FoggyClarity

Democratic Hypocrisy

2005-01-25T21:41:00.000-08:00

It has been amusing to watch Barbara Boxer and John Kerry in their proxy roles as Democratic Party front people trying to rake Condi Rice over the coals in the confirmation hearings. The disingenuous left is showing its sleeze factor to be in rare form as they repeatedly insult this incredibly talented, brilliant and successful woman. They should be celebrating her success rather than denigrating it, but rather, they diminish her because she dares to be a conservative, which to them is unforgivable. They apparently learned nothing at all from their recent election defeat, and they are barrelling down the path to alienating an even bigger chunk of Middle America than they did previously. To top things off, Teddy Kennedy periodically crawls out of his bottle long enough to drive a few more nails into the Democratic coffin.

What is of particular note is how hypocritical the Democratic Party actually is. They have always presented themselves as the champions of the poor, protector of the minorities and women. The liked to imply that these groups have been oppressed by the evil society, especially as represented by conservative Republicans. But wait a minute...here you have George W. Bush appointing minorities and minority women to some of the highest and most powerful positions in America. This fact is driving the Democrats absolutely bonkers, because Dubya doesn't just pay lip service to these ideals, he repeatedly does what none of the Dems ever did in actuality: really put qualified minorities in positions of real power and influence. No president has appointed more minorities to exceptional positions than has GWB. The Dems depend on these groups being endlessly down and out, because otherwise they have no cause to champion. The prospect of a lack of "oppression" is most disturbing to them. They are losing their "cause celebre."

So Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton speak for black America? I don't think so, and I doubt that many Blacks think so, either. These two men in particular are utter umbarrassments to their race. There are a great many conservative blacks speaking out on this very thing, but of course the mainstream media make sure their comments are played down. Colin Powell and Condi Rice in particular have successfully broken down the color barrier, which is how it should be. The Jessie Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world should be ashamed of themselves, because it is people like them who work overtime to keep race constantly in the forefront. Colin Powell and Condi Rice have proved that race can and should be a non-issue.

Disaster Beyond Comprehension

2004-12-27T19:44:00.000-08:00

The TV news today is entirely dominated by coverage of the tsunami in Asia. As details emerge bit by bit, the horror of it only increases. I don't know how they arrive at these figures so quickly, but estimates currently stand at perhaps 25,000 dead. And now they are saying that figure could be double. The extent of the loss is simply not yet known, it can't be known, and perhaps it will never be known. Vast numbers of people were swept out to sea in the jaws of the tsunami's undertow. They were seized as if they were mere grains of sand in the grand scheme of cosmic importance.

In the Maldives for example, the capital city and island (they are one and the same) of Male sustained flooding and damage and some deaths. But there is no contact with the far flung other islands of the Maldive atoll, so what happened elsewhere is not known. I feel a particular connection to this spot since I spent two wonderful dive vacations there. From what I remember of the various other islands (all tiny--each one usually a single hotel/resort, mostly just a mile or two around the island, and each one barely above sea level.) There is great likelihood that all the other islands were entirely swamped, and all that existed on them and all unfortunate humans on them had to have been swept away. I would guess nothing is left there at all. I also went to Sri Lanka twice, and many were lost there as well. And the Seychelles. And India. And the beautiful spot of Phuket, Thailand, where I went in 1982 or so when it was a quiet, cheap little backwater...huts on the beach for $10, only one little run-down cement block hotel with 18 rooms, and the most beautiful beaches and bay imaginable. I can't imagine the horror of what occurred there.

If I were an overly religious person, I would wonder if God did not send down a major catastrophic event as a diversion away from the world's obsessive pre-occupation with terrorism. Shake people out of this lunacy, was that the purpose? Is this what it takes to blast Islamic terrorists and Bin Ladin from the front pages?

They are saying this may well be the greatest natural disaster of the last 200 hundred years!
It is simply all beyond comprehension for those of us safe in our homes tonight.

Revenge of the Swifties was Sweet

2004-12-17T22:54:00.000-08:00

Now that the election is thankfully over, I thought I was done contemplating idiotic politics. However, something I read today was just too delicious to pass up. The article is as follows:

"Mary Beth Cahill, the pro-abortion radical who mismanaged Sen. John Kerry's failed presidential bid, admits her worst mistake was underestimating Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Astonishingly, Cahill said Kerry's campaign at first thought there would be "no reach" to the first low-cost ad, which originally aired in only three states.

Does the left still fail to grasp the power of Internet, radio and cable news?

"This is the best $40,000 investment made by any political group, but it was only because of the news coverage that it got where it did," Cahill, a former underling to Sen. Teddy Kennedy, snapped Wednesday at Harvard University, where she appeared with Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign manager.

"In hindsight, maybe we should have put Senator Kerry out earlier. Perhaps we could have cut it off earlier," she fumed.

Sorry, Mary Beth, you no longer get to decide what news to "cut off," outside of the New York Times, PBS, NPR, CBS, ABC, "Today" and the other shrinking Old Media outlets.

Mehlman noted that of course the ad created waves, because Kerry had made his few months in Vietnam decades ago the centerpiece of his campaign, rather than anything he might have accomplished in the Senate (which is very little) or as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor.

"Because Senator Kerry was so focused on that part of his biography, it came out as an issue," Melman observed.

Even though it was congressional Democrats who sponsored legislation to renew the military draft, Mehlman acknowledged that the donkeys succeeded in fooling some ignorant voters into thinking that was Bush's idea.

"I think that was something that worked. It wasn't true, but it worked," he said."

WHEW! All I can say, is my two contributions to the Swiftvets were the best possible political donations I could ever have made, and I'm beyond pleased that my contributions went to a cause that actually made a difference in this election!

On another note, I found those last two paragraphs most illuminating, but not at all surprising. Before the election, I met a great many people (especially young people) who thought the Bush administration was re-instituting the draft, so that donkey diversion apparently worked quite well with those who get their news from MTV.

Meanwhle, the Donks will be scratching their heads for a long, long, long, long, long, looonnnnngggg time in trying to figure out why the good ship Kerry ended up at the bottom of the harbor. Any why if their light bulbs of reason don't go on soon, more of their ships will end up beached as well in the near future. Right now, they've got a thinkin' problem, it appears.

The Veggie Vacation--Escape from Reality

2004-12-10T23:05:00.000-08:00

A week in Maui leaves one curiously relaxed, and I've been trying to figure out why. It's beautiful, of course, and the weather is hard to beat. But it's more than the physicality of the place that immediately lulls the visitor into a dreamy state of limp bliss.

The first thing that happens is a fairly complete withdrawal from world events. In Maui, pretty much anything that happens in the world is relegated to, at best, a tiny little block of text at the bottom right of page 1, almost like an afterthought, or more likely, buried deep on page 6 next to some timeshare ads. Only local events have the importance to merit a headline. All sorts of local trivia fill up the pages of the papers, and the result is strangely calming: the rest of the world subtly recedes into the background of life. What terrorism? What war? The ugliness of the world becomes very shadowy, all those ugly realities cease to exist for a short time. Does that mean for the locals, those things never exist at all??? Maybe that's why everyone seems to deliriously happy. They smile a lot. There's no need to rush for anything at all. This makes for a very different energy on every level.

An interesting phenomenon is the unimportance of hot cars. You'll see a nice car here and there, but for the most part, cars are tools to get to different places, nothing more. A bus would do just as well. The majority of people on the island drive those fuel efficient little economy rental cars which all look alike. Actually, that's exactly what they're all driving: ex-rental cars. There are a gazillion rental cars which must be turned over fairly frequently, so of course it's the locals who buy them up. In any case, one car is just as good as the next, nothing is really special, people don't seem to judge each other by their cars, and in general, the driving rate is fairly relaxed. The biggest danger seems to be that cyclists get creamed more than they do elsewhere. In the week I was there, a bicyclist and a guy on a motorcycle got the bad end of a collision. I suspect that most accidents are caused because drivers tend to be trolling inattentively around the isle in a blissfully relaxed stupor, and there don't seem to be many speeders. It's like all the drivers are stoned.

There are a few touristy things to do on Maui, but in general, the real state of relaxation comes from nothingness: Doing nothing, thinking nothing, reading nothing, having nothing whatsoever to do that matters, no deadlines to meet, no phones to answer, getting up whenever you wake up, eating whenever you feel like it, just a total, utter absence of anything resembling structure.

This affects the mind, it empties the head better than any meditation. I'm a voracious reader, yet I couldn't even motivate myself to read a single book while I was there; it was too much effort. I barely perused the newspapers. My head was empty for the first time in years. The propellers in my head came to a total stop. This was strangely relaxing and very liberating. For the first time, I was able to lay down at night and actually go to sleep without reading first to lull myself to sleep. I was walking around in a continual state of that "still" mind one attempts to reach through meditation. I didn't know, nor did I care, what was happening across the seas from this time warp paradise.

Yes, there is definitely something to be said for the veggie vacation. Vegging out, as they call it.I came back so relaxed I have been experiencing serious trouble getting back into the usual frenetic groove of my life. I'm ready to go back to Maui or any other tropical island, and I've not yet been back a week. In my head, I'm still there...a little bit.

Santa's on the Lam

2004-12-10T20:59:00.000-08:00

Now that the election is a thing of the past, certain inquiring minds are out of work. What to be against now? What to yap about ad nauseum? What to make trouble over now? Let's see....

This month, the central topic of obsession for lazy minds appears to be Christmas, and by extension, the jolly old man in red. There are those who have left GW by the wayside for the time being, and all focus is now on that evil Christmas and everything insensitive that goes along with it. Certain people express the worry that those of "minority" religions (i.e. any and everything except Christians) are upset over various Christmas (and Christian) displays that are seen this time of year. Blast those decorated, brightly lit trees. The utter vulgarity of those beautifully wrapped presents. That horrible, sappy music you hear everywhere. Say what?

Now I myself come from that maligned group referred to as wasps. When I see displays for Hannukah, for example, I absolutely love it. I love to see Buddhist things, and in fact, I'll even admit to owning a few Buddhist icons. Kwanza is fun, and so is Hinduism. I used to enjoy Muslim festivities as well (especially the Shiite celebrations) until I developed a healthy fear of being blown up in the name of that particular group. If they reform themselves, I'll enjoy certain things Islam again, too. So I'm just not threatened by icons of any of these other religions; rather, it is part of the richness of life here in America. It's part of our fabric, what makes America the crazy quilt that it is. What is this obsession with equalizing everything? Why can't we all enjoy the diversity of this great country without being threatened by something different from ourselves? Actually, I suspect that MOST Americans are like me; it's only a select few fanatics who are succeeding in making an overblown issue of this whole thing.

Clint Black was being interviewed on O'Reilly tonight, and he mentioned that he sometimes feels reluctant to say "Merry Christmas" for fear it will "offend" someone, and he was in turn disturbed that he would actually feel that way. This is how much PC mind control has crept into our lives, and those slimy PC tentacles have now slithered into Christmas as well. I admit to having had this feeling of "awareness" myself. I have found myself thinking almost subconsciously, Do I say "Happy Holidays" for fear that "Merry Christmas", if delivered to a non-Christian, would be somehow "upsetting?" Jeez Louise, enough of this drivel. To begin with, Christmas has expanded well beyond its Christian center. I've known Jewish people who had the tree and presents and liked the season and all its festivities. Just subtract the church services and they are good to go with it all, it's a nice culmination to Hannukah. I suspect those of a great many religions dabble a bit in Christmas, it's just a national thing, in a way.

I did notice today that in its own little way, Fox was thumbing its nose at all the anti-Christmas babbler scrooges; at one point they put on a screen saying "Merry Christmas", played distinctly merry Christmas music with it, and in the corner of the screen was a little angel-like cherub. Yikes! Three cheers for Fox!

Freedom is Not Free

2004-12-08T16:50:00.000-08:00

Despite what the anti-war people think, they need to wrap their one-track minds around this fact: FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. A price tag is most definitely attached to freedom, and that price tag doesn't say to be a protestor and slap anti-war bumper stickers on your cars as a means to achieve world peace. Michael Medved, who is seriously knowledgeable about history, once said he looked for an instance in which a sensitive, peaceful negotiation ended a major conflict. He couldn't find one.

In thinking of these things on Pearl Harbor day, remembering those who served in the past and those who serve now, we simply need to remind ourselves of this most important fact that FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE. I never fully understood this until I spent a total of nearly 20 years of my life living abroad and traveling in a great many distinctly and painfully NOT FREE places around the world, and I soon came to realize the true value and extent of our freedom in America. Interestingly, I never fully appreciated these things until I left America.

Most Americans take our freedoms completely for granted, believing that nothing could ever change things here, that nothing is really that much of a threat to our way of life, and many seem to assume that most of the world enjoys much of the same freedom that we do, but I'm here to tell you that nothing could be farther from the truth. America is a completely unique place, even when compared to Europe. Like it or not, freedom is NOT handed to you on a platter and it is not achieved without cost, and from time to time we have to defend it or it will slip away. Or in some cases, it could be blown up and eliminated pretty darn quickly if we sat and did nothing.

It's hard for some people to believe our freedom and way of life here in the U.S. is actually threatened by events in the Middle East, but I spent 10 years living and working in the Middle East and I can tell you from my own direct experience and observations there that the worldwide threat of the Islamic terrorism is all too real and should not be dismissed for even one second. What we are experiencing today has been simmering on the pot for a good 20 or more years, and now it's boiling over. And anyone who has doubts about the ultimate intentions of the various Islamic terrorist groups operating around the world today, I'd say go back and read your history--more importantly read THEIR history, and you'll understand what really motivates these terrorists and why they behave as they do and what they want to do to all of us in the west! Let's just say that "freedom" is not a concept they share with us, and they would replace it with their own concept of "total submission" to their twisted, stone age mentality. Submission or death, that would be your choice. Or most likely you would have no choice at all, it would just be death to all you infidels. Death to as many infidels as possible, that is their goal.

In all wars there are always those who oppose any and all military action, and those who don't want to serve. As any military person will emphatically tell you, they don't want that sort of person in the military anyway, which is why an all-volunteer military is most desirable and why there is never likely to be a draft again. But God bless those who do choose to serve each and every year, because they are the brave ones who protect and ensure that our freedom continues. They are absolutely 100% the reason why our freedom has been intact all these years. We are free not because of any politicians, not because of writers or journalists, most certainly not because of anti-war protestors. We are free because of all those brave souls who serve, and sometimes die, in the cause of freedom.

Tiptoeing Among the Terrorist Tulips

2004-11-16T20:34:00.000-08:00

The mainstream media, and in particular Chris Matthews, is in a flap again and obsessing anally about the alleged shooting of an unarmed Iraqi terrorist by one of our Marines. Honestly, enough is enough. I'm a woman, I've never served in the military, I'm not a violent person, but even I understand that war is war and you don't fight anything resembling a "sensitive" war, either. There's no pussyfooting around with this stuff. Sometimes it's a matter of kill or be killed. Sometimes it just might happen that you shoot first and ask questions later. This is WAR, not a little protest in the park. This is a matter of life or death--yours!

Who was it that said something like this: "The essence of warfare is to kill the enemy before he kills you." I wish I could remember who said that, but never mind. I agree with the sentiment completely. Any day of the week I'll give one of our boys the benefit of the doubt in such a situation. The fact was this: the terrorists had been known to booby trap bodies. How was our Marine to have really known for sure this wasn't the case? Has that fat stupid puffball moron Chris Matthews ever once even imagined in a wet dream a situation where it just might be a case of him or the other guy? Would Matthews as a Marine have been concerned and sensitive and tiptoed over to the body of that terrorist to check and see if he was either alive and injured, or worse, booby-trapped and ready to explode, taking him along for the ride to meet Allah.

Here's a message for Matthews and all the other critical armchair generals and "journalists" out there. Shut the **** up. You don't know what you are talking about, you pansies who have never set a toe in the fields of war. You don't know, and you can't know until you have been there and experienced it yourself. Put your poison pens down and go tiptoe through the tulip fields. Better yet, gather your courage and take a trip to Sadr City in Baghdad where you can conduct some "sensitive" interviews with those patriotic terrorist boys. Then see how long your head stays connected with your body. See if you would condemn our Marines again for how they react in war.

Ding-Dong the Terrorist is Dead!!

2004-11-14T19:57:00.000-08:00

Yassir Arafat finally assumed room temperature, thank goodness. A week or two after he most likely went to join his buddy Allah the Most Compassionate and Merciful, he was finally officially declared to be among the not so dearly departed by his platoon of PLA toadies. All hell broke lose among the loyal populace back home. These people can't even bury someone peacefully, it seems, with violence and near riots occuring right over his newly dug grave. It was truly a sight to behold. This is civilized behavior?

Arafat obviously wasn't overly concerned about how the Palestinian "cause" would continue after his exit because he evidently prepared no successor, named no lackey to carry on his good works. What "good works", you might ask. Arafat already turned down a pretty good deal in which he got around 97% of what he asked for. Turned it down flat because he well knew that making peace would be the end of his very lucrative gravy train. At his death, he had stashed away a massive fortune, and who cared what happens after he was gone? Arafat sure didn't appear to care, judging fron the disarray that followed his announced demise. Poof, he's gone, and what now, his helpless and hapless followers are asking themselves as they shoot their guns into the air in dismay and sorrow.

And where the heck did Arafat stash the cash he'd been squirreling away all these years? I doubt if the little "wife" knows——everyone who has even a smidgen of awareness about Arafat is cognizant of the fact that Arafat wasn't the, ummm....how could I say it, the "womanizing" type. To put it nicely, Arafat was not so quietly known to play for the other team. The wife was merely politically correct window dressing for the world. After all, good and pious Muslim men aren't supposed to date other men. So the wife obviously got paid off for her efforts as Mrs. A, but after the "marriage" ceremony she didn't waste any time getting out of Dodge, and she was said to have spent at least the last 4 years in Paris without seeing her dear husband even once. Poor woman had to "make do" with $10K a week, which put her somewhere near the poverty level. Yesk, she got payoff money, but it's not likely that she was given the keys to the till.

Questions remain about the cause of Arafat's death. It has been suggested that it was the last stage ravages of Aids. Possible, but he didn't look like he had Aids when they hauled him into that French hospital. He looked more like he was suffering from Alzheimers or some other sort of dementia. No doubt he just didn't look like his usually chipper, scruffy, murderous self. The fact that everyone refuses to admit to the actual cause of death is interesting....what is there to hide? What could be worse than being the terrorist that he was, being responsible for all those terrorist, murderous acts? How could anything at all be "embarrassing" about this monster?

Meanwhle, the loony disorderly conduct continues in Ramallah, with all the pent-up Palestinian energy being lobbed towards the hole in the ground which contains the rotting carcass of the terrorist Arafat. That's apparently all they can think about for now. Ding-dong, the terrorist is dead, the big bad terrorist is dead.

Arafat's Long Goodbye

2004-11-10T10:05:00.000-08:00

Yassir Arafat is going to have one of the longest exits on record. The reality is most likely that he has been effectively dead for a week or more at this point, only the life support is keeping him above room temperature, so to speak. But in his current vegetative state he is probably a more effective leader than he ever was when he was vertical. This supposed "man of the Palestinian people" spent untold years siphoning off funds intended for the betterment of the Palestinian people and diverting it into his own accounts, and a lot of these funds came right from the good old U.S.A. The extent of his "investments" is so broad that we may never figure out what his net worth actually is (or "was"), and perhaps no one will ever know where the booty is stashed. All this wealth from a guy who never appeared to have had a "job"(kind of like Jessie Jackson, now that I think about it).

How did Arafat get so unbelievably wealthy, you might ask? Does terrorism really pay that well? Good question--too bad the Palestinian people themselves never bothered to ponder this issue. The gulf between how the average disenfranchised Palestinian lives and how the Palestinian ruling elite live is glaringly wide. How come the peons don't notice this disparity in living quarters? The whole Arafat/Palestinian Authority issue points out yet again how in third world countries, those who "rule" are always dripping in wealth, bling and booty at the expense of their country and their compatriots.

If the Palestinians can find a reasonable, moderate leader to represent them, they will finally be freed from the tyranny of oppression by criminal leaders. This is an opportunity that has been a long time coming. Hopefully they won't squander it through further ignorance. Hopefully they won't allow themselves to be deceived by thugs and thieves who care nothing about the future of the Palestinian people. Hopefully they will finally take off their blinders. One can always hope.

Global Jungle, Not Global Village

2004-11-01T19:39:00.000-08:00

Dennis Prager is rightly emphasizing tonight how this is most emphatically NOT the pie in the sky "global village" of the idealistic left. No, it's a global jungle, with a huge proportion of the world's leaders easily characterized as thugs, thieves and murderers. Sadly, a lot of these leaders are sitting in the United Nations passing judgement on US, irony of all ironies.

America is the brightest beacon of freedom on planet earth, but that's the reason so many of the world's ruling thugs hate us and would like to see us destroyed. Why aren't more countries like us? The answer is fairly simple. Most of the world's cesspool countries are controlled and run by evil monsters of the highest magnitude. Democracy and freedom are unknown and unwanted concepts to be avoided at all cost. A great many countries are controlled by people who rape and plunder their own countries, and they have zero desire to create a democratic society because in such a system they know they would be thrown out immediately. It's all about power: how to seize it, how to maintain it and how to get rich on it.

There are those closed minded pacifistic souls in our society who persist in believing that the monsters of the world are basically good at heart, and that it is WE who are the evil ones, that if WE didn't behave OUR way these poor monsters wouldn't behave THEIR way. This is naivté and stupidity of highest magnitude. America's complainers and protestors are always rooting for the despots of the world, preferring to mask their essential evil by calling them "patriots" and "freedom fighters." "Evil" is a politically incorrect word to them. So, are those in Sudan who are currently committing genocide mere "patriots?" Are the Islamic terrorists who murder, maim, or behead untold numbers of people--usually innocent non-combatants including their own Islamic brothers, sisters and children—are they also to be considered to be acting patriotically and are they nothing more than "freedom fighters" whose frustration with US has led them to such heinous acts of barbarism? Should their atrocities be explained and excused for this reason? Apparently so, say the pacifists.

Osama on the Stump for Kerry

2004-11-01T10:18:00.000-08:00

Osama Bin Ladin is stumping for John Kerry, let there be no doubt about it. The text of Bin Ladin's videotape is a completely unveiled attempt to influence our election just as terrorism affected the outcome of the recent election in Spain. In case anyone out there is thinking that Osama is presenting his ideas in a concerned attempt to steer us misguided American infidels in a better direction and towards a peace he now longs for, you'd better think again. Osama's speech is full of Kerrycrat talking points and some ideas lifted almost verbatim from Michael Moron's movie. Astonishingly, some vocal Democrats are cheering the similarities in this speech instead of being appalled by it. They are delighted that Osama's ideas echo their own, and they obviously miss the distressing reality that THEY are in agreement with the world's #1 terrorist and his army of murderers--the very scum that murdered nearly 3,000 Americans with no provocation whatsoever.

Although the text of the speech was slightly mistranslated and misunderstood at first, it has now been clarified to reveal that Osama's threats were directed at the individual states--vote for Kerry and you're safe, vote for Bush and your state is on the terrorist hit list, Osama says. Doesn't anyone read this and wonder why the terrorists would want Kerry to be elected? Do they think it's a case of compassionate, concerned altruism that prompted him to pop out a video tape for the first time in over 3 years? Hmmmm, let's see.....could it possibly mean that Bush has thwarted and diminished their terrorism network around the world and they see Kerry as much friendlier to their cause-- a pussy cat pushover, easily manipulated because they all too well understand that he will be hamstrung AND disinclined to strongly pursue them in the war on terrorism? Osama well understands the advantage of Kerry's stubborn pre-occupation with endlessly pursuing a peaceful solution to everything no matter how heinous the act and his determination to involve the impotent United Nations in some kind of wimpy non-reaction. Look at what is going on in Sudan.....genocide, and what is the U.N. doing about it? Get real, America. No one can protect us from the spread of worldwide terrorism except US. Forget the U.N.

As a short refresher, recall fora moment what happened with Spain. Al Quaida most definitely DID influence the results of that election. Spain's voters believed that voting along Al Quaida's recommended lines would protect them from further terrorist acts. If that is so, why was a planned terrorist attack recently uncovered (and fortunately stopped) in Spain? Why weren't they insulated from attack like they believed they would be?

And ponder this: If Kerry wins, Osama will be gloating all over the airwaves that HE had the power to determine the course of an American election. You don't think this will encourage more Islamic fanatics to join his cause? The terrorist hoardes will be re-energized at the magnitude of Osama's power to influence in his way the greatest nation on earth. If you don't realize this, you've got oatmeal mush for brains and you need to clean out the cobwebs.

The website www.memri.org monitors terrorist communications around the world, and they have printed a more accurate translation of Osama's speech, together with commentary. I've posted it here, but there is a lot more information at their site.

Osama Bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States Not to Vote for Bush
By: Yigal Carmon*

The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera(1) on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state")(2) to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."(3)

Another interesting aspect of the speech is the fact that while bin Laden made his specific threat to each U.S. state, he also offered an election deal to the American voters, attempting to influence the election by these means rather than influencing it through terrorist attacks.(4) This peace offer is a theme that follows up on his April speech directed to Europe, in which he offered a truce.(5) The Islamist website Al-Islah explains: "Some people ask 'what's new in this tape?' [The answer is that] this tape is the second of its kind, after the previous tape of the Sheikh [Osama bin Laden], in which he offered a truce to the Europeans a few months ago, and it is a completion of this move, and it brings together the complementary elements of politics and religion, political savvy and force, the sword and justice. The Sheikh reminds the West in this tape of the great Islamic civilization and pure Islamic religion, and of Islamic justice..."(6)

Another conspicuous aspect of the tape is the absence of common Islamist themes that are relevant to the month of Ramadan, which for fundamentalists like bin Laden is the month of Jihad and martyrdom. Noticeably absent from the Al-Jazeera tape was his usual appearance with a weapon, and more importantly the absence of references to Jihad, martyrdom, the Koran, the Hadith (Islamic tradition), Crusaders, Jews, and the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad on the duty to wage Jihad against the infidels. For the followers of the Al-Qa'ida ideology, this speech sends a regressive and defeatist message of surrender, as seen in the move from solely using Jihad warfare to a mixed strategy of threats combined with truce offers and election deals.

The following are the relevant excerpts from the speech; for the full excerpts visit the MEMRI TV Project at www.memritv.org:(7)

"Oh the American people, I address these words to you regarding the optimal manner of avoiding another Manhattan, and regarding the war, its causes, and its consequences. But before this, I say to you: Security is one of the important pillars of human life, and free men do not take their security lightly, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him explain why we did not attack Sweden, for example. Clearly, those who hate freedom have no pride, unlike the 19 [suicide hijackers of 9/11], may Allah have mercy on them. We have been fighting you because we are free men who do not remain silent in the face of injustice. We want to restore our [Islamic] nation's freedom. Just as you violate our security, we violate yours.

"But I am amazed at you. Although we have entered the fourth year after the events of 9/11, Bush is still practicing distortion and deception against you and he is still concealing the true cause from you. Consequently, the motives for its reoccurrence still exist...

"We had no difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration, because it resembles the regimes in our [Arab] countries, half of which are ruled by the military, and the other half are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents with whom we have had a lot of experience. Among both types, there are many who are known for their conceit, arrogance, greed, and for taking money dishonestly.

"This resemblance began with the visit of Bush Sr. to the region. While some of our people were dazzled by the U.S. and hoped that these visits would influence our countries, it was he who was influenced by these monarchic and military regimes. He envied them for remaining in their positions for decades, while embezzling the nation's public funds with no supervision whatsoever. He bequeathed tyranny and the suppression of liberties to his son and they called it the Patriot Act, under the pretext of the war on terrorism.

"Bush Sr. liked the idea of appointing [his] sons as state governors. Similarly, he did not neglect to import into Florida the expertise in falsifying [elections] from the leaders of this region in order to benefit from it in difficult moments.

"We agreed with the general commander Muhammad Atta, may Allah have mercy on him, that all operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration would become aware. We never imagined that the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face this great horror alone when they needed him most. It seemed to him that a girl's story about her goat and its butting was more important than dealing with planes and their 'butting' into skyscrapers. This allowed us three times the amount of time needed for the operations, Allah be praised.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

* Yigal Carmon is the President of MEMRI.

We won't admit nothin'

2004-11-01T01:26:00.000-08:00

I drove 175 miles today from my little town in the Sierra Nevada mountains all the way down into the heart of America's most famous nest of liberal thought, the U.C. Berkeley campus, where I expected to see a forest of Kerry signs and bumper stickers on every car. Heck, I thought I'd see bumper stickers on student foreheads, on T-shirts, on hats, on coffee cups. To my surprise, I didn't see much at all. Maybe 3 or 4 modestly small bumper stickers, a couple of small lawn signs. The few things I saw were admittedly pro-Kedwards, but still....where's the passion, where's the enthusiasm? This must be one of the most liberal spots on the entire American continent--leftist thought hangs thick in the air like the dense fog that is typical of the area, yet there wasn't visual evidence of Kerry support any greater than I see in my ultra conservative little mountain town of 9,000. Very odd....even at this late stage of things, one day before the election, nobody is admitting any preference publicly. I don't ever recall an election in which voter choices were so absent from view. You'd hardly know we were so close to a presidential election. Flatline. How all this plays out on election day will be extremely interesting.

Oh yeah.....although it was a Sunday, we got a nice $40 parking ticket courtesy of a Berkeley parking patrol--probably written as revenge for the "Vietnam Vet anti-Kerry bumper stickers on the back window of our car."

Why I Detest John the Traitor Kerry

2004-10-30T21:56:00.000-07:00

Okay, I've decided to descend into total pettiness and list the reasons I absolutely cannot stand the sight of John French Kerry. I know I shouldn't do this, but I can't control myself. Here goes:

1. He was a traitor to his country and to his fellow Vietnam Vets when he came back from his big 4 months of hell in 'Nam and later testified before Congress with phoney vets and phoney stories, in the process tainting the honor of his fellow vets for the next 30 years. I hold him directly responsible for the image of the "crazy, screwed up Vietnam vet." He is the reason so many Vietnam Vets didn't admit to their service publicly for a great many years. Now that they have pride again in their service and their war, Kerry was quick to trample on that pride once again. Because John Kerry hates war, he hates the military, and he hates veterans who fought in wars, simple as that.

2. He falsely got himself 3 purple hearts for mere scratches, probably self-inflicted and bloodless, and got out of Dodge so quick heads were spinning in disbelief. So much for loyalty to his "brothers in arms." He plotted to get out of 'Nam and he did so in record time. He refuses to release his military records, so I can only imagine what damning and shameful evidence they must contain. Dishonorable discharge? Worse? Something seedy, no doubt.

3. When challenged by fellow Swift Vets, Vietnam Vets and POWs during this campaign, he lost no time in branding them all as liars and did his best to tarnish their image yet again. This man has no shame, no virtue, no honor. Our current military doesn't want to serve under this traitor. And Kerry has the gall to think after sliming them he should be their commander-in-chief? Could anything be more insulting to our military?

4. In his 20 forgettable years in the Senate, his attendance record is eye-poppingly negligent and his voting record managed to out-liberal Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, no easy feat. He sponsored no meaningful legislation (a big 5 bills in 20 years) and he was absent for 76% of the security council meetings. It's astounding that he got re-elected--those folks in Massachusetts are asleep at the wheel.

5. He is constantly negative, morose, depressive, angry, and he's a calculating, accomplished, opportunistic liar. This is a man who will say and do just about anything to get elected. I wouldn't even elect him dogcatcher--he'd sell out all the dogs to his own advantage.

6. He's insufferably boring and seems to lack the humor gene entirely.

7. He's a phony head to toe. He is consumed with presenting an image of himself that is completely artificial and tailored to whatever audience he is appealing to at the time. I suspect that he is probably a pathological liar. He is caught up and lost in his web of lies about himself.

8. He's a gold digger who managed to marry two very wealthy women. Let's just say this is a man who would never have married a schoolteacher. Why any women want to vote for this guy is a real mystery to me. This is a guy most intelligent women would run away from.

9. To get really superficial and petty, I don't like his plastic helmet-looking hair and his botoxed, expressionless hound dog face. And his eyebrows bug me, too. Perhaps they are also botoxed into that odd position of surprise.

10. I don't like his thin, characterless lips (which he is always moistening annoyingly with his tongue as he talks) and that small mouth. Of course, since nothing of substance comes out of his mouth it doesn't need to be very large, actually.

11. He would sully the office of President of the United States because of his treasonous activities in 1972. Don't forget that he met with the North Vietnamese in Paris while he was still an active service member. He is unfit for the office. He is unfit for any office, for that matter.

12. He is an arrogant elitist who believes he is superior to the rest of us.

13. He dares harangue Bush about matters of oil and energy policy when he has 9 homes and 12 cars. Does he think these things run on sunshine?

I'm sure more things will come to mind--every time I see him on TV I think of more reasons why he is so off-putting. My greatest wish is to see the voters of America slam this jerk back to well deserved obscurity in Massachusetts. They can have him.

Talking Pundit Heads

2004-10-30T15:04:00.000-07:00

I will be so glad when this friggin' election is finally over. I remind myself that Fox is a 24-hour news channel and you've therefore got to keep the chatter going non-stop. And all the conservative TV and radio news shows are vibrating at a fiendishly feverish pitch as well, because that's what the news junkies like myself tune in to hear, even while we are grousing about the endless pontificating. I confess that I'm looking forward to getting back to "normal", whatever that is.

The polls are really puzzling. I don't see how it could be so blasted close. I'm also in a state of disbelief at the looming possibility that fully half of America may mindlessly be planning to vote for Mr. Doom and Gloom, Hanoi John. I try to be objective and imagine how things would look if I didn't like Bush and I was a lifelong Democrat-- wearing that uncomfortable hat, I still can't imagine blithly punching out the chad for Kerry. There are just too many unsavory things about this man to imagine him in the Oval Office. On top of that, baby-face Edwards sounds like Gump and the thought that this bozo is a heartbeat away from the most powerful position on planet earth is truly sobering. This is a guy who has a very undistinguished background for this particular job. OK, he was a trial lawyer, he sued the dickens out of the medical profession and helped drive rates skyward, but this twerp hasn't managed anything big (like a state government, for example) or really done anything at all of note. He's unproven and unseasoned and a fairly lousy, unimpressive freshman senator who wouldn't be re-elected in his own state. What utter arrogance to believe he has adequate credentials to be commander in chief, leader of the free world.

I remember a high school history teacher once talking about why people vote the way they do. He said people tend operate from either "issue orientation" or "candidate orientation." Those who are too dense or too lazy to learn the issues choose the latter. Both John Kennedy and Bill Clinton definitely had huge personal appeal, so a lot of voters obviously chose them based on candidate orientation. But the Kedwards duo is a puzzle--"Lurch" Kerry is a dull, morose, depressive, angry, unattractive individual, and Edwards is handsome enough but presents himself like an arrogant young pup and sounds like a moronic Forrest Gump. For these two guys, the glass is always half empty and GWB emptied it. They continually sing the same, tired old song and have no real issues except to bash Bush and blame everything under the sun on Bush's presidency--all while assuring us ad nauseum that they could do it all better, they have a better plan which of course never gets specified. This gets boring very fast. After all these months of campaigning, try as I may I have been unable to discern exactly WHAT Kerry would do if he were president. He says he's got lots of plans, but what the heck are they? Am I in a brain fog? I mean, all these committed Democrats out there seem to think he's such a fabulolus choice, and while I've yet to hear any of them clearly articulate what Kerry's actual alternatives would be in a coherent way, they seem happy enough voting for him without knowing or even caring what he'll do. Just get those Democratic boys into office, that's the main obsession. Talk about mindless, blind trust! For these loyal Democrats, I don't understand why Kerry's absolutely treasonous behavior after the Vietnam war is a non-issue. And why the fact that a huge percentage of the active military don't like him and don't want to serve under him is also a non-issue. And how they can dismiss the opinions of all those Vietnam veterans AND POWs...America's REAL war heros (who served more than 4 months and whose medals reflect actual blood loss). And how the election of John Kerry is yet another slap in the face for Vietnam vets in general FROM THE SAME SHAMEFUL MAN, who 35 years later is trashing and diminishing them yet again for personal gain. And how they aren't concerned about how the suppression of the "Stolen Honor" movie by the Demoncratic machine is a very real suppression of the right to free speech (no corresponding attack on Michael Moron's Bush-bashing movie, though). And why Kerry's eye-popping Senate absences and dismal voting record aren't worthy of any examination at all. And why Edwards' activities as a trial lawyer aren't worth considering (now what was that reason why the flu vaccine isn't made by American companies any more...something about fear of lawsuits??). And why Edwards' own Senate non-attendance record and similarly liberal and reckless voting record (when he happened to show up) are also non-issues. Dem diehards just vote for them because they wear the Democratic hat, that's all they bother to consider. What many Democrats just may not be aware of is their Democratic party isn't quite what it used to be. It's the same in name only. Read Zell Miller's wonderful book on this subject to find out more!

I do think that while security and terrorism are important considerations, I'm not sure they are uppermost on people's minds. I had a discussion with a local business owner the other day--he owns a little bakery and has 16 employees. He is freaked out about the idea of the minimum wage being raised. If that happens, he will have to eliminate a couple of employee positions, no doubt about it. How would Kerry explain this loss of jobs? Would he blame himself and his policies? This businessman says he would like to have NO employees. So this particular voter has a kind of voter tunnel vision and his #1 issue has to do primarily with economic factors, taxation, and this minimum wage issue. While he's not wild about President Bush, he sees him as a much better alternative for his business situation, and that alone means he'll give Bush his vote. The other issues are secondary. I would guess that most people will vote their pocketbooks. If you are doing well enough, you have the luxury to look more closely at security issues and will be more likely to choose Bush. And as a probably investor you will like Bush's fiscal policies. However, if you've lost your job or can't find one, or don't want to find one, then a Kerry government with it's socialist, depend-on-the-government-to-solve- everything-in-your-life-attitude will definitely be more attractive to you, and you'll lean towards the socialist Kerrycrats without blinking an eye.

I was reading a bit of Dick Morris' book on Clinton in the bookstore yesterday,and Morris postulated that Clinton had an uncanny ability to persuade the public to ignore his own personal failings (ignore those pants around his ankles) but look purely at what he could do FOR YOU. A kind of bribery, if you will, masked by his cheery and admittedly likeable persona. And the American public bought this act--twice. It's amazing what the American public overlooked from Bill Clinton, who spent a lot of his presidency with his pants around his ankles.

So I guess I'll conclude that the public voting tendencies are fickle and not always based on a whole lot of substance. Or knowledge. Or consideration of facts. Or rational thinking and debate.

So does America really want "mother government" like they enjoy in the rapidly failing European nations?" I guess I'll find out on Tuesday how socialist America has actually become.

Osama's Baaaaccckkk!

2004-10-30T01:52:00.000-07:00

The world's favorite terrorist is back in the limelight, starring in a brand new video. Drat....I really was convinced that he hadn't been seen for three years because 1) He was splattered all over a cave wall in Tora Bora or possibly 2) His face had been so re-arranged that his vanity didn't permit him to appear on film until some serious plastic surgery had been done. I've continually wondered why SOMEONE in the media didn't issue a direct challenge to Bin Ladin: Show your face or we know you're dead meat. Everyone always assumed he was still kicking around somewhere, making mischief from behind the scenes. Osama's long absence sure made it look like he had probably met Allah and gone to his just reward down below, but as we can see now, he's still alive and kicking. The bright side of this is that now we'll have a renewed opportunity to catch him and/or really blow him to smithereens.

On the new video, his face doesn't look much different, but because he was behind some sort of podium you can't be sure if he still has legs. The reason he has re-appeared so undisputedly and visibly at this point in time is obvious: He desperately wants to be part of the John Kerry election team. Yes, John Kerry is most definitely the terrorists' choice for President. Kerry has been endorsed by all terrorists of note (most particularly the soon-to-meet Allah terrorist, Yassir Arafat). These guys definitely know a pacificist pussy cat when they see one, and Kerry fits the bill just fine. There's a very good reason the world's terrorists want to see Kerry get elected, and it's NOT because they want to "negotiate" or "have summits" with him. Even if half the American public doesn't get it about Kerry, those who love to blow up things got Kerry's number early on. Those Americans who don't have their thinking caps on are speculating all sorts of loony possibilities behind Bin Ladin's newest rantings, but the reality shouldn't be all that hard to decipher: Remember Spain? Remember Spain's election? Remember what Spain did after the election? Elementary, very elementary.

Flip-Flop Lips, Consistent Actions

2004-10-28T13:40:00.000-07:00

There has been much ado about Kerry's flip-flopping. A closer examination reveals it is Kerry's lips which flip-flop, while a perusal of his actions and senate voting record actually reveals a remarkable degree of consistency. Problem is, what drools out of his lips during this campaign (ever notice how he frequently licks his lips while speaking?) doesn't quite jive with what he has actually DONE over the last 30 years.

There appears to be a substantial disconnect in the minds of a great many of his supporters, who appear to be blissfully unaware of the two sides of John Kerry. And the distressing thing is that the bulk of his unwavering supporters don't WANT to know about or even consider these inconsistencies. They often deny they exist even though the voting record is right there in black and white. I find this head-in-the-sand attitude puzzling and incomprehensible. What happened to the idea that knowledge is power? Do people believe that his core beliefs about the military, war, a person's ability to make his own decisions, tax, etc. were consistent for 30 years but suddenly in the last year have all changed diametrically? Are Americans this naive and gullible? I hope not, but you do have to wonder about all those Kerry supporters. I have yet to hear one of them give a detailed, substantive analysis of why they support him and how they feel his various policies will differ from those of Bush. For that matter, I have yet to hear any of his "plans" detailed in any way. Here's the message I got from Kerry: "I've got a plan, but I won't tell you about it, and besides, the little people of America...those who can't take care of themselves anyway...needn't know any of those pesky little details about my plan because you guys wouldn't understand my plan anyway. So just trust me, I have a plan."

If I put aside my overwhelming dislike and disdain for Kerry based first and foremost by his treasonous behavior after he came back from Vietnam, I would still say this: How on earth could any reasonable, thinking American with half a brain vote for this empty, humorless, arrogant and elitist phoney?

What's that often repeated phrase....ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

Hide & Seek Explosives

2004-10-27T22:06:00.000-07:00

So the endless babble of discussion about those pesky missing explosives goes on and on ad nauseum. Am I missing something here? Is there some deep, dark murky mystery I'm too dense to figure out?

Let's see now: First explosives were there. Then they weren't. Oh yes...There was the matter of a little 3 to 4 week gap in time between when Saddam was pulling the strings and when our military marched in and Saddam was yanked out of his little rat hole. One more thing...there is evidence of lots of truck movement in that little window of time in that particular garden spot of Iraq. So 2 + 2 = 4. The rational conclusion doesn't take a whole lot of brain power, does it? Unless you are a dyed in the wool leftist/Kerrycrat.....for whom 2+2 never equals 4.

For those intellectually challenged leftists out there, here's the Saddamic formula to memorize: Weapons + Saddam - 3 weeks + U.S. Military x(Saddam in rat hole) = Weapons be in hiding. The solution sets are [Weapons moved to Syria] , [Weapons moved to Iran] , [Weapons hidden in the desert].

I have long puzzled over the mainstream media/Kerrycrat over-obsession with WMD's. Do these people lack the imagination gene? We know WMDs quite obviously WERE there at one point (it wasn't the flu that killed all those people in Iraq's mass graves)-- there were WMDS, Saddam admitted as much. Should we question Uncle Saddam's word on this? Was he just kidding? So at this point in time, there are just a few conclusions a rational brain can draw about the situation: 1) The WMD's are still lurking in Iraq, hidden in some sneaky way like the Iraqi air force planes were hidden; 2) The WMDs were hastily spirited out of the country just before the war started--it's not like they couldn't guess the war was imminent, after all; 3) The WMDs are now stashed away in one or several likely spots such as Syria and Iran; 4) How about the never-mentioned and novel idea that maybe a couple of those puppies got snuck into the U.S. right under our inattentive and disbelieving noses--we've got those friendly open borders, after all. Heck, you could bring an elephant in unnoticed if you chose the right spot to jump the imaginary fence.

But wait, I forgot....John Kerry said this is merely a "law enforcement" matter. Not to worry, he just won't think about the possibility another big terrorist attack HERE. Pre-emption is a dirty word in Kerry's dictionary. Naw, he won't worry his perfectly coiffed, botoxed head about such a silly concept until it actually happens. Then when something big blows up (like Los Angeles or San Francisco, perhaps), John-boy will write pompous letters of protest and condemnation and request a big fat U.N. summit of all those third world despots (oops, I mean U.N. representatives) to vote on condemning the terrorist actions. And here's a big bonus...if they can spare a bit of time off from their pilfering and plundering activities, maybe Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac could also join in and write a couple of wrist-slapping missives begging terrorists to cease and desist and play nice. If they just ASK, those Islamo-terrorists will just say "Of course, John, yes, we'll stop cutting off infidel heads now because you asked us to oh so nicely in your letter." Yep, that's the Kerry PLAN, plain and clear. Write those letters, boys.

Hit & Run Leftist Intellect

2004-10-27T21:23:00.000-07:00

I was listening to the wonderful Dennis Prager this evening, and he said something which really put a whole new light on my already negative impressions of the left. Dennis said "I'm a liberal, but I'm against the left." He proceeded to read an article by a N.Y. Times uber-left journalist as a demonstration of how perhaps the most defining characteristic of today's left is that they have no depth. I was really struck by this because this is exactly what I've been thinking for quite some time now but I hadn't quite put the thought into words. As Prager further commented, the left has no depth because they exist so completely in the realm of emotion. BINGO! This is exactly it! I don't know how many times I have listened to liberal "intellects" of the magnitude of Jeanine Garofolo or Alec Baldwin and struggled to find a tiny smidgen of meaning and coherence to their liberal rantings, but meaning and depth is simply never there. Just raw, incoherent over-emotion. Ranting, rampant and noisy emoting, but devoid of all rational intellectual content. My record time listening to Air America is, oh, maybe 10 seconds. I know I should give it a fair chance, but I'm unable to subject myself to that mindless torture. Life is too short to waste it listening to their shallow and shrill drivel. Yet if you turn to Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Rush and so many others, the discussion is rich, thoughtful, informed, intelligent, and well thought out and argued. The contrast is glaringly stark.

My husband put a few bumper stickers on our car. One says "Vietnam Vet against Kerry", and the another says "Kerry lied while good men died." Mostly we get friendly honks and untold "thumbs-up" in reaction, but recently when I was getting out of the car a man in a big, new, red Ford pickup raced at full speed towards my car. He stuck his head out the window and his intellectual comment about the bumper stickers consisted of "Bush lied! Bush lied! Bush LIED!" That was it--no discussion, no questioning, no rational debate--just raw, uncontrolled emotion on his part and then he tore out of the parking lot. His face was beet red, the veins on his neck were popping like a balloon about to burst, and he was so out of control he almost skidded out of the parking lot as he concluded his drive-by, hit and run political "discussion." So there you have it-- a typical example of leftist intellect at its hysterical lowest. Nothing can ever be discussed or debated with these people because 1) they are always in an overwrought emotional tither and 2) they have nothing substantive to argue, no case, no fact based support for their positions, no real base of knowledge, just bumper sticker slogans to shriek at those who disagree with them. Total intolerance for any other opinion. And facts be damned, they deny all facts if they don't support their "position". Pathetic.

As Dennis Prager so aptly said, liberals have no depth because they base everything on emotion. What was it Dr. Laura once said...."Emotions have no power." Yeah, that's it.

Political Food Fights

2004-10-27T11:42:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I saw an amusing report on politics in Taiwan: All hell broke loose and the incongruous scene showed distinguished looking politicos in black suits lobbing their lunches at each other. A few had to be physically restrained from launching themselves in a body rocket attack on their angry opponents. The whole mob was yelling at a high decibel level as noodles flew everywhere. As I watched, I was thinking that the adolescent behavior exhibited recently by the Kerrycrats was bordering on this level of schoolyard behavior and lunacy; all they need now is the food fight.

The most recent ABC news flap with their "weapons scoop" is just another example of U.N./mainstream media/Kerrycrat complicity in attempting to do just about anything to unseat GWB. Truth be damned, Kerry jumped on this report so quickly with a Bush bashing commercial that it would be reasonable to suspect that his commercial was filmed and in the can well before the "news" broke. They thought this was such a delicious goodie to mangle Bush with, but obviously didn't expect the boomerang effect they got. Thanks to the conservative radio and bloggerdog whistle blowers--no longer can the mainstream media get away with this slimy stuff. Their lies get exposed almost as soon as they utter them. The interesting thing is that the Kerrycrats/media conglomerate still don't "get it": THE OLD RULES NO LONGER APPLY. That these folks are so obtuse should not be surprising, however--after all, they are in somewhat of a politcal time warp and they are still trying to use the old liberal tactics from the 60's to gain political control.

The only worrisome thing at this point is this: How many reasonable Americans aren't plugged in to the internet or aware of conservative radio, or don't have access to something like Fox news to get more than just the Kerry/MM party line to things? The lies get put out there and trumpeted loudly, but how quiet or hidden are the retractions? For that matter, are there ever retractions? First impressions have great impact, and someone who only hears the initial story may well be left with that impression and never become aware of the larger story. This, of course, is what the Kerrycrats hope. For them, relative ignorance is definitely bliss when it comes to the voters. As we are seeing, the ideal voter is probably one who doesn't even speak English--just as long as they can punch a ballot the right way.

Kerry and Taxes

2004-10-25T16:11:00.000-07:00

Here are some great comments from Jonathan Hoenig, of capitalistpig.com. Jonathan is very pro Bush and appears frequently on Fox financial shows. The points he makes below are well worth reading.

AS THE SAYING GOES, there are only two certainties in this world: death and taxes. While our demise is usually well out of our control, taxes are a man-made phenomenon over which we have a highly direct effect.

As I've written before, the biggest determinant of wealth creation is taxes. It's hard to estimate how influential a role taxes play in the economy and, indeed, in our lives. Taxes aren't just an inconvenience or expense, but a legal obligation we are compelled to pay under threat of confiscation or imprisonment. Lest we forget: Civil wars have been started over taxes, the most notable example being the American Revolution.

John Kerry has made repealing the Bush tax cuts, specifically on those making more than $200,000 a year, the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. He mentions it repeatedly in almost every speech. "I have a proposal for a tax cut for all people earning less than the $200,000," Kerry said during the second presidential debate. "The only people affected by my plan are the top income-earners of America."

John Kerry believes raising taxes on the top wage earners would be fair, economically prudent and morally responsible. And while that sort of populist rhetoric might score well in a focus group, the reality of his tax philosophy is tremendously unfair, fiscally calamitous and morally reprehensible. It's a disaster in the making.

First, about fairness. In speeches, press releases and other public forums, John Kerry campaigns on the promise of returning "Tax Fairness" to America. The essence of the plan is repealing the majority of the Bush tax cuts, essentially raising taxes on the rich.

But to suggest that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" isn't just inaccurate, but downright farcical. The rich pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. According to data from the Congressional Budget Office, the top 5% of wage earners pay 53% of all income taxes. It's a stunning fact: One half of the tax burden is shouldered by a mere 5%. Is that fair? So much for equal treatment under the law, eh?

The bottom 50% of wager earners, those one would assume Kerry hopes to appeal to with his soak-the-rich rhetoric, pay less than 4% of all income taxes. And 40% of all Americans pay no income taxes at all. So while John Kerry is correct that our current tax system is unfair, the truth is that it's not lower-income earners who are victimized, but the top wage earners who are already footing most of the bill.

Not only is Kerry's perspective on the tax burden inaccurate, but the way in which he has proposed to spend the taxes he does collect is economic suicide. John Kerry has promised to use the proceeds from the tax hike to "invest in" everything from "affordable health care" to "better schools" to the "jobs of tomorrow." Indeed, from energy to medical research, there isn't an element of the economy for which John Kerry doesn't anticipate government playing a bigger role. And while it might garner political points with liberals, one doesn't need a Harvard MBA to know that such a mentality is a prescription for financial calamity.

Consider this: Back in the late 1980s, I bought a Macintosh Plus computer, which featured a nine-inch black-and-white screen, no hard drive and one megabyte of RAM. Even with an educational discount, the then high-tech machine cost around $2,000. Fifteen years later, I purchased a drastically superior machine — portable, ultrafast with an immense hard drive, tons of RAM, a DVD player, a CD-ROM drive, a large bright color screen and highly useful software — all for less than $1,500. The functionality increased exponentially, yet over time the price came down. This is what occurs in a competitive, free market. Quality goes up, price goes down.

By contrast, consider a government monopoly such as the U.S. Postal Service. Back in the late 1980s, around the same time I bought the computer, a first-class postage stamp cost 25 cents. Fifteen years later, the mail doesn't get to its destination any faster. You aren't able to track letters in real time or receive a confirmation of their receipt. Heck, you still aren't even assured when a letter is going to arrive! Yet the same stamp now costs 37 cents, an increase of some 48%.

The point is that while private, competitive free markets bring about innovation, progress and lower expense, government programs, even the most well-intentioned, always end up costing more and achieving far less. Yet John Kerry repeatedly speaks out against free-market solutions such as privatizing Social Security and eliminating Medicare. He believes government's role is to provide education and health care, and fund scientific research and retirement benefits — all primarily at the expense of the wealthy few.

Finally, in repealing the Bush tax cuts on those individuals making more than $200,000, John Kerry believes we'd "make our tax code reflect our moral code." It's a clever phrase, and a familiar part of the stump speech he has presented to groups all over the country. In John Kerry's view, it would seem, raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans isn't just a convenient way to pay for one's proposed spending programs, but also the morally right thing to do. In fact, nothing could be further than the truth.

In America, wealth isn't plundered or extorted from one group to benefit another; it's earned through hard work and voluntary trade. So while John Kerry seems to suggest the rich somehow owe the poor, the fact is that those who lawfully earn money have a moral right to keep it, no matter how much they make or already have in the bank.

John Kerry's insistence that taxes on the wealthy be raised demonstrates his belief that man's wealth is the property of the state, which should be responsible for allocating it in the most "fair" and moral fashion. It's a full-throated belief in a progressive tax system, under which those with more income pay a higher percentage of it in taxes.

Of course, Kerry isn't the only other politician to argue in favor of a progressive tax system. The most famous thinker on the subject was Karl Marx, who along with Friedrich Engles wrote "The Communist Manifesto" in 1848. Listed among Marx's 10 planks for a communist state is a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Kerry appears to believe that the proper social system isn't one that protects the individual's rights to trade and keep the results of his productive efforts, but one under which wealth is distributed "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Benevolent? Moral? Hardly. It’s a disgusting, dangerous, and decidedly un-American philosophy that is rotting our Republic to the core.

From a Soldier in Iraq

2004-10-23T15:52:00.000-07:00

I correspond with a soldier in Iraq. He recently sent me a letter describing his thoughts about serving our country, the war in Iraq, and our President. His letter is long, but contains some wonderful food for thought.

His letter follows:

I got an email (from a young woman) asking my opinion, as a soldier, on the war, president Bush, and whether what we are doing in Iraq is worth the lives of American Soldiers. I thought you might enjoy my response. Incidentally, she wrote back telling me she she had rethought her previous leanings toward Kerry as a result of my letter.

Sarah,

Admittedly, there is quite a bit of just following the party line...on both sides of the election, and that can be dangerous. There is also, however, a very clear preference by the media as to who they believe should be elected. It seems a bit at times as though they really do not support Senator Kerry as much as they just want to be rid of President Bush. You may have heard the mantra, "not for Kerry, just against Bush." I’ve even heard it said, “Anyone but Bush”. It is somewhat disturbing to feel an almost palpable anger and near hatred for him. It seems to consume them. That way of thinking is almost more dangerous than following the party line, because you really don't know what you're getting, and there is a very real possibility that you may give up something very good for something you really didn't want...you know, going from bad to worse.

It is the basic fight between optimism and pessimism, positive attitude or negative attitude, good versus bad. If we spend all our time focusing on what we are against, where does that leave us in the future? In order to succeed in life, and to have a bright future, we must be FOR something. The saying is true, “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.”

Now, to answer some of your questions and to comment a bit about some of your comments, and realize that I am just one man, one soldier, and I do not represent the entire military. However, as to your parent's claim that the military is for President Bush 100%, there was a recent poll released in the Army Times newspaper, and the numbers are more like 4 to 1, but the preference in the armed forces does generally trend toward the President. There are several reasons for that. Among them is that many of us in the military really do believe in what we are doing in Iraq, but I'll get to that later. Also, we have seen a strong and determined leader over the past 3-3/4 years, one who has worked hard to increase our pay and improve our benefits, one who has stood firm against those who might threaten us, and one who keeps his word.

One factor also has a lot to do with Senator Kerry's anti-war activities following the war he participated in (Vietnam). If he was willing to sell out his country men then, what guarantee do we have that he won't sell us out in our time of need? He has a consistent record of voting to weaken the military, voting against supporting troops, and after making his decisions, he has a record of trying to go back and make it disappear, or to try to explain away his actions. He really has changed positions on many things, and that does not inspire confidence in anything he does say. He makes many promises about cutting taxes for the middle class, but the middle class got a pretty big tax cut from President Bush...something the Senator voted against...and that tax cut really helped my family out this year. I don't see how the Senator can claim he will cut taxes when his record shows otherwise. Becoming the President does not erase your past, nor does it make you someone different than you have been over the past 30 years.

Being the president has everything to do with character, and I just don't believe Kerry has the character to be the commander in chief. I remember the first presidential election I paid attention to, I was in elementary school, and thought that "I wonder if this "young blood" aka Jimmy Carter might not be a good man to run the country for the next four years. "Give a new guy a chance." I also then remember the ensuing mess that man got our country into as he raised taxes, and implemented many of the policies that Kerry believes in. I remember days when we would wait in line for 3 hours to buy gas, and only then on odd numbered days of the month, I remember when my parents were paying 18% interest on a home loan, and I remember him thinking you could negotiate with terrorists. We must be familiar with our history, and the histories of nations in order for us not to repeat the failures of the past.

Probably the biggest thing that bothers me about Kerry is that he is trying to divide our nation at a time we need unity. I'm not only talking about the war, I am talking about class warfare. He is trying to paint the picture that President Bush doesn't care about poor people, and that the tax cuts we all got were only for the wealthiest of Americans. He is trying to separate us, and tell us that there is a different America if you are black or Hispanic, male or female, rich or poor. Kerry would have one class, race, or creed of people hate another for their accomplishments and for no other reason than they are better off than we are. This is class warfare, plain and simple, and it does nothing to unite or build up a nation. It feeds on negative emotions and aims at breaking down our connection to each other as Americans.

The last time I checked, the constitution and the bill of rights assert that we are all created equally. We all have the same opportunities and we can accomplish anything we want to if we will put our heart and soul into it. Kerry's philosophy would be to try and dictate the hearts of women and men, to dictate our behavior for us. He does so under the guise of trying to create an equal playing field. There already is an equal playing field. It's just that NOT EVERYONE will put forth an EQUAL EFFORT! And to punish a person for showing the initiative and effort it takes to be successful and to earn more money (I think Kerry calls it "rolling back the tax cut for the rich") is a sure way to kill ambition and effort.

If you disproportionately tax higher income earners and give the fruits of their labor to those who did not or would not put forth the necessary effort, then what reason do you give them for continuing the effort? If you go out and work hard, put in extra hours, build a business of your own and earn $100,000, then I come in and tell you that you made too much, and someone down the street didn’t earn as much as you…they also didn’t put in the hours you did, in fact they may not have worked at all, but since you made too much, and they didn’t make enough, I’m going to take $50,000 away from you and give it to the person down the street, how motivated are you to go out and work as hard as you just did to earn that $100,000? History shows us that sort of mentality kills a person’s desire to produce. You may actually have the thought come to mind that, hey, $50,000 is a pretty good living, and if I don’t have to work to get it, or if it doesn’t matter how hard I work and I’ll still get it…then why kill myself for the extra $50,000 if the government’s going to just give it away anyway. It is nothing more than redistribution of wealth, and it is the basis of a socialist society, and socialist societies are not free.

Now, on abortion, you and I agree for religious reasons that it is wrong. And, religion and values and faith in God are the basis of who we are. Are we willing to compromise those values? My faith in God, my religion make me who I am, they guide and direct not only my personal life, but my public life, and I have a hard time trusting a man who can separate the two. If you are 2 different people, one in private, and one in public, how can a people ever know which one to trust?

President Bush is not perfect. I'll admit this. But he is a good and respectful man. Respectful of our nation, our freedoms, and us as a people. He says what he says, and stands by it. He does not go back and try to make us believe he said something different; he does not change his opinion all that often, bad when he does, change it, he goes all out in defending his position. He's been called a liar by loud voices from the left, and a lot of people disagree with his policies, but those same people will defend Kerry and his change of positions, many changes on single issues over time, and that's not lying?

Now, my opinion on the war in Iraq. It is not a grudge match between the Hussein's and the Bushes. If it were just that, we would have left Iraq last year when we captured Saddam.

A lot of talk has been put out about us not finding WMD...stock piles of WMD. While that was one of the reasons the President used as justification for going to war, it was not the only one, go back and check, there have always been 3 reasons, and WMD was only one of them. Liberating the people of Iraq has also always been one of those reasons. Hussein was a dictator with a proven track record of using WMD on his enemies and his own people.

And while the report just out does say we did not find stock piles of WMD, something the media chooses not to report is the 500 tons of Uranium that we found in Baghdad. 1.8 tons was enriched and was "weapons grade" uranium. 500 tons, think of a stack of 500 cars, that's a stockpile, and he did have weapons grade, enough to make roughly 130 bombs. But, that isn't being reported, because the media sees that it might actually be helpful to President Bush.

As for the idea that Iraq is somehow not connected to terrorism and the global war on terrorism...the very people we are fighting here in Iraq have ties to Al Qaeda. People that Saddam knew were here; these are the people we are fighting, not the average Iraqi citizen. Let alone the bombs with Serin gas that have been found--perhaps they were old, but they were still deadly. I've seen pictures of those. I've seen the stock piles of weapons this guy had, we are busy blowing it all up now, and there are more than 200 storage sites around the country--it will take a decade to destroy it all. I've seen the mural painted of Saddam and the twin towers, Sddam's face, smoking a cigar, and the smoke trail from the cigar joining with the smoke trail of the doomed towers. But, that's an image you won't see on TV, only here in person.

I read an article this week that included these words that are a good summation of my feelings as to why we’re in Iraq: “we did this in the spirit of 13 precious words of Alfred T. Mahan, the great U.S. naval strategist: "The objective of military power is to allow moral ideals to take root." That's why we're in Iraq.

Sarah, I had a good life back home. I'm actually a National Guard soldier. I have a civilian job back home that was a good paying job, a nice home, and a wonderful wife and 4 beautiful children. My home unit was not actually activated. I didn’t have to come over here. I actually volunteered to come over here with a different unit than I have been in for the past 7 years. I chose to do so, because I know that we are doing the right thing here.

We are helping to give birth to freedom and democracy in a part of the world that has never known it. I have long held the belief that the way to end wars and to have lasting peace, is to spread freedom and liberty throughout the world. When these people are free, they will come to love peace. Free people have always loved peace. Wars begin because of oppression and the desire to have power over other people. Saddam was such a man, he wanted to control the lives of his people, he wanted to control the lives of his neighbors, and the biggest threats to his plans are the concepts of freedom and liberty.

Think of the freedoms you enjoy, the standard of living you enjoy, and compare it to the standard of living of the Iraqi people under Saddam. Most lived without running water and electricity, while he built one opulent palace after another. He had a total of 40, with more under construction.

Did we take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan? No, but the fight continues there. Why, because there are people who fight against the ideals of freedom and liberty. There are people that just cannot abide other people being in charge of their own lives. Why are we still fighting here in Iraq, and in Afghanistan? So we don't have to fight them on our own shores again. Kerry himself says that Al Qaeda was in 40 countries--we are keeping them at bay so they don't succeed in another 9-11.

Why does it continue? Plain and simple, there is a difference between good and evil, and the fighting continues as an extension of that basic war between good and evil. There are men in this world with evil designs to control the minds and lives of others. And there are also those in this world who want every person to be free to dictate the course of their own lives. Any Christian knows that there IS a difference between good and evil. Terrorism is not excusable at all; it is evil, plain and simple. And, the cold hard truth is that people still choose it anyway, and we must either stand up to it and defeat it; or we must surrender to it. Which option is acceptable to you? As for me and my house…we will serve the cause of freedom.

I have watched the death toll climb in this war, we are reminded of it daily, and the press sees to it that we get a daily update of the number of people killed here. And every life is precious, and the sacrifice that every one of them has made is worth it...only if we complete the task, if we are not resolute, they have died in vain. The interesting thing about freedom and liberty, they have always demanded the same price throughout history, the cost of blood and life shed by those willing to provide freedom and liberty to others.

If you ask that question to someone back home...Is it worth it...I can see why it would seem easy to rationalize why it wouldn't be. Because they are not here. Even some, who are here, don't believe it's worth it, but most do. I do.

I have known people here who have been wounded; I have even known some that have died. You ask the right person this question of is it worth it. When I wonder if it's worth it, I look into the eyes of the Iraqis I meet, the eyes of their children, and I see the joy they have to be rid of a cruel dictator, and the hope of a new and better life. They have a rough road ahead of them, and it may still take years for them to build a strong nation again, but they at least have that opportunity now, they didn't even have that option before.

Ask the question if it’s worth it and I think of the faces of my own children, their laughter, the hope in their eyes, I think of my wife and the life we have together. Then I remember the fear in those eyes the day we watched the news all day long as terrorists attacked our country. The uncertainty of wondering if it could happen to us. I remember my son asking why anyone would do this and being afraid that we could be next. That's a sight I never want to see again. And I definitely don't want them to be the next victims of such an attack.

So, I am willing to pay the price for their freedom with my life, so they are not required to pay it themselves.

Is it worth it?

It would be worth my life. And that's all I have to give.

It would be more than worth it to ensure that a nation lives free, and that freedom blossoms in this desert, and from here can spread elsewhere until the time comes that there is peace on earth. Yes, it would be worth my life, and if I am spared and make it home to be with my family again, all the better.

Truthfully, I was probably a little rushed in my efforts to get over here...rush off to war to be "part of it all". There was a sort of hero worship I had for the men and women who have served before me, and I have wanted to see if I could be of the same mettle as they were. The trials of war are difficult. I've been in close proximity to the incoming mortars, and I've been shot at, and I've dealt with the heat, the limited showers, primitive living conditions, and all that.

But, more difficult than any of the physical hardships has been the separation from my family.
I miss them terribly, more than I ever thought a person cold miss another, and I was not prepared for that. Thankfully, however, we have tremendous technology that makes communications back home much easier than any previous war. But, it is still the most difficult thing I have ever done.

I heard it said that if you're willing to die for it, you'd better be willing to live for it, and I will do that too. I will live for and always support the cause of freedom.

My fundamental beliefs more closely align with President Bush than they have with anyone since Ronald Reagan. Because they both are optimistic of or future as a nation, they both believe that we as a people are better judges as to how to spend our money than the government. They both believe in the sacredness of life, and they both represent integrity and personal accountability. They ring a responsive chord in my heart, and that's why I support the president.

Thank you for listening to my ranting and ravings, and prattling. But, please, when you hear of the death of my brothers or sisters in arms, try not to be sad, rather be more resolute to always hold dear the freedoms they have purchased for you and your family.

They say; greater love hath no man than he lay down his life for his friends...well you are our friend.

God Bless.

Campaign Ugly

2004-10-20T14:41:00.000-07:00

Every time I think the Democratic campaign has reached the height of absurdity (and stupidity) they surprise me and hit yet a new low. Question is, are a majority of Americans the utterly dense, uninformed morons the Democrats like to think they are? Do the majority buy this stuff? If Kerry wins the election, I guess I'll know the answer to that question!

The claims made by the Kerry camp often border on ludicrous, and are definitely adolescent or childish in many cases. Today Mrs. Ketchup made a dismissive comment about Laura Bush. As usual, facts were not an issue. Mrs. K tried to condescendingly characterize Laura Bush as the dutiful little housewife who has never been in the workplace. She apparently didn't know that Mrs. Bush has a Master's Degree and worked as a teacher and a librarian. I guess that doesn't count to the vastly more worldly and experienced Mrs. K. But wait a minute-- what is it that she has she done in the workplace, exactly, other than marry John Heinz and inherit his bucks? And other than marry the gold digger President-wannabe John Kerry? Does America really think this woman would be a dignified and admirable first lady? Excuse me while I gag for a moment. Most certainly this woman doesn't represent ME and my view of the world.

Another interesting thing being played today is a 1994 interview with John Kerry in which he stated that for American soldiers to die under the United Nations flag would not be in vain, but to die only under our American flag would be. Did I hear that right? This man hates America, no doubt about it. He places more faith and value in the despots of the U.N. than in his fellow Americans. Well sure....let's have SUDAN making decisions for American national security (Kerry conveniently omits mention of the currently occurring genocide in Sudan...after all, the Sudanese are newly admitted to the U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS committee--talk about a farce!). Or how about those ingrate alllies France and Germany. When have these countries defended anything resembling freedom and liberty? When did they defend themselves? As I recall, they owe their freedom of the last 50 years largely to the United States. I guess they have short memories. When the French aren't busy diverting U.N. food money and filling their own pockets, they could make some wonderful choices for American policy, right? I guess John Kerry would agree with Chirac and his recently stated opinion that the incursion of the English language and the American culture are a dangerous threat to the entire world. So sure....let's let all these slimeballs make decisions about our American national security. Maybe they'll LIKE us if we give them this power--this seems to be a major concern of Kerry's. What total B.S. this is. I was a student in France in 1973-74, and I can tell you the French didn't like us much then, either. They were snide even then about all the English words that had crept into French. The youth of France in 1974 were the disdainful ones--but of course, they are now adults with the same negative opinions 30 years later. Hmmmm, if my memory serves me well enough, I don't believe George Bush was President in 1973-74--but give Kerry time, he'll figure out a way to blame George Bush for everything under the sun.

Why Vote For Bush / Why Not Vote for Kerry-Boy

2004-10-18T22:26:00.000-07:00

Let me begin by saying John Kerry never had a ghost of a chance of getting my vote. I'm old enough to remember with total clarity his shameful performance in front of the Senate. I'm married to a Vietnam Viet who remembers him better than he'd like to, and who disdains Kerry more than I do. He hasn't forgotten a single word of Kerry's testimony. The Swiftvet accusations against Kerry in Vietnam are like frosting on the cake, so to speak, illustrative of a man who has singlemindedly and obsessively pursued the idea of the Presidency for most of his adult life. So why not vote for him, aside fron the Vietnam stuff? Aside from his treasonous behavior? Aside from his deception and lies about his Vietnam testimony? Aside from the fact that he had "vets" testifying who were not vets, telling manufactured lies to further the radical cause? Aside from the fact that John Kerry is largely responsible for the tainted portrait of the crazy Vietnam vets presented by the media and Hollywood for the last 30 years? Well, how about taking a very short moment (that's all it takes) to peruse his pathetic and undistinguished record as Senator from Massachusetts, a man with virtually nothing to brag about over a 20 year stint in the Senate. What was it...5 bills put into law? And worst of all, a man who consistently voted to undermine our national defense. His record leads me to wonder if he wasn't purposefully and systematically attempting to cause America's eventual defeat and loss of power. I have to wonder about the good people of Massachsetts who keep re-electing this useless (what was his absentee record???) and arrogant dilletante. If the former Communist "evil empire" had wanted an "insider mole" to vote American policy to their own benefit, they couldn't have handpicked a better candidate than John Forbes Kerry. His voting record was that of a person who wanted to weaken America.

Why vote for President Bush? I'll admit I didn't vote for him first time around; I didn't know enough about him. I'm sorry about that now. But in the last 3+ years he has earned my honor and respect--and my enthusiastic vote this time around. The first thing I came to like about him was how straightforward he was, and how he said exactly what he would do, and then he did it. No mincing words, no waffling, no currying favor with political morons. He didn't kowtow to the French & Germans, thank goodness. So he earned my trust and admiration. In spite of the way the press and the Donks have tried to portray him as a dunce, if you read the facts (yes, those pesky facts!) about him you can see he's a very intelligent guy. I think his business degree and background are assets. I honor his National Guard service...and I know that learning to fly that plane was not child's play. So what if he wasn't in Vietnam? He could have been sent. He served. Yeah, he really was there. His service points accumulated showed he did more than required. He is guided by his faith and unabashed about it, and I prefer that to a man who exhibits politically opportunistic displays of faith. And to top it off, he is married to the wonderful Laura and he has two delightful, very typically American daughters that remind me of my own daughter. W is a rich man, but any of us could imagine ourselves lolling around and sipping a lemonade with him. He IS one of us, we can feel that.

I am confident that down the road, history will recognize honor George W. Bush as a true visionary whose positive influence on the world will be unparalleled. He will be acknowledged as one of our greatest Presidents. What he is accomplishing in Afghanistan and Iraq will eventually change the whole character and future of the Middle East, and that, in turn, will afffect the entire world. Those who lack future vision (translation: today's Kerry Democrats) simply cannot fathom the miracle that George Bush is engineering. Perhaps certain people will never grasp the magnitude of the democratic Middle East George Bush is creating and the ultimate impact of that change. John Kerry's pathetic lack of future vision is precisely why he will not be elected. I have to believe the American public is far more astute than Mr. Kerry and his crew, who when all is said and done, "just don't get it." So "hello George W, welcome back for 4 more years, and goodnight Kerry-Boy."

Kerry Flapping

2004-10-18T22:18:00.000-07:00

The blogs and at least some of the mainstream media are all atwitter with the most recent Kerry flap, the Mary Cheney comment. I can't say I was surprised by Kerry's crass comment; it was perfectly in keeping with his overall seedy character. I AM kind of surprised that so much of the American public reacted so strongly to this obviously calculated politcal jab at VP Cheney. Still, it just takes that one, galvanizing event or comment to have a fatal impact, and sometimes one cannot predict what it will be that grabs the public fancy, or perhaps more accurately, the public's disgust and anger. Well said, John Forbes, maybe you just sank your own Swiftboat! As it should be....