Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Poll Update

A survey of 17 political polls dated 10/17 - 10/25 shows President Bush leading in 10 of them. Mr. Bush leads by 8 points in one poll, 7 points in another, and 6 points in another.

John Kerry leads in 4 polls. His largest lead is 3 points.

The two candidates are tied in 3 polls.

The average poll results for Mr. Bush is 48.5%, while Mr. Kerry's average is 46.5%.

Click for details

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Media Subversion Of Americans #3

First, it was CBS and Dan Rather getting caught in bed with the anti-Bush forces, resorting to using phony documents to accuse President Bush of shirking his responsibility to the Air National Guard.

Verdict: CBS/Rather caught with their pants down.

Next, ABC News executive Mark Halperin’s memo stressing the importance of being more suspicious of President Bush’s campaign claims than of Sen. Kerry’s campaign claims.

"[T]he current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done." So, Mr. Halperin writes, ABC News has "a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable… .”

Verdict: ABC News caught with its pants down.

Now, we have The New York Times, already reeling from failing to observe journalistic standards of honesty with the humiliating Jayson Blair episode, running a story that is either demonstrably false, or at least questionable in its assertions reported that 380 tons of high-degree munitions have been stolen or otherwise ripped off from a al Qaeda weapons facility.

"How did they fail to secure nearly 380 tons of known, deadly explosives despite clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so?" Kerry campaign strategist Joe Lockhart said in a statement. "And why was this information unearthed by reporters -- and was it covered up by our national security officials?"

However, a report by NBC News counters Kerry's claims that the weapons disappeared because of post-war troop levels. In fact, the NBC News report shows that the HMX and RDX explosives were not present even when coalition forces first arrived at Al Qaqaa.

NBC News on Monday aired a report from Jim Miklaszewski who said that on April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, "NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qaqaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a radio talk show, “Well, here’s the situation. By our count, we have destroyed over 240,000 tons of weapons. And we have captured another 160,000 for a total of over 400,000… (the 160,000) are in line to be destroyed. There are hundreds of weapons sites that exist in that country that we’ve either emptied or guarded. And what’s going on now is a detailed investigation of precisely this situation. Although clearly, the Iraqi Survey Group investigated hundreds of sites in Iraq looking for weapons and clearly there were people there who believe that in many instances Saddam Hussein took weapons out of weapons sites …”

Verdict: The New York Times and other media outlets are caught with their pants down.

The 380 tons of missing weapons are obviously important. But when looked at in the context of all the weapons in Iraq, 380 tons is a tiny proportion of the total. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, Iraq was awash in weapons and dangerous materials that could easily have fallen, or have been deliberately placed in, the hands of known terrorist organizations.

For more on this story, go here:

A Message From An American

I got this in an email. It is purported to be a letter to the editor of a Tampa newspaper, however I can't confirm that. Whether or not it is what the email said it is, it is a good message.


I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct! " crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan.. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so!

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

Monday, October 25, 2004

What’s Right About Iraq?

The dreary outlook on just about everything put out by the mainstream media today goes well beyond the dictum “if it bleeds, it leads,” and the overused excuse that people are more interested in bad news than good. By focusing almost entirely on the horrible things that happen in Iraq, to the exclusion of the good things that happen there, the media are cheating their audience of the information they need to form opinions based upon truth, and forcing them to form opinions on just some of the truth. There can be no greater abdication of responsibility than this.

Doing its small part to counteract this dreadful malfeasance by the “legitimate” information purveyors, Observations presents some good news from Iraq.


From the beginning, of course, there has been a counterpoint from those who are encouraged by what they see — often expressed via the Internet. "As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media," Ray Reynolds, an Iowa Army National Guard medic, wrote in an e-mail forwarded to the Los Angeles Times. "They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened." His e-mail cited a litany of positive changes in Iraq since the invasion, from increased immunizations and educational opportunities for children — including, notably, girls — to reopened hospitals, ports and improved delivery of drinking water and telephone service. (LA Times)


Democratic voices are being raised insistently, in Syria and Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, and though you may say this would have happened anyway, there is no doubt of what ignited the current debate.

Most important is the military traction that is being gained. One Welsh regiment of the British army recently killed more than 300 Mahdi army thugs for the loss of three soldiers: odds too painful for the boastful jihadists to take. A dangerous Osama bin Laden emulator, Abu Musab Zarqawi, imported to Iraq before the intervention, will very soon be destroyed along with his foreign infiltrators.

The U.S. armed forces are learning every day how to fight in extreme conditions, in post-rogue-state and post-failed-state surroundings, with the forces of medieval tyranny. Does anyone think this is not experience worth having, or that it will not be needed again? And does anyone want to imagine what Iraq would have looked like now if we had let it go on the way it was before? Too late and too little, to be sure, but nonetheless one of the noblest responsibilities we have ever shouldered. (Christopher Hitchens, Columnist for Vanity Fair)


I watched city council meetings in places such as Kirkuk. Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens compromised on issues that spanned the languages taught in public schools to affirmative action within the police force. In the southern city of Nasiriya, taxi drivers, religious students and engineers debated the merits of federalism.

Dire predictions of civil war between ethnic and sectarian groups did not materialize, despite terrorist bombings against Shiite processions, Christian churches and Kurdish celebrations.

Iraqis complain about security but are positive about the future. They reflect optimism not only in polls but also in actions. The new Iraqi currency, issued on Oct. 15, 2003, at 2,000 Iraqi dinars to the dollar, is free of Hussein's image. It is also free-floating, and even at the height of the April uprising and the battle for Najaf, it remained stable, trading between 1,400 and 1,500 dinars to the dollar. If Iraq is in trouble, don't tell the Canadians: The dinar regularly outperforms the Canadian dollar on international markets.

Iraqis also express confidence with investment, which spans the country. Electricity is unreliable, so restaurateurs have invested as much as $50,000 for top-model generators. A new clothing boutique represents a $200,000 investment. There are new hotels in Najaf and Karbala. Cigarette venders have traded pushcarts for tobacco shops. Kurdish investors are constructing a cancer treatment center in Erbil. In the slums of Sadr City, houses cost $45,000, nearly double their prewar value. In the swankier district of Mansur, new houses sell for more than 10 times that amount.

No Iraqi would invest his or her life savings if they feared civil war or perpetual lawlessness. (Michael Rubin, visiting professor in Iraqi Kurdistan)

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Thoughts On The Upcoming Election


  • In the United States it is important that every eligible voter be able to register and to vote. A government of, by and for the people can operate no other way.
  • Anyone directly or indirectly involved in interfering with voter registration, the casting of valid ballots, tampering with the election system should be severely punished.
  • Citizens eligible to vote are expected to accept and fulfill the responsibility to prove their eligibility, to register and to get to the polls and cast his or her ballot.
  • Every eligible voter has the responsibility to learn about the issues and candidates and cast an informed ballot. An uninformed voter should not cast a vote.
  • Good Samaritan aid may be provided to eligible voters who are unable to get to the polls on their own, so long as no effort, either overt or covert, is made to influence how the voter votes.

Most of us will readily agree that a perfect election is not possible. We must strive for perfection, all the while knowing that it cannot be achieved.

Problems occur in every election, in every state. Some problems arise directly from the voters themselves, who do not understand the ballot or some other aspect of the process. Some problems arise from mistakes made by election workers. Other problems result from illegal activities.

The questions then become, “What level of imperfection is acceptable?” “How many votes can be screwed up and still have confidence in the election?”

These are the questions for this election, and unless Bush or Kerry wins by a fairly large margin, say six or more points, this election will be questioned, and the results challenged.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Lady Teresa (pronounced: te-ray’-sa)

Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, continues to open her mouth before engaging her brain. Democrats and other supporters of the Democrat candidate celebrate Lady Teresa’s proclivity for outspokenness as a delightful change from the norm. Whether it is delightful is in the eye of the beholder, and one may rightly imagine that hubby is mortified each time she says something publicly. Pity that she is not as severely skewered for her public utterings as is President Bush.

Lady Teresa’s latest gaff came at the expense of Laura Bush, the President’s wife, about whom Lady Teresa noted that she wasn’t sure Mrs. Bush had ever had a “real job.” That comment has upset just about every woman in America, both those who have real jobs, and those who don’t.

Several things come to mind:
  • Does Lady Teresa really know what a real job is?
  • Has Lady Teresa ever held a real job?
  • Mrs. Bush was a teacher and a librarian, clearly showing Lady Teresa to be, at best, poorly informed.
  • Doesn’t Lady Teresa realize that such statements reveal the arrogance so typical of the elite?
  • Does Lady Teresa value the hard work that housewives/stay-at-home-moms do every day so little as to refer to that as not being a real job?

As entertaining as the blunders are to some of us, and as irritating as they are to others, they surely are illuminating, allowing us to see through the campaign muck and get a good look at who these people are who want to lead us for the next four or eight years.

John and Lady Teresa are people of leisure, born to the easy life, socially and culturally stationed well above the rest of us normal Americans. In their insufferable arrogance they come down to our level to tell us how they will help us live our miserable lives a little better, pandering to our baser instincts, reinforcing the growing perception that each of us is a victim of Big Bad Republicans and Selfish Big Businesses, and promising government programs to save us from them and ourselves.

If John Kerry wins next month’s election, or if the Democrats are successful in their efforts to overturn a Bush victory in the courts, God help us.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Democrat candidate Sen. John F. Kerry charges that President George Bush has "turned his back on science" in limiting embryonic stem cell research financed by the federal government. The Kerry campaign rolled out a television ad on the subject, saying that "millions of lives" are at stake. "It's time to lift the political barriers blocking the stem cell research that could treat or cure diseases like Parkinson's," the ad says. "I believe that science can bring hope to our families."

Like so many other issues in this campaign, John Kerry has politicized this one. Through distortion and glossing over of important details, Mr. Kerry demonizes George Bush as some sort of blackheart who ignores a simple solution that will alleviate suffering.

Without a proper perspective, one can be taken in by Mr. Kerry’s argument. Here is a little background on stem cells:

Stem cells are cells that have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells for as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each "daughter" cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.

Stem cell lines grown in the lab provide scientists with the opportunity to "engineer" them for use in transplantation or treatment of diseases. For example, before scientists can use any type of tissue, organ, or cell for transplantation, they must overcome attempts by a patient's immune system to reject the transplant. In the future, scientists may be able to modify human stem cell lines in the laboratory by using gene therapy or other techniques to overcome this immune rejection. Scientists might also be able to replace damaged genes or add new genes to stem cells in order to give them characteristics that can ultimately treat diseases.

Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells.

Please note that last paragraph: “Human embryonic stem cells are THOUGHT to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells.” Also note well the qualifiers, such as “might” and “may” that are used in this description. The actual value of embryonic stem cells is still unknown.

So much of this argument is emotional. We are presented with images of people suffering from injuries and disease, like Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox, and we are told that if George Bush would just quit being a SOB, these people and many others can be cured and restored to health. That just isn’t so. While we sympathize with the plight of Mr. Fox, and mourn the loss of Mr. Reeve, the promise that many believe stem cell research will deliver is a far cry from actually being able to help those suffering from these diseases and injuries. At this point it is only a distant possibility, and far from a certainty.

Even so, the charges that Mr. Bush has "turned his back on science" are simply false. Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist offered this statement:

These are the facts. President George W. Bush is the first President to fund embryonic stem cell research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will spend a record $200 million this year to aggressively pursue promising research involving both adult and embryonic stem cells, and NIH funding has doubled to nearly $30 billion a year on this President’s watch. There is no limit on the amount of federal funds available for stem cell research. There is absolutely no restriction on stem cell research taking place at American universities, hospitals, and private laboratories.

And yet, John Kerry continues to mislead the American people. In his brief remarks today, the Democratic Presidential candidate used the word ‘ban’ four times to describe the President’s stem cell policies. Even worse, he and his running mate continue to play on the hopes of patients by promising that the paralyzed will walk when they are in office. That may be standard practice for trial lawyers. But it is unbecoming of candidates for the nation’s highest office.

If you listen to John Kerry and his running mate Sen. John Edwards, you might think that funding embryonic stem cell research has no down side. But the potential of stem cell research is only half of the issue. The rest of the story involves serious ethical questions that the Democrat candidates are all too willing to ignore in the pursuit of votes. The following remarks by President Bush outline his thinking, and the ethical dilemma of this issue:

As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.

And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

President Bush correctly identifies the moral delimma: If the use of embryonic stem cells for research means creating life, then destroying it, how can human beings ethically support it? For a clear description of the conception and early development of the human fetus, go to the Web log of Rebecca Harris at:

The issue of embryonic stem cell research is inextricably linked to ethical questions; it’s not so simple as the Democrat candidates would have us believe. Shortcutting the moral arguments for the purpose of garnering votes reflects a callous disregard for the sanctity of life. Before November 2, each of us must ask ourselves whether Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards are the sorts of people we want to lead us for the next four or eight years.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Polls Show Bush Holding Thin Lead

The latest polls reflect a slight margin for President Bush over challenger John Kerry. The Polls show Bush ahead in eight polls, Kerry ahead in one poll, and the two candidates tied in one poll.

Bush's biggest lead is eight points in the Gallop taken 10/17, and Kerry leads by three points in the DCorps poll.

Bush's average is 48.6%, while Kerry's average is 45.7%

The polls were taken between 10/11 and 10/16.

Click for details

Sunday, October 17, 2004

Here's Another Good Post

An excerpt from a good blog:

Leave it to John Kerry to start up a
draft scare.

The would-be Commander in Chief has a history of messing with the minds of young American men. He claims to have an 'in' with foreign leaders and a knowledge that they look forward to a Kerry Administration. If indeed that is true, the approved "global test" for dealing with young men must be to scare them, criticize them, and to desert them when they need support most.

Check this site out.

Are You Sitting Down?

Here’s a shocker: The New York Times has endorsed Senator John Kerry for President. Now, take a few seconds to recover from that astonishing statement, then read on.

The opening sentence in the endorsement acknowledges that “Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy,” and spends the rest of the editorial trying to make a good case for Kerry as an acceptable replacement for George W. Bush.

The Times says of Mr. Kerry that “[h]e is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change.” Which means, of course, that he will continue to change positions with the wind, a trait that liberals value above all others. Someone who does not change positions is simply not civilized enough to hold the presidency. The Times seems not to allow for the fact that national policy must be made based upon what is best for the U.S., and not change because someone in the world either doesn’t like the policy. The Times goes on to say that Mr. Kerry’s “entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices.” What they really means is that Mr. Kerry has never held a real job. He has been either a government employee or an elected official all his adult life.

The Times still wallows in sour grapes, alluding to the peculiarities of the 2000 election, claiming that President Bush is not a legitimate President with this statement: “Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center.” The translation of that is that Mr. Bush should essentially have governed the nation as if he were Al Gore, leaving behind his own vision for how to move the country forward. Had he done so, presumably Mr. Bush would be universally loved, and his reelection would have been a sure thing, to the point that the Democrats would not have nominated a challenger.

The Times goes on to say that “[h]e sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another,” no doubt disrupting the peaceful rest of George Orwell, who predicted the twisting of the meaning of language for political purposes. Mr. Bush has been adamant about nominating judges who will interpret the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench on passions of the moment, as the Times prefers.

Unable to pass up the opportunity to dive into the gutter of class warfare, The Times charge that Mr. Bush preferred to give his rich constituents a tax break instead of investing their money in creating jobs. Such a position contradicts the reality that keeping money in the hands of taxpayers, especially rich ones, is precisely the best way to create jobs.

And finally, there is this: “The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances.” The recession begun in the last six months of the Clinton administration, the accompanying job loss trend that was heightened by the bursting dot-com bubble and the murderous 9/11 attacks was one of the shortest in our history. Mr. Bush’s tax policy was a prime reason for that. But The Times believes that someone like John Kerry, who “is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change,” would be preferable to George Bush.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Good Answers To Debate Questions

The following answers to questions posed to the candidates in the third presidential debate were provided by Neil Boortz, and can be found at They are exactly the right answers. It's just too bad that in this day and time, telling the unvarnished truth is not the way to win elections, even if you believe it.

You are about to read, my friends, why I could never possibly be elected if I were ever to decide to run for office.

Last night Bob Schieffer asked the candidates what they would tell to an individual who had lost his job to some worker overseas who would work for a fraction of the wages he was earning. Bush gave a mealy-mouthed response, and Kerry ignored the question altogether. Here is what I would have said ... and here is why I would never be elected:

First of all, Bob, I would tell them that it is not their job. The job belongs to the employer, not the employee. You have the job skills. The employer has the jobs. If the employer can make a profit by purchasing your job skills to perform his job then you get a paycheck. If your job skills cost the employer too much, or if your job skills don't meet the employer's needs, then you don't get a paycheck. If you fail to develop your job skills, you run the risk of not having a paycheck. If your job skills don't match the employer's needs, you don't get a paycheck. If you charge too much for your job skills, you won't get hired. You have no right to a job. You do have a right to be left alone by government and your fellow citizens to develop your own God-given talents in such a way that employers will seek you out. You also have a right to ignore educational opportunities and to develop a slovenly work ethic so that employers will shun you. You make your choices, and you live with the consequences of your decisions. I would tell that person that any American with desirable job skills and a good worth ethic, properly priced, would have to hide under his bed to avoid getting a good job. If you believe in the year 2004 that you can build a sound career as a textile plant worker in South Carolina then you are living a lie, and that delusion will soon catch up to you. You need to understand that you are a free and sovereign individual. You don't belong to the government, and it's not the government's responsibility to provide you with a job. It's the government's job to clear the way for you to exercise your free choices, develop your skills, hone your work ethic, and contract with an employer eager to hire someone like you. Past that, you're on your own, and that's life in a free society.

And then there was the question about raising the minimum wage. That's another one you don't want to ask me.

Look, Bob. Wages are something to be negotiated between the employer and the employee. It is not the job of government to set wages for private sector employees. Our Constitution specifically states that the government is not to alter the terms of a contract between individuals. The matter of wages paid for services rendered is something to be resolved in negotiations between the employer and employee and then expressed in the terms of a contract between the parties. The government has no role here. And while I'm addressing this, let's talk about the people who are actually earning the minimum wage. Most of these people are teenagers working in entry-level jobs. They're developing job skills and will only spend a minimum amount of time at the minimum wage. But what about that small number of people who are trying to raise a family on minimum wage. My opponent won't say this. It's harsh, but it's the truth. If you have done such a pathetic job of developing job skills and a work ethic that you cannot earn more than the minimum wage, then you have no business having children. We have far too many people in this country who have children that they know full well they cannot afford to raise. The answer to this problem is not to force employers to pay them more than they are worth. The answer is to educate people as to the cost of properly raising a child, and to encourage them to make sure they can pay the bills before they make the decision to have a baby.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Election Potpourri

Iraq War

In a desperate effort to discredit the war in Iraq, Democrat candidate John Kerry repeatedly asks the following question: Saddam Hussein did not have a part in the terrorists on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, so why did we attack Iraq? We attacked Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, not because he had a part in the 9/11 attacks, but because of the potential danger he represented.

There is a historical precedent for attacking a faction that didn’t attack us first, and Mr. Kerry, being the authority on war he claims to be, ought to know that. The U.S. entered World War II after the Japanese attacked our Naval base at Pearl Harbor. We went after the Japanese, but we also went after the German forces, even though Hitler had no role in the Pearl Harbor attack.


What’s Good For The Goose …

Democrat candidate John Kerry keeps demanding that President George Bush admit that he’s made mistakes in the planning and aftermath of the Iraq war, and anything/everything else in his administration, and offer an apology. The President has not acceded to Sen. Kerry’s request, and that doesn’t sit well with the Democrats, who then criticize him for not recognizing that he’s made mistakes. He’s arrogant and out of touch, they say.

Sen. Kerry came home from his short but successful tour of duty in Viet Nam and testified before a U.S. Senate committee that he and the other American troops in Viet Nam had committed horrible atrocities on a daily basis. He also met with representatives of the enemy while the war raged on and while American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen were being held prisoner and being tortured in Vietnamese prison camps. Sen. Kerry has never apologized for his actions.


A Global Test

So what was Democrat candidate John Kerry thinking when he suggested that the U.S. ought to get the world’s support before it takes actions in its own behalf? What he wants to accomplish is to restore the U.S. to a position of honor among the whores and thugs of the international community, whose hackles rise each time the U.S. doesn’t surrender to their way of thinking. President Bush went to the United Nations when he was contemplating invading Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, but U.N. members, like France and Germany, were unwilling to support the U.S.

President Bush decided to proceed to do what he thought was in the best interest of the nation whose safety is his Constitutional responsibility, despite the lack of international support. Mr. Kerry apparently would stick it out longer, and keep trying to sway uncooperative nations to his way of thinking. The Senator would have us believe that this is well within his capabilities.

But the question is, “How long do you wait?” We have only recently learned the likely reason that France and Germany did not support the President: They were in the bag to Saddam, collecting bribe money diverted from the Oil-for-Food program, money meant to feed hungry Iraqi men, women and children into their national treasuries.

If John Kerry had been President, we’d likely still be waiting for their support.

Monday, October 11, 2004

Good or Bad? It's All A Matter Of Perspective

In today's highly charged political world, good and bad get twisted up in the "who" of it all. Consider the following items:

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad

Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good
Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad

Clinton bombs Chinese Embassy - good
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in flight suit - bad

No mass graves found in Serbia - good
No WMD found in Iraq - bad

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad

Clinton refuses to take custody of bin Laden - good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad

Milosevic not yet convicted - good
Saddam turned over for trial – bad

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Does John Kerry Think Americans Are Stupid, Part II

George Bush is responsible for there not being enough Flu vaccine this year, if you believe Democrat candidate John Kerry. I’ve commented here before that the Democrats have sunk to rewriting history and fully utilizing their considerable skills of distortion in an effort to persuade the American people that Mr. Kerry is a better choice for President than the President. Now Mr. Kerry hopes to pin shortages of flu vaccine on Mr. Bush.

"If you can't plan to have enough of that vaccine, what are they doing with respect to the other things that could potentially hurt America in terms of bio-terrorism, chemical terrorism, other kinds of things?" Sen. Kerry said, with a straight face. The comment not only implied that the President ought to be able to gaze into his crystal ball and predict that 50 percent of the U.S. flu vaccine supply would suddenly dry up, but also that since he couldn’t predict this event, he must be falling short in making preparations for terrorist activities.

This grand deception has a familiar ring. It’s the same as when Mr. Kerry suggested that the President ought to be able to know that Saddam Hussein didn’t really have WMD, even though the whole world believed he did.

The reason that the U.S. will run short of the vaccine this year has nothing to do with the Bush administration. A British company, Chiron, produces vaccine that the U.S. uses. On October 5 we got the news that the UK government suspended the manufacturing license of Chiron over concerns about the way the vaccine is manufactured. As a result, the company will not be able to provide the U.S. its normal supply.

The Bush campaign fired back that the Kerry attack is baseless and hypocritical. “So few companies make flu vaccines because of a broken medical-malpractice liability system that Kerry falsely claims to want to fix, but has voted 10 times against reforming," a spokesperson said. The U.S. has only two providers of the vaccine, Chiron and Aventis Pasteur.

This shameless tactic by the Democrats illustrates the level of desperation that grips the Kerry campaign, which sees that Mr. Kerry isn’t gaining ground on Mr. Bush, and has only about three weeks left before the election.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Using Fiction To Win An Election

Burdened with a candidate who is stiff, unable to take and hold one position on any issue, and whose 20-year record of performance in the U.S. Senate is so thin that it can’t be used to his benefit, the only chance Democrats have to win this election is to demean and beat down the incumbent. They have chosen to do this by using the Iraq war as the centerpiece, mixing some valid points with 20/20 hindsight and revised history, and trying to sell the idea that the economy is in the tank by twisting reality into knots.

The trouble with creating fiction and selling it is, as the President might say, “it is hard work.” It requires the Democrats to ignore or forget inconvenient facts and stubborn bits of reality that contradict the message they are trying to communicate, and getting the audience to do the same.

Take as an example the Iraq war. To sell the idea that this war was “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” as Sen. John Kerry is so fond of saying, you have to forget that the whole world thought, as Mr. Bush, did that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was developing nuclear weapons. Among those who held that belief are John Kerry, his running mate Sen. John Edwards, and his mentor Sen. Ted Kennedy, a substantial majority of the U.S. Congress, and the United Nations. You must ignore that Saddam had thumbed his nose at the U.N. and it’s several resolutions telling him to disarm. You have to believe that, as Mr. Kerry said in the debates, even though terrorists are streaming across the borders into Iraq, Iraq is not part of the War on Terrorism. As tough a sell as that ought to be, the Democrats are continuing to try to sell it.

To defeat Mr. Bush it is also necessary to characterize our economy as poor and blame it on Mr. Bush. This requires pretending that the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001 had only temporary and short-lived effects on the U.S. economy. Direct blows were dealt to two U.S. industries, insurance and airlines, and travel and tourism, and other businesses have suffered due to increased scrutiny of business visa applications.

The attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and nearby commercial buildings in New York and damaged the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., have resulted in an estimated $30 to $35 billion being paid in damages and claims over the past three years. The estimate for Sept. 11 is equal to the total insurance costs of the 10 most damaging hurricanes ever to strike the United States, with the exclusion of Charley and Frances, which recently struck Florida.

In the months immediately following the attacks, the airlines suffered from a precipitous drop in passengers, as the whole world opted to fly less after the attacks. Now three years later, the airline industry still struggles with the ramifications of that day.

The travel and tourism industry also suffered a huge drop in business after Sept. 11. Further, a June 2004 study found that US companies suffered $30.7 billion in financial impacts between July 2002 and March 2004 due to delays/denials in the processing of business visas.

Despite these huge blows to the economy, much to the chagrin of the Democrats things are going pretty well. But in order to defeat George Bush, the Democrats must tell a different story. So they focus on total job losses compared with total job gains, and tell voters that 1.6 million net jobs were lost by the Bush administration. Even if that number was accurate – and it isn’t – you simply have to concede that some of those lost jobs are due to the 9/11 attacks, not the policies of the Bush administration. However, the real number, when the final numbers are in next February, is estimated to be around 600,000, about one-third of what Mr. Kerry claims. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate stands at 5.4 percent, the same number that Bill Clinton bragged about during his reelection bid in 1996.

Other economic indicators include housing starts, productivity, personal income, and employment, which are all higher, and unemployment and the Consumer Price Index, which are lower. Interest rates are still low, despite a recent hike. All in all, the economy is not so bad.

So we wait now to see what fairy tales the Democrats will offer up next to try to defeat George Bush. So far, they have been imaginative, but unconvincing.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Does John Kerry Think Americans Are Stupid?

Democrat Representative Charles Rangel (NY) and Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings (SC) have each introduced a bill in their respective houses of Congress to require all young people to serve either a period of military service or a period of civilian service. Some regard this as a move to reinstate the military draft.

John Kerry likes to lead people to believe that this is the position of the Bush administration. He won't exactly say it's true, but he won't exactly not say it isn't true, either -- in the special way that he takes both sides of an issue while not taking either. When answering a question about whether Americans should fear the return of the draft, the silver-tongued liberal replied, "If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war, and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I don't know," he said.

Notice that Mr. Kerry didn't mention that the only formal action on this issue has been taken by members of his own party, and that no action on this issue has been taken by the Bush administration.

Mr. Kerry is equally disingenuous in his pathetic assertions that the Bush administration lied about WMD. According to Mr. Kerry, President Bush and thousands of other people in leadership positions around the world weren't mistaken about WMD because they believed intelligence reports that turned out to be wrong, they LIED about them. Mr. Kerry also conveniently forgets to mention that he, his running mate, his mentor Ted Kennedy, and dozens of other Democrats also accepted as truth those faulty intelligence reports.

The only people who believe that Mr. Bush lied are those chronically hypnotized by the Kerry mystique, and those who are abysmally uninformed or intellectually incapable of sorting out the truth from all the Democrat crap. The latter of which, unfortunatley, may comprise a sizeable number of voters.

Typical of someone behind in the race and desperate for an advantage, Mr. Kerry is content to allow American voters to believe what is best politically for him, rather than tell them the truth. One suspects that as President he will succumb to similar character faults.

Found This On A Bulletin Board

Posted on Capital Grilling by Cazadore Bolivares, today.


I think you folks are right. Ignore the warnings of possible terrorists acts at what is a critical and strategically important time in the U.S. -- a Presidential election -- and just go on with your life as if 9-11 hadn't ever occurred. That's what John Kerry does, and why shouldn't you followers do likewise?

After all, it would be irresponsible for the President of the U.S., or those in his administration, to warn the populace of a potential terrorist attack. Just leave them alone to enjoy their pathetic lives.

Who would want to attack the U.S. near the election? What could they possibly accomplish? Could they affect our election? Could they defeat Bush/elect Kerry? Probably not. After all, there aren't any terrorists in America. They're all in Iraq, screwing up the nation-building.

No, wait. That can't be right.

If they're all in Iraq, then they can't be here. And if they aren't here, maybe that means Bush is actually making America safer. But that can't be right, because everyone knows that Bush can't do anything right. And besides, how's Halliburton going to profit from that? And if Halliburton doesn't profit, what's the point of Cheney being VP? And if Cheney isn't the VP, who's going to tell Bush what to do? And if there's no one to tell Bush what to do, how will he make decisions?




If Bush can't make decisions, how will America survive? And if America doesn't survive, who gives a shit if Kerry was a candidate or not, and lost the race because the Bush brothers completely disenfranchised the Democrat voters in Florida by killing all the Democrats who control most of the county governments, and Bush won 100% of the vote, hanging chads and all.

Jeez, this is a serious problem.

The damned Republicans have a secret plan to steal the election by making the American people think that there is actually going to be a terrorist attack on the U.S. prior to the election.

No, wait. The Republicans have contracted with Halliburton to get bin Laden to actually attack the U.S. prior to the election so that the American people will be duped into re-electing Bush. But wait. Does bin Laden really want Bush re-elected? For any amount of money?

Or, would he rather have the war hero, John Kerry, as President? Yes, that's it. OBL/UBL would rather have Kerry as President, because he will work to get a coalition of European nations on board before he does anything, and France, Germany and some of the lesser players over there were on the take from Saddam, and won't go along with America regardless of who is President.

But that can't be right, either, because Kerry has assured the American people that he can get the French and Germans to stand with the U.S.

Boy, this is really confusing.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Cheney/Halliburton Link Claim Is Bogus


A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.

This piece illustrates the distortion and outright untruths being propagated by the Democrats. If you'd like to read the entire piece, go to :

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Did Bush Lie About WMD?

Bush's enemies are fond of saying that he lied about WMD to get support for invading Iraq. He didn't. Below are quotes of national leaders reflecting their opinion on Iraq/WMD prior to the invasion.

If you would like to see the source for these quotes, go to

Some of the quotes, like those of John Kerry, have been removed from the site, likely because they are inconvenient reminders of his previous position, and others on news sites may have been removed as a normal course of updating the site. However, all quotes are actual, and most links still are good.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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 [here], 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, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
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 (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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 b elieve 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 (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), 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.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons 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.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Saturday, October 02, 2004

Protesting The Iraq War

America was founded on principles of freedom, among them the freedom of speech, and particularly freedom of political speech. So the question of whether Americans have the right to protest against a war has the answer, "definitely, yes." However, just because one has the right to do something like protest a war doesn't mean that he or she ought to do it.

Today, the protesters send the message that Americans are not of one voice or of one mind on the Iraq war, and that has implications for how various parties respond. The enemy, as in the Vietnam War, is strengthened and emboldened. And our military personnel are confused at a time when they need the undoubted support of those of us at home.

A pretty good argument can be made that activities that embolden the enemy and call into question the degree of support for our troops are not patriotic.

The Debate – First Reactions

Well, it seems that the preponderance of opinion favors John Kerry having won the first debate, but there was no change in which candidate people think ought to be President. Bush still leads in polls by four points, the same as before the debate.

Bush is criticized for running through his material in the first 30 minutes, and then repeating it for the remainder of the time. This is true, but it was necessary for him to repeat his points again and again, in response both
to the questions from Jim Lehrer and the comments from Kerry.

Kerry clearly is the better public speaker – no surprise there. He has been trained both in college and the Senate for that role. But Bush, artless as he often is, has the upper hand when it comes to governing and leading, and in standing up for what he believes is right.

Bush also is being criticized for his behavior during Kerry’s comments. He also missed a few opportunities to call Kerry on misstatements of fact.

The President missed a great opportunity to increase his lead in the polls, and perhaps put the race away in this debate.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Lehrer on Defensive Over Biased Questioning


PBS host Jim Lehrer was challenged Friday morning on claims that he went easy on Sen. John Kerry during Thursday night's presidential debate, while tossing verbal hand grenades in President Bush's direction designed to keep him on the defensive.

"I don't know what in the world you're talking about," Lehrer told radio host Don Imus, in his only post-debate interview.

--- snip ---

Still, some observers noted that Lehrer's questions largely focused on negative aspects of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq - while avoiding Sen. Kerry's waffling on the issue, not to mention the top Democrat's long record of opposing measures to strengthen U.S. intelligence and national security.

Terrorists Getting Desperate?

The recent suicide bombing that resulted in the deaths of more than 30 Iraqi children may be illustrative of the desperation of the terrorist thugs. They cannot continue these indiscriminate murders without rousing the ire of the vast majority of Iraqis, who will at some point have had enough of it, and rise up against them.

On Bush and Kerry

Tonight's debate showed pretty well what each candidate offers. Kerry would work to establish international coalitions endlessley, prefering not to do anything until the world is behind him, a dangerous position. Bush will try to establish international coalitions, too, but when it seems progress has stopped will act in the best interest of the U.S. and its people. This decisiveness is essential in a President. Kerry's reliance on getting everyone's approval before acting is a recipe for disaster. 9/30/04