.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

American Values Under Attack Image by FlamingText.com
Image by FlamingText.com

"Fighting the world wide web of wicked wrong doers."

Welcome. The aim of this site is simple - to rail against the slow, but steady chipping away of traditonal American values by a host of groups & individuals bent on destroying them.

“We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" - John Page 1776

And crown thy good with brotherhood.... ....from sea to shining sea line07-b.gif Your commentator - Francis Lynn...MySpace Profile...E-mail

Sunday, October 31, 2004

Electoral Vote Calculator - You Pick the Winner

Click on this link & you can pick the winner of the election.

Just mouse over each state, decide who will win that state & then click to change to red for Bush or blue for Kerry or gray for no choice. The calculator on the left side will tell you who wins the election & by how many electoral votes. Bush got 580 when I did it :)

NJ Papers Endorse Bush - A Red Horizon

Two New Jersey papers have endorsed Bush. Can it be? Jersey for George?.
The Trentonian (read here).
The Asbury Park Press (read here). Bruce Springsteen's hometown, ironically.

Saturday, October 30, 2004

American Values Under Attack Endorses......................Need We Say?

George W. Bush .............There, we said it.

Listen to Kerry for a few hours & you'll understand.
Hell, look at Kerry for a few hours & you'll understand.

Osama bin Laden - The Movie

So the old rat-infested camel dung, known as Osama, has crawled out of his cave long enough to blah, blah, blah again. Listening to a typical four-hour long speech by Fidel Castro would be of more interest & excitement then the 18 minute thrilla that Osama droned on about. A firebrand orator Osama will never be. I can't imagine him on the lecture circuit.

However, amongst the drivel were some interesting things. First, he seemed almost conciliatory, like he was saying, "Please Georgie, leave me alone & I won't bother you." I heard not the apocalyptic threats oozing from his little turd mouth. Second, I could swear he was using the same talking points paper as John Kerry & the Democrats. Who is plagiarizing whom?

Osama's purpose for revealing his little twit self now after 3 yrs of spending quality time with his band of terrorist brothers, rather than living the constant media limelight of a cave-rock star, could serve a few purposes. "Hey, look at me, I alive, kinda, na-nana-na-na", is one option. Or he could be trying to influence the outcome of our elections. This is more likely, but if so, he needs to fire his media consultants & ad agency. It was a feeble attempt. If anything, it can only push voters toward Bush, not Kerry. Or perhaps Osama was using the video to send out coded messages, a new twist on the old decoder rings of Orphan Annie days, to the eager hordes of followers who then will wreck havoc upon this infidel land of ours.

If this last option is the case, I seriously don't expect a major attack on the USA during the elections. At best I could expect some isolated, local incidents; maybe a few homicide bombings. And I'm not making light of even one such attack. This is serious business. But I think that would be Osama's best & only shot. And I have doubts that even this will occur, despite easy access from our southern border & despite the ease of obtaining fraudulent passports & visas.

The terrorists blew up a train in Spain to affect the election results there. In the US, I think Osama has used his video for the same purpose. And he was right - it was a bomb.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

New York Times -"All the News That Fits We Print"

Boy, does the New York Times believe in that motto! (For the adults among us, the motto could be "All the news that's s**t we print"). The NYT has a history of printing only what it believes fits into its' liberal ideology; truth be damned, ethics be damned & professionalism be damned. Which is fine for their editorial page. But the NYT prints that ideology under the guise of "news". Front page stuff.

The other day the NY Slime heralded a large article on missing explosives, after the April invasion of Iraq, at Al Qaqaa (as in "the Slimes story is 'ca ca' doo doo") in Iraq, to the tune of 380 tons of RDX - an incredibly powerful explosive. And they claim RDX is used for triggering nuclear expolsions - could this be part of the wmd's that the Slime claims Saddam never had? The Slimes article was slanted to lead one to believe that the RDX was stolen under the nose of the US military. And that was the intent of the article - to lay blame on George Bush for this horrible lapse in protecting these explosives. The Slimes fails to equally mention that there was a month gap between when the last UN inspectors were at that site & when US troops arrived there April 9. The Slime article has been discredited here, here, & elsewhere. But facts mean nothing when it comes time for the Slime to pull an October Surprise to help Kerry's campaign. And CBS Sixty Minutes was planning to run this story 2 days before the election, but the Slime beat them to it. Apparently CBS has not learned from it's RatherGate forgeries.

The interference of mainstream media to purposely attempt to affect an election with old, distorted half-truths & misleading "information" should be the subject of scorn from everyone, if not outright criminal penalties. The NY Slime pulls this all the time. The newspaper of note - ha! But they are not alone. The Slime, CBS & others need to go back to journalism school to learn what ethics are & reassess what their responsibilities are to their readers.

Kerry on his part has been his typical pompous, bloviating self. He jumps on the Slime story immediately before he knows what the truth is & mouths off about Bush being misleading, incompetent & blah, blah, blah. Same old record. Even Kerry's spokesperson said that they didn't know if the explosives were removed before US forces arrived. But remember - Kerry is an opportunist & neither he or the NY Slime will let truth stand in their way to get him elected. Kerry is still reprehensible - but he has company with CBS & the NY Slime.

We had RatherGate, now it's NYTroGate.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Yasser Arafat Gravely Ill

It's been reported Yasser Arafat is gravely ill & unconscious. At 75 years old, I expect him to die soon(finally). I bid fare thee well to one less terrorist & impediment to Palestinian freedom. Gentlemen, start your riots.

UPDATE - 30 Oct: The little sucker refuses to die. Now he's in France (surprise, surprise) being treated for whatever is attempting to make him room temperature. Geesh - I just can't get a break here.

Illegal Alien is Deputy Register of Voters

A Deputy Registrar of Voters in Racine, Wisconsin is...well..an illegal alien, as incredulous as this may seem. And she registered..well..illegals to vote. Story here. And the fraud continues.

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Why We Must Fight

The murdering Mullahs of Iran have just hung a 16 year old girl. This is not the first time a 16 year old has been hung. They have also condemned a 13 year old to death by stoning. Their horrible crimes? Well, the 16 year old was charged with "acts incompatible with chastity" & the 13 year old for becoming pregnant by her 15 year old brother. Stoning is an ugly, painful way to die, especially for a 13 year old. The brother was to receive 150 lashes (full story)

Words fail to describe the outrage to these incomprehensible, inhuman & barbaric acts committed by Islamic Fundamentalist pigs & scum. They are delusional, fanatical killers & torturers of the first order. If this is the true Islamic religion, then it is a gutter religion at best & a pagan cult at worse which harkens back to the best days of child sacrifice & slaughter. Although it says a lot about a religion that can even begin to allow itself to be interpreted in such a way, this is not Islam. The human debris masquerading as Mullahs & Ayatollahs have distorted it in a sickening way.

But they are in power in Iran. As such, we must deal with them. Currently, they are going full steam ahead in their goal for nuclear weapons. Like North Korea & previously Saddam's Iraq, they are intractable when it comes to complying with U.N. resolutions or world opinion. Iran with nuclear weapons, controlled by the mindset of killers of 13 year olds, is a wild card that could unhesitantly attack Israel or any country within reach. The consequences of such attacks are unfathomable. The intimidation factor alone would create a dangerous sea-change of politics in the Middle East.

Iran does not have a monopoly on these Islamic pigs disguised as humans. Witness the Taliban. If not in power in another country, they are actively seeking that power. Daily, we see the slaughter of innocent men, women & children by crazed bombers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Indonesia, Spain, Saudi Arabia & Africa. Daily, we see the kidnappings, the beheadings, the executions & slaughter of innocent people who only want to go about their lives in peace.

Now the time is fast approaching when we will be faced with one or more radical Islamic countries armed with nuclear weapons & who will be all too willing to threaten their use or to actually use them.

John Kerry, in his infinite wisdom & incisive take on the world, has said, "The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, 'You can't have nuclear weapons,' but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."

Kerry puts America on a morally equivalent level with killers of 13 year olds. "It doesn't make sense...mixed messages" to other "people" (aka child killers). He view is naive to the extreme, but more so, his view is reckless & irresponsible & will lead to potentially lethal & tragic results.

The War on Terror is a continuum. As long as radical Islamic killers of 13 year olds are in power, as long as radical Islamic terrorists roam this planet, we must respond - we must fight. Their rage has nothing to do with what America may or may not have done in the world. Indeed, they rage against their own countrymen, they rage against their own Islamic brothers & sisters. Their rage has nothing to do with poverty or injustices. Their rage has everything to do with what kind of humans they are, with what kind of warped, depraved religion they adhere to.

Either we fight them here or we fight them over there. Either we fight them now or we fight them later. But fight them we must.

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Animal Activists Aghast At Atrocity

A Cooked Goose

John Kerry, who claims he is "a hunter & a gunner", is now in serious trouble with animal activists. Kerry, who is going around the countryside trying to prove that he is the new poster boy of the NRA, claims to have bagged a goose on his recent outing. He claims all four in the party each bagged a goose, though Kerry was the only one not seen carrying a goose.
No matter - he claims he murdered a goose. And Kerry doesn't lie, does he?

Now outraged animal activists have swung into action & are suing Kerry for reckless disregard for the lives of our peace-loving, feathered co-habitors of earth. Seeking the best trial lawyer available, they have enlisted John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, in their cause. Edwards, you will recall, is the famous trial lawyer who made trillions of dollars in his pursuit of...well...trillions of dollars.

Edwards made a brief comment on the issue, saying "This is the wrong goose in the wrong place at the wrong time. How do you ask a goose to be the last goose to die for a stunt? How do you ask a goose to be the last goose to die for votes? Sen. Kerry talks about building a coalition before killing a goose, but there were only three others with him - the bribed & coerced. Where is his global goose test now? This is one more atrocity to be added to Kerry's long list of atrocities". Sen. Edwards, late for a Breck Girl commercial, had no further comment. The gooses' family could not be reached for comment as they were busy registering as new Democrat voters.

Sen. Kerry's campaign spokesperson in response said, "Sen. Kerry believes that this whole issue is a nuisance. But to show his sincerity, he is prepared to sue the gun manufacturer for allowing him to use it & will have Sen. Edwards represent him. Sen. Kerry further states that he is sure that the lesbian goose did not choose to be born that way. And did you know that Sen. Kerry is a Vietnam Veteran?"

Additional statements from Sen. Kerry will be announced after a hastily prepared dinner made by his housekeeping wife, Teresa.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

The Coming Democrat Designed Disaster

Prepare yourselves. Disaster is coming on November 2, Election Day. No - not from Osama or any number of terrorists. There will be no explosions coming from them. Rather, there will be an implosion of the electoral process perpetuated by another band of thugs - the Democratic Party, helped by new election laws, interfering judges & pro-Kerry third party groups.

Item: Provisional ballots - Federal law requires all states to provide provisional ballots. When a voter comes to their designated precinct polling place & is not on the registered list or cannot provide i.d., they are given a paper ballot to vote on. This ballot is held until after the election, then the provisional voter is compared to the voter list - if on it the vote counts. Each state is left to decide the rules on provisional ballots. Some require the validity of provisional ballots to be completed in a day, others 3 days, others a month. The system is open to fraud as anyone can walk in & complete a provisional ballot - illegal aliens, convicts, out-of-staters, someone who went to 20 precincts & completed 20 provisional ballots, whoever. Who decides validity of the ballot is another problem, i.e., a Democrat or Republican controlled district. The time limit for counting can be so restrictive that the ballots could all be counted or none counted, whether they are valid or not, just to complete the process. Then there are the political party & activist group lawyers - waiting to challenge, litigate & file injunctions on as many provisional ballots as they can, especially in a close election & especially if provisional ballots were not counted due to time constraints. It coud be an endless process. There are 50 states with 50 different rules for provisional ballots - a litigation nightmare waiting to happen. In a Los Angles County primary last year, of over 100,000 provisional ballots written, 95% were found invalid. And that is just one county. Multiply that by 139,000 precincts nationwide.

Item: Judges - The Democrat Party has been filing with courts in a number of states to allow provisional voters to vote in other than their designated polling place. An Ohio judge, contrary to Federal law, ruled in their favor. This portends an open door to further abuse & one wonders why the Democrats are doing this if they want an honest election. And Lawyers will file with courts whose judges are sympathetic or politically partisan to their claims (The Ohio judge happens to be a Democrat, but a Federal judge overturned his ruling recently). Judges will make rulings that are contrary to state or federal law on this basis. One judge can easily overturn the wishes of the voters. And that will bring appeals. And more appeals.

Item: Democrat Party - The Democrat party brags that it has 10,000 lawyers in battleground states. They have formed 'swat' teams of lawyers ready to go to any precinct in the country. The Democrat National Committee put out a manual telling its' people that even if there are no signs of voter intimidation, that they should be "pre-emptive" & file claims of voter intimidation. This is not only ludicrous & dishonest - it shows the contempt they have for the process & the extent that they will go to impede any possible Bush victory. They also claim that they will challenge the vote count even if Bush wins by a large amount. Democrat lawyers are ready to challenge everything in every precinct, especially in close elections. They are not looking to protect the interest of the voter - instead they are looking to deny Bush as many votes as possible & add to Kerry's vote total as much as possible. They will take the smallest issue & take it to court & they will contrive an issue & take it to court, as their "pre-emptive" policy above noted. Even Kerry plans to declare that he won even if indications are he didn't, & he will start naming his National Security team & maybe some Cabinet appointments - all to give credibility to his claim & keep the process in flux.

Item: Pro-Democrat voter registration groups - There are many groups out there registering people for the Democrats. Republicans have some too. However, the indications are that these pro-Democrat groups are participating in massive registration fraud. ACORN & ACT, both pro-Kerry, are the two most active in this regard. State election officials are being swamped with new registrations which are in fact bogus. In one state 35,000 letters from election officials confirming the registration of new voters were returned as "unknown". In Florida 1,500 new student registration forms were changed after being submitted to a registration group. They are paying people, including convicts, to collect new voter registration. Some of them were found to be filling out dozens of forms in different names & submitting them. A few have been convicted of election fraud. One was paid in crack cocaine. Educate yourself about what is going on. The list is too long for this post, but a sample of what is happening is here.

Item: The Democrat/Left mindset - Without reason or validity & proven otherwise, the Left still claims Bush stole the 2000 election. They are absolutely convinced & livid about this. Because of their warped belief, they are prepared to do anything to get Kerry elected - if that means voter fraud, court challenges, out-right stealing the election, then they will do it. They justify this as both payback to the Republicans & as a necessary action to save the nation from the evil-doer known as George Bush. You see, they know what's best for us - they are that arrogant. And therefore, the end justifies the means - even if that means is illegal & contrary to the voters' interests & the integrity of the electoral process. They will not be denied this time. So goes their thinking. And thus the incentive for them to commit fraud. If Bush should still happen to win & with a litigated & confused election process, it will then be a discredited victory for him. So goes their thinking.

Get ready, folks. The Democrats & the libnuts are going to make 2000 look like a picnic & drag this country down if they need to. You have been warned.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Workaholic Kerry - His Shining Senate Record

In the third debate, John Kerry said he had written 56 bills that had been passed. 56 over 20 years. Hmm...let's see... 56 divided by 20...umm...carry the one...umm...comes to a little over 2 bills a year. The man is a whirlwind of productivity! But what 56 bills? Well, we can be sure these were major pieces of legislation because...well because Kerry cares about us, he tells us, & constantly reminds us that he has "led the fight" & has been "in the forefront" in his battles to give us all a better life. And Kerry wouldn't lie, would he? So here is a break down of his remarkable achievements over 20 years, all to help us poor folk:

Kerry's 56 varieties (one more & it's ketchup time) include bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions & Senate resolutions. The last 2 have no force of law.

He authored 24 concurrent resolutions, the likes of which are these examples:
To change the name of the Committee on Small Business to the "Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship." (2001)
To make May 21, 1991 “National Land Trust Appreciation Day.” (1991)
Honoring Milton D. Stewart for his leadership and service at the Small Business Administration. (2002)

10 Senate-passed bills granted waivers to foreign-built vessels going port to port in the U.S. 10 ships = 10 separate bills.

Kerry has authored only 11 bills over 20 years that became law:
S.J.Res.158: To make the week of Oct. 22 – Oct. 28, 1989 “World Population Awareness Week.” (1989)
S.J.Res.160: To renew “World Population Awareness Week” for 1991. (1991)
S.J.Res.318: To make Nov. 13, 1992 “Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day.” (1992)
S.J.Res.337: To make Sept. 18, 1992 “National POW/MIA Recognition Day." (1992)

H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition. (2003)
H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. (2001)

S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)
S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming “to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations.” (1994)
S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects “to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America’s coastal resources.” (1991)
S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)

This is the sum total of Kerry's "working hard" for you over 20 years! Hell, he's not even working hard for his own state since there is a clear lack of bills in Massachusetts' interests. Where are the medicaid bills, the Social Security reform bills, the prescription drug bills, the tax bills, the clean air bills, the environmental bills, the military bills, the budget bills, the child care bills, & on & on??

But have no fear. Kerry has promised that as President he will work hard for us. And Kerry wouldn't lie, would he? No wonder Kerry won't talk about his Senate record & instead spends the time criticizing President Bush for what he supposedly didn't do legislatively. But to be fair to Kerry, since he only showed up half the time at his paid Senate job the guy just didn't have the time to write bills to help us poor folk. Kerry is pure phoney & baloney. The Senate is just an ego trip for Kerry on his quest for the mother of all ego trips - the White House. How anyone can get snookered by Kerry into voting for him is beyond me.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Global Warming Bombshell

Discovery of a math mistake has invalidated a key tenet of Global Warming. So sorry Al Gore.

Send in the Clowns - More Kerry Lies

A Kerry commercial shows Bush pledging to help Seniors on Medicare & then the voiceover says, "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase - the biggest in history".

However, it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration.

Clinton looks like a feeble liar when it comes to Klown Kerry. Since Kerry has a propensity to lie & phony up his exploits in life, is this what we can expect from a Klown Kerry Adminsitration - four years of lies by him, his cabinet, his staff?

This fool can't run on his dismal Senate record, or rather non-record, so he is left to lying about the Bush Administration, using fear-mongering & scare tactics & generally babbling incoherently about his unending misguided masterplans. It'll be scary if this circus gets to the White House. Popcorn, anyone?

Sunday, October 17, 2004

The Fat Lady Spins

Speaking of Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards' wife - read this good analolgy.

The Current Polls

The most recent Gallup Poll has Bush up 8 points: 52-44
The most recent Newsweek Poll has Bush up 6 points: 50-44
The Rasmussen Poll has Bush up 2 points

Keep the faith.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

John Kerry - Let the Unemployed Eat Cake

John Kerry on Wednesday whined again about the Republicans, saying, "They've wound up not even extending unemployment benefits." This is in reference to a bill in Congress which would have extended unemployment benefits, but was defeated by one vote.

Well guess what, folks. Kerry was not present in the Senate at the time the vote was taken. He was too busy hot on the campaign trail, promoting himself. Had he been there as he is paid to be, he could have voted for the bill & it would have passed & the unemployed would have had their extension.

This is another example of Kerry's arrogance - sniping at the Republicans for his failings. This so-called defender & protector of the down-trodden, this man who expresses his great concern for the misfortunate, didn't give enough of a damn to go to Washington & cast the deciding vote for the bills' passage. This man mouths words of concern for the hapless, but the truth is that he is only interested in extending his employment - and to hell with anyone else. Kerry is an insufferable phony.

Friday, October 15, 2004

John Fear-mongering Kerry

The past month the Democrats have been exclaiming that under Bush a Draft will be reinstituted, as early as May they claim. E-mails were sent out to thousands of college students claiming that they would soon be subject to a Draft if Bush is re-elected. John Kerry has alluded to this same thing over the course of his speeches. The idea, naturally, is to put the fear factor in draft-age voters, hoping that this will scare them into voting for Kerry.

In the third debate George Bush was asked this question about re-constituting the Draft. He unequivocally stated that there would be no Draft - zero - nada.

But this doesn't stop Kerry from mouthing off the Democrat lies. The Des Moines Register today quoted Kerry: "With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft."

Kerry purposely leaves out the point that Democrats Charles Rangel and Fritz Hollings were the ones who put a bill into Congress to bring back the Draft. No Republican did this.

But Kerry, being the unscrupulous twit he is, who will say anything for a vote, is fear-mongering in the best traditions of a corrupt & ideas-bankrupt Democrat Party. He has no compunction in scaring college-age voters into his column.

Fear-mongering is not new with the Democrats. Scaring people is a useful tool for them. They scared people into believing Goldwater would start a nuclear war, that Reagan would have his hand on "the button", that Republicans would take away social security from the old folks, that Republicans would end aid to children & on & on & on. Every election the Democrats repeat the same lies. They can't rely on their own ideas for success so they use scare tactics. If ever a political party had kinship to the Nazis & Communists in their use of fear-mongering, it is the Democrat Party.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Final Debate - Bush Edges Kerry

Walking into what was touted as Kerry's territory of domestic issues, Bush came out of it handily. Bush looked good, sounded good, was aggressive with Kerry & had the substance to fend off Kerry's statistics & plans. Bush was the more affable & showed his typical sense of humor. Kerry sounded good, but looked less than good - was his left eye drooping? Kerry droned on too long in his answers, but he did have the wherewithal to throw out numbers, whether they were correct or not. Kerry was somewhat aggressive & his style was good, but no more so than Bush. Amazingly, Kerry managed to smile toward the end when he made a joke about marrying up.

Bush projected optimism, something Kerry never seems to express. Kerry stumbled in answering some questions, whereas Bush answered smoothly with detail.

But I think the average viewer will come away with the impression that, despite all the statistics & numbers & ideas & plans of both, they will feel more comfortable with Bush - that there is more of a connection with him than with Kerry. And so Bush has edged Kerry on this debate & "won". If Kerry was hoping that his debate would garner him more votes, then it fell short of expectations.

As an aside - I think Kerry was off base bringing up Cheney's daughter's sexuality. That is a private family matter. I think it was purposely meant as a snide remark by Kerry aimed at Cheney's Christian Right base, especially since he used the term "lesbian", rather than using the typical liberal parlance of "gay". An unwarranted dig by Kerry.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Kerry: Against Outsourcing - Before He's For It

From the Washington Post on outsourcing (full article):

U.S. businesses understand the benefits and values of outsourcing, the minister said, "For every dollar outsourced by the US business, it gets back five to ten dollars." This view was tacitly encouraged by none other than Strobe Talbott, a Kerry adviser and former top State Department official in the Clinton administration, who paid a visit to New Delhi last month.
According to the New Kerala news site, Talbott said that India need not worry about the controversy over business process outsourcing "getting out of hand" if Kerry was elected. Talbott said "Kerry understood 'the economic good reason of trading through outsourcing as a necessity despite his political opposition,' and, added, that on the advice of his economists, he had left enough room to change his policy."

Kerry just can't be honest. He plays the "outsourcing" card, as with every other issue, to get votes. What an ass.

Jesus, Stay Home - We Have Kerry to Heal Us

John Edwards in Newton, Iowa on Kerry's Stem Cell Vision: "We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases... When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

Well, Lordy, Lordy!! It's an absolute miracle! Praise the Lord...er...John Kerry!! Our sufferings are over! John Kerry is the Light. Not only will he cure our social ills & economic woes in four years & garner us world wide respect, but he now has the power to heal our dreaded aliments. Bless you, John, bless you. You want to get up out of the wheelchair & walk again? You want your Parkinson's gone or your Alzheimer's gone? Prayer is not the answer. Vote for Kerry & walk!

What Edwards said is sickening. Kerry & Edwards will say or do anything to get votes. They have hit a new low. Is this a campaign promise, that the cripple shall walk again? This is pure pandering from a duo of dope demagogues. Just maybe some will believe Edwards & some will be given the false hope that they will walk again or be cured if only Kerry is elected. This is right out of the revivalist tent meetings of long ago, only this time it is Preacher John who is spewing forth the claims for a cure. They have no shame. They are just two pathetic politicians using the stem cell research issue in an ignoble way so that they can get elected, while their flock remain saddled to wheelchairs & still suffering the likes of Parkinson's, long forgotten by the faith healers who took their money & ran.

Memo to John Edwards - knock off the demagoguery.

Monday, October 11, 2004

Kerry: Terrorism is a Nuisance

John Kerry in a recent New York Times interview said this about terrorism:

‘’We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,'’ Kerry said. ‘’As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.'’

So now Kerry equates terrorism with prostitution & gambling & maybe even littering. From the get-go, Kerry has seen terrorism as a law enforcement issue. A nuisance. The wannabe President has no clue what is going on in the world. Earth to Kerry: we will "get back to the place we were" when the last terrorist is dead, when this country has done enough military damage to them that they cry Uncle Sam. "Nuisance" - geesh, what a numbskull.

The WMD's Debate & Reprehensible Dems

The Democrats, with John Kerry as their titular head, have been bashing Bush for going to war in Iraq. They are frauds, they are opportunists, they are hypocrites of the highest order & they are undermining our efforts in Iraq for political gain. Now they all parrot the line that Iraq is a "mess", which it is not. They see no good happening in Iraq, they can say no good. They have no shame. They are reprehensible hacks & borderline traitors. Kerry is the most reprehensible of the pack - he will say anything to get elected & to hell with the country. He will tear it down to build himself up, as he did 30 years ago.

What follows is a sample of the Dems' previous positions on Saddam & WMD's, before they shamelessly decided to use the war as a political football. They seemed to agree that Saddam was a serious threat, that is until election time rolled around.

Back in February of 2002, John Edwards said on CNN's "Late Edition":
“I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think they – as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we’re going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we’re going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits. And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." (Clinton 2-4-98)

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." (Madeline Albright 2-17-98)

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
(Sandy Berger-National Security Advisor 2-18-98)

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (letter to Clinton from Sen. Kerry, Daschle & others. 10-9-98)

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi 12-18-98)

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In adition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." (letter to Bush from Sen. Graham & others 12-5-01)

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."(Al Gore 9-23-02)

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Ted Kennedy 9-27--02)

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." (Sen. Byrd 10-3-02)

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." (John Kerrry 10-9-02)

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Rockafeller 10-10-02)

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." (Sen. Waxman 10-10-02)

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Hillary Clinton 10-10-02)

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Graham 12-8-02)

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." (John Kerry 1-23-03)

Thus spake the hypocrites.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Afghan Voting Line - Democracy Begins

Kerry Reveals His Vision for America

John Kerry in the recent debate finally revealed his vision for America. I quote him directly:

Taxes: "I have a plan." Environment: "I have a plan." Iraq: "I have a plan."
War on terror: "I have a plan." The Economy: "I have a plan." Korea: "I have a plan." Iran: "I have a plan." World trade: "I have a plan." Immigration: "I have a plan." Education: "I have a plan." Healthcare: "I have a plan." Social Security: "I have a plan." Deficit: "I have a plan." Military: "I have a plan." On planning: "I have a plan."

To read the rest of Kerry's vision for America, go here.

Listen America

(This post & its heading is written by an Iraqi blogger - The Mesopotamian)

Hi, I have been listening to the report about the WMD’s by Mr. David Kay. Now, all of you in the West must know that as far as we, the Iraqis, are concerned, we care very little that stocks of WMD’s existed or not at the time of liberation. For us Saddam and his regime were in themselves, the most lethal WMD that cost our people hundreds of thousands of victims not to mention the destruction of the economy and the very fabric of society in our afflicted country. That regime was a dead end for our people and with its continuation there was no hope whatsoever for the future. Mr. David Kay did mention something about this, and he should know, since he spent so much time in Iraq and has intimate knowledge of the situation.

Saddamism is a cancer that we have yet to recover from. Western intervention lead by the U.S.A. was a God send to us, despite all the pain and misery that accompanied the operation and the repercussions that continue to rock the process of recuperation and rebirth of the nation. The U.S. soldiers are bravely standing in the thick of the turmoil and contributing with their blood and sweat not to mention the treasure of their land, towards curing us from the remaining ulcers of the disease after having performed the main surgery which no one else even dared even to think of.

Perhaps, the interests of our people were not the main consideration that led to that action; nevertheless, that does not change anything about the importance and implications for the people of Iraq of this tremendous historical act. Yes there is pain, chaos and loss; yet on the other hand, there is possibility of hope, and a clearly discernible “light at the end of tunnel”, to use this worn out phrase.Were we better off during Saddam’s time? - A question to which many outsiders are very keen to know our answer. Well, in many respects the streets are much more insecure, yet the security that existed in Saddam’s days was like someone quietly waiting for certain death; like a cancer stricken individual carrying the disease in his guts with no hope or attempt at cure.

Yes, the pain and torture may be much more terrible when the surgeon has operated and the disease is tackled; but at least there is hope of recovery and healing, and the prospect of life saving. And this is not allegory, nor a parable; this is coming from someone whose house has been standing in the midst of bombs and explosions for so long now, protected by none but the mercy and grace of the Lord; from someone who has suffered robbery, kidnapping and constant daily danger. And here we are, trying to organize elections, trying to control the security situation, trying to restart the reconstruction, able to talk, able to think, able to watch satellite T.V., use the internet, the mobile etc. – in short everything that we have been forbidden to do before.

And without the slightest hesitation, we hail with Love and Gratitude our giant U.S. friend and his allies, standing with us shoulder to shoulder, braving the elements, braving death, calumny and hatred, shedding blood; to help us heal, to help us reach the shores of safety. And make no mistake, the campaign is winning and will achieve its objectives. Make no mistake; you have already created an allied nation in the very heart of the M.E. despite all appearances, which will produce all the long term benefits and consequences so many times reiterated by President Bush, to the ridicule and insults of the profoundly mistaken, of the profoundly hating.

America, stay the course - God, Decency, Honor, Hope and everything that is virtuous and right is on your side, beside the majority of the Iraqi people. America do not waiver, for you have never waged a more noble and just campaign in your entire history. America, we are winning, God’s willing, and Victory is coming sooner than many might think. Salaam

Kerry Kontradictions Kaught On Video

Check out this video & see if you agree with Kerry's statement in the debate that he has always been consistant about his position on Iraq. Real Player

Debate 3 - Bush Comes Back & Takes It

President Bush came roaring back from his less than stellar first debate & beat John Kerry in this Town Hall debate. He stood erect, was forceful, appeared comfortable with the format of the debate & answered questions clearly. He took on Kerry's record much more than in the first debate. On style he was very good. On susbstance, Bush is always good.

John Kerry was equally good on style. He appeared comfortable, spoke clearly & carried himself well. On substance is where Kerry loses it. He seemed to stammer a few times in his answers & over did the "I have a plan" line to the Nth degree. Kerry could not really annunciate clearly why he should replace Bush as President & used the same worn out lines he has been using since time immemorial.

The Moderator, Charles Gibson, did a great job & the audience questions were generally good & seemed to fall equally to both candidates. All in all it was a good debate.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Cheney Wins Debate

Dick Cheney won the debate against John Edwards. Style wise, Cheney appeared more serious - the "gravitas" factor. Edwards' style may have been okay for a Senate bid, but as a heatbeat from the Presidency he wasn't up to it. Substance wise, Cheney was way ahead of Edwards. Cheney had the facts & numbers. Edwards rehashed the old on-the-stump speech. There was nothing stunning about the debate - no horrible gaffes or brilliant zings, though Cheney got in some barbs. It was a sedate debate - not what people look for in debates. They want the fireworks. They wait for the car wreck. Well, not this time.

Monday, October 04, 2004

Kerry - Dangerous on Nuclear Freeze

In the debate, Kerry said the President failed to show leadership on nuclear proliferation:

"And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea. Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, “You can’t have nuclear weapons,” but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation."

Either Kerry is grossly naive, a true nuke-freeze throw-back or a fool. There is no other answer. A bunker-busting nuclear device would reach down deep into the earth, caves or hardened bunkers where suspected wmd's could be hidden & which could not be reached by conventional bombs. But that's not the point here.

The point is that Kerry would restrict this country from developing weapons to further enhance its defense & to use in times of threats because they are "nuclear". Kerry would remove an option which ironically might preclude a greater response from us. We are not sending mixed messages, John - we are sending a clear message that if you build it, we will blow it. But Kerry is sending a message to North Korea & Iran that they have no fear putting nuclear bombs or wmd's deep in the earth, because we will not have the means to destroy them. Kerry has the audacity to put us on a morally equivalent level with North Korea or Iran or any number of rogue or despotic nations. Again: "We’re telling other people, 'You can’t have nuclear weapons,' but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

No John, we are not telling "people" they can't have nuclear weapons, we are telling thugs, despots, murderers, fanatics, pigs. And if you can't see the difference between scum like that & this country, then it is long past time for you step down off the political stage, because you would do this country gross damage if, God forbid, you were in the White House. How anyone can vote for this fool is beyond me.

Read an answer to Kerry's dangerously idiotic idea here.

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Take the Kerry Global Test

You want to strike a country preemptively? Uh uh - first ya have to take the Global Test here. Good luck.

If you don't like that test, here's another:

Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.
1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?

Kerry - Wrong on Global Test

In the debate, John Kerry was asked about his use of preemptive strikes. As usual with Kerry he put a qualifier in it, because he wants to be on both sides of an issue. He said, "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

So Kerry believes that prior to protecting the USA, we must first prove ourselves to the world, take a test as it were. Is this test pass/fail or graded? How many & which countries decide that our preempting is legitimate? If we fail the test does that mean we must do nothing & be at risk to a threat? After all, the definition of preemption is to "prevent from happening." Kerry is a globalist & a child of the UN, more interested in how the world sees us than in pursuing policy that protects this country. Kerry would have us the moral equivalent of Germany invading Poland.

We do not need to "prove" to a host of countries with their own agendas & their own history of aggression that our cause is "legitimate". What this country needs to do to protect itself will be decided by this country & its people. This country will state its case & this country will do what is needed to bring aboard others. But at the end of the day, if this country feels threatened, then damn the globalists - full speed ahead.

Kerry - Wrong on Iran

In the debate, John Kerry offered up his grand plan on dealing with Iran & it's potential development of a nuclear weapon. Kerry says he would put Iran’s intentions to the test by agreeing to supply it with nuclear fuel for its power reactors provided Tehran stopped efforts to make its own fuel and returned the spent fuel after use. Iran responded to Kerry:

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be “irrational” for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.“We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others,” Asefi told a weekly news conference. Another Kerry foreign policy failure.

Saturday, October 02, 2004

Kerry's 4 Point Plan for Iraq - The Same Difference

Kerry touted his 4 point plan for Iraq on Sept 20, as thus:

1. Provide better training for Iraqi security forces
2. Provide benefits to the Iraqi people
3. Hold elections as promised
4. Get more help from allies

This is masterful, nay, brilliant. Is Kerry a real leader or what!

As opposed to what Bush is doing, thus:

1. Training hundreds of thousands of Iraqi army, police, border guards & security services.
2. Spending billions in reconstruction of infrastruture, building schools, roads, dams, power grids & on & on.
3. Unwavering in his committment to hold elections.
4. Over 30 nations in Iraq & providing support. France just ruled out support even with Kerry as President, so forget them.

It's the same difference, John. Bush has already been doing what you provide in your plan. Try being original John.

Kerry - Wrong on Iraq Nuclear Facilities

Kerry in the debate criticized Bush for not securing Iraqi nuclear facilities when we invaded Iraq. Huh? Kerry said they had no wmd so how could we secure them? And what & where were those nuclear facilities?

Kerry - Wrong on Korea

John Kerry blasted Bush in the debate for not holding bi-lateral talks with North Korea & instead opting for multi-national(6 nation) talks. Kerry said as President he would do it the right way with bilateral talks. Oops - seems his way is wrong way. From the BBC:

Analysts believe Pyongyang may be waiting to see who will win the November elections before it makes its next move. It has refused to take part in a fourth round of six-nation talks which was planned for this month. But US Secretary of State Colin Powell stressed on Thursday - after talks with his Chinese counterpart - that Washington was still committed to this mechanism. "I'm quite confident that the six-part framework is a framework in which this matter will be dealt with for the foreseeable future, because it serves the interests of all parties," Mr Powell said. He said that North Korea's neighbours in particular had "an even greater equity in seeing a denuclearised peninsula than does the United States". Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

Kerry is a Pain in the But

John Kerry just can't answer a question straightforwardly. He always has to use a qualifier. Notice that every statement has a "but" in it. Of course, that is a great way to take both sides of an issue.

-"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ." -
"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ." -
"We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ." -
"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ." -
"I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ." -
"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ." -
"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ." -"
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ." -
"I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."

Gallup Poll Post Debate Results

The Gallup Poll over all results: Kerry 53% - Bush 37%
Read it here.

The Gallup Poll also asked these questions, which certainly takes the sting out of Kerry's over all results:

Was more believable: Bush +5%
Was more likeable: Bush +7%
Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job: Bush +17%
Best-equipped to handle Iraq: Bush +9%
More trusted to be Commander-in-Chief: Bush +10%

Style may seize the moment, but substance will secure the election.

Friday, October 01, 2004

A Debating Draw

Bottom line - the debate between Bush & Kerry was a draw. Neither flubbed or made a grievous mistake. Neither made a solid homerun hit. If anything, I give Kerry the edge on style. Bush needed to at least hold his own, which he did. It would have been nice to have slam-dunked Kerry, but it wasn't required. Kerry needed to appear presidential & be seen as being on the same level, issue-wise, with Bush, which he did, but didn't exceed that. Herewith some comments about each of them:

Kerry: He stood pretty much erect & in one place the whole 90 minutes, which was good as far as debating style. His voice was clear & strong. He wasn't hesitant in answering questions & was aggressive. Didn't see him sweat as he tends to do. Overall it was a good demeanor on his part. What he said sounded good - if you didn't know the issues. That was the problem. No substance to what he said. It was the same old
gobbledygook. Same contradictions, same old fuzzy answers. The part where he said that he would use pre-emptive strikes as long as it passed a "global test" was an internal contradiction & will not play well if the Bush campaign jumps on this. Kerry sounded like he was giving a speech in front of a Kerry rally. But he more than held his own in the debate, especially since this was a foreign policy debate in which Bush was favored.

Bush: As good as Kerry's style was, Bush seemed to be off the mark of his typical style. He slouched too much, made too many facial expressions, his voice was not as dynamic as it should have been & was too hesitant. Definitely lost to Kerry on these points. However, his substance was on the mark. He gave clear answers to questions, he showed the resolve he has always had. He demonstrated again that in no uncertain terms American interests & self-defense comes first. While Kerry came across as speaking to a rally, Bush came across as answering questions at a White House press conference & thus lacking the aggressiveness toward an opponent.

Jim Lehrer, moderator: I had a problem with Lehrer's questions. They all seemed to be directed in a negative context toward Bush's policies. He did not ask a single question of Kerry about his foreign policy votes as Senator or question Kerry about the "I voted for before I voted against", nor ask Kerry about his consistently voting against new weapons systems, nor press him on other issues. I smelled some bias in Lehrer's questions. In fact, in a previous election debate with Lehrer as moderator, a Democrat was quoted as saying that Lehrer was their man. I wonder.

I don't expect to see much change in the national polls as a result of this debate. In fact, in the snap-shot polls immediately after the debate, though Kerry was determined the winner, the same polls showed Bush as being favored as President.

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source