Once again, an article appears in the media which claims Kerry is smart, Bush is dumb, and we Bush supporters are stupid.

Guess what?

The smartest woman in the world, Marilyn Vos Savant, supports Bush.

I support Bush, and my IQ has been measured in the 99th percentile.

Bush's IQ has been measured in the 95th percentile.

Kerry's IQ has been measured in the 91st percentile.

Bush may not have gotten good grades in school, but neither did I...because, in my case, my classes did not appeal to me. When the class did, even if it was outside of my field of study (Native American History and English Literature come to mind as qualifying), I did well. Same with the President. So, the President could not remember the name of some leaders of nations...at least he knows it isn't 'Lambert Field' either. He may not know where Saddam hid his WMDs (though Syria is a good educated guess), but he does know small things - like the Buckeyes play in Ohio and not Michigan, that being a mother is the most important job in the world, and that one should always double-check publicity photographs before being released to the media.

He also knows that if he's relying on votes from Animal Rights activists, one should not go hunting and kill a goose and be photographed with it.

There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Kerry may be intelligent, but he sure has shown how much of a moron he is in the wisdom department.

And what we need is a WISE leader, not a smart one.

Let's take a look at the headlines for today:

• Kerry flubs question from sympathizer Couric
• Edwards' Wife claims no riots if Kerry elected
• Kerry lied about meeting Security Council
• Kerry takes campaign donations from Osama front organization
• US Military did not secure WMD-grade explosives in Iraq fast enough

4 hits on Kerry...in reality, 5 hits. If there were no WMDs in Iraq, then why have such high-grade explosives available?

God, I hope Kerry loses. We cannot survive him as President. I am very, very, very nervous though.

Hugh Hewitt has on his website a contest: in 250 words or less why vote for Bush, and why not Kerry.

I think I can do it in less:

George W Bush is a man that tells it like it is, to the best of his ability. It may offend, it may irritate, but no matter what the Left claims, he tells what he believes is the truth. He is fighting for America against the terrorists, for the safety of our families, for the spreading of our way of life and freedom throughout the world. He is doing all of this, and helping out less than $200k people by giving them tax breaks, and helping those making more than $200k to make more jobs.

John Kerry is a man who could not tell the truth if he tried. He believes in old, tired, and disproven communist/socialist philosophies, not in free enterprise. He is fighting against America, because he believes in One World Government, ran by the French and the UN. He is peddling a health care plan that would have killed my mother 9 years ago, because she would have died having to wait for a hip transplant. He wants no one but his Hollywood buddies and billionaire financiers to make over $200k.

That's why we CANNOT allow him to become President, and why we need George W Bush back in office for the next four years.

From the President's reelection website:

John Kerry in the Senate: "The Man Who Wasn't There"

Yesterday on ABC's World News Tonight, John Kerry attempted to refute the notion that he has a thin record in the United States Senate, stating, "I've introduced many pieces of legislation that are the law of the land today…" The reality is that during his 19 years in the United States Senate, only five bills and four resolutions John Kerry has been a lead sponsor on have become laws. These bills and resolutions are listed below, following a quote from Dick Morris on Kerry's meager Senate record during the Clinton years.

Dick Morris: Kerry Is A "Back-Bencher." "Where did his 20 years in the Senate go? Oddly, his absence of biography confirms the impression I formed of him during my White House years: He's a back-bencher. I never can recall a single time that his name came up in any discussion of White House strategy on anything. He was the man who wasn't there." (Dick Morris, "The Bagel Candidacy," The New York Post, 7/30/04)

Kerry's Five Bills That Became Law:

1. A Bill To Amend The Small Business Act With Respect To The Women's Business Center Program. (S. 791, Latest Major Action: 12/9/1999 Became Public Law No: 106-165)
   
2. A Bill To Redesignate The Federal Building Located At 380 Trapelo Road In
   Waltham, Massachusetts, As The "Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center." (S.
   1206, Latest Major Action: 4/14/1994 Became Public Law No: 103-234)
   
3. A Bill To Authorize Appropriations For The Marine Mammal Protection Act Of
   1972 And To Improve The Program To Reduce The Incidental Taking Of Marine Mammals During The Course Of Commercial Fishing Operations, And For Other Purposes. (S. 1636, Latest Major Action: 4/30/1994 Became Public Law No: 103-238)
   
4. A Bill To Authorize Appropriations To Carry Out The National Sea Grant
   College Program Act, And For Other Purposes. (S. 1563, Latest Major Action:
   12/4/1991 Signed by President)
   
5. A Bill For The Relief Of Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (S. 423, Latest Major Action:
   11/19/1987 Became Private Law No: 100-2)

Kerry's Four Resolutions That Became Law:

1. A Joint Resolution Designating The Week Beginning October 20, 1991, As
   "World Population Awareness Week." (S.J. Res. 160, Latest Major Action:
   10/30/1991 Signed by President)
   
2. A Joint Resolution Designating November 13, 1992, As "Vietnam Veterans
   Memorial 10th Anniversary Day." (S.J. Res. 318, Latest Major Action:
   10/24/1992 Became Public Law No: 102-518)
   
3. A Joint Resolution Designating September 18, 1992, As "National POW/MIA
   Recognition Day," And Authorizing Display Of The National League Of Families POW/MIA Flag. (S.J. Res. 337, Latest Major Action: 9/30/1992 Became Public Law No: 102-373)
   
4. A Joint Resolution Designating October 22 Through 28, 1989, As "World
   Population Awareness Week." (S.J. Res. 158, Latest Major Action: 10/25/1990 Signed by President)

So. This means I have passed more resolutions in Model United Nations in high school than John Kerry has in 20 years in the Senate of both bills and resolutions. It means I have almost an equal number of resolutions passed by the Republican State Committee of Nebraska as Mr Kerry has had in his entire tenure in the Senate.

Why in the world is this man so close to becoming our next President?

So, Kerry brings up Lynne Cheney's daughter, then when she responds, she is personally attacked by John Edwards' wife?

This is out and out unprofessional, and frankly disgusting.

Here's the 'rub':

Don't believe ANY poll until the election.

Every single poll has a major flaw, and thus every poll is unreliable. That flaw is no one can accurately guess how many Republicans are going to be coming out to vote in relation to the number of Democrats.

Democratic numbers should be the same as 2000. The only 'increase' that could be gained is by the brainwashed youth that have adopted Michael 'McStupid' Moore's tripe as true. However, that age group is notorious for not going out to vote on election day.

Republicans, though, are a mystery. Will the personal attacks by the Democrats bring out Republicans in a backlash? Will the fact Bush sometimes takes moderate positions cause some Republicans to stay home? Will Republicans be mad about how the Democrats acted in 2000 and come out in retaliation? These questions stand unknown at this time.

With these questions, the correct ratio of Republicans to Democrats cannot be garnered. The 'Reagan Democrats' are also going to be a major factor. I honestly think these are the Democrats that are going to swing the election, not some mythical 'Independent' voters. If the Reagan Dems, like Ed Koch and Zell Miller, go to Bush, Kerry's sunk.

In addition, in most states the urban areas are oversampled in polls. This usually means Republicans getting 3 to 5 pct more in the actual election than the poll claims. This happened with Dole vs Clinton, Bush vs Gore, and the midterm elections between those two races and the ones in 2002.

So, ignore the polls. The only poll that counts is November 2nd.

Am I fustrated today...

I watched some of the debate last night between Kerry and Bush. Bush had ample opportunity to drive a stake into Kerry's campaign, but he just would not follow through with it. It seems as if he was coached by his people to 'play nice'.

I'm tired of playing nice when it comes to people who are trying to sell the US up the river. I'm tired of giving lip service to things, when America obviously needs a smack in the face wake up call.

I'm going to try and get a full list of questions that were asked in the debate, then I will answer them my way on this blog. I expect it will offend some people, but so be it. I'm tired of pussyfooting around. I'm tired of the Democrats trying to wimp out in not taking the fight to those that are against the United States. They want others to do the fighting. Gee...Rome did the same thing, by hiring barbarian tribes to be the Roman Army...except those 'barbarians' turned around and destroyed the remnants of the Roman Empire, plunging the world into a Dark Age until 1086, when William the Conqueror took over England.

1. Do you believe you could do a better job in preventing another 9/11?

It is inevitable that the United States will be attacked in the future. Some day, some how, something is going to slip through and cause harm to the citizens of the United States. We must remain vigilant against attacks, however, to minimize the one that does make it through. We must strengthen our borders and our defenses to stop those attacks which can be prevented. Reducing our defenses by eliminating things such as the Patriot missile system, like my opponent once attempted to do, will make that day come much sooner.

2. Would the Election of Sen. Kerry increase the chances of 9/11-like attacks?

Yes, and here is why. Senator Kerry has stated he wants us to react, rather than proact, when it comes to terrorism. He cannot deny his statement on this matter. This means we will not prevent an attack against the citizens of our country if that attack originates outside of our borders. Under the Kerry proposal, we would have to wait again for another 9/11 before we go after any other terrorist organization other than Al-Qaida, or else we would have to wait for permission from other countries to defend our people. That is not an option. There are dozens of organizations that use terror, and as many countries that fund them. The only way to stop them from attacking us is by taking the fight to them, not waiting for citizens of the United States to die. Senator Kerry's statements and actions would embolden the terrorists to make attempts that they currently cannot, as they are back on their heels, defending and not attacking. In football, they say the best offense is a good defense, but no American citizens lives are at stake in a football game.

3. What Mistakes has Bush made?

A mistake made was to trust principles would talk louder than money to certain countries in the world. These countries have decided that the graft gained through the Oil For Food program, a program rife with corruption and ran by the United Nations, was more important than the lives and freedoms of millions of people in the world. Senator Kerry is making the same mistake if he thinks those countries will miraculously come to the party if he becomes President. They won't.

A second mistake was to trust in the intelligence provided by an emaciated intelligence community, devastated by cuts made in the previous administration, and wanted to be made deeper by my opponent. I wish I would have known sooner that our intelligence community was so handicapped that I may have been able to put more money towards fixing our shortcommings in this area.

4. "What about Senator Kerry's point?" Bin Laden v. Saddam?

Osama Bin Laden is not the only terrorist in the world. Saddam was harboring Abu Nidal, the man described by the American Press as the most dangerous man in the world...until Osama and Al-Qaida came on the scene. Saddam was also harboring Al-Zarqwai, a name now very familiar to us due to his beheading of Americans and others in Iraq. Al-Zarqwai split from Osama a few years ago, but the press and my opponent do not seem to acknowledge this fact. In addition, many other terrorist organizations exist. We stated that we are going to go after those states that support the terrorists...all terrorists, not just Al-Qaida. In the future, this may very well include some nations that we are currently allied with. Terrorism must be curtailed, to protect innocent lives around the world.

6. As president, what would you do, differently to increase the Homeland Security of the U.S.?

First thing is to fight illegal immigration into this country. Terrorists can slip in through either of our two borders at any time. All illegal immigrants need to be sent back home, or else they can file for the legal papers like legitimate immigrants can and do.

Second is to increase training and security at our airports and ports. Even with the implementation of the Homeland Security department, our airport screeners have tested poorly in their ability to stop suspicious passengers and luggage.

Third, we stop this silly notion of political correctness when it comes to searching passengers and baggage. We know who the terrorists are, and to search citizens who obviously pose absolutely no threat to our security, while letting those that can pose a threat through the system because we do not wish to offend them has compromised our security far more than can be imagined.

8. Criteria for bringing troops home?

I have criteria for bringing our troops home. However, showing our hand will again embolden terrorists to just 'sit tight' and wait us out. I can say, at the minimum, though, a stable election process in Iraq, along with ironclad guarantees of protection of the rights of the population against any attempt at a dictatorship is required. This includes the rights of women, children, and religious worshippers to go about their own business as free citizens.

10. You spoke to Congress...How do you ask a man to die for a mistake?

I do not believe Iraq was a mistake. I do not believe Afghanistan is a mistake. Bosnia was not a mistake. It was a mistake to leave Somalia. That's the difference. We abandoned the people of Somalia to their fate because we got scared. We're the greatest nation in the world. By being scared off by two bit warlords, it emboldened both Osama and Saddam, and others like them. The soldiers of Blackhawk Down were abandoned by this country. That's what the mistake is, to leave business unfinished. The men who are fighting for the rights of women in Iraq, so that they can go to school, get an education, and not be beaten by their husbands and blamed for being raped, are not dying for a mistake. They are making the ultimate sacrifice to give a chance for freedom. That was how our country was founded, and how come our country is still free today.

11. What was the miscalculation of conditions.

That the Baathists would stand and fight, instead of going underground to fight a terrorist war against us. The other miscalculation was the extent that the radical Muslims would enter the country before we could secure the borders, and become entrenched to fight us. That is now being resolved. You will be hearing in the days and months ahead about how we are rooting these interlopers out. But it is going to take time, energy, effort, and the intestinal fortitude to weather some bad news. We cannot cut and run like we did in Somalia, and like how Senator Kerry wants us to run. To do so would doom us to the same fate as what befell Rome.

12. To Kerry: You have accused the president of lying. Give us examples.

My opponent may not have called me a liar, but his surrogates and the 527s supporting his campaign have. They have called me everything from Hitler to the more evil than Osama Bin Laden. I would like to ask my opponent to repudiate these statements here, today, just as I have repudiated those that have attacked Senator Kerry on personal issues.

I will also point out that Senator Kerry had a chance to see the same intelligence I did concerning both the Yellowcake from Niger, as well as other pieces of information Secretary Powell made public in front of the United Nations. After seeing those items, Senator Kerry stated early in his campaign that anyone who didn't believe Saddam should be taken out does not deserve to become President. He voted to authorize force, when he did not in 1991. So, yes, I may have been told misinformation by our intelligence agencies, but so was the Senator, and he came to the same conclusion I did at the time. To not admit that is disingenuous.

13. Has the war in Iraq been worth the 1,052 lives lost in Iraq?

In order to free women and children from the tyrrany they were subjected to, in order to establish a democracy and religious freedom in a land of intolerance, in order to remove a supporter of terrorists and a threat to the world order, yes. I have to say that those men and women did not die in vain. They died trying to bring freedom to a land who has suffered so long without it. If you think I am not remorseful, or think I do not care about their lives, you are very wrong. I wish there had been another way, but it was painfully obvious diplomacy had failed. A previous President said the US must 'walk tall, and carry a big stick'. In Iraq, we had no choice but to resort to the stick. The hardest thing to becoming President is ordering young men and women into battle. Such a decision is not made lightly. But, in Iraq, it was the right decision for the women and children.


That's just some of my answers concerning the debate. Yes, a lot more edgy than what Bush gave, and in some cases very much differing from both candidates.

As the details of what happened in the Russian school come out: kids shot in the back, teens raped, little children brutally murdered by knives, why has the media ignored this story and the fact the terrorists that caused this were Islamic?

Why doesn't the media show the fact that such a thing could happen right here, in the United States, just as easily?

Oh, wait. It didn't happen here...because the terrorists against us are occupied in Iraq and hiding from us in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

What will happen if we pull out of those areas prematurely because of, say, the election of Mr. Kerry?

That's right. We'd be subject to the same depraved attack, because Mr. Kerry does not believe in preemptive strikes against terrorists. He would sit back and wait until more innocent Americans were killed and tortured before he would bother to get involved.

And if that terrorist attack were a nuclear attack, or other WMD?

Mr. Kerry's record already shows what we could expect. He wrote up an executive order back when he was Lieutenant Governor of Massachussetts...denying any emergency management funding or other funding in order to evacuate people from anyplace subjected to a nuclear attack.

That's right, America. Mr. Kerry not only won't stop terrorists until they act, but he's on record that he won't spend money to save the survivors of such an attack.

How in the world can this guy still be close to being elected?

Here it is, folks...

Bush Guard Service, The True Story

ChronWatch ^ 8/26/04 Gordon Bloyer
This is the only place that you will get the full and true story of President Bush’s Air National Guard service. There are no UNANSWERED questions. There are no missing records.

He did not miss any meetings. The truth is known. You can find everything in this article, in other publications but none of the others are complete. You have to put them all together to get the full story. It is a shame that our national "objective" media refuse to do their job and put the whole story together.

First, in answer to the charge that Bush was AWOL or missed meetings, George Bush was NEVER assigned to the Alabama Guard. This is a myth promoted by the "objective" media. Here is what really happened. Here is what the head of the Alabama Guard said.

Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.
Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance. This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.

This was reported in the Chicago Sun-Times and has never been picked up by any other news organization. Turnipseed then also added. For Bush to be "AWOL" or "away without leave," he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.

For the liberals reading this, go back and read it again. You see, Bush did NOT miss any meetings. The whole argument is nonsense. He got permission from his commanding officer to go to Alabama and attend meetings as a courtesy so he could attend when he could. Another part of this attack is that no one saw Bush at the meetings he did attend. It was reported that Turnipseed never saw Bush. Read what was reported about that.

Turnipseed reversed gear after retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun went public to say that not only did he remember Bush in Alabama, but that it was Turnipseed himself that introduced the two. Oops. And really...the media is completely asleep at the switch on this one. How many people that you saw a few times do you remember from 30 years ago?

Why didn’t fellow pilots see Bush in Alabama? The planes being flown by the Alabama Guard were not the same as the F102 that Bush was trained on. Why would pilots see him if he was not flying?

That is why Lt. Col. Calhoun came forward to say that Bush was in his office for study and drill time. Remember he was not assigned to the unit, he did NOT have to be there.

The following is from a letter by Col. William Campenni (Ret.) published in the Washington Times.

There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for
training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam.

Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys. The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.

Here is some information that the "objective" media avoids telling you. John Kerry joined the Navy Reserve, he did not JOIN the Navy. The Reserve was just like the National Guard. Kerry did NOT know he would be sent to Vietnam.

George Bush joined the Guard for a SIX-year term. If you are drafted, you only have to serve TWO years. Bush probably did not need to pull strings to get into a jet fighter unit. Jets required a greater time commitment than normal Guard postings. Pilots from the unit that he joined were being sent to Vietnam. All the publications that have researched this have concluded that there is NO evidence that he used any
influence to get into the Guard. The liberal publications will say that there is no evidence, but it is still suspicious. That is a good journalistic standard?

So, do you get it, Bush joined a unit that at the time was serving in Vietnam. The following is research from aerospaceweb.org ........

Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty. Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required.

Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.

As he was completing training and being certified as a qualified F-102 pilot, Bush's
squadron was a likely candidate to be rotated to Vietnam. However, the F-102 was
built for a type of air combat that wasn't seen during that conflict, and the plane was withdrawn from southeast Asia in December 1969. The F-102 was instead returned to its primary role of providing air defense for the United States. In addition, the mission of Ellington AFB, where Bush was stationed, was also changing from air defense alert to training all F-102 pilots in the US for Air National Guard duty. Lt. Bush remained in the ANG as a certified F-102 pilot who participated in frequent drills and alerts through April of 1972. ... By this time, the 147th Fighter Wing was also beginning to transition from the F-102 to the F-101F, an updated version of the F-101B used primarily for air defense patrols. Furthermore, the war in Vietnam was nearing its end and the US was withdrawing its forces from the theater. Air Force personnel returning to the US created a glut of active-duty pilots, and there were not enough aircraft available to accommodate all of the qualified USAF and ANG pilots. Since USAF personnel had priority for the billets available, many of the Air National Guard pilots whose enlistments were nearly complete requested early release. The ANG was eager to fulfill these requests because there was not enough time to retrain
F-102 pilots to operate new aircraft before their enlistments were up anyway. Bush was one of those forced out by the transition, and he was honorably discharged as a first lieutenant in October 1973, eight months before his six-year enlistment was complete. Bush had approximately 600 flight hours by the time he completed his military service.

The folks at aerospaceweb concluded.........

While Bush did not see combat in Vietnam, it is also obvious he was not seeking a way to avoid the risk of being sent to Vietnam. At the time he was training to be an F102 pilot, ANG units and that aircraft type were based in Vietnam.

In conclusion, there is no evidence Bush got special treatment to join the Guard. He did NOT miss any meetings, he was not assigned to the Alabama Guard. The reason the so called "objective" media holds on to this myth is that it lets them keep asking, where was Bush? The issue of his being grounded is also answered because he would no longer be flying since his plane was obsolete and he did not have enough Guard time left to train in a new jet. You don’t need to report for a physical if you are not flying. Duh!

Kerry joined the Navy Reserve and did not expect to go to Vietnam. When Kerry did go to Vietnam the swift boats were not doing river patrols. They were doing coastal patrols and were not in much danger. That is when he volunteered to join the Swiftee’s. The assignment of those boats was changed after he was accepted for the duty. Surprise, he got action and the rest is disputed history.

The information in this article was published in "George Magazine", "New York Times", "Washington Times", "Chicago Sun-Times", "Washington Post" and aerospaceweb.org.
About the Writer: Gordon Bloyer has been called a Renaissance man by Ronn Owens of KGO radio in San Francisco. Rush Limbaugh read from a letter by Gordon on his national radio show. President Ronald Reagan invited Gordon to the White House to thank him for his support. He has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. The Gordon Bloyer Show can be seen at http://gordonbloyershow.com .

I hate to be overly cautious at this point, but I am. Be on the lookout for stupid accusations coming from the Democrats over the next few weeks, like, say...the charges from Kitty 'I can lie if I want to about anything' Kelley.

I bet the Kerry campaign wishes she would have waited, so they could use it before it is all debunked. Once again, the gang who couldn't spin straight strikes again.

Each time the Kerry campaign pulls one of these boners, they lose a percentage point. Eventually, they're going to end up with 40 pct of the vote - the 'I hate Bush and will vote for a serial rapist before I vote for Bush' crowd.

However, and I will again point this out: why do you on the left hate Bush? I have NEVER heard a straight answer to this question. You give some sort of a vague answer about Iraq, or maybe the Patriot Act, but those things have NOT affected you in the slightest, except to slow you down going through an airport. Trust me, I know they haven't. So, why the hate? Going back to my previous thesis, is it really because you are now national socialists, and you oppose Bush who is an international capitalist?

It's been a few days since I've posted anything on here, due to other committments.

However, I'm back with a very simple message.

Democrats, are you one of the Democrats who joined the party of Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK, or have you joined the Democrats due to Jane Fonda, George McGovern, and Michael Moore?

If you are the former, look at your party. Your party used to be for making America strong. Their philosphy was to strengthen American workers and American products to outdo anyone else in the world. Now, your party has selected someone who has gone to China in order to outsource jobs, is for the United Nations to direct our troops, and is for treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, that will remove freedom from the American people.

This isn't why you joined the Democratic Party. This is not the candidate you should be supporting.

Read the words of Zell Miller's speech. He's a Democrat, and he's mad as hell that the party he joined has been co-opted by the rabid Marxists. Ed Koch is another Democrat upset at the way his party is moving towards Marxism. The Truman Doctrine contained Marxism in Europe. JFK fought against Marxism in Cuba and in Vietnam. Yet, you have allowed the Marxists to take over your party.

Why?

Okay, Democrats. Here it is: the eyewitness account of GWB in the National Guard.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14805

As you can see, you Rats have bitten off more than you can chew on this.

Stop the lying.

Now.

I want to give some kudos to the Minnesota Republican Party for creating a new website called 'When Angry Democrats Attack'. It can be seen at http://www.whenangrydemocratsattack.com/ .

This is the kind of thing that needs to be shown to Americans - how far off the deep end the Democrats have become.

I stand by my assertation that the Ruckus Society, ANSWER, and the rest are really one organization, modelled off of Hitler's SA brownshirts. Note, by the way, the fact they keep trying to call Bush a fascist/nazi when they are the ones embracing the goals of naziism.

Someone on Free Republic has provided a handy little list that continues my premise, which has pretty much been implied in previous accounts, that the current leadership of the Democratic Party is, in fact, the successor to the National Socialist German Workers Party...the Nazis. Why those Democrats like Dick Gephardt don't realize the path they are spiraling down and stop this is beyond my comprehension. Why the Jewish Democratic voters and the African-American Democratic voters don't understand that they are being turned into second class citizens by the party they support is mindboggling.

Here is the list:

• Kerry and Hitler were both "War Heros" with medals.
• Kerry and Hitler were heros in wars that their nation "lost".
• Kerry and Hitler were both "Wounded" in that war.
• Kerry and Hitler are both opportunists.
• Kerry and Hitler are dedicated to overthrow the existing order.
• Kerry and Hitler were both leaders of radical organizations willing to use violence to win.
• Kerry and Hitler used national dissatisfaction with the war they fought in to gain political prominence.
• Kerry and Hitler are both adopted by the super-rich as a vehicle to take political control.
• Kerry and Hitler are both socialists.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That's exactly what is happening here, but by calling us on the conservative side 'nazis', it allows them to deflect where the true nazism is coming from.

I am reprinting here the letter from the Bush-Cheney campaign concerning the Kerry campaign putting out a totally false advertisement:

Dear Station Manager:


Your station is being asked to run an ad from John Kerry's presidential campaign wrongly accusing Bush-Cheney '04 of violating the campaign finance laws. We ask that your station set the record straight.

It is completely false and without any evidence that the Bush "campaign supports a front group attacking John Kerry's military record," as the Kerry ad states. The Bush-Cheney campaign flatly rejects this baseless allegation of illegal coordination between Bush-Cheney '04 and a group called Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. The ad running on your station contains this false and libelous charge. Coordination with Swiftboat Veterans for Truth would be a violation of federal campaign finance laws. 11 C.F.R. 109.21.

Sadly, the Kerry campaign is using this falsehood for which it publicly admits it has no evidence to distract attention and gain free publicity. Attached is a verified transcript from a CNN interview in which Mr. Kerry's own spokesman, Tad Devine, could not present even one piece of hard evidence to back up the Kerry campaign's allegations.

The attached CNN Inside Politics verified transcript shows that Kerry campaign spokesman Devine is basing his charges solely on a newspaper article, "...it's in the New York Times today." However, not even this newspaper article presents evidence of "coordination." What has been reported are the Kerry campaign's unsubstantiated charges along with the explicit denial from the Bush-Cheney campaign. In fact, after inquiring about the alleged coordination reported in the New York Times story relied on by Mr. Devine, Wolf Blitzer, based on an earlier interview with a reporter who wrote the New York Times story, corrected Devine by stating, "They don't have any hard evidence backing it up." In other words, the allegation contained in the commercial running on your station is based on nothing more than the Kerry campaign's false accusations, having them reported in the media, and then the Kerry campaign referring to the published false accusations as proof.

The Kerry campaign is hiding behind the law which does not permit your station to reject this false advertising by a candidate. But your station can insure that the record is clear in your total program. We ask that you to do that.

Respectfully,

Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager

My email to MSNBC:

Dear Sirs,

I have normally kept quiet about journalists letting their political ideology cloud their actions on television. This time, however, two of your 'journalists' have gone too far.

Chris Matthews remarks and explosion towards a fellow journalist, Michelle Malkin, were uncalled for and show the fact that Mr. Matthews should remove such a distinguished title as 'journalist' from his resume. Even on an opinion show, a journalist is to strive to find the truth out about what is happening. Mr. Matthews, however, has refused to do such in not doing an investigation of "Unfit For Command", and has personally attacked by lies and innuendo those who have appeared on his show. The transcript of the program clearly shows Ms Malkin is correct in her statements about what happened on the program. Mr. Matthews should be made to apologize for both his actions on his program, and his press release which perpetuates the falsehoods that are disproven by his show's own transcripts.

Keith Olbermann, however, has gone beyond this, personally attacking Ms Malkin. Since when are personal attacks against a female permitted by MSNBC, NBC, and General Electric? MSNBC removed Michael Savage from the air for similar statements. Mr. Olbermann should be removed from his television program immediately, as what happened to Mr. Savage on your own network.

In previous years, accusations such as being put out by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would have been thoroughly investigated by the news media, and either proven or disproven. Neither Mr. Matthews or Mr. Olbermann, or their staffs have done such an invesigation. Such an investigation, by an unbiased and thorough journalist, is the only way to resolve the truth behind the accusations.

Insulting Ms Malkin's statements on the Hardball program is not journalism, nor are insults on Ms Malkin's character.

Another campaign commerical idea:

Start with a picture of Leon Klinghoffer.

"This is Leon Klinghoffer, an American citizen with Jewish ancestry. He was on a cruise liner called the Achilles Lauro with his wife and other citizens of all nationalities. The Achilles Lauro was attacked by terrorists, led by this man..."

Show picture of Abu Nidal.

"Abu Nidal. At the time, the press heralded him as the most dangerous terrorist in the world. Abu Nidal escaped authorities, after killing Leon Klinghoffer. He fled to the one man who said he would protect him..."

Show picture of Saddam Hussein.

"Saddam Hussein. In the recent liberation of Iraq, Abu Nidal was killed, as were other terrorists and members of many terrorist organizations. To say Saddam Hussein did not harbor terrorists, or did not help the terrorist cause is not supported by the facts of these men being found on Iraqi soil, being protected."

Show picture of Saddam's statue being torn down.

"Iraq no longer supports terrorist organizations, thanks to the help of the Coalition of the Willing, 52 nations working together to stop people like Saddam Hussein from spreading terror. On November 2nd, you have a choice. Either stop terrorism before it can happen, or wait until more people lose their lives like Leon Klinghoffer."

"Comedian" Al Franken (comedian in quotes because I have never found the man funny, even on SNL) wrote a book about Liars, trying to call conservatives, Republicans, and especially George W Bush a liar.

Yet, once again, the liar proves to be John Kerry and those, like Franken, who support him.

The latest? John Kerry claiming to be Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Uh, John...that was Bob KERREY. He doesn't even spell his last name the same!

I also love the fact that John had to have his personal barber flown out to the west coast to give him a trim. I'm sure someone out there is glad their $1000 contribution to Kerry's campaign paid for a haircut.

I just wish the American people weren't so blind to the realities of the world. I have been harping on those realities since 1985...I was a junior in high school then, and even then I understood. Yet, there are too many people both older and younger than me that are so blind as to not get what the world has turned into. These are the same folks that sat in front of their houses as Attila marched through the streets. These are the people that caused Athens to fall to the Spartans, and caused Rome to fall to the German barbarians. Conservatives? We're the Franks under Charles Martel, who pushed back the Muslim invaders of France. We're the Reconquista forces of Spain, driving out the invaders of our lands. We're the Hungarians, who stopped both Turkish forces and the Mongol horde.

And we are the Americans, who have been attacked twice on our soil. We defeated the first aggressor, and now they are an ally. We will defeat the second aggressor too, but only if we don't turn into the patricians of Rome by electing John Kerry.

Matt Margolis, the main blogger over at Blogs for Bush (http://www.blogsforbush.com) had this to say the other day:

It seems like Kerry just can't seem to get anywhere. Putting Edwards on the ticket didn't help him. Their convention didn't help him. Millions of dollars spent and a two week tour didn't help either. The reality of the situation is that Kerry is a weak candidate and the American people are rejecting the Kerry-Edwards campaign's message.

John Kerry is in big trouble. With two weeks to go before the GOP Convention, we can expect big things from the Bush campaign and I believe we'll see Bush open up a lead that Kerry will fail to catch up to.

I really respect Matt, and the amount of work and effort he has put into the site (I'm on the blogroll here). But...

Oh, come on, you knew I was setting that up...

Anyways, I think the Bush campaign needs a brain transfer on the way things are being run in this campaign. I see the great ads coming from the RNC and the Bush campaign, but...something just seems to be missing. Mind you, the other side is just coming out with hatred and venom spewing all over, but I feel there needs to be an edge to Bush's campaign that is not there. Thank god Karen Hughes and Peggy Noonan are coming back into the campaign organization. I hope it will be enough.

To expect any sort of big bounce to come out of the Republican Convention is an error. I don't think there will be a big bounce, but I do think the bounce is going to be larger than the minor bounce Kerry had. That's because Bush, when push comes to shove, makes one helluva stump speech. He did in 2000, which propelled him forward into the general election, he did on 9/11, and I think he'll do it again.

Another thing that needs to be done cannot be coordinated by the Bush campaign. Look at my two proposed ads earlier in this blog. Those kinds of ads really cannot be put out by Bush...but they CAN be put out by people like RightMarch or Club for Growth...the Republican 527s. We really need a big donor or two to offset the big 3 Democrat donors that are funding Media Fund, MoveOn, and the like. Has anyone thought of approaching Michael Dell to offset Stephen Bing? Or the Walton siblings to offset George Soros? Has anyone thought of doing advertisements that attack, not John Kerry, but directly target MoveOn/Media Fund/etc.?

The Republicans in the US Senate kowtowed to the Democrats, and got ran over. We cannot afford to have the same happen in the race for President.