The Case Against Kerry

In Case You Needed another Reason to Oppose Kerry, Here are Ten
from HUMAN EVENTS Weekly Wrap-Up
October 29, 2004

"The Case Against Kerry"

*REASON #1: Kerry Will Raise Taxes
He has never met a tax he didn't like:
http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=4952

*REASON #2: Kerry Will Massively Increase Spending Breaking the bank with $226 billion in new spending in the first year:
http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=4953

*REASON #3: Kerry Opposed a Strong National Defense Fighting a "bully's show of force" by disarming America:
http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=4957

*REASON #4: Kerry Tried to Slash U.S. Intelligence Is this really the best way to prevent another terrorist attack?:
http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=4958

*REASON #5: Kerry is a Pro-Abortion Extremist Kerry comes through on his pledges to pro-abortion activists:
http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=4973

*REASON #6: Kerry Won't Defend Traditional Marriage "If we achieve civil unions...":
http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=5004

*REASON #7: Kerry, a Radical Environmentalist, Blocks Domestic Energy Production Good luck paying for energy with this Green Leftist in office:
http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=5006

*REASON #8: Kerry Would Restrict 2nd Amendment Rights "I think you ought to tax all ammunition more, personally. I think you ought to tax guns.":
http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=5009

*REASON #9: Kerry Will Pack the Court With Activist Justices Opposes constructionists; "Prepared to filibuster" any pro-life nominees:
http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=5010

*REASON #10: Kerry is Senator Flip Flop
For. Against. For. Against. He's just too nuanced, that all...:
http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=5024

Politcizing the Latests OBL Tapes

The Osama Litmus Test
By David Brooks
The New Times
Published October 30, 2004

The nuisance is back!

Remember when John Kerry told Matt Bai of The Times Magazine that he wanted to reduce the terrorists to a nuisance? Kerry vowed to mitigate the problem of terrorism until it became another regrettable and tolerable fact of life, like gambling, organized crime and prostitution.

That was the interview in which he said Sept. 11 "didn't change me much at all." He said it confirmed in him a sense of urgency, "of doing the things we thought we needed to be doing."

Well, the Osama bin Laden we saw last night was not a problem that needs to be mitigated. He was not the leader of a movement that can be reduced to a nuisance.

What we saw last night was revolting. I suspect that more than anything else, he reminded everyone of the moral indignation we all felt on and after Sept. 11.

Here was this monster who killed 3,000 of our fellows showing up on our TV screens, trying to insert himself into our election, trying to lecture us on who is lying and who is telling the truth. Here was this villain traipsing through his own propaganda spiel with copycat Michael Moore rhetoric about George Bush in the schoolroom, and Jeb Bush and the 2000 Florida election.

Here was this deranged killer spreading absurd theories about the American monarchy and threatening to murder more of us unless we do what he says.

One felt all the old emotions. Who does he think he is, and who does he think we are?

One of the crucial issues of this election is, Which candidate fundamentally gets the evil represented by this man? Which of these two guys understands it deep in his gut - not just in his brain or in his policy statements, but who feels it so deep in his soul that it consumes him?

It's quite clear from the polls that most Americans fundamentally think Bush does get this. Last March, Americans preferred Bush over Kerry in fighting terrorism by 60 percent to 33 percent, according to the Gallup Poll. Now, after a furious campaign and months of criticism, that number is unchanged. Bush is untouched on this issue.

Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him.

Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political.

On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer."

Even in this shocking moment, this echo of Sept. 11, Kerry saw his political opportunities and he took 'em. There's such a thing as being so nakedly ambitious that you offend the people you hope to impress.

But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."

But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition.

This is why Kerry is not cleaning Bush's clock in this election. Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything. Since he joined the Senate, what cause has he taken a political risk for? Has he devoted himself selflessly and passionately to any movement larger than himself?

We are revealed by what we hate. When it comes to Osama bin Laden, Kerry hasn't revealed whatever it is that lies inside.

E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Politicizing the bin Laden Tape
The Kerry campaign's extraordinary response to the newly released tape from al Qaeda's leader.
by William Kristol and Stephen F. Hayes
The Daily Standard
10/29/2004 9:30:00 PM

IN THEIR FORMAL STATEMENTS reacting to the new videotape from Osama bin Laden, both President Bush and John Kerry were statesmanlike. Each man called for Americans to unite against terror and vowed to defeat bin Laden and al Qaeda.

The Bush campaign wisely avoided going political. But the Kerry campaign--in comments from a top adviser and the candidate himself--did not.

Kerry gave what appear to be his first extemporaneous comments about the tape in a previously scheduled satellite interview with Kathy Mykleby, a veteran anchor with WISN TV in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

"I find myself in the unexpected position of giving you breaking news at this moment because I don't know if you're aware of the Al-Jazeera tape that has just aired with Osama bin Laden admitting to the 9-11 attacks for the first time. What is your reaction?" Mykleby asked.

"My reaction," said Kerry, "is that all of us in this country are completely united. Democrat, Republican--there's no such thing. There's just Americans, and we are united in hunting down and capturing or killing those who conducted behind that raid. We always knew it was Osama bin Laden."

Mykleby followed up: "What do you think impact of this videotape might have on our election?"

"I don't think any," Kerry answered. "I think Americans understand we are living in a dangerous age." So far, so good.

But Kerry finally couldn't resist politicizing the tape: "I am prepared to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush," he added.

Kerry's comment was unfortunate, and mild compared to those made later in the day by his senior foreign policy adviser, Richard Holbrooke. In an appearance on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Holbrooke, who has rejected the notion that we are in a "war on terror," said this:

"The U.S. is determined to defeat al Qaeda and its allies and the war against their use of terrorist tactics."

Holbrooke then went on the attack. "The tape shows that he's still around. We should have captured him and we haven't. And the other thing it shows, illustrates a key point which is that Senator Kerry in his relentless pursuit of terrorism is going to be very aggressive. The tape doesn't show that but Senator Kerry's comments continually--his experience shows that Osama bin Laden will draw no comfort from a Kerry presidency."

When Blitzer pointed out that President Bush scores better in all of the recent polling questions on who would handle the war on terror, Holbrooke offered a brief word of praise, and then resumed his attack. "I think that to the extent that that polling data is correct, it stems from President Bush's very effective activities right after 9/11. But the point here about what we've just seen [the bin Laden tape] is that Senator Kerry has said repeatedly that we should've closed the door on bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountains on the Afghan/Pakistan border in December '01 and January 2002. And had we done so--had we not subcontracted the war against al Qaeda to the warlords in the area, many of whom had been in cahoots with bin Laden until a few weeks earlier, we might have captured him. Now, he is able to send out this vicious threat through al Jazeera and everyone else in the world."

Blitzer: "Are you concerned though that when Americans see this videotape--it'll be all over the news media as you can imagine, not only today but in the days to come--they will be reminded of what happened on 9/11 and they'll say, 'You know what, I'd better vote for Bush because he's tougher in dealing with al Qaeda than Kerry.'"

Said Holbrooke: "I don't think so. I think it also raises a much deeper question: How can this grotesque mass murderer be out there on worldwide television more than three years after 9/11?"

Holbrooke punctuated the next sentence with exasperated pauses between his words. "Why--haven't--we--captured--him--if the Bush administration was going to be so effective in the war on terror? President Bush said in the debates that he's rolled up 75 percent of al Qaeda. Well, it sure doesn't sound like it now."

When Blitzer pointed out that Bush claimed to have captured or killed 75 percent of "al Qaeda leadership," Holbrooke scoffed. "He did not say 'leadership' at all. And how does he know? And as Secretary Rumsfeld himself said in that leaked memo, 'Aren't we creating more terrorists than we're killing?'"

Here, by way of contrast, was President Bush's reaction: "Let me make this very clear," Bush said in Toledo, Ohio. "Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country. I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this."

Is there any development in the war on terror, however grave, that the Kerry campaign won't try to exploit for partisan advantage?

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.

Tax Hypocrisy - By Richard W. Rahn, Washington Times

Note: There is a move to go to a sales tax, repeal the Federal Income Tax and get rid of the IRS. This is called the Fair Tax Plan. Under the present proposal, the rate is set at 23% at the retail level, which I think is a bit high. (If I were running for a legislative office my tax plank would be "If 10% is good enough for God, then it's good enough for the IRS.") However, there is a good argument in this editorial for such a fair tax. Such a tax would place the burden on people's activity in the market, rather than taking the fruits of their labor and sweat. More information on the plan can be found at www.fairtax.org. Of course, the editorial also points out the hypocrisy of John F'ing Skerry and his complete lack of understanding of capitalism and the U.S. economy. As indicated, his plan would punish the people trying to become rich. Patriot Mark

October 27, 2004

Sen. John Kerry keeps telling us that "the rich" need to pay more in taxes. The senator and his wife are among the 400 richest Americans. He says that he has "a plan to tax the rich." Under the senator's tax plan, what percentage of the Kerrys' income do you think they would pay the IRS? (a) 50 percent, (b) 40 percent, (c) 30 percent, (d)15 percent. The correct answer is (d) 15 percent.

According to an analysis by the Argus Group, a well respected tax law and economics firm, the Kerrys' average tax rate would only increase by 1.8 percentage points to 15.2 percent under the senator's plan, while many small business people would see their average rate rise by 4.0 percentage points, resulting in effective rates as high as 35 to 40 percent, including certain deduction phase-outs.

Last year, Mr. Kerry and his wife paid only 13.4 percent of their declared $5.5 million income in federal taxes. President and Mrs. Bush, whose income was only 15 percent of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate more than twice as high, 27.7 percent. Despite all of the senator's bombast about the rich paying more, under his plan he and Mrs. Kerry would still pay a lower average rate than most middle-income Americans.

As Mr. Kerry's own tax situation shows, he is not proposing increased taxes on those who are already rich — through inheritance, hard work, luck or marrying a rich woman — but is proposing increasing taxes on those who are trying to become rich. His plan proposes to make it more difficult for people to join his club of the very wealthy. If you are already rich, you can tax shelter much of your income, but if you have little in the way of assets, it is almost impossible to shelter your earnings from taxes.

Mr. Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, also shares this tax hypocrisy. Last year, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards paid an average tax rate of only 5.1 percent on their reported $434,000 of income, or less than one-third of what the average taxpayer pays.

Estimates of the Kerrys' worth range from a low of $700 million to a high of 3.2 billion dollars. How much income would you expect a billion dollars to produce? The Kerrys reported $5 million in income, which is a return of only about one-half of 1 percent, far lower than the return on even U.S. government securities. Obviously, the public is not given the full story on the Kerrys' assets and income. Mrs. Kerry did not release her full returns. For instance, she did not release the part of the return that notes whether or not she has offshore accounts. (Note: It is both legal and proper for her to have such accounts, but her husband has called others with such accounts unpatriotic. This may explain why Mrs. Kerry did not release this information.)

The obvious questions to Mr. Kerry are: How does he justify proposing a tax rate for himself that is less than half of what he expects many young professionals and small business people to pay, many of whom may have little or no assets? How can he accuse others of not paying their fair share in taxes, when he refuses to give full details about his own family financial situation? Does he really expect us to believe his family only earned $5 million on a billion dollars of assets last year?

It is noteworthy that not one of the debate moderators or reporters like Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" who have interviewed Mr. Kerry have asked him about the obvious hypocrisy of his tax positions. This fact is another indication that the liberal media establishment is part of the hypocrisy and cover-up.

According to the economic literature, the 15 percent tax rate Mr. Kerry has proposed for his family is probably fairly close to the long-run revenue maximizing rate for the personal income tax. If it is good enough for the Kerry family, it ought to be good enough for the rest of us. A 15 percent maximum rate for all tax payers would stimulate an additional supply of labor and capital, which would result in much higher economic growth and lower unemployment.

Republicans should use the opportunity of the Kerry hypocrisy to advocate a 15 percent (Kerry rate) maximum tax rate for everyone. There are two ways of reaching the goal. The first approach would be to establish a 15 percent flat tax rate on all income (except for lower rates or exclusions for low-income people). The second approach would be to allow taxpayers to exclude a portion of their income if they save it in a tax deferred account like an IRA, or health care savings account, etc. (Under this approach, if we had a nominal maximum tax rate of 39.6 percent — as advocated by Mr. Kerry — but wanted to allow even the non-rich to legally enjoy an effective tax rate of 15 percent, we would need to allow people to place up to 62 percent of their income in tax deferred accounts.)

Ironically, the Kerry hypocrisy might well lead us to what is known by economists as the consumed income tax, whereby savings and investment are excluded from income and only consumption is taxed. Economic efficiency, growth and employment would be enhanced because people would only be taxed on what they take out of the economy rather than what they put into it. Let's demand the 15 percent Kerry max tax for everyone.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.

Funny SKerry Campaign Ad

Note: This is a very clever and funny ad pointing out the waffling of John F'ing SKerry. The link below will take you to the site where you can view the ad. Patriot Mark

Please take 30 seconds and look at this latest ClubforGrowth.net TV ad -- which Bill O’Reilly featured on his show on Wednesday night and described as "very funny!"

The ClubforGrowth.net has teamed up with David Zucker (the director of such movie hits as "Airplane" and "Naked Gun") to produce what I think could be the most explosive, influential, and memorable TV ad of the campaign season.

Voters are getting sick of sledge hammer attack ads, but we think this humorous ad is one of the best ways of getting our message out to voters. And there’s still a week to go to spread the ad’s message.

Click here to view the ad:

http://www.clubforgrowth.net/track.php?id=sg0

Chicago Tribune Endorses Bush

NOTE: This was forwarded by a friend of mine, who served 20 years in the USAF with this comment - "Hell finally has frozen over. The Trib never before has failed to endorse the Democrat candidate. This is a powerful, thought-provoking editorial."

EDITORIAL

George W. Bush for president
Published October 17, 2004

One by one, Americans typically settle on a presidential candidate after weighing his, and his rival's, views on the mosaic of issues that each of us finds important.

Some years, though, force vectors we didn't anticipate turn some of our usual priorities--our pet causes, our own economic interest--into narcissistic luxuries. As Election Day nears, the new force vectors drive our decision-making.

This is one of those years--distinct in ways best framed by Sen. John McCain, perhaps this country's most broadly respected politician. Seven weeks ago, McCain looked with chilling calm into TV cameras and told Americans, with our rich diversity of clashing worldviews, what is at stake for every one of us in the first presidential election since Sept. 11 of 2001:

"So it is, whether we wished it or not, that we have come to the test of our generation, to our rendezvous with destiny. ... All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility. All other responsibilities come second." If we waver, McCain said, "we will fail the one mission no American generation has ever failed--to provide to our children a stronger, better country than the one we were blessed to inherit."

This year, each of us has the privilege of choosing between two major-party candidates whose integrity, intentions and abilities are exemplary.

One of those candidates, Sen. John Kerry, embraces an ongoing struggle against murderous terrorists, although with limited U.S. entanglements overseas. The other candidate, President George W. Bush, talks more freely about what is at risk for this country: the cold-eyed possibility that fresh attacks no better coordinated than those of Sept. 11--but with far deadlier weapons--could ravage American metropolises. Bush, then, embraces a bolder struggle not only with those who sow terror, but also with rogue governments that harbor, finance or arm them.

This was a radical strategy when the president articulated it in 2001, even as dust carrying the DNA of innocents wafted up from ground zero. And it is the unambiguous strategy that, as this page repeatedly has contended, is most likely to deliver the more secure future that John McCain wishes for our children.

A President Kerry certainly would punish those who want us dead. As he pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party's nomination: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods. As he stated in his National Security Strategy in 2002: "The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our enemies strike first."

Bush's sense of a president's duty to defend America is wider in scope than Kerry's, more ambitious in its tactics, more prone, frankly, to yield both casualties and lasting results. This is the stark difference on which American voters should choose a president.

There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons--apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency--to recommend either of these two good candidates.

But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age--a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate--the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States. (e.s.)

Bush, his critics say, displays an arrogance that turns friends into foes. Spurned at the United Nations by "Old Europe"--France, Germany, Russia--he was too long in admitting he wanted their help in a war. He needs to acknowledge that his country's future interests are best served by fixing frayed friendships. And if re-elected, he needs to accomplish that goal.

But that is not the whole story. Consider:

Bush has nurtured newer alliances with many nations such as Poland, Romania and Ukraine (combined population, close to 110 million) that want more than to be America's friends: Having seized their liberty from tyrants, they are determined now to be on the right side of history.

Kerry is an internationalist, a man of conspicuous intellect. He is a keen student of world affairs and their impact at home.

But that is not the whole story. Consider:

On the most crucial issue of our time, Kerry has serially dodged for political advantage. Through much of the 2004 election cycle, he used his status as a war hero as an excuse not to have a coherent position on America's national security. Even now, when Kerry grasps a microphone, it can be difficult to fathom who is speaking--the war hero, or the anti-war hero.

Kerry displays great faith in diplomacy as the way to solve virtually all problems. Diplomatic solutions should always be the goal. Yet that principle would be more compelling if the world had a better record of confronting true crises, whether proffered by the nuclear-crazed ayatollahs of Iran, the dark eccentrics of North Korea, the genocidal murderers of villagers in Sudan--or the Butcher of Baghdad.

In each of these cases, Bush has pursued multilateral strategies. In Iraq, when the UN refused to enforce its 17th stern resolution--the more we learn about the UN's corrupt Oil-for-Food program, the more it's clear the fix was in--Bush acted. He thus reminded many of the world's governments why they dislike conservative and stubborn U.S. presidents (see Reagan, Ronald).

Bush has scored a great success in Afghanistan--not only by ousting the Tailbone regime and nurturing a new democracy, but also by ignoring the chronic doubters who said a war there would be a quagmire. He and his administration provoked Libya to surrender its weapons program, turned Pakistan into an ally against terrorists (something Bill Clinton's diplomats couldn't do) and helped shut down A.Q. Khan, the world's most menacing rogue nuclear proliferator.

Many of these cross-currents in Bush's and Kerry's worldviews collide in Iraq. Bush arguably invaded with too few allies and not enough troops. He will go to his tomb defending his reliance on intelligence from agencies around the globe that turned out to be wrong. And he has refused to admit any errors.

Kerry, though, has lost his way. The now-professed anti-war candidate says he still would vote to authorize the war he didn't vote to finance. He used the presidential debates to telegraph a policy of withdrawal. His Iraq plan essentially is Bush's plan. All of which perplexes many.

Worse, it plainly perplexes Kerry. ("I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat," he said Oct. 8, adding that Bush was preoccupied with Iraq, "where there wasn't a threat.") What's not debatable is that Kerry did nothing to oppose White House policy on Iraq until he trailed the dovish Howard Dean in the race for his party's nomination. Also haunting Kerry: his Senate vote against the Persian Gulf war--driven by faith that, yes, more diplomacy could end Saddam Hussein's rape of Kuwait.

On domestic issues, the choice is also clear. In critical areas such as public education and health care, Bush's emphasis is on greater competition. His No Child Left Behind Act has flaws, but its requirements have created a new climate of expectation and accountability. On both of these important fronts, but especially with his expensive health-care plan, Kerry primarily sees a need to raise and spend more money.

The failure of either candidate to offer spending and taxation proposals that remotely approach balancing the federal budget is an embarrassment to both. The non-partisan Concord Coalition calculates the 10-year impact of Bush's proposals as a negative $1.33 trillion; the impact of Kerry's is a nearly identical $1.27 trillion. Kerry correctly cites the disturbingly expensive legacy of Bush's tax cuts--while, in the same breath, promising new tax cuts of his own.

This is a genre of American fiction that Bush, if he is re-elected, cannot perpetuate. To Bush's credit, his tax policies have had the aggregate effect of pushing Americans toward more savings and investment--the capital with which the world's strongest economy generates jobs. But he has not shown the necessary discipline on discretionary spending. Two particularly egregious examples: Medicare prescription drug coverage and an enormously expensive farm subsidy bill, both signed by Bush.

This country's paramount issue, though, remains the threat to its national security.

John Kerry has been a discerning critic of where Bush has erred. But Kerry's message--a more restrained assault on global threats, earnest comfort with the international community's noble inaction--suggests what many voters sense: After 20 years in the Senate, the moral certitude Kerry once displayed has evaporated. There is no landmark Kennedy-Kerry Education Act, no Kerry-Frist Health Bill. Today's Kerry is more about plans and process than solutions. He is better suited to analysis than to action. He has not delivered a compelling blueprint for change.

For three years, Bush has kept Americans, and their government, focused--effectively--on this nation's security. The experience, dating from Sept. 11, 2001, has readied him for the next four years, a period that could prove as pivotal in this nation's history as were the four years of World War II.

That demonstrated ability, and that crucible of experience, argue for the re-election of President George W. Bush. He has the steadfastness, and the strength, to execute the one mission no American generation has ever failed.

Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

Commentary Worth Reading

'Tax cuts for the rich!' - Thomas Sowell http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041022.shtml

With a wink and a nod - David Limbaugh http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20041022.shtml

Kerry's false plan for peace - Charles Krauthammer http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20041022.shtml

Feeling the Draft - Oliver North http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20041022.shtml

Manly Anger? [Ann Coulter Column] - David Allen Jared
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/oct388.html

Racism vs. responsibility - George Will http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20041021.shtml

A healthier choice - Cal Thomas http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20041021.shtml
Note: I heard the woman discussed in this article on the radio, discussing the problem. Under the present Canadian system, Clinton's heart by-pass surgery would have taken 5+ WEEKS to occur, versus the 4 DAYS it actually took under our present system. No wonder Canadians come to the U.S. to have surgery and other specialized procedures done!

The Florida lie - Rich Lowry http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20041021.shtml
Note: I saw Peter Kirsanow on Fox News last week. He emphatically stated that there was no disenfranchisement. He also stated that the majority of the people on the felon list were white. Even though the Federal Election Commission found NO evidence of disenfranchisement, we have not heard much about this in the partisan mainstream press, have we? This further reinforces my belief that when a liberal accuses you of doing something, they are accusing you to deflect scrutiny on them. If you are accused by a liberal, it usually means that the liberal accuser is doing the very thing they accuse you of doing. Most of the voter problems, the FEC found, were in DemocRAT controlled precincts! Very interesting.

Battlefields are no place for political correctness - By Zell Miller

What if today's reporters had covered the Marines landing on Iwo Jima, a small island in the far away Pacific Ocean, in the same way they're covering the war in Iraq? Here's how it might have looked:

DAY 1: With the aid of satellite technology, Cutie Cudley interviews Marine Pfc. John Doe, who earlier came ashore with 30,000 other Marines.
Cutie: "John, we have been told by the administration that this island has great strategic importance because if you're successful, it could become a fueling stop for our bombers on the way to Japan. But, as you know, we can't be sure this is the truth. What do you think?"
Pfc. Doe: "Well, I've been pinned down by enemy fire almost ever since I got here and have had a couple of buddies killed right beside me. I'm a Marine and I go where they send me. One thing's for sure, they are putting up a fight not to give up this island."
Cutie: "Our military analysts tell us that the Japanese are holed up in caves and miles of connecting tunnels they've built over the years. How will you ever get them out?"
Pfc. Doe: "With flame throwers, ma'am."
Cutie (incredulously): "Flame throwers? You'll burn them alive?"
Pfc. Doe: "Yes ma'am, we'll fry their asses. Excuse me, I shouldn't have said that on TV."
Cutie (audible gasp): "How horrible!"
Pfc. Doe (obviously wanting to move on): "We're at war ma'am."(A Marine sergeant watching near by yells, "Ask her what does she want usto do - sing to them, 'Come out, come out, wherever you are. Pretty please.' "
Cutie: "Pfc. Doe, what's that mountain in the background? Is that the one they say is impregnable?"
Pfc. Doe: "I don't know what that word means, ma'am, but that's Mt. Suribachi, and we're going to put a flag right up on top of it just as soon as we can. I gotta go."
Cutie to camera: "No one has yet really confirmed why this particular battle in this particular place is even being waged. Already, on the first day, at least 500 Marines have been killed and a thousand wounded. For this? (Camera pans to a map with a speck of an island in the Pacific. Then a close up of nothing but black volcanic ash). For this? For this?"(Cutie's sweet voice becomes more strident as it fades out.)

DAY 2: At 7 a.m., Cutie's morning show opens with a shot of hundreds of dead bodies bobbing in the water's edge. Others are piled on top of each other on shore. After a few seconds, one can see Marines digging graves to bury the dead.
Cutie: "There is no way the Marines could have expected this. Someone got it all wrong. No one predicted this. This has been a horrible 24 hours for our country. This is a slaughterhouse. After all this fighting, Marines control only about a mile and a half of beach and the casualties are now over 3,500 and rising rapidly. We'd like to know what you think. Call the number on the bottom of the screen. Give us your opinions on these three questions: 1. Were the Marines properly trained? 2. Is this nothing of an island worth all these lives? 3. Has the president once again misled the American people?" After the break, we'll ask our own Democratic and Republican analysts, both shouting at the same time, of course, what they have to yell about all this. It should make for a very shrill, provocative morning.
"But before we leave this horrible - some will say needless - scene, let us give you one more look at this Godforsaken place where these young Americans are dying. Volcanic ash, cold, wet miserable Marines just thankful to be alive. And still no flag that we had been promised on that mountain. Things have gone from bad to worse in this obviously misguided military operation. One thing is certain, there should be and there will be a high-partisan - make that bi-partisan - congressional inquiry into this."

DAY 3: Cutie: "Marines continue to be locked in a life-or-death struggle over this worthless piece of real estate in the middle of the Pacific. The word 'quagmire' is being used in the U.S. Senate, a body very familiar with quagmires. Senator Blowhard has called it 'a colossal military blunder.' And Senator Bombast maintains it was a fraudulent scheme hatched while the president was on his sixth vacation at the Little White House in Georgia. The recently organized Senate Squeakers Group may ask for the president to resign. They maintain that politics should not stop at the waters edge in times of war, calling that tradition an old-fashioned idea that has no place in the new century of dysfunctional government. Over forty special interest groups concurred and all issued identical news releases."
"We now turn to our political analyst, James Crankville."
(James): "Cutie, the overnight poll numbers have hit this president right between the eyes. Nationwide, an overwhelming 98 percent said that if possible, they would like to see this country fight a war without a single American casualty. That is nearly the same percentage we saw three days ago when the American public said they would be in favor of going to war if we could win without firing a shot. So, you can see there is a trend developing here that spells trouble for this administration."
"That this president is going ahead with this war is just unbelievable. The witty New York Times columnist, Myscream Loud, wrote in her inimitable fashion that 'The president's policy is as crippled as his legs.' (giggle) Last week she said he had reached the point where no one will 'Fala' him.F-A-L-A, his dog, get it (more giggles)? Has that woman got a way withwords! Go girl."

DAY 4: Cutie (holds up front page of the New York Times): "This morning, the NewYork Times had this photo on the front page. As you can see, the Marines have finally raised a flag on Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The fighting is still going on but it looks like this battle is over. We tried to find Pfc. Doe, the young Marine I interviewed that terrible first day, but he was unavailable. Here is Corporal Smith though. (With girlish enthusiasm)."Well, we see that flag flying. It's pretty much over isn't it?"
Cpl. Smith: "Oh, no ma'am, it's not over by any means. We've got weeks of fighting and dying to go yet. This place is a long ways from being secured. But we did get that flag up there and it sure makes us all proud."
Cutie: "I can't tell much from the photo. Their faces are not even visible, making it impossible for us to descend upon any of their families. Corporal Smith, do you know any of the flag raisers? And do you know who ordered it put up there? Did the order come directly from the president for political reasons?"
Cpl. Smith: "All I know is that I heard some colonel put the word out that he wanted 'a flag put up there where every son of a bitch on this island could see it.' Excuse me, ma'am."
Cutie: "We know you've been in the heat of battle so, . . ."
Cpl. Smith: "Still am, ma'am."
Cutie: "Yes, of course, but it's all over. (Nervous giggle). Except here on Capitol Hill, of course. Corporal Smith, I wonder if you know the gender, race and ethnicity of the group that put the flag up. In otherwords, did that group 'look like America?' "
Corporal Smith: "Look like America? They are Americans, ma'am. United States Marines."
Cutie: "Any females?"
Cpl. Smith: "No, ma'am."
Cutie: "Any African Americans?"
Cpl. Smith: "I don't know, ma'am. But there is an Indian in Easy Company."
Cutie: "You mean Native American?"
Cpl. Smith: "Whatever, ma'am, I've got to cut out. My outfit is moving on and we've got a lot to do."
Cutie: "And we've got a lot to do here too. Spring training has started and the sun is shining brightly in Florida. But first this word from our sponsors."

Historical note: In one of the bloodiest battles of World War II, when it was said "uncommon courage was a common virtue," 6,000 Marines were killed and 18,000 wounded. Some 21,000 Japanese were killed. The island itself is still barren and only a handful of people live on it. But after it was secured by the Marines, B-29s made over 2,200 emergency landings on it, saving the lives of more than 24,000 crewmen. AP photographer JoeRosenthal won a Pulitzer Prize for the flag-raising photo. Of the six men in the photo, three were buried in that black volcanic ash, one came out on a stretcher. Only two walked off the island.

Zell Miller is a Democratic U.S. senator from Georgia.

SKerry, The Socialist

John Skerry was talking about Social Security the other day. Just as they have in the past, Skerry and his leftist surrogates have pulled out the scare tactics. They are claiming that President Bush has a "January Surprise" in store. They claim that the surprise is that social security will be privatized, and they imply that seniors will be left with nothing. Of course, this is an outright lie, intended only to garner votes for Skerry. While I wish I could opt out of social security as it now exists and invest that money in my own accounts, that is not going to happen anytime soon. Even if it did happen, I know that any plan like that would include provisions to maintain coverage for those already receiving the benefits.

What struck me about the discussion was a comment about Social Security made by Skerry during the speech. Skerry said, "I believe we are all in this together. . . ." He does not mean this in the way that good neighbors or team mates would mean it. Rather, he is preaching pure socialism. Skerry is expressing Stalin's view regarding the citizens of a country. That view is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This is the classic wealth re-distribution model. I know, based on what I have heard and seen of Skerry, that he is a statist and an internationalist. He has no problem with letting government confiscate the income and wealth of the hard-working people and giving it to those who refuse to work. He also has no problem letting the UN deal with all of our problems. Both of these positions are very scary to me.

The United States did not become the sole superpower in the world because it relied on other countries to deal with its problems. We became what we are because of the freedom we have and because of the hard work of many, many individuals. Our power comes from the freedom of individuals to take risks and create things, without government looking over their shoulders. We are great because of the freedom our citizens have, not because of the government. Government produces nothing; people produce things.

The only purpose of socialism is to create the sense of security. But, that security comes with a huge price -- a reduction of freedom. Personally, I will take freedom, with all of its concomitant risks and uncertainties, and not socialism.

God Bless you.
God Bless America.
God Bless the BSA.
God Bless our troops.

Patriot Mark

Kerry Bumper Stickers

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry: Weapon of Mass Job Destruction

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry Lied and Vietnam Vets Died

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note: The Kerry Tax Plan (to tax the rich who make over $200,000), after the numbers as proposed are calculated, will actually tax singles making $148,000 and married couples making $180,000. This hits the majority of the small business owners, who create the most jobs in our economy, and it hits the entrepreneurs, the individuals who risk so much to become successful. There is an economic adage that says if you want less of something, tax it more; if you want more of something, tax it less. If you want more jobs created, we must tax the job creators less.

When was the last time you were hired by a poor man?

Bush and 'But'-Head

John Kerry made some strong and sensible statements during the debate last [Thursday], but did you notice what the next word usually was?

Here are some Kerry quotes: 'I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But...'

'I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But...'

'We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But...'

'I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But...'

'I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But...'

'I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But...'

'No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But...'

'I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the UN. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But...'

Maybe Kerry misunderstood when someone told him he needed to have the 'qualifications' to be president. But it'd inspire a lot more confidence if he had followed any of these remarks with a 'therefore' clause instead of a 'but' one." --James Taranto

Some Things President Bush Might Say

We all know that hindsight is 20/20. That applies to the reasons for taking the war on terrorism to Iraq. We know at this time that no WMDs have been found in Iraq. But everyone believed they were there (even John Skerry). Yet, after the debate tonight, we all second-guess what was said. Here are some things I think that President Bush might say to or about Senator Skerry:

Senator Kerry, your initials may be JFK, but you are no John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

John Kennedy said "a rising tide raises all ship," yet, you play the class-envy game by wanting to tax the successful more. That suppresses the rising tide.

John Kennedy also said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Instead of asking the citizens to take responsibility for their own lives and empowering the people, you want people to keep asking what can you promise that government will do for them, thereby bloating the government and creating more dependence on government. I am asking the people to take responsibility for their lives, rather than relying on government.

John Kennedy also said, "Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. . . It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. . . . The purpose of cutting taxes is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which will bring a budget surplus." Yet, again, you want to raise taxes on the very people who create jobs and invest in new equipment. Besides, Senator Kerry, I have never been hired for a job by a poor person.

Senator Kerry says that he will add another 40,000 troops to our volunteer army. At the same time he and his liberal colleagues complain that not enough people are signing up or re-enlisting now. How is he going to add more troops without a draft?

Senator Kerry has indicated that he will unilaterally send our troops into the Sudan on a meals-on-wheels-type mission. He basically wants to put our soldiers in harm’s way to feed the hungry and stand between warring factions. Who in their right mind would want to sign up for that when it would not solve the problems there? And why does Senator Kerry insist that we must have the "dream coalition" to defend ourselves against a madman in Iraq, but we must send our troops into the Sudan without out a coalition?

Senator Kerry says he would have been able to convince France, Germany, China and others to join the coalition. But, it's the bribery, stupid. How can you convince them to join you when they are taking bribes to vote against you? You would have to offer them a bigger bribe. And if they accepted the bribe, is that not truly a coalition of the unwilling and the coerced?

DemocRATs Push Draft in Congress

DEMOCRATS PUSH DRAFT IN CONGRESS

President Bush Opposes Draft And Republicans

Will Ensure Defeat Of Bill, Kerry Open To Idea

____________________________________________________

Here is a great example of how the DemocRATs engage in the politics of fear with the help of their willing accomplices in the partisan mainstream media. It is another example of the reasons not to believe SKerry or his partners in the partisan media. Patriot Mark

____________________________________________________

JUST WHO IS PROPOSING A DRAFT?

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 AND EDWARDS CLAIM IT'S REPUBLICANS WHO

WANT DRAFT, BUT KERRY IS OPEN TO DRAFT

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)

ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN CLEAR: PRESIDENT BUSH OPPOSES DRAFT

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)

The Greatness of America

"From our forefathers to our modernday immigrants, we’ve come from every corner of the earth, from every race and every ethnic background, and we’ve become a new breed in the world. We’re Americans and we have a rendezvous with destiny. We spread across this land, building farms and towns and cities, and we did it without any federal land planning program or urban renewal. Indeed, we gave birth to an entirely new concept in man’s relation to man. We created government as our servant, beholden to us and possessing
no powers except those voluntarily granted to it by us. Now a self-anointed elite in our nation’s capital would have us believe we are incapable of guiding our own destiny. They practice government by mystery, telling us it’s too complex for our understanding. Believing this, they assume we might panic if we were to be told the truth about our problems. Why should we become frightened? No people who have ever lived on this earth have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, or done more to advance the dignity of man than the living Americans—the Americans living in this land today. There isn’t any problem we can’t solve if government will give us the facts. Tell us what needs to be done. Then, get out of the way and let us have at it."—Ronald Reagan

A Man of History

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times

WE are with President Bush who has said, "I am the man who makes history." Who, other than President Bush, can launch a war against terrorism? Who else will come to the rescue of people suppressed by dictators? Who else was there to build and develop nations? and above all who made democracy the new international system for all the people in this world?

None of the Middle Eastern countries could face terrorism alone. Some of them went to the extent of making compromises and allying with terrorist organizations. These countries were afraid to kickout terrorists until the United States arrived on the scene, heading a coalition of the willing to root out terrorism. Some people may be skeptical about what the US has achieved. But we know it has not only liberated Afghanistan from Taliban and its ally Osama Bin Laden but also created a modern democratic country with its own police, army and other civil institutions. The United States has also liberated the Iraqi people and created a modern country from the ruins of the former regime. There are some people who still call the war to liberate Iraq as "baseless," citing the failure of Americans to find any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). What they forget is the Americans did find many mass graves where millions had been buried alive. This alone is enough to prove Saddam's regime was more lethal than any WMD man has known.

Feeling the Sting

Quite recently the US forces have cleansed the holy places in Najaf of the remnants of the former regime and other infiltrators. When we consider all these there is no doubt Bush is a man who creates history. Western countries, which were against Bush in his war on terrorism, are now feeling the painful stings of terrorism. France has two of its citizens kidnapped in Iraq. The kidnappers have threatened to behead the French hostages if France fails to reconsider its law, which bans Muslim women from wearing hijab in schools. Terrorism can be tackled only through war and only theUnited States, backed by a President who creates history, is capable of handling such a war. We must remember Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorists exploit the religion to achieve their objective, which is to destroy civilization, kill people, start wars and plunge the world into darkness. We saw how these terrorists kidnapped and killed innocent people under the cloak of religion only to forget all about their cause in exchange for a fistful of dollars.

The entire world is aware of the cause and effect of terrorism. The killing and beheading of some innocent people won't prevent theUnited States or its allies from confronting terrorism. Americansare convinced of the need to fight this menace and no country is better equipped to do this job except the United States, which has the mightiest armed forces history has ever known. President Bush has the right to say "I am the man who makes history" because he is fighting aggression against modern civilization. He is creating countries which enjoy democracy, peace, stability and security. These countries are now able to be a part of the international community sharing their traditions and culture with the rest of the humanity. Bush is the President of not only the United States but the whole world for he is making history on this small planet.

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times

The Speech We Wish Would Be Given

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR GEORGE W. BUSH GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?

My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the worlds nations are on that list. My press secretary ! will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France, or maybe China.

To Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Yo, boy! s. Work out a peace deal now. Just note that Camp David is closed. Maybe all of you can go to Russia for negotiations. They have some great palaces there. Big tables, too. I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis. I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers, and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pi! ssing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put em? Yep, border security. So start doing something with your oil. Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty --- starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "damn tootin."

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. It is time to eliminate World Cup Soccer from America.

To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final thought. Drop dead.

God bless America.
Thank you and good night.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

New Endeavor

I have just set up my own blog called Patriot Thoughts. This blog has been set up to promote and exchange thoughts that focus on American patriotism, our Judeo-Christian heritage and beliefs, traditional American values and beliefs and the good that we Americans do at home and around the world.

God Bless you.
God Bless the BSA.
God Bless our Troops.
God Bless America.