Thursday, September 30, 2004


Larry Kudlow dispells the convenient myth that Kerry voted to authorize the war in order to give Bush negotiating clout in the U.N.

At the heart of the resolution is section 3, “Authorization for use of United States Armed Forces,” paragraph B: “(1) Reliance of the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against a continuing threat posed buy Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

In other words, this congressional authorization for war specifically and unambiguously says that further diplomacy will not adequately protect the United States against the threat posed by Iraq.

Not only are Kerry’s newfound qualifiers not included in this resolution, his so-called diplomatic qualifier is actually precluded by the resolution. This is precisely why Kerry’s latest anti-war political offensive leading up to this evening’s foreign-policy debate has no resonance with either registered or likely voters according to virtually every poll.

Dole was on CNN today explaining that a Senator has a tough time becoming President because they have a long voting record that becomes an issue in a campaign. Kerry's record shows him as a staunch liberal which he wants to run away from that. His one conservative vote for the war also has him running in the opposite direction. Kerry is trying to win this election by convincing people that nothing in his record is indicative to what kind of President he will be. Instead, you're supposed to fall for the packaging.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004


Nothing cheers me up like reading far left media. Just when I was convinced that the leftwing media was trying to sway the election to Kerry, L.A. Weekly is sure that Conservatives rule the airwaves.


Gary Bauer makes some decent points about Indian gaming as racial discrimination. But the article reminded me of something else even more interesting. A few months ago I played in a poker game with a guy who is as pale as Danny Elfman and he mentioned that he gets a share of Indian Casino money every month. He gets something like $14,000 a year for his 1/16th heritage. He lamented that his daughter won't get any money because she's too far removed. This was a good example of government do-gooderism. This was meant to help poor people on a reservation, not people who barely known their heritage. The guy could have passed for Swedish.

From Jay Nordlinger's Impromtus.

To the editor:

In today's article reporting the decapitation by terrorists in Iraq of American civilian Eugene Armstrong, the Times reporter wrote, "In the video of the beheading, an insurgent wearing a ski mask and surrounded by four men with assault rifles says the group is killing Mr. Armstrong because the American occupiers and the interim Iraqi government failed to meet the deadline. Much of the man's long speech is addressed to President Bush, who is called a dog at one point."

Please note that the news article omitted an important part of the story, which was the exact phrase uttered by the executioner at the time he cut Armstrong's throat and severed his head from his body. That phrase was, "Oh, you Christian dog, Bush, stop your arrogance."

The reference to President Bush by the terrorist strengthens the belief of many that we are involved in a war of civilizations. Fanatic Islamists believe that Christians and Jews who do not recognize the supremacy of Islam should die. That awful message is part of the story, and the Times erred in not carrying that quote, which many other papers did.

Lee Hamilton, co-chairman of the 9/11 commission, has said in describing Muslim terrorists, "They want to kill us." Why? Because those making up Western civilization and its ideas — which jihad is bent on destroying — are overwhelmingly Christians and Jews. I believe it is President Bush's faith that gives him the strength to stay with and implement the Bush Doctrine, which is, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

Your reporter refers to the spokesman for the murderers as an "insurgent." What would it take for the Times to call someone who has just participated in the beheading of an innocent civilian a terrorist? I am sure the public would like to know.

Koch gets it. Why can't the New York Times admit that terrorists want to kill Christians and Jews? There is such a thing as terrorists and there is such a thing as Christians. After so many years of belittling Christianity, is it impossible for the left to find any sympathy with the targets of these atacks?

The Justice Department says that a New York Times reporter tipped off an Islamic Terror-Funding Charity about an upcoming raid. If true, it gives a whole new meaning to the idea of being a world news organ. I can imagine that Ann Coulter will have something brash to say about this.

We're heading in a direction where the elite no longer see themselves as Americans but Earthlings. Better to have the permission of every two bit government in the U.N. then follow a moral path -- that incidently is all subjective really.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004


Votes or law enforcement?
Oakland police officers have stopped setting up roadblocks to check whether drivers are under the influence because of a rash of complaints from the Latino community and City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente.

The checkpoints, which allow officers to demand licenses and proof of insurance, are an effective way to get drunken drivers off Oakland's streets, city leaders agree. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.

"These checkpoints make people's lives miserable, not make them safer," said Jesus Rodriguez of Oakland Community Organizations, which filed most of the complaints about the checkpoints. "I've watched while the police have towed away cars (full) of groceries, leaving children crying on the sidewalk."

Why would elected officials worry about what illegals thought unless they were sure that illegals are casting votes in the upcoming election? Maybe the federal government needs to look into California's selective enforcement of these laws.

Saturday, September 25, 2004


Power Line, the Blogger who pointed out the Dan Rather documents as forgeries, dissects a very interesting AP article that contends that Bush is twisting Kerry's words. Interesting that no actual twisting of words is pointed out, except at the end where Kerry is shown twisting Bush's words.

On top of that, he finds that she is married to a former Clinton Administration official that's also a greeniac. And the AP retitled the article after Power Line readers voiced complaints.

David Brooks writes a sobering account of what happens when nations go the way of multilateralism.

And so we went the multilateral route.

Confronted with the murder of 50,000 in Sudan, we eschewed all that nasty old unilateralism, all that hegemonic, imperialist, go-it-alone, neocon, empire, coalition-of-the-coerced stuff. Our response to this crisis would be so exquisitely multilateral, meticulously consultative, collegially cooperative and ally-friendly that it would make John Kerry swoon and a million editorialists nod in sage approval.

And so we Americans mustered our outrage at the massacres in Darfur and went to the United Nations. And calls were issued and exhortations were made and platitudes spread like béarnaise. The great hum of diplomacy signaled that the global community was whirring into action.

Meanwhile helicopter gunships were strafing children in Darfur.

The resolution passed, and it was a good day for alliance-nurturing and burden-sharing - for the burden of doing nothing was shared equally by all. And we are by now used to the pattern. Every time there is an ongoing atrocity, we watch the world community go through the same series of stages: (1) shock and concern (2) gathering resolve (3) fruitless negotiation (4) pathetic inaction (5) shame and humiliation (6) steadfast vows to never let this happen again.

The "never again" always comes. But still, we have all agreed, this sad cycle is better than having some impromptu coalition of nations actually go in "unilaterally" and do something. That would lack legitimacy! Strain alliances! Menace international law! Threaten the multilateral ideal!

It's a pity about the poor dead people in Darfur. Their numbers are still rising, at 6,000 to 10,000 a month.

Friday, September 24, 2004


Jennifer Connelly is depressed because her husband has left her. She lies in bed. We see that the dishes are piling up in the kitchen and the mail floods the area inside the front door. Her mother calls and she pretends that her husband is asleep next to her. She can’t get out of bed. A knock on the door and the slimy man arrives with a sheriff’s deputy to kick her out the house. Why? She didn’t pay her business taxes. What business? Exactly, she doesn’t own one, but that doesn’t keep the government lawyers from booting her out anyway.

Ben Kingsley is a former Colonel in the Iranian military. He’s dressed well at his daughter’s wedding. In fact, he lives in a pretty upscale San Francisco apartment. But all isn’t what it seems. Next we see Kingsley working at his construction job at day and a convenience store at night. He marks in a book the cost of a candy bar as he eats it. We assume this is his dinner. Kingsley sees a tax auction notice for a house and we learn the relationship between these two characters that will carry us through the film. Kingsley has been living in the fancy apartment so that his daughter could land a wealthy husband and she has. Now Ben wants to find a good investment house to get back on his feet. Connelly’s home is it.

The drama of the movie comes from these two people and their rightful claim to the property. In the production film, the director said that he was drawn to the material because there was no antagonist. Both the main characters were heroes and the victim of circumstance. That’s true if you ignore the government’s role in the whole debacle and I think that people have grown to do just that.

The government has the ability to arbitrarily take away everything you have and they pay no price for doing so. Bureaucrats are shielded from the liability of their personal actions, and therefore worry not when they make mistakes. Their mistake becomes your problem that you have to resolve before they take action against you. When you solve their problems by jumping through their hoops there is no reward other than having your life back. When you fail to solve their problems you lose things. In the course of the movie, the damage done goes further than the deed to a property, but it all started with some punk with power that made a mistake.

House of Sand and Fog may unintentionally be a perfectly libertarian movie.

Classics professor, Victor Davis Hanson, spends much of his time writing about the war. His piece on the fall of Dan Rather and CBS is interesting because he has a lot more to say about elitism than what happened at one network.
The Big Three may deride the newsreaders at Fox as blond bimbos, but millions of Americans learned long ago that there are probably more liberals on Fox than conservatives on PBS, NPR, CBS, ABC, and NBC combined — and the former are honest about politics in a way the latter are not.


Those who profess to be Democrats are reaching historically low numbers. Many prominent Democrats are hypocrites: Feminists Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton were uncouth womanizers; the principled war critic Senator Byrd cut his teeth in the Klan; and the self-proclaimed moralists Senators Harkin and Kennedy have both been caught in postmodern problems with the truth. Being rich and a lawyer helps too. Most prominent Democrats and their enablers are either lawyers or multimillionaires, and now often both. Running a hardware store may explain your Republicanism; inheriting the profits from a chain of 1,000 hardware franchises will likely make you a new Democrat.

If we wonder why CBS is in trouble, why no one trusts the universities or the U.N., or why the Democrats may soon lose the Senate, the House, the presidency, and the Supreme Court, the answer has a lot to do with arrogant hypocrisy — the idea that how one lives need have nothing to do with what one professes, that idealistic rhetoric can provide psychological cover for privilege and preference, and that rules need not apply for those self-proclaimed as smarter and nicer than the rest of us. But none of us — none — get a pass simply because we claim that we are more moral, educated, or sophisticated than most.

Thursday, September 23, 2004


This David Broder column from last week was interesting. He found three people at a meeting in New Hampshire that have the media's prejudices at the top of mind. Two are servicemen back from Iraq and the third is the wife of a guy currently deployed. These people prefer Kerry.

Martha Jo McCarthy, whose husband is on National Guard duty in Iraq, was the first. "Everyone supports the troops," she said, "and I know they're doing a phenomenal job over there, not only fighting but building schools and digging wells. But supporting the troops has to mean something more than putting yellow-ribbon magnets on your car and praying they come home safely."

"I read the casualty Web site every day and ask myself, 'Do I feel safer here?' No. I don't think we can win this war through arrogance. Arrogance is different from strength. Strength requires wisdom, and I think we need to change from arrogance to solid strength."

Of course she doesn't feel safer. The barbarians could kill her husband any minute. Add that to the media making a stink over casualties and I'm sure this poor woman is frantic. She forgets we have men like her husband volunteer to risk their lives so that the barbarians won't kill us here.

She doesn't think we can win the war through arrogance. Strength minus wisdom equals arrogance. This sort of thing plays real well into Kerry's continual use of the word "strength" without any specific action attached. Somehow Kerry will be wise and therefore liked and further strong. Bush is disliked because he isn't wise and therefore arrogant. It's all just babble really. Strength is strength. Arrogance is all perspective. Would it have been arrogant for Britain and France to stop Hitler in 1934 before 50 million people lost their lives?
Scott Lewis, an Army Reserve sergeant home after 15 months in Iraq, spoke just a few words. "We need some new ideas in Iraq," he said. "People criticize John Kerry for changing his mind about Iraq, but I think that's actually a strength. And I'm a Republican."
Kerry has a great idea. It was Clinton's before him. Denounce terrorism when it comes and then otherwise ignore its rise.
Doug Madory, a recently discharged Air Force captain, was the last. He spent four months in Iraq, but most of his deployment was spent in Italy. He spoke of the way Italians embraced American servicemen in brotherhood after Sept. 11 and said, "President Bush squandered a good deal of that support all through Europe by rushing headlong into Iraq. George Bush should be held accountable. . . . People around the world are with us, but are not with George Bush."

What exactly were we gaining from that outpouring of emotion and what exactly did it cost us when we decided to take action?

A bully punches you in the nose and all your classmates gather around you and denounce the horrible act. You decide you've had it and want to beat up the bullies. Suddenly your classmates see you as less sympathtic. Did it matter what they thought either time? What other than ridding the school of bullies should matter to you? Oh, that's right, peer pressure. You shouldn't beat up the bullies because you won't be popular anymore. If you aren't popular you'll have to eat lunch with Poland and Slovakia. Only a President with self-confidence could do that sort of thing. Is that arrogant? Maybe to the people who need to get their self value from the opinion of others.

When John Kerry says we have alienated our friends we have done no such thing. Your friends always stick by you. We've alientated nations that had a self-interest in cozying up to us. Once that self-interest came into conflict with a bigger self-interest, they abandonned us. These kinds of situations help weed out who are real friends are.

The kinds of leaders that are willing to go it alone if neccessary are the ones that will get the real respect from nations looking for leadership. The leaders that plead with the world for their permission are the ones who will become insignificant.
Celsius 41.11

Check out this movie trailer.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004


The media seems to think our democracy is in peril because only half of the Americans eligible to vote do so. These same media observers never think our democracy is in peril when judges make arbitrary decisions that go against the wishes of the people. Instead of centering on how democratic institutions have been usurped they focus on superficial data like voter turnout.

People tend to vote in larger numbers when they perceive the country moving in the wrong direction. Abstaining usually means that people are pretty comfortable with the way things are or not so sure that a candidate is really going to change things significantly.

I saw a bumper sticker this morning that said, “Spread Democracy – VOTE.” Now, any fool can vote. And maybe that’s what they want. Fools voting on the foolish issues brought up by political candidates to avoid the real issues. Instead of imploring people to understand their government processes and how it effects them, they simply want people to open their eyes every two years and guess which candidate is going to be the most effective leader.

I’d like to eat dinner in an expensive restaurant with someone who is bothered that so few people vote. I would ask them this question – “Would you pay these same prices if I picked anyone here in the restaurant at random to head to the kitchen and cook your food or would you rather have a chef that went to some trouble to understand the finer points of cooking?” It doesn’t matter what the turnout rate is if many people vote for superficial reasons. In fact, superficial voting is much more dangerous to our democracy than abstention.

Many people will never bother with learning the kinds of issues that are important in any election. It’s our gift that they aren’t compelled to vote anyway. If they ever do take the time to become informed they will surely vote. Are there really a great many people who take trouble to understand the system who don’t bother to vote?

Why not let the rest of them enjoy the meal, but give the chefs some education first.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

In earlier conversations with USA TODAY, Burkett had identified the source of the documents as George Conn, a former Texas National Guard colleague who works for the U.S. Army in Europe. Burkett now says he made up the story about Conn's involvement to divert attention from himself and the woman he now says provided him with the documents. He told USA TODAY that he also lied to CBS.

Burkett now maintains that the source of the papers was Lucy Ramirez, who he says phoned him from Houston in March to offer the documents. USA TODAY has been unable to locate Ramirez.

When Burkett gave copies of the documents to USA TODAY, it was on the understanding that his identity would not be disclosed. USA TODAY honored that agreement until Burkett waived his confidentiality Monday.

"I didn't forge anything," Burkett said. "I didn't fake any documents. The only thing I've done here is to transfer documents from people I thought were real to people I thought were real. And that has been the limitation of my role. I may have been a patsy."

Burkett's own doubts about the authenticity of the memos and his inability to supply evidence to show that Ramirez exists also raise questions about his credibility. Burkett has strong anti-Bush views. He has posted comments on Internet Web sites critical of Bush and has chastised Sen. John Kerry's organization for what he called its inept campaign.

When the lie is found out, change it. Continue to change it all the way up to the election. No reason to think the media will question your future credibility as long as you are on the correct political side.

Oh and it doesn't hurt to play the victim. Clinton was the "victim" of a vast right wing conspiracy.
Burkett's emotions varied widely in the interviews. One session ended when Burkett suffered a violent seizure and collapsed in his chair. Earlier, he said he was coming forward now to explain what he had done and why to try to salvage his reputation. In the past week, Burkett was named by many news reports as the probable source of the documents.

"It's time," Burkett said. "I'm tired of me being the bad guy. I'm tired of losing everything we've got," a reference to his financial and health struggles since he left the Guard. Turning to his wife, Nicki, he said: "We've lost it all, baby. We've lost everything."

Piling higher and deeper.
He said Ramirez claimed to possess Killian's "correspondence file," which would prove Burkett's allegations that Bush had problems as a Guard fighter pilot.

Burkett said he arranged to get the documents during a trip to Houston for a livestock show in March. But instead of being met at the show by Ramirez, he was approached by a man who asked for Burkett, handed him an envelope and quickly left, Burkett recounted.

"I didn't even ask any questions," Burkett said. "Should I have? Yes. Maybe I was duped. I never really even considered that."

After he received the documents in Houston, Burkett said, he drove home, stopping on the way at a Kinko's shop in Waco to copy the six memos. In the parking lot outside, he said, he burned the ones he had been given and the envelope they were in. Ramirez was worried about leaving forensic evidence on them that might lead back to her, Burkett said, acknowledging that the story sounded fantastic.

"This is going to sound like some damn sci-fi movie," he said.

That would have a been a great line for Clinton when they discovered his DNA on Monica's dress.

The Dan Rather mess is best summed up here. Money Quote:

Rather admitted last night that CBS approached Burkett, instead of the other way around, and described him as someone who was "well-known" for having been trying for years "to discredit President Bush." Yet Rather last week insisted the documents came from "an unimpeachable source."

No word on whether the 200 odd SwiftBoat Vets have approached the kind of respectability that CBS News is willing to give one single Bush hater.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004


Liberals and the mainstream media have been recently pumping up this idea that these documents were planted by Republicans to discredit CBS News and John Kerry. CBS knows who gave them the documents. All they have to do is name the source and we can all decide for ourselves who he was working for.

The thing that's not being said by any of these media outlets is that this is not going to do CBS any harm. The public doesn't hold them up to some great standard. People are comfortable with the fact that the mainstream media has a bias and they expect it. This will just make it harder for them to keep a straight face as they speak of themselves as the "objective" media.

Further, we're going to see more of this kind of reporting in the future, not less. TV news has become pretty drab. This has given CBS more attention than they have had in years.

BLOOM COUNTRY ON RATHER. . . 20 Years ago -
And a Herblock political cartoon about Joe McCarthy could go for Dan Rather.
Jim Geraghty says what I said, but better.

Sunday, September 12, 2004


Next time you hear Democrats talk about how Republicans are poisoning the political system with negative campaigning and cynicism read over this article.

John Kerry suggested Saturday night that Republicans may try to keep black voters from casting their ballots to help President Bush win in November. "We are not going to stand by and allow another million African American votes to go uncounted in this election," the Democratic presidential nominee told the Congressional Black Caucus.

"We are not going to stand by and allow acts of voter suppression, and we're hearing those things again in this election."

Black vote supression is right up there with OJ was framed in the black community. No one has ever brought about any substantive evidence, but it certainly plays good to that crowd. Democrats are always wondering why race relations are so poor in this country. Could it be that Democrats are constantly poisining blacks with this sort of thing?

Another point. Ron Reagan said Bush's politics behind stem cell research plays to the most uneducated people in the country. Oh, but conspiracy theories like this must lift the debate to the firmament.

Dan Rather's defense of those forged National Guard documents brings to mind the Clinton White House response to anything negative. You continue to scream louder that you've done nothing wrong. As evidence piles on that makes your case harder to believe, you stand defiant. When finally, you're the only one left to believe it, you simply pretend you were a victim too. The story will then just disappear, you won't be held accountable, and your integrity won't be questioned the next time a similar thing happens.

Mark Steyn had a genius column that demonstrates that standards of credibility usually coincide with the liberal media's own prejudices. Just compare the Swiftboat Veterans with Barnes.
Unfortunately for CBS, Dan Rather's hairdresser sucks up so much of the budget that there was nothing left for any fact-checking, so the ''60 Minutes'' crew rushed on air with a damning National Guard memo conveniently called ''CYA'' that Bush's commanding officer had written to himself 32 years ago. ''This was too hot not to push,'' one producer told the American Spectator. Hundreds of living Swiftvets who've signed affidavits and are prepared to testify on camera -- that's way too cold to push; we'd want to fact-check that one thoroughly, till, say, midway through John Kerry's second term. But a handful of memos by one dead guy slipped to us by a Kerry campaign operative -- that meets ''basic standards'' and we gotta get it out there right away.

This should at least put this "objective" media nonsense to rest. Why don't the unreconstructed Great Society media liberals just admit that they're pushing an agenda? It's becoming the Emperor’s New Clothes.

Saturday, September 11, 2004

911 Remembered

When I see the footage again I want to inflict pain the same as I did that day. President Bush and our troops have done just that. If the price they had to pay was a tisk tisk from Europe then it was a small price. The idea of a President Gore trying to explain to the American people that the terrorists hate us because we didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty would have been depressing. In fact, that attitude would have Gore losing in the polls now to Republican Nominee, Rudy Guiliani.

Being an American is a great blessing. It's a shame that so many people take it for granted and that so many politicians would rather be citizens of the world.

Friday, September 10, 2004


Someone sent Trish this spam and I decided to post my own retort in italics.

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

We shared a common enemy with him in the 1980s. Would the author of this blame FDR for arming Joseph Stalin against Hitler? They Cheney did business with him is a myth. Getting Saddam was no diversion. Bush said shortly after 911 that Iraq was part of the axis of evil.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

It’s not that simple. We oppose Cuba because of the Monroe Doctrine. It’s the same reason we ran the communists out of Central America. America is opposed to communism everywhere, but prohibits it anywhere in this hemisphere.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest <>
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against
Iraq. <>
The reason the United States should get out of the United Nations is that they won’t enforce their own resolutions. We gave them a chance and they were left wanting. It’s a corrupt body that allowed Saddam to illegally trade oil for kickbacks. But the most dangerous thing about the U.N. is that it’s ruled by people who weren’t brought up in a free country and therefore have no respect for the individual. Libya is on their Human Right’s committee for crying out loud.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

These don’t really go together. The real question is why is it that Democrats only believe in personal choice when it comes to abortion. Why can’t we choose where we send our kids to school? Why can’t we invest our own social security money? Why can’t we keep more of our own money and make our own decisions? In short, Democrats only believe in choice when it comes to ending pregnancy. All other choices are left up to the government. <>

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

I don’t know about homosexuals, but even Bill doesn’t like Hillary.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

It was John Kerry that voted against the $80 billion to fund the troops in Iraq. What benefits have the Republicans slashed?

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

It’s not about whether they will have sex, but whether the school system is set up in a way to promote it. Condoms in schools are a lazy way for parents to get out of confronting their children about their behavior. Would you have sex with a person you knew to be infected with an STD because you had a condom? Why give our children condoms and pretend like we’re saving their lives when we’re only promoting the kind of behavior that puts them at risk?

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.

Which allies? The allies that were protecting their illegal oil deals with Saddam Hussein? <>

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

We’re providing health care to tortured and injured Iraqis. It’s a war zone. And why can Americans afford big houses, eating out, going to the movies, automobiles, vacations, and lots of others luxuries, but have no money to keep themselves healthy.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Republicans know that HMOs and insurance companies are trying to make a profit. It’s the profit motive that keeps prices low. When companies are trying to compete against one another they have to do things better to make money. If a company does something you don’t like you can cease doing business with them. A bureaucrat in Washington need not worry about how good his service to you is, because you have no choice but to deal with him if so ordered. Ironically, it’s the self-interest that companies have that insure that you will get what you want. The supposed altruism of government gives it to you they way they want.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

No one doubts the earth is getting warmer. Scientists have not proven that it’s a phenomenon caused by mankind. And if they could prove that mankind was the cause, they couldn’t prevent it without wiping out the human race. No one doubts that tobacco can lead to cancer. It’s just that Republicans think that if women can kill their own babies they might as well be allowed to have a cigarette.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Every congressman that voted for war had an opportunity to see the same evidence Bush was given by the CIA and British intelligence. And don’t forget, CIA Director, George Tenet was appointed by Bill Clinton. And speaking of Clinton, he was impeached for lying to a grand jury and trying to obstruct justice by coaxing witnesses to lie about what they knew. It doesn’t matter what the lies were about, but that the man in charge of executing the laws of the land would shirk his duties to for personal protection.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet. <>
Republicans have been in charge of Congress through the entire internet boom. They have not censored the Internet. In fact, they have kept it a tax free zone so that it could sustain growth. As far as gay marriage, if Republicans thought that the Constitution disallowed it, they wouldn't be seeking an amendment. It's pretty novel idea since Democrats get the constitution changed by appointing more liberals to the bench.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's driving record is none of our business.

I suppose this is witty. Bush was a fool for covering up his DUI. Hillary, on the other hand, was using the cattle futures market in order to take a bribe. In other words, one mishap was due to poor judgment, the other to corruption.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a <>
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

Even Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Bill Clinton support the stupid drug laws. They can hardly be considered Republican. Rush has yet to be charged with a crime and he has never called his own problem with painkillers a disease. He blames himself for being weak.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
This didn’t start with Ashcroft. California voted by referendum in the 1990s to legalize medicinal marijuana and Janet Reno said she would prosecute any who tried it.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what
Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

If Bush did something in the 1980s that would hamper his ability to be commnader in chief, then I’m ready to hear what it was. Clinton’s behavior in the 1960s was so peculiar at the time because he was our first hippy president.

Feel free to pass this on. If you don't send it to at least 10 other people,
we're likely to be stuck with Bush for 4 more years.

I couldn’t imagine paying fewer taxes and whipping the Islamo-fascists for another 4 years. When are we going to get back to giving out money for special interest complaint groups?

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.
No, they insist.

Thursday, September 09, 2004


Byron York lays out Bush's flight record in chronological order. He reveals some interesting things I haven't seen anywhere else. He then brings up an interesting point in the Kerry-Bush service feud.
The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.

In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”

Interesting because Kerry now says that whatever the official govt. records says about his medals have to be accepted as the last word, while Bush's honorable discharge from the same government is incomplete data.

On a ligher note, Scrappleface reports Kerry's Honorable Discharge.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004


After hearing the media decry or ignore the Swift Boat charges for weeks, they have no trouble cozying up to Democrats that have harsh allegations against President Bush. Dan Rather is going to interview the former Democrat Lt. Governor of Texas, Ben Barnes, about how he secured preferential treatment for W in the Texas National Guard. And though he admits that he never actually had any contact with the Bush family, they're guilty just the same of the favors granted.

What exactly are their standards of objectivity? Remember that the Swift Boat ads were discredited simply because pro-Bush individuals funded them. The media didn't make much of the fact that the Swifties have Republicans and Democrats within their ranks. Now here is an actual Democrat politician making claims and he's given a 60 minutes interview.

In essence, what you're supposed to know about Kerry's service is that it was beyond reproach. Don't ask to see his military records and don't believe people who have another story to tell. What you need to know about Bush's service is that it was a cake walk and he has a lot of skeletons that we need to uncover.

Oh, yeah and the way Clinton secured favors to stay out of the draft is not an issue of whether he'd be a good commander in chief. Get this straight, because if you go on one of these news interview shows and get the talking points wrong you'll be treated as a conspiracy theorist.

Drudge reports that Kerry was carrying around a shotgun that he voted to ban. Kerry was given the gift as he portrayed himself as a regular guy to some West Virginians.

Kerry campaign responds:
"Let's do some straight shooting on the gun issue. John Kerry's opponents are worried because he's the first Democratic candidate to support Second Amendment gun rights and to be an avid hunter.

"The facts are clear. John Kerry opposes banning this gun and always will. John Kerry was proud to receive this union-made gun at the United Mine Workers Labor Day picnic in Racine, West Virginia.

Who does he think he is fooling?

Monday, September 06, 2004


The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.

An interesting question is whether a bin Laden capture is good for the president's re-election. I don't think it does.

Capturing bin Laden this close to the election will bring cries from some liberals that Bush timed it purposefully. And although the press didn't see any coincidence in Clinton's bombing of Iraq during the impeachment vote, they will keep this charge in the public mind not by endorsing it, but by asking conservatives over and over again whether voters should have reason to wonder. The conservatives will say that it's nonsense, but the purpose will be met.

While some liberals decry a setup, other liberals will rally that the war on terror is now a sham, because the only real harmful terrorist has been captured. The long national nightmare is over they will explain. Now it will be time to patch those frayed relations with the world and focus on all of those domestic problems that have been ignored in the last 4 years while Bush prosecuted an "unnecessary" war. The media will help to spread this talking point as well.

Now how much either charge would hurt Bush is debatable, but the media has a way of directing the attention where they want the attention. For instance, the Swift Boat Vets are given no credibility simply because someone who likes Bush gave them money for their ads. They don't mind giving air time to people who doubt Bush's National Guard service record, but they don't want Kerry questioned in the same way. Even if the accusers are as highly decorated as the accused.

The only way I see the capture of bin Laden helping the president is if it happens a few days before the election. The capture will leave Bush as the man of the hour, before the public has an opportunity to filter in the media's conventional wisdom. The revelation on the Friday before the 2000 election that Bush had been arrested for drunken driving didn't give Republicans enough time to counter and it helped Gore close the gap.

Saturday, September 04, 2004


 Bush/Cheney Lead Kerry/Edwards 54 to 43 Percent; in a Three-Way Trial Heat,

Bush/Cheney Receive 13-Point Margin Bounce

Bush Approval Rating Rises to 52 Percent; First Time Above 50 Since January;
Majority (53%) Wants to See Him Re-Elected-Highest Since May 2003

27 Percent of Registered Voters Think Bush/Cheney Campaign Is Behind Swift
Boat Ads

Friday, September 03, 2004


From Jay Nordlinger:
You may want to hear a little more from Zell Miller — this is from the Imus radio program: "A 73-year-old man doesn't have any business coming to New York and getting involved in all this stuff. He ought to stay down in Young Harris with his two yellow labs, Gus and Woodrow, and let the world go by, I guess. I had just been holding one" — just been holding one! — "for Chris Matthews ever since I saw him browbeat Michelle Malkin on his show that night. He wouldn't let that little 5'2", 95-pound girl say a word, and I just said to myself, 'If he ever gets into my face like that, I'm gonna pop him.'"

I missed the Zell tirade on Mathews. I tuned in at the very end where Zell was wrapping up and Mathews spent the rest of the night stunned at what happened. Mathews kept saying, "Maybe he misunderstood my question." Now it all makes sense. Zell was thinking about what happened to Michelle Malkin. I posted her experience on August 20th.

Nordlinger points out that David Gergen among others have called Miller's adress a "hate speech." If you hate to see your country return to the appeasement of the 1990s, I guess it was. How would those Democrats upset with Zell reconcile it with the stuff that Sen. Robert Byrd has been saying (in the same accent) about Bush these last two years?

It also gives me a big smile to hear all those people who saw Jim Jeffords defection as growth and maturity, treat Miller as some sort of turncoat.

FOLLOW-UP: Andrew McCarthy does a great job of breaking down the reality of the Mathews/Miller confrontation.
Matthews’s attack-dog line of questioning was entirely reasonable . . . for a partisan. If this had truly been an objective news program, however, Matthews would have been sitting in a debater’s seat with a different, neutral anchor between him and Miller. Then, it would have been fine for him to press Miller — who was more than up to responding — because Matthews would have then been reciprocally grilled on his own baggage, not fraudulently portrayed as if he didn’t have any. But Matthews, in the shameless mainstream network practice, was slated as both partisan and anchor, prosecutor and judge. When he didn’t like Miller’s answers, he stepped on them. He snidely suggested that Miller had attacked Kerry’s love of country, though Miller had insisted — and the rhetoric bears out — that he was challenging Kerry’s judgment, not his patriotism.

Thursday, September 02, 2004


E Head sent this interesting article about the kind of terrorists we face. It's hard to quote a short portion because the article builds on itseld nicely. But here's the opening idea.
It seems reasonable that if Islamist terror organizations had a couple thousand potential suicide bombers at their disposal they would launch them. Just think of what Hamas could do with even 500. If they started launching 100 a day against Israel for five days they could bring the Israeli government to its knees within a week. Since there is no reason to believe they have any moral constraints preventing them from conceiving such an operation, it seems to follow that the pool of potential suicide-bombers is pretty shallow. Al Qaeda may have a lot of emotional support in the Muslim world, but that does not seem to be translating into hundreds of recruits prepared to launch themselves on one-way missions.