Please! Our kids are not THAT stoopid, man.

By Joseph Walther

I stopped at a Wendy’s^® restaurant last night. I was third in a line of 5-customers. The customer being waited on was a woman in her mid-to-late-40s. She had just ordered a “TRIPLE” classic hamburger with cheese and a baked potato with butter.

That’s a hamburger with three meat patties, two slices of cheese, tomato, lettuce, onions, pickles, and a gookie-looking, dripping mixture of ketchup, mustard, and mayonnaise. Yuck! The baked potato, of course, needs no explanation.

To make a long story short, the young man at the cash register had already entered the order when the customer dropped a bombshell. I swear I’m not making this up—“NO meat on that burger and NO skin on the baked potato”—she demanded.

The employee looked simultaneously confused and terrified. He seemed speechless for a few moments before he started to explain that he wasn’t entirely sure how to handle the transaction.

The customer became indignant, calling him a “hopeless moron,” and demanded to speak to the manager.

Though the customer hadn’t realized it, the manager had been standing back observing the entire transaction. So, when he—a 50ish-looking man—stepped forward with, “I’m right here, ma’am,” she looked a bit stunned but immediately began to berate him, also.

He cut her off in mid-sentence. “Lyle is NOT a hopeless moron. He’s a straight “A” high school student and a valued employee”, he told her. “We’re not going to fill your order, either,” he continued.

“This is a hamburger joint. If you don’t want the meat on your sandwich, take it off and throw it away. If you don’t want the skin on your baked potato, don’t eat it, but we’re not going to take it off for you,” he explained. “If this does not suit you, kindly leave and don’t come back,” he finished.

She threatened to sue him and stomped out of the restaurant. As she left, though, I’m sure she heard the rousing applause that all five of us customers gave the manager. In fact, all of us gave him our names and phone numbers, just in case. Two of us, me included, gave him our email addresses.

Just the day before this, at a Concord Mall concession stand, I observed two old men—75-years old, at least—discussing why they thought Congress should vote to make certain provisions of the Patriot Act permanent.

The “kid” waiting on them was—I found out after they left—a 16-year-old second trimester high school sophomore. However, she spoke with the wisdom of someone much older and wiser.

Anyway, these two old codgers felt that the only people who had anything to fear from the Patriot Act were potential evil-doers and that such people deserved whatever the government could heap upon them.

I was about to reach down their throats and yank them inside out for being such wussies. But, as it turned out, the young lady waiting on them did it for me, only she did so with the grace and intellectual acumen of a seasoned diplomat.

“I don’t see it that way,” she explained to them. Our Constitution already provides a president with the authority to take such action. My Government Studies teacher has explained that our government has the power to suspend some of the provisions of the Constitution during declared wars.”

Continuing, she elaborated that, “I do not favor letting any branch of the government, let alone the dummies in Homeland Security, decide that whatever I may be doing is illegal without me and my lawyer being involved in the conversation.”

She further explained, “We shouldn’t prevent the President from fighting terrorists in this country. Making certain provisions of the Patriot Act permanent, though, simply deprives us of some basic rights and freedoms by permitting police authorities to be the sole determinants of what is a crime, based purely on their selective definitions and without our having any input whatsoever.”

How refreshing! This young woman displayed wisdom beyond her years. At the young age of sixteen, she already understands that some people, by virtue of their positions, have the absolute authority to define reality anyway they see fit. Baseball umpires and the members of the United States Supreme Court are two primary examples.

In baseball, a pitch is a ball or strike, NOT because it actually IS, but because the home plate umpire calls it as such. There’s no appeal, either. In fact, a player can be thrown out of the game just for questioning the call. The player has no defense whatsoever!

In the matter of our Constitution, it is whatever five of nine Justices say that it is. And, the makeup of the Supreme Court falls to the Presidents in power at the time they fill various vacancies, unless the United States Senate refuses to go along, which happens so seldom that it’s not worth discussing.

We, the people, don’t get to debate the appointments or the Court’s decisions. They become the laws of the land. Violate them and go to jail or suffer serious financial loss.

She asked them: “Are you sure you want to give this kind of power to the crowd in Homeland Security based on some misguided illusion of feeling safe? You want to be declared guilty simply because THEY say so?”

“Neither your presence nor your defense will be necessary. No lawyer for you! No limits on your detention and/or ultimate prison time, either.” As they walked away from the counter, she explained with emphatic finality, “Count me out!”

I suspect that there are more young folks of this caliber than there are of the stupid variety. It’s just that we don’t get to hear about the former because it doesn’t sell as many newspapers or increase TV news ratings as much as the latter.

Besides, assuming the youth of the land are stupid is the best way we have of boosting our own feeling of intellectual superiority. It gives us a continual scapegoat for blaming our own stupidity on the “younger” generation.

I don’t know whether she had any impact on the two old guys, but she has my vote. I won’t be alive, but she’ll make a great senator or president someday unless we self-destruct beforehand.

Have a great week and don’t fall for any April Fools tricks. Talk to you next week, same time and channel.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Fahst, let's all just simah down!

By Joseph Walther

In case you have not noticed, it has become rather testy nowadays just trying to have an intelligent conversation, especially if it involves politics in the presence of one or two visceral-minded Neanderthals.

I have stopped watching ALL cable news/pundit channels as of this past Saturday. If I hear one more “learned” analysis concerning the words of Barack Obama’s pastor, another hint of a Bill Clinton/Joe McCarthy comparison, so much as a whisper of comparing Hillary Clinton to the Wicked Witch of the West, or another word about John McCain seeking right-wing televangelists’ endorsements, I’m going to go stark raving nuts!

A friend of mine sent me an email containing a YouTube video clip this past Friday evening. It was a fantastic clip and it brought back memories of those saner days of yesteryear. I’ve put a link below, but first, let me give you some background.

In 1951, a comedian by the name of Red Skelton hit the TV airwaves. His show started out on Sunday nights but switched to Tuesday nights beginning in 1953. I was only 9-years-old when I watched my first episode. I thought Red Skelton was not only the funniest man who ever lived, but one of the smartest.

Fast forward several years. I was visiting my mother’s house one Tuesday night in 1969—a couple of years before the end of Mr. Skelton’s show. In her house, on Tuesday night, you watched Red Skelton or ELSE!

He did a skit on the Pledge of Allegiance. It was, and remains so to this day—and I’m now 65-years-old—the most meaningful and moving tribute to our flag that I’ve ever heard. Click here to listen to it. Compare his words to what is happening today. It’ll make you cry.

We can’t even have a decent conversation about the flag or patriotism today. Somehow, in today’s warped society, we’ve come to accept the implication that if people are not Democrats or Republicans, they’re troublemakers. If we fail to identify with EITHER Liberals or Conservatives, the moron segment of society will accuse us of lacking any sense of conviction.

If we don’t hop on the God wagon and espouse an absolute advocacy for Christianity, we’re Satan worshipers. If we criticize the Bush Administration’s shredding of the Constitution by demanding the reinstatement of Habeas Corpus, the Geneva Conventions, and a return to a meaningful form of Democracy, we’re siding with terrorists.

Like it or not, folks, the terms, Liberal and Conservative are NOT mutually exclusive. They never have been.

People seem to have lost the distinction between patriotism and nationalism. The former emphasizes LOVE for our OWN nation and national causes above all else. It’s mostly positive. The latter emphasizes HATRED for all OTHER nations and national causes above all else. It’s mostly negative.

If you get your opinions strictly from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, or Al Franken, to name just a handful of blind zealots, you’re part of the problem, not the solution. Try to remember that rearranging prejudices is not the same as thinking.

The more I listen to TV political analysts and pundits—both sides—I get the feeling that we’ve come to settle for convenience as an overriding political imperative. Certainly, when we do this, the rest of the world can rightly infer our automatic willingness to demote truth to a mere secondary option.

The Pledge of Allegiance is big on the term, liberty. In part it reads, “…indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” However, it’s interesting to listen to all the “nationalists,” masquerading as “patriots,” as they run around spouting off about our Constitution and how it guarantees our liberties/freedoms.

Well, it guarantees no such thing. Freedom exists in the minds and hearts of those who are willing and able (at all costs) to take it and keep it. If it ceases to exist there, it’s gone and words on a faded sheet of parchment paper will be useless.

This nation wanted freedom bad enough at the beginning that our founding fathers—patriots ALL—laid their lives and fortunes on the line to obtain it. Since then, we’ve always demonstrated, to the entire world, our willingness and ability to secure it, even to the death.

But, we must be willing and able to take and hold onto our freedom—we need BOTH. If either our willingness OR our ability ever cease to be, freedom will become nothing but an empty word, as it is in so many other parts of the world.

Folks, we need to grow up pretty soon if we expect to be around as a sovereign nation for another two hundred plus years. It’s a small world and it’s getting smaller by the hour. As large and as powerful as the United States is, we’re just bullies if we fail to convince the rest of the world that we’re NOT.

Finally, since this is Easter Sunday in the Christian world, I’m going to try and clarify a couple of terms we’ve heard bantered about many times over the past few years. And, never forget that most labels used to describe people tend not only to be relative but also grossly misused.

“Infidel” is one such term. In the United States, for example, it is one of the terms misused to describe people who do not believe in the Christian Religion. In Iran and other hot spots in the Middle East, it is a term used to describe those who DO!

I’m not trying to defend extreme Islamic fundamentalism; I’m just stating a reality. As frightening as terrorism is, learning to live without certainty is infinitely more useful to us than letting ourselves be paralyzed by fear, intimidation, and hesitation.

The term “scriptures” is another relative term. Whenever we’re discussing OUR holy religion, scriptures are the holy books that define it. Of course, by implication and inference, we always distinguish OUR holy scriptures from all of those false and profane writings that define those “other” religions.

For those of the Christian faith, have a holy and happy Easter Sunday. No matter, though, I’ll be back next Sunday.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Um... like let me clarificate something, dood!

By Joseph Walther

I have not heard people comparing the Iraq War to the Viet Nam “War” for almost two years, now. I’ve used quotes relative to Viet Nam because Congress never declared Viet Nam a war.

Nevertheless, when the body counts began their inevitable climb with breath-taking rapidity shortly after Mr. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” declaration, it seemed like every call-in radio show wanted to make such comparisons.

Low and behold, on one of our beloved local shows here in my part of the world, a caller (a Viet Nam veteran), recently alluded to similarities between the two “conflicts.” But, his main concern was with our erroneous use of the phrase, “our freedom,” when describing what our military folks were defending in Viet Nam and are now defending in Iraq.

Listening to the conversation between the show’s host and the caller was like listening to a conversation between two not very bright drunks!

Anyway, I took exception to this. I, too, am a Viet Nam combat veteran. So, I’d like to set them straight with a few facts, even though facts tend to be confusing to minds that have already been made up.

First… relative to Viet Nam…

On Saturday, April 3, 1954, then Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Admiral Arthur Radford met with some members of President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration. The topic was Viet Nam and an impending French defeat at Dienbeinphu, complements of the communist-led Viet Minh independence movement—several years later they became the Viet Cong.

While precious few Americans had ever heard of Viet Nam in 1954, the entire country was terrified of a boogie man called Communism. The Eisenhower administration, as well as most military experts of the time, was convinced that if Dienbeinphu fell, Indochina and ALL of Southeast Asia would become communist, bringing those Godless heathens a little too close to our homeland for comfort.

The point of the meeting was to obtain congressional support. Dulles failed to convince the congressional leadership. The most vocal and demanding of that leadership was a young, United States Senate minority leader by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson. It seems he was vehemently against getting us involved in what would possibly become a long and costly war in terms of money and lost lives.

Fast-forward the scenario to 1963, just prior to John Kennedy’s assassination. President Kennedy saw how entrenched we’d become and with no end in sight. He wanted a strategy in place to make the South Vietnamese government and fighters self-sufficient enough so that we could transfer the bulk of the load to them. He wanted to begin withdrawing our advisers and other military personnel.

Kennedy and HIS military advisers were also convinced that South Viet Nam was one of our vital security concerns. Even so, General Maxwell Taylor, via a memo dated October 1963, outlined the withdrawal of ALL United States advisers and other military personnel by the end of 1965.

Of course, Kennedy was assassinated and the rest is history. We had a mere 16,300 military advisory and other personnel in South Viet Nam in 1963. By the end of 1965 we had over 500,000 combatants there! And the body counts were soaring.

Lyndon Johnson—how attitudes seem to change when you go from being the Senate Minority Leader to being the President of the United States—made it worse because, as he said, “I’m not going to be the first president to lose a god-damned war!” He then proceeded to escalate the matter.

In his defense, though, he was acting on advice from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and General William Westmoreland, Commander of Military Operations in South Viet Nam.

These people believed in the total defense of South Viet Nam. They believed, at the very core of their hearts, that what they were doing was protecting THIS country. If they had to lie here and there to get it done—and they did, especially Westmoreland—so be it.

No matter! In the end the insurgency was all but dead. However, because of the continual governmental lies and cover-ups, the people of this country were fed up. The national will to WIN was gone. Any politician, who would have advocated a continuation of that war, would have been committing political suicide.

Regardless of any of this, I was a 23-year-old kid in 1965, well-educated, but naive and idealistic nonetheless. I believed with every fiber of my being that America’s cause was both justifiable and honorable.

Relative to Iraq…

Everything that applied to Viet Nam applies to Iraq, with one exception: Bush’s ineptitude at conducting a war. Even this would be forgivable had he been willing to surround himself with competence and heed good counsel.

It isn’t that he has never had any; he most certainly has, including that of his own father, former President George H. W. Bush. Unfortunately, George (the son) has persistently refused to listen, all the while standing by as his neo-conservative cronies publicly vilified those who tried to render effective tactical counsel.

I’ve lost count of the number of previously competent and dedicated generals who found the Iraq War to be a convenient time to “retire.”

We’re going to get out of Iraq and it’s going to be sooner rather than later. George Bush will manage to sliver off the hook some way. The process has already started. If we begin a withdrawal while he’s still in office, miraculously, it will have become the Iraqi Government’s idea.

But, just as in Viet Nam, the troops believe with every fiber of their beings that our country’s cause is honorable and just. While some of them may silently question their civilian leadership’s tactical wisdom, they don’t do so publicly.

They simply do their duty, consistently, methodically, effectively, always in the highest traditions of honor and integrity.

This, and the fact that I’ve never forgotten my days in Viet Nam, is the reason why I support the troops. On the other hand, George Bush and the rest of his cronies can go to hell.

Finally, while this may upset some of the idealistic romanticists who read this, I’m going to explode another myth about military combatants: that the honor of dying for freedom is uppermost in their minds.

While “freedom” is an honorable cause for going to war, never confuse IT with combatants’ reasons for fighting and dying during combat missions. Trust me; they’re not the same things.

Five of the names on the National Memorial to Viet Nam veterans were friends of mine. I was with each of them when they died: three of them cradled in my arms. Not a single one of them ever mentioned how honored they felt for the privilege of dying for our Nation’s freedom.

I found myself engaged in numerous fire fights, many times involving hand-to-hand combat. Whenever I was so occupied, never once did I consider that I was fighting to preserve anyone’s way of life. And, I assure you that I was NOT looking forward to the honor of dying on such a behalf.

Front liners fight wars because war—righteous or unrighteous—breaks out at the wrong time in their lives. They happen to be there because fate put them there. Those who die, do so because they are unlucky. The “nobility” of it all never crosses their minds!

General George Patton was correct when he said, “Now, I want you to remember that no son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor son of a bitch die for HIS country."

The idea that our young people consider it an honor to die on the field of battle is quite the comfort for the war hawks who’s closest encounters with military service, let alone combat, have been John Wayne war movies, having been viewed, of course, within the confines and safety of their living rooms.

Have a safe and happy holiday—Easter for those of the Christian persuasion. I’ll be back next week.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

George W. Bush NEVER disappoints!

By Joseph Walther

In case you haven’t heard, about forty-percent of this year’s flu shots have not worked. We’ve simply failed to revamp the vaccines to keep pace with the ever-changing, never-ceasing onslaught of flu strains. Anyway, I received a flu shot and I now have the flu. So this week’s article will be brief.

Life goes on whether we get sick or not. And, when a country has George W. Bush as its President, there is absolutely no way that we can permit trivialities, such as severe flu symptoms with their accompanying feelings of impending death, to interfere with writing about the man.

Over the past couple of weeks, he’s done two things that have to make people wonder if his advisors have any impact on his words and actions at all. The first dealt with whether we’re going into a recession or not. The second, just yesterday, dealt with a hot-button torture technique called water boarding.

Three months ago, about fifteen-percent of the nation’s economists believed that we were going into a recession. As recently as 30-days ago, that number had jumped to sixty-percent. Even Warren Buffett and Bill Gates weighed in on the topic; acknowledging that the country’s on the verge of a recession that will probably be severe.

Many of these experts have PhDs in Economics. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates don’t, but their successes speak volumes on their behalf. George W. Bush, with his, um… limited knowledge, stood before the nation’s cameras three-weeks ago and stated that he didn’t think we’re going into a recession.

As recently as this past Thursday, he still refused to use the “R” word, simply stating that he now believed that our economy was “slowing down.”

You know, if I were one of his advisers and I really cared about him, I’d have to call him aside and say, “Mr. President, you have to stop saying this silly shit! It makes you sound excruciatingly stupid, sir.”

Then, yesterday, March 8, 2008, he vetoed anti-water boarding legislation passed by the Congress of the United States. But, before I go into that detail, I’m going to give you a bit of my background regarding the use of torture.

I’m old enough to remember two combat duty-tours in Viet Nam. They were for twelve-months each. The fighting was jungle warfare at its finest, inevitably hand-to-hand before it was over.

The Americans knew that the Viet Cong NEVER took wounded prisoners, no matter how slight their wounds, unless they believed them to be officers. They did torture them, though… to death.

The Cong would mutilate and set afire those who were severely wounded. The less severely wounded suffered the same fate, but it took longer to die while increasing the enemy’s “entertainment” value.

No matter what, the American troops made sure that whatever information they gave, under torture, was bogus. We also assumed that, even if we tortured in return, the information would be unreliable.

I cannot recall the name of a single General or Admiral who ever put a premium on information derived from torture. This has not changed. Not one General advised George W. Bush to endorsed water boarding.

I want to make this point abundantly clear. I don’t take a moral stand on torture during war time. When your way of life is ultimately on the line, you do whatever you need to do to win. Otherwise, there is NO tomorrow to worry about.

My problem with this matter is the conflicted stand that this White House Administration has taken. It has consistently claimed the moral high ground while just as consistently doing the exact opposite.

This White House gang, in particular, does not seem to understand that if you’re going to claim the moral high ground and actually follow it, you don’t torture you enemies, EVEN if they torture YOU!

If we’re going to advocate torture as a means of securing information, then let’s repudiate the Geneva Conventions altogether and get on with it. Of course, this would mean that we, as a nation, are no better than the world-class thugs we routinely condemn.

It has finally happened. Even though I voted for George W. Bush twice, I can no longer stand the sound of his voice or the sight of his smirk-laden face. He has come to represent everything that a nation does NOT want its president to be.

OK, that’s it for this week. I really am sick. I have to lie down or I’m going to fall down. With any luck at all, I’ll die in my sleep, preferably right after the climatic point of an intense wet dream!

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Oh, the GUILT of it all!

By Joseph Walther

A few years ago, I wrote a column about competitive guilt. It concerned the seemingly perpetual competition between Catholics and Jews for the ever-coveted “Most Adept at Dispensing Guilt” award.

While I intended it as a tongue-in-cheek parody on the standard, comedic stereotypical reputation of Jewish mothers specifically, and Roman Catholics in general, there was more than a smidgen of truth involved.

It seems that nothing’s changed. I had to be in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania this past Thursday to testify on behalf of the State on a technical matter.

During a lunch recess, as I approached my table in the courthouse cafeteria, I overheard a man at the adjacent table say, “I’m Jewish. Trust me when I tell you that no mother can heap on the guilt like a Jewish mother.”

There were six people at his table: two men and four women. As I was sitting down at my table, one of the women at his table blurted out, “Oh, REALLY! Well, I’m a 40-year-old married Catholic woman and I STILL feel like I’m committing a sin whenever I have an orgasm. How’s THAT for guilt?”

She didn’t mean to, but she said it loudly enough that silence descended upon the entire cafeteria. All eyes, it seemed, focused on HER. I have no doubt that, had she been able, she would have climbed under one of the floor tiles.

No one’s ever accused me of being at a loss for words. As she and I made unintentional eye contact, I gave her a bit of a smile, a thumbs up sign, and told her, “Guilt or not, it’s not YOUR fault that nature makes it feel so good. So, my child, go and find thee a more substantial reason for feeling guilty.”

The place erupted in laughter, including her, and everyone seemed to get back to their respective conversations.

I’m not going to the trouble of rummaging through the archives to repeat what I wrote in that past article. However, I think it worth a brief overview just to clear things up once and for all.

For centuries now, comedians by the millions have done a job on Jewish mothers and the guilt they’re capable of heaping on their children.

I’ve also known my share of loving Jewish mothers. While a few were a bit heavy handed with the guilt trips, the majority wouldn’t have been able to hold a candle to my own mother’s ability to delegate extreme guilt, and SHE was a devout Roman Catholic.

First of all, Jewish guilt tends to be cultural in nature, centering around an interpersonal theme. When a Jewish mother, for example, lays a guilt trip on a son, it might go something like this.

Son: Mom, hi! How are you” How’s everything in Florida?

Mom: Not too good; I’ve been very weak.

Son: My God, WHAT’S wrong?

Mom: Never mind.

Son: What’s wrong, mom?

Mom: Never mind; it’s OK.

Son: WHY are you weak, mom?

Mom: OK! OK! I haven’t eaten in 41-days.

Son: That’s TERRIBLE! Why?

Mom: Because I didn’t want my mouth to be filled with food in case you should call.

The guilt is interpersonal. It’s main premise is that the behavior in question constitutes a terrible thing to do to someone. You know… like when a Jewish daughter marries a male nurse instead of a doctor.

Roman Catholic guilt, on the other hand, is an altogether different matter. It’s neither cultural nor interpersonal. It’s endemic, going to the very essence of humanity itself.

It’s not a matter of Catholic parents dropping a guilt trip on their children. This guilt comes directly from Catholic Theology! Catholic parents and Church teachers are merely the conduits through which the guilt is passed on to ensuing generations. Here’s how it works.

Christians, in general, believe that Jesus Christ became man by being born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered an unimaginable degree of physical and emotional pain while being crucified for OUR sins.

God sent His son to suffer and die like this as retribution for humanity’s sinful fall from HIS favor after that terrible “apple-eating” scandal back in the Garden of Eden, thanks in no small part to that temptress she-devil, Eve.

Remember! God was a prick back in those days. This was the OLD TESTAMENT God, a nasty-tempered dude who would toss fireballs, raging floods, and hideous, disease-ridden plagues at people who pissed him off, even small children.

I mean, after all those years of leading the Jews through the desert, He wouldn’t even let his favorite buddy, Abraham, into the Promised Land and, from all the reports at the time, Abraham didn’t even do anything. Now, THAT’S a prick.

Then, somewhere along the line, God found some PR (Public Relations) people and they did a complete makeover. Suddenly there was a new God, a kinder, gentler, less edgy and far more personable God. He sent his son to get us off the eternal damnation trail.

In other words, Jesus died for US! All of US! EVERYONE who’s ever been born! EVERYONE who is alive today! EVERYONE who will ever BE born, right up to the end of the world.

Here was the nicest, most loving, most helpful, sinless person ever to grace humanity. A living personification of goodness and mercy!

He healed the sick, raised people from the dead, forgave hookers, walked on water, even fed thousands of people during a single afternoon using just a few fishes and containers of wine.

And how did WE repay Jesus? We KILLED him. That’s right! After all he did for us, we caused him to be scourged, crowned with thorns, nailed to a cross, stabbed with a spear, and left to die between two common, sinning scumbags.

Now THIS is guilt. It makes Jewish guilt seem like child’s play in comparison. All Christians are subjected to it and must live with it. Catholics, however, have raised the bar to even greater heights, though.

Not only are we guilty for every “sinful” ACTION we’ve ever taken, we’re also JUST as guilty for even thinking about such things. In other words, thinking about doing it is the same as doing it.

Why, just a second ago, I had some fleeting thoughts about a woman I saw at the mall last week. Now I’m going to go to hell if I die before finding a priest for confession.

You see, thoughts are no problem for you Jews and other Christians. All it takes for eternal damnation for us Catholics, though, is a single thought.

Let me tell you. Speaking for myself, I’m not about to go to let myself be sent to hell over a damn thought, if you get my drift.

You Jewish folks out there just have to accept the fact that when it comes to guilt, there’s no contest. We Catholics trounce the daylights out of you when it comes to some of the best guilt trips known to humanity.

And, let me clear up something else while I’m at it. Catholic women are INDEED permitted to have orgasms, but the permission is subject to certain conditions.

First, an orgasm must be the result of sexual intercourse in the standard missionary position—man on top. Absolutely NO MASTURBATION.

According to every Nun I’ve ever spoken with, not only will God send you to hell for this, you’ll be blind when you get there.

Second, she may NOT, no matter what else happens, enjoy it. She is even prohibited from expressing any pleasure whatsoever, especially to the man on top of her. She is permitted to express non-sexual thoughts only, such as, “Are you done yet?”

The man, however, has no such restrictions. He is perfectly free to climb Mt. Ecstasy to its summit, all the while breathing heavily and snorting all sorts of stuff as he lets it rip. However—this is critically important—he MUST pull out immediately after HE ejaculates. Otherwise, according to the rules, God’s going to be pissed.

Furthermore, the Catholic rules of sexual engagement require that he immediately roll over, fall into a coma-like sleep, and snore the rest of the night—loudly enough to keep people awake for miles around.

So, rest easy all of you Catholic women. You are free to orgasm all you want. Just don’t even think about enjoying it. And, STOP blaming us MEN for the fact that WE don’t want to talk AFTERWARDS.

We can’t. GOD, not us, forbids it. It’s right there in the annals of Catholic Theology. Google it if you don’t believe me. What are you trying to do: instigate another one of those “apple-eating” scandals? Didn’t you cause enough trouble the first time?

Hopefully everyone will better understand this matter now. I’ll be back next week… unless I die and go to hell first.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.