BrentAllen

Amen, Ma. Our Pack participated in the annual flag placing at Marietta National Cemetery on Saturday. Over 18,000 grave sites of our heros received an honoring salute and flag from a Scout. We had so many Scouts there from across the Council, it took less than an hour to cover the cemetery with flags. One of my Bears had the special privilege and honor of placing the flag on the grave of one of his ancestors, who fought in WWI. What a nice event.

We have the opposite situation at our council (AAC). The course is offered twice a year, and is sold out with plenty of Scouters wanting to attend. We have 6 BALOO trained leaders in our Pack, but I keep pushing for all of our Den leaders to take the course. Some will argue they aleardy know how to camp, and they don't think they will get anything out of the class. I point out the course is not only designed to teach you how to camp, but also teaches how to take your unit camping safely, which is a big difference. We were taught how to keep an eye out for the new campers (brand new equipment, right out of the box) and to keep an eye on them. Some folks just don't want to admit they haven't been camping before. Several years back, there were two fatalities at Bert Adams Scout Camp - a Tiger and his dad. It got cold that night, so the dad took the hibatchi grill they had used for cooking inside the tent, for warmth. They never woke up again. What is obviously dangerous to an experienced camper might appear harmless to a new one.

I think everyone is putting too much thought into the membership decline. The numbers dropped in January, which is recharter time. After all the bad press about ghost units and inflated numbers, my guess is the SE's around the country cleaned their rolls and tried to get the numbers as accurate as possible. With the ACLU threatening lawsuits against the BSA for public school charters, any "ghost units" at public schools certainly disappeared. My guess is the large majority of the drop in numbers was due to this roll cleaning excercise. I don't see how the Jamboree event affected numbers. Those were adults, not Scouts. I don't know of anyone who even mentioned dropping out because of that. In our area, membership is up. I'm still convinced that if boys are offered "a game with a purpose" that is fun and exciting, Scouting will thrive.

When our Cubmaster retired last year, after 3 years as Cubmaster and 5 years as a Den Leader, I ordered a very nice walking stick from Brazos (see link). It was lazer engraved with his name on one side, and "Cubmaster" on the other. These sticks are so nice you really don't want to take them out in the woods! All the leaders pitched in $10 to cover the cost. This company makes very nice products! They range from around $25 to $150, so look around on the website. The one we gave as the gift was one of the exotics, a Bacote/Maple laminate shown on the link. http://www.brazos-walking-sticks.com/product/laminated_hardwoods_bocote_maple_walking_stick.html

Looks like we finally have an "official" answer to the question at the top of this thread. Scouting Magazine answers the question on page 4, Saluting in uniform. As per BSA, the terms are "official uniform" and "activity uniform." Scouts salute while wearing both.

IM, Sorry to be blunt, but if your program is not exciting - look in the mirror. As the DL, you have the power to make the program interesting and exciting, or boring. I'm convinced Webelos II can be the toughest year in Scouting, but that doesn't mean it has to be. Plan an exciting program and execute! Get a copy of the BSA Field Manual and go to town! Sell adventure to the boys and they will buy all you can provide. So a couple of your Scouts don't know how to camp, and you feel like you are babysitting. What a great opportunity to teach those boys, with all the outdoor experience you have! If their dads don't have the time - or expertise - to teach them how to take care of themselves in the outdoors, they are lucky to have you! Don't let them down!

Wikipedia: In the mid 1980s, the reform-minded Mikhail Gorbachev came to power. He introduced the landmark policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), in an attempt to modernize Soviet communism. March 26, 1989: the first free elections are held for the new Congress of People's Deputy's. Boris Yeltsin along with 1,500 others is elected leaving the Communist party only 500 seats. June 12, 1991: Boris Yeltsin is elected president of the Russian parliament. Gorbachev remains head of the Communist party. August 21, 1991: The Coup leaders try to flee but are arrested. Gorbachev is freed and flown to Moscow. Yeltsin declares that the Communist party is ended and suspends all party structure and seizes the party papers.

What, are you blind?? I didn't answer your question?? Try looking at the post right above your last one. It was only up for 2 hours before your last post. (posted at 6:35 PM) Call it what YOU want, but the Russians were Communists until August 21, 1991. Big C, little c, it doesn't matter - they were Communists. "If Saddam was so bad..." You really have to ask that? You don't believe he was so bad? Did you not see the film of the poor Iraqis being thrown off the roof of a two-story building, with their arms tied behind their back? Did you not hear about the Kurds and Shia's trying to overthrow him, only to be gassed? Did you not hear of the torture chambers, mass burials, etc...? We have let the people of Iraq vote on and form the government they want - an option they never had under Saddam. We are not shoving our government down their throat - we are letting them choose.

So, Longhaul, why did you leave out the rest of the definition. You know, the part where it says communism is A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT!!! What was your question again? Let's see, something like "You do realize that Communism is an economic reference and not a form of political government, dont you?" Communism A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. Democracy represents freedom, based on a capitalistic society. Communism is the opposite of capitalism. If we are justified in trying to stop the spread of Communism was Russia justified in trying to stop the spread of Western Economics? No! Russia had to invade countries and force them into communism. Freedom-loving people around the world have fought against communist takeover (SW Africa/Namibia for example). Who wants to fight against freedom? Dictators and tyrants, to use your word. No, they were not justified in trying to stop the spread of freedom and democracy. Do you disagree? Do you think communism is a better form of government? Why didn't communism survive in Russia? Beaver - we invaded Iraq because our intelligence, British intelligence, UN intelligence said they had WMD's. Did Bush manipulate Downing Street as well as the CIA? Democrats and Republicans agreed. Go back and read the quotes. Especially the one from Hillary. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 This was the day before the vote on the resolution authorizing the use of force. Comprende'?

"You do realize that Communism is an economic reference and not a form of political government, dont you? By that I mean Democracy is not the opposite of Communism, you realize that dont you?" You are kidding, right?? Communism is just economics?? Where is the world were you educated? Do you have a dictionary? If so, where is it from? Name? Please provide the definitions of communism and democracy in your dictionary. I'm very interested to see what they are. Free market vs. party control; private property rights vs. state control? Yes, they are the opposite! Now the big questions - do you think that communism is a bad thing? Would you mind living in a communist country? Is it better than democracy? If you are that far out in left field, then I don't see how we will ever find common ground.

"We had them under sanctions that kept them from rebuilding it." Too bad France and Russia violated those sanctions, providing plenty of cash to Saddam. "At least 85% of their WMD's had been accounted for and destroyed under the weapons inspection teams." Documentation?? "The Bush admin cooked up a variety of "reasons" for war and shopped them to other nations and the US public." Actually, the UN had issued a dozen empty-threat resolutions against Iraq. We just decided to enforce them. We are fighting Al Qaida in Iraq. Too bad your partisan glasses won't allow you to see that.

LH, You are so far out there, I'm not sure where to begin. Yes, we were allies with the Russians in the war against Germany. 35 years later we were in an arms race with them. We were also trying to stop the spread of communism. Russia invaded Afghanistan and we chose to give aid to Osama, who was fighting the Russians. Was Russia justified in invading Afghanistan, in your book? Any surprise here? 20 years later, Osama attacks us. #2, 3 and 4 make no sense to me. I can only assume you are of the Neville Chamberlin crowd, and think you can negotiate with dictators. You write: "You accept that Russia posed a threat to us and that they had to be stopped, or I should say your statement leads me to believe that you accept that Russia was a threat. That being the case is the reverse true? Do you think Russia saw us as a threat? A force which had to be stopped from spreading globally? If we are justified attempting to stop them are they justified in trying to stop us? Can you make those distinctions?" So, we were to blame for Russia invading Afghanistan? How interesting. Where exactly were we "spreading globally" that the Russians had to stop us? This I got to hear! You didn't know who Ward Churchill is?? That explains a lot. Gern, Do you know who al-Zarqawi is? Maybe you should check out this letter. We might need to run this by packsaddle, to make sure this intelligence wasn't just cherry-picked. Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi October 11, 2005 ODNI News Release No. 2-05 Today the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a letter between two senior al Qa'ida leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, that was obtained during counterterrorism operations in Iraq. This lengthy document provides a comprehensive view of al Qa'ida's strategy in Iraq and globally. The letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi is dated July 9, 2005. The contents were released only after assurances that no ongoing intelligence or military operations would be affected by making this document public. The document has not been edited in any way and is released in its entirety in both the Arabic and English translated forms. The United States Government has the highest confidence in the letter's authenticity. Al-Zawahiri's letter offers a strategic vision for al Qa'ida's direction for Iraq and beyond, and portrays al Qa'ida's senior leadership's isolation and dependence. Among the letter's highlights are discussions indicating: The centrality of the war in Iraq for the global jihad. From al Qa'ida's point of view, the war does not end with an American departure. An acknowledgment of the appeal of democracy to the Iraqis. The strategic vision of inevitable conflict, with a tacit recognition of current political dynamics in Iraq; with a call by al-Zawahiri for political action equal to military action. The need to maintain popular support at least until jihadist rule has been established. Admission that more than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media." See that Gern - battlefield of the media. Still think they don't know what is printed here in the states?? Our MSM is helping them win the war. Now from CNN: "Insurgent attacks in the last six months have killed more than 8,000 Iraqi civilians, police and troops, according to Iraq's interior minister. In an interview with CNN, Iraqi Interior Minister Baqir Jabbur said "terrorists" had killed 8,175 people and wounded another 12,000 since January 2005." Who are these terrorists? Who is killing the Iraqi police and troops? (Hint - not the USA) Is it possible to convince you and LH and packsaddle that we are fighting Al Qaida in Iraq? Al Qaida certainly seems to think they are fighting us in Iraq.

Yes, the terrorists were born in Saudi Arabia. Were they supported by the Saudi government? No. Were they acting under orders from the Saudi government? No. Timothy McVeigh was trained in the US Army, but he was not acting on behalf of the government when he blew up the building in OK. Osama had already been kicked out of the country, and these terrorists chose to follow him. How does that relate to our interaction with the Saudi government and Saudi military? The military bases were part of the reason given for the attack. I believe the main reason is because they see us as a bunch of decadent infidels. They hate our Western lifestyle. They hate that our culture is invading their land. They hate our freedom. If it was just the bases in Saudi that provoked them, why didn't they attack the bases? Why didn't they attack the Saudi government for asking us in and allowing us on their land? Any answers?? I didn't ask why we are in Iraq. I asked who are we fighting in Iraq? Simple question - who, right now, today, are we fighting in Iraq?

Gern, So, according to you, we deserved to be attacked because we had troops in Saudi - where we were invited to set up bases? Is that your contention? Osama had every right to attack and kill all those civilians on 9/11, because we had bases in a country he had been kicked out of? Just want to make sure I understand your point. FYI, we pulled the troops out of Saudi Arabia because the Saudis asked us to. They invited us in, they asked us to leave. Like good neighbors, we agreed to their request. Again, who do you think we are fighting in Iraq? Simple question - why can't I get an answer from those on the left?

LH, Thank you for straightening me out - I'm starting to see your point. By understanding Hitler, it makes things all better. It wasn't his fault, right? If all those Jews had just left Germany and Poland and every where else Hitler wanted to "liberate" from the Jews, he wouldn't have had to kill them! I like this little mind game! I feel so enlightened! And if all Americans weren't decadent infidels, then Osama wouldn't have attacked us! All we need to do is have everyone convert to Islam, take away all the rights of women and force them to wear burkas all the time. Destroy Hollywood and do away with the 1st Amendment. Maybe then they will like us, and won't attack us. Yes, your thinking makes a lot of sense! You are right again, we created Osama the monster. Even though Russia was spreading into the middle east and we needed allies to help stop that threat, we never should have armed Osama. Anyone with a brain could see that 20 years later, he was going to turn on us. How could we not see that coming? It wasn't Osama's fault that he attacked us - it was ours. We infidels had troops in Saudi Arabia - how cruel of us! Putting infidel soldiers in their holy land - of course we deserved it! Please let me know the next time you are going to see Ward Churchill speak - I would like to come along. I'm still not ready to call all of the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmans who deserved to die" but I'm sure if I spend a couple of hours with you and Ward getting brainwashed, I mean enlightened, I will be able to fully understand the "truth". I don't have any of Michael Moore's movies or books - I know, how stupid of me. Could I borrow yours? It will only be for a couple of days, and I will get them right back to you. I know you want to watch F. 911 each night before you go to bed, but maybe you could skip a couple of nights so I can be enlightened. Please? I think I'm going to puke...

Lisa'bob, I haven't read the Rand report, but from what you've posted, I would have to say I do agree with parts of their assessment. If they think those (lack of) tangible benefits to the man on the street are the main reasons for the problems, I would disagree. #1, there wasn't a terrorist group like Al Qaida present in Japan or Germany, set on destroying the US, in the name of their religion. #2, there weren't 3 different religious groups vying for control of the country. I fully recognize giving democracy to Iraq MAY BE like giving Rodney King $1 million - it ain't going to last. Mu guess is there were plenty who didn't think things would ever work out in Japan, and they were absolutely wrong. Saddam got rid of the Scouting in Iraq. Evil Americans are helping to reestablish both the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in the country. It ain't powdered milk, but it is a significant achievement in my book.

If vehemently disagreeing with those who call our President a liar and call the insurgents/terrorists "freedom fighters" makes me McCarthyesque, then so be it. It is pretty simple to me. We were attacked, without provocation, by Al Qaida. Bush and the elected officials acted upon the best intelligence we had, as well as the Brits and others had. We took out an evil dictator and are trying to let the Iraqis form their own government. We are now fighting Al Qaida in Iraq. If we weren't fighting Al Qaida in Iraq, where would we be fighting them? If we are just fighting Iraqis who are angry at the US, then why are so many Iraqi police and soldiers getting killed in suicide bombings and attacks? Who is targeting them??

Backpacker, I thought you would at least come up with a different answer about the farms, after I pointed out how wrong you were. No matter - everyone else can see for themselves. I just put another notch in my keyboard - one more liberal, down in flames. My kids just bought that movie Chicken Little - great flick! Now I can't help but think "the farms are selling! the farms are selling!" when I see the name Backpacker. Is it true, or is it just another nut? If you are trying to hurt my feelings, you will have to come up with some different name-calling. Red Neck doesn't bother me at all. I know you have trouble with logic, but if I couldn't read, I couldn't be typing this, right? Sometimes this is just too easy...

It's been awhile since we've heard from the "I hate the USA" crowd, so thanks for the update, Longhaul. Saddam's trial is still going on, so maybe you can submit a letter on his behalf, explaining how wrong the US was to invade. Maybe you can get him reinstated as President of Iraq. I'm sure the Iraqis would love to see that. How come the Japanese and the Germans didn't feel that way in 1945? How come they weren't attacking us after their military surrendered? Is it just a cultural thing? Or maybe it isn't the Iraqis who we are fighting, but maybe members of Al Qaida? Could it be we are actually fighting terrorists??

backpacker, Welcome back - how was your search of the USDA website? Any luck? I didn't think so. I'm still curious - where did to get your information to come up with that ridiculous claim? Yes, Bush's numbers are pretty low. With the press out to get him, even Dan Rather publishing forged documents, it's no wonder. Luckily, he doesn't worry about the numbers, like his poll-watching, following-the-wind counterparts on the left. He knows what he has to do, and he sticks with it. He isn't perfect, but he is a man of faith and determination. ps, like most lefties I correspond with, can't answer simple questions. Maybe you can help him and Beaver with this one. Who do you think we are fighting in Iraq? Simple question - can you handle it?

ps, You are right - I do not know you. I don't even know your name, since you are afraid to actually sign your posts. I always wonder about people who are so willing to post so many opinions, but afraid to sign their name to any of them. What are they so afraid of? Why do they have to hide behind some silly name? I don't know you, but I certainly know your type. FYI, the President does not filter the CIA and FBI reports that go to congress. Those elected officials who made those comments on October 10, 2002 saw the same reports and came to the same conclusions. If Bush did what you claim he has done - convince the likes of Hillary and Max Cleland to vote for the authorization when the intelligence didn't support it - well, he must be the most powerful man in the history of the world. And if he is so powerful, please tell me why he didn't just plant WMD's in Iraq to cover his supposed lie? Why didn't the opposition party - the Democrats - challenge his statements? Why didn't they point out he was cherry-picking the intelligence, as you claim? If you blame anyone for what you believe, it should be the Democrats. They failed catastrophically, if history happened as you claim, and every single one of those deaths should be blamed on them. You just stated that Bush needed their votes for the authorization to use force. How do they escape your blame? For the record, there are no resolutions from the UN against Cuba, threatening the use of force. How many were there against Iraq? Beaver asks why we waited 12 years before taking action against Iraq? Because we finally had a leader who said enough with these empty threats. It is like warning your two-year-old that you are going to punish him, but never do - they end up playing the parents for fools. Bush finally said to the UN - if you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk - something that worthless organization just couldn't understand. Those generals are just Monday morning QB'ing, just like ps. Our invasion of Iraq was the most stunning military victory this country has ever seen. If anyone thinks having twice the number of troops over there now would make a huge difference, I think they are kidding themselves. Maybe if we had 10 times the number, but that is impossible. Beaver - ask the Spaniards about fighting terrorists in their backyard. Ask the Israelis. They won't be in uniform, just as they weren't in the 9/11 attackes. Terrorists need camps to train. Our military is doing their best to make sure that doesn't happen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus we are sending a lot of them to see Allah. I'm curious - who do you think we are fighting in Iraq? Who do you think al-Zarqawi is?

ps, I have nominated you to the NFL Hall of Fame. Position: Monday morning Quarterback. You'll be a shoe-in. Congratulations. Go back and read those quotes again. Especially the ones made on October 10, 2002. What was special about that day? It was the day before the vote on the resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam. Look that up, and see who voted in favor. Then try to rationalize who is and isn't responsible for us being in Iraq. Even your lefty poster boy Max Cleland voted in favor, along with Hillary and plenty of other Democrats. The difference between us is I know they didn't lie, but sitting in your Monday morning Lazy Boy recliner, you think they did. I know they were all acting on the best intelligence they had at the time. Facts like that don't matter to Monday morning QB's. You would expect me to believe that Saddam voluntarily destroyed all his weapons. You would expect me to believe that Bush knew there weren't any weapons, lied about it, but then didn't plant any weapons to cover his story. If Bush is so dishonest, why didn't he plant weapons in Iraq?? I have several friends who volunteered for the Georgia 48th as soon as they announced they were going to Iraq. Most are married, with children. One was in his 3rd year at North Georgia Military College, on his way to becoming an officer. They all volunteered because they believe in the mission. They are putting their lives on the line because they believe we are doing the right thing in Iraq. They would rather fight the terrorists there, instead of here, in our backyard. They hope they are fighting the war now, so their sons won't have to in the future. Go ahead and tell me they are without honor. Go ahead and tell me how foolish they are to believe in President Bush. I am sitting on the edge of my seat, waiting for your enlightened view of their actions. They could care less about what a bunch of has-been ex-generals, most of whom weren't even in Iraq, have to say. Where is the big scoreboard keeping track of deaths in Iraq vs. World Trade Center? Who said we would only fight until that score was evened? I find it pretty morbid that that would even interest you. Too bad you weren't around for D-Day, WWII. You would have had plenty to complain about, with all the deaths during the invasion of Normandy. Why were we even there? Germany hadn't harmed us! I have no idea what is going to happen in Iran, but I take great comfort in knowing that you will be comfortably planted in your Lazy Boy, waiting for Monday morning to roll around, so you can rewrite history with your faulty hindsight.

ps, You have those Democrat talking points down pretty well, even if they are old and worn out. "Bush lied, Bush lied, and did I mention - Bush lied." Well, if he lied, let's look at who was lying with him. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 I think that is pretty much a Who's Who from the Democrat side of the isle. Do I need to post more quotes, or are we through hearing "Bush lied"?

Backpacker, Please do not walk into a battle of wits unarmed. Let me spell this out for you very carefully, so that you don't embarrass yourself any further. 1% of US farm land is owned by foreign entities. Of that 1%, 72% is owned by foreign corporations, 20% is owned by foreign partnerships, 6% is owned by foreign individuals. The remaining 2% is held by estates, trusts, institutions, associations, and others. Get it? Only 72% of 1%. That means .72 of 1% is foreign owned, not 70% as you claimed. US corporations or individuals (family farmers) own the other 99%. Should we alert the presses? Just to refresh your memory, let's see exactly what you did claim: "Why the big deal over the ports when for the last 25 years over 70% of all the American farmland have been sold to Arab and Japanese corporations driving the family farmers out of business, did anyone cry out then, heck no. So now these corporations will have ports to ship all the food they grow in our country to their homelands, and ship in whatever weapons they wish." Do you write for the Daily Show on the side?? I haven't read anything that funny in a long time! Does Congress know about this!?!?! Now they don't have the ports and they don't have all that food - I guess we got 'em right where we want 'em, eh?? Now, what were you saying about moronic statements? And finally, if you could navigate this site and read my profile, you would see I am a Cubmaster. That means I'm affiliated with a Pack, not a Troop. You used to be a professional?(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

ps, Back when the ports deal was being discussed, Backpacker made the claim that 70% of US farmland had been purchased by foreigners - a statement which must be entered into the Galatically Stupid Statements Hall of Fame. When asked where such numbers came from, he pointed us to the USDA. Since he obviously didn't get the numbers from that site, the question remains unanswered. Did he hear it on AirAmerica, or read it on DailyKos or Huffington Post? Did he make it up, and declare it fact? Only he knows... That is where you get most of your information, right? I mean, "they are without honor?" Give me a break! When he makes claims of religious intolerance and prejudice, it is important to remember such ridiculous statements he has made in the past. This is just another one, added to his list.