1. Dan Rather's Forgery Fiasco
2. Ignoring, then Attacking, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
3. Pounding the Bush National Guard Story
4. Spinning a Good Economy into Bad News
5. The Networks' Outrageous Convention Double-Standard
6. Swooning Over Edwards' Image, Ignoring His Liberalism
7. CBS's Byron Pitts Promotional Kerry Coverage
8. CBS Promotes Fears of a New Military Draft
9. Misrepresenting the 9/11 Commission on Iraq/al-Qaeda Links
10. Equating New Terrorism Warning to LBJ's "Gulf of Tonkin"

or

Most polling places serve voters from multiple precincts. Poll watches can challenge people they believe are ineligible to vote. With only one watcher per polling place fraud can run rampant. One person is physically unable to monitor several precincts simultaneous.

Congradulations are in order for democrat Judge O'Donnell for a wonderful partisan ruling! Illegal voters in Ohio have nothing to fear!

I believe this is a true statement but I knew very little about the provisions of the so-called "Motor Voter Act." [The actual name of the bill as passed by Congress in 1993 is "THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT" (NVRA)], which became Public Law #103-31

Congress, in all their wisdom, decided there should be more people voting. The "findings" say "the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right" [although there is absolutely no constitutional guarantee of your right to vote in any federal election - ed.]; "it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right" [again, I cannot find anything in the US Constitution to back this up - ed.]; and "discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities. [maybe people that are too stupid to figure out how to register to vote shouldn't be voting - ed.]"

The NVRA was introduced in both the House and Senate by a democrat. In the house 72 of 73 co-sponsors were democrats; in the Senate all 37 co-sponsors were democrats. In typical condescending democrat fashion, they think the only solution to more voter participation was more government intervention.

Two of the stated "purposes" of NVRA are; (1) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and (2) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained. Today, the democrats and their cadre of lawyers have turned this into a bad joke.

How can the integrity of the electoral process be protected when the democrats want every ineligible vote counted? When there is no proof of citizenship required either to register or to vote? When fat and ugly Michael Moore is allowed to buy votes with underwear?

Section 5.2.B of NVRA states that "[DMV] may require only the minimum amount of information necessary...". No proof of citizenship, no proof of residency, just get them all registered and let somebody else sort it out later. Except now poll worked are not allowed to ask for ID or any other proof the the person in front of them is the same person on the voter list.

How can "accurate and current voter registration rolls [be] maintained" when NVRA makes purging voter registration rolls almost impossible? Major news organizations have pointed out that in several counties of several states there are more registered voters than eligible voters in each county. From a Department of Justice information sheet on the web: "The NVRA places limitations on removal of voters from registration lists, specifically prohibiting purges for not voting, and allows voters to be removed from the registration rolls only at their request, because of criminal convictions, death or mental incapacity, or due to a change of address (provided that particular safeguards are followed) [what "safeguards" are not mentioned - apparently there are none - ed.]." How does a voter request to be removed from the registration list after they die? The whole DOJ statement is silly. Is a criminal really going to call up the local county clerk to remove their name from the voter roll?

NVRA applies equally to all persons seeking any kind of government assistance. This policy allows even more fraudulent registrations. Register at DMV, at the social services office, the county health clinic, etc. I could register at least four times per day!

Congress has made the fradulent voting situation worse with NVRA. Federal government regulation of elections is not possible. The feds don't have enough people or time to enforce the provisions of NVRA. NVRA should be repealed. It's time to inject some common sense into the system. Just three requirements are needed; (1) Proof of U.S. citizenship when registering -- employers are required to do this when hiring a new employee. If the private sector can accomplish a citizenship test then so can the local and state governments. After all, isn't voting legally important enough to safeguard against fraud? (2) Require identification from each voter at the polls. Even if it's only a utility bill, require each and every voter to prove their legal right to vote. (3) Allow counties and states to purge voter rolls when needed. Why allow dead people or move-aways to be on registration lists for years? That just invites fraud.

The federal government need to get out of the local election business -- they only create confusion and fraud. Let local and state officials decide what works best in their own jurisdictions.

"Next Tuesday you get to vote for President. Next Wednesday, the lawyers get to decide who won.

Why get upset? We've allowed the lawyers to ruin most everything else in American life--from the practice of medicine to the practice of prayer. Might as well let them drive the entire political system over the cliff.

". . . [C]asting a ballot Tuesday will amount to little more than giving a deposition in the legal Armageddon that is the 2004 election."

Opinion Journal

Near the end of this interview was this remarkable exchange:

Brokaw: "Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do."
Kerry: "That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record isn't out in public. So I don't know where you're getting that from."
Brokaw: "Do you think he's a smart man?"
Kerry: "I do. Yes, I do think he's a smart man."

Kerry finally admits he lied when he said his entire military record has been released. For months he claimed all his military records were on his website and there were no more to produce.

Why won't Kerry sign Form 180 to release all of his military records? What is he hiding? Is it possible he received a less than honorable discharge?

From the WaPo Aug. 27, 2004:

"Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."

"What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush."

"Navy Personnel Command FOIA Officer Dave German wrote in an e-mail to Judicial Watch that the Navy "withheld thirty-one pages of documents from the responsive military personnel service records as we were not provided a release authorization."

"A "release authorization" would have to come from Kerry filling out and signing a Standard Form 180, something he has yet to do. A Standard Form 180 would authorize the complete release of all his military records. Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in August to obtain Kerry's military records."

"Preliminary polling indicates that Kerry commands an impressive lead among the dead, with over 95% of likely dead voters favoring the Democractic candidate.

The democrats have spent the last four years telling me the 2000 election was stolen and that my vote didn't count.

The evil Republicans somehow managed to keep my vote from counting in 2000 and will do so again this Tuesday, November 2. So why should I bother to drive 5 miles down the road to take part in what Al Gore, John Kerry, and other democrats say will be a sham?

While all you foolish people out there go out to vote in an election where your vote won't even be counted, I'll be here at home, feet up on the coffee table, cup of coffee nearby, waiting to see if Scott Peterson gets convicted.

My faith in America's election process has been shattered. I will no longer have to put up with the pretext that "your vote counts." With no checks in place to prevent fraud at the polls, somebody just might vote in my name anyway -- for all the good it will do. I have no idea what would make that person believe voting in my place will count any more than if I vote in person.

I thank the democrat party and the democrat national committee and their army of lawyers for helping me see the error of my ways. This will be my first non-vote in a national election since 1968.

To those of you that have the naive belief the your vote counts for anything other than landfill fodder, good luck. I hope you will be pleased with the results.

As a follow-up to my comments, the following editorial convinces me that my position on voting is correct. This column was published November 15, 2000, just one week into the Florida recount debacle. The author turned out to be somewhat of a prophet as to election 2004.

We may be watching the deconstruction of democracy in America. Yes, you can put me down as an alarmist. The streams of relativism, irony, ignorance, ridicule, ahistoricism, media fatuity, excessive lawyering, hyper-partisanship and power-lust have formed a mighty river of deconstruction that -- before our teared eyes -- is washing away, at a frightening pace, 200 years of American self-government.

Academic deconstructionists take pride in disassembling the parts of a whole in order to reveal that the whole was never a real thing -- but only the pointless object of our pathetic effort to invest meaning into the meaningless. Deconstruction reveals our juvenile faith in reason, truth and the knowability of things.

We fools thought that votes could be fairly counted, that elections measured and formed the popular will, and that the law was a shield to protect our elections, not a sword to shred them. We thought we were most Americans. But others, dangerous strangers, people alien to our sense of ourselves, have homegrown in our midst. They have usurped us in our own country. They are Americans by birth, but they might as well be Martian reptiles for all the moral kinship they have with us.

Al Gore and his band of terrorist lawyers are plundering our innocent laws, and are cynically using those very laws to render meaningless the election those laws were meant to protect. In the past week it has become quickly fashionable to claim that we have plenty of time, that they just want a full and fair count of the votes, that no harm can come from these little manipulations of the process. But to paraphrase Albert Camus: No one should think that an election victory torn from such convulsions will have the calm, tame aspect that some enjoy imagining. This dreadful travail will give birth to a monster.

Defensively, inevitably, as Al Gore has tried to use the law to defeat the election, the Bush camp has responded in kind. What else could they do? Sit by while their victory was stolen? And yet, we now have two bands of roving lawyers, both attempting to game the system. George W. Bush has been forced to imitate Al Gore in order not to die politically. But the Bush camp, in its effort to defeat Mr. Gore's growing electoral power, risks mutilating its own honor.

Abraham Lincoln once noted that through most of his career, he felt that history had driven him more than he had driven history. So, today, we see both the good and the bad being driven by events they can no longer control. Now that the litigation has started, it will, like the mighty Mississippi, just keep rolling along. Even if one of the candidates should concede for any reason, he will only add a feeling of contempt and betrayal to the sense of impending theft that already roils the blood of his supporters. Nor will he gain accolades for statesmanship. That window closed about last Friday. Now it will be characterized as merely yielding to the inevitable.

The deconstructionists have done their job. Having seen an election close-up for the first time, with all its human imperfections, will the American public ever again look on election returns as we always have until a week ago? Just as a raped virgin, though still innocent in her heart, has yet lost her innocence, so American elections will hereafter be looked upon with a worldly foulness, an indelible stain.

And, in future elections, we can be sure that no self-respecting political campaign will lack a post-election legal strategy. Every nasty new political trick one party comes up with inevitably is adopted by the other side in future campaigns. We have something to look forward to. A precedent has been established.

The corrosive cynicism of the last half-century, the deep sense of irony that sees all things at an angle instead of straight on, abetted by the swift and massive flow of supporting evidence in our information age, has remorselessly undermined respect for our great institutions -- religion, church, parents, the military, business, Congress, the courts, the presidency, heroes. We have seemingly taken these blows in stride. Now this denigrating impulse is hitting bedrock -- our fundamental organizing mechanism, the elective process itself. It is time for wise men to tremble.

During the Easter Campaign in 1972, after American combat troops had pulled out of Vietnam, the Army of South Vietnam fought gallantly against the North Vietnamese communist army, defeating them in battle, and driving them in defeat back to North Vietnam and their sanctuaries in Laos. However, because of John Kerry’s appalling testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971 in which he falsely charged that all U.S. troops in Vietnam were war criminals, Senator Ted Kennedy was able to persuade the Senate to cut off all future funding for Vietnam. Therefore, there was no money to purchase ammunition, bombs or parts to repair any equipment necessary to continue the war and ward off the North Vietnamese army, leading to the fall of Vietnam to the communists in 1975.

Kerry was spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), and based his testimony largely on fabrications by VVAW members who had either not been in the military, or if they had been had not been in Vietnam, or if they had been in Vietnam had never been in combat. John Kerry also stated that the Vietnamese people didn't care if they lived under democracy or communism, and implied they would probably be better off under communism. He went on to say that if the communists took over Vietnam, at most only a few hundred South Vietnamese would be killed.

The North Vietnamese communist government (NVG) signed the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Prisoners of War in 1957, yet it grossly violated all provisions of the Convention by starving, torturing and murdering not only American military POWs, but civilians as well. The communists also committed the same atrocities against thousands of South Vietnamese POWs, as well as any third-country allies who happened to fall in their clutches. [I know this from first hand experience having been a civilian POW of Hanoi for 5 years, including spending time in "tiger cages" and in their less than luxurious prisons in Hanoi including Hoa Lo prison – the Hole of Fire, aka the Hanoi Hilton.]

When the communist North Vietnamese retreated after being defeated in the battle for Hue that ended Feb. 24, 1968, they took with them over 3,500 South Vietnamese POWs, soldiers, civil servants as well as their wives and children, including three German Doctors working at the University of Hue. All were systematically murdered and buried – 20 to 40 bodies to a grave. The bodies showed clear evidence of atrocity killings: groups of bodies tied together, each with hands wired or tied with bamboo strips behind backs, rags stuffed in mouths or plastic bags tied over their heads, with many of the bodies contorted but without wounds (indicating being buried alive).

Right after my capture during the TET Offensive in 1968, North Vietnamese officers, in order to impress on me their seriousness, staged a "kangaroo court," a mock trial, in a leper colony, where they had 15 Montagnard ethnic minority teenagers, with their hands wired behind them, kneeling on a bamboo platform, accusing them of being counter-revolutionaries. Communist cadres were dispersed among the lepers and when asked by the officer staging the trial what should be done with them, the cadre began shouting, "Kill them! Kill them!" The lepers, afraid for their lives, were urged by the cadres to join in the condemnation, a freak-out show that would make Francis Ford Coppula proud –- then a NVA officer walked up behind them, executing a coup de grace, shooting each teenager in the back of the head.

Probably fewer than 100 people remember, and less than a dozen saw the pictures of, what happened when the North Vietnamese soldiers overran a Stieng ethnic minority village in Tay Ninh Province in 1967 and systematically fried the men, women, children and babes in arms with flame throwers -- turning the entire village into charred corpses.

Apparently the North Vietnamese atrocities made no impact on the mind or conscience of Senator John Kerry, for he made no agonized outcry. He never led demonstrations at North Vietnamese embassies or consulates. No, instead, John Kerry led demonstrations in Washington, DC, marching under the Viet Cong flag, and regurgitated falsehoods before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and betrayed his "band of brothers" calling them "war criminals." And John Kerry dishonored those dead Americans whose names are on that cold black granite wall in Washington, DC -– The Vietnam Memorial -– who died fighting for freedom and democracy for the Vietnamese people.

John Kerry testified that American Servicemen in Vietnam committed atrocities reminiscent of Genghis Khan, and that the acts were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." On April 18, 1971, Kerry appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" stating "Yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities..." Whether this was a mea culpa by Kerry, only he knows.

Instead of punishment for war crimes, through the intense advocacy efforts of presidential hopeful John Kerry, the communist killers and torturers were rewarded with favorable diplomatic and trade relations that have allowed them to line their pockets with gold and fatten their offshore bank accounts from ill-gotten gains. As a Senator, John Kerry has fought harder for the Vietnamese communists since his return than he ever did against them during his short four months in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander. In 2001, Kerry single-handedly prevented the Vietnam Human Rights Act from going to the floor of the Senate for a democratic up or down vote after it passed the House 410-1.

John Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and his actions after coming back from Vietnam prolonged the war instead of shortening it, causing the unnecessary deaths of over 2 million Vietnamese, 3 million Cambodians, and hundreds of thousands of Laotians.

General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese general, the architect of the military campaign that finally defeated South Vietnam in 1975, is cited as crediting Presidential aspirant John Kerry and his VVAW with helping them achieve victory. In Giap's 1985 memoir about the war, he wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. Giap was quoted as saying, "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!"

John Kerry's picture hangs in the Vietnamese communists' War Remnants Museum (formerly called the War Crimes Museum) in Saigon (now called Ho Chi Minh City), in which he is immortalized in tribute to aiding the communists in winning the war.

America went to war in Vietnam for the right reasons, fighting for freedom and democracy for the Vietnamese people and history has proven this fact. However, because of the likes of John Kerry, the United States abandoned the Vietnamese people to the brutal fascist Vietnamese communists. In his campaign, John Forbes Kerry heralds his military record as a badge of honor in his campaign; only after coming home, he desecrated it. That’s not what a hero does. John Forbes Kerry does not deserve the respect of Veterans, nor their vote, or the vote of Vietnamese Americans who value honor over deceit. Don’t let the United States once again betray the Vietnamese people by electing John Kerry as President.

Mike Benge, former Vietnam POW, 1968-1973

----------

Michael Benge spent 11 years in Vietnam, including more than five years as a Prisoner of War from 1968 to 1973. While serving as a civilian Foreign Service Officer, he was captured in South Vietnam by the North Vietnamese and held in numerous camps in South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam. He spent 27 months in solitary confinement and one year in a "black box." For his efforts in rescuing several Americans prior to capture, he received the State Department's highest award for heroism and a second award for valor.

Source: Winter Soldier

• "I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government's job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign's constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man's record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point--about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good."--Andrew Sullivan, endorsing John Kerry, The New Republic, Oct. 26
• "I can't remember ever voting for anybody I disliked as much as I do John Kerry, at least not for president, but vote for him I will. I didn't have much use for Al Gore either, but I don't remember any real sense of hostility before punching the hole next to his name. . . . I can't persuade anybody to vote for a candidate for whom I can muster so little enthusiasm, but there must be an awful lot of people out there who are going to cast votes next week for Kerry who are, like me, discouraged by the prospect and needing one of those you-are-not-alone talks."--Mark Brown, endorsing John Kerry, Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 27
• "I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I've never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it's clearly justified. Kerry's major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter."--Jacob Weisberg, endorsing John Kerry, Slate, Oct. 26

"Actually he [Kerry] hasn't changed his position as often as the White House does. The Bush administration's marketing has warped your view of the world."

"You don't even say anything positive about the president."

As for whether or not Kerry changes his mind as often as the White House, I think the published record shows otherwise. I offer the following Kerry flip-flops, in no particular order, as proof:

YASSER ARAFAT

FIRST HE SAID: "Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman.... [Terrorists] whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models' as Arafat."
— The New War, by John Kerry, published June 1997

THEN HE SAID: "Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process... As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process."
— John Kerry, interview with the Associated Press, March 10, 2004

PRESIDENTIAL EXPERIENCE

FIRST HE SAID: “I think the American people want an experienced hand at the helm of state,” said Kerry, who has spent 19 years in the Senate compared with Edwards’ five. “This is not the time for on-the-job training in the White House on national security issues.”
John Kerry, Feb. 3, 2004

THEN HE SAID: “I’ve seen John Edwards think, argue, advocate, legislate and lead for six years now.”
John Kerry, July 6, 2004

ISRAEL'S SECURITY WALL

FIRST HE SAID: “I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace.”
John Kerry, Oct. 17 2003

THEN HE SAID: “Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense.”
John Kerry, Feb. 25, 2004

SUVS

FIRST HE SAID: "I don't own an SUV,''
Kerry declared when asked by reporters on Earth Day 2004.

THEN HE SAID: Asked whether or not his wife, Teresa, owned an SUV — on same conference call during which he denied owning an SUV — he fessed up, sorta: "The family has it. I don't have it." Back in February, however, he rattled off a list of Kerry household cars: "We have some SUVs. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. ... We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban."

CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT DURING WAR

FIRST HE SAID: March 2003, Kerry said he would stop criticizing the president once war in Iraq began: "It's what you owe the troops....I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won't speak a word without measuring how it will sound to the guys doing the fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert."

THEN HE SAID: In early April 2003, while our troops were approaching Baghdad, Kerry said in a speech: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."

HIS VIETNAM MEDALS

FIRST HE SAID: From 1971 until about a decade later, Kerry wanted people to think he threw his medals away in protest of Vietnam. In a 1971 interview, Kerry insisted that he "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine" of his medals.

THEN HE SAID: Around 1984, when Kerry ran for the Senate, the times changed and he wanted people to believe he kept the medals and "only" threw away the ribbons. Why? Because his union supporters in particular and voters in general were no longer enamored with the excesses of the antiwar movement.

"It's such a personal thing," he told the Washington Post in 1985. "They're my medals. I'll do what I want with them. And there shouldn't be any expectations about them. It shouldn't be a measurement of anything. People say, 'You didn't throw your medals away.' Who said I had to? And why should I? It's my business. I did not want to throw my medals away."

A decade later, he told the Boston Globe that the only reason he didn't chuck the medals was that he didn't have time to go home and get them. In April 2004, Kerry told the Los Angeles Times, "I never ever implied that I threw away the medals.
From Jonah Goldberg, "Senator Contradiction"

CUBAN EMBARGO

FIRST HE SAID: Kerry takes a tough line on the Cuban embargo. Sometimes. He was a big advocate of tough Helms-Burton legislation in 1996, which he still mentions, but he didn't actually vote for it. Last year he still didn't know what he thought about Cuba: ''I haven't resolved what to do. I'm going to talk to a lot of people in Florida.'' In August 2003 he told Tim Russert that he was against lifting sanctions: "Not Now. No."

THEN HE SAID: A few days later, he wanted to allow "humanitarian" travel and interactions with Cuba that would end "the isolation that in my judgment helps Castro."

ABORTION LITMUS TEST FOR JUDGES

FIRST HE SAID: Kerry promised during the primaries to appoint to the Supreme Court only justices who favor Roe v. Wade because "people who go to the Supreme Court ought to interpret the Constitution as it is interpreted, and if they have another point of view, then they're not supporting the Constitution, which is what a judge does."

THEN HE SAID: In April 2004, he said that he would be willing to appoint anti-Roe justices so long as the Court had a pro-Roe majority. ("Supporting the Constitution" was apparently no longer a requirement for his nominees.)

THEN HE SAID: The abortion lobby expressed its displeasure, and reasonably so given its principles — if Clinton had followed that policy, the Court might have upheld bans on partial-birth abortion and pro-lifers would need to switch only one more vote to overturn Roe. So now Kerry is saying that he will nominate only pro-Roe justices.

The flop-flip was accompanied by some unconvincing spin. Here's what Kerry said yesterday: "I will not appoint somebody with a 5-4 court who's about to undo Roe v. Wade. I've said that before. But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia." Nedra Pickler's AP story has Kerry aides saying that "some court" was a reference to lower federal courts, not the Supreme Court.

Aides said later that "some court" was not a reference to the Supreme Court, only lower federal benches. That is hard to reconcile with his prefatory reference to a 5-4 Supreme Court or with the Scalia example — in other words, with anything he said.

Still unclear is whether he would appoint appeals-court judges who are anti-Roe. But he has been supporting filibusters of Bush judicial nominees for less than that: A major complaint against Priscilla Owen has been that she read a parental-notification law in a way the abortion lobby found disagreeable.
By Ramesh Ponnuru, originally posted in The Corner at NRO.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

FIRST HE SAID: Kerry voted for the "No Child Left Behind" legislation in 2001.

THEN HE SAID: In the summer of 2003, he announced, "I'm running for President to make our public schools a focus for excellence, not a photo-op for tomorrow's front pages — and I am going to criss-cross this country and hold George Bush accountable for making a mockery of the words 'Leave No Child Behind.'"

"GAY MARRIAGE"

FIRST HE SAID: In 1996, Kerry opposed federal legislation that would define marriage as between a man and a woman: "This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited bill." In 2002 he joined Barney Frank and other members of his state's congressional delegation in signing a letter asking the Massachusetts legislature to reject a constitutional amendment that would outlaw homosexual marriage: "We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents."
(USA Today, 4/2/11)

THEN HE SAID: In February 2004, Kerry told reporters: "I support equal rights, the right of people to have civil unions, to have partner rights. I do not support marriage" for gays and lesbians. Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR TERRORISTS

FIRST HE SAID: Between 1989 and 1993, John Kerry voted three times against giving terrorists the death penalty. He went so far as to tell former Gov. William Weld, his 1996 GOP Senate opponent, that "'Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy."

THEN HE SAID: In the wake of September 11, Kerry changed his mind. In Dec 2002 he said: "I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country. I support killing people who declare war on our country."

THE PATRIOT ACT

FIRST HE SAID: John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and even wrote parts of it himself.

THEN HE SAID: "It is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."
John Kerry, December 2003

THE IRAQ WAR: FUNDING

FIRST HE SAID: On Face the Nation on 9/14/04, Kerry discussed an amendment he was pushing as part of the $87 billion funding bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Asked if he would support the bill even without the amendment, he replied, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

He added "I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

THEN HE SAID: Kerry voted against the bill in October 2003. He later infamously replied to a Republican ad highlighting the vote by saying, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

THE IRAQ WAR: AUTHORIZATION

FIRST HE SAID: John Kerry sounded like President Bush before the war. In a September 2002 New York Times op-ed he wrote: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

Kerry voted for authorization to use force in Iraq on October 11 that same fall.

THEN HE SAID: By January 6, 2004, Kerry is a self-identified antiwar candidate: On Hardball, Chris Matthews asked Kerry, "Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the antiwar candidates?"

Kerry replied: "I am — Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely."

"Nine years ago, U.N. weapons inspectors urgently called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to demolish powerful plastic explosives in a facility that Iraq's interim government said this month was looted due to poor security.

"The chief American weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, told The New York Sun yesterday that in 1995, when he was a member of the U.N. inspections team in Iraq, he urged the United Nations' atomic watchdog to remove tons of explosives that have since been declared missing.

"Mr. Duelfer said he was rebuffed at the time by the Vienna-based agency because its officials were not convinced the presence of the HMX, RDX, and PETN explosives was directly related to Saddam Hussein's programs to amass weapons of mass destruction.

"Instead of accepting recommendations to destroy the stocks, Mr. Duelfer said, the atomic-energy agency opted to continue to monitor them.

"By e-mail, Mr. Duelfer wrote the Sun, "The policy was if acquired for the WMD program and used for it, it should be subject for destruction. The HMX was just that. Nevertheless the IAEA decided to let Iraq keep the stuff, like they needed more explosives." ...

"After a behind-the-scenes battle inside the State Department this summer, the Bush administration opted to reject Mr. ElBaradei's bid for a third term as director general of the atomic energy agency.

"At the time, Washington was collecting intelligence - disputed by some agencies - that Mr. ElBaradei was providing advice to Iran on how to avoid sanction from his organization for its previously undisclosed uranium enrichment programs.

"Mr. al-Baradei has publicly urged the Iranians to heed an earlier pledge to suspend enrichment, but he has also opposed America's policy of taking Iranian violations to the U.N. Security Council. Mr. al-Baradei has announced he will nonetheless seek a third term."

I believe most polls are biased to some degree by "self selection." If I answer my phone and it's Zogby trying to poll me, I can say no thanks and hang up. Nobody knows how many people refuse to participate in telephone survey's.

When asked, the Kerry campaign insisted that Kerry was going to "pay off the mortgage himself."

Looking at the math involved in paying off a $6 million loan over 30 years with a 5% interest rate (which would be a very favorable rate), the monthly payment with principal and interest would be $32,209.30, or $386,511.60 per year.

Next I checked Kerry's 2002 tax return. It showed an income of $144,091. By using his entire Senate salary Kerry still comes up short of the yearly motgage payment by $242,420.60.

If Kerry is to keep his promise of "paying the mortgage himself" then he has to win the election. As president, his yearly salary would be $400,000. With that he can pay the Boston home mortgage himself and have about $13,000 left over to buy presents for family and friends. The added advantage for Kerry is he won't have to borrow money from his wife to pay the bills!

Now you know the real reason Kerry is running for president! It's all about paying the mortgage.

In todays roundup of stories a comment was left by "TomJ" complaining about Republican "tactics" in Florida. In an excerpt of TomJ's comment he wrote:

"In Jacksonville, to determine if Republicans were ... intimidating voters, we filmed a private detective filming every "early voter" - the majority of whom are black - from behind a vehicle with blacked-out windows.

"The private detective claimed not to know who was paying for his all-day services.

"On the scene, Democratic Congresswoman Corinne Brown said the surveillance operation was part of a campaign of intimidation tactics used by the Republican Party to intimate and scare off African American voters, almost all of whom are registered Democrats."

To make this film, 150 handheld video cameras were distributed to Iraqis, who interviewed family, friends and neighbors to give a first-person account of life in Iraq.

Eleana Gordon of the FDD was invited to a pre-screening last week and made this comment:

"The film's powerful stories made a deep impression on the audience -- a daughter interviews her mother about how she prepared for torture under Saddam by burning herself with cigarettes; police trainees film each other and vociferously disagree over whether life is better now or under Saddam; a boy asks his mother "what is democracy?"; university students celebrate their graduation; and young women survey the men around them about women's rights. These are just some of the glimpses into Iraqi society offered by this moving documentary, which reveals a portrait of present day Iraq that is complex and human in a way that the news coverage is unable to convey. It is a must see for any one who wants to understand present-day Iraq."

From the press release and reviews I've seen this film is not a propaganda piece for any one point of view. Over 2000 citizens of Iraq, from all across their country, were involved in the filming and directing of this movie.

This pearl of wisdom is entitled "The Education Gap: Stupid Voters for Stupid Bush
Tuesday." Mostly it's a cut and paste from a report by James Carville and Stan Greenberg, who we all know and love as completely nonpartisan good old boys.

Mr. Carville and company seem to own and operate something called Democracy Corps. In a report released October 23, 2004, they write about voter "gender gaps" and "educational gaps."

PatriotActs just about wets himself when he reports that Democracy Corps has found that voters with a college degree favor Kerry over Bush by 53 to 43 percent -- a ten point difference! With this factoid we are to infer the "intellectual elites" know something the rest of America has somehow missed.

I wonder if these same elites are the ones that constantly make gratuitous comparisons of anything Republican to Hitler and fascism. If this is an example of being a towering intellectual, I'll pass. I'd much rather be called stupid and retain civility toward those I disagree with than be a fraudulent "intellectual."

A Google search using the terms "Bush" plus "Hitler" obtained almost 600,000 hits. So the best minds of the radical left have flexed their collective intellectual brawn and the best they can come up with is Bush = Hitler. Bravo! I am so impressed with their brilliance! Such fine thinking!

Blogger PatriotActs, the wise, proves his scholarly might with comments like these: "... War-Profiteers Funding Herr Fuhrer Bush's ...", "Nazi Pig-Face Karl (Joseph Goebbels) Rove's ...", "Bush Is Plunging Us Into Neo-Hitlerian Fascism", and "the World Hates Herr Fuhrer Bush, Neo-Nazi War Criminal".

In addition to these, he make references to Bush being a "dry drunk" (whatever THAT is!), a liar (many, many times), a war profiteer, a pimp, a whore, "mentally unfit", an "Ignoramus", and just a host of other vile names -- some with language you will never find here.

"Stop right there. . . . (I)n the Revolutionary War which took place from 1775 to 1783 there were 4,435 American deaths. In a single battle in the Civil War (The Wilderness, May 5 to May 7, 1864), Gen. Ulysses S. Grant lost 17,666 men in two days.

"Wait, it gets worse: 'I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.' What could possibly account for this falsehood? Well, here's the rest: 'Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive...we would gotten our independence in a non-violent way...the British were very misled in going to war against America .'

"So, by Mr. Carter's revisionism, a shortage of sensitivity and bad intelligence led the British to wage an eight-year, 'unnecessary' war. Sound familiar?"

Washington Times, 10/23/04

Just by visiting this link you can add another dollar to the relief fund. There are no strings attached -- you don't have to buy anything.

Please help out with this worthy project! CLICK HERE!

USA Today says: "While HSAs are no cure-all for the crisis in health care, they could make consumers more cost-conscious and reduce premiums." They base their conclusion on the fact that "...Third-party payment divorces consumers from the true costs of their care, resulting in the ever-increasing premium hikes ..." and "If health insurance covers most of the [medical cost] tab, [consumers] have little incentive to shop for a better price, take cheaper generic drugs or avoid unnecessary doctor visits, since their out-of-pocket expense may be just a small co-payment."

In a Health Savings Account the individuals and employers can purchase lower-cost policies with high deductibles — at least $1,000 for an individual and $2,000 for families. Those deductible expenses are paid out of HSAs. The best parts of moving to HSA's are: (1) They can be rolled over from year to year and collect interest; (2) The employee can tranfer the HSA to a new employer; and (3) Employee contributions are tax free until spent, which lowers the income tax burden.

USA Today goes on to point out early results of current HSA users:

One-third of HSA buyers were previously uninsured, according to eHealthInsurance, an online brokerage. Nearly half earn less than $50,000 a year, and 70% paid less than $100 a month for coverage because high-deductible policies are 15% to 40% less expensive than comprehensive policies.

New HSA purchasers typically are over 40, and many have chronic health issues, reports Assurant Health, an insurer that sells mainly to individuals and small firms. In most plans, preventive care is paid by the insurer, and generic drug usage is consistently higher than with traditional plans.

It's now well known the democrats have put out a "playbook" which reveals the strategy: "If no signs of intimidation techniques (at the polls) have emerged, launch a pre-emptive strike".

Now in Missouri the democrats are passing out a new flyer reproduced here:

This handout shows a picture of an African-American being hosed down during a civil rights protest in the 1960's, with an accompanying title, "This is what they used to do to keep us from voting."

Strange how these same democrats don't tell the rest of the story. In the 1960's civil rights movement, the states responsible for the activity depicted in the above picture were controlled by democrats. And in 1964, when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, Republican members of Congress voted for the Act - 138 in favor, 34 against. Ninety-six democrats voted against. Without Republican support the bill would have failed. And remember, the Civil Rights Act was sent to Congress by a democrat president, Lyndon Johnson.

The democrats love to play the race card during elections. They apparently believe that if they rant, rave, scream, and lie often enough it will become truth.

The claim made in the image above says: "They make them stand in line for hours, then turn them away at the polls, like they did in St. Louis."[referring to the 2000 election - ed.] In a city run by a virtual democrat machine, they cry foul?

The democrats in St. Louis, on election night 2000, had a dirty trick of their own. As reported in The Wall Street Journal:

"In 2000, in heavily Democratic St. Louis, at 6:30 p.m., a judge, responding to a Democratic complaint filed in the name of a man the judge did not actually hear from (the man was dead), ordered polls to remain open until 10 p.m., three hours longer than the law allows, and ordered one voting place downtown to be open until midnight.

Before 7 p.m., all over the city, persons were receiving automated, prerecorded phone messages from Jesse Jackson saying, "Tonight the polls in St. Louis are staying open late until 10 p.m. in your neighborhood and until midnight downtown." Between 7 and 7:30 p.m., Al Gore was calling radio stations to announce the later voting hours. Apparently the entire episode was orchestrated by the Democrats well in advance."

Early results from the weekend's general election showed that five years of UN rule had only deepened ethnic divisions as Kosovo's voters signalled their despair with the Balkan province's administrators.

Barely more than half of Kosovo's 1.4 million voters went to the ballot box. While the province's majority ethnic Albanians were struck by apathy, its 130,000-strong Serb minority was seized by anger and completely boycotted the poll.

Only a handful of Serbs voted, following calls from Vojislav Kostunica, the Serbian Prime Minister, and the Serbian Orthodox Church to stay away. Mr Kostunica described the election as a "failure."

October 23, 2004

Dear Libertarian:

As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in l972, and was the author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles at the first libertarian national convention in 1972. I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this year -- more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian Party -- I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting Americans.

There is a belief that’s common among many libertarians that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties -- between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of liberty.

The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly realized, a catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current campaign speeches, his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world. The Democratic Party itself has been undergoing a transformation in recent years; moderate, pro-American, and strong defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson are a dying breed. Observe how many members of the Democrat Party belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from the Democratic Socialists of America. That caucus is the heart and soul of the contemporary Democratic Party.

Today’s Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that they are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve it, including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; for them any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is construed as a defeat for them.

The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loath private property. It is opposed to free speech – witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college campuses, and Kerry’s threat to sue television stations that carry the Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk radio and in the university system. They will attempt to enact “hate speech” and “hate crime” laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries. They will call it “defending human rights.” This sort of activity may well make up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against opponents.

There are already numerous stories of brownshirt types committing violence against Republican campaign headquarters all over the country, and Democrat thugs harassing Republican voters at the polls. Yet not a word about it from the Kerry campaign. Expect this dangerous trend to increase dramatically with a Kerry win, ignored and tacitly accepted by the liberal-left mainstream media. This is ominous sign of worse things to come.

Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us that he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed repeatedly in the l970s. But in fact he will weaken our military establishment and devastate American security by placing more value on the United Nations than on the United States: for example he favors the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, and opposed the withdrawal of the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. He has been quoted as saying that it is honorable for those in the U.S. military to die under the flag of the U.N. but not that of the U.S. Presumably he and a small cadre of bureaucrats should rule the world, via the U.N. or some other world body which will make all decisions for the whole world concerning private property, the use of our military, gun ownership, taxation, and environmental policy (to name a few). In his thirty-year career he has demonstrated utter contempt for America, national security, constitutional republicanism, democracy, private property, and free markets.

His wife’s foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack transparency to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor in a Kerry administration.

Already plans are afoot by the Kerry campaign to steal the coming election via a legal coup, e.g. to claim victory on election night no matter what the vote differential is, and initiate lawsuits anywhere and everywhere they feel it works to their advantage, thus making a mockery of our election process, throwing the entire process into chaos -- possibly for months -- and significantly weakening our ability to conduct foreign policy and protect ourselves domestically. Let me repeat: we are facing the very real possibility of a political coup occurring in America. Al Gore very nearly got away with one in 2000. Do not underestimate what Kerry and his ilk are going to attempt to do to America.

George Bush has been criticized for many things – and in many cases with justification: on campaign finance reform (a suppression of the First Amendment), on vast new domestic spending, on education, and on failing to protect the borders. No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would fail to be deeply appalled by these. His great virtue, however, is that he has stood up -- knowingly at grave risk to his political viability -- to terrorism when his predecessors, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property. Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence, to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with “the big one:” 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than a series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U.S. and indeed to the entire civilized world long before his administration. He decided that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9/11s involving weapons of mass destruction, including “suitcase” nuclear devices.

Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens the world just as Nazis fascism and Soviet communism did in previous decades. The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-Muslims without a tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in wishful thinking on this issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of nuisance, which can be handled without great inconvenience in much the same way as one swats flies, rather than as hordes of genocidal religious fanatics dedicated to our destruction.

The president has been berated for taking even minimal steps to deal with the dangers of this war (the allegations made against the Patriot Act seem to me based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on reality). But Bush, like Churchill, has stood steadfast in the face of it, and in spite of the most virulent hate and disinformation campaign that any American president has had to endure. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. Saddam’s regime is no longer a major player in the worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished their weapons of terror. The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass destruction has been eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah. Terrorist cells all over the world have been disrupted, and thousands of terrorists killed. The result: Americans are orders of magnitude safer.

National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely excoriated for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a party I attended in l962, in response to complaints that “taxes are too high” (then 20%), “Pay 80% if you need it for defense.” It is not the amount but the purpose served that decides what is “too much.” And the purpose here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the face of vastly increased threats to its existence.

Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These cuts got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs have been added to the economy since August 2003. Bush has other projects in the wind for which libertarians have not given him credit. For example:

(l) A total revision of our tax code. We will have a debate concerning whether this is best done via a flat tax or a sales tax. If such a change were to occur, it would be a gigantic step in the direction of liberty and prosperity. No such change will occur with Kerry.

(2) A market-based reform of Social Security. This reform, alone, could bring future budget expenditures down so significantly that it would make his current expenditures seem like pocket change. Kerry has already repudiated any such change in social security laws.

When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a ‘minor party’ candidate who cannot possibly win, just to “get the word out” and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical “Battle Ground” states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.

We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote libertarian, we may win a tiny rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war.

"The explosion of the Internet leaves us, in effect, with no gatekeeper. Sometimes important information gains currency that way. The problem is that anyone with Web access can run any cockamamie story up the flagpole -- and if enough people salute, prompt the mainstream press to deploy its resources.

It's that bad -- and it isn't likely to get better any time soon.

The implication is that the mainstream media would never print a "phony story" if it wasn't for all those wild-eyed internet bloggers making up lies.

I disagree with Mr. Raspberry's conclusion. Bloggers, both left and right, have millions of fact-checkers just waiting to jump on any errors. In fact, if a mistake is made by a blogger, it is more likely to be corrected immediately. The same cannot be said of the mainstream media. The old media dinosaurs still considers themselves to be the "gatekeepers" of the news and information you should read, hear, and see.

"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted [on the Senate war resolution]. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable." --Kerry at second presidential debate

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified.

After conversations with ambassadors from five members of the Security Council in 2002 and calls to all the missions of the countries then on the panel, The Washington Times was only able to confirm directly that Kerry had met with representatives of France, Singapore and Cameroon.

I wonder ... do you suppose this trip to the United Nations was seared ... seared into Kerry's memory like a certain Christmas trip to Cambodia in 1968? Or is this UN trip similar to the story about all those "foreign leaders" Kerry claimed to have endorsed him?

Kerry has that magical ability to make up stories on the spur of the moment and make them sound so real. But we are not electing a storyteller-in-chief. Kerry has made his own veracity a centerpiece of his campaign, calling truthfulness "the fundamental test of leadership."

1. If the United States went to war in Iraq only for oil, as the democrats like to claim, why are oil prices so high now? Couldn't we just ship all that Iraqi oil over here, refine it, and keep gasoline prices low?
2. Dense democrats must think the term "neo-con" is some kind of insult. Do they know the meaning and history of that term?
3. If Halliburton is such great buddies with the present administration, why has their stock dropped by 11% since 2000 while the oil industry as a whole has seen a 36% average increase in stock prices over the same time period?
4. Why do dumb democrats automatically think anything the United Nations does is pure and wonderful, yet hate their own country when it defends itself from aggression and terrorism?
5. Why do democrats hate God and love government?
6. Why do democrats think it's acceptable for a woman to "have the right to choose," yet deny the rest of us choice in what we do?
7. Why won't John Kerry sign form 180? What is he trying to hide?
8. Why do democrats want to repeal the second amendment? Why do they fear law-abiding gun owners?
9. Are the democrats really advocating "thought crimes" when they insist on passing "hate crimes" legislation?
10. Why do democrat-controlled teachers unions fear competition from charter and private schools?
11. If democrats like Kerry really think "labels are meaningless," why do they apply every filthy and vile label to Republicans yet squeal like stuck pigs when someone calls them a liberal, socialist, or communist?
12. Why do democrats insist that "every vote count," then try to throw out military absentee ballots?
13. Americans have to show photo ID when boarding an airplane or cashing a check. Why not when voting? Isn't preventing fraud in elections more important than flying?
14. Who is Frederick C. Murphy and why is a federal building named after him?

The demos were hoping to allow voters to cast provisional ballots at any polling station within their county, in an effort to create chaos and confusion on election night.

It is rumored that the demos had a legion of people ready to go from poll to poll in Ohio, casting provisional ballots multiple times. With a large number of provisional ballots to sort out, Ohio election officials would have been unable to release election results for days, maybe weeks.

The 6th Circuit has rules in farvor of common sense and integrity. The demos, for now, have decided not to appeal this decision to a higher court.

The left-wing billionaire made the remarks this week at the Tuesday Club in Harrisburg, Pa.

In response to a question from Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter Peter DeCoursey about his fellow Bush-basher, Mr. Soros criticized the filmmaker for resorting to inaccuracies "to mislead the American people."

He added, "I am not a fan of Michael Moore."

The story centers on Howard Staab, a 53-year-old carpenter from Durham, N.C., who has no health insurance. Mr. Staab flew to India for heart surgery. The story claims Mr. Staab would have paid $200,000 for his surgery in the US, but by going to India his total cost, including round-trip airfare and a planned side trip to the Taj Mahal, was "about $10,000."

Everywhere on the internet, left-wing bloggers jumped on this story as an example of how the health care system is broke and government has to do something about US health care costs. Like the WaPo, these bloggers say US medical care is being "outsourced to India."

I decided to give the story a closer look by checking out different sources. While the WaPo is correct in saying health care in India is much less expensive than here in the US, they didn't tell the full story.

Mr Staab, as noted above, is a carpenter. What the WaPo left out is Mr. Staab is self-employed -- he owns his own construction business -- not a bad line of work to be in when you operate in the fastest-growing area of North Carolina. Mr. Staab also carried no health insurance.

The NewsObserver wrote of Mr. Staab that "Years ago, he decided to eschew health insurance. He was making enough to pay his own doctor's bills, and he didn't like the idea of lining the pockets of insurance executives." Mr. Staab prefered to line his own pockets - for you lefties out there this is known as being a greedy capitalist. The NewsObserver story concludes with "Many people have told Staab he was irresponsible not to have had health insurance in the first place ... Now, he can't get coverage for his pre-existing condition. But other than wishing that he didn't have heart problems, "he does not have any regrets ..."

Using Mr. Staab as the poster boy for a "broken" health care system is a bit disingenuous. He made a free market choice to not carry health insurance.

I also looked at why medical procedures cost so much less in India.

From the WaPo story we read "Although they are equipped with state-of-the-art technology, hospitals such as Escorts typically are able to charge far less than their U.S. and European counterparts because pay scales are much lower and patient volumes higher, according to Trehan and other doctors. For example, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan costs $60 at Escorts, compared with roughly $700 in New York, according to Trehan." (Trehan is owner of Escorts -- the clinic where Mr. Staab had his heart surgery.)

Also from the WaPo "Moreover, he [Trehan] added, a New York heart surgeon "has to pay $100,000 a year in malpractice insurance. Here it's $4,000."

Put aside the lower payroll costs (although this is a big factor in medical costs) and look closer the lower malpractice insurance premiums. A doctor in India only pays 4% of what a doctor in the US pays for the same insurance coverage.

Is it possible out of control lawyers and lawsuits in America contribute to the high cost of malpractice insurance? Who pays that $100,000 premium? Like any cost associated with being in business, such as rent, insurance, salaries, utilities, furniture, fixtures, government paperwork, and more, the cost is ultimately paid by the consumer.

There are problems with America's health care system. Converting medical care to a government program is not a solution. The WaPo story declares India is drawing many patients from "... industrialized countries, and especially from Britain and Canada, where patients are becoming fed up with long waits for elective surgery under overstretched government health plans." Both Canada and Britain have socialized medicine, and it's not just "elective" surgery that have waiting lists in those two countries. As Dr. Trehan says "If you can wait for two years for a bypass surgery, then you don't need it or you're dead -- one of the two."

The headline from today's Telegraph News (UK) reads "British intervention in poll backfires." Apparently folks in Ohio are none too pleased that the Brits are trying to influence the election. The Telegraph reports:

Dan Harkins, a political activist in the vital swing state of Ohio, was excited when he first heard that the Guardian newspaper was recruiting readers to write to voters in his state in the hopes of giving foreigners a voice in the American election.

Yesterday, the first of about 14,000 Guardian readers' letters started arriving in the mailboxes of Clark County, Mr Harkins's home region - chosen by the British paper as a pivotal election district where President George W Bush and Senator John Kerry are neck and neck.

The first letters to be made public all urged Clark County voters to reject Mr Bush. As he watched the reaction of friends and neighbours, Mr Harkins was delighted.

He is the chairman of the Clark County Republican Party, and his neighbours' reaction was outrage. "It's hysterical," laughed Mr Harkins, showing off sheaves of incensed e-mails and notes from local voters.

The Republicans' delight compares with the gloom among local Democrats, who fear that "foreign interference" is hurting Mr Kerry.

Terry Brown had received a letter from a Scottish Guardian reader. The navy veteran and retired lorry builder was "offended" as he read the polite note, from Nicola Smith of West Lothian, with its denunciation of the Iraq war as a "farce", and closing plea to remove from power "the parties responsible for this war".

Mr Brown looked out at his front garden, decorated with a US flag on a tall pole, a giant carving of an American eagle and a wooden cross marked: "September 11, 2001".

"I feel very strongly that this was an invasion of my privacy," he said. "The right of my wife and myself to decide whom to vote for should not be affected by any other country. That was a freedom we fought for many years ago. It was 1776."

Across town, Beverly Coale and her elderly mother, Thelma Arnold, received a letter from Neil Evans from Kent. Heeding the Guardian's pleas to "be courteous", he began gently: "Please act now to preserve your once-great name internationally. We know the majority of you didn't vote for Bush the first time around."

Less happily, Mr Evans concluded that another Bush victory would so anger the world that Americans would have to "put on a Canadian accent when travelling abroad". His tone so alarmed Ms Coale, a Kerry voter, that she feared the letter came from terrorists. "With so much going on today, you wonder about some of these groups," she said.

The readers' letters are being sent only to voters flagged as "undeclared" in the county's electoral roll, a public document the newspaper bought from local officials, then placed on the internet.

The Guardian says it chose Clark County not just because winning Ohio is vital to Mr Bush's hopes of victory, but because the rolls showed such a large number of undeclared voters - 54,000 not affiliated with either party.

But the newspaper misunderstood Ohio polling law, according to the county's elections supervisor, Linda Rosicka. Being "undeclared" on the roll means someone did not choose to vote in the last two party primaries, in which party candidates are chosen. "It doesn't have anything to do with being undecided," she said.

Across America, the Guardian project has sparked disdain from the Right, and dismay from Kerry campaigners. Coverage in the US media has stressed the risks of offending voters. Furious e-mails have reached the Guardian, such as this one from Texas, stating: "Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-a**, tea-sipping opinions."

"You get the feeling, my friends, you really get this feeling, that if George Bush had been president during other periods in American history, he would have sided with the candle lobby against electricity, he would have been with the buggy makers against cars, and with the typewriter companies against computers."

On August 3, 2000, in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention GW Bush said:

Every one of the proposals I've talked about tonight he's [Gore] called a risky scheme over and over again. It is the sum of his message, the politics of the roadblock, the philosophy of the stop sign. If my opponent had been at the moon launch, it would have been a risky rocket scheme. If he had been there when Edison was testing the light bulb, it would have been a risky anti-candle scheme. And if he had been there when the Internet was invented...

University police arrested the men but did not release their identities.

In her half-hour speech Thursday night, Coulter trashed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and derided liberals and Democrats while saluting conservative students who attended her speech.

Coulter writes a column for Universal Press Syndicate. Her appearance was sponsored by the UA College Republicans.

Larry Miller thinks he got a raw deal.

When the wheelchair-bound man robbed a Florida bank, he got only $200 of the $1500 he demanded. Not only was he vocal about his disappointment, he also had a theory about his less-than-rewarding heist.

According to Miami Police Lieutenant Bill Schwartz, Miller, 42, wheeled himself into a Pan American Bank Sept. 21 and told the bank manager he wanted to set up an account. As the manager gathered documents, Miller placed a brown paper bag on the desk.

A note scrawled on the bag read, "Robbery put the money bag 1500."

Miller then allegedly realized that managers don't keep money at their desks. He reportedly took the note and rolled himself towards the teller instead.

"I imagine that [Miller's] not a Rhodes scholar," Schwartz said.

The teller complied with the suspect's demand, but when Miller was about to exit the bank, he discovered that the teller had only given him two $100 bills.

Schwartz said Miller became agitated and began cursing. He tossed his note to the ground and continued to utter expletives as he made his way towards the train station, where he was easily apprehended.

"It's just not fair," Miller reportedly complained. "On TV, the white bank robbers get $1500. It's only because I'm black that I get $200."

This was not the thwarted robber's first unlucky caper.

According to Schwartz, Miller tried to rob a store with a gun in 1987, but the store owner wrestled the gun away and shot him. The injury left Miller unable to walk and confined to a wheelchair.

Miller has been charged with strong armed robbery for the bank heist.

From the story:

The percentage of people who fall into the utterly ignorant category is estimated to be about 25 percent of eligible voters.

Ilya Somin, a professor at the George Mason School of Law, published a study in the Cato Institute's magazine about voter ignorance that offers a peek into the empty spaces between many voters' ears.

Seventy percent of voters apparently were completely unaware of the fact that the federal government adopted a huge prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare during the term of President Bush. Fully 65 percent did not know that the government had passed a ban on partial birth abortions. Some 58 percent acknowledged that they knew little or nothing about the Patriot Act (a figure Somin argues persuasively is probably low-ball). Sixty-one percent thought, incorrectly, that there had been a net job loss in 2004. Only 32 percent were aware that Social Security is one of the two largest expenditure areas in the federal government. Only 25 percent could correctly state that the Bush administration does not believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Only 22 percent knew that the current unemployment rate is lower than the average for the past 30 years.

Somin reports that in the election of 2002, only 32 percent of voters knew that the Republican Party controlled the House.

Q: What do you think of the color-coded terror alerts the Department of Homeland Security issues?

Kerry: I think Americans, sadly, laugh at it. They don't know what to do.

Q: Will you continue that program?

Kerry: No. I'm going to find some more thoughtful way of alerting America.

Maybe something like this, Mr Kerry?

Footnotes:

1. Signed on as co-sponsor of S. 1431 on Nov. 21, 2003.

2. CNN "Late Edition," Nov. 7, 1993.

3. Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 295, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 294, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 293, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 375, Nov. 17, 1993; Vote No. 365, Nov. 9, 1993; Vote No. 133, June 28, 1990; Vote No. 103, May 23, 1990; Vote No. 102, May 23, 1990.

4. Vote No. 28, March 2, 2004.

5. Vote No. 87, April 12, 1994.

6. Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004 ("poison pill" amendments).

7. Vote No. 142, July 9, 1985.

8. Vote No. 4, Feb. 2, 2000.

9. Vote No. 140, July 9, 1985.

10. Vote No. 134, May 20, 1999; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004.

11. Vote No. 118, May 14, 1999; Vote No. 224, July 22, 1998.

12. Vote No. 227, July 30, 1993.

13. Vote No. 141, July 9, 1985; Vote No. 115, June 28, 1991; Vote No. 113, June 28, 1991; Vote No. 278, Nov. 27, 1991; Vote No. 53, Mar. 19, 1992; Vote No. 262, Oct. 2, 1992; Vote No. 385, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 386, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 387, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 390, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 394, Nov. 20, 1993.

14. Vote No. 325 Oct. 12, 1993; Vote No. 178, June 27, 1996.

15. Vote No. 64, April 2, 2001; "Kerry asks FEC to Block NRA Channel," AP, Dec. 9, 2003.

16. Vote No. 104, May 17, 2000.

Not that it's exactly favorable. In the review, headlined, "An Outpouring of Pain, Channeled Via Politics," she argues: "This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry's reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state. But it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism."

Stanley at least engages the points raised by the film: "What is most enlightening about this film is not the depiction of Mr. Kerry as a traitor; it is the testimony of the former P.O.W.'s describing the torture they endured in captivity and the shock they felt when celebrities like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden visited their prisons in North Vietnam and sided with the enemy….This film is payback time, a chance to punish one of the most famous antiwar activists, Mr. Kerry, the one who got credit for serving with distinction in combat, then, through the eyes of the veterans in this film, went home to discredit the men left behind."

Investor's Business Daily has found out who those foreign leaders are.

• Palestinian Authority leader and sometime terrorist Yasser Arafat endorsed Kerry. Why? Kerry did once call him a "statesman." And, as his foreign minister noted, under Kerry "several staff members during Clinton's administration would return."
• Kerry has also won praise from Kim Jong Il, North Korea's totalitarian dictator, who has murdered millions of his own people. Kim calls Bush "human scum." But he likes Kerry's support of two-way talks between North Korea and the U.S. -- which would give the "beloved leader" a big negotiating advantage. (Also, Kerry's speeches are broadcast on North Korea's state radio)
• Then there's Fidel Castro -- another communist tyrant smitten with the Massachusetts senator. While Kerry delivered his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, Castro celebrated by running a bootlegged copy of "Fahrenheit 9/11" over Cuban TV.
• Don't forget former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Last year, Mahathir, who is often called "moderate," said Jews "rule this world by proxy." This year, he urged U.S. Muslims to vote for Kerry "in the name of Islam."
• We all know, of course, whom President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany prefer. Polls show Bush is overwhelmingly unpopular in those countries. And neither man has made a secret of his contempt for the cowboy from Texas.

New Yorker magazine, not a typical right-wing source of information, in the issue dated 10/18/04 runs an article titled "The Money Man".

It's a long column that is mainly a biography of George Soros, who you might know as the billionaire funding multiple left-wing special interest groups.

The best part of the New Yorker's article is the description of a "clandestine summit meeting" of billionaires in Aspen, Co., last August

"On August 6th, a week after the Democratic Convention, a clandestine summit meeting took place at the Aspen Institute, in Colorado's Rocky Mountains. The participants, all Democrats, were sworn to secrecy, and few of them will discuss the event. One thing that is certain, however, is that the guests formed a tableau that not many people would associate with the Democratic Party of the past.

Five billionaires joined half a dozen liberal leaders in a lengthy conversation about the future of progressive politics in America. The billionaires were not especially close socially, nor were they in complete agreement about politics or strategy. Yet they shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

"No one was supposed to know about this," an assistant to one participant told me, declining to be named. "We don't want people thinking it's a cabal, or some sort of Masonic plot!" His concern was understandable: the prospect of rich men concentrating their wealth in order to sway an American election was an inflammatory one, particularly given the Democratic Party's populist rhetoric.

Andrew Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, a holdover from the traditional working-class base of the Democratic Party, was also at the summit. In an interview not long ago, he conceded that consorting with billionaires had become a strange but increasingly common part of his job. “I have to admit, I used to think I was doing well when I met millionaires,” he said. “I’m glad we’ve got the billionaires with us. But it did feel a bit odd.”

"I fought for the 9/11 Commission, something George W. Bush, the man my husband Ron and I voted for, didn’t think was necessary. And during the Commission hearings we learned the truth, we are no safer today."

Kristen must have missed this part from the executive summary of the 9/11 Commission Report:

""Because of offensive actions against al Qaeda since 9/11, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today."

Kristen Breitweiser is one of four co-founders of "September 11th Advocates," better known as "The Jersey Girls."

What Kerry's website does not say is that Kristen Breitweiser and her "girls" are a group advocating from the far left. A simple Google search shows these girls to be the sweethearts of the radical left.

Dorothy Rabinowitz writing in the Wall Street Journal says:

"... the best known and most quoted pronouncement of all had come in the form of a question put by the leader of the Jersey Girls. "We simply wanted to know," Ms. Breitweiser said, by way of explaining the group's position, "why our husbands were killed. Why they went to work one day and didn't come back."

The answer, seared into the nation's heart, is that, like some 3,000 others who perished that day, those husbands didn't come home because a cadre of Islamist fanatics wanted to kill as many of the hated American infidels in their tall towers and places of government as they could, and they did so. Clearly, this must be a truth also known to those widows who asked the question--though in no way one would notice.

Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."

In the Washington Post today they report Kerry's campaign is doing just that.

"Now it turns out that some of the Kerry commercials are being written, edited, produced and put on satellites for the purpose of generating news articles. They have not actually aired on any network or local station -- except in reports about the democrat's campaign."

"Since Sept. 1, the Kerry camp has released and publicized more than half a dozen commercials, on subjects ranging from taxes to health care to the war in Iraq, without buying time for them, either nationally or in battleground states. Others have run in only one or two markets after being unveiled with considerable fanfare. In effect, these have been video news releases purporting to be substantial paid advertising.

Seems like an expensive way to get "free" media play. The WaPo says "... the Kerry campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising this fall...". Sounds like a great deal of that advertising is sitting on the shelf.

The Guardian gave out names of voters and told them to email them with reasons to vote for Kerry - or at least with reasons not to vote for Bush. In their words, "... [W]e've zeroed in on one of the places where this year's election truly will be decided: Clark County, Ohio, which is balanced on a razor's edge between Republicans and Democrats."

Now Americans are emailing the Guardian their replies.

My favorite is "Have you not noticed that Americans don't give two s**ts what Europeans think of us? Each email someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to NOT vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies ... I don't give a rat's a** if our election is going to have an effect on your worthless little life. I really don't. If you want to have a meaningful election in your crappy little island full of s**tty food and yellow teeth, then maybe you should try not to sell your sovereignty out to Brussels and Berlin, dips**t. Oh, yeah - and brush your g**damned teeth, you filthy animals. "

Mr. Kern opens with "Apologize for fighting an unwinable war. Apologize for failing to win that unwinable war before the All-Star break. Apologize for fighting the insurgents too aggressively, and apologize for showing them too much mercy. Apologize for forcing democracy and freedom upon the mere 85% of Iraqis who desire them. Apologize for ignoring the thoughtful and nuanced objections of some civilian-bombing terrorists in the Sunni Triangle. Apologize for not sending enough troops and apologize for taking too many troops away from their homes and families. Apologize for…oh, apologize for something. It really doesn't matter what. Just admit that you were wrong about something important. It's ever so much easier to defeat your arguments when you concede them to us first."

Read the whole story here.

In a somewhat colorful editorial High Times draws some remarkable conclusions. For example, I did not know that President Bush blamed 9/11 on "pot smokers."

His idea of creative thinking is to copy my blogs and rearrange the verbage to suit his moronic, radical left-wing dunghill agenda. Unfortunately for him, the rearrangement shows him precisely for the imbecile and fool he really is.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Therefore, I am so flattered that this little dreg believes that I think and write so well that his only recourse is to plagiarize my work.

Last night (Oct. 18) Kerry rode in a motorcade that crossed two Florida police picket lines en route to a get-out-the-vote rally in Orlando.

Local Florida media describe the police union as Republican-leaning, leading Kerry spokesman David Wade to say "''It was a surprise demonstration by an organization that supports President Bush."

Mr. Wade has a short memory. Aides to Boston mayor Thomas M. Menino claimed in June the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association was also "Republican-leaning."

The San Diego Union reports "U.S. customs inspectors have been more interested in preserving the resale value of confiscated vehicles than in removing all contraband from secret compartments, according to two federal lawsuits."

In one case, U.S. citizen Adrian Rodriguez spent a month in a Mexican prison after drugs were found in his car in Tijuana. In another, two Tijuana printers spend a year in jail on the same charges.

John Kerry, simple, down-home, average middle-class kind of guy.

Kerry is trying to scare senior citizens with lies about their Social Security benefits.

Over the weekend, Kerry told seniors that President Bush had a "January surprise" to privatize Social security. Kerry also claims current senior benefits will be reduced 30% to 45%.

The democrats even put out a new television ad with the same false claims. Here's what "factCheck.org" has to say about Kerry's new ad:

"A Kerry ad claims "Bush has a plan to cut Social Security benefits by 30 to 45 percent." That's false. Bush has proposed no such plan, and the proposal Kerry refers to would only slow down the growth of benefits, and only for future retirees. It was one of three possible "reform models" detailed by a bipartisan commission in 2001."

"The plan the Kerry ad refers to doesn't affect benefits for current retirees at all, and Bush has said consistently that whatever plan he proposes won't cut benefits for those now drawing them, or those nearing retirement. Stating that Bush plans to "cut Social Security benefits" will be heard by many seniors as a plan to cut their benefits, which isn't true."

President Bush, from his speech at the Republican National Convention:

""We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account--a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away."

Kerry should be telling America what his PLAN is for Social Security. During debate three Kerry had this to say: "I will not privatize it. I will not cut the benefits. And we're going to be fiscally responsible. And we will take care of Social Security."

Kerry tells us nothing about HOW he will "take care of Social Security." The folks at FactCheck.org have this to say about Kerry:

" Kerry, on the other hand, hasn't said how he would preserve the current system. Social Security's finances are unstable, and its trustees stated in the most recent annual report that by the year 2078 it will require a payroll tax increase of nearly 50% to maintain the currently scheduled rise in benefit levels. If taxes are not increased and no other changes are made, benefits would have to be cut 32% that year."

In a state where Election 2000 found President Bush taking 16 of 17 counties by fairly wide margins (in Carson City & County: Bush 57% -- Gore 38%), we have a know-nothing liberal moonbat as editor of our newspaper, who would like nothing better than to see Kerry elected November 2^nd. (The only county Gore carried in 2000 was Clark County - home of Las Vegas and huge pro-democrat unions.)

Barry W. Smith, editor of the Nevada Appeal - or as it is aptly nicknamed, the Nevada No-appeal, most likely would have endorsed Hitler in 1930’s Germany. Tell the lie big enough and often enough and it becomes the truth. Maybe Barry is bucking for Terry MacAuliff’s job as head of the DNC?

Barry likely wrote the unsigned editorial endorsement of Kerry. When there is only one paper in town, and a paper that's not even suitable for fish-wrap at that, it's easy to spot the writing style of the different contributors. Also, the masthead lists no "editorial" staff - just poor old whacked-out Barry W. Smith, Editor.

Barry hammers home almost all the democrat national committee’s talking points. From Iraq to No Child Left Behind, he is at the nucleus of the radical left-wing agenda of Kerry-Edwards. Barry couldn’t have done a better job even if he had a copy of the democrat party platform to plagiarize. In no particular order, I have listed Barry’s main points with my commentary following:

On Education: “Many credit Bush's No Child Left Behind reforms as his biggest domestic success, yet we are no fans of top-down federal education mandates.” This is laughable. Three paragraphs after writing “we are no fans of top-down federal education mandates,” Barry makes this remarkable statement; “ He [Kerry] plans to fully fund No Child Left Behind - still a federal mandate, but this time with money behind it.” Hmm … sounds like a “top-down” federal mandate to me. Oh wait! Since Kerry wants “top-down” mandates it has to be good. It’s only evil when a Republican does it. How could I have been so blind? Republican = bad and evil; democrat = good and kind. Whatever happened to LOCAL control of public schools?

Because Kerry was an anti-American, traitorous war protester after Vietnam, Barry would have us believe; “Kerry, the decorated veteran of that war [Vietnam] who came home to protest it vociferously, far better understands the deep divisions it created in this country.” What most people understand is that Kerry helped create those divisions in the 1970’s and continues to do so today with the current war in Iraq. Today, as in 1971, Kerry is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by his constant harping on “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.” For Kerry and his obsequious followers, America is always wrong, and the United Nations is our only salvation.

On the Domestic Agenda: “Kerry offers more hope and vision for the average American.” Yes! The blind will see, the deaf will hear, and the lame shall walk! Without Kerry’s “vision’ there is no hope for America. Woe and pestilence to us if we are stupid enough not to vote for Kerry! Of course, Barry, like Kerry at the debates, has no explanation as to how this “hope and vision” thingie is going to happen, or how much it will cost. All rhetoric - no substance. Plans, plans, plans -- ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

On Iraq: “Parallels to Vietnam should not be taken lightly” Here’s a scary one. President Bush got us into a “quagmire” in Iraq, and here comes Kerry on his white steed and shining armor to rescue us. Barry claims that “the cause of fighting global terrorism was mislaid by deposing and capturing Saddam Hussein.” Barry would be much happier if we were fighting “global terrorism” on the streets of major U.S. cities rather than in Iraq and the greater middle east. Kerry’s answer for the war in Iraq is to turn tail, run away, and let the terrorist win.

On Jobs: “Job loss has been unprecedented.” Straight from the democrat’s playbook. Gosh, Barry, can’t you be a little more original? My guess is that Barry is trying to say all of us were better off with Clinton. And 9/11 never happened. In 2000, Bush inherited a Clinton recession. Only nine months after taking office, jihadist idiots drove airplanes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. How “unprecedented” was that? The employment impact of 9/11 alone was staggering. One million jobs lost due to a terror attack. Kerry could have done better? How? And just how is a current unemployment rate of 5.4% so terrible? When Clinton had a 5.2% unemployment rate in 1996 the media was in a frenzy of praise. Barry wants us to think the economy is not improving and everybody is losing jobs. He is just wrong.

On Taxes: “Bush has consistently favored the rich and powerful over the poor and weak” and “His tax cuts are nice for the middle class, a windfall for the very rich.” Barry managed to tie up two of the democrat’s favorite themes. Class envy and race baiting. At least Barry admits the middle class is getting tax breaks. Watch out Barry! Your democrat masters won’t like this! Yes indeed, Kerry has promised to “rollback” tax breaks for the evil “rich.” It’s the democrats way of employing more accountants and lawyers to allow the evil rich to find every possible loophole in the code. Just like what the Kerry family does with the current tax code. The couple had a combined income of $5.5 million last year and paid $704,227 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was 12.8%. Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one-tenth of the Kerry’s, paid a tax rate of 30%. If Barry and the democrats think they pay too little in taxes, they can always donate money to the U.S. Treasury Department. I understand they gladly accept all donations.

On Environment: “ Environmental issues, just when we thought they were reaching a reasonable balance of common sense and common use, have been yanked back toward exploitation and away from public access.” I have no idea what Barry is trying to say. Are we drilling for more oil? NO. Are we digging up more coal? NO. Are we looking for more natural gas? NO. Where is all this “exploitation”? Barry, you just have to get your feet back on the ground and start using your brain for something more than a knot to keep your spinal cord from unraveling!

On Energy: “Energy policy was written by the energy industry.” Oh no! Halliburton! The sky is falling! Run for your lives - it’s the evil Halliburton coming to get you! Hide the women and children! As Godzilla crushed Tokyo so Halliburton will crush America! Hide! Quick! … The point of Barry’s statement? Energy companies BAD, big government regulation GOOD. He is in perfect agreement with Kerry and the democrats.

Barry concludes “Kerry's presidential campaign offers a deficit-reduction plan, wider health-care coverage through employers, a sounder approach to Social Security, and an end to tax breaks sending industry jobs overseas.” In a nutshell, what Barry really means; Higher taxes on individuals in all income groups, government controlled health care, bankrupting social security through inaction, and more taxes on corporations. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Kerry.

Barry W. Smith is truly a left-wing moonbat.

"The way to look at polls this late in the cycle is to think about them like we used to consider the scores for Olympic figure skaters: First you throw out whatever score the East German judge posts because you know he's lying. Then you toss out the highest and the lowest of the rest. Whatever is left over is probably correct."

Rich is probably right.

In my small lifetime it's been my honor to have visited several National cemeteries. Sometimes I went to find specific names, sometimes it was a spur of the moment quest of curiosity. The first time I stood among the markers and looked out on the small rolling hills and wide spaces I was struck that the stones and crosses formed sight lines that moved away from me in straight lines where ever my gaze wandered. It was on my second visit to Arlington National Cemetery on a lovely fall morning with clear blue skies and autumn breezes that my perspective changed. The lines made of stone didn't move away from me. All those lines converged to me. I was the center, the recipient. I was the living American standing in the shadows of men & women who were heroes, valiant people who purposely or by chance gave full measure to the great ideals of western culture. The line of markers all converged upon me to remind me I was the conservator and a recipient responsible for maintaining the values and ideals making America great. Only the living may have such an honor and responsibility.

Sometimes the ideals and concepts we wrestle with are great, other times they are small but of no less importance. We judge people by their words and deeds, actions or inactions. As we grow older and wiser we learn there truly are words and deeds which once spoken or completed cannot be taken back or changed. Explanations and the semantics of language are a poor balm for devastation and destruction of spirit. When all pretenses are stripped away, all a person has is the bond of their word. It is a pledge or oath solemnly given or accepted. Past performance is the criteria by which we judge a person's word. All these reasons are why it is unconscionable and without moral value to vote for John Kerry and the Democrat Party slate.

When John Kerry in the most solemn and sober duty went before the Senate, and ultimately the entire country, he without first hand knowledge, without first person knowledge slandered every veteran, every Vietnam War veteran, all the War dead, and by extension every American who supported liberty. By his words he lifted the spirits of our enemy to continue to kill Americans. Isn't this occurring again with Kerry and the Democrat Party? Are they not telegraphing to the terrorists of the world that if they continue to terrorize and kill with great flamboyant and deadly style they'll have a friend in John Kerry who will acquiesce? Isn't that why the bombings in Iraq have increased?

I cannot vote for John Kerry since he refuses to sign the form that would allow all America to see his military records. Between 30 and one hundred pages have been withheld. What deeds might lay within those pages so shameful they cannot be exposed to the eyes of others?

I cannot vote for John Kerry because as a Naval officer newly placed on Reserves after active duty he ignored the oath to our country he uttered on being sworn. He pledged before God to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic then ignored this oath to became a domestic enemy subverting his own government in Paris with the Viet Cong. Richard Nixon might of given him a pass due to political expediency, but I will not.

These things are only the tip of a far more serious Kerry iceberg floating beneath the surface and written of by other authors, but for me, I cannot and will not give my vote to a man who's word is no good and cannot prove his word would be valid if placed in the more responsible position of President of The United State of America. It would shame and denigrate the deeds of great men whose words whisper on the breeze at Arlington Cemetery, "What have you done to keep the Liberty you enjoy."

Kerry likes to style himself as a John F. Kennedy democrat. On taxes, Kerry can't even come close.

John F. Kennedy, in 1962, saw a problem with the tax structure in America. He proposed a solution by offering a blueprint for lowering taxes, increasing employment, and balancing the federal budget.

Kennedy, in a speech to the Economic Club of New York, argued for "... an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963." A note to liberals; Across-the-board means everyone, rich and poor alike.

In the same speech, Kennedy went on to say:

"I'm not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

Kennedy further argued in a January 24, 1963 message to Congress, "As I have repeatedly emphasized, our choice today is not between a tax cut and a balanced budget. Our choice is between chronic deficits resulting from chronic slack, on the one hand, and transitional deficits temporarily enlarged by tax revision designed to promote full employment and thus make possible an ultimately balanced budget." Lest members of Congress failed to get the point: "I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus."

John F. Kennedy was proposing tax cuts much larger that what President Bush has put in place. The tax cut that eventually became law in 1964 cut the top rate to 70 percent, or by 21 percentage points. The Kennedy tax cut equaled more than 2 percent of the economy, nearly double the 1.1 percent represented by Bush’s proposal, and 12.6 percent of federal revenues - more than twice the 6 percent of revenues represented by the Bush tax cut. Kennedy wanted to let the highest income earners keep an additional 27 cents on the dollar rather than just six cents on the dollar as Bush proposed. Kennedy cut the bottom to tax rate to 14 percent while Bush cut it down to 10 percent.

It is perfectly valid for proponents of across-the-board tax relief today to cite the historical experience of such reductions in the past. President Kennedy’s tax cuts touched off what was then the longest economic expansion in US history, with 5.1 percent annual growth rates from 1964 to 1967. Tax collections from the wealthiest taxpayers and federal revenues generally increased. All these trends were arrested by President Johnson’s Vietnam-era income tax surcharge in 1968.

I'm bored.

Really bored.

See, I'm running this test. Why? I'm a concerned citizen. I've read reports on the gun violence prevalent in our society, and I'm concerned. I'm very concerned.

Especially since I'm a responsible gun owner.

It's just a small gun, a Glock 17. Still, with all the reports of gun violence out there, I'm sort of concerned about that gun.

Which is why I'm running this test.

It's a simple test. I've loaded the gun, I've placed it on my family-room coffee table, and now I'm watching it carefully for any sign of violence. Any sign at all. I'm hoping that it will actually go off, but I'd settle for its simply depressing its own
trigger safety all by itself. Or even for its doing some name-calling.

But so far - nothing. It just lies there. However, can I trust it?

In a few minutes, I'm going to place a beer along side it just to see if gun violence is affected by the presence of alcohol. If I can find a copy of Hitler's "Mien Kamf" (that book HAS to contain "hate speech") or Al Gore's "Earth In Balance," and just lay one of those books right down there beside the gun, then obviously I'll be able to test the effect of hate speech on gun violence.

But I fear this is still going to be very boring.

So while we're all waiting to see if anything comes out of this test, let's talk about Smith & Wesson. Do these folks really think that caving in to
the scare-mongers regarding trigger locks and "smart guns" is really going to protect them? All they need to do is to look at the tobacco industry to determine what the long-term impacts are of simply producing a product which the state decides to target. The tobacco folks once naively thought that warnings on cigarette packs would protect them. No way. A recent court decision has awarded a multi-million dollar settlement to someone who started smoking AFTER the warning labels came out.

Think of the implications of that one. I wonder if ladder manufacturers really think that warning not to use that top step is going to protect them.

But back to S&W. The problem S&W faces in trying to acommodate the scare-mongers is that they will willingly and eagerly alienate a group of people who are vital for S&W's continued existence - an oft-maligned group of people blamed by the same scare-mongers as being the sole source of "the gun problem." Yes, I'm talking about gun-buyers and gun-owners. Remember them - those people sometimes called "customers," who actually BUY guns from S&W - ? Those people who are the SOLE SOURCE of the income that keeps S&W in operation - ? Does it really make sense for any business to answer the "concerns" of non-buyers while completely ignoring the wants and needs of its customers?

Sure, I know the "alternative" if S&W doesn't ask "How high?" when the "concerned" non-buyers yell, "Jump!" The FedGov, along with help from various StatGov Attorneys-Generals, will "force" S&W out of business via various semi-legal means. Lawsuits will be filed, courts cases pursued and won, billion dollar awards granted, and S&W will be out of business.

All in the name of ending "gun violence."

Back to the gun on the table. The gun test is still underway, and it's still boring. A fly landed on the Glock a few moments ago, and there was
some hope that maybe some synergism might result in some gun violence, but the darn thing flew away. (The fly, not the gun.)

The gun is still just lying there. Boring.

And it won't even touch the beer. If it doesn't soon, I'll be forced to drink the beer. Obviously, I can't let a perfectly good beer go to waste!

So back to S&W. What are they to do? Acquiescing to the scare-mongers will result in their producing guns that the gun buyer doesn't want. I mean, I like new gizmos just as much as the next guy, but I prefer that they actually work, and even more than that, I want them to work reliably, and when I need them to work.

I've got a 1998 Dodge Dakota with some pretty standard features like cruise control. We're not talking state of the art here; cruise control has been around for decades. You'd think Dodge would have that down pat, but the damn thing went out on me last week just when I was leaving on a long trip. It worked the night before, and then suddenly, in a time of need, and for no reason I could easily figure out, it just totally quit functioning.

Picture the 2005 S&W Safe & Secure .22 caliber pistol. For "safety" reasons, the .22 caliber is the largest caliber S&W now produces. For "security" reasons, it comes complete with the patented electronic DNA sensor, which is designed to ensure that the gun can only be fired by its owner. Once programmed (both the gun AND the owner), only a positive DNA identification by the gun's built-in electronics will allow the gun to be fired. Sounds great - until you read the fine print: there is a 10-minute delay when the gun is first picked up to complete the DNA test.

Bummer.

So this "state of the art smart, safe and secure gun" is totally useless when it comes to stopping that thief or discouraging that rapist, but if it
ends gun violence, it's "well worth it," and should be the only type of gun we get to buy and own, at least according to the scare-mongers.

Speaking of gun violence, let's check back on that test. Damn, that Glock
is STILL just sitting there. It must be defective or something. I don't get it. Here I've got a loaded gun, alcohol, some hate speech close by, and the thing just sits there. What am I dong wrong? I've incorporated all the aspects of gun violence and the thing isn't responding. Why?

Maybe if I bring some kids around, something will happen. That seems to be part of the recipe as presented by the major news, uh, sources. Or maybe if I wrap the gun up in that hate-filled Confederate battle flag it'll react and go off by itself. There has to be something that will trigger (sorry) this lazy gun into some kind of violence.

I mean, do I actually have to pick this gun up and pull the trigger to get something out of it?

Oh, that's right. I do. Silly me. Silly test. And "gun violence" is a silly media buzz-word/sound-bite.

But an effective one.

These clueless idiot moonbat America haters, are encouraged to draw a sign expressing their hate for America, take a picture of themselves with the sign, and e-mail it to them ...

Does this guy have any friends?

How plebeian can these morons be? While our troops are still fighting in Iraq, "Reconciliation-USA" is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

How well they learned from Kerry's 1971-1975 performance! Kerry really is a uniter -- he unites his followers in anti-American, blame America first rhetoric and deed.

1. "My whole thing is I just wish uninformed people would just stay home. If you don't know who you're going to vote for, there's no shame in not voting." -- Matt Stone Co-creator of Comedy Central's "South Park."

2. "Let's get about the job of limiting voting to people who actually have a clue. If you claim to be 'undecided' at this point in this particular election you fall into that 'don't have a clue' category. Do future generations of Americans a favor and stay home on election day." -- Talk-show host Neal Boortz.

WSAZ NewsChannel 3 reports "a visit to West Virginia by Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry has been put on hold."

Kerry was scheduled to attended services at the Apostolic Christ Cathedral in Guyandotte on Sunday.

West Virginia Senators Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller were to attend with Kerry.

The church pastor, Reverend E. S. Harper, said they were not welcome if they planned to discuss politics during the service.

I won't comment here on the content of of this editorial because it's just a rehash of the same old 'women-don't-get-an-even- shot-in-the-workplace' liberal, far left-wing feminist ranting.

At the end of this editorial was this writer credit line -- "The writers are senior officials at the Center for American Progress and the American Progress Action Fund."

Both organizations listed in this credit are far-left, pro-Kerry advocacy groups. A quick glance at their homepage on the web will confirm this for you.

I have no problem with the WP running this editorial. What I have the problem with is their lack of candor regarding the political philosophy of the authors, and how unequally they apply labels.

When the WP prints any article by a Republican, they ensure their readers know the political bias of the writer. Words like 'right-wing', 'member of the conservative group...', and 'far right ideologue' are just a few of the labels the WP has applied in the past.

Evidence Suggest Discharge May Originally Have Been Less Than Honorable

On Senator John Kerry's own campaign Web site is a document — listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" — that opens a door on a well-kept secret about his military service.

The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in itself is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.

According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" for this board considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163." This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service.

What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would allow the release of all his military records.

To read the entire news story, visit:

Here is her miracle cure:

“You get some gin and get some white raisins — and only white raisins — and soak them in the gin for two weeks,” she said. “Then eat nine of the raisins a day.”

As you may remember, Edwards said "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

Mr. Krauthammer knows all about wheelchairs. He has been in one since he became paralyzed while attending medical school.

Mr Krauthammer makes the following points:

• First, the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology. The answer is not remotely around the corner.
• Second, if the cure for spinal cord injury comes, we have no idea where it will come from. There are many lines of inquiry. Stem cell research is just one of many possibilities, and a very speculative one at that.
• Third, the implication that Christopher Reeve was prevented from getting out of his wheelchair by the Bush stem cell policies is a travesty.
• Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago.
• Edwards and Kerry constantly talk of a Bush ``ban'' on stem cell research. This is false. There is no ban. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding.
• There is no apologizing for Edwards' remark. It is too revealing. There is absolutely nothing the man will not say to get elected.

Is this the same Kerry that promised twice during the debates that he would increase troops by two divisions [about 40,000 personnel] plus increase special forces?

I wonder how he plans to draw good people into the military when he, and most democrats, spend so much time telling us this is the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." [A line Kerry lifted from the Howard Dean campaign, in case you didn't know.]

I know, don't tell me! Kerry has a PLAN! It's called the involuntary military draft. Isn't that exciting?

In another segment from the same story, and I presume the editors of the Des Moines Register wrote this with a straight face, they write "Kerry has recently accused the Bush campaign of using scare tactics to influence voters."

Bush campaign Iowa spokesman Dan Ronayne responded: "Senator Kerry's comment is irresponsible, patent nonsense and the mother of all cheap political scare tactics. He knows better, and that statement is just another example of John Kerry's willingness to say absolutely anything he thinks will benefit his political fortunes, and as a result he is losing credibility with the American people."

I agree, Dan! Well stated!

Prior to this manual being revealed, New Jersey democrat Senator Jon Corzine had this to say in a fund raising letter:

"Voter suppression and intimidation . . . in Florida again!? The GOP used voter intimidation and outright fraud to hand Florida to George W. Bush in 2000, and if we don't stop them, they'll do it again."

Then Jimmy Carter whined that in 2000 "several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities" in Florida, and that this year more black than (Republican) Hispanic felons are being disqualified to vote--as if all felons weren't supposed to be barred, regardless of race. Florida state law forbits felons to vote unless their rights have been restored through judicial review.

And no discussion of events in Florida would be complete without the NAACP and People for the American Way checking in. These groups have issued a report claiming that intimidation led to racially motivated voter disenfranchisement in Florida. This year these and other left-wing groups are planning to dispatch 5,000 lawyers nationwide on Election Day in the name of "voter protection," which could be better stated as "voter intimidation by democrats."

What all these democrats want you to forget is the outcome of their 'intimidation' charges arising from the election 2000 Florida kerfuffle.

In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter intimidation, no evidence of voter harassment, and no evidence of intentional or systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.

The report states "Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers, antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote." But the report found no basis for the contention that officials conspired to disenfranchise voters. "Moreover," it said, "even if it was foreseeable that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred," let alone racial discrimination.

The Justice Department conducted a separate investigation and their conclusion stated "The Civil Rights Division found no credible evidence in our investigations that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election."

Another line of attack used by democrats in their quest to prove black voters were intentionally disenfranchised was the ratio of ballot "spoilage" between blacks and whites. Since ballots do not record the race of the voter, figures for spoiled ballots are derived from sample precincts and voter registration figures. Estimates ranged from 3-1 up to 10-1 spoilage of blacks over whites. But the idea that racial discrimination rather than all-around ineptitude by everyone involved is folkloric at best.

Here is something else the democrats don't want you to know about election 2000 in Florida. The manner in which elections are conducted, including all of the essentials of the voting process, is determined at the county level, as it is in many other states. In 24 of the 25 Florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a democrat. In the 25th county, the supervisor was an Independent. Just a little inconvenient fact for those democrats that claim the election was "stolen."

Republicans ripped into John Kerry yesterday over a stunning new internal manual that advises Democrats to launch "pre-emptive" strikes charging the GOP with voter intimidation — even if none exists.

The "Election Day Manual" — written for Kerry's Colorado campaign workers — includes a menu of options Democrats can follow next month to claim Republican intimidation, ranging from issuing press releases to organizing minority leaders to denounce the practice.

It was unclear last night whether the manual had been penned by the Kerry campaign or the Democratic National Committee, although questions about it were fielded by the DNC.

Democratic leaders dismissed the charge, insisting the manual was aimed at providing guidance for "preventing and combating" voter intimidation from happening in the first place. (How soon those dems forget. All the charges of "voter intimidation" the democrats made in the 2000 election were refuted by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. - ed.)

"All of the states received some language on combating and preventing voter intimidation," said DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera.

In part, the manual reads: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike' (particularly well-suited to states in which these techniques have been tried in the past.)."

The manual goes on to provide ways in which Kerry workers can spotlight intimidation, including organizing ministers or other civic leaders to protest it, writing press releases and reminding people about past examples of GOP voter intimidation.

Cabrera said he wasn't sure whether the same guidance turns up in strategy manuals given to Kerry workers in other states, nor was he sure who wrote the section at issue.

Colorado Republican Party Chairman Ted Halaby told the Post the document was revealing. "I'm shocked that the Democratic National Committee would stoop to such low gutter politics," he said.

On behalf of Bush, the Republican National Committee called on Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Lewis to respond to the memo and he called it "outrageous."

"It's truly outrageous and callous to suggest to operatives that if you don't see intimidation, to sort of make it up,' Lewis said.

The democrats realize their chances of winning are so slim they have to resort to lies and their own form of voter intimidation.

What about those "ministers" they talk about? I thought it was forbidden by IRS rule for ministers and churches to participate in partisan politics. If the democrats start involving churches in their campaign I personally will file a complaint with the IRS in an effort to have their tax-exempt status revoked.

In a New York Post editorial on 10/13/04, Howie Carr shares his thoughts on Kerry the sportsman. Mr. Carr writes:

"In July, he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that "I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach."

Crawling in the woods is tough, not to mention loud, work — which is why almost all hunters except Kerry prefer to either stand or climb up into tree stands.

"I track and move and decoy and play games and try to outsmart them."

He was presumably referring to deer, not voters. But Kerry, a "former law-enforcement person," as he is also wont to describe himself, seems to have forgotten that the use of decoys is forbidden under Massachusetts law. Just using a decoy deer can mean a fine of up to $100, 30 days in jail, and/or loss of hunting license.

In the current issue of Field & Stream, the outdoorsperson was asked about the biggest deer he'd ever killed — er, harvested.

"Probably an 8-pointer," Kerry replied, "something like that. Nothing terribly big." Actually, an 8-pointer would be a rather large kill to most hunters — the kill of a lifetime in fact.

But Bwana John wasn't done. "I once had an incredible encounter with the most enormous buck — I don't know, 16 points or something. It was just huge. And I failed to pull the trigger at the right moment. I was hunting down in Massachusetts, on the Cape."

The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife doesn't keep such statistics, but an open invitation on the radio for calls from Cape hunters turned up no one who had ever glimpsed such a 16-pointer in Barnstable County."

The Federal Communications Commission will not intervene to stop Sinclair Broadcast from airing "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal"

"Don't look to us to block the airing of a program," Michael Powell told reporters. "I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that."

Powell said there are no federal rules that would allow the agency to prevent the program. "I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First Amendment and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so," he said.

Bill O'Reilly reported last night, and the Los Angeles Times reports today that Bill is being sued for sexual harassment.

The court filing can be viewed at The Smoking Gun website.

The LA Times writes the "...lawsuit filed Wednesday by a producer on his show who says O'Reilly repeatedly pressured her to engage in phone sex and frightened her with lewd "monologues. The suit, filed in New York by Andrea Mackris, a 33-year-old associate producer on "The O'Reilly Factor," quotes O'Reilly as speaking to her in highly explicit terms about vibrators, oral sex, masturbation and a fantasy involving a Caribbean hotel room shower."

In a statement released by Bill he says "Enough is enough. I will not give in to extortion."

Chad Clanton, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign appeared on a Fox News program Tuesday and suggested that the Sinclair Broadcasting Group might regret airing a documentary that focuses on the Democratic candidate's antiwar activities. He announced that pro-Kerry activists were organizing to protest the network.

"We've got thousands of people now very mad jackballed up calling these stations, protesting, threatening boycotts of their sponsors," Clanton said.

Clanton issued what appeared to be a threat to the network when he told host Linda Vester, "I think they're going to regret doing this and they better hope we don't win."

Everybody knows that you shouldn't confuse democrats with facts. This new ad follows that rule to the letter. Trying to sow the seeds of anti-war and anti-Bush fever, MoveOn says President Bush doesn't "understand the "ground truth" of what's going on in Iraq." But instead of giving us the "ground truth" facts, they make an appeal to base emotionalism:

"Last week, a group called RealVoices.org [a spin-off from MoveOn - ed] introduced a series of ads that brings this reality ["ground truth" reality as seen by MoveOn - ed.] home -- with the voices of families who have lost sons or daughters in Iraq. We were especially touched by the statements of Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed on April 4th of this year. The interview is very difficult to watch, because the hurt and sense of betrayal is so real. But we think the American people need to hear what Cindy Sheehan has to say."

I watched their ad. It begins with Ms Sheehan talking about her son Casey and how he died in Iraq "in the arms" of his friend. You can see and feel her pain. She has obviously suffered a great loss. She deserves sympathy for the loss of her son.

Ms Sheehan tells us how brave and honest her son was. I believe her - he was brave and honest, and deserves respect for his service to America.

But MoveOn and Ms Sheehan have no respect. They use this tragic death as a club to use on President Bush. Ms Sheehan literally wails when she says of President Bush "...When you haven't been honest with us. When you and your advisors rushed us into this war." And in the dramatic final sequence she says "How do you think we felt when we(?) heard the Senate report that said there was no link between Iraq and 9/11."

MoveOn understands how difficult it is to argue against raw emotion without looking cold and hard. That's why they sponsor these ads. And that's why they throw a hissy fit any time the right even mentions 9/11.

MoveOn doesn't care who's pain and suffering they trample on; the only thing that counts is getting that anti-Bush message transmitted to as many people as possible and forget the facts.

Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. He seems to believe that us "folks" need him to interpret and explain the daily news. I don't normally watch Bill, but last night I made the mistake of turning on his ridiculous show.

O'Reilly has an ego that is bigger than planet earth! His cute little comments "we're watching out for the folks" - like I really need Billy to watch out for me.

When CBS and Dan Rather broadcast the fake memos on "60 Minutes" Bill could find no fault with Rather or CBS. His favorite question was "You don't think Dan Rather made up [or typed up] those memos, do you?" Bill never mentioned the long history of Rather's bias against the Bush family, and his obvious bias against Republicans in general. Talking Point Memo to Bill: Nobody thinks Dan Rather had a direct hand in creating those fake memos. What most people think is that Rather hates President Bush so much that he rushed to air those memos without proper verification of authenticity. To this day, Dan will not admit those memos are fake - even in the face of overwhelming evidence showing he was wrong. But Bill still defends Dan and can find no error with CBS and Dan.

Back to last night. O'Reilly has a problem with Sinclair Broadcast Group airing "Stolen Honor". He feels that if "Stolen Honor" is aired by Sinclair then Kerry should get 90 minutes of rebuttal time for free. Keep in mind that "Stolen Honor" is only 42 minutes long. So, Bill, Kerry should get over twice the running time of this film for rebuttal? Sinclair has already publicly offered Kerry a chance to participate. Kerry's response? Chad Clanton of the Kerry campaign: "I think it's hard to take any offer seriously from any group that's going this far over the line." Didn't O'Reilly use that same "over the line" remark last night? Yes, he did. Hey Bill, when did CBS offer President Bush time to rebut the memo story???

President Bush first said "We're not going to have a draft, period." Mr. Bush followed with; "The all- volunteer army works" ; "An all-volunteer army is best suited to fight the new wars of the 21st century..." ; "We don't need mass armies anymore..." ; "Now, forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft so long as I am the president."

Kerry, in his rebuttal, had these remarks; "I am very proud in this race to have the support of General John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Admiral William Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Tony McPeak, who ran the air war for the president's father and did a brilliant job, supporting me; General Wes Clark, who won the war in Kosovo, supporting me; because they all — and General Baca, who was the head of the National Guard, supporting me." ; "You've got people doing two and three rotations. You've got stop-loss policies, so people can't get out when they were supposed to. You've got a back-door draft right now." ; "I don't support a draft" ; "Now, I'm going to add 40,000 active duty forces to the military..." ; "My plan does a better job."

I have to wonder where Kerry is going to find those '40,000' troops he brags about. How many people are going to run right down to their local recruiting stations and sign up for what Kerry has termed the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"?

Kerry says we have a back-door draft. His implication is that current recruiting goals are not being met. If this is true, then how will you add 40,000 troops without a involuntary draft.

While the Senator claims he doesn't "support a draft", he can never bring himself to say that he completely rejects the idea, either.

Kerry accused President Bush of scare tactics: "...[Bush is] just trying to scare everybody here with throwing labels around. . . . I mean, seriously, labels don't mean anything."

In 1991 Kerry was singing a different tune. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch quoted him in its July 21, 1991, edition as saying, "I'm a liberal and proud of it."

Tomorrow night we will see which John Kerry is on stage. Will it be the "labels don't mean anything" John or the "liberal and proud of it" John?

CBS is nearly foaming at the mouth. On the CBS Evening News, reporter Kelly Cobiella noted how "Sinclair has given the lion's share of its political contributions to Republican candidates." What she failed to report is that at CBS, as the September 21 New York Sun reported: "Viacom's Chairman and chief executive, Sumner Redstone, is a self-described 'liberal Democrat' and a prolific donor to Democratic campaigns. Of the company's 13 board members, eight contribute primarily to Democratic candidates and party committees. Two other members of the board, Joseph Califano and William Cohen, held cabinet posts under Democratic Presidents." Also, New York Sun reporter Josh Gerstein adds: "In the past six years, Mr. Redstone has given $50,000 to Democratic campaigns and party committees, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. He gave the maximum $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's presidential campaign and supported Vice President Gore's 2000 presidential bid as well."

ABC is about to have a stroke. ABC anchor Terry Moran stressed how "Democrats decry this move as a political smear and yellow journalism" before Geoff Morrell relayed how "Sinclair's owners have donated $58,000 to re-elect President Bush." Moran does not report on the money and party affiliation side for Disney, owner of ABC: Disney CEO Michael Eisner is a long-time generous donor to Democratic candidates and in March former Senator George Mitchell, the very partisan Senate Majority Leader when Democrats held the body in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was elected Chairman of the Board of the Walt Disney Company.

The democrats are in hysterics. Sinclair's decision to order its 62 stations to carry a movie attacking Kerry's Vietnam record is drawing political fire -- not least from the Democrat National Committee, which plans to file a federal complaint today accusing the company of election-law violations. "Sinclair's owners aren't interested in news, they're interested in pro-Bush propaganda," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, whose complaint will accuse the firm of making an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. Eighteen democrat senators, led by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), sent a letter to the FCC yesterday requesting an investigation into Sinclair's decision "to air such a blatantly partisan attack in lieu of regular programming."

On Sinclair' home page they have issued this statement: "We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at (202) 712-3000." Chad Clanton of the Kerry campaign responds: "I think it's hard to take any offer seriously from any group that's going this far over the line."

The Los Angeles Times reports today that [Federal Communications] Commissioner Michael J. Copps released a statement calling the broadcast "an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology — whether liberal or conservative." The LA Times failed to note that before his appointment to the FCC, Mr. Copps was on the staff of Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and served for over a dozen years as Hollings' Administrative Assistant and Chief of Staff. Just another partisan democrat licking Terry McAuliffe's boots.

CBS and ABC noted how Sinclair Broadcast Group own 62 stations across America, with the potential to reach 25% of television viewers. But again, they don't say that Sinclair is mainly made up of little-watched WB and UPN affiliates, as well as some stations so small they don't even have any network affiliation, and their few affiliations with ABC and CBS are limited to a few small markets. Their largest CBS affiliate is in Sacramento, the 19th largest market, and their largest ABC affiliate, on channel 30, is in an even smaller market, St. Louis. Sinclair's station list can be found here.

Why are CBS and ABC suddenly so interested in media bias? When the Bush-bashing film "Fahrenheit 9/11" was released last summer the three major networks had nothing but praise. Not a one of them offered to allow President Bush to air his side of the story. For example, on June 2^nd Tom Brokaw of NBC devoted over a minute of NBC Nightly News to promoting Moore's left-wing, Bush-bashing movie, even running a portion of the movie trailer, the kind of promotional advertising normally reserved for paid spots, movie theater "coming attractions" and movie previews on entertainment shows. NBC Nightly News, in fact, gave Moore's screed more than three times more air time Wednesday night than did Paramount's syndicated Entertainment Tonight (18 seconds) and four times more time than did NBC's own syndicated entertainment news show, Access Hollywood (14 seconds). Brokaw described Moore's production simply as "an award-winning film about President Bush and his team."

ABC's Good Morning America on June 22^nd spent about seven minutes showcasing how Michael Moore's movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," highlighting how after President Bush was informed a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, he stayed in front of elementary school kids for another seven minutes. "Was valuable time wasted?" asked Charlie Gibson at the top of the June 22 show. Diane Sawyer imparted great meaning to the time passage: "It was seven minutes in the life of a President, seven minutes in the history of the nation, it's seven minutes a lot of people are using as a kind of Rorschach test." Following a taped piece by Jake Tapper on the seven minutes showcased by Moore, complete with a clock on screen, George Stephanopoulos told Sawyer that Moore's use of the incident to denigrate and mock Bush was "not fair," but he maintained that "those seven minutes are painful to watch."

CBS's 60 Minutes promoted Michael Moore's movie by airing a nearly minute-long excerpt of one of its most disparaging sequences about President Bush, showing him sitting in the classroom for seven minutes on 9-11. Setting up a re-run of a 2003 profile of Moore, 60 Minutes ran a 55 second excerpt from Moore's new movie, complete with Moore's derogatory narration: "Not knowing what to do, with no one telling him what to do, and no Secret Service rushing in to take him to safety, Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read My Pet Goat with the children. Nearly seven minutes past with nobody doing anything."

Remember, never once during all the three major networks promotion of "Fahrenheit 9/11" did they allow equal time to President Bush. By running these stories as "straight news," they are under no obligation to offer equal time.

From a Washington Post story today it is reported that "CBS News Vice President Linda Mason said anchor Dan Rather and news division president Andrew Heyward have made it clear that accuracy is more important than speed"

As reported by The Miami Herald,

"Flanked by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and one-time rival Al Sharpton -- both of whom turned a lively morning service at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Liberty City into a blistering indictment of the Bush administration -- Kerry sought to galvanize the black vote he needs to turn out in force in November.

''What's on the ballot is the American dream, what's on the ballot is what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton marched for,'' Kerry said. ``We have an unfinished march in this nation.''

Yesterdays event was not a church service - it was a Kerry campaign event complete with signs and banners.

Current Internal Revenue Service regulations prohibit pastors and churches from endorsing or opposing any candidate for political office. There have been several well reported cases where churches supporting Republican candidates have lost their tax-exempt status.

Americans United for Separation of Church and States, a group that monitors politics from the pulpit from a leftist standpoint, says churches, like all tax-exempt organizations, are "absolutely prohibited from supporting or opposing candidates for elected public office." Americans United also has a banner on their homepage which touts "Operation Fair Play - Stop Church Electioneering." They go on to proclaim "Some politicians and Religious Right activists are eager to transform houses of worship into political machines."

Americans United and the democrats have a double standard. Kerry, Je$$e Ja¢k$on, Bill Clinton, and assorted others on the left are allowed to blatantly ignore IRS rules and campaign from any church pulpit that will have them. Operation Fair Play applies only to the right.

Fairness demands that the IRS level the playing field. Either enforce the rules equally or throw the rules out completely.

Update 10/12/04 A commentary from Family Research Council:

Sen. John Kerry "used a Baptist pulpit Sunday to speak of eternal life and denounce President Bush," the Washington Post reported today. Former U. S. Rep. Carrie Meek told the congregation that Kerry is "fighting against liars and demons." And the pastor of the Miami church endorsed Kerry from the pulpit in almost messianic terms, telling his congregation, "For every Goliath, God has a David. For every Calvary's cross, God has a Christ Jesus. To bring our country out of despair, discouragement, despondency, and disgust, God has a John Kerry." [God must have had a bad day! - ed] Recall the outcry from Barry Lynn and the left when Pastor Ronnie Floyd instructed his congregation to "vote God"? Can you imagine the outcry that would arise from the Democrats and the liberal media if President Bush made an appearance like Senator Kerry's, and similar things were said about him? They would be pressing to have the church's tax exemption lifted the next day. Yet it would be a mistake for more conservative Christians to urge the same type of crackdown on liberal churches. Instead, we should favor a single standard that defends religious liberty and freedom of speech for all--including (especially) pastors who want to address the moral dimension of political decisions from the pulpit, regardless of their views.

Since I always seem to find myself behind the curve when it comes to high-tech toys, one of my major questions was the state of TV technology today. I have to wonder if my new television will be obsolete 10 minutes after removing it from the box.

So off I went to the internet to do some research and comparison shopping.

Searching Google, I found "DTV - Digital Television".

This is a website run by the Federal Communications Commission. It's pretty, and full of good information, right down to helping you find what's available in HDTV programming right now.

Reeve fell into a coma Saturday after going into cardiac arrest at his New York home, his publicist, Wesley Combs, told Associated Press by phone from Washington, D.C., on Sunday night.

A tall, dark-haired actor perfectly suited for the role of the "Man of Steel," Reeve took on an even larger-than-life role in reality as a quadriplegic who pledged he would one day walk again.

Reeve graduated from Cornell University in 1974 and went on to study at Juilliard under the legendary John Houseman.

He debuted on Broadway opposite Katharine Hepburn in "A Matter of Gravity" in 1976 and went on to a long career on the stage, screen and television that continued even after his accident.

In addition to his wife, he is survived by three children.

Los Angeles Times is the source for this story.

Can we expect a fair review of "Unfit For Command"? As soon as you stop laughing, the answer is no.

The reviewer is one Susannah Meadows. It's revealed at the end of the story that her main job is "covering the Kerry campaign for Newsweek." So much for neutrality.

The review is so bad I'll give only one quote which sums up Ms Meadows bias. Ms Meadows writes "... [T]he book itself is totally unconvincing. The problem is that John O'Neill, who is the driving force and public face of the book, is so curdled with hatred for Kerry that, as though he were an unreliable narrator in a Nabokov novel, you can't trust what he says."

Ms Meadows starts with the premise that the authors can't be trusted and goes downhill from there. It's very revealing that she never mentions the fact that John O'Neill states in the book that he is not a Republican and has voted mainly for democrats throughout his life.

In 1992, during the run up to the Clinton vs Bush Sr. campaign, much was being said about Clinton being a draft dodger and organizing anti-war demonstrations in England.

Kerry was so upset by these attacks on his fellow democrat that he went on the floor of the Senate and delivered the following remarks:

"The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them ... We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. ... Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam? ... But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. ... We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/27/92)

Given Kerry's record as an anti-war protester it is no suprise that he would have more respect for Clinton the draft dodger than President Bush.

It is also no suprise that Kerry would turn around and reduce Vietnam "to simple campaign rhetoric." Kerry has no shame. He will do or say anything simply for political gain.

As happens with so much of what Kerry says, the facts don't back him up.

In July of 1997 (105^th Congress) the Senate passed S.R. 98. The vote on S.R. 98 was 95-0 and Kerry was actually in the Senate that day to cast his yea vote.

Senator Byrd (D-WV), in a letter to President Clinton, wrote:

"Signing the Kyoto protocol now would be contrary to the plain language of Senate resolution 98 cosponsored by sixty-five Senators and passed by a unanimous vote of 95-0 on July 25, 1997. The consensus of the Senate since that date remains that the United States should not be a signatory to the Kyoto protocol until and unless that agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing country parties within the same compliance period. Additionally, the Resolution states that the Senate should be provided with a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the Protocol. The Senate's position has not changed since the resolution was passed almost sixteen months ago, and those two conditions have not yet been met."

Senator Hagel (R-NE), one of Kerry's favorite Republicans to quote, had this to say:

"Tomorrow will mark the five-year point since the Senate voted unanimously to provide President Clinton and Vice President Gore with clear advice regarding the Kyoto Protocol. It is unfortunate that the Clinton Administration ignored the Senate's 95-0 vote on S.Res. 98, or the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, but the conditions outlined in that resolution remain the guideposts for U.S. international climate change policy."

First, S.Res.98 directed the President not to sign any treaty "...unless the protocol or agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period." The message was simple. Yet as we know, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single developing nation. These are the very nations, such and China and India, that will soon lead the world in manmade greenhouse emissions. Any treaty that exempts them from participation is folly.

Second, the Resolution stated the President should not sign any treaty that "...would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States." The Kyoto Protocol would have legally bound the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012. As President Bush stated in February, this would have cost the U.S. economy $400 billion and resulted in the loss of 4.9 million jobs.

Here is the heart of S.R. 98:

"Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement."

Former President Clinton had from July of 1997 to January of 2000 to fix the problems in the Kyoto treaty. Nothing was done.

We didn't have enough forces. General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told him he was going to need several hundred thousand. And guess what? They retired General Shinseki for telling him that.

The fact is, Kerry is wrong. On CNN's Inside Politics on 9/24/04 CNN Pentagon Correspondent JAMIE MCINTYRE said: "[T]he fact that the Army chief of staff was not fired or forced to retire early is just that, Judy. It is a fact."

It was not until late February 2003, more than ten months later, that Shinseki said "Several Hundred Thousand" troops would be required for "Post-Hostilities Control" in Iraq. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?" ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF ERIC SHINSEKI: "In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements. But I think …" LEVIN: "How about a range?" SHINSEKI: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/25/03)

Even the media has corrected Kerry's mistatement. CNN, no friend to President Bush, has twice reported General Shinseki was not retired because of any disagreement with the White House:

Shinseki's retirement was announced well before he criticized Iraq troop levels. WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: "Kerry also said General Shinseki was forced to retire as a result of his criticism of troop levels in Iraq, but his retirement was announced in April of 2002, and he made the statement, his criticism of troop levels, in 2003." (CNN's "NewsNight," 10/1/04)

John Kerry's assertion that Shinseki was fired is "Factual Mistake." ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: "Also, there was at least one factual mistake in the speech. John Kerry noted at one point that General Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, was fired for not providing the right answers that President Bush was looking for in terms of troop levels, but, in fact, Shinseki retired on his own." (CNN's "News From CNN," 9/8/04)

Brit Hume on Fox News added this:

"John Kerry insisted today, as he has repeatedly over the past year, that the Army's former Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was forced into early retirement for saying, in the run up to the war for Iraq, that not enough troops were set to be deployed to the region. Kerry said Shinseki is among the administration officials who, quote, 'lost their jobs for telling the truth.' But Shinseki was not forced out. He completed his full term of chief of staff and retired on schedule." (Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume," 9/20/04)

Why is the government involved in health care? In my copy of the U.S. Constitution I cannot find one provision for the federal government to be involved in health care.

I thought maybe my printed copy wasn't up to date. So I went online here and here to insure there were no changes that had slipped my notice.

Okay, so I ran to my computer after the debate and went to johnkerry.com. First I looked at the left navigation bar to see if 'tort reform' was there. Nope. I clicked on the 'more issues' line and still no tort reform.

I finally found tort reform under "health care" issues. After wading through all the reasons for the upward spiral of health care I found this; "John Kerry, however, strongly opposes capping damages in medical malpractice lawsuits."

He then details his "plan" to reduce medical litigation. Step one would "Prohibit individuals from bringing a medical malpractice liability action unless a qualified specialist determines that a reasonable claim exists." No explanation as to how this will work. Who pays for the 'specialist'? Is this person[s] a full time government employee? Or just on contract with the state? Who decides what specialist rules on a particular case? Can the loser appeal the decision? How many more lawyers will be enriched just by this first step of Kerry's plan?

The second step says; "Support mandatory sanctions for claims and defenses that are presented for improper purposes or that are not warranted by existing law or by an argument without merit for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law." As I understand this statement it is a form of 'loser pays.' The language here is right out of the lawyers guide to confusing the public. Language like this is part of the problem - not a solution! I'm sure there are many sharp attorneys in America that could interpret this in many different ways. Indeed, lawyers could tie up courts for years just trying to define this second step language. Adding confusion to the legal system is NOT a way to bring down health care cost.

Step three says "Provide additional incentives for reducing the number of lawsuits that can and should be filed. To that end, Senator Kerry would require states to make available nonbinding mediation in all cases before permitting plaintiffs to proceed to trial on any medical liability claim." Nonbinding mediation is an incentive for reducing lawsuits? How? Either party can walk away from the table if they don't get what they want. In reality all step 3 does is add another layer of bureaucracy to the already overloaded system. Again, who pays for this mess? The short answer: TAXPAYERS. Oh yes, John, this will really drive down the cost of health care.

Kerry's 4^th and final step: "Finally, Senator Kerry opposes the award of punitive damages in medical liability cases except upon proof of intentional misconduct, gross negligence or reckless indifference to life." This changes nothing from the system as it is now! Can anyone tell me how this will lower cost? Everyday attorneys all across the land are collecting millions of dollars in punitive damages by doing just what Kerry says here in step 4.

Kerry and Edwards are lawyers. The four steps above are nothing but an attorney protection contract. Every step provides more jobs for lawyers. (Hey ... Maybe that's how Kerry will meet his employment promise ... Get more lawyers working! Vote for Kerry!)

October 7, 2004

Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:

This week, in Orlando, Florida, approximately 100 protestors stormed and ransacked the local Bush-Cheney headquarters injuring one campaign staffer who suffered a broken wrist and causing considerable damage.

According to news accounts, similar "protests" occurred yesterday across the country in Miami, FL; Tampa, FL; Kansas City, MO; Dearborn, MI; St. Paul, MN; Independence, MO; and West Allis, WI. All of the "protests" appear to be a coordinated effort by members of a major labor union to intimidate staff and volunteers of the Bush-Cheney campaign. The AFL-CIO took credit on their own website for these protests that included thousands of workers in 17 cities across the country.

In what is apparently one of those coordinated "protests", the Bush-Cheney headquarters in West Allis, Wisconsin was invaded by more than 50 protestors who disrupted campaign activities and intimidated campaign workers and volunteers. According to the Associated Press, over 100 union protestors physically stormed their way into Bush-Cheney headquarters in Miami, Florida and intimidated volunteers inside. In what could be a related incident, although the perpetrator has not yet been identified, the Knoxville, TN Bush-Cheney office was hit by gun-fire on Tuesday morning, shattering the plate-glass front doors before volunteers showed up for work.

These attacks are not conduct protected by the First Amendment. The activities were carried out on the same day throughout the country, apparently organized by the same national organization. The lack of any notice and the pattern suggest a plan to intimidate volunteers who were supporting their candidate in the upcoming Presidential campaign.

Because these coordinated invasions violate the laws protecting the civil rights of American citizens, we request you direct the appropriate investigative unit within the Department of Justice to promptly initiate an investigation. We strongly urge that the investigation include whether federal laws have been broken, including those addressing civil rights, conspiracy, racketeering, and others protecting the rights to campaign and vote.

Most importantly, we strongly urge you to depose the participants in these attacks, and to gather any evidence regarding a possible ongoing conspiracy to launch more attacks. Those depositions are urgent, as any delay may lead to destruction of evidence that could lead to identification of those who planned and coordinated the attacks, and who should be brought to justice.

Please respond to this letter no later than October 12 with regard to what action will be taken, where it will be taken, and by which element within the Department of Justice.

In addition, we ask that you work with state law enforcement agencies in investigating a series of voting irregularities including forgeries in voter registration forms, casting simultaneous ballots in different states (double voting), and absentee voter fraud. Such activities disenfranchise those who properly register to vote and cast valid ballots.

The right to vote is essential to our democracy. The threat of intimidation and violence to those exercising this right is the antithesis of how a law-abiding and civilized nation conducts itself. Please immediately ensure that those who wish to be involved in the political process can exercise their constitutional rights without fear. All Americans, no matter whom they chose to vote for, deserve to be able to fully participate in this process without fear of intimidation or retaliation.

Sincerely,

Just imagine the howling that would be heard from the democrats and main stream media if these attacks had been made on democrat campaign offices by any organization that had endorsed President Bush!

Also see this and this.

He goes on to explain how his tactical disagreements with military commanders and others were "disagreements among individuals of good will" that "happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations."

He further states:

"The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush."

In a personal aside to Mr Kerry, Bremer says:

"Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism."

Bremer saves the best for last when he writes:

" A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision."

It's about time the same posters be made honoring Tom DeLay. He should resign immediately! Not tomorrow -TODAY. There is no reason a person of his character should be sitting in congress feeding from the public trough, much less holding the title of House Majority Leader.

Personal note to Tom: You know resigning is the right thing to do. Please go before the black cloud hanging over you spreads by association to other members of Congress. You are damaging not only your colleague's reputations but also that of your party. You know you can no longer claim to be an effective public leader. Go on home to Texas and find a different line of work.

In his column, which could have been written from the democrat national committee's talking points, he chooses several quotes obviously taken out of context.

Edwards, who proved both his value and his loyalty to Democratic nominee John Kerry, declared that "there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th. Period. The 9/11 Commission has said that's true. Colin Powell has said it's true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is."

What Cheney said next was, literally, incredible: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

This is the same Cheney who, just minutes before, in the very same debate, had defended the attack on Iraq by declaring flatly that Saddam Hussein "had an established relationship with al Qaeda." Hello? If that is not a "suggestion" of a connection, what is?

Well, this: On Sept. 14, 2003, Cheney said Iraq was at the heart of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

When viewed in it's entirety, and in proper context, the quote attributed to Mr. Cheney does not suggest the Vice President saw "established relationships with al Qaeda."

TIM RUSSERT: “Can we keep 150,000 troops [in Iraq]beyond next spring without, in effect, breaking the Army?” VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD CHENEY: “Tim, we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure’s not an option. And go back again and think about what’s involved here. This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it’s very, very important we get it right. If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.”

RUSSERT: “So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?” CHENEY: “No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in particular, given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan, which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it’s a global operation. It doesn’t know national boundaries or national borders. And the commitment of the United States going into Afghanistan and take down the Taliban and stand up a new government, to go into Iraq and take down the Saddam Hussein regime and stand up a new government is a vital part of our long-term strategy to win the war on terror. America’s going to be safer and more secure in the years ahead when we complete the task in Iraq successfully, and we will complete it successfully.”

In addition to this misrepresentation of Mr. Cheney's remarks on "Meet The Press," Mr.Dionne also takes his quoted references to the debate statements out of context.

In the first quote Mr Cheney actually said "[C]oncern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida.

The second quote in full reads "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

More than 50 demonstrators supporting Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry stormed a Republican campaign office in West Allis at mid-day today, trespassing, creating a disturbance through the use of a bullhorn in the office and then refusing to leave when asked.

"Do John Kerry and Wisconsin Democrats really believe this is conduct becoming of a presidential candidate and his campaign?” RPW Chairman Rick Graber asked . . .

Graber called the latest incident part of a disturbing trend of criminal conduct by anti-Bush forces in Wisconsin, pointing to an incident in Madison last week in which Bush-Cheney yard signs were stolen from the yards of three homes. The vandals then used chemicals to burn swastikas into the lawns of the homes, which were within a two-block radius of one another.

In addition, reports of stolen, defaced and damaged Bush-Cheney campaign signs are surfacing throughout Wisconsin.

In Orlando, Fl television station WKMG reports:

A group of protestors stormed and then ransacked a Bush-Cheney headquarters building in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday...

While in the building, some of the protestors drew horns and a mustache on a poster of President George W. Bush and poured piles of letters in the office, according to the report.

. . .[M]ost of the protestors were from the AFL-CIO and were taking part in one of 20 other coordinated protests around the country.

A spokesperson with the AFL-CIO told Local 6 News that the Orlando protest did not go as planned.

In Carson City, NV the Nevada Appeal carried a story of Republican campaign sign vandalism:

A quiet neighborhood at Seventh and Division streets was marred recently by an act of campaign vandalism. A 4-by-8-foot President Bush campaign sign on a vacant lot at that intersection was cut off its posts Sunday night or early Monday.

Fowler (a Republican Central Committee member) said about 15 signs for the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, Richard Ziser, have also been plucked from the ground in Eagle Valley.

Do these democrats think their actions are going to attract voters to Kerry? And why is the AFL-CIO allowed to use union dues for political violence?

Some poor, confused souls went right to their computer, typed in "factcheck.com", and ended up at the George Soros website. For the record, George Soros is the billionaire spending millions of his own money to elect Kerry-Edwards. He has help fund several leftist 527 groups such as MoveOn and Texans for Truth.

The Associated Press reports here that the owner of the name "factcheck.com" is a for-profit advertising site based in the Cayman Islands. "The company decided to redirect traffic to the Soros site after it became inundated with hits about 100 a second after the debate, John Berryhill, a Philadelphia lawyer for FactCheck.com, said Wednesday. "This was to relieve stress on the service and to express a political point of view," said Berryhill, who spoke with the site's administrators shortly after the debate ended.

George Soros took it in stride and offered this disclaimer on his website:

Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Concerning FactCheck.com

While I want to get my message out, I certainly do not want to force it on people. I apologize to those who were annoyed by FactCheck.com redirecting to GeorgeSoros.com, but I'm also pleased that I may have reached some people who would not otherwise have known about the site.

Once we became aware of what was happening, my spokesman issued the following statement:

"Neither George Soros nor any organization or company with which he is affiliated owns the FactCheck.com domain name, and we are not responsible for it redirecting visitors to our site. We believe that Vice President Cheney intended to direct viewers of last night's debate to FactCheck.org. We are as surprised as anyone by this turn of events but certainly encourage voters to visit both of these valuable sites."

After months of telling America he could secure French and German help in Iraq, Kerry was forced to admit that he probably won't be able to do so.

From the Washington Times story: " The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops".

"Even before Mr. Kerry made his admission, France and Germany had made it clear that their absolute opposition to sending troops to Iraq was not a political calculation involving the U.S. election."

From the transcript:


• "plan for success in Iraq ..."


• "a plan to win the peace ..."


• "our entire plan for Iraq ..."


• "we have a plan for Iraq ..."


• "a plan for success ..."


• "that plan includes ..."


• "a real plan for success ..."


• "We have a plan ..."


• "we have plans on both of those ..."


• "John Kerry and I have a plan to do something about it ..."


• "why we have proposed a plan ..."


• "We think we have a plan to ..."


• "We have a serious health care plan ..."


• "we have a clear plan to ..."


• "we have a plan to ..."


• "why we have a plan ..."

H.R. 163, sponsored by Democrat Charles Rangel, was doomed from the start. Nobody in Congress wants to be perceived as supporting the draft in a highly charged election year. Well, almost nobody. The two aye votes were cast by Democrat John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and everyones favorite "crazy uncle in the attic" Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.), a 32-year House veteran.(Which is about 32 years too long for this character!)

After the vote Democrats were heard whining to the media. The bill's sponsor, Dem. Charles B. Rangel , called a news conference to say he would vote against his bill and to denounce Republicans as cynics who use parliamentary rules for political manipulations rather than for debates of serious topics.

"It is so darn hypocritical for the Congress to come forward and put a [controversial] bill on the suspension calendar. It's a shame that . . . this legislative body is being used as a political tool on the eve of elections."

What is "hypocritical" is a bill introduced for nothing more than political gain. Or as Rangel has said in the past; I introduced the bill primarily to raise awareness of who makes up most of the volunteer army and to stimulate debate about the administration's military and economic policies. Note to Mr. Rangel: Don't offer legislation as a political tool - you may get just what you offer!

Mr. Rangel should also remember that it has been the Democrats and their friends at 'Rock the Vote' and 'Alliance For Security' fanning the flames of this draft rumor, plus significant help from Dan Rather and CBS.

• Democrat Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) Introduced The “Universal National Service Act Of 2003” To Reinstate Military Draft. “A BILL To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.” (H.R. 163, Introduced 1/7/03 By Rep. Charles Rangel)



• Today, House Of Representatives Will Vote On Rangel’s Proposal, Which House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Vows Will Receive “Very Little Congressional Support.” “Later today, the House of Representatives will debate and vote on H.R. 163, the Universal National Service Act – commonly known as the Reinstate the Draft Bill. There is very little Congressional support for reinstating the draft.” (House Armed Services Committee, “House To Vote On And Reject Military Draft Bill,” Press Release, 10/5/04)



• Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) Has Introduced Identical Military Draft Legislation. “A BILL To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.” (S. 89, Introduced 1/7/03 By Sen. Ernest Hollings)

• Kerry Raised Possibility Draft Is Returning Under Bush. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush. … Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: ‘If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can’t tell you.’” (Mary Dalrymple, “Kerry Raises Possibility That Military Draft Could Return If Bush Is Re-Elected,” The Associated Press, 9/22/04)



• Edwards Hinted Draft Would Return Under President Bush. “Edwards drew his biggest applause from the audience, which was heavy on union members and laid-off workers, when he responded to a question from a woman who said that her 23-year-old son recently graduated from college, and that she is worried about a draft being instituted for the war in Iraq. ‘There will be no draft when John Kerry is president,’ Edwards said, to applause and a standing ovation.” (Jim VandeHei, “Kerry Accuses Bush Of Dishonesty On Iraq,” The Washington Post, 9/16/04)



• Yet Kerry Told Reporter That If Large Mobilization Is Needed, Draft Is “Only Fair Way To Do It.” REPORTER: “Senator, some in your party have called for reinstating the draft. Do you think that is a good idea?” KERRY: “Not at this moment. I don't. If we had a need for a general mobilization at some time in the future, then I think that's the only fair way to do it.” (WLVI's “Keller At Large,” Interview Taped 12/2/03, Aired 9/26/04)

• Secretary Rumsfeld Called Allegations “Absolute Nonsense.” “Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld heatedly denied yesterday that the military plans to bring back the draft and boost reserves and National Guard callups after the November election. ‘That is absolute nonsense,’ Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘It’s absolutely false that anyone in this administration is considering reinstituting the draft.’” (Richard Sisk, “No Draft, No Extra Troops – Rummy,” [New York] Daily News, 9/24/04)



• Vice President Cheney Said Rumors Were “Hogwash.” “And the notion that somebody’s peddling out there that there is a secret plan to reinstitute the draft, hogwash, not true.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 9/29/04)



• President Bush: “We Don’t Need The Draft.” “No, we’re not going – we don’t need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working. … I know Senator McCain and I agree on this issue for certain, the all-volunteer Army works.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Okaloosa-Walton College, Niceville, FL, 8/10/04)

Michael Moore is hoping to have a BIG day today. His anti-American , terrorist loving film Fahrenheit 9/11 is released on DVD today. Moore would be so pleased if you would run, not walk, to your nearest DVD store and purchase his propaganda piece of nonsense today.

The cartoon above is a reference to images Moore did not show in his film. No shots of the World Trade Center. No film clips from the tragic 9-11 attacks. Moore did manage to get in a few sounds of the attack and some aftermath pictures. Not that you expect any different from a man that thinks Americans are "Ignorant."⁽¹⁾

Moore instead chose to abuse viewers with vivid images of wounded and dead American soldiers, dead and injured Iraqi citizens (mostly children and babies), and American soldiers killing Iraqi military personnel.

Today also marks the release of the rebuttal DVD and book FahrenHYPE 9/11 (a trailer for FahrenHYPE 9/11 is here).

In FahrenHYPE 9/11, Dick Morris and others look in to the real motivation for the making of Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. The major media won't be telling you about FahrenHYPE 9/11. Moore is their wonder boy and can't be criticized.

As they explain "The contract rider includes specifications on stage design, sound systems, lighting rigs, as well as an artist's wish list--from transportation and billing to dressing room accommodations and meals. In some cases, a promoter will refuse a demand (crossing out the request on the document), though stars usually get what they want, whether it's clean boxer shorts (Jane's Addiction), prune juice (Kansas), or an arrangement of tulips, roses, gardenias, and lilies (Janet Jackson)."

Check it out and see if your favorite band is included.

When you look inside the poll numbers there is information that may not support the term "uncommitted" or the end results they report.

First, at the very bottom of the story, CBS shows the poll participants in this table:

PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE AMONG DEBATE WATCHERS (Uncommitted Voters Who Watched Debate)

• KERRY


• Pre-Debate - 31%


• Post-Debate - 38%

• BUSH


• Pre-Debate - 19%


• Post-Debate - 31%

• SOMEONE ELSE


• Pre-Debate - 6%


• Post-Debate - 5%

• DEPENDS


• Pre-Debate - 46%


• Post-Debate - 26%

This table shows voters for Kerry in a 1.63 to 1 ratio to Bush voters before the debate began. No suprise the post-debate numbers favored Kerry also.

Second, what CBS ignores is the percentage of uncommitted voters picked up by each candidate. Kerry gains 7 points while Bush picks up 12 points. So, we have a poll that starts skewed in favor of Kerry yet showing Bush picking up a higher percent of the pre-debate categories "someone else" and "depends".

Third, when adding the Bush total with "someone else" and "depends" the result is 62%. This is almost a 2/3 majority that did not give Kerry the nod. Strange that CBS didn't mention this.

"In the past month, several phony reports have been circulated by right-leaning papers and websites -- making various false claims about the Communist Party position on the 2004 elections." Of course the 'false claims' are made by 'right'-leaners! The Democrats would never make false claims about their socialist brothers.

"Some have dabbled in dirty tricks to smear Kerry using the toxic mix of red-baiting and forgery. For instance, several websites have allowed a forged document to be posted that appears be an official CPUSA endorsement of Kerry, but it is in fact an incompetent counterfeit. They not only twisted our position around, they even got the name of our National Chair wrong (It's Sam Webb, not Marc Brodine (at least they didn't call him Jethro Bodine!))!" One does not need to 'twist around' the CPUSA's positions - The CPUSA is already 'twisted'! Here the CPUSA people seem to be more upset with getting the name of their national chair corrected then a so-called counterfeit document. To the CPUSA: Sue those dirty rotten forgers!

"The red-baiting forgeries are just another part of the Bush campaign which is running on lies and fear." Lies and fear? From the Bush campaign? Oh please Sam Webb, please, please save us from all that fear and all those lies "So, for the record, the CPUSA position on the 2004 elections:"

1. "The CPUSA is doing our utmost to help defeat Bush. We're deeply concerned about the great dangers of a second Bush term, as is the majority of the country and world and every major progressive organization. On a wide range of key issues (Social security, healthcare, reproductive rights, overtime pay, minimum wage, and much more), there are real, substantial differences between Bush and Kerry." Hmm . . . All the key points mentioned here are incorporated in the Democrat's platform as adopted at their convention in Boston. All major points mentioned in the Democrat's platform are in alignment with the CPUSA's platform as posted at the CPUSA website. Also, see item 3 below.

2. "The CPUSA does not endorse any candidate for President in the 2004 election. We do not endorse the candidates of other political parties. We have refrained from fielding our own candidate so as not to distract from the main effort of defeating Bush and the ultra-riight [sic] extremist agenda." They don't need to 'endorse' OR 'field' a candidate! The Democrats are doing CPUSA's work for them. Stop and think about this for a moment. The CPUSA has no dog in the race yet calls for 'defeating Bush.' Who is the only viable candidate running against President Bush? Could it be John Kerry? Isn't this really just a back door endorsement of Kerry? (A note to the Democrats - the correct answer is: "Yes it is!") If I was in charge of CPUSA I'd give every dime of my political action money to groups like the DNC, MoveOn.org, and directly to the Kerry campaign. This would insure the CPUSA's "message" is spread far and wide. The DNC and Kerry's campaign web pages could provide links to CPUSA's website to help people compare platforms.

3. "The CPUSA has it's own independent political platform for the 2004 elections. Though our platform goes much further towards full social justice than Kerry's, to win any of it requires defeating Bush. A movement that can break the Republican stranglehold on government could then win social progress on many fronts." Social Progress? Don't they really mean more government control over every aspect of American life? Social Justice? This would be better stated as social injustice. Just how would electing more liberal politicians and seating more unelected and unaccountable judges bring 'social justice'? - - - Silly me! how could I have forgot? The democrats, socialist, and communist folks all know better than me how to live my life. We all need these kind and benevolent liberals to protect us from ourselves. We just can't do it on our own.

Attorney David Euchner claims “It’s a clear case of misusing state funds, Arizona recognizes three political parties with ballot status: Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian. There are three candidates on the Arizona ballot, of the same three parties. A debate which included all three of those parties would be non-partisan and contribute to education and public information. But a debate that includes only two of the three candidates is a bi-partisan campaign commercial – and an illegal donation to partisan political associations.”

Current poll number have Thune 50%; Daschle 46%.

Inside the numbers the favorable / unfavorable ratings with Thune 58% / 37%; Daschle at 52% / 46%.

If these numbers hold up, come January South Dakota may have a new Senator.

"Welcome to the Sharp As A Marble coverage of the Presidential Debates 2004. This will be the first of three debates. The first debate will revolve around Foreign Policy, the second will revolve around quantum physics and rodeo terms, the third has yet to be decided."

Thank to Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons.

Also, see this photo over on "small dead animals."

Instapundit has found the Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.:

Sorry Kerry! The New York Post says no way. The Post reports that subway trains under the Garden were never stopped at any time during the convention. "We did not stop any trains," said Transit Authority spokesman Paul Fleuranges. "I will not guess or opine what he was talking about."

You can pick a name off their list or make up your own and add any comment you like.

"Tonight was not the only time over the last couple years I've found myself wishing for Tony Blair to act as a stand in for the President and defend the war in Iraq. Blair would have thrashed Kerry so viciously they'd still be vacuuming up pieces of him off the red carpet right now." T. Bevan on Real Clear Politics

As I read the transcript this morning I noticed Mr. Lehrer never onced asked Kerry what his policies would be if elected. The entire line of questions was about President Bush and his policies.

In his opening remarks Lehrer said "...[T]he specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions were composed by me ...". Good grief, Jim, couldn't you have come up with at least one question that would have forced Kerry to specifically outline what his policies would be and how they differ from those of President Bush?