With all polls showing this year’s election a statistical dead heat, many Republicans are worrying a lot about the Democrat tradition of voter fraud. It is a very troublesome problem. It was a big problem last time. It's certain to be a bigger problem this time. There are articles about Democrat fraud in 2000 here, and here.
It is well understood that ballot box stuffing, voting more than once, having dead people vote, manufacturing votes, etc. are long-established election stealing methods which have been employed by Democrats for years. It’s so widespread it reminds us of the old joke: “When I die I want to be buried in Chicago or New Orleans so I can remain politically active!” In fact, it is so common that it has taken on tongue-in-cheek quality. “It’s just those Democrats doing what they always do.” is the attitude. No big deal! Boys will be boys! Wink, wink, nod, nod! In most years and in most races, this “irregularity” doesn’t really make any difference. The margins are large enough to discount the fraud. The deserved candidate is elected comfortably in spite of the fraud.
But is it serious this time around? Yes, it is! This time it could be critical.
In 2000, there were seven states where the margin of victory was 2% or less. Gore won all but two of them. Gore won in all but one close electoral-rich states such as Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin where the popular vote was a virtual dead heat. Coincidence? Hardly! It's the result of vote fraud pure and simple!
Oregon’s “mail in ballot” is made for fraud. Nobody has their ID checked. Nobody has to look anybody in the eye and attest that they are voting legally. Nobody knows who is actually sending in the ballot. In Milwaukee there were precincts where more than 100% of registered voters voted; there were also cigarettes handed out in exchange for votes. The only way that could happen would be as a result of fraud. Similar things were reported in Minnesota and Iowa. New Mexico was stolen by manipulating, at the eleventh hour, the Native American vote.
Bush won in Florida. But it was not for a lack of effort by the Democrat fraud machine.
James R. Miller includes some of the evidence in his piece on the subject excerpted below:
Was there anything suspicious about the first recount in Florida? Yes. It produced an improbably large gain for Gore of 1,484 votes. To see how improbable this is, just think about the recount process. In all except some of the smallest counties, where they use paper ballots, the election workers simply ran the same boxes of ballots through the same counting machines. If there were no clerical errors the first time, one would expect almost the same results on the second run. ... You would expect the counts to be almost the same, rather than identical, because people do not always mark their ballots clearly enough to be read the same way each time. With punch card ballots one would expect small gains for each candidate, because running them through the machines tends to clean out loose chad. In most of the counties, this is exactly what happened, and there were trivial changes between the first count and the first recount. (In Washington state, which used a similar process to recount the votes in the Gorton-Cantwell Senate race, there was an insignificant difference between the first and second counts. Washington, like Florida, uses a mix of punch card, optical and paper ballots.)
In several Gore counties, notably Palm Beach, Gadsden, and Volusia, the results of the recount were suspicious. Consider the Palm Beach recount. It produced gains of 787 votes for Gore and 105 votes for Bush, for a net gain of 682 votes for Gore. Remember this result came, supposedly, from running the same punch cards through the same counting machines. By way of comparison, Broward county, which is larger than Palm Beach, found 43 additional votes for Gore and 44 for Bush. Both the size of the changes, and the bias in the Palm Beach recount, are completely implausible, without some human interference. Several researchers have made statistical estimates that these Palm Beach recount results happened by chance; all found more that the odds against it were more than 1,000,000 to 1. (Although the Palm Beach recount was obviously unethical, it may not have been illegal. One would have to know what was done to the ballots and what is allowed by Florida law to decide.)
In Gadsden, the election board went into a room and "reconstructed" some 2000 ballots, secretly, and came out with 170 new votes for Gore and only 17 for Bush. This secret count is illegal under Florida laws. (The board says that people could watch through the windows, which seems obviously insufficient to me.) In Volusia, the seals on the ballot containers were open when they were brought out for the recount, suggesting that some one had tampered with the ballots. A ballot bag was found in the trunk of an election workers car. And, 264 absentee ballots, counted in the first count, disappeared in the second. All three of these counties have histories of electoral fraud, which will not surprise you at this point.
The Democrats really, really wanted to steal the Florida vote last time out, and will stop at nothing this time around!
What can we do about it? First and foremost, we must VOTE!! Every Republican, in RECORD numbers, must vote this time!! Even in states where Bush has a comfortable lead, it is very important to vote if only to take away the “Our guy won the popular vote!” argument. Second; extra vigilance. We must watch and report loudly any irregularity we see. We cannot be cowed by charges of “racism” or “voter intimidation” that were common in 2000. If what they’re doing is illegal, we must report it –regardless of their race, creed or color. The laws apply to all. Third; we must let them know we know about their methods and intentions. We should never sit passively by while Democrat party hacks sequester ballot boxes until they find out how many additional “votes” they need to manufacture such as happened in New Mexico and South Dakota in recent elections. We need to let them know we will no longer tolerate this kind of mischief.
But the single most important thing we can do is to WIN!! Only by winning will we be able to ensure judges are in place who, unlike the Florida Supreme Court, will enforce election law. It’s too important to leave it to chance. We must make a difference this time out!!
Monday, October 25, 2004
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Yet Another Big Kerry Lie Exposed
So Kerry’s story about meeting with all the members of the UN security counsel before voting to authorize Bush to go to war is yet another –big fat lie!? Again!? The Washington Times sure thinks so. RedState has the same story, as does Powerline. Any bets the MSM will ignore it?
Kerry, it seems, just can’t help himself. He lies, he lies, he lies. He frequently lies to beef up his own bona fides, even when he doesn’t have to . His are not innocent, harmless little lies like Al Gore’s about inventing the internet or inspiring Love Story. No, Kerry’s lies involve important foreign policy issues. His lie about going to Cambodia Christmas Eve is one example. His lies about seeing large numbers of war atrocities committed by fellow soldiers in Viet Nam is another.
The result of his lying is that he often has to tell additional lies to try and cover up the lies he told before. For example, when fellow Swift Boat veterans started showing up, Kerry, lied by saying they didn’t serve with him in Vietnam and that they were all lying about him!? What!? You mean those 254 Swift Boat veterans, from all over the country, from all walks of life, from every political persuasion... are all lying about what they saw, heard, experienced? They’re all lying-- except Kerry?
Sounds a little far-fetched to me.
This reminds me of an old story about Mrs. Kelly:
Mrs. Kelly had a neer-do-well son, named Jim. Jim was a little slow, a little uncoordinated, a little short of a full load-- but NOTHING could diminish the admiration and unbounded enthusiasm his mother had for him.
He was always the last pick for playground games-- didn't matter to Mrs. Kelly: "they're just jealous, Jim!" She would tell him.
He always got the lowest marks at school– didn't faze Mrs. Kelly:
"The teachers all hate him" she would pine.
One day, all the students were to march in the St. Patrick day parade. While the band master fretted and worried about what he could do, since the head master wouldn't let him exclude Jim, he finally decided to let him march carrying a banner in between his two finest marchers. He hoped they would inspire him to do well. But it wasn't to be.
Sure enough, when the parade came along... Jim's feet were striding just the opposite of all the rest of the band, even though he wasn't even playing any instrument.
Didn't matter to Mrs. Kelly though. She beamed with pride, loudly exclaiming: "Just look! They're all out of step-- but Jim!"
When will Kerry’s “band” admit he is out of step? What level of lying will cause people to start doubting everything he says. IMHO he passed that level years ago. Here’s hoping the Times’ efforts at setting the record straight will help us send this liar back to be the Jr. Senator from Mass. He can lie all he wants there. They like liars. They must, they keep electing Teddy!?
Kerry, it seems, just can’t help himself. He lies, he lies, he lies. He frequently lies to beef up his own bona fides, even when he doesn’t have to . His are not innocent, harmless little lies like Al Gore’s about inventing the internet or inspiring Love Story. No, Kerry’s lies involve important foreign policy issues. His lie about going to Cambodia Christmas Eve is one example. His lies about seeing large numbers of war atrocities committed by fellow soldiers in Viet Nam is another.
The result of his lying is that he often has to tell additional lies to try and cover up the lies he told before. For example, when fellow Swift Boat veterans started showing up, Kerry, lied by saying they didn’t serve with him in Vietnam and that they were all lying about him!? What!? You mean those 254 Swift Boat veterans, from all over the country, from all walks of life, from every political persuasion... are all lying about what they saw, heard, experienced? They’re all lying-- except Kerry?
Sounds a little far-fetched to me.
This reminds me of an old story about Mrs. Kelly:
Mrs. Kelly had a neer-do-well son, named Jim. Jim was a little slow, a little uncoordinated, a little short of a full load-- but NOTHING could diminish the admiration and unbounded enthusiasm his mother had for him.
He was always the last pick for playground games-- didn't matter to Mrs. Kelly: "they're just jealous, Jim!" She would tell him.
He always got the lowest marks at school– didn't faze Mrs. Kelly:
"The teachers all hate him" she would pine.
One day, all the students were to march in the St. Patrick day parade. While the band master fretted and worried about what he could do, since the head master wouldn't let him exclude Jim, he finally decided to let him march carrying a banner in between his two finest marchers. He hoped they would inspire him to do well. But it wasn't to be.
Sure enough, when the parade came along... Jim's feet were striding just the opposite of all the rest of the band, even though he wasn't even playing any instrument.
Didn't matter to Mrs. Kelly though. She beamed with pride, loudly exclaiming: "Just look! They're all out of step-- but Jim!"
When will Kerry’s “band” admit he is out of step? What level of lying will cause people to start doubting everything he says. IMHO he passed that level years ago. Here’s hoping the Times’ efforts at setting the record straight will help us send this liar back to be the Jr. Senator from Mass. He can lie all he wants there. They like liars. They must, they keep electing Teddy!?
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Why I Blog - Why You Should Blog Too
John Kerry and his surrogates are in desperation mode at this point. They are dashing about the “swing states” telling one outrageous lie after another. Some examples: Bush will restart the military draft! Bush will take away your social security! It’s Bush’s fault there is a flu shot shortage! I won’t raise your taxes. I will fight a vigorous war against terrorism! The economy is a mess! Iraq is a mess! Our foreign policy is a mess! Mess, mess, mess! I have a plan! Etc.
Of course these are all lies, but even so, Kerry seems to be able to get away with telling them without any consequences. He tells a whopper –and it just seems to lie there, like a pile of dog droppings. Nobody seems to want to notice it. Nobody will touch it.
Kerry supporters, of course, either aren’t smart enough to figure out that he is a serial liar, or, even worse, they do know full well he is a liar, but because of their rabid Bush hatred, they don’t care. Not much anybody can do about those people. They won’t be changed.
The lack of response from Bush supporters is a little harder to explain. It has always been true that Republicans make terrible political street fighters. They want to play the game of politics in a genteel, polite way, using the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Democrats are perfectly willing to bite, scratch, spit, gouge, kick, use knifes and brickbats. Democrats play to win. For that reason, Republicans will never get much mileage out of an actual scandal on the part of a Democrat politician, while Democrats are always able to get tons of mileage out of even a hint of scandal on the part of a Republican politician. Democrats almost always get a total pass from their allies in the main-stream liberal press. Republicans are hounded and castigated mercilessly by the same press for their shortcomings, real or imagined.
What is the effect of this disparate treatment of lies and scandals? When the Illinois republican senate candidate was recently accused by his opponents of visiting a sex club, he had to drop out of the race in disgrace. Conversely, when a Democrat president was caught, red-handed, lying under oath, he didn’t have to resign from anything. In fact he became a hero to the coalition of the wild-eyed. He was given a kind of cult status by the press for sticking it to the GOP. Republicans don’t ever seem to be able to do anything in response to the lies, distortions, and unfair treatment by the Democrats and the press, except wring their hands and complain. They look pathetic. It’s frustrating.
There is another group who is more troublesome than either the Republicans or the Democrats. These are the moderates. They sit back, ill-informed, and wait to be spoon-fed their opinions in some vague way that doesn’t involve using their own gray matter. Where do the get their views? You guessed it; from the partisan press. Like Virginia O’Hanlon, the little girl who wrote the New York Sun newspaper to get information about Santa Clause, these people seem very naïve. Virginia wrote: “Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, If you see it in The Sun, it's so.” Like Virginia, they believe that if it’s in the Sun, or on CBS, or on NBS, or ABS, or any of the alphabet stations, it is true. And they vote based on that alone. Sad but true.
What to do? Yes Virginia, there is an alternative press! Our only option at this point is to go around the mainstream press. That’s the point of blogs. That’s the beauty of the internet. My advice? Blog away oh ye intrepid. Only a bloggers army can fight this fight. And it can have an effect --just ask Dan Rather. Oh yes, it's our duty to keep telling the truth --via the Blog!
Of course these are all lies, but even so, Kerry seems to be able to get away with telling them without any consequences. He tells a whopper –and it just seems to lie there, like a pile of dog droppings. Nobody seems to want to notice it. Nobody will touch it.
Kerry supporters, of course, either aren’t smart enough to figure out that he is a serial liar, or, even worse, they do know full well he is a liar, but because of their rabid Bush hatred, they don’t care. Not much anybody can do about those people. They won’t be changed.
The lack of response from Bush supporters is a little harder to explain. It has always been true that Republicans make terrible political street fighters. They want to play the game of politics in a genteel, polite way, using the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Democrats are perfectly willing to bite, scratch, spit, gouge, kick, use knifes and brickbats. Democrats play to win. For that reason, Republicans will never get much mileage out of an actual scandal on the part of a Democrat politician, while Democrats are always able to get tons of mileage out of even a hint of scandal on the part of a Republican politician. Democrats almost always get a total pass from their allies in the main-stream liberal press. Republicans are hounded and castigated mercilessly by the same press for their shortcomings, real or imagined.
What is the effect of this disparate treatment of lies and scandals? When the Illinois republican senate candidate was recently accused by his opponents of visiting a sex club, he had to drop out of the race in disgrace. Conversely, when a Democrat president was caught, red-handed, lying under oath, he didn’t have to resign from anything. In fact he became a hero to the coalition of the wild-eyed. He was given a kind of cult status by the press for sticking it to the GOP. Republicans don’t ever seem to be able to do anything in response to the lies, distortions, and unfair treatment by the Democrats and the press, except wring their hands and complain. They look pathetic. It’s frustrating.
There is another group who is more troublesome than either the Republicans or the Democrats. These are the moderates. They sit back, ill-informed, and wait to be spoon-fed their opinions in some vague way that doesn’t involve using their own gray matter. Where do the get their views? You guessed it; from the partisan press. Like Virginia O’Hanlon, the little girl who wrote the New York Sun newspaper to get information about Santa Clause, these people seem very naïve. Virginia wrote: “Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, If you see it in The Sun, it's so.” Like Virginia, they believe that if it’s in the Sun, or on CBS, or on NBS, or ABS, or any of the alphabet stations, it is true. And they vote based on that alone. Sad but true.
What to do? Yes Virginia, there is an alternative press! Our only option at this point is to go around the mainstream press. That’s the point of blogs. That’s the beauty of the internet. My advice? Blog away oh ye intrepid. Only a bloggers army can fight this fight. And it can have an effect --just ask Dan Rather. Oh yes, it's our duty to keep telling the truth --via the Blog!
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Should dumb people vote?
Walter E. Williams, One of my favorite columnists over at Townhall.com wrote an excellent piece today pointing out that demagoguery only works in a populace which contains a sufficient number of ignorant voters. They’re the only ones who would ever fall for the scare tactics Kerry and his minions have resorted to:
Politicians have a field day misleading Americans who, as a result of having been dumbed down by our education system, can't think, reason or analyze. How many times have we heard the political lament "There are 43 million Americans without health insurance"? While that observation might very well be true, what are we to make of it? Does it mean that there are Americans dying on the streets for want of medical treatment? Were that the case, you can bet the rent money that the major TV networks would feature nightly stories of medically indigent Americans in various stages of pain, suffering and death.
I've seen no such stories. So what does the absence of health insurance mean? Among the things that it might mean is that you don't receive medical treatment on the same terms as a person with health insurance. You might spend a day waiting for treatment at a clinic instead of having an appointment at a chosen time at a physician's office. It might also mean that you'll receive a smaller quantity and lower quality of medical care such as hospitalization in a ward instead of a private room, interns rather than specialists, and treatment at voluntary clinics and free hospitals such as Shriners.
Let's face it: People who can buy insurance get benefits that those who cannot afford it don't. Those with lots of money get things that those with little money don't. Whether we like it or not, these are facts of life. By the way, a healthy young person might opt for self-insurance and not purchase health insurance because he believes that the money could be better spent elsewhere.
According to some of the electoral rhetoric, President Bush has been responsible for shipping the best American jobs overseas, thus turning us into a nation of hamburger flippers. But according to a study by Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, "How Outsourcing Creates Jobs for Americans," over the past 15 years, foreign corporations have moved jobs to the United States at a faster rate than jobs have left. "Jobs insourced to the United States increased from 4.9 million in 1991 to 6.4 million in 2001," reports Bartlett. There's been an 82 percent increase in insourced jobs compared to a 23 percent increase in outsourced jobs. Moreover, because of the higher and increasing productivity of American workers, the jobs that move here pay more than the ones that leave. Insourced jobs pay roughly 16.5 percent more than the average domestic job, and one-third of them are in the manufacturing sector, says Bartlett. Americans who lose their jobs due to outsourcing might have to make painful adjustments. But should we listen to political proposals to ease their pain by erecting trade barriers that will make the nation as a whole worse off?
Speaking of jobs, let's look at the numbers. Our unemployment rate, which the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics put at 5.4 percent in September, is one of the lowest in the world and in our history. France's unemployment rate is 9.4 percent, Germany's 9.9 percent and Italy's 8.6 percent. Our Canadian neighbor's is 6.6 percent. The only reason for today's hysteria over jobs is because it is an election year, and one of the ways politicians gain power is to create fear among the electorate. The next time you hear a politician whining about our "awful" job climate, ask him which European country we should look to for guidance in job creation. The fact of business is that our country is the world's leader not only in job creation but in terms of where the world wants to invest its money.
Politicians have a field day misleading Americans who, as a result of having been dumbed down by our education system, can't think, reason or analyze. How many times have we heard the political lament "There are 43 million Americans without health insurance"? While that observation might very well be true, what are we to make of it? Does it mean that there are Americans dying on the streets for want of medical treatment? Were that the case, you can bet the rent money that the major TV networks would feature nightly stories of medically indigent Americans in various stages of pain, suffering and death.
I've seen no such stories. So what does the absence of health insurance mean? Among the things that it might mean is that you don't receive medical treatment on the same terms as a person with health insurance. You might spend a day waiting for treatment at a clinic instead of having an appointment at a chosen time at a physician's office. It might also mean that you'll receive a smaller quantity and lower quality of medical care such as hospitalization in a ward instead of a private room, interns rather than specialists, and treatment at voluntary clinics and free hospitals such as Shriners.
Let's face it: People who can buy insurance get benefits that those who cannot afford it don't. Those with lots of money get things that those with little money don't. Whether we like it or not, these are facts of life. By the way, a healthy young person might opt for self-insurance and not purchase health insurance because he believes that the money could be better spent elsewhere.
According to some of the electoral rhetoric, President Bush has been responsible for shipping the best American jobs overseas, thus turning us into a nation of hamburger flippers. But according to a study by Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, "How Outsourcing Creates Jobs for Americans," over the past 15 years, foreign corporations have moved jobs to the United States at a faster rate than jobs have left. "Jobs insourced to the United States increased from 4.9 million in 1991 to 6.4 million in 2001," reports Bartlett. There's been an 82 percent increase in insourced jobs compared to a 23 percent increase in outsourced jobs. Moreover, because of the higher and increasing productivity of American workers, the jobs that move here pay more than the ones that leave. Insourced jobs pay roughly 16.5 percent more than the average domestic job, and one-third of them are in the manufacturing sector, says Bartlett. Americans who lose their jobs due to outsourcing might have to make painful adjustments. But should we listen to political proposals to ease their pain by erecting trade barriers that will make the nation as a whole worse off?
Speaking of jobs, let's look at the numbers. Our unemployment rate, which the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics put at 5.4 percent in September, is one of the lowest in the world and in our history. France's unemployment rate is 9.4 percent, Germany's 9.9 percent and Italy's 8.6 percent. Our Canadian neighbor's is 6.6 percent. The only reason for today's hysteria over jobs is because it is an election year, and one of the ways politicians gain power is to create fear among the electorate. The next time you hear a politician whining about our "awful" job climate, ask him which European country we should look to for guidance in job creation. The fact of business is that our country is the world's leader not only in job creation but in terms of where the world wants to invest its money.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Why I support George W. Bush, the president.
I’m voting for Bush because he is a proven leader. He has a track record of consistent, strong, steadfast leadership that the nation, and the world for that matter, can count on. We know what to expect from his administration. So do our enemies. Al Qeada and the nations that harbor them don’t have to wonder whether or not Bush will take action against them. He will. He has! And we’re much safer as a nation for that fact!. Kerry would submit us to a “global test” before he would take any action against terrorists. We would have to play “mother may I?” with the UN and Europe before we could defend ourselves. Bush knows that would be intolerable.
I'm voting for Bush because under his administration, we will get judges who follow the law, not try to "correct all of society's evils" by legislating from the bench. We would get activist judges under a Kerry administration. I'm voting for Bush because under his administration we stand a chance of real reform in the role of the government. He may not take us to where government only delivers the mail and protects our shores, but he will get us a lot closer than Kerry would. Under liberal Democrats like Kerry, government only gets bigger and more powerful.
I'm voting for Bush because he enacted a real tax cut. Maybe it's not enough, but at least it's real. Kerry would increase taxes to fund the tons of new programs he has promised the deluded to buy their votes! It's a Democrat tradition.
I'm voting for Bush because he will enable local school boards to hold teachers accountable if they don't do their jobs, and will allow parents to chose a better situation if necessary. Kerry would continue to offer only government schools, run by incompetent teachers, who, with their unions, and federal education bureaucrats, force mediocrity and failure down our throats.
I will vote for Bush because he will restore to some degree the role of personal responsibility in our lives. He will enable us to help ourselves, our families, our communities succeed by cutting back some of the onerous regulation and burden the government has thrust upon us all. He understands that only when a person is free to be as successful as possible are they truly free. Kerry would perpetuate the old liberal model where burdensome and unproven scientific theories, cumbersome safety rules, and draconian business regulation have sapped our national spirit to the point where it is almost a miracle that anyone is successful.
I will vote for Bush because he recognizes that while we all will have medical needs at some point in our lives, it is largely our own responsibility and our own business to pay for them. He will maintain a safety net for the truly needy and indigent, but will not be our nanny, our nursemaid, our provider of first resort. Kerry would foster the slippery slide into socialism by nationalizing all health care. We would then be saddled with a system that is neither efficient nor compassionate, but merely an extension of the gray morass of bureaucracy that envelops and deadens the human spirit everywhere it has been tried.
Most importantly, I will vote for Bush because he has restored integrity to the office of the president-- integrity! He will never lie openly about his past experience, merely to enhance his resume. He will not lie under oath-- or to the American people at all. He knows that character matters-- he lives it. Kerry, on the other hand, has shown an utter lack of character when it comes to honesty. His Cambodia fantasy, for example, should have disqualified him from further serious consideration as a candidate for the nation’s highest office. If he was willing to lie about that, for no other reason that to falsely enhance his status as a “war hero”, what on earth would he be unwilling to lie about? He has been, and remains, willing and able to say and do virtually anything –if he thinks it will benefit him in any way, even if just to get a few more votes. He totally lacks the one thing his mother aspired for him to acquire, as her dying wish: –integrity, integrity, integrity! He is in fact a poseur.
For thinking people, who aren’t blinded by shear, vitriolic hatred of all things Bush, the choice couldn’t be clearer. On the one hand, we have a proven world leader, who has met the intractable Islamic terrorist head-on and has made great progress towards defeating him; who has revved up the US economy and made it the envy of the whole world; who can serve unashamedly as a role model for the nation’s youth as a person who isn’t afraid to admit he is guided by principles, honor and valor. He is a president who understands what is meant by the motto: “One nation, under God.”
On the other hand, we have in Kerry an undistinguished twenty year senator; who doesn’t have a record of any legislative accomplishment; leadership, or any kind of progress towards solving any of the nation’s problems. To the contrary, he has been an obstructionist, willing to set up roadblocks to stymie any truly beneficial action on the part of our government including the appointment of qualified judges who he opposed merely because they didn’t fit the paradigm of the special interest groups to whom he is beholden. He has been frequently absent from his committee duties. He has voted against all major weapon systems, against all tax cuts, for all tax increases. He is the most liberal senator of them all. It could be said being the most liberal senator is his only accomplishment in the senate, --if you could call that an accomplishment!
John F. Kerry is in no way fit to occupy the nation’s highest office. Support the president. Reject the pretender. Vote Bush!
I'm voting for Bush because under his administration, we will get judges who follow the law, not try to "correct all of society's evils" by legislating from the bench. We would get activist judges under a Kerry administration. I'm voting for Bush because under his administration we stand a chance of real reform in the role of the government. He may not take us to where government only delivers the mail and protects our shores, but he will get us a lot closer than Kerry would. Under liberal Democrats like Kerry, government only gets bigger and more powerful.
I'm voting for Bush because he enacted a real tax cut. Maybe it's not enough, but at least it's real. Kerry would increase taxes to fund the tons of new programs he has promised the deluded to buy their votes! It's a Democrat tradition.
I'm voting for Bush because he will enable local school boards to hold teachers accountable if they don't do their jobs, and will allow parents to chose a better situation if necessary. Kerry would continue to offer only government schools, run by incompetent teachers, who, with their unions, and federal education bureaucrats, force mediocrity and failure down our throats.
I will vote for Bush because he will restore to some degree the role of personal responsibility in our lives. He will enable us to help ourselves, our families, our communities succeed by cutting back some of the onerous regulation and burden the government has thrust upon us all. He understands that only when a person is free to be as successful as possible are they truly free. Kerry would perpetuate the old liberal model where burdensome and unproven scientific theories, cumbersome safety rules, and draconian business regulation have sapped our national spirit to the point where it is almost a miracle that anyone is successful.
I will vote for Bush because he recognizes that while we all will have medical needs at some point in our lives, it is largely our own responsibility and our own business to pay for them. He will maintain a safety net for the truly needy and indigent, but will not be our nanny, our nursemaid, our provider of first resort. Kerry would foster the slippery slide into socialism by nationalizing all health care. We would then be saddled with a system that is neither efficient nor compassionate, but merely an extension of the gray morass of bureaucracy that envelops and deadens the human spirit everywhere it has been tried.
Most importantly, I will vote for Bush because he has restored integrity to the office of the president-- integrity! He will never lie openly about his past experience, merely to enhance his resume. He will not lie under oath-- or to the American people at all. He knows that character matters-- he lives it. Kerry, on the other hand, has shown an utter lack of character when it comes to honesty. His Cambodia fantasy, for example, should have disqualified him from further serious consideration as a candidate for the nation’s highest office. If he was willing to lie about that, for no other reason that to falsely enhance his status as a “war hero”, what on earth would he be unwilling to lie about? He has been, and remains, willing and able to say and do virtually anything –if he thinks it will benefit him in any way, even if just to get a few more votes. He totally lacks the one thing his mother aspired for him to acquire, as her dying wish: –integrity, integrity, integrity! He is in fact a poseur.
For thinking people, who aren’t blinded by shear, vitriolic hatred of all things Bush, the choice couldn’t be clearer. On the one hand, we have a proven world leader, who has met the intractable Islamic terrorist head-on and has made great progress towards defeating him; who has revved up the US economy and made it the envy of the whole world; who can serve unashamedly as a role model for the nation’s youth as a person who isn’t afraid to admit he is guided by principles, honor and valor. He is a president who understands what is meant by the motto: “One nation, under God.”
On the other hand, we have in Kerry an undistinguished twenty year senator; who doesn’t have a record of any legislative accomplishment; leadership, or any kind of progress towards solving any of the nation’s problems. To the contrary, he has been an obstructionist, willing to set up roadblocks to stymie any truly beneficial action on the part of our government including the appointment of qualified judges who he opposed merely because they didn’t fit the paradigm of the special interest groups to whom he is beholden. He has been frequently absent from his committee duties. He has voted against all major weapon systems, against all tax cuts, for all tax increases. He is the most liberal senator of them all. It could be said being the most liberal senator is his only accomplishment in the senate, --if you could call that an accomplishment!
John F. Kerry is in no way fit to occupy the nation’s highest office. Support the president. Reject the pretender. Vote Bush!
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Kerry -on abortion and other duplicities
John Kerry’s tortured response to the abortion question reveals a disturbing flaw in his personal moral code.
Kerry said: “I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.”
I have a hard time comprehending this kind of thinking. In my view in our core makeup, religious or irreligious, we are virtually defined by our “articles of faith”. They are, indeed, our very essence –they form the root of our personhood-- they literally reflect who we are!
Kerry has no problem enforcing his “secular” articles of faith on everybody. Affirmative action, gun control, so-called civil rights, hiring quotas, hate crime legislation are just a few of the secular beliefs that come to mind which are regularly “imposed” on society by secular politicians like Kerry.
Often these “secular articles of faith” are imposed on us, against our will, and against the wishes of the majority of citizens, by people like John Kerry, who employ the tyranny of unelected judges who take upon themselves the “burden” of requiring everyone to comply with their own particular view of what is “good” for society. They have no other justification for imposing their will on all of us other than the notion that they “know” what is good, just, and noble. They are the enlightened, we are the benighted.
Forced busing is a good example. Left wing politicians like Kerry felt it was just, good and fair to require people of different races to be at the same school based solely on the belief that “being together” would remedy all the ills of disparate educational opportunities between the races. Never mind that it went against the beliefs and will of the majority of citizens, black and white. Never mind that numerous existing studies showed that forced busing would not achieve the “societal good” its backers claimed. They “knew” it was right and the “best thing for society”. They looked down on the benighted masses who weren’t sophisticated enough to understand the moral superiority of their position, and they just imposed their will by order of the court. The reality of forced busing showed that it did not achieve any of the “noble” goals listed. It only served to tear apart established communities, and waste a lot of resources which could have been better spent on real educational goals.
The vast majority of Americans know that “late-term” abortion is an abhorrent, brutal and totally unnecessary practice. Poll after poll confirms this. Yet Kerry supports it and would impose it on all of us! Why? Because in his core beliefs, –in his secular articles of faith– so to speak, he sees allowing late term abortion as right, just and beneficial to society. He has no compunction whatsoever about imposing this secular “article of faith” on others. Since he can’t achieve his “enlightened view” via legislation, he resorts to unelected judges to work his will. And yet, incredibly, he claims to hold “religious” views against it. He claims to “respect” the views of his religious leaders who strongly condemn it. In short, he wants to have it both ways.
Abortion is a troubling issue and many people disagree about rights, choices, and the propriety of the so-called choice. The only clear fact vis a vis abortion is that it is always fatal to the baby. My daughter and a coworker were recently having a political discussion with a patient who was railing against Bush, claiming that he didn’t see how any woman could support Bush, since he was against a woman’s “right to choose”. He fell silent when they pointed out that since they were both adopted, they would both have been dead if their birth-mothers had exercised that Kerry-backed choice. Clear thinking prevailed.
Kerry, and all politicians who feel it is their right to impose secular articles of faith, while refusing to allow societal mores and norms which have evolved from centuries-old religious tradition, need to be utterly rejected. A free society cannot long endure if we allow ourselves to continue to be oppressed by “enlightened” politicians and their activist secular judges. God save us from such!
Kerry said: “I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.”
I have a hard time comprehending this kind of thinking. In my view in our core makeup, religious or irreligious, we are virtually defined by our “articles of faith”. They are, indeed, our very essence –they form the root of our personhood-- they literally reflect who we are!
Kerry has no problem enforcing his “secular” articles of faith on everybody. Affirmative action, gun control, so-called civil rights, hiring quotas, hate crime legislation are just a few of the secular beliefs that come to mind which are regularly “imposed” on society by secular politicians like Kerry.
Often these “secular articles of faith” are imposed on us, against our will, and against the wishes of the majority of citizens, by people like John Kerry, who employ the tyranny of unelected judges who take upon themselves the “burden” of requiring everyone to comply with their own particular view of what is “good” for society. They have no other justification for imposing their will on all of us other than the notion that they “know” what is good, just, and noble. They are the enlightened, we are the benighted.
Forced busing is a good example. Left wing politicians like Kerry felt it was just, good and fair to require people of different races to be at the same school based solely on the belief that “being together” would remedy all the ills of disparate educational opportunities between the races. Never mind that it went against the beliefs and will of the majority of citizens, black and white. Never mind that numerous existing studies showed that forced busing would not achieve the “societal good” its backers claimed. They “knew” it was right and the “best thing for society”. They looked down on the benighted masses who weren’t sophisticated enough to understand the moral superiority of their position, and they just imposed their will by order of the court. The reality of forced busing showed that it did not achieve any of the “noble” goals listed. It only served to tear apart established communities, and waste a lot of resources which could have been better spent on real educational goals.
The vast majority of Americans know that “late-term” abortion is an abhorrent, brutal and totally unnecessary practice. Poll after poll confirms this. Yet Kerry supports it and would impose it on all of us! Why? Because in his core beliefs, –in his secular articles of faith– so to speak, he sees allowing late term abortion as right, just and beneficial to society. He has no compunction whatsoever about imposing this secular “article of faith” on others. Since he can’t achieve his “enlightened view” via legislation, he resorts to unelected judges to work his will. And yet, incredibly, he claims to hold “religious” views against it. He claims to “respect” the views of his religious leaders who strongly condemn it. In short, he wants to have it both ways.
Abortion is a troubling issue and many people disagree about rights, choices, and the propriety of the so-called choice. The only clear fact vis a vis abortion is that it is always fatal to the baby. My daughter and a coworker were recently having a political discussion with a patient who was railing against Bush, claiming that he didn’t see how any woman could support Bush, since he was against a woman’s “right to choose”. He fell silent when they pointed out that since they were both adopted, they would both have been dead if their birth-mothers had exercised that Kerry-backed choice. Clear thinking prevailed.
Kerry, and all politicians who feel it is their right to impose secular articles of faith, while refusing to allow societal mores and norms which have evolved from centuries-old religious tradition, need to be utterly rejected. A free society cannot long endure if we allow ourselves to continue to be oppressed by “enlightened” politicians and their activist secular judges. God save us from such!
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Kerry Lies
What is a lie?
The classic definition of telling a lie would have to be saying something even when you know it to be false. For example:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Bill Clinton certainly knew what he said on national television and in front of the whole world was a big fat lie. He knew it from first hand experience. He was one of the participants in the event he was claiming never took place. He knew it was a lie, but said it anyway because he didn’t think he could get caught. After it was disclosed that DNA existed to counter his lie, he was forced to admit he lied.
Another example:
“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia,"
John F. Kerry certainly knew what he said on the floor of US Senate in 1986, and on numerous other occasions, was a big fat lie. He knew that he had never been in Cambodia at any time during his four month tour of duty in Vietnam. He said it to further enhance and embellish his military record. He said because he didn’t think anyone would ever check it out. Only after it was proven to be false was his campaign staff forced to admit that he lied.
What is being mistaken?
The classic definition of being mistaken is asserting something you and others sincerely believe to be true, which later turns out to false. When the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo asserted that the Earth was at the center of the universe, they could hardly be accused of telling a lie. They, and nearly all of the experts, deeply believed that assertion. There were no widely accepted facts to refute the theory. When Galileo and others proved it not to be so, they had to eventually admit their error.
Likewise, when George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac, Helmut Kohl, John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and nearly all of the other world leaders asserted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they could hardly have be accused of lying about it. Nearly all of their intelligence experts firmly believed this to be true. Subsequent facts, so far, have not borne them out. The worst that could be said about them is that they were possibly mistaken. They didn’t purposely put forward facts they knew, with certain personal knowledge, were false.
The question?
Given the above, why would anybody, knowing that Mr. Kerry flat out lied about his venture into Cambodia still insist on supporting him for the highest and most sensitive office in the United States? How can you trust somebody who would repeatedly tell such a lie?
The only answer abides in the notion that since Kerry supporters are so caught up in their rabid, irrational hatred of Bush, they are willing to forgive Kerry anything--solely for that fact that he is not Bush! This is astonishing! Face it. Kerry supporters are getting ready to cast their precious presidential election votes for a man who knowingly lied about his military service, and then shamefully made that military service the centerpiece of his whole political campaign! Incredible! Aren’t they the least bit worried about what else he may have lied about? Or what, indeed, he may lie about in the future?
It boggles the mind.
The classic definition of telling a lie would have to be saying something even when you know it to be false. For example:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Bill Clinton certainly knew what he said on national television and in front of the whole world was a big fat lie. He knew it from first hand experience. He was one of the participants in the event he was claiming never took place. He knew it was a lie, but said it anyway because he didn’t think he could get caught. After it was disclosed that DNA existed to counter his lie, he was forced to admit he lied.
Another example:
“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia,"
John F. Kerry certainly knew what he said on the floor of US Senate in 1986, and on numerous other occasions, was a big fat lie. He knew that he had never been in Cambodia at any time during his four month tour of duty in Vietnam. He said it to further enhance and embellish his military record. He said because he didn’t think anyone would ever check it out. Only after it was proven to be false was his campaign staff forced to admit that he lied.
What is being mistaken?
The classic definition of being mistaken is asserting something you and others sincerely believe to be true, which later turns out to false. When the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo asserted that the Earth was at the center of the universe, they could hardly be accused of telling a lie. They, and nearly all of the experts, deeply believed that assertion. There were no widely accepted facts to refute the theory. When Galileo and others proved it not to be so, they had to eventually admit their error.
Likewise, when George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac, Helmut Kohl, John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and nearly all of the other world leaders asserted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they could hardly have be accused of lying about it. Nearly all of their intelligence experts firmly believed this to be true. Subsequent facts, so far, have not borne them out. The worst that could be said about them is that they were possibly mistaken. They didn’t purposely put forward facts they knew, with certain personal knowledge, were false.
The question?
Given the above, why would anybody, knowing that Mr. Kerry flat out lied about his venture into Cambodia still insist on supporting him for the highest and most sensitive office in the United States? How can you trust somebody who would repeatedly tell such a lie?
The only answer abides in the notion that since Kerry supporters are so caught up in their rabid, irrational hatred of Bush, they are willing to forgive Kerry anything--solely for that fact that he is not Bush! This is astonishing! Face it. Kerry supporters are getting ready to cast their precious presidential election votes for a man who knowingly lied about his military service, and then shamefully made that military service the centerpiece of his whole political campaign! Incredible! Aren’t they the least bit worried about what else he may have lied about? Or what, indeed, he may lie about in the future?
It boggles the mind.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Kerry - No class
It's always interesting to view how politicians will reveal their true character, even if unwittingly, through their words and actions. John F. Kerry started revealing his character years ago after a dubious four month tour of duty in Vietnam, when he came home and betrayed his comrades in arms. Additionally, he quickly started a life-long practice of aiding and abetting the enemies of this country by going to France to meet with the enemy, in violation of his oath as an officer in the US Navy. He has consistently reinforced his image as a less-than-honorable person by voting against the interests of the military, against intelligence gathering, against any tax cut or spending cut; in short-- against the true interest of his own country.
Perhaps the most striking example of his lack of character is the made-up tripe about his supposed war record; especially the Cambodia story. It is amazing that he could lie, blatantly, about this on numerous occasions, without a hint of compunction. What is almost equally amazing is that the major news media has given him a complete and total pass when his obvious lie was brought to light! The depths to which our fourth estate has plunged boggles the mind.
Now, he has cinched the deal by stooping to smear the children of his political opponent in an unprecedented way. This new low in the world of political chicanery deserves a special place in the political hall of shame!
Yet, once again, the major media are attempting to "let it pass." This outrage, along with all others this person has perpetrated needs to be brought out over and over again. Since CBS, ABC, NBC and the other alphabet news networks won't do it, it will be up to us--the new media--, to make sure it happens. We can't let it pass. The stakes are too high. Anybody, who isn't blinded by shear, irrational hatred of Bush should be able to see through this fraud. We must help them.
Perhaps the most striking example of his lack of character is the made-up tripe about his supposed war record; especially the Cambodia story. It is amazing that he could lie, blatantly, about this on numerous occasions, without a hint of compunction. What is almost equally amazing is that the major news media has given him a complete and total pass when his obvious lie was brought to light! The depths to which our fourth estate has plunged boggles the mind.
Now, he has cinched the deal by stooping to smear the children of his political opponent in an unprecedented way. This new low in the world of political chicanery deserves a special place in the political hall of shame!
Yet, once again, the major media are attempting to "let it pass." This outrage, along with all others this person has perpetrated needs to be brought out over and over again. Since CBS, ABC, NBC and the other alphabet news networks won't do it, it will be up to us--the new media--, to make sure it happens. We can't let it pass. The stakes are too high. Anybody, who isn't blinded by shear, irrational hatred of Bush should be able to see through this fraud. We must help them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)