Ha, Ha, Ha!!!

Ha, Ha, Ha!!!

I'll bet this goes right over the head of Al Gore's old buddy, Fred Phelps.

The New York Times Discovers Oil For Food Corruption

The New York Times Discovers Oil For Food Corruption

If you got your news from the blogosphere or listened to Rush Limbaugh, you knew about this a year ago.

Iraq would make contracts for food or medical supplies at low prices, then charge a 10% cash under the table cash payment that Saddam and his goons would skim off for themselves.
Then there were those oil vouchers that went to anti-war politicians on journalists.

"Perhaps the best measure of the corruption comes from a review of the $8.7 billion in outstanding oil-for-food contracts by the provisional Iraqi government with United Nations help. It found that 70 percent of the suppliers had inflated their prices and agreed to pay a 10 percent kickback, in cash or by transfer to accounts in Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian banks."

And you'd have to be a boob to believe this: "United Nations overseers say they were unaware of the systematic skimming of oil-for-food revenues. They were focused on running aid programs and assuring food deliveries, they add."

It's very unlikely that the UN knew nothing of this. It's far more likely that they profited as well. If they are telling the truth, then the UN is populated by idiots. Either way, it does not favor those who believe that we should surrender our foreign policy to the UN.


The Times, which loves the UN seems to swallow the lie whole.

The Many Faces of John Kerry

The Many Faces of John Kerry

Paul Jacob is among the latest to chronicle John Kerry record of taking both sides of every issue.

"Kerry's most ferocious attacks on Bush come on trade policy. "President Bush is promoting the outsourcing of American jobs," he told ABC News. "I don't think he's stood up and fought for the American worker."

But as Kerry's Democratic opponent John Edwards points out, Kerry voted for NAFTA, for "fast track" authority for the president, and for the president's Chilean, China, Singapore, Caribbean and African trade agreements. And Kerry recently admitted to The New York Times that even in a Kerry Administration "outsourcing will continue."

So if you oppose Bush on trade, do you vote for Nader, who agrees with you, or for Kerry, who voted for the Bush policies?"

Could Bush Win California?

Could Bush Win California?

George Will lays out a very plausible scenario by which George W. Bush could conceivably win California. It all depends on the outcome of the Republican senatorial primary.

"[S]uppose Republican voters -- a recent poll showed half of them undecided -- create the year's most mesmerizing Senate race by nominating Rosario Marin. She is the 45-year-old former U.S. Treasurer and mayor of Huntington Park, a 95 percent Latino town of 60,000 in southeast Los Angeles County, where Democrats have a 5-to-1 registration advantage."

Rosario Marin, the child of Mexican immigrants would draw votes from women and hispanics, two groups that Bush lost badly in 2000.

Hillary Clinton: Iraqi Women Miss Saddam

Hillary Clinton: Iraqi Women Miss Saddam

According to Hillary Clinton, women in Iraq preferred the good old days of Saddam Hussein.

"We also have to do more on women's rights and roles. And I have been
deeply troubled by what I hear coming out of Iraq. When I was there and met with
women members of the governing councils and local--of the national governing councils
and local governing councils in Baghdad and Kirkuk, they were starting to express
concerns about some of the pullbacks in the rights that they were given under Saddam
Hussein. He was an equal opportunity oppressor, but on paper women had rights; they
went to school; they participated in the professions; they participated in government; and
business and, as long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of
movement."

Whew! I Feel Safer Already

Whew! I Feel Safer Already

John Kerry seems to be putting distance between himself and that other John Kerry who just a couple of weeks ago said that he war on terror and national security were not high on his agenda.

"I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure," he said, promising a "stronger, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy for winning the war on terror than the Bush administration has ever envisioned." said the man who has voted to gut the CIA and cancel most of the weapons systems that allowed us to take the advantage in the war on terrror.

John Kerry, Moderate Radical

John Kerry, Moderate Radical

This is the official text of what John Kerry said in 1971. American soldiers in Vietnam: "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

And these crimes were, "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."


Now the New York Times is trying to convince us that John Kerry wasn't one of those long haired, flea infested dope smoking vermin who greeted returning US soldiers home by calling them "baby killers."

No, not at all. John Kerry was actually a moderate.

Why Aren't Opponents Called Extremists?

Why Aren't Opponents Called Extremists?

Yesterday, 163 members of the United States House of Representatives voted to oppose giving legal status to unborn children killed by murderers.

Currently, if someone kills a pregnant woman, he is not vulnerable to being charged with two murders. The child is not considered a human being. This law aims to fix that. Abortion extremists oppose it.

Paul Krugman Almost Makes Sense

Paul Krugman Almost Makes Sense

In a departure from his usual rants, Paul Krugman criticizes, however gently, John Kerry and John Edwards for advocating protectionism.

"Let me spare you the usual economist's sermon on the virtues of free trade, except to say this: although old fallacies about international trade have been making a comeback lately (yes, Senator Charles Schumer, that means you), it is as true as ever that the U.S. economy would be poorer and less productive if we turned our back on world markets. Furthermore, if the United States were to turn protectionist, other countries would follow. The result would be a less hopeful, more dangerous world."

If Only President Bush Knew How to Brag

If Only President Bush Knew How to Brag

Democrats have convinced American that we're stuck in some sort of economic doldrums. This is easily contradicted by the facts, if only the president would use them. Rich Lowry says its about time that George Bush took charge of the debate.

President Bush is taking a beating on the economy, partly because he has failed to realize the power of numbers. In his 1996 re-election campaign, Bill Clinton took the numbers from a recovering economy and repeated them until the American public reached the point of statistical saturation and became convinced the nation had achieved economic nirvana. It was a classic case of "talking up" the economy. Lately, Democratic presidential candidates have done exactly the opposite, making a recovering economy seem a cesspit of misery. If Bush is to save his presidency, he must push back. He must tout his numbers.


The numbers speak of strong overall economic growth. The gross domestic product -- the figure for the total output economy -- grew at an 8.2 percent rate in the third quarter of 2003, and at a 4 percent rate in the fourth quarter. The GDP is forecast to grow at a 4.5 percent rate in 2004. As economist J. Edward Carter writes: "For the third consecutive year, the U.S. economy is poised to grow faster than most other industrialized economies. France, Germany and Japan, for instance, are not expected to grow even half as fast as the United States."

The Tyranny of the Courts

The Tyranny of the Courts

As they did with abortion, the courts are trying to impose a monumental cultural shift upon America, trampling democracy in the process. Charles Krauthammer predicts upheaval if the voters are not allowed to have a say.

We know what short-circuiting democracy does. Thirty years after Roe v. Wade, abortion still brings masses of demonstrators into the streets. Roe v. Wade, Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, ``halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue.''

Of course, when Republicans try to repair the damage done by liberals, the Democrats are accuse them of creating wedge issues.

Predictably, Massachusetts Democrats are on the attack. John Kerry charges the president with seeking ``a wedge issue to divide the American people.'' Ted Kennedy amplifies: ``It's about politics -- an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage.''

If gay marriage is a wedge issue, then it seems to be driven between John Kerry's contradictory positions on the matter.

When Democrats and Republicans Oppose Gay Marriage

When Democrats and Republicans Oppose Gay Marriage

Perhaps the most glaring examples of media bias occur in the way that it responds when Democrats and Republicans take the same stands. When Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, reaction from the press was not lauditory, but Clinton wasn't villified either. Now that Bush has come out against homosexual marriage, he is being torn to pieces for pandering to his extreme right wing base.

Meanwhile , John Kerry gets a complete pass for trying to come down on both sides of the issue, which should tell everyone what sort of principles the man has.

"Even John Kerry and John Edwards claim they don't want gay marriage. So why are they not derided as bigots, especially now that Mr. Kerry has just endorsed a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage for Massachusetts? Plainly it's because their own supporters think these men don't believe what they feel they must say--and can be counted on not to back their words up with action when the crunch comes."

The cultural left admires these men precisely because it believes that they are liars.

Protect Marriage, Not From Gays, But From Government

Protect Marriage, Not From Gays, But From Government

I think that the current homosexual marriage debate is just what the authors of the Constitution were fearful of when they wrote the First Amendment. Although it’s doubtful that their 18th century minds could have imagined that someday the country they were founding would be conducting a debate regarding the merits of same-sex marriage, the truth is that marriage is originally a religious institution that the government should never have had a role in.
Throughout the millennia, marriage was a union between a man and a woman sanctified by a religion. It has its origins in legitimizing children and establishing family lineages. This is one big reason why mainstream religions treat sex before or outside marriage as a sin.
When the religious institution of marriage became a part of our secular law, it was inevitable that it would become an issue debated by politicians and tampered with by courts. A democratic government naturally reacts to popular culture and should never be entrusted with something so timeless as marriage.
It may be argued that government involvement in marriage has contributed to its loss of sanctity. Once upon a time, a marriage could not proceed without a pastor. But these days, a marriage conducted by a representative of the government has the same legal standing as a religious ceremony. Because of that, a growing percentage of the population has grown comfortable with unions formed without religious vows. About 40% of all heterosexual marriages today are nothing more than civil unions, performed before a government clerk or in a Nevada quickie wedding chapel.
Like almost anything else that government touches, marriage has been coarsened and cheapened. A marriage without religious commitment is literally worth nothing more than the paper it’s written on plus the fees a divorce lawyer charges. The decline of society’s esteem for marriage is manifested in the rapidly growing proportion of children born out of wedlock.
While I cannot imagine that permitting civil unions between committed homosexuals will do anywhere near the damage to marriage that Britney Spears or Larry King have already done, civil unions do need to be defined. And, while I have the greatest respect for and do not doubt the sincerity of such advocates of homosexual marriage as Andrew Sullivan, none has yet answered the argument that awarding homosexual marriage equal legal status simply opens the door to any definition of marriage. If we define marriage to be a union between any two people regardless of sex, then aren’t we discriminating against bisexuals who might want to make a marriage composed of three so both sexual appetites might gain legal blessing? For that matter, somebody show me where in the Constitution the government has the authority to ban a lonely old spinster who wishes to marry her cat so that she can have it by her bedside while she’s in the hospital. And limiting marriage to any two people could be considered religious discrimination as Islam permits one man to take as many as four wives. And the Mormon religion once permitted a single man to marry as many women as he wished. By asking that government sanction a union by any two monogamous people regardless of sex, then homosexuals are simply asking to be on the same side of discrimination that heterosexuals now occupy alone.
This last week, President Bush, after watching the legal excesses of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the administrative irresponsibility of the mayor of San Francisco proposed that the Constitution be amended to define marriage. This is an unfortunate response, but it is difficult to imagine another reaction. Government involvement in marriage has corroded the institution and it’s difficult to conceive of any cure other than to forbid government from tampering with the institution.
It’s somewhat amusing to hear many of the same leftists who for decades equated the concept of state’s rights with hostility toward civil rights now argue that states should be permitted to define marriage piecemeal.
Would such an amendment be discriminatory? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. But so would a law permitting homosexual marriage but forbidding polygamy or incestuous marriages.
I fail to see what homosexuals in a loving committed relationship will gain from having their relationship sanctified by something so cold, gray and impersonal as government. Real love does not require government approval.

Bush A Uniter or a Divider?

Bush A Uniter or a Divider?

Here's a remarkable piece of balderdash. The Massachusetts Supreme Court orders the state legislature to adopt homosexual marriage, a lunatic mayor in San Francisco suddenly starts issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals by the thousands, and George Bush is accused of "reigniting the culture wars" for trying to put a stop to it.

At Least Kerry and Edwards Profess Some Morality

At Least Kerry and Edwards Profess Some Morality

There are plenty of foci for moral outrage out there. But, Kerry and Edwards are competing over who can express the greatest indignation over free trade.

"Trade is a "moral issue," declares Senator John Edwards. The Democratic Presidential candidate is in high dudgeon that "bad trade agreements," by which he means those signed by Bill Clinton, are stealing jobs away from American workers.

It should be no surprise by now that his main competitor, Senator John Kerry, has responded by saying, "Me too." Just as Mr. Kerry parroted the rhetoric of Howard Dean on Iraq, the man who voted for Nafta now claims there is no difference between him and Mr. Edwards on trade. This scion of a Boston Brahmin family that made its fortune from the China trade is now accusing "Benedict Arnold companies and CEOs" of exporting American jobs."

The Wall Street Journal points out that the last presidential candidate to win election on a platform opposing free trade was Herbert Hoover. Remember how well he did?

Hidden Agendas

Hidden Agendas

Ann Coulter wonders why the AFT-CIO's John Sweeney always favors presidential candidates who vote against union positions.

"In the past decade, the AFL-CIO has lobbied Congress on three major issues of any importance to union members:

Oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement;

Oppose permanent normal trade relations with China;

Support drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

Contradictions

Contradictions

John Kerry, who has been for and against the Iraq War, for and against free trade, for and against homosexual marriage, accused President Bush of inconsistencies.

John Kerry isn't just inconsistent, he's outright dishonest, totally rewriting his past. For example one can easily read Kerry's own words and compare them with what he says today and see that the differences are not just nuance, but lies.

And, the press lets him get away with it. Recently CNN's Judy Woodruff asked Kerry about his 1970s antiwar activities: "It's been reported that, well you're aware of this, Vietnam veterans upset with the fact that when you came back from the war ... you were accusing American troops of war crimes."

Kerry answered: "I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership ... I've always fought for the soldiers."

That's pure BS, and it's easily provable BS. Look it up for yourself.

Surprise, Surprise

Surprise, Surprise

The New York Times is unhappy about president Bush's support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Times argues that the amendment freeze into cement discrimination against gays.

"If Mr. Bush had been acting as a president yesterday, rather than a presidential candidate, he would have tried to guide the nation on the divisive question of what rights gay Americans have. Across the nation, elected officials and others have been weighing in on whether they believe gays should be allowed to marry, have civil unions, adopt, visit their partners in hospitals and be free from employment discrimination. Except for a throwaway line about proceeding with "kindness and good will and decency," the president's speech was a call for taking rights away from gay Americans."

In truth, the amendment is about keeping marriage out of the reach of activist judges and lunatic mayors.

In Defense of Traditional Marriage

In Defense of Traditional Marriage

A Harvard law professor advocates a contitutional amendment defining traditional marriage as a way to preserve equality, not deny it. She argues that traditional marriage has burdens and obligations that gay marriage can never have.

She also argues that diluting marriage will do harm to the social arrangements that have been proven to yield the best social results.

"If these social experiments go forward, moreover, the rights of children will be impaired. Same-sex marriage will constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims made by the Massachusetts judges in the Goodridge case: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together. It would be tragic if, just when the country is beginning to take stock of the havoc those erroneous ideas have already wrought in the lives of American children, we should now freeze them into constitutional law."

Let's Judge the Whole Life

Let's Judge the Whole Life

Tony Blankley wants to judge the candidates' whole life. George W. Bush's has certainly been examined, while John Kerry's has been mostly off limits. I want everyone to know what John Kerry has said, done, and voted for.

Much has been made of how Bush made his fortune. Don't the people deserve to know that John Kerryl's primary source of income has been marrying rich heiresses, for example?

John Kerry: "Bring It On!"

John Kerry: "Bring It On!"

Okay. Since you asked for it.

If it is legitimate for John Kerry to make an issue of President Bush's National Guard Service more than 30 years ago, then it's equally legitimate to examine the disservice John Kerry did around the same time.

The anti-war organization John Kerry founded, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, "was a media favorite: war veterans who were anti-war. Quite a sales pitch. But the more realistic characterization would have been Americans who were anti-American. (Literally, too: One of the documents at WinterSoldier.com is the minutes of a VVAW executive meeting where members decided to take down American flags from all VVAW offices.)

Their goal was not just to sour Americans on the Vietnam war, but to make them hate America and American soldiers."

To either remind yourself of what John Kerry did and said then or to learn about John Kerry for the first time, you can read his own words at http:www.WinterSoldier.com

Do I Need a License From John Kerry to Criticise Him?

Do I Need a License From John Kerry to Criticise Him?

There is something absolutely disgusting about the way that John Kerry exploits triple amputee Max Cleland to deflect criticism away from his own voting record.

Sometimes his words make me wonder if he lost more than limbs though. Somebody explain this to me: “For Saxby Chambliss, who got out of going to Vietnam because of a trick knee, to attack John Kerry as weak on the defense of our nation is like a mackerel in the moonlight that both shines and stinks.”

Turning His Back On A Band Of Brothers

Turning His Back On A Band Of Brothers

The far left Village Voice reports that, as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs, John Kerry covered up evidence that North Vietnam retained hundreds of POWs after the war's conclusion.

"The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago— shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report—when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.

Over the years, an abundance of evidence had come to light that the North Vietnamese, while returning 591 U.S. prisoners of war after the treaty signing, had held back many others as future bargaining chips for the $4 billion or more in war reparations that the Nixon administration had pledged. Hanoi didn't trust Washington to fulfill its pro-mise without pressure. Similarly, Washington didn't trust Hanoi to return all the prisoners and carry out all the treaty provisions. The mistrust on both sides was merited. Hanoi held back prisoners and the U.S. provided no reconstruction funds."

The Campaign Begins?

The Campaign Begins?

Has it escaped the New York Times attention that John Kerry has been attacking President Bush for months? Accrording to the Times, the presidential campaign began yesterday, when President Bush criticized an unnamed politician "whose positions changed with the wind. The Democratic field, Mr. Bush said, is "for tax cuts and against them. For Nafta and against Nafta. For the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts."

A Psychopath With Nukes

A Psychopath With Nukes

Another gift of Jimmy Carter's peacemaking, a nuclear armed North Korea. Yes, another achievement from the man who was given a Nobel Peace Prize is coming apart. North Korea has the bomb and it's run by absolute lunatics.

"Today, North Korea acknowledges a plutonium-based nuke program located at Yongbyon. In fact, it brags about it, telling a U.S. delegation last month that it has reprocessed 8,000 uranium fuel rods from the facility's reactor into enough plutonium for up to six nuclear weapons. (U.S. intelligence officials aren't sure whether this is boast or bluster.)"

Now, thanks to Carter and Clinton, the United States and her east Asian allies get to go to the bargaining table and pretend to negotiate, which will likely just be another grandstanding session for the North Koreans.

Shouldn't Kerry Be Proud of His Liberalism?

Shouldn't Kerry Be Proud of His Liberalism?

What Kerry says these days is often contradicted by his voting record.

"In the stump speech he delivers virtually every day, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) stirs the Democratic faithful by railing against current trade practices and slamming President Bush's policies on education, civil liberties and Iraq.

But the Democratic front-runner does not mention how he, as senator, supported the president on all four issues, helping cement in law what he often describes as flawed government policies.

Kerry's past support for policies he now condemns is complicating his run for the White House, strategists from both parties say, and could prove problematic in a general election showdown with Bush. The president himself seized on this contrast in his opening attack on Kerry at a dinner last night of the Republican Governors Association."

If you're a Democrat, and even the Washingtop Post takes note of your weaknesses and dishonesty, you're going to be big, fat juicy target for the Republicans.

And, I doubt that Kerry's stock answer, that his service in Vietnam excuses everything, will work long, if at all. He's already becoming a caricature.

Thomas Sowell's Nomination for "Lie of the Year"

Thomas Sowell's Nomination for "Lie of the Year"

The Democrats are champions of an imaginary demographic known as the "working poor." Thomas Sowell examines census data and reports that, among people who actually work, poverty is a very temporary condition.

"While there are working people who are poor, most poor people are not working full time, not working very long, or not working at all."

Hmmm. Will the Community Rally Around Ryan Anderson Now?

Hmmm. Will the Community Rally Around Ryan Anderson Now?

After Sami Omar al-Hussayen was arrested for supporting terrorism, the Moscow-Pullman liberal community immediately rallied to his side, claiming that he was the victim of religious intolerance. So far, no similar groundswell of support has risen for the accused traitor Ryan Anderson. Hmmm. Might it be that the liberal community is racially intolerant?

Nevertheless, Joel Mowbray investigates the link between the two. And, it goes back to a Saudi Arabian.

Liberals Acting Like Liberals

Liberals Acting Like Liberals

Democrats are squirming these days as the Massuchussetts Supreme Court and the mayor of San Francisco try to impose homosexual marriage on the rest of America.

The way the issue is emerging will surely benefit Republicans, if they can resist making fools of themselves.

"The Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot likes to say that on the politics of gay rights, the loser will be whichever side raises the issue first."

Do Iranians Deserve Less Than Eastern Europeans?

Do Iranians Deserve Less Than Eastern Europeans?

It's hardly surprising that CNN would treat the Iranian election as though it were legitimate. After all, they treated Saddam's reelection as president, in which he supposedly won 100% of the vote with a 100% turnout, as thought it really happened that way. For example, read this nonsense regarding the Iranian election from CNN's website:

"Why did the reformists lose after two big victories in the last parliamentary elections?

They lost a good deal of credibility with the Iranian public because they failed to initiate many of the reforms they had promised. One could argue that in parliament their efforts to legislate reformist bills were blocked at every turn by the hardline Guardian Council. And there is plenty of evidence to back that argument."

One might also argue that mullahs removed the names of most reform candidates from the ballots.

So, what should we do? Stand idly by while maniacs slaughter and oppress their people while building nuclear bombs?
No argues the Wall Street Journal today.

Iranians deserve as much consideration as the Poles did in the eighties and the Iranian rulers are far more dangerous than the puppet Polish government ever was.

More Slime From Bush

More Slime From Bush

Once again, the awful Republicans are sliming John Kerry. Here they go letting people know what John Kerry has said, in his own words.

Among the defense program that Kerry proposed to cancel.

AH-64 Apache helicopter.
F-14 fighter
F-15 fighter
B-1 Bomber
Phoenix Air-Air missile
Sparrow Air-Air missile
Patriot missile

Peace Carter Style

Peace Carter Style

Jimmy Carter won a Noble Peace Prize for bringing peace to this Carribean paradise.

Has Kerry Taken the Low Road?

Has Kerry Taken the Low Road?

Saxby Chambliss pointed out that John Kerry has written 32 year history of himself by opposing every defense initiative, every intelligence initiative. Kerry calls that "The Low Road."

How can recalling Kerry's record be called the low road unless Kerry is describing his own history as low.

Is Bin Laden Surrounded?

Is Bin Laden Surrounded?

I hope this is true.

"A BRITISH Sunday newspaper is claiming Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces in an area of land bordering north-west Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Sunday Express, known for its sometimes colourful scoops, claims the al-Qaeda leader has been "sighted" for the first time since 2001 and is being monitored by satellite."

But, if we are to believe Representative Jim McDermott of Seattle or Clinton's former Secretary of State Madeline Allbright, Bush won't actually capture Bin Laden until just before the election.

Bill Clinton's Absurd Plan For Dealing With Bin Laden

Bill Clinton's Absurd Plan For Dealing With Bin Laden

More of Slick Willie's legacy is chipped into stone. His Jimmie Carteresque fecklessness permitted Al Quaeda to grow and ultimately permitted the attacks of 9/11 and on the USS Cole to occurs.

If the consequences of failure weren't so tragic, this would be as funny as a Pink Panther movie.

Just remember, this is exactly what John Kerry promises to return us to if he is elected president.

The Upside of Outsourcing - Zippies

The Upside of Outsourcing - Zippies

India is becoming a model for the emerging world. Just a couple of decades ago, India was socialist and stagnent. Now that it has embraced capitalism, its young people are enthusiastic about their future. They have a zip in their stride, thus the name "zippies."

McCain-Finegold Appears to be Failing

McCain-Finegold Appears to be Failing

George Will makes the tangled mess of McCain-Finegold undertandable. McCain-Finegold was promoting as trying to put a finger in the dike, but it's more like trying to stop a tidal wave with just a finger.

Do We Really Want to Return to This?

Do We Really Want to Return to This?

John Kerry declared that fighting terrorism was a law enforcement issue, and not a military matter. The biggest trouble with that is that it's been tried before and it failed miserably.

Policy Disputes Over Hunt Paralyzed Clinton's Aides

By Steve Coll
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 22, 2004; Page A17

Between 1998 and 2000, the CIA and President Bill Clinton's national security team were caught up in paralyzing policy disputes as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The debates left both White House counterterrorism analysts and CIA career operators frustrated and at times confused about what kinds of operations could be carried out, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials and lawyers who were directly involved.

There was little question that under U.S. law it was permissible to kill bin Laden and his top aides, at least after the evidence showed they were responsible for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. The ban on assassinations -- contained in a 1981 executive order by President Ronald Reagan -- did not apply to military targets, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had previously ruled in classified opinions. Bin Laden's Tarnak Farm and other terrorist camps in Afghanistan were legitimate military targets under this definition, White House lawyers agreed.

Also, the assassination ban did not apply to attacks carried out in preemptive self-defense -- when it seemed likely that the target was planning to strike the United States. Clearly bin Laden qualified under this standard as well.

[T]he secret legal authorizations Clinton signed after this failed missile strike required the CIA to make a good faith effort to capture bin Laden for trial, not kill him outright.

Why Can't Democrats Defend Free Trade?

Why Can't Democrats Defend Free Trade?

I can only remember one prominent Democrat, Al Gore, defending free trade. Criticizing free trade is now universal among Democratic candidates. Even John Kerry, who voted for free trade won't stand up for it. It's like his war vote. He voted for free trade, but now says that it's somebody else's fault for the way things turned out.

Now, John Edwards is saying that he favors protectionism as a "moral" issue.

Why can't a Democrat say, yes, free trade does send some jobs overseas, but it also even more jobs here in the United States. And, as it lifts the economy of poorer nations, it creates trading partners. And, if as Democrats claim that poverty causes terrorism, then isn't it good for the United State's security to trade jobs with these poor nations?

Ah. That's one of the great things about being a Democrat. You don't have to make long speeches or be terribly consistent. Your voters don't have long attention spans anyway.

Clash of Civilizations

Clash of Civilizations

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has been a chronic pain in the ass since the early days of our confrontation with Iraq. We now have a window into what motivates him.

He presents France as [and] the US as the only two modern civilisations with "universal aspirations", a claim that other pretenders are likely to dispute. France and the US are thus cast in the roles of rivals in "cultural and moral domains."

I find this interesting on a couple of levels. First of all, he clearly dismisses Islam as civilization, because it's aspirations are certainly universal. Secondly, he imagines that the future lies with one of only two models of civilization.
If Villepin's French version wins out then the world will descend into barbarism as the French prefer to surrender to the uncivilized.

Why We're Fighting

Why We're Fighting

Check this out. This is why we're there.

President Bush's New Best Friend

President Bush's New Best Friend

It's Tom Daschle.

Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass destruction.

Daschle told state chamber of commerce representatives meeting in the South Dakota capital that he is satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq.

"I give the effort overall real credit," Daschle said. "It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It is a good thing we are democratizing the country."

Of course, he running for re-election from a state that voted overwhelmingly for George W. Bush in 2000. It seems to have occurred to him that he isn't running for re-election from Massachussetts.

Whew, That's a Relief!

Whew, That's a Relief!

The universe has at least 30 billion years left. On the other, Darth Vader was right.

Jonah Goldberg to Kerry "Bring it On!"

Jonah Goldberg to Kerry "Bring it On!"

Jonah Goldberg wonders whom the terrorists would like to see win this November, Bush or Kerry. And, he has a proposal for a Republican campaign commercial:

Here's an idea for Bush campaign ad:

Scene: Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their cronies are in their cave, eating popcorn. The cave is dimly illuminated by the light of a television set.

They're watching a clip from the Wisconsin Democratic debate.

Questioner: Senator Kerry, President Bush . described himself as a war president. He said he's got war on his mind as he considers these policies and decisions he has to make. If you were elected, would you see yourself as a war president?

Kerry: "I'd see myself first of all as a jobs president, as a health care president, as an education president and also an environmental president. . So I would see myself as a very different kind of global leader than George Bush."

Cut to Osama and Mullah Omar high-fiving each other, throwing the popcorn up in the air. One henchman in the background is grinning while waving a "Kerry for President" banner.

Fade to black.

Raise text: Re-Elect George W. Bush. The right man at the right time.

Turning on the Slime Machine

Turning on the Slime Machine

Depending upon his audience, and the direction that the political winds might be blowing at the moment, John Kerry has been for and against the Iraq War, for and against rebuilding Iraq, for and against free trade, for and against the Patriot Act, for and against gay marriage, for and against the No Child Left Behind Act. Republicans are planning to remind Americans of John Kerry opportunistic flip floppery.
I guess they're going negative, just as Kerry predicted.

Republicans Might Go Negative?

Republicans Might Go Negative?

It's quite remarkable how John Kerry can almost simultaneously accuse President George W. Bush of being AWOL from his National Guard unit in Alabama, then whine that Republicans will be "going negative" in the election campaign.

"it's time for George W. Bush to call off his right-wing slime machine,'' declared Kerry's campaign, shortly after fellow Democrat Wesley Clark began spreading rumors about John Kerry's extramarital affairs.

Charles Krauthammer assembles a bit of effluent from the Democrats' slime machine. Here's a small sample.

First, that President Bush has "deceived'' (Al Sharpton), ``misled'' (John Kerry, Howard Dean), indeed, outright ``lied'' (Kucinich) us into a pointless and ruinous war that, as Kerry's chief campaign surrogate, Edward Kennedy, thunders, was ``made up in Texas'' for pure political advantage. Hence, Bush's hands are dripping with the blood of 500 brave soldiers who died for a lying president seeking better poll numbers.

It's a case of remarking the obvious, the is Charles Krauthammer after all, but it's worth reading the whole column.

It's Not About America, It's Personal

It's Not About America, It's Personal

Daniel Henninger argues that Democrats have made this campaign so personal, that they're endangering national security.

Daniel Schorr, Cough it Up!

Daniel Schorr, Cough it Up!

In 1976, CBS reporter Daniel Schorr obtained and published a copy of secret House of Representatives intelligence committee hearing. A court ordered him to reveal the name of the leaker. Schorr refused and went to jail. He's still a hero among journalists for his refusal to give up his sources.

Today, Robert Novak is being pressured by this colleagues to give up the name of the person who told him that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA. What's the difference?

"Never burn a source," writes Geneva Overholser of the New York Times. "It's a cardinal rule of journalism: do not disclose the identity of someone who gives you information in confidence. As a staunch believer in this rule for decades, I have surprised myself lately by concluding that journalists' proud absolutism on this issue--particularly in a case involving the syndicated columnist Robert Novak--is neither as wise nor as ethical as it has seemed."

You know damned well that Ms. Overholser does not have the best interests of national security in mind. If she did, it would be a first for her.

Mike Leonard, president of the National Society of Newspaper Columnists opines "if I were party to a crime I'd fess up and not hide behind journalistic privilege."

The difference is that embarassing a Republican administration is what both episodes were all about and journalism's highest calling is to do violence to Republicans.

Kerry Fails The Test

Kerry Fails The Test


New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman issued a challenge, almost a plea, to John Kerry last Sunday. And it was a test that John Kerry failed miserably the very next day.
Thomas Friedman is a specialist on Middle East matters. He writes with a fairness and sensitivity that earns him respect and access to both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although Jewish, Thomas Friedman possesses an instinctive understanding of Arab culture that permits him to serve as a translator, making their concerns comprehensible to Americans.
So every serious observer of the Middle East makes it a point to read and digest Friedman?s columns. His most recent column was written, not just to help readers such as myself grasp how precarious our current position in Iraq is, but especially to make John Kerry understand how the land lies.
The terrorists in Iraq who have been blowing up their fellow Arabs by the score, along with an occasional American, know very well that they cannot defeat us through direct confrontation. The recently intercepted communication from Al Quaida Zarquawi conveys the hopelessness of the terrorists? position.
Unable to actually beat us, the terrorists? goal is now to break our national will, much as the Vietnam War broke our will 30 years ago. And there is an opportunity for them to achieve just that this coming November. The terrorists have to be taking a great deal of hope from the possibility that John Kerry might replace George Bush. John Kerry did vote to deny the military the funding it required to remain in Iraq and finish the job there. The possibility that a less resolute president could be taking office in January certainly provides the terrorists with a considerable morale boost.
Thomas Friedman therefore wrote a speech that he wishes John Kerry would give, so that the terrorists could derive no optimism from the upcoming election. Friedman pleaded with Kerry to tell the terrorists that a change of administrations would bring them no relief. He asked that Kerry tell the Baathist dead-enders in Iraq that a Kerry victory will not mean that America will hand the Iraqi people back to those tyrants.
Friedman asked that Kerry not give aid or comfort to the enemy through his political rhetoric.
The very next day, at a debate in Wisconsin, Kerry was asked, ?Senator Kerry, President Bush a week ago on "Meet the Press " described himself as a war president. He said he's got war on his mind as he considers these policies and decisions he has to make. If you were elected, would you see yourself as a war president?
John Kerry answered: ?I'd see myself first of all as a jobs president, as a health care president, as an education president and also an environmental president. And add them all together, you can't be safe at home today unless you are also safe abroad.?
Translation: John Kerry is not much interested in prosecuting the war and will devote his attention to issues that frankly, presidents can?t do much about. Terrorists will once again be left in peace to plan their next attack on the United States. The fascists can claim Iraq as their staging area once again. America?s reputation as a reliable ally to friends of democracy will be shredded.
John Kerry makes it a point to bring up Vietnam at every opportunity. Democrats and their press poodles enjoy calling Iraq a ?quagmire? much as Vietnam became. And that comparison is fair, insofar as it applies to John Kerry. In his 1985 memoir, General Giap, who commanded the North Vietnamese army to victory over an irresolute United States, credited John Kerry?s antiwar group, ?Vietnam Veterans Against the War,? with handing the communists a victory they never could have won by force of arms. According to General Giap, had it not been for John Kerry, the communists probably would have had to surrender.
A generation later, John Kerry is in position again to deal America a humiliating defeat. John Kerry is in a unique position from which he may encourage or discourage America?s enemies. The dead enders who are killing Americans and Iraqis are undoubtedly encouraged by the fact that they only have to hold out until November to win. John Kerry could have disabused them of that notion and demoralized them. Instead, he chose to demoralize America and her allies.

Not Everybody's into Atkins

Not Everybody's into Atkins

Some people are actually encourging obesity.

"Marilyn Wann, 5-feet-5, 270 pounds and darn proud of it, scanned the ad and fumed: How dare they imply that fat people are not proud, or that dignity is reserved for the thin? Wann threw down the newspaper. Then she smiled and began to e-mail her friends.


At the hospital's weight-loss surgery workshop in October, Wann and a handful of others blended into the crowd, most of them at least 100 pounds heavier than doctors say they should be. They listened to the surgeons — then Wann blew a whistle.


The infiltrators jumped up, whipped off their clothes and, clad only in bathing suits (Wann in a pink two-piece), danced through the stunned audience with the words "Fat+Pride" and "Fat+Dignity" marked on their stomachs."


It just proves that everybody wants to be considered normal. But some want to achieve it by lowering the standards of normal so they don't have to make any sacrifices to get there.

You Say You Want a Revolution?

You Say You Want a Revolution?

You've got one, in Iran. The mullahs are resorting to machine gunning their own citizens and are installing terrorists on the ruling council. Scary stuff, but they're going down.

John Kerry, Take Two

John Kerry, Take Two

After a press conference during which John Kerry said absolutely nothing interesting and exciting, the CBS producer asked Kerry to say it again, this time with feeling.

Oh Yeah, Kerry Means It.

Oh Yeah, Kerry Means It.

After bringing it up himself, John Kerry has supposedly asked the Democratic National Committee to stop criticizing President Bush's Nationa Guard record. DNC chairman Terry McAwful has refused.
Kerry wants it out there. He just doesn't want his fingerprints on it.

Castro and Bush

Castro and Bush

It's hard to believe, but Fidel Castro has ramped up his repression machine. But, he's still more popular in Democratic circles that George W. Bush, who has liberated millions.

Have you ever heard Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean or John Kerry criticize Castro as vehemently as they criticize Bush.

Democratic Sleaze Merchant, Larry Flynt Get to Work

Democratic Sleaze Merchant, Larry Flynt Get to Work

Move over Michael Moore, a real Democrat is getting to work on the 2004 election.

It's Time We Rolled Up Our Sleeves and Spit on Our Hands. North Korea Needs Us.

It's Time We Rolled Up Our Sleeves and Spit on Our Hands. North Korea Needs Us.

Kim Jong Il's former sushi chef talks. While his nation starves, Dear Leader's chef traveled around the world purchasing the best ingredients for Dear Leader's plate.

Urumqi (in northwestern China) for fruit, mainly hamigua melons and grapes
Thailand for fruit, mostly durians, papayas, and mangoes
Malaysia for fruit, mostly durians, papayas, and mangoes
Czechoslovakia for draft beer
Denmark for pork
Iran for caviar
Uzbekistan for caviar
Japan for seafood


"With respect to rice, before cooking it a waiter and a kitchen staff member would inspect it grain by grain. Chipped and defective grains were extracted; only those with perfect form were presented."

One day during a meal Kim Jong Il suddenly said, "Fujimoto, I've heard that in Japan there is a rice cake filled with mugwort. I want you to go and buy it tomorrow!"

The cook finally escaped by convincing Dear Leader that he should try a fancy new sea urchin dish. The ingredients had to be purchased in Japan. The chef left and never returned with Kim's sea urchins.

The Tool of Special Intersts

The Tool of Special Interests

It's okay to accept money from rich people and businesses. It's okay to accept this money and promote laws and spending bills that benefit those donors. It's entirely reasonable that one could favor these laws without bribery and that the donations follow the philosophy, rather than the other way around.

But the sanctimonious John Kerry seems to actually sell his influence today's Houston Chronicle reports.

"U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., sent 28 letters in behalf of a San Diego defense contractor who pleaded guilty last week to illegally funneling campaign contributions to the Massachusetts senator and four other congressmen.

Members of Congress often write letters supporting constituent businesses and favored projects. But as Democratic presidential front-runner, Kerry has promoted himself as one who has never been beholden to campaign contributors.

From 1996 through 1998, Kerry participated in a letter-writing campaign to free up federal funds for a missile system that defense contractor Parthasarathi "Bob" Majumder was trying to build for U.S. warplanes.

Kerry's letters were sent to fellow members of Congress -- and to the Pentagon -- while Majumder and his employees at Science and Applied Technology, Inc. were donating money to the senator, court records show."

Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

Every since the McCain-Finegold campaign finance reform passed, Democrats have been forming all manner of shadow organization to subvert the law's intent. So-called 527 organizations have raised many millions of dollars from Democratic fat cats forbidden from donating directly to the party. These organization serve as a stealth Democratic Party and planned to spend hundreds of millions to defeat President Bush.

Now, the Federal Election Committee has decided that these organizations are subject to limitations as well. If they are going to attack a federal candidate, then their fundraising must be treated as hard money. So, George Soros can only give $2000, instead of $20 million. That should stick in George's craw.

I loath McCain-Finegold, but if we're going to have a law limiting free speech, then it must apply equally. And those who piously pushed the law shouldn't have to be reminded to obey it.

Oops, I Really Didn't Mean That

Oops, I Really Didn't Mean That

It wasn't so long ago that the Washington Post disparaged everyone who opposed McCain-Finegold campaign finance reform. We needed to clean up politics by getting the big money out of it.

Of course, as soon as McCain-Finegold passed, both parties began creating back doors to keep the money flowing. Democrats have been particularly aggressive in this strategy. And suddenly, the Washington Post thinks that big money is okay again.

"THE FEDERAL Election Commission is scheduled today to take up one of the most controversial issues in campaign finance regulation: what rules govern a new breed of political committees that involve themselves in federal elections but say they are free, unlike political parties and candidate committees, to take unlimited funds from any source. The activities of these groups are of concern, and they bear watching in 2004 and beyond. But for now, as a matter of both law and policy, the FEC should refrain from subjecting them to the same rules that cover ordinary political committees."

Why the sudden change? Well, if you read the whole editorial it's because these backdoors assist Democrats more than Republicans.

Give the Post credit though. The New York Times, CNN, etc. have not even reported on this issue, recognizing what a bad light it shines on Democratic Party hypocrisy.

The Three Faces of Eve (Oops, I Mean John Kerry)

The Three Faces of Eve (Oops, I Mean John Kerry)

Ben Shapiro chronicles John Kerry's capacity for occupying every side of a position simultaneously.
example: Regarding the AWOL allegations against President Bush.

"The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is: Was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don't have the answer to that question ... Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question." (John Kerry, Feb. 8, 2004)

"It's not an issue that I chose to create. It's not my record that's at issue, and I don't have any questions about it." (John Kerry, Feb. 10, 2004)

Is There Anything Liberals Can't Get Away With?

Is There Anything Liberals Can't Get Away With?

A United States Congressman recently intervened on behalf of a brutal rapist who happened to be the son of a campaign contributor. But, there has been no press outrage. Why? Because Lynn Woolsley is one of the most radical leftists in Washington.

Arabs Back Bush

Arabs Back Bush

Yesterday, Howard Dean was ripping George W. Bush for mistreating Arab-Americans. That's probably because, like all liberals, Howard Dean sees what he believes, whether it's real or not. Arab-Americans don't agree with Dean and are putting their money behind Bush.

Questions for Kerry

Questions for Kerry

Since the press has been unwilling to ask the hard questions of John Kerry, a number of pundits have offered to help them out. A few of David Limbaugh's suggestions:

-- War on Terror: You say that George Bush hasn't been effective in leading the war on terror and has diverted too many of our resources to Iraq. Do you base your claim on the fact that we routed the Taliban in short order despite your party's predictions of quagmire, that we've captured or killed some two-thirds of known al Qaeda members, or that we haven't been attacked again since Sept. 11, 2001? Or is it that you just have no confidence in our military and intelligence services?

-- Tax Populism: George Bush's tax cuts, despite your rhetoric, were skewed against the rich -- that is, the rich got a lesser percentage reduction. Why, then, do you mischaracterize them as "tax cuts for the wealthy"?

John Kerry's Shifting Sands

John Kerry's Shifting Sands

Paul Greenberg points out John Kerry's fundamental problem - himself.

"How dare George W. Bush now claim that he never said Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States!

Listen to this quote from 2002 on the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction:

. . . I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Oops. Actually, that wasn't George W. Bush. It was John F. Kerry explaining why he was going to vote for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam's regime in Iraq."

A Woman Scorned

A Woman Scorned

According to his wife, Representative Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas) is an abusive bully with a violent temper, control freak and a spendthrift who hates kids and pets. She's running against her husband for his House seat. She's really pissed.

Howard Dean's Last Stand

Howard Dean's Last Stand

Dr. Dean pulls out all stops trying to lock up the Arab vote.

Does Kerry Want the US to Succeed?

Does Kerry Want the US to Succeed?

Thomas Friedman notes that the possibility of a John Kerry victory in November is giving hope to the Baathists and terrorists. He writes a suggested speech for Kerry that would lay down the law to the terrorists - that things will not be getting better for them if he wins.

Senator Kerry: "Tim, before I answer that question, I first want to direct a message to the die-hard Baathists and Islamo-fascists who've been slaughtering Iraqis struggling to build their first democratic government. And my message to these terrorists is this: `READ MY LIPS — if I am president, I will not cut and run. I will not pull our troops out in the face of your intimidation the way Ronald Reagan fled from Lebanon.' Because that panicky retreat from Beirut in 1984 started us down this whole path, where terrorists believed if they hit us hard enough, we would run and they would get away with it. I hate how George Bush has prosecuted this war. I know I could do better. But I want every suicide bomber — from Bali to Baghdad — to understand one thing about a Kerry administration: `You can blow yourselves up from now until next Ramadan, but we'll still be in Iraq. You'll be dead, but we'll still be there. Which part of that sentence don't you understand?'

Would Kerry make such a speech? If Thomas Friedman thinks so, then he has not been paying much attention to domestic politics lately.

LBJ and Carter Should Salvage Franklin Pierce's Place in History

LBJ and Carter Should Salvage Franklin Pierce's Place in History

No, Franklin Pierce was not the worst president in American History.

That dishonor belongs to either Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter. Lyndon Johnson cooked up the Tonkin Gulf incident to embroil the United States in the Vietnam War, and then obstructed the military when they tried to win it.

Jimmy Carter was, well Jimmy Carter. Inept, unfocused, cowardly, unprincipled and hopelessly naive.

Top Speed, 1400 MPH

Top Speed, 1400 MPH

I gotta get me one of these.

Guess What? The Democrats Are Cheating.

Guess What? The Democrats Are Cheating.

Longtime readers of this corner of the blogosphere might remember that all way back to the earliest days of McCain-Finegold, I predicted that if parties were forbidden from raising soft money, shadow organizations would form to do the same thing. Guess what? They are! And guess what else? It's the Democrats, who insisted that we needed McCain-Finegold to get the money and corruption out of politics who are doing it. I guess that tells us which is the party of corruption, now doesn't it?

Will the New York Times, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS, all of which argued vehemently for McCain-Finegold castigate the Democrats for subverting the law's intent this way? What do you think?

The Unchangeable Tone

The Unchangeable Tone

George Bush came to Washington promising to change the tone. The only change is that Republicans have unilaterally disarmed and Democrats have ramped up their demogoguery.

Robert Novak has a fine example today.

Speaking of Dissent

Speaking of Dissent

David Horowitz is attempting to convince the University of Colorado to protect the rights of non-lefists, and is running into considerable resistance.

The amendment he proposes asks that all faculty should be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise, without regard to political or religious beliefs.

Colorado objects.

Free Speech Me, But Not For Thee

Free Speech Me, But Not For Thee

A student at Chapel Hill expressed his disaproval of homosexuality on religious grounds. His opinion was described as "violent." Read it all.

Is the Executioner's Ax About to Fall?

Is the Executioner's Ax About to Fall?

Supposedly, a television network has already interviewed Alex Polier regarding her affair with John Kerry and is just waiting for corroborating evidence before broadcast.

"The channel is sitting on the tape until it has enough evidence to back her story. If the sex claims are true, they would shatter his White House hopes. Kerry, a married dad of two, has denied the fling. But Alex told pals she fled to Kenya on his suggestion."

John Kerry is Not a Wealthy Man?

John Kerry is Not a Wealthy Man?

William F. Buckley points out that Kerry's claim that he is not a wealthy man is contradicted by his self financing of his presidential campaign.

"The story of Senator John Kerry's mortgaged home in Beacon Hill is worth looking at. What made the papers was the suggestion that his access to it, in usufruct, was threatened by the sheer size of the loan and the attendant obligations of financing it. All of this, of course, in the context of his need for money to finance the ongoing campaign for the presidency.

There are several perspectives one needs in order to evaluate the problem of Mr. Kerry's mortgage. The first, of course, is that if you own a house valuable enough to warrant a loan of $6 million, you are living, by common standards, in an economic stratosphere, the implications of which require adjusting to normal standards of evaluation. If you hock the Hope Diamond for $10 million, attention focuses on your owing $10 million whereas, properly, it should focus on your owning the Hope Diamond."

Even The Washington Post Editorial Page Has Some Questions for Kerry

Even The Washington Post Editorial Page Has Some Questions for Kerry

There's no doubt that the Washington Post will ultimately endorse Kerry's candidacy. He is, after all, a Democrat and in the end, that's all that matters to the Post. But even their editorial page has problems with him.

A Sampling:

"The most important confusion surrounds Mr. Kerry's position on Iraq. In 1991 he voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government.

Mr. Kerry's attempts to weave a thread connecting and justifying all these positions are unconvincing. He would do better to offer a more honest accounting. His estimation of the cost of expelling Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 was simply wrong; and if President Bush was mistaken to think in 2003 that there was an urgent need to stop Saddam Hussein from stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Kerry made the same error in 1998.

More important, Mr. Kerry should clarify what he believes should be the objectives of the U.S. mission in Iraq going forward -- and what military and aid commitments he is prepared to make."

I wonder if the Post's reporters will pursue these genuinely substantive questions with the same enthusiasm that they've chased frivolous ones about George Bush's Guard service.

28 Questions the Press Will Never Ask John Kerry

28 Questions the Press Will Never Ask John Kerry

While the press consults Terry McAwful and the Kerry campaign for questions it should ask George W. Bush, George Will has a few questions for John Kerry.

A sampling:

Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?

You abhor "special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests." When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?

Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"?

When you denounce "lobbyists" do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?

Timing a Smear

Timing a Smear

It turns out that the John Kerry campaign was not happy with Terry McAwful's accusation two weeks ago that President Bush was AWOL from the National Guard.
No, Kerry wasn't unhappy that it was brought up. They were unhappy with the timing. Bringing it up when he did allowed Bush to defend himself, as he has, with documentation that he did fulfill his duties. By November, the issue will be dead and might even reflect badly on the Democrats.
Kerry wanted to smear Bush closer to the general election.

"There is near-universal glee in Democratic circles over seeing Bush on the griddle over questions about whether he reported for duty while serving stateside in the Guard more than three decades ago. As Democrats see it, the controversy -- and what they see as the White House's halting answers to legitimate questions -- undermines Bush's national security credentials and his reputation for candor, while highlighting a life of ease and privilege that Bush lived before the presidency.

Amid the Democratic chortling, however, there are voices of caution who worry that the party may be raising trouble for itself with an exhumation of Bush's past. The lesson of the Clinton years was that accusers -- from Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-N.Y.) on Whitewater to House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) on the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal -- often suffered more damage than their intended targets."

Indeed, 56% of Democrats do not believe that the charges are illigimate.

Is It Possible To Satisfy the Democrats?

Is It Possible To Satisfy the Democrats?

Until called off by their masters, John Kerry and Terry McAwful, the press is not going to let this issue go. A good example is this article. It confirms everything George W. Bush has said about his National Guard service, but the writer struggles with reporting that until near the end of the article. Obviously, he's hoping you stop reading before you get to this part.

A Terrorist's Cry of Despair

A Terrorist's Cry of Despair

You're not hearing much about this because it reflects well on the president. But, if you want to appreciate how badly things are going for Al Quaida, read the words of a top commander.

Defending Against Democrat Smears is Slime?

Defending Against Democrat Smears is Slime?

Republican National Committee Chairman defended the president against the scurilous attacks from John Kerry and DNC chairman Terry McAwful regarding the president's National Guard Service.

"We highlight policies, and note Senator Kerry's long Senate record. They accuse the president of desertion -- a military crime punishable by death -- as the Clark campaign did, or accuse the president of being AWOL, which is a felony, punishable by imprisonment, as DNC chair Terry McAuliffe has done," Gillespie said. "Terry McAuliffe has become the John Wilkes Booth of presidential character assassination."

"In response to Gillespie's speech, James Bilbray and Terry Care, co-chairs of Kerry's Nevada campaign, issued a statement calling Gillespie the president's "favorite attack dog" who was spreading "false, nasty personal charges."

They urged Bush to "call off his right-wing slime machine."

What About Global Crossing, or Loral?

What About Global Crossing, or Loral?

Just as Brent Bozell pointed out above, the press treat similar issues very differently depending upon how it affects Democrats or Republicans. The New York Times says (and therefore plans to make it happen) that Hallliburton will be a campaign issue. So, why wasn't Loral a campaign issue. Loral cleary bribed Bill Clinton to change export laws so that a Justice Department investigation into missile technology transfer to China would be scuttled.

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — As the accusations and investigations of the Halliburton Company's federal contracts in Iraq expand in size and number, Democrats say they will use the company's ties to the Bush administration as a campaign issue, and Halliburton is responding with television advertisements implying that it is being unfairly singled out.


"We are serving our troops because of what we know, not who we know," declares the 30-second spot, which is running in Washington, Houston and several other cities."

Media Water Bearers

Media Water Bearers

To their last breath, the media will insist that it is fair, honest, unbiased and non-partisan. But, it's very easy to compare how differently they treat Republicans and Democrats. Brent Bozell has a look at how the press treated Bill Clinton's Vietnam non-service with George Bush's National Guard service.

"It is a testament to the dignity of George Bush the Elder that in 1992, he refused to make endless fun of the draft shenanigans of Bill Clinton, who skipped off to Oxford after he received his draft notice to blab endlessly about politics and play strip poker with the lasses.

But he should have said something serious about it. Bush's campaign was so devoid of red meat on Clinton's military deficiencies that it was almost vegetarian in its fear of liberal media pounding.

Twelve years later, seemingly we have role reversal with President George W. Bush. Except there is no evidence of scandal against this president. And the Democrats won't stop making scurrilous accusations. And the media are eagerly promoting it all."

Called To Account

Called To Account?

Rich Lowry has a nomination for the most dishonest paragraph in this year's campaign, and no, it was from Wesley Clark, but John Kerry. Regarding the "Winter Soldier Investigation:"

"Asked about the testimony the other day by Knight Ridder, Kerry said he relied on the Winter Soldier Investigation "because some of it was highly documented and very disturbing. I did in my heart what I thought was correct to help people understand what was going on. I've always honored the service of people over there. I never insinuated that everybody fell into one pot. I was looking forward to telling the truth about some of the things that were happening."

This is a statement shot through with mendacity. Let's take it sentence by sentence: 1) The Winter Soldier testimony was not "highly documented," but -- as Mack Owens of the Naval War College has reported -- totally unsubstantiated. The fantastic stories of atrocities should have been unbelievable to any Vietnam vet. 2) Kerry didn't "help people understand what was going on," but rather helped publicize lies. 3) Kerry didn't "honor" the service of vets, but said, "We are ashamed of ... what we are called on to do in Southeast Asia," and maintained that in the vets, America "has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence." 4) Kerry did insinuate that the atrocities were widespread, noting that they were "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." These crimes tainted the nation -- "the crimes threaten [the country], not Reds," as "America lose[s] her sense of morality." 5) If Kerry wanted to tell the truth, he shouldn't have traded in falsehoods."

This Is An Insult?

This Is An Insult?

Homosexuals are the ones who should feel insulted. After Conan O'Brien pronounced everyone in the French province of Quebec a homosexual, the Canadian government insisted that its honor was besmirched.

On the same show, Triumph the Insult Dog said, "You're French, you're obnoxious and you no speekay English." It told another: "I can smell your crotch from here."

O'Brien's team were also shown replacing street signs in the province with those that read "Quebecqueer Street" and "Rue des Pussies."

Not a Shot Fired

Not a Shot Fired

Another victory in the war on terror.

When Will Kerry Apologize?

When Will Kerry Apologize?

John Kerry and Terry McAwful have all but accused George W. Bush of desertion. The documentation is in. His brothers have spoken. Bush did his duty. His accuser's truthfulness is doubtful. Will we hear an apology?

Kerry's a Sleazeball

Kerry's a Sleazeball

The father of a young lady whom Kerry tried to seduce gives his opinion of the Democratic frontrunner.

The Real John Kerry

The Real John Kerry

John Kerry in his own words and voted. Hugh Hewitt is collecting Kerryisms for all to read.

Baby Killers

Baby Killers

Care to know who is responsible for Vietnam veterans being spat upon when they returned home? Look here.

"Along with radical chic royalty like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, and supported by Sen. Eugene McCarthy and Fr. Daniel Berrigan, VVAW members met in Detroit and testified to atrocities they had committed or been witness to in Vietnam. Allegations included torture, intentional dismemberment, and gang rape (some excerpts are included in "The New Soldier"). The project operated under the thesis that American atrocities like the one at My Lai weren't highly unusual but reflected the routinely criminal exploits of American military leadership and soldiers."

John Kerry's Disgusting History

John Kerry's Disgusting History

John Kerry didn't just criticize our elected leaders when he returned from Vietnam, he slandered our soldiers, feeding the baby killer image.

He will be called to account for this, even though the Bush campaign wishes to avoid it.

What Does John Kerry Believe?

What Does John Kerry Believe?

John Kerry might not be the best person to ask. Jeff Jacoby and David Limbaugh compare John Kerry's words with John Kerry's words and he seems to have at some point, advocated everything and stood for and against everything.

From Jeff Jacoby: "Here's how it works: Say you're in favor of capital punishment for terrorists. Well, so is Kerry. "I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country," he said in December 2002. "I support killing people who declare war on our country."

But if you're opposed to capital punishment even for terrorists, that's OK -- Kerry is too! Between 1989 and 1993, he voted at least three times to exempt terrorists from the death penalty. In a debate with former Governor William Weld, his opponent in the 1996 Senate race, Kerry scorned the idea of executing terrorists. Anti-death penalty nations would refuse to extradite them to the United States, he said. "Your policy," he told Weld, "would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail."

"Take the Patriot Act. Kerry condemns it fiercely as the stuff of a "knock-in-the-night" police state. He vows "to end the era of John Ashcroft" by "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."

So does that mean he voted against it in 2001? Au contraire! Kerry voted for the law -- parts of which he originally wrote. On the Senate floor before the vote, he singled out its money-laundering and financial-transfer sections for particular praise, but declared that he was "pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation as a whole."

Bottom line, then: Is Kerry for or against the Patriot Act? Absolutely."

From David Limbaugh: "It is true that Senator Kerry voted to authorize a military attack on Iraq and then later tried to squirm out of his vote. Senator Kerry decried Republicans for criticizing candidate Clinton for avoiding the draft but is now exploiting questions about President Bush's Air National Guard service. Kerry has conveniently retreated from his position against capital punishment for terrorists. He shamelessly attacks the Patriot Act, though he voted for it a few short years ago. And he's all over the board on the gay marriage debate."

Where is Al Quaida?

Where is Al Quaida?

All the Democrats know a better way to fight the war on terror. But even Bush's harshest critic must confess that we've not been attacked since September 11, 2001. Might there be a reason why?

"It is easy to understand why nobody wants to talk about this. The administration dare not take credit for what is on the face of it an amazing phenomenon, but one that can reverse itself in a flash. And the opposition hardly wants to highlight a development that might shed favorable light on this administration's post-9/11 stewardship.

Even commentators are uneasy about bringing it up. Any analysis could instantaneously turn into embarrassment.

Nonetheless, it seems odd to have a moratorium on so intriguing a question. I ask it of almost every intelligence expert I meet. Their speculations fall along two lines.

The first is that al Qaeda has been so severely degraded and disrupted that it simply cannot do it. It has lost its Afghan base, lost much of its funding and is reduced to going back to where Islamic radicals were years ago: launching minor guerrilla operations in Pakistan/Afghanistan, and sending operatives out to hit soft targets such as synagogues in Tunisia and embassies in Istanbul."

The Real Weapons of Mass Distraction

The Real Weapons of Mass Distraction

So, the Democrats were right after all. Those really were Weapons of Mass Distraction. Judging from his performance on “Meet The Press,” these weapons have become so distracting that even President George W. Bush seems to have forgotten why we invaded Iraq. To review: We invaded Iraq because Iraq was a front in the war against terror.
For entirely too long the press and the presidential campaign has focused eagerly upon the fruitless search for weapons. The search was highlighted as Democrats and their press parrots focused upon an imaginary, but often repeated quote from the president declaring that Saddam’s weapons were an imminent threat. In truth, the president specifically said that Saddam’s weapons were not an imminent threat and that it was precisely because the threat was not yet imminent that we had to act when we did.
So focused has the press and the political debate grown on the hunt for weapons of mass destruction that we’ve forgotten what we’re up to. And, if we don’t regain our focus, it will cost us dearly.
We are fighting an entirely new kind of war. Previously, we fought wars against specific countries. Now, we are fighting an amorphous movement that crosses international boundaries and often recruits its soldiers from the citizens of the country it attacks. Fighting a war against terrorism requires that we not only attack the terrorists themselves, but their sanctuaries and their sources of succor.
Afghanistan was a sanctuary for the terrorists, where they could plan and train in relative security. The Al Quaida terrorist network ran the country through its surrogates.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein also needed to be dumped into history’s waste bin for many of the same reasons. Liberals point out that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the September 11, 2001 attacks. Again, Democrats and their water bearers in the press have assigned claims to the administration that it did not make. The Bush Administration has gone to rather extraordinary lengths to excuse Iraq from complicity in the attacks. Nevertheless, Bush is often accused of invading Iraq on the false pretense that Iraq was involved. But, we are not fighting a war of retaliation. We are fighting a war of suppression, or if you prefer, preemption. It’s ludicrous to claim that Saddam Hussein did not underwrite and encourage terrorism. Saddam Hussein openly financed suicide bombings in Israel. And, before anyone ever heard of Osama Bin Laden, Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were the faces of terror. Until the war, both lived and operated openly in Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s protection.
Liberals have attempted to distract our attention from Iraq by demanding to know why we have not dealt with Iran and North Korea as we did with Iraq.
Those are different situations. In the case of North Korea, the Clinton Administration allowed Kim Jong Il to become an imminent threat and that changes the calculus entirely. A military solution would undoubtedly result in the nuclear incineration of millions. Additionally, North Korea is so economically unstable that it may collapse on its own, just as the Soviet Union did, without a shot being fired.
Iran is politically unstable. Its young are pro-American and very much opposed to the theocracy. Unrest is growing and becoming bolder. No nation can be ruled forever without the consent of its people and the mullahs are losing control there. Again, the country is likely to fall without military intervention.
And, another front in the war on terror is attitude. It should be remembered that until recently, terrorism was somewhat chic in this country. I can remember Ted Kennedy raising funds for the Irish Republican Army. Mark Steyn pointed out that, until recently, in Canada, donations to foreign terrorists were tax deductible. Since such easy funding has dried up as we win the war on the financial front, the Tamil Tigers, a particularly vicious Sri Lankan terrorist group, has sued for peace.
It’s also worth remembering that our success in Iraq tipped over the Libyan domino. On the day the Iraq War began, Libya started asking for terms. The vision of Saddam being pulled out of his hole inspired Libyan dictator and former state sponsor of terrorism, Moammar Gaddafi, to surrender.
All this can be squandered if we lose our focus. The terrorists can still win, but only if we allow ourselves to be distracted.

Dean Won't Have To Share The Crackpot Vote

Dean Won't Have To Share The Crackpot Vote

Now that Wesley Clark has called it quits, Howard Dean only has to share the tin foil beany vote with Dennis Kucinich.

Self Regulated Global Warming?

Self Regulated Global Warming?

Rain forests are soaking up the world's CO2 emissions. Hmmm. That sounds like something that we global warmning anti-alarmists predicted.

When Black Leadership Does Even Take It's Own Community Seriously, Then........?

When Black Leadership Does Even Take It's Own Community Seriously, Then........?

Why would the NAACP chooses to celebrate Black History by celebrating an accused child rapist?

The Washington Establishment "Fears" Howard Dean?

The Washington Establishment "Fears" Howard Dean?

Who's afraid of Howard Dean? The bellicose former governor of Vermont has his favorite conspiracy theory. His lead-like descent into also ran can be blamed on Washington insiders who were afraid of him.


Christopher Hitchens, in his intoxicatingly tart style thinks that it was Howard Dean's own vanity and arrogance that did him in.

"It's not long since Mr. Dean publicly entreated Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to tell the other candidates to back off. Surely it was time, he argued, that his own pre-eminence be recognized and baptized and his rivals and critics made to feel petty and divisive. It's really quite difficult to imagine a more lofty "establishment" tactic: Who needs an election when we already have a designated "front-runner"? And who could possibly better represent the Beltway insider type than Mr. McAuliffe, a holdover from the bonanza years of Clintonian fund-raising and a professional organizer of the high-value ZIP-code donor?"

Mr. Kim, Tear Down This Death Camp

Mr. Kim, Tear Down This Death Camp

The Wall Street Journal thinks that it's time to get really tough with North Korea.

"In keeping with America's North Korean diplomacy for most of the past decade, expectations are that Washington may offer some kind of security agreement and aid to Kim's regime in exchange for a Pyongyang promise to end a nuclear bomb program Kim already agreed to give up 10 years ago, but didn't. This sort of narrowly tuned discussion is what passes right now for U.S. diplomacy in dealing with North Korea. There has been a mighty forgetting that diplomacy's finest moments can sometimes sound most honestly undiplomatic. The great virtue of Mr. Reagan's Berlin Wall demand was that it served notice not only to Mr. Gorbachev but to the people living under Soviet sway--those who finally brought down not just the wall, but the empire--that we were on the side not only of our own freedom but of theirs. Mr. Reagan was, by the way, confronting a Soviet regime that most definitely had nuclear bombs and long-range missiles."

Please, Let This Man Speak On Primetime

Please, Let This Man Speak On Primetime

Al Gore has lost it. He's crazier than Howard Dean when he forgets to take his medicine. He's still a big shot in the Democratic Party though and he's likely to have a prominent role at the convention. I hope he continues to give speeches like this one. If he does, he'll hand the election to the Republicans.

Incidentally, during this speech, he accuses George Bush of betraying American. George Bush said very little that was different from what the Clinton/Gore administration was saying. Gore is hoping that we've all forgotten. Jim Lileks hasn't.

Why Republicans Are Actually, Pro-Consumer

Why Republicans Are Actually, Pro-Consumer

Bruce Bartlett explains why George W. Bush is not a true conservative. True conservatives favor free markets, why Republicans of the Bush variety are pro-business, as Democrats often charge.

A free market is not always good for business, just ask Montgomery-Wards. But, free markets are always good for the consumer.

Overspending and Bulging Deficits, Reagan and Bush

Overspending and Bulging Deficits, Reagan and Bush

George W. Bush is running enormous deficits, just as Ronald Reagan did. Reagan was forgiven. So far, conservatives are less forgiving of Bush. Why?

Not Just Pork, But Lard Too

Not Just Pork, But Lard Too

It's time for a new federal highway bill. George W. Bush has asked for a bulging $256 billion, which has the merit of being close to predicted federal gas tax revenues.

Proposals in the Congress are up to $375 billion and growing. This is a good place for Bush to start showing some fiscal discipline. Will he?

Does CNN Regret Retelling the Dan Quayle Potato Story?

Does CNN Regret Retelling the Dan Quayle Potato Story?

"NEW YORK - It probably means little now to Howard Dean (news - web sites), but CNN's top executive believes his network overplayed the infamous clip of Dean's "scream" after the Iowa caucuses.


"It was a big story, but the challenge in a 24-hour news network is that you try to keep all of your different viewers throughout the day informed without overdoing it," said Princell Hair, CNN's general manager.


The breathtaking media explosion turned the former Democratic presidential front-runner into a punch line and arguably hastened his campaign's free fall. It's also an instructive look at how television news and entertainment works today."

Never Again, Huh?

Never Again, Huh?

Why is this story getting so little attention in this country's mainstream press?

"I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber. The parents, a son, and a daughter." The speaker is Kwon Hyuk, a former North Korean intelligence agent and a one-time administrator at Camp 22, the country's largest concentration camp. His testimony was heard on a television documentary that aired last week on the BBC. "The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save the kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing."

"Another eyewitness was Soon Ok-lee, who was imprisoned for seven years in a different North Korean camp. She described the use of prisoners as guinea pigs for biochemical weapons.

"An officer ordered me to select 50 healthy female prisoners," she testified. "One of the guards handed me a basket full of soaked cabbage, told me not to eat it, but to give it to the 50 women. I gave them out and heard a scream. . . . They were all screaming and vomiting blood. All who ate the cabbage leaves started violently vomiting blood and screaming with pain. It was hell. In less than 20 minutes, they were dead."

Sometimes, Republicans Just Don't Have The Balls

Sometimes, Republicans Just Don't Have The Balls

When Democrats illegally tapped a phone conversation among Republican House leadership, they took it straight to the New York Time, the contents of the call became the central focus and all Democrats involved got off unscathed and some were treated as heros.

When Republicans catch Democrats engaging in the most loathsome political activities, Republicans go after the guy who caught the Democrats, and what the Democrats were up to is forgotten.

"Nearly a year ago on Feb. 27, 2003, I reported in this column that Ted Kennedy had devised a "grand design" to keep Bush from taking over the federal judiciary. I attributed direct quotes about his filibuster scheme to "internal sources," and Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic staffers recognized language from their own e-mails. The Wall Street Journal last November published parts of 15 such messages, which later were posted on a Web site.

The messages expose the symbiotic relationship between senior Democratic senators and left-wing pressure groups, even plots to coordinate confirmation hearings with pending court procedure. Republicans had a smoking gun, evidence that Democrats have politicized the Constitution's "advise and consent" clause."