'm going to stick with ABC on this one. There is a new and very rough edge to some of the country music out there right now. We can show American resolve and patriotism on July Fourth without songs about sticking books up asses. That's not to say we aren't going to do just that. We just don't need to be singing about it.

By the way. I really like Toby Keith's "I want to talk about me." Country rap. Very clever.

I'm still frightened by the situation with Jose Padilla aka Osama bin Lopez. A lot of you agree with me, many don't. I think that there's something very alarming about this American citizen being held in a military jail without being charged with any crime or without being brought before any court. If our Constitution can't prevent this, what strength does it have?

I've read several editorials over the weekend supporting Padilla's imprisonment. One column said that "If you fight with the enemy … you lose your citizenship rights." Fine – there is, in fact, a provision in federal law for just that. But it's not an automatic. There's a process you go through, a legal process, to strip someone of citizenship. Has that been done?

The editorial said "if you fight with the enemy." Fine. Now, how do we define "fighting with the enemy"? Does someone actually have to pick up a weapon? Would supplying a weapon be "fighting with the enemy"? What about donating money? They used say that armies crawled on their stomachs. Now they can be said to crawl on their bank accounts. If part of that money in their bank account is yours … are you then fighting with the enemy?

What if you give to a charity in America that then gives money to the al Qaeda? Uh oh. Fighting with the enemy.

Words are weapons too, are they not? Every American citizen has the right to speak in support of the Islamic terrorists. It's not going to make you real popular at the Waffle House … but it's your right. But wait! Since words are weapons, can't that be fighting with the enemy?

Now, let's imagine that we have some powerful people in Washington who actually do believe that speaking in support of the al Qaeda would, in essence, make you an enemy combatant. They decide you need to be locked up until the end of the (undeclared) war.

Remember – there is no clear definition as to just what constitutes victory in this war. Is it territory captured, specific individuals killed, or ideologies crushed? Just what is victory? Won't we need to know just exactly what victory is so we can know when to turn loose the American citizens the administration has determined to be "enemy combatants"?

I have no affection whatsoever for Padilla. He's a punk. A gang-banging menace. But he is an American citizen, and to protect his constitutional rights is to protect the rights of all American citizens. If the Bush administration wants to declare Padilla an enemy combatant, fine. My point is that there ought to be some legal process for doing just that. Legal process – due process.

The executive branch of government just should not be able to throw someone in jail to be held indefinitely without some involvement of the judicial branch. Some court, somewhere, should have the opportunity to review whatever evidence there might be that Padilla did, indeed, plan a terrorist attack on the U.S.

If the evidence is sufficient, keep him in the brig. If not, he should be turned loose ... maybe somewhere in northern Idaho.

Same old story. Athens, Ga. A 16-year-old driver. Driver's license in February. Got his brand spanking new fancy little car last week. Two days later the kid runs takes a curve at high speed, runs off the road and wraps the car around a utility pole. The driver is DRT. His passenger is in serious condition in the hospital. The kid's father wants something positive to come of this … something positive like a driver's education program.

Truth is this parent had every opportunity to put this kid through a driver's education program. No law forbids it. There are plenty of private driving schools out there. It's not the government's or the taxpayer's responsibility to train drivers. It IS the government's responsibility to make sure the driver has been properly trained, and driving through orange cones in a parking lot isn't going to cut it.

If you want to start some sort of a program that will save the lives of teenagers, start a program to convince parents that 16-year-old kids should not have driver's licenses, let alone new cars.

Unless you're looking to save big bucks on college expenses, there's no good reason to let your 16-year-old drive, let alone have their own car.

Where in the world is this coming from?

Evidently I have been in attendance at some White House reception that I just don't remember. I first heard about this last week. Bob Barr sent a letter to John Linder dated June 7. The gist of the letter is an accusation by Barr that Linder has violated some sort of "clean campaign pledge." That letter contains this assertion:

Then there was an article detailing the race between Linder and Barr in yesterday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution entitled "It's Mr. Outside vs. Mr. Inside." This article, by Jim Galloway, contains this:

A couple of things here:

*First of all, my debate with Barr was not on "the legalization of drugs." Bob Barr knows this but, for some reason, chose to mischaracterize the debate in his letter to Linder.

The debate was limited to the use, under a doctor's supervision, of medical grade marijuana for the relief of the pain, discomfort and nausea suffered by patients with terminal disease.

Bob Barr is so adamant in his opposition to the medically supervised use of marijuana that he has taken action in the Congress to prevent the citizens of the District of Columbia from even voting on the issue. Barr's efforts in this regard were recently overturned by a federal appeals court.

OK ... enough about the medical marijuana. What's this White House reception stuff? I have NEVER been to a White House reception. Furthermore – I have never even been invited to a White House reception. Neither Barr nor Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Jim Galloway has ever seen me at a White House reception, and neither Barr nor Galloway bothered to ask me if I was at this particular reception.

That reception, by the way, took place on May 10. On that particular day I was broadcasting from the Chesapeake Convention Center in Virginia for the WNIS Radio Talkfest!

Nice fact-checking, guys!

Now … just what is behind my support for John Linder? Simply put, three things.

1. Bob Barr moved out of a congressional district that he could have won and into Linder's district. Both are new districts … but Barr moved from a district where he had a higher percentage of former constituents than Linder and into a district where Linder carried the higher percentage of former constituents.

Now, sadly, we are going to lose one of these men in the Congress. If Barr had stayed in the district with the higher percentage of his former constituents, it is quite probable that both of these men would be returning to Congress. I feel that Barr is the interloper – my support goes to Linder.

2. John Linder is the force in the Congress behind the Fair Tax bill. [http://www.fairtax.org]. This is a bill to eliminate all payroll taxes, income tax and the IRS and replace it with a national retail sales tax. I have been a supporter of this concept for over 15 years. Linder may just be the man who has the ability to finally get this idea a fair hearing on Capitol Hill.

3.In about two years John Linder will become the chairman of the Rules Committee. Suffice it to say that this is one of the most powerful positions in Washington. Planning ahead doesn't hurt.

Now … If all these people think that I have been to some White House reception, isn't it about time they arrange for me to get invited to one?

Danilo Nunez is a substitute teacher in New York City. Evidently Nunez doesn't like to take any crap off the kids. He has now been arrested and charged with assault for wading into a class full of spoiled little bratty out-of-control kids who were screaming, throwing stuff and generally refusing to behave. Nunez used a broomstick. Eleven of the precious little brats actually had marks on them. Oh my God! Marks!

Well, in this politically correct age you can bet that Nunez is through teaching. It's a shame, though. The parents should be BEGGING the school to keep Nunez in that classroom for the rest of the year … and then next year and the year after that!

Put Nunez right up there at the front of the class when school starts next year … with a broomstick. All he has to do is tell that classroom that they WILL be quite and they WILL pay attention and they WILL NOT disrupt his class. Then, with one whack of that broomstick on the desk you will have the most attentive classroom that any government schoolteacher has taught in the past 40 years.

Viva Nunez! The little brats had it coming to them.

A listener has alerted me to some alleged goings-on over there at the Emory campus. Bear in mind that I have done nothing to verify this information – and I place it here only to solicit any information from some of you who may know what is really going on.

This is about the Hope Lodge on the Emory University Campus in Atlanta. The Hope Lodge provides lodging to certain Emory cancer patients who live more than 50 miles from the Emory Hospital. Hope Lodge is on the Emory grounds but is not owned or operated by Emory University. It is located in an area where there are many student dormitories. I'm told that these dormitories house many of Emory's foreign students.

OK ... here's what I'm told. Hope Lodge wanted to put an American flag on or near the lodge building. The rumor is that Emory University has denied permission to Hope Lodge to fly that flag because it might "offend some foreign students."

Can any of you tell me something here? Oh … you bet. I'm checking this out too. Emory University is a hotbed of leftist thought. The story is completely believable. We'll let you know.