2004  --  March 2005

MARCH 26, 2005
Political Corruption Alleged in Schiavo case -- WorldNetDaily
Criminal probes reportedly shut down despite investigators' concerns.  The media coverup continues.

Jeb Bush Loses His Nerve, Fails To Follow Through on Rescue
Legal experts insist he does have the authority to intervene.

Courts Reject Saving Terri Schiavo's Life

Michael Schiavo's Lawyer Gave Money to Judge's Campaign
George Felos made contribution to Greer day after key ruling by court in Terri's case

Affidavit of Carla Iyer, nurse who cared for Terri Schiavo from April 1995 to July 1996

Media Distoritons about the Schiavo Case by Michelle Malkin

Syria, Iran Aiding Iraq Insurgents
No big surprise.

MARCH 19, 2005
Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube is Taken Away by Court Order
 -- As Concerned Americans Try to Find a Way To Save Her

Terri Schiavo gets a kiss
from her mother, Mary
Schindler, on Aug. 11, 2001

Some Dare Call It Murder -- The Empire Journal

Contract awarded to Northrop for laser anti-missile defense system

Progress toward Full Deployment of American Missile Defense

Joint Russian and Red Chinese Military Maneuvers Threaten Taiwan's Independence

Defense Begins at Home reminds Peggy Noonan Opinion Journal

Conservatives Were Right About Specter by Bob Novak

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Speaks Out

MARCH 12, 2005
Anti-Bush Conspiracy theorists claim this photo "proves" the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. military operation. PHOTOGRAPH BY ROB HOWARD
Where's The Pod?
CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels."  ~Popular Mechanics magazine, "9/11:  Debunking the Myths" (March 2005)

Are Conspiracy Mongers on the Left Trying to Uncover the Truth about 9/11 -- or Using Propaganda to Try to Re-Write History for Political Reasons? -- BY JIM MEIGS, Editor of Popular Mechanics

If photo analyst Ronald Greeley is correct, the apparent "bulge" under the fuselage at the base of the right wing is not a "military pod" as some have speculated, but rather the plane's right fairing containing the landing gear and made to look larger than usual by sunlight glare.  The more the photo is digitally enlarged, the more pronounced and exaggerated this bulge appears as saturated pixels "spill over" onto adjacent pixels in digital imaging of the picture.  A closer view of the plane, with a red ellipse circling the area in question, is shown at the bottom of page 72 of the Popular Mechanics article.  Will this explanation satisfy those who want to believe that the Bush Administration somehow engineered these attacks?  No -- they will likely simply claim that the folks at Popular Mechanics -- and all the experts they consulted for this article -- are in on the government "coverup" of this conspiracy. This is only one of sixteen widespread conspiracy claims that are debunked by Popular Mechanics, but given the controversy (and the sea of propaganda) surrounding the 9/11 attacks, I have little doubt there will be followup pieces on this subject in future issues. ~Eddie

MARCH 10, 2005


Dan Rather Finally Leaves CBS Anchor Chair

Rather Troubled:  Tarnished by Scandal, Partisan Bias, & Arrogance


Good Riddance to Rather by Thomas Sowell

MARCH 8, 2005

U.S. Economy Growth & "Trade Deficit" Fallacies by Gerard Jackson

MARCH 7, 2005

Filling the Security Holes in the Border Ignored by President Bush by Debra Saunders at Townhall.com

Bush’s Social Security Plan Not Quite Free Market
Joel Mowbray at Townhall.com

Why Europe Needs America by Peter Brookes

MARCH 6, 2005

Popular Mechanics Magazine Debunks the Most Popular Left-Wing Kook "Conspiracy Theory" Claims and Disinformation about 9/11/01
(from a scientific, engineering, and mechanical perspective)  But will this latest refutation of reactionary anti-Jewish  left-wing myths -- that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" of the U.S. Government ordered by the President on behalf of the Mossad and "neocon" Zionists -- spell the end of such bogus conspiracy mongering?  Probably not.

Lively Radio Interview with Author/Researcher Ben Chertoff on Coast to Coast AM

 MARCH 4, 2005

Steve Fossett Breaks Nonstop Solo Flight Record

Copndoleeza the Unready?  Or:  How Not to Fight Terrorism

Bush: Stopping bin Laden is 'greatest challenge'

Saudi Arabia and Other Arab Leaders Urge Syria to Leave Lebanon

Iran 's Regime Building A Tunnel to Hide Nukes from Attack?

More Dutch Plan to Emigrate as Muslim Influx Tips Scales
Read the article to find out why

Pyongyang Regime Demands that U.S. Apologize for Calling the Communist State an "Outpost of Tyranny"

 MARCH 1, 2005
Lebanese Cheer Bush's Call for Syria to Withdraw from Lebanon as Pro Syrian Puppet Govt Resigns
Huge Pro-Freedom Demonstrations Break Out in Celebration
    Liberty Post Comments

Egyptian President Mubarak Considering Real Elections Next Fall
Another consequence of Bush Middle East strategy?

Ex-KGB Head Vlad Putin a Dan Rather Fan and CBS News Loyalist?

FEBRUARY 27, 2005

Social Security Test by Robert Novak
For any genuine reform to pass the Senate, vocal public support must be behind it. The left-wing and Dem vested interests are fighting tooth and toenail against any freedom of choice.

Economist Walter Williams Refutes Lies About Social Security Reform

Glacial, Volcanic and Fluvial Activity on Mars: Latest Images

Syria Hands Over Saddam's Half Brother

FEBRUARY 25, 2005
Al-Qaida-Linked Leader, Zarqawi Aide Both Captured

Fifth Successful Test Interception by Raytheon's Standard Missile-3 in Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System Shows Practicality of SDI

Rush Limbaugh Visits Troops in Afghanistan

Suspect Arrested in Plot to Assassinate President

Clinton "Disgraced the Nation" Bush Confided on 1998 Tape Recording

FEBRUARY 16, 2005
Turing Award Goes to the Real Inventors of the Internet (not Albert Gore)
Robert E. Kahn and Vinton G. Cerf, co-creators of TCP/IP -- the protocol for the Internet -- are duly recognized for their achievement in computer network intercommunications.

Kahn & Cerf

Al-Jaafari to be Iraq's Prime Minister

FEBRUARY 15, 2005
North Korean Dictator Again Claims to Have Nuclear Bomb -- but S. Korean Officials Say He is Bluffing
As a thin cover for his imperialist intentions, Kim Jong Il claims he "needs" nukes to protect North Korea from being invaded by the United States -- even though the U.S. has never tried to invade or take over North Korea and has no intention of doing so.  Fifty years ago, the U.S. helped South Korea keep the Communists of the north from invading and taking over South Korea and extending its brutal tyranny there.  If the North Korean regime does have a nuclear bomb, it is largely because of help from the U.S. Government during the Clinton Administration because of an extremely bad agreement made by Madeline Allbright and former President Jimmy Carter.  Kim Jong Il wants to use the claim of nukes to threaten South Korea and Japan. The Bush Administration inherited the mess left behind by the outgoing Clinton gang -- but the Far Left and the Democrat-controlled news networks will blame anything and everything on Bush, even if the problems were placed in the pipeline by policy decisions made by Madeline Allbright, Jimmy Carter, and other inept Clintonistas.  The North Korean situation is a prime example of this scenario.
FEBRUARY 14, 2005
Iraqi Vote Count Complete:  As Expected, Shi'ites Win Plurality
Most Iraqis seem to much prefer voting and power sharing over tribal warfare and the oppression of the former regime under Saddam Hussein.

Kurds Rejoice with Second Place in Iraqi Elections

Bush Requests $82B for Iraq, Afghan Wars

Frist Has Votes to Break Filibuster of Dem Obstructionists

Red Chinese Espionage A Major Activity in Silicon Valley admits Time Mag

FEBRUARY 11, 2005
Sensenbrenner Bill to Ban Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens Passes House
The Bush White House said publicly that it supported the bill's passage in the House.  But it won't pass the Senate unless there is plenty of pressure from grass-roots Americans put on their Senators to pass it.  The bill also would repair and complete construction of a key border fence between Mexico and the U.S. Called the Real ID Act, the plan has been derided by some conservative and civil libertarian groups as tantamount to a national ID card; others hail it as an important step toward controlling the nation's borders.

Want to get the UN out of the U.S.?

FEBRUARY 8, 2005
George Bush, the Peace President? by Ken Hughes

Rich Lowry observes It's Time to End a Major Form of Red-State Welfare

Not Yours To Give warns Dr. Walter Williams

Opportunity Knocking: Defeat Law of the Sea Treaty

Ayn Rand:  A Legacy of Reason and Freedom by Michael Berliner

FEBRUARY 2, 2005
100th Anniversary of the Birth of Ayn Rand

President Bush's State of the Union Address (transcript and video) -- Fox News

The Celebrate Capitalism Project -- Prodos

JANUARY 31, 2005


The Illegal Immigration Problem
by Rush Limbaugh

January 31, 2005


John Fund on the trail, his piece at Opinionjournal.com today has a subheadline that says: "Limbaugh issues a warning to President Bush. -- On Friday, Rush Limbaugh, a staunch Bush supporter, took two separate opportunities to warn the president that he faced conservative opposition on some key issues that could hurt his chances of passing the rest of his agenda in the second term. First was federal spending which is surging out of control. The other was immigration which Mr. Limbaugh told his listeners could break up the Republican conservative coalition à la Ross Perot." He quotes me as saying, this is an accurate quote, "We can't maintain our sovereignty without securing and protecting our borders in an era where terrorists around the world seek entry to this country." Warning to President Bush? I was actually warning the people in the audience as well as President Bush, I guess, but I was also warning politicians of all stripes about this. Now, let me just review in part what I said in these remarks that generated this story in the Opinionjournal.com, and there's also a story at WorldNetDaily.com. The fact is this, folks. Our federal laws as related to immigration are being violated almost without consequence.

When that happens, our whole rule of law is undermined; the respect for the law and the authority of the very Congress and White House that passed and signed these laws, all these things are undermined. A nation that cannot control its borders cannot control its sovereignty. Now, both political parties have determined that it is in their political best interests to pander to illegal immigrants, and that's exactly what they're doing. Both sides are pandering to illegal immigrants for votes. They're afraid to offend them, so important are these coalitions and this groupthink when it comes to politics rather than looking at the population as a whole in going after a population as a whole, the Democrats especially get into groupthink, but this whole notion of illegal immigrants as a group that we can't offend, is something that both parties have basically signed onto as their best political interests to do so. The justifications, however, for people coming here illegally are simply not legitimate excuses for violating federal law. We don't treat other lawbreakers with such kid gloves. A U.S. citizen doesn't pay his federal income taxes because to do so would mean selling the family farm. He doesn't get a pass. He has to pay up or serve time in the federal prison. What's happening here is that politics is trumping security and the rule of law.

What's very strange about this is that the political parties, both of them, are making the wrong political calculation. Most Americans, whichever party, oppose illegal immigration. What they support is legal immigration. But the Republican base, more so than the Democrat base, draws a line in the sand on this subject which is why it does in fact threaten to break apart the Republican coalition. Now, we've heard all the arguments. "Illegal immigrants are doing jobs that Americans won't do," and I used to believe that. There's a part of that that I'm no longer willing to sign onto. Because if illegal immigrants are now doing jobs that Americans won't do, then the government should increase the level of legal immigration, if that's the case, a legal immigrant or an illegal immigrant is of the same caliber. So if immigrants are doing the work that Americans won't do, then make those jobs filled by legal immigrants and follow the law. But there's actually even more to it than this. Illegal immigrants drive down wages which is why they're so attractive to a lot of business sectors, particularly Hollywood. They make certain jobs less attractive to citizens because they pay a lot less as a result and the benefits are frequently less as well so it becomes a self-fulfilling argument.

If illegal immigrants keep driving down wages and benefits, fewer and fewer citizens are going to want to do them. What's so ironic about this particular argument is that if there's a recognition that it costs too much to hire a citizen, then those who support illegal immigration on this basis or make this argument should be at the forefront in reducing the impediments to hiring U.S. citizens, but they're not. Instead they're out there demanding increasing the minimum wage, increasing the Social Security tax, increasing health care costs to employers, all of which drive up the cost of hiring U.S. workers, which makes illegal immigrants far more attractive from a cost analysis even then. So this whole self-fulfilling prophecy becomes a cycle. The strain on the hospitals and the schools that are overwhelmed with illegal immigrants, you add that in, and that they're required to provide them with services, it's enormous. It used to be that those costs were only felt in border areas in the U.S., but not anymore. There's not a major city or state that isn't feeling the cost of illegal immigration. Illegal, illegal. Close to 25% of the inmates in our federal prisons are illegal immigrants, and countries like Mexico are unwilling to take back many of the worst and most violent criminals, and this is becoming a major issue in California where even some Democrats are frustrated with Mexico's conduct.

Mexico is actively urging its citizens to come, illegal, to the U.S. as a way of avoiding reforming their own government and economy -- and money sent back to Mexico from the U.S. is the second or third biggest import in that country. Mexico is even considering allowing Mexicans who were in the U.S. illegally to vote in Mexican elections, to help further enhance the political influences of illegals in our country. And there are organizations set up in our country for the sole purpose of defending all this behavior, including going into our courts to block state initiatives and expand the benefits illegal immigrants receive in our country. Mark Levin has a chapter on all this in his latest book, Men in Black. I mean, the foreign minister of Mexico just last week threatened to go to the international courts to sue the people of Arizona over their Proposition 200, which denies all these services to illegal immigrants, and here Mexico wants to go to the international courts to tell the people of Arizona they can't enforce American laws. Well, hell's bells, folks! Now this is getting out of hand, all because of a bunch of political pandering? And I'm telling you, some guy's going to come along as a candidate, like a Perot, and make sense on this and siphon off a bunch of Republican votes that would otherwise go to a Republican president, say, in 2008 or whatever, and voila! The coalition's gone.


Now, look, folks, the most important issue about this illegal immigration business, though, relates to national security. As great as the economic impacts are, the national security issue is the most important one. Remember here, we're talking about illegal immigration. You know, both parties -- this story in the Wall Street Journal and others portraying me as warning President Bush, but I think both parties are pandering here to these groups that support illegal immigration, because they're simply afraid to offend them for fear of what it might mean on Election Day down the road, and the problem is this: some slickster candidate like a Perot is going to come along and is going to start saying all the right magical things about this. And to the growing number of Americans, this immigration business is more so on the Republican side a draw-the-line-in-the-sand issue than it is with Democrats. So if some guy comes along à la Perot and says the right things there is the potential for a number of Republicans to whom this is the single most important issue down the road, they'll support the guy, and there you drive down the Republican candidate for president's totals to 45 or 44%, and, voila! The third-party candidate again comes up with this opportunity here to sink a Democrat or send a Democrat into office by splitting the coalition.

I'm not saying it's going to happen; this is one of the obstacles that's out there. I'm trying to temper all this optimism I have with a little bit of reality, and my optimism is based in reality, but this is an issue that is festering out there. If we learned anything after 9/11, it seems to me that we must know who's here and who's coming here -- and today more than three years later we don't and we've got all kinds of left-wing groups that characterize any effort to identify people based on their place of origin as racial profiling. Even the TSA has bowed to this nonsense as an example. How can you have a guest worker program of the kind being discussed if you don't take the steps to determine who's here and why? And, even if you accomplish this, you tell these people that in six years or so when their guest worker terms have ended, that they have to apply for permanent status here, what's to stop them from simple going underground for fear that they won't qualify? Not much -- and by then since you've encouraged millions more to come here, the problem is arguably worse, and the American people understand.

This is sort of like the House Bank issue: It was easy to understand. Members of Congress are able to go to a bank, their own bank and write checks for money they didn't have. It was essentially not being limited by whatever your salary is. Need some money? Go write a check for cash! The House Bank will cover you, overdraft after overdraft after overdraft. Well, that's not hard to understand. Neither is this because the word "illegal" is prominent, illegal immigrant. I mean, we've got all kinds of prosecutors day in and day out trying to enforce all kinds of laws but this one gets scant attention, and the American people understand it. It isn't complicated. But for some reason the political leadership is unwilling or incapable or just not desirous of addressing it. I mean, they can't even strengthen the driver's license process, and the driver's license was the document used most effectively by the 9/11 terrorists to move around in our country. Some of them had multiple illegal driver's licenses. Now, let me add one more thing about this: Our laws permit the hiring of immigrants for jobs here in America, especially high-tech type jobs, and we should always make room for those whose skills are needed and we should always make room for political prisoners and we always have.

We allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants into our country legally every year, so no one is talking about anti-immigrant, an anti-immigrant approach here, despite the best efforts of the illegal immigrant lobby to say so -- and there is an "illegal" immigrant lobby, and they're trying to make all of those who oppose illegal immigration sound as though they're opposed to all immigration. That's not the case. In the past when we've had large influxes of immigrants. Again: the vast majority came here legally or were turned away. There were specific locations and centers they were re

How Peter Jennings and His Liberal Media Colleagues Help Zarqawi Discourage Iraq Election Participation -- Jay Bryant

Barbara Boxer Echoes Zarqawi Positions Against Bush -- Tony Blankley

Shoulder-Fired Missiles Intercepted in Nicaragua

U.N.: Blame America First for Alleged Man-Made "Global Warming" -- By Steven Milloy on junkscience.com

Can Government Really "Save Jobs" On Net? - Walter E. Williams
Why political protectionist measures are counterproductive

Thinking on the "neoconservative" slur -- Victor Davis Hanson

Five Demo Hoodlums Charged in Election-Day Tire Slashings, Democrat Vandalism against Republicans

JANUARY 22, 2005

President Bush to Propose "Lean" Budget to Congress -- Don Lambro
Bush calls for a virtual freeze on overall non-defense discretionary spending in next year's budget and he wants to abolish or consolidate wasteful, duplicative programs. [Sounds like a step in the right direction, finally, but I doubt there will be any real cuts. -- Eddie]

A Risk Worth Taking by Rich Tucker
There’s no point in having a conservative Congress if it’s not going to work to enact conservative policies. At some point lawmakers have to be willing to take political risks to do what’s right.

Social Insecurity? by Thomas Sowell
Combatting the current Democrat spin on Social Security reform.

The Republican Moment by Paul Gigot
Will the GOP have the balls, at last, to change the face of government?

Bush Senior Says Son's Inaugural Speech Does Not Signal Policy Shift
It seems the old CFR/Trilat mandarin wants to put a moderate face on his son's foreign policy ideas.

Our Sad Ambivalence toward the "F Word":  Freedom by Neal Boortz

JANUARY 21, 2005

Behind The Lines - Dr. Jack Wheeler
Friday, January 21, 2005

It must have been a scatological moment for dictators around the world, as they soiled themselves watching George Bush’s inaugural address on global television. They must have known this was coming, for GW has been telegraphing his punches for a long time.

That’s why they put all their hopes on GW’s defeat last November. They knew John Kerry would never come after them. Now they know George Bush will.

The appropriate reaction to Bush’s Inaugural Address yesterday is: awe-struck. This was a Babe Ruth moment, pointing to where he wanted to hit the ball and swinging for the bleachers. I couldn’t help laughing when I read Peggy Noonan’s petty, small-minded essay in the Wall Street Journal this morning, grouchily complaining about Bush’s “mission inebriation.” She didn’t like the speech because it was so much better than any she wrote for Ronald Reagan.

I saw three of Peggy’s former colleagues – White House speechwriters for President Reagan – at one of the Inaugural Balls last night, and they all agreed that Bush’s Second Inaugural will be seen as one of the historically greatest of any American President.

So Peggy can cluck, and British newspapers can smirk, but anyone with an ounce of common sense had better start perceiving the reality behind the Left’s myth about GW. You can be sure folks like Hugo Chavez and Aleksandr Lukashenko have no such illusions.

For they know, as do their fellow dictators such as Robert Mugabe, Kim Il-Sung, Than Shwe, Ayatollah Khameini, and Fidel Castro, that there is now a bulls-eye painted on them by someone scary-smart and scary-serious who happens to be the most powerful man in the world.  Full Story...

Read His Lips by Bill Gertz
Peace through strength as well as diplomacy

Immoderate confusion?  from deacon at PowerLineBlog.com
Defending Bush Second Inauguration Speech Against Criticism from William F. Buckley

There's Way Too Much God in President's Speech says Peggy Noonan

Some Republicans Also Uncomfortable with Speech
Wondering about the Immense Cost (in Money and American Lives) Bush's Grandiose Vision for U.S. Could Impose on the Productive Americans.  Freedom and capitalism can save the world -- but can America afford to liberate the world?   Will Atlas Shrug?
As Pat Buchanan observed, “Rhetorically, it commits America to do more than America has the resources or power to do. . . it commits America not to permanent peace but to permanent war, and wars are the deaths of republics.”

Bush Bangs the Drum for 'Fire of Freedom' -- the Scotsman
Socialist dictators and their reactionary leftist supporters tremble in fear at Bush speech -- but they're not the only ones with concerns.

Bush Begins Second Term Promising Support for Liberty-- Talon News
The President noted that the course he has charted is long and difficult, saying, "The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause."
The president boldly promised, "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

Full Text of President Bush's Inaugural Speech for Second Term
Bush Puts World On Notice that U.S. Will Defend Freedom, Combat Tyranny


Red Chinese Regime Shows Off Repentent Falun Gong Prisoners As Attack on Religious Freedom Intensifies

Boston Terror Plot Suspect in Custody -- Fox News
FBI Adds 10 Names to Boston Threat

Bulletin Details Al Qaeda Tactics

Protestors Try to Rain on Bush's Inaugural
Largely Led by Discredited Communist Fronts

Kerry's "Disenfranchisement" Demagoguery By Mark Landsbaum
A sore loser plays the race card to keep America divided on Martin Luther King Day

I Beg To Disagree with the Knee-Jerk Left by Dr. Sowell

Get the UN out of the U.S. -- and Get the U.S. out of the UN! -- MoveAmericaForward.com

JANUARY 17, 2005
John Leo Examines A Few Left-Wing Lies and the "Crazy Thinking" of Liberals

David Limbaugh Pops the Senior Hot-Air Balloon from Massachusetts

Republican Rebellion Against Bush's Amnasty for Illegals -- developing

Graner Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Abu Graib Abuses

Controversial Anti-Anthrax Drug Used on U.S. Troops in Iraq

FBI has files on millions of airline fliers...

The Left Monopoly by Thomas Sowell

JANUARY 12, 2005
Damage control at Black Rock by Tony Blankley
On the conflicts of interest within the allegedly "independent" investigation of CBS Use of Forged Documents in its Political Attacks on Bush

Not Finding Bias, or Ducks by Jay Bryant
The coverup of the partisan "Get Bush" motivation that prevails at CBS.

CBS Fires Four -- But the Partisan Bias Goes On as Usual by Cal Thomas

Greedy or Ignorant by Walter E. Williams
Busting myths about health care and socialized medicine

The 'Media Party' is Over
Leftist Howard Fineman Admits Rush is Right about Waning Dem Media Monopoly

Happy Birthday to Rush Limbaugh!

*   *   *

JANUARY 10, 2005

Finally, A Few Heads Roll at CBS for False Story and Forged Documents
Unfortunately, this example of biased reporting by the DNC shills in network news is no isolated case.

Roundup on Rathergate and CBS Bias


Are We a Constitutional Republic -- or a Democracy? by Walter Williams

Economic Policies Are Moral Issues by Rebecca Hagelin

U.S. No Longer In List of Top Ten Economically Free Countries

Hail Estonia! -- But U.S. No Longer in Top 10

Learning About America from America-Hating Academics

Minor Corruption on the Right: Armstrong Williams Apologizes for Poor Journalistic Judgement in Accepting Ad for Liberal School Scheme

Rush Slams Hypocrisy of Liberals Attacking Armstrong Williams

Still in Denial, Extremist Reactionary Dems Fail in Ohio Electoral Vote Challenge
Senator Boxer and a few others in the Shi-ite Far-Left wing of the Democrat Party (a party whose mainstream is already on the Liberal Left of the spectrum) fail to produce any credible evidence for their desperate claims.

Liberal Losers Pandering to Their Extremist Dem Party Base

Bitter Leftist Hag Barbara Boxer is an Embarrassment to the Nation

John O'Neill named Human Events' Man of the Year
When it comes to choosing leaders, integrity comes first--and no man showed more integrity in 2004 than this Swift Boat veteran.

*   *   *


by Sam Wells

It should be clear to many by now why I dismiss the so-called "anarcho-capitalist" rhetoric from the Rockwellites and Bradfordites as counterproductive and something of a floating abstraction which will never go anywhere close to taking us nearer to more freedom.  Instead, I favor laissez faire -- as did Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Leonard Read, Frederic Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, Herbert Spencer, Auberon Herbert, and (in a general sense at least) the American founding fathers -- none of whom advocated anarchism.  My position is exactly the same as that of Walter Williams and George Reisman,  true and staunch libertarian economists and constitutionalists.  As evidenced by the historical examples of Orange Holland, post-1688 Britain, and the United States in the 19th Century, a constitutional republic with a general laissez faire policy is approachable and realizable in the real world -- and the real world is where I live.

 The "anarchist" approach is actually a dead-end alley to more statismThere is absolutely nothing in Rothbard's "anarchist" model which, in the real world, would in any way restrain his "defense agencies" from being the ordinary coercive entities they would have to be (i.e., states or rival gangs) any more than there was anything to prevent the USA and the CSA during the War Between the States from imposing income taxes and fiat money inflation and the military draft, even though Negro slavery was technically abolished.  There is nothing to keep Rothbard's agencies from being essentially the same and doing the same if they have enough clout.  There is nothing to cause any such coercive entities to refrain from claiming a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area, such a monopoly being a necessary and implicit characteristic of coercion in any case.

 The anarcho-statist approach of Rothbard et al does not at all address the eternal problem of politics, viz., how to restrict coercion to its proper uses.  There is no such thing as a "constitutional anarchy" by its very nature.  There is no way to limit the statism of such warring / "competing" gangs whether they call themselves governments, states, the KKK, the Black Panthers, or Murray's Anarcho-Fascist Insurgency Association (MAFIA). States by any other name still smell the same and there is nothing to distinguish such groups from any other criminal and/or political entities.

It is easy for the would-be "anarchists" to say that the gangs would somehow see that it is in their self interests to co-operate instead of fight each other.  But it is just as easy for me to say that all individuals will somehow see that it is in their self interests not to violate the rights of others by initiating coercion on them.  And, of course, just as incorrect.  If all people already agreed that initiating coercion on their neighbors, either by themselves or through the proxy of government agents, is a bad thing and would all refrain from such initiatory coercion, then we would already have a libertarian world. The key to achieving a more peaceful and free society is precisely to persuade enough people to accept the general policy of laissez faire  to respect the person and property rights of peaceful people -- and to allow no mercy for convicted criminals who don't.

 By equivocating on such economic terms as "competition" and applying a different set of labels, Rothbard and his disciples tried to put forth their "anarcho-capitalist" approach as some kind of "market" alternative to politics, but in reality it is just statism under a different name.  Labels do not change the nature of reality.  Don't be taken in by this phony alternative to politics and statism, as Lew and his disciples have.  Crypto-statism by any other name is just as coercive.  The true end of libertarian politics is the Laissez-Faire Republic, not competing-states anarchy (which, after all, we already have in the world).

Secure private property rights are a precondition for free markets. A "thought experiment":  Consider the oceans -- the high seas between national territorial boundaries.  As far as I know, there is no official government over those areas.  They may perhaps be considered "stateless" areas, as I've pointed out in my 1978 article and again in one of my essays I posted on my websites.  Ask yourself a question:  if "anarchy" is so great, then why don't some clever businessmen take advantage of all that anarchy out there?  No taxes, no regulations.  No racial quotas.  Plenty of privacy, it would seem.  Why aren't entrepreneurs eager to exploit "ocean anarchy"?  Where are those Rothbardian "defense agencies" that supposedly should spontaneously arise in the absence of government?  Could it be because there is no protection (or insufficient protection) for private property rights there because there is no government there to protect them?  There are, after all, marauding pirates and ships of various governmental regimes all over the globe. What's to prevent the King of Tonga from sending his gun boats to raid or pillage the goodies?  Or Russia? Or China?  Again, where are those Rothbardian "defense agencies" that supposedly should spontaneously arise if we could snap our fingers and make politics go away?  They are nowhere ("utopia").

Now, some partisans of the anarcho-statist persuasion might claim that the reason there are no thriving businesses and free communities out there is because we do not yet have the sophisticated technology to define property boundaries in the medium of the high seas.  But that's not true. We've had such technology for some time now.  That is not an obstacle.  We can create property boundaries underneath and on the sea.  We now have precise global positioning, for example, if nothing else.  So, again, why are there no thriving market enterprises and libertarian communities out there?  What's wrong?  Where are the Rothbardian protection/retaliation agencies?

What is my point here?  The point I'm trying to make here with this question about the oceans (as I brought up in "The False Alternative of Anarcho-Statism") is that secured property boundaries are a prerequisite for free markets to exist (in the first place).  The anarcho-whimarchists lose sight of this with their out-of-context thinking in floating abstractions (no pun intended).  You gotta have low crime and sufficient protection of person and property rights before you can have true free markets or free market societies; it doesn't work the other way around.

Genuine market defense-in-advance mechanisms (locks on doors, burglar alarms, private guards, etc.) are fine, but locks can be picked and fences can be breeched.  If purely prophylactic technologies could deter crime 100 percent of the time, there would be (presumably) little or no need for police and courts since no retaliatory justice would be required.  In the long run, however, as I've pointed out before, any defense-in-advance technology can ultimately be "picked" or bypassed or gotten through by someone using the same or superior technology. Such defense mechanisms are therefore insufficient and inadequate (so far) -- especially in such places as South Central LA where a large percentage of the population does not care much about respecting the rights of others.

The Laissez-Faire Republic, the ideal type of constitutional republic toward which the old American Republic was the greatest step in history, is attainable in the real world and is our best real hope for maximizing freedom for the peaceful individual.

However imperfect the old American constitutional republic may have been -- and it did not fail, but was simply abandoned  --  it was nevertheless the most practicable approach to maximum individual liberty under consistent law in history.  As long as that system was maintained and adhered to, it was an amazing and undeniable practical success -- with no successful anarchist counterpart to match.  We can learn from and improve upon that constitutional approach of limiting government by the Founders and work toward the achievable libertarian ideal of the Laissez-Faire Republic rather than fruitlessly butting our heads against the steel wall of Reality in pursuit of a chimera such as "anarchy" or "equality" -- a pursuit which will lead to more statism and tyranny, not less.

JANUARY 6, 2005
Liberal Democrats Seek to Grant Geneva Convention POW Privileges to Incarcerated Terrorists / Enemy Combatants  NRO article by Andrew McCarthy -- In an effort to portray the Bush Administration as thrreatening the constitutional rights of peaceful non-criminal U.S. citizens, Democrats in the U.S. Senate are now acting as a de facto legal defense team for Al Qaeda terrorists now in custody -- even though the Islamo-terrorists have never signed the Geneva Convention, want to destroy the U.S. Constitution. and do not abide by any humane treatment standards in their treatment of their prisoners.

A Warning to Conservatives & Libertarians Against Drinking Leftist (Jim Jones style) "Kool-Ade":  On Being Wary of DNC/Liberal Media Propaganda Against Bush, Cheney, et al

North Korea Regime Preparing for Nuclear War with U.S., South Korea

Still No Scientific Evidence for Man-Made
Global Warming  by Tom DeWeese

JANUARY 3, 2005
Property Rites by Thomas Sowell
Two centuries ago, British Prime Minister William Pitt said that the
poorest man in the country was so secure in his little cottage that
the King of England and his men "dare not cross the threshold"
without his permission. That is what property rights are all about --
keeping the government off the backs of the people.
Tsunami Disaster -- False Alternatives from Cultural Commentators CapMag
*   *   *
DECEMBER 31, 2004


For "first place" there was essentially a "tie" between the Rutan-and-Allen private enterprise space pioneering achievements and John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for exposing John Kerry's lies about his record in Vietnam and (more importantly) what he did and said after he returend from Vietnam.  For their efforts, O'Neill and the Swift Boat Vets were maliciously smeared by the Democrat news media networks.

Coming in to tie for second place were Jeopardy champion Ken Jennings and a truly brave and heroic warrior, Pat Tillman.

Mojave Team Wins Privately Funded Anasari X Prize
with Successful Private Space Mission

         Burt Rutan          Paul Allen           Michael W. Melvill          Brian Binnie
                                                       Astronaut Pilot       Astronaut Pilot

John O'Neill
Spkesman for the Swift Boat Veterans

  Different Kinds of Heroes 
       Pat Tillman                                            Ken Jennings

*   *   *

Stingy? -- Bruce Bartlett
Bush 'Undermining UN with Aid Coalition' According to Former Bureaucrat
(Good! He should undermine it even more by getting the U.S. out of it and the UN out of the U.S.)
Iraq Says Senior Zarqawi Aide Captured in Baghdad  -- Reuters
DECEMBER 29, 2004
The Attack on Western Values by the Enemy Within -- Walter Williams

U.S. Government Should Not Help Tsunami Victims --   CapMag.com

U.N. official backtracks after calling U.S. 'stingy' -- Wash. Times

Steve Forbes says, "Get the UN out of the U.S.!"

DECEMBER 28, 2004
 By Bill Sammon
 The Bush administration yesterday pledged $15 million to Asian nations hit by a tsunami that has killed more than 22,500 people, although the United Nations' humanitarian-aid chief called the donation "stingy."

     "The United States, at the president's direction, will be a leading partner in one of the most significant relief, rescue and recovery challenges that the world has ever known," said White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy.

    But U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being "stingy" with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised. Read Full Story

Yeah, isn't that amazing?  Americans, on their own and unofficially are giving more (as usual) than any ohter country of people -- but the UN commiekrats don't even recognize that personal private voluntary assistance because it is not government money funneled through the United Nations.  Arrgghhh!

Even in terms of government aid, the U.S. is still apparently the leader by a wide margin.  Secretary of State Colin Powell, not one of my favorites, wasted no time going around assuring the liberal media we would cough up even more dough for relief:

Powell, irritated by the U.N. official's criticism, toured morning television talk shows to say the Bush administration will follow up its contributions with additional large sums. "The United States has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world," Powell said when asked about the comments Monday by Jan Egeland, the U.N. humanitarian aid chief.

Initially, the U.S. government pledged $15 million and dispatched disaster specialists to help the Asian nations devastated by a massive earthquake and tsunamis that claimed tens of thousands of lives, including at least 12 Americans. Seven perished in Sri Lanka and five in Thailand.

Powell chafed at statements that Egeland made at a Monday news conference, at which the humanitarian aid chief exhorted "rich" nations to do more.

"We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries," Egeland said. "And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really ... even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become."

Appearing Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Powell said: "We will do more. I wish that comment hadn't been made."

"We'll make an assessment as the days go by, to see what more is needed of us," he said. "It will take us awhile to make a careful assessment of what is needed ... to see what the specific needs are and then we will respond to those needs."

Egeland said on Tuesday, however, that his remarks had been misinterpreted. "It has nothing to do with any particular country or any particular disaster," he told reporters.

In an interview on NBC's "Today," Powell said Tuesday: "Clearly, the United States will be a major contributor to this international effort. And, yes, it will run into the billions of dollars."

President Bush received a special update from national security officials about the disaster and ensuing relief and recovery efforts, deputy White House press secretary Trent Duffy said.

I cannot help but wonder how many of the people in those now-stricken areas -- largely Mohammendans -- would feel if tens of thousands of Americans died from a natural disaster.  Indeed, how did they feel when 3000 Americans were murdered on 9/11/01?  Maybe America's generosity in helping those who hate us is taking Christian charity too far (not that taxpayer money extracted by the threat of force by government represents true Christian charitable giving).  ~ EW


More UN Corruption Found by Investigation -- NewsMax

See also Prosperity is the best defense against natural disasters -- WSJ

*   *   *

DECEMBER 27, 2004
Southern Asia Coasts Devastated by Tsunamis Triggered by Huge Undersea Earthquake of Magnitude 9

Red China Declares It Will "Crush" Any Independence Moves by Taiwan

Yushchenko claims triumph in Ukraine with 16-Point Lead
"Now we are free," declares Ukrainian independence leader.

Yushchenko "understood free markets . . . " says Ukraine's New First Lady
~John Fund on the Trail

Poll shows troops in support of war
Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. Support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting.

*   *   *

DECEMBER 25, 2004

On "Neocons" and "American imperialism"

Perhaps the most overused and abused label in political discussions these days is the word "neocon" and the often associated phobia -- long shouted by the Far Left, but more recently picked up by elements of the American Right -- that the United States is, or seeks to be, an oppressive global "empire" imposing freedom, democracy, and capitalism on the unwilling peoples of the world the way Douglas MacArthur did in Japan after WWII.  The same leftists who have always denounced the U.S. as an evil "imperialist" oppressor in the world (because such American companies as Starbucks and MacDonalds have restaurants in France and other countries?) never objected the slightest about the genuine oppression and massive atrocities of the Soviet Evil Empire.  Even some conservatives and libertarians have begun to share this fear and focus on the "neocon" menace as the prime culprit.

One of the lines I hear from those who claim that America is a "global empire" is that it supposedly has troops in over a hundred some-odd countries. But the truth is that the U.S. has troops in only a handful of places, such as Europe and Korea.  There are a few military bases around the world but they are declining in number.  The other "troops" all "around the world" are mostly a few military guards posted for protecting American embsassies. It is true that some of these guards have been increased and strengthened since 9/11/01 for further protection -- but that doesn't sound like much of an "empire" to me.

The countries in which the U.S. has its embassies also have their embassies inside the United States by reciprocal agreement.  Does that make all those ocuntries :global imperialists" too?

John Hawkins (http://RightWingNews.com) recently briefly discussed the label "neocon" (short for "neoconservative").  I must admit that although I do generally agree with him on most things, I believe the definition he has chosen for "neocon" is way too broad ("It's simply a person who has moved from left to right in their political views."), and I also don't agree with him that there is no difference between the views of most (real) neocons and most regular conservatives.  My view is that "neoconservatives" were former hard-core Marxists or Establishment "Liberals" (in America) who were intellectually honest enough to finally admit that communism is and has been a real evil in the world (with the blood of hundreds of millions of victims on its hands) and a threat to world peace and American security -- that it was not just some paranoid delusion on the part of Birchers and other aware anti-communists. This usually translates into an anti-communist foreign policy stance compared to their previous liberal-left mindset.  They had finally become disillusioned with the dream of socialism, which they realize is in reality a bloody nightmare.  Unfortunately, many neoconservatives often still cling to some leftish or "liberal" baggage, especially in their domestic policy views.  They may still support the welfare state programs of FDR, LBJ, Nixon, etc.  They may believe in various political regulations over business enterprises as necessary and / or desirable.  They may continue to support public education (government schools) -- although many now support some form of choice in schooling or even a plan of transition to a full free-market education system.  Some may be naive enough to support the Green Gestapo of environmentalism.  Many neoconservatives have a bad habit of using the term "democracy" in a positive sense rather than clearly favoring the idea of "constitutional republic" (a government of limited powers) -- and this annoys true conservatives and libertarians who have already learned the lesson that majoritarian tyranny is just as bad as, if not worse than, tyranny of a minority or a monarchy.

Neoconservatives are a mixed bag ideologically.  They have moved part way from the Left to the Right and, laudably, have begun to check at least some of their former assumptions.

I believe we need all the help we can get in fighting the common enemy of the organized morally-bankrupt power-mongering Left; so, instead of lambasting neocons like some others do, I tend to welcome them as allies or potential allies, as much as I can on the issues on which we share positions, and to encourage them to read books by Frederic Bastiat, Henry Hazllitt, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Hans Sennholz, George Reisman, James Madison, George Mason, Edmund Burke, William Pitt, John C. Calhoun, Randy Barnett, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Leonard Read, Julian Simon, etc. and other good writers who advocate a general policy of laissez faire and a more consistent respect for private property rights, so as to guide them toward a further, more complete right-ward transit.  I salute the fact they had enough intellectual honesty to move away from the Left and recoil at the horrors of socialism -- and come at least part of the way toward the philosophy of less government meddling and more individual responsibility (i.e., "the Right" in America). I do not view them as full regular conservatives, but I don't see them as enemies on the "other side" either.  Like many "social conservatives," they are sort of on the left side of the American right-wing coalition.

Outside of foreign policy and defense (at least), the views of the "neoconsxevatives" are not homogeneous and so the actual positions of each "neoconservative" have to be discerned as an individual case by case matter rather than simply lumping somebody under a label to obscure their real views.  I do not agree with the bogeyman conspiracy theories about "neocons" as secret Zionists or a cabal to take over the world using U.S. military power. Nor do I believe neocons are warmongers -- pushing for war for its own sake or for the sake of the war profits to be made in the military-industrial complex.

War is a tremendous evil to be avoided if possible, but we live in an imperfect world and we sometimes have no better alternatives than very imperfect solutions.  When threatened by an implaccable enemy, there is no substitute for total victory.

There may be a few zealots somewhere who actually believe the U.S. could somehow take over and impose a military empire on the whole world, but if someone does believe that, they have a very unrealistic conception of the capabilities of the U.S. military and what the American people would be willing to endure.  Any attempt to impose such an American world empire would crush our economy and create even more enemies for the U.S. in the world.  It's not going to happen.  It's too impracticable.  There are more important dangers to worry about.

To answer the question about whether "neoconservatives" favor some sort of "global empire" or not, blogmeister John Hawkins makes the following points:

Question: Do neocons want to create an American empire?

Answer: Again, the answer is "no". I don't know of a single, prominent Republican who is suggesting that we create what most people think of as an "empire" (you know, colonies, puppet governments, the sort of thing Europe used to be into).

That being said, I have heard a few [neo]conservatives here and there -- Max Boot comes to mind -- refer to an "American empire," but it's pure semantics. They look at all the military bases we have around the world, the multi-national corporations, the cultural influence we have, and call that an "empire". I, and most people, see the exact same thing and disagree with the terminology they're using. But, there is no substantial difference between our actual views, the difference is just in the words we're using.

Question: Are neocons responsible for the war on Iraq? I've heard they've been planning it for years!

Answer: I'll let David Frum answer that questions since he did such a superb job of it in the interview I did with him,

"The idea that overthrowing Saddam Hussein sprung out of the minds of a few people in Washington forgets an awful lot of history. In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work. Then we tried coups; that didn't work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991."

I hope that helps make things a little clearer for people...

                                                        ~posted by John Hawkins

Mr. Hawkins' full article can be found here ("You Keep Using that Word, Neocon..."")

*   *   *

DECEMBER 24, 2004
Rumsfeld Makes Surprise Visit to Iraq

U.S. Bases on Alert for 'Copycat' Iraq Bomber

Bush to Renominate 20 for Judgeships

Gallup: Internet News Growing While Legacy Media Decline

Good News in the fight Against Illegal Immigration?

U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children -- from WND
More corruption revealed in the New World (Dis)Order

Iraqi Fighter Planes Found Buried in Desert
What Else Could be Buried in the Sand?

Sadam's WMD Plans

Why We're in Iraq by David Horowitz

DECEMBER 23, 2004

The following is my response to radio talk show commentator Jerry Doyle's recent comments urging "unity" in America behind the "moderate middle":


"Extremism" in the defense of liberty
the muddled "moderate middle"

To Mr Jerry Doyle:

You have stated that America needs "unity" and that the great "moderate middle" of America is where our leadership should go for solutions rather than either the extreme of the left or of the right.

The Left has an agenda (boy, do they have an agenda, one that will lead to totalitarian socialism). The Right, though less united or coordinated, has its agenda -- less government meddling in the private non-coercive sector, and more individual freedom and responsibility for peaceful citizens (while cracking down on real criminals).

The "moderate middle of America" doesn't stand for anything. It's a mixed bag. Those in the so-called "center" don't know anything. They're ignorant when it comes to ideology or public policy. They sometimes choose to do the Right thing -- by sheer accident. And sometimes they choose the Left. They flip flop on the issues, with no guiding principle or agenda. They are confused amoral pragmatists with no direction. THIS is the bunch of num-nums you think politicians should be pandering to??

Unify the country? Are you kidding? What is needed is clear, sharp polarization -- a real choice, not an echo!  If the anti-American disloyal opposition in the blue areas wants to secede, I say let them. Maybe they will join Canada or France. We need to reinstitute the Ninth and Tenth amendments. You think the liberal Democrats and Far Left kook fringites are ever gonna be able to unite with the red states people? Dreaming. They need to be separated out, not forced into fascistic unity. Let them be annexed by Canada or France.

What this country needs is the right leadership to do the Right things -- not to try to pander to the changing and contradictory whims of the directionless moderate middle.

The genius and success of America traditionally was not in "collective consciousnes" or "national goals" or a Common Goal to unify us as a people or National Socialist thinking at all. The genius of America was in FREEDOM -- liberty of individuals to pursue their own individual plans, motivated by their own individual goals, driven by their own purposeful individual consciounesses -- co-ordinated into a harmonious system of peaceful relaitonshps by a freely-functioning market price system. Capitalism.  Individual achievement -- Ken Jennings, Lance Armstrong, Burt Rutan, Paul Allen, Pat Tillman, Mel Gibson, and countless others. That's what made America a great nation, not naziism or any other form of socialism.

We need to go forward, on the successful foundations left by the Founders, to a more nearly perfect limited Constitutional Republic and a general policy of laissez faire.  What about The Law by Bastiat, Economics In One Lesson by Hazlitt, Textbook of Americanism by Rand, the Declaration of Independence by Jefferson, Conscience of a Conservative by AuH2O, Anything That's Peaceful by Leonard Read, Restoring the American Dream by Ringer, etc.?  The Right has always been the source of better ideas because freedom for peaceful citizens under the rule of constitutional law works and is the only moral social system.

Gov. Schwarzenegger wants to move the Republican Party farther to the Left -- as if it were not already too far to the Left. He thinks what is needed is to capture more votes in the so-called "middle" of the American electorate and that this can be done by the GOP moving further to the Left. This may or may not get more votes for the GOP -- but it won't solve social and economic problems caused by Big Government.

Instead of trying to move the GOP further to the Left, shouldn't we be trying to move more of those in the so-called American "middle" farther to the pro-freedom Right  -- so that the electorate can respond to the right leadership and support the right (free-market) solutions to our social and economic problems? Merely pandoring to those who accept just more of the same false answers which we have tried for several decades from the statist Liberal Establishment will never result in real solutions or a better world.

Votes are very important of course, but they are not an end in themselves.  Why not do the right thing rather than just chasing more votes?

Eddie Willers

*   *   *

DECEMBER 20, 2004

Bush Says He Plans to Tighten Budget to Reduce Deficits
Riiiiight!  And so far he has not ever used his veto power!
Schwarzenegger suggests U.S. Republicans move leftward
No big surprise from Kennedy in-law.

Arnold chided for urging GOP to lean left -- from World Net Daily

Al Qaeda Urges Attacks on Oil Facilities

N.Korea Could Test Long-Range Missile Any Time - U.S.
Let's all give a big round of "applauise" (or "Bronx cheers") to former President Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Madeline Allbright for this increasingly dangerous scenario.

DECEMBER 8, 2004

Intelligence Reform Bill Passes Over Objections of Some Republicans

Duncan Hunter: White House Promises to Back Sensenbrenner
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said Tuesday that the White House promised to support driver's license reform legislation sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., as part of a deal to pass the Intelligence Reform Bill.
Let us hope that this President Bush keeps this promise better than did his father, the previous President Bush, when he declared, "Read my lips: no new taxes!" -- but later caved to Democrats in Congress to raise taxes anyway.

The Naked and the Left:  On the Unholy Alliance between Islamofascism and the American Leftby Arnold Beichman from The Washington Times

Rumsfeld Asked Pointed Question by Combat Serviceman

U.S. Out of U.N. - Now! by Cal Thomas

Hard Work Wins -- Still by Larry Elder

DECEMBER 6, 2004
Intelligence: No Reform is Better Than Bad Reform By Doug Patton

Random Thoughts by Thomas Sowell  (Even Rush Limbaugh was so impressed with Dr. Sowell's column that he read the entire article on the air.)

Liberal Moles Still in CIA Working to Sabotage Genuine Reform Efforts

In Academia, No Republican Need Apply  Bruce Bartlett on how Ivory Tower leftists discrimiante against conservatives and libertarians to protect their ideological monopoly on campus.

Rethinking Libertarian "Minimalism" by Ryan Sager

DECEMBER 5, 2004
Intellectual Diversity? -- Not on College Campuses  Jeff Jacoby on the war against  diversity of thought on campus by the "politically correct" liberal-left thought police
DECEMBER 2, 2004
Woolley-Headed About Dennis Prager
No Mileage for Libertarians

Guest Editorial
By Wayne Lusvardi*

Miles Woolley, a partially paralyzed Viet Nam veteran, has written a woolly (i.e., confused; uncivilized and unruly; Encarta Dictionary) column posted at the increasingly leftist "libertarian" website LewRockwell.com ("Democrats Not Attuned?," Dec. 2, 2004).  For anyone who listens to nationally syndicated talk radio show host Dennis Prager on a regular basis, Woolley’s diatribe is mostly a non-sequitur (an unwarranted conclusion).  For libertarians Woolley’s rant should be an embarrassment, as surely it is for this libertarian. Read Full Article

DECEMBER 1, 2004

Clinton Crony Marc Rich Implicated in Oil-Food Corruption
from http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
[I am not surprised by this at all.  While the DNC and the liberal media focused public attention on Clinton getting sex from intern Monica as the "big story," the real scandals about the Clinton administration in its disasterous foreign policy (North Korea nukes, installing a socialist dictator in Haiti, etc.) and corruption (getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Chinese Red Army front groups, allowing proscribed high-tech military transfers to Red China, abandoning even minimum security practices at Los Alamos and other sensitive areas, etc.) were all but ignored except for talk radio and the Internet.  People have also forgot that President Clinton pardoned not only his buddy Marc Rich, but also several Puerto Rican terrorists.  It is clear to me that Clinton cared little about Amereican national security; his main concern was his own power and enrichment.  But because he is a Democrat, he gets a pass from the Democrat-controlled establishment media.-- Eddie]

Mount St. Helens is Top Polluter
Again, it is Mother Nature Herself, not human industry that's the major polluter.

Ken Jennings Ends His Historic Run of Victories on Jeopardy:
Superstar's Winning Streak Finally Over -- Jennings Takes Home a Record-Setting $2,520,700!

Saline Nasal Spray May Reduce Risk of Fl;u

House Conservatives Stand Firm Against Senate & President on Flawed Intelligence Reform Bill

UN Corruption: Oil-for-Food Scheme Update
Kofi's Son Still on the Take Through 2004!

The Attacks on Condi Rice - Walter E. Williams

GOP Considering Abolishing the IRS?

Why We're In Iraq by David Horowitz

NOVEMBER 24, 2004
The First Thanksgiving:  Private Enterprise Regained by Henry Hazlitt
The Real Significance of Thanksgiving -- or "How The Commies Stole Thanksgiving"
*   *   *

from WorldNetDaily.com

There are many myths and misconceptions surrounding the people responsible for the American Thanksgiving tradition. Contrary to popular opinion, the Pilgrims didn't wear buckles on their shoes or hats. They weren't tee-totalers, either.

They smoked tobacco and drank beer. And, most importantly, their first harvest festival and subsequent "thanksgivings" weren't held to thank the local natives for saving their lives.

Do you know there are public schools in America today actually teaching that? Some textbooks, in their discomfort with open discussions of Christianity, say as much. I dare suggest most parents today know little more about this history than their children.

Yet, there is no way to divorce the spiritual from the celebration of Thanksgiving -- at least not the way the Pilgrims envisioned it, a tradition dating back to the ancient Hebrews and their feasts of Succoth and Passover.

The Pilgrims came to America for one reason -- to form a separate community in which they could worship God as they saw fit. They had fled England because King James I was persecuting those who did not recognize the Church of England's absolute civil and spiritual authority.

On the two-month journey of 1620, William Bradford and the other elders wrote an extraordinary charter -- the Mayflower Compact. Why was it extraordinary? Because it established just and equal laws for all members of their new community -- believers and non-believers alike. Where did they get such revolutionary ideas? From the Bible, of course.

When the Pilgrims landed in the New World, they found a cold, rocky, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, Bradford wrote. No houses to shelter them. No inns where they could refresh themselves. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims died of sickness or exposure --including Bradford's wife. Though life improved for the Pilgrims when spring came, they did not really prosper. Why? Once again, the textbooks don't tell the story, but Bradford's own journal does. The reason they didn't succeed initially is because they were practicing an early form of socialism.

The original contract the Pilgrims had with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store. Each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community. Bradford, as governor, recognized the inherent problem with this collectivist system.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years ... that by taking away property, and bringing community into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God," Bradford wrote. "For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice."

What a surprise! Even back then people did not want to work without incentive. Bradford decided to assign a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of free enterprise. What was the result?

"This had very good success," wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."

As a result, the Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat themselves. They set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London much faster than expected. The success of the Plymouth colony thus attracted more Europeans and set off what we call the "Great Puritan Migration."

But it wasn't just an economic system that allowed the Pilgrims to prosper. It was their devotion to God and His laws. And that's what Thanksgiving is really all about. The Pilgrims recognized that everything we have is a gift from God -- even our sorrows. Their Thanksgiving tradition was established to honor God and thank Him for His blessings and His grace.

Today we continue that tradition in my home -- and I hope in yours. God bless you, God bless America, and Happy Thanksgiving.

Our First Thanksgiving
Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - November 1955
by Sartell Prentice, Jr.

Thanksgiving Heroes

Jefferson Review

Rush Limbaugh Audio on the Real Story of Thanksgiving

*   *   *

Right Wing Nuts?  Hooray for Duncan Hunter & James Sensenbrenner for doing the right thing!

NOVEMBER 23, 2004


"Screw Being Defensive on Empty Racism Charges;
Do the Right Thing and Defend America's Borders!"  -- Rush Limbaugh

As NY Times Rigs Poll to Create Anti-Bush News
We Conservatives Must Continue to Teach Voters

NOVEMBER 22, 2004
Reshaping the electorate: The Strategy Behind the Bush-Cheney Triumph by Michael Barone

Cal Thomas Calls for Real Cuts in Government Spending

Marines shoot insurgent who was 'playing dead'

Who Murdered JFK and How?


Sixty percent of Americans have a "positive opinion" of President Bush, according to a recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, the first major survey since the Nov. 2 elections.  Among officials of the Bush Administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell was most popular among poll respondents, with 87 percent saying they have a favorable impression of him. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is viewed as favorable by 63 percent; Vice President Dick Cheney by 53 percent; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 51 percent; and Attorney General John Ashcroft, 50 percent.   Concerning whether the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, 47 percent said yes, and 51 percent said no.

*   *   *


Nov. 21 cartoon Mike Shelton, The Orange County Register

NOVEMBER 19, 2004


As he has done on several occasions in the past, syndicated columnist Dr. Walter E. Williams of George Mason University sat in for Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated talk radio program on Friday, with an estimated audience of approximately 20 million listeners from coast to coast.  He discussed a variety of topics, including Social Security reform, nuclear proliferation, different kinds of discrimination, market choices versus government rigidity, and how minorities are ill-served by the liberals' "Great Society" government programs and racial regulations.  Michael Tanner, project director of Social Security reform at the Cato Institute (a pro-free enterprise "think tank") and author of several books, including A New Deal for Social Security and The 6.2 Percent Solution was interviewed by Dr. Williams during the second hour of the program.  In response to a caller's question, Dr.Williams recommended two books on economics for the general reader:  Basic Economics and the companion volume Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell.  He also recommended the short but powerful political essay The Law  by Frederic Bastiat, published by the Foudnation for Econmic Educatoin.

Walter E. Williams Guest Hosts for Rush Nov 19


President Speaks Out on Growing Nuclear Threats from Iran, N. Korea

Terrorist Headquarters Found

More Ties between Al Qaeda & Zarqawi Found

Beijing to Invest $100 Billion in Latin America

Goss Pushes Change at CIA

Out-of-Luck Conspiracy Theorists Should Face Facts  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

AP Interview: Popular Dutch lawmaker urges halt to non-Western immigrants, shutting down radical mosques

Washington D.C. Prepares for Enhanced Security for Inauguration Day
As Anti-Bush Protestors Plan Major Demonstrations, Possible Disruptions

Democrats Question Kerry's Campaign Unused Nest Egg Associated Press

"Blue-State" Dems Suddenly Like States Rights Now that GOP in Control
Good!  Let them Secede!  Good Riddance!

NOVEMBER 17, 2004


by Sam Wells

As someone who once worked closely with Gary Allen, author of None Dare Call It Conspiracy, I am certainly not opposed to exposing true conspiracies of corrupt practices, vested-interest power mongers, and would-be monopolists, but not all conspiracy theories are true. Bad conspiracy theories and unbacked tales made up by leftist cranks such as Michael Moore, Robert Scheer, Oliver Stone, and others with an ultra-statist propaganda agenda tend to discredit legitimate conspiracy analysis and investigations by those sincerely seeking the truth.

Libertarians and conservatives must be very careful to check the facts before accepting, in part or in whole, any conspiratorial tale -- especially if it comes from the Left with its own anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-U.S. military propaganda agenda.  I know the temptation is sometimes strong to go along with such interpretations, especially since we have our own axes to grind against the real powers that be and the liberal policies of the Bush Administration; but, we should assiduously avoid linking ourselves with the rapidly self-destroying and increasingly discredited reactionary left-wing writers and pundits.

Above all, we must not let America's virtue of moral self-criticism degenerate into the vice of self-hatred, or accept the spurious notion, promulgated by the Far Left, that all the evils in the world are caused by American Capitalism and White Middle Class Greed.  Indeed, it is American freedom and capitalism -- not democracy and socialism --  that can save the world from slavery and poverty.

Instead of being distracted or confused by left-wing propaganda and allegations of conspiracy, we should keep our eyes on the real "eight ball" -- the battle for the minds of thinking men in the war of ideas.  An excessive preoccupation with conspiratorial speculations and theorizing to the exclusion of attention to ideology is a recipe for failure in this most important war of right vs wrong, good vs. evil, individualism vs. collectivism, laissez faire vs. socialism, and freedom vs. tyranny.  Ultimately, the only way of defeating any conspiracy of would-be monopolists or global people planners is to refute and discredit in the minds of as many people as possible the false ideas of socialism and political meddling in the private affairs and market relationships of peaceful people.  As Robert Welch once wrote, "What we are for must be more important than what we are against."  When popular support for individual freedom, private property rights, free markets, and American unilateral independence within the Laissez-Faire Constittutional Republic is sufficient to overcome those who clamor for more Big Government "liberalism" and socilaism and the inevitably moribund New World Order, the issue of evil conspirators plotting behind closed doors will become less and less important.  Without the mechanism of legal plunder through positive government intervention at their dispsal, no conspiracy of would-be monopolists or oligopolists could long succeed in profiting at the forced expense of others -- and any dreams of a world socialist dictatorship would be swept into the ashcan of the history of bad ideas.

Compare Follow the Money by Gary North

NOVEMBER 17, 2004


More Backstabbing: CIA Leaks Goss Memo NewsMax.com


Liberal Radio Host Calls Condi Rice "Aunt Jamima"!

Left Hits New Low:  Imploding on the Vacuity of Their So-Called Intellectby Rush Limbaugh


Iran Developing Nuclear Missiles  Will we help them do it like Clinton,  Carter, and Allbright did for North Korea's Nuke Program?

NOVEMBER 14, 2004

U.S. troops now control the entire city of Fallujah after 6 days of fighting; 38 U.S. casualties, more than 1,200 enemy fighters killed.  But new attacks emerge elsewhere. See Fox News report

Beheading Chambers, Bomb-Making Factories Found by Troops


Arafat Skimmed $2 Million a Month From the Gas Trade

Dutch Muslims Dismayed by Anti-Islamic Backlash

Controversial Senator Arlen Specter Faces Judiciary Post Fight

Encouraging News about the CIA?

Marine Just Doing His Job by Diana West

Persecutions Continue in Communist Vietnam

NOVEMBER 12, 2004


The Media Myth of the Bigoted Christian Redneck
Krauthammer Cuts Through the Post-Electoin Liberal-Left Media Spin
Abbas on Track to Succeed Arafat? / Joshua Mitnick
Mahmoud Abbas, an experienced negotiator and a former prime minister, was named chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization yesterday within hours of Yasser Arafat's death. This puts him on a track to become the next overall leader of the Palestinia
U.S. Suspects Many Insurgents Have Fled / Scarborough / Washington Times
The U.S. military thinks many insurgents fled Fallujah, blending in with the waves of Iraqi civilians who were given weeks to leave before the coalition invaded and disappointing war planners who were hoping to kill a huge number of enemy guerrillas there.

Arafat's Dark Legacy

What if Israel Disappeared? Even though the creation of the "State of Israel" in an area where it was unwelcome certainly did not bring harmony to the MIddle East, even in its absence Arab conflict would probably continue no matter what -- and America would be no safer.

*   *   *

*   *   *

NOVEMBER 11, 2004


Although given a "peace prize" and lauded by the corrupt left-wing bureaucrats ar the UN, Yassir Arafat appears to have socked away billions of foreign aid money into his own Swiss bank account while his fellow Palestinians live in poverty. The pro-Communist tyrannical Palestinian leader passed away in a hospital in Paris, France, but the exact cause of death is not publicly known. This has led to speculation that perhaps the cause of death (which does not have to be given in France) might be AIDS or AIDS-related.  He was widely seen as an obstacle to peace in the Middle East because of his obvious insincerity in any negotiations with Israeli representatives.

*   *   *


Read Full Story

Dutch Official Targets Terrorism


Read Full Story


An Ominous Specter by Thomas Sowell
An Ominous Specter Part II by Thomas Sowell
An Ominous Specter Part III by Thomas Sowell


Victory in Fallujah by Ralph Peters, New York Post

U.S. Forces Hold 70 Percent of Fallujah

Iraqi Troops Find "Hostage Slaughterhouses"

Election Fallout:  Hollywood Leftists Feeling Blue, Seeing Red

Out-of-Touch Liberal Leftists Try to Rationalize Their Defeats
Conspiracy Theories Abound

Kooky Leftists, Still In Denial, Advocate Blue-State Secession
(Good!  Let them Secede -- and Good Riddance!)

Two Sides to "Global Warming" by Ronald Bailey Reason

NOVEMBER 10, 2004


*   *   *

Rules outlined for $50-million space prize
Winner could be a taxi service for orbiting hotel

by Mark Peplow

Nice view: Hotel guests
could soon see planet
Earth from their window.

It makes the X prize look easy. The winning craft in the latest competition for civilian space flight will need to have spectacular technology rivalling that of NASA, according to rules set out on 8 November.

'America's Space Prize', worth $50 million, is being offered by Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas, Nevada, a company established in 1999 by hotel magnate Robert Bigelow to build an orbiting inflatable space hotel. Bigelow also runs the hotel chain, Budget Suites of America.

The prize will be awarded to a craft that can take a crew of at least five people to an altitude of 400 kilometres, and complete two orbits of Earth. This feat will have to be repeated within 60 days. The craft must be able to dock with Bigelow's space hotel (which he hopes to launch in 2008), and be capable of staying docked in orbit for six months.

The deadline for these flights is 10 January 2010, allowing very little time for aerospace developers to prepare their entries.

Read Full Story

NOVEMBER 8, 2004
The 'Moderate' Agenda: A Dangerous Prospect
By Christopher G. Adamo

The rampant confusion and dismay among Democrats in the wake of Tuesday's election shows that they have no idea as to why they lost. And if they continue in this state of ignorance and denial, they are unlikely to turn such defeat into future victories.

Unfortunately, an equivalent danger faces the Republican Party. If it fails to recognize the reasons for its success during this election cycle, it may once again stumble at a crucial time, and face dire consequences in upcoming elections. With the grim specter of a Hillary candidacy looming in 2008, America can ill afford such a blunder.

Before the votes were fully counted, forces were working to undermine the message sent forth so clearly by the electorate. Any attempts to ignore the real meaning of this election, or to take for granted the loyalty of the conservative base that made it happen, could ultimately backfire on Republicans, as happened in 1996 and again in 1998.

The landslide Republican Congressional gains in 1994, much like 2004, directly resulted from involvement by grassroots conservatives. And that involvement was a reaction to the obvious contrast between the agendas of liberals and conservatives. Unfortunately, once the conservative victory had been achieved, Republican insiders immediately embarked on a program of blurring the distinctions between the two.

"Business as usual" overtook the conservative revolution. The public responded with disappointment and cynicism. Bill Clinton, with less than half of the lowest voter turnout in decades, did not win his 1996 race as a result of enthusiasm for his political philosophies. Rather, as uninspired as the nation was with him, the Republican base was even less inspired to support the constant waffling and capitulation of Bob Dole.

It is highly significant that the last Democrat President to receive greater than fifty percent of the popular vote was Jimmy Carter, in his 1976 race against Gerald Ford. While some of Carter's support resulted from public disgust with the Nixon administration, much of it was a direct response to Carter's open professions of his Baptist roots.

It was this perception of a moral component to Carter's philosophy that convinced the public to support him. Such a case was relatively easy to make, when Carter's professed virtue was contrasted against the darkness of the Nixon White House.

Of course once Carter's "spirituality" turned out to be nothing more than empty rhetoric, his popularity plummeted, and never recovered.

Over the past three decades a consistent pattern in the political landscape has emerged, though Republican Party insiders, at the prodding of so-called "moderates" continually seek to ignore it. Every Republican President's success in office can be directly correlated to the degree of morality and conservatism that he espouses. But sadly, the "conventional wisdom" from party hacks is that the politically safe ground is at the philosophical "center."

The pro-homosexual organization known as the "Log Cabin Republicans" (not named for any allegiance to Abraham Lincoln, but as a reference to the human anatomy), showed their true colors this past summer when they refused to endorse President Bush. Their goal, with his defeat looking likely at the time, was to position themselves to make the claim that he lost, in part, because of their lack of support. Thus they could ever after hold the Republican Party hostage to their agenda.

Yet not only did this ruse backfire, other evidence of electoral antipathy towards their agenda is inarguable. In all eleven states where same-sex "marriage" bans were on the ballot, the initiatives passed by overwhelming margins.

Although a shift to the right may be smart politics for liberals, it does not follow that a shift to the left will similarly benefit Republicans. In truth, nothing could be more absurd. Yet for more than a decade, such thinking is exactly what Republican "moderates" have promoted, and with consistently disastrous results.

In South Dakota, John Thune's victory over Tom Daschle sent an unambiguous message to Washington that America takes a dim view of those who would subvert the Constitution through the encroaching tyranny of judicial activism.

If Senate Republicans, after witnessing such deep-seated fervor from the electorate, choose not to take on this battle as if the very future of our Constitutional Republic depends on it (which in fact it does), the anger vented against Daschle will shortly be transferred to them.

A great victory has been won. This is no time to let "moderates" take the reins once again and thus squander it.

*   *   *

          The Election Map by County

The Final Election Map by State

The GOP's Blue-State Blues  John Fund

NOVEMBER 6, 2004


A friend of mine, whose screen name is Curmudge, sent in the following interesting observations:

Am I the only one who noticed Ted Kennedy's new nose?  Saw a profile shot of him at Kerry's concession wake and thought to myself, self, that kind of looks like Sen. Ted.  But I wasn't sure until after Sen. Kerry finished his speech and saw a shot of him full faced, and low and behold the bulbous, drinkers nose was missing!  Where had it gone to?  His entire face, for that matter looked MUCH YOUNGER.  I went directly to the Senators D.C. office for confirmation.  Had the Senator's nose been redesigned by a skilled cosmetic surgeon?  Certainly looked that way to me.  The phone person suggested that I should have been listening to Sen. Kerry instead of looking at the faces in the audience.  I replied by saying that "I am quite capable of multitasking - I'm not a democrat incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.  The conversation was on the verge of ending after my rejoinder.  It certainly looks to me that "the nose" has undergone a miraculous transformation (somewhat along the lines of a Michael Jackson revision) and the jowls went missing along with the familiar bulb we have grown accustomed to seeing whenever Sen. Kennedy is photographed.

In an effort to "reach out" to Democrats I offered my congratulations to the surgeon who performed this miracle.  It did not seem to placate the phone person, which made me somewhat sad about our chances of reaching out to Dems.  One must not give up with a first-effort failure.  I shall continue to let our opponents know that we are, indeed, all Americans and we will try again when the opportunity is available.

P.S. Perhaps the Enquirer has a file photo of the Sen. that can settle the issue once and for all.  Is this a new nose?  Is this the same old nose?  Where has the bulb gone to?  Inquiring minds want to know.  Can anyone out there resolve this burning question?  If Sen. Kennedy has merely undergone a miraculous non-surgical rejuvenation we would all like to know how we too might roll back the years ourselves.  Waiting for resolution.

*   *   *

Spanked!  by Doug Giles

Photo Gallery of the Big Winners and the Big Losers

Angry Dems: Bush Win Worse Than 9/11 by Carl Limbacher

The Story Behind Bush’s Stunning Victory 2004 by Christopher Ruddy

Rove Credits Swift Boat Vets With 'Energizing' Bush Vote

Dick Morris Says it was the Hispanic Vote that Put Bush Over the Top

Election Results for Each State  NewsMax.com

American Left in Denial by Thomas Marsland

*   *   *

NOVEMBER 5, 2004

by Rod D. Martin
from http://www.VanguardPAC.org

There is simply no calculating the victory that was Tuesday.  But that
victory was not so much in the results.

No, it was not that George W. Bush beat John Kerry, beat the media, beat the French, and generally whipped every tail in sight to become the first
president elected by a majority since 1988 and the highest vote-getter of
all time.  That was good.  But that wasn't it.

It wasn't the tectonic shift in the Senate either, as astonishing as that
was.  Oh, everyone knew a four-seat shift to the Republicans was possible,
but no one dared predict it.  Certainly no one dared predict a newly
conservative composition of the enlarged Republican majority so great as to
render hard-left "Republicans" like Arlen Specter in trouble and Lincoln
Chafee irrelevant.

But the Senate earthquake isn't the biggest victory either.

Nor was it the eleven out of eleven states which overwhelmingly amended
their constitutions to officially define marriage as being between one man
and one woman. Nor was it (as Dick Morris suggests, though he has an
excellent point) that George Bush cut Al Gore's margin among Hispanics in
half:  Republicans are bringing that hard-working, values driven people
home.  Nor was it the greatly increased likelihood of pro-life Supreme Court
justices, better laws respecting the Second Amendment, meaningful Social
Security reform, or even the President's promise to enact fundamental tax
reform, likely in the form of a flat tax, thereby igniting an economic boom
of Asian Tiger proportions.

No, any and all of these things would be a great victory -- for Republicans
and for America -- all by themselves.  And yet the greatest victory lies
deeper, undergirding them all.

It's the story of how we got there.

You see, for years I've been telling you -- in this column, in the media and
in speeches around the country -- one simple truth:  only about half of
Americans vote, even in high turnout years.  Those who vote do so for a
reason, and that reason is always that they care about something, or
someone.  You must motivate people to turn them out. Annoy them and they
stay home. There's always room to expand either group.  And the guy who
turns out more of his supporters always wins.

Almost no Republicans have understood this.  They have listened to a
left-wing media trying to destroy them, constantly telling them to "run to
the middle" (as if people who want to elect liberals won't just vote for a
real one).  They have listened to their paid consultants, who make ungodly
sums on television ads but not a penny organizing volunteer GOTV (get out
the vote) efforts.  And they have listened to their own officeholders, who,
having picked the low-hanging fruit, managed to get elected by doing these
things, but whose counsel is virtually worthless in the harder battles being
fought today.

I have preached this for years.  Run to your base: give them a reason to
vote by giving them an agenda worth voting for and meaning it.  And then
organize the activists necessary to find them and get them to the polls.
Here lies the Holy Grail, I've said, and for years been laughed at by all.

All, that is, except three men:  Morton Blackwell, and Karl Rove.  Oh, and
George W. Bush.

Morton has been the apostle of all this since before I was born.  A
real-life conservative hero, Morton has trained more conservatives than
anyone alive.  After the debacle of 2000, Morton convinced the RNC that
something had to be done, that TV was no longer enough, that mere survival
required a ground war, that a serious ground war might bring a national

They listened. So did Rove and Bush.  And the elections of 2002 and 2004 are the (early) result.

And yet even that is not the ultimate victory of 2004.

For all these years I've told you:  the future of the Republican coalition
lies with Evangelical Christians.  Only a tiny part of them -- just a
quarter -- normally vote: this means that, more than any other group in
America, with sufficient motivation, they could flood the electoral process
and utterly reshape America.  If Christians voted according to their
numbers, the Left could never win another national election, the Congress
would be overwhelmingly conservative, the radical social agenda would be
crushed, and a better, freer America would quickly emerge.

Tuesday night it finally began to happen.  George W. Bush, a host of good
Senate candidates, and multiple same-sex marriage amendments motivated them to vote.  The Republican ground war -- including my Vanguard PAC's efforts in Florida -- got them to the polls.  Despite being completely ignored by the pollsters, almost a quarter of all voters nationwide identified "moral
values" as the reason they voted, and as the infamous libertine Hunter S.
Thompson put it, "they voted like they prayed."

It's just the beginning.  But I told you so. And America will never be the
same again.

Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 5 November 2004.


-- Rod D. Martin is Founder and Chairman of Vanguard PAC
<http://www.VanguardPAC.org>. A former policy director to
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Special Counsel to PayPal.com
Founder Peter Thiel, he is a member of the Board of Governors
of the Council for National Policy, a Vice President of
the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), and
editor and co-author of "Thank You President Bush".
To subscribe to "Vanguard of the Revolution", send the message
"Subscribe Vanguard", or the message "Unsubscribe Vanguard" to
unsubscribe, to listadmin@VanguardPAC.org.

Contact listowner@VanguardPAC.org if you have questions.

*   *   *


Kerry has lost the election.  Hooray!  Now, conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and Objectivists must act to put as much positive pressure on President Bush and the Republicans -- and especially on the new Senate -- to encourage them to pass real reforms to limit the scope and power of the federal government, to cut government spending and taxes at all levels, to appoint honest, constitutionalist judges to federal benches, and to abolish such counter-productive and unconstitutional agencies and programs as the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Energy, the EPA, the National Endowment of the Arts, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 8 housing subsidies, and all kinds of red- and green-tape regulations which hamstring American business in world competition and which restrict domestic drilling for oil in our own country.  We have an opening to try.  But we cannot just sit back and hope for the best; we must act to encourage President Bush and Congress to do the right things.  Otherwise, it is clear that, if left to their own inclinations, regardless of whatever "good intentions" they may have, the Bush Republicans will surely cave to the liberal-left Senate Democrats as usual and continue to move this country further to the Left with more and bigger wrong-headed federal programs and bureaucratic schemes on the claim that they will somehow make things better.  The "No Child Left Behind" boondoggle, written by Teddy Kennedy, and unfortunately signed into law by an enthusiastic George Bush, needs to be scrapped.  We all should know all too well government's reverse Midas Touch -- something Mr. Bush has evidently not learned.  It's time to pull the Republicans back toward the right side of the spectrum -- toward less government meddling and more individual freedom and responsibility. This will not be easy, especially during a continuing war against terrorism; but, by setting our goals properly and using the tools available to us via talk radio and the Internet, perhaps we can be successful in keeping at least some of the more onerous coercive measures recently enacted from becoming permanent fixtures in America as the war on terrorism is eventually won and begins to wind down.

A Narrow Escape by Thomas Sowell

*   *   *

PEGGY NOONAN (Opinion Journal)

So Much to Savor by Peggy Noonan
A big win for America, and a loss for the mainstream media.

Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

God bless our country.

Hello, old friends. Let us savor.

Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936. This is huge.

George W. Bush is the first president to win more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. (Bill Clinton failed to twice; Mr. Bush failed to last time and fell short of a plurality by half a million.) The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan's old record of 54.5 million. Mr. Bush increased his personal percentages in almost every state in the union. He carried the Catholic vote and won 42% of the Hispanic vote and 24% of the Jewish vote (up from 19% in 2000.)

It will be hard for the mainstream media to continue, in the face of these facts, the mantra that we are a deeply and completely divided country. But they'll try!

The Democrats have lost their leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. I do not know what the Democratic Party spent, in toto, on the 2004 election, but what they seem to have gotten for it is Barack Obama. Let us savor.

The elites of Old Europe are depressed. Savor. The nonelites of Old Europe, and the normal folk of New Europe, especially our beloved friend Poland, will not be depressed, and many will be happy. Let's savor that too.

George Soros cannot buy a presidential election. Savor. "Volunteers" who are bought and paid for cannot beat volunteers who come from the neighborhood, church, workplace and reading group. Savor.

The leaders of the Bush effort see it this way: A ragtag band of more than a million Republican volunteers who fought like Washington's troops at Valley Forge beat the paid Hessians of King George III's army. Savor.

As I write, John Kerry is giving his speech. He looks hurt. Who wouldn't? He fought to the end, for every vote, untiring and ceaseless. I told some young people recently who were walking into a battle, "Here's how to fight: You fight until they kill you, until they kill you and stop your heart, and then you let them carry you out of the room. But you fight until they carry." I think that's how the Democrats fought. Good for them.
To admit defeat with attempted grace is a moving sight. Kerry did well. His talking about his "good conversation" with the president was gracious and helpful. He was honest about the facts of the vote in Ohio. When he thanked his people from the bottom of his heart it was a real thanks. "Thanks to Democrats and Republicans and Independents. . . . Thanks to everyone who voted." "Don't lose faith, what you did made a difference . . . and building on itself . . . the time will come when your votes, your ballots, will change the world. And it's worth fighting for." A lot of pundits and editorialists are going to say, "His best speech of the campaign was his last." But that's not the point.

Mr. Kerry graced democracy today. He showed his love for it. Savor.

And now the president is speaking. He looks tired and happy. He looks as if the lines on his forehead are deeper. Maybe it's the lighting. "We had a really good phone call," he said of Mr. Kerry. "He was very gracious . . . and he and his supporters can be proud of their efforts." Good for them both. He announced his agenda: reform the tax code, privatize Social Security, help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan. "And then our servicemen and -women will come home with the honor they have earned."

"Today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. . . . I need your support. . . . I will do all that I can do to earn your trust. . . . We have one country, one Constitution, and one future that binds us." All good. Savor.

Who was the biggest loser of the 2004 election? It is easy to say Mr. Kerry: he was a poor candidate with a poor campaign. But I do think the biggest loser was the mainstream media, the famous MSM, the initials that became popular in this election cycle. Every time the big networks and big broadsheet national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of pro-liberal mischief--CBS and the fabricated Bush National Guard documents, the New York Times and bombgate, CBS's "60 Minutes" attempting to coordinate the breaking of bombgate on the Sunday before the election--the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new technology and rough guts. God bless the pajama-clad yeomen of America. Some day, when America is hit again, and lines go down, and media are hard to get, these bloggers and site runners and independent Internetters of all sorts will find a way to file, and get their word out, and it will be part of the saving of our country.
Last note. As much as anyone, the POW wives of Vietnam, who stood against the Democratic nominee for president and for the Republican, can claim credit for the Bush victory. Everyone with a computer in America, and a lot of people with TVs, saw their testimony about the 1970s, and their husbands, and John Kerry. You could not come away from their white-haired, soft-faced, big-eyeglasses visages without thinking: He should not be commander in chief.

Oh, another last note. Tuesday I heard three radio talkers who refused to believe it was over when the ludicrous, and who knows but possibly quite mischievous, exit polls virtually declared a Kerry landslide yesterday afternoon. They are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. The last sent me an e-mail that dismissed the numbers as elitist nonsense and propaganda. She is one tough girl and they are two tough men. Savor them too.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

(Wednesday afternoon)


Kerry Delivers Concession Speech

(wee hours)


At 2:00 AM Pacific Time, given the votes that are now in and counted, there are only four electoral-vote counts possible for George Bush:  274, 279, 281, or 286 -- all over the required 270 pledged electoral votes.  Bush has won.  But the dishonest Kerry Democrats, with their corrupt media allies at CBS etc., are trying to pretend to the American people that counting the "provisional ballots" (those cast by people who claim to be registered voters in Ohio but whose names do not appear on the registratoin list or whose qualifications to vote are under challenge) will somehow give Kerry the victory in Ohio if not the nation.  Unless the Democrats have figured out a way to cram over 145,000 pro-Kerry votes into the provisional balloting, that would seem to be impossible.  That many "new" Kerry votes would obviously be cause for suspicion of vote fraud on the part of the pro-Kerry parttisans and the Bush Republicans would (or should) challenge each and every one of those alleged "provisional" votes.  It is the Kerry Democrats who are clearly trying to steal the election in the face of their obvious defeat --  the very thing they've been claiming of Bush and the Republicans!  As Nicolle Devenish, a spokeswoman for the Bush-Cheney campaign put it, "There's no mathematical path to victory for Kerry in Ohio," arguing that Bush would get his share of the provisional ballots (if they are legitimate).  When Gerald Ford lost his bid for re-election in 1976, it was in the crucial state of Ohio that he was losing by fewer than 9000 votes -- but he nevertheless conceded the election to Carter without demanding a reocunt or charging election fraud.  With all the money that George Soros and other limousine liberals have at stake in this election, the Democrats are not likely to go away as good losers.  What they could not win in the voting booth, they will try to use lawyers and partisan judges to run interference for them to make claim to.

Despite the many glaring flaws of the incumbent President George Dubya Bush from a libertarian or American conservative perspective, we should all celebrate his victory at the polls.  After all, tonight's electoral defeat of John Kerry should also be seen as a defeat for Osama bin Laden, George Soros (who tried to buy the election for Kerry, but failed), Terrie McAuliffe, Paul Begala, Michael Moore, Al Shapton, James Carville, George Stepanopoulos, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Charles Rangel, Dan Rather, Leslie Stahl, Peter Jennings, Chris Matthews, Tom Brokaw, Judy Woodruff, Katie Couric, Larry King, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, Al Franken, Bill Maher, Jane Fonda, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg, Noam Chomsky, the corrupt United Nations bureaucrats, the French weenies on the take from Saddam Hussein, and the anarcho-pacifist appeasenikrats and anti-American leftists who despise American capitalism and U.S. unilateral independence in the world today. Sweet!

Now, conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and Objectivists must act to put as much pressure on President Bush and the Republicans -- and especially on the new Senate -- to pass reforms to limit the scope and power of the federal government, to cut government spending and taxes at all levels, to appoint good judges to federal benches, and to abolish such counter-productive and unconstitutional agencies and programs as the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Energy, the EPA, the National Endowment of the Arts, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 8 housing subsidies, and all kinds of red- and green-tape regulations which hamstring American business in world competition and which restrict domestic drilling for oil in our own country.  We have an opening to try.  But we cannot just sit back and hope for the best; we must act to pressure President Bush and Congress to do the right things.  Otherwise, it is clear that, if left to their own inclinations, regardless of whatever "good intentions" they may have, the Bush Republicans will surely cave to the liberal-left Senate Democrats as usual and continue to move this country further to the Left with more and bigger wrong-headed federal programs and bureaucratic schemes on the claim that they will somehow make things better.  The "No Child Left Behind" boondoggle, written by Teddy Kennedy, and unfortunately signed into law by an enthusiastic George Bush, needs to be scrapped.  We all should know all too well government's reverse Midas Touch -- something Mr. Bush has evidently not learned.  It's time to pull the Republicans back toward the right side of the spectrum -- toward less government meddling and more individual freedom and responsibility. This will not be easy, especially during a continuing war against terrorism; but, by setting our goals properly and using the tools available to us via talk radio and the Internet, perhaps we can be successful in keeping at least some of the more onerous coercive measures recently enacted from becoming permanent fixtures in America as the war on terrorism is eventually won and begins to wind down.




100% of Precincts Reporting
George W. Bush 2,777,645 - 51 percent
John Kerry 2,632,547 - 48 percent

95% of Precincts Reporting
George W. Bush 51% 56,732,387
John Kerry 48% 53,004,905

11:30 PM:  John Edwards Refuses to Concede Ohio
    although Bush Has Insurmountable Lead at This Point

President Bush is leading in New Mexico 52-47 with more than 95 percent of the vote in and is leading in Iowa. Either state would cement his re-election by giving him more than the required 270 EVs to win, but John Kerry is refusing to admit his defeat in Ohio.  But it looks like Nevada's 5 electoral votes  will also go to Bush (51% to Kerry's 48% with over 82 percent of the votes counted) -- which unofficiallyputs President Bush over the top.

Fraud File:  Trouble at the Polls

11: 15 PM:  Thune vs. Daschle Senate Race Too Close To Call

At 10:45 Pacific Time:  Bush has locked up 269 Electoral Votes, needs one more to win against Kerry!

Florida Called for Bush!  Ohio's EVs Seem to be Safely for Bush!
Republican Wins Zell Miller's Senate Seat
Obama Beats Keyes in Illinois
Coburn (R) Beats Rep. Brad Carson in Oklahoma

Schwarzkopf Says DNC 'Making Fraudulent Phone Calls' To Voters
Desperate Democrats Impede Voters; GOP Tires Slashed
Monitors Decry Pro-Kerry Schedule

Kerry Threatens to Ban Fox News!

Study Confirms Pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush Bias in the Press

Republican Poll Watchers Vigilant for Pro-Daschle Fraud in South Dakota -- But Are Restricted by Judge's Last-Minute Ruling

Concerns are High Over Possible Vote Fraud in Ohio, Florida

Could Hawaii Vote for Bush?

The Choice by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
If the conventional wisdom is correct, today’s presidential election will be tightly contested and ultimately decided by the electorate’s concerns about winning the war against terrorists bent on our destruction.

What's At Stake in This Election by Rush Lmbaugh

American News Links

Latest Poll Results



We May HAVA Problem by John Fund

Voter Turnout Titans -- The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com

Wall Street Journalist John Fund Warns Republicans to be Vigilant at the Polls for Dem Fraud: "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy" (Encounter Books, 2004),

"It's the Turnout, Stupid!"  by Donald Lambro

*   *   *


Left-Wing Newspaper Calls for Assassination of President Bush:
"John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"!

Democrat Tries to Drive Over Katherine Harris & Other Republicans
A Florida man has been charged with attempting to run over controversial Republican congresswoman Katherine Harris with his Cadillac. According to the below Sarasota Police Department report, Barry Seltzer, 46, told cops that he was simply exercising his "political expression" when he drove his car at Harris and several supporters, who were campaigning last night at a Sarasota intersection.

 . . . . 
        Barry Seltzer
*   *   *


Beijing Criticizes "Bush Doctrine" in Attempt to Influence U.S. Presidential Election

Osama's Own "October Surprise" Video Against Bush

Cheney Chides Kerry for Taking a Poll on the New Bin Laden Tape Before He Made a Statement About It

CBS & New York Times Admit Bush Ahead in Poll, but Only Slightly

GOP Expected to Keep House Majority; Senate Control At Stake

Latest Poll Results

Will Billionaire Leftist George Soros Succeed in Buying the Election for John Kerry?

OCTOBER 28, 2004

Will this backfire on Kerry at the polls?

The New York Times headline read, "Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq" and it was written by JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER, left-wing reporters with a pro-Kerry bias.  No date was given when these explosives were supposed to have disappeared.  Kerry and his media allies had tried to make the claim that somehow 377 tons of explosives were somehow stolen by looters and insurgents during American occupation -- a massive quantity of materials that would have taken 38 large trucks or several large carrier vehicles to transport anywhere (and on roads which were in constant use by U.S. and allied military troops)!  The "news" story about the allegedly "missing" high explosives -- launched by the New York Times On October 25 and then taken up and spread by CBS News and other Liberal Establishment media outlets -- turns out to be bogus.  It now seems that the 377 tons of high explosives (which international inspectors had said had been stored in a huge cache near Baghdad) had already been moved, apparently with the help of the Russian military, while Saddam was still in power and before American troops got there, possibly well before the invasion began. But, instead of apologizing and admitting he jumped to conclusions in his haste to condemn the Bush Administration and impugn the competence of American soldiers, candidate Kerry continues to pretend that the story is true and that President Bush and his administration owes him an explanation (even though the story is untrue)!  Of course the TV networks (except for Fox) and other Liberal Establishment media are covering up for Kerry again -- and not acknowledging any embarassment from having disseminated another scandalous falsehood in their zeal to help Kerry defeat President Bush. Disregarding the truth and the facts of the case, Kerry is still pretending that the story has legs -- while there is still no real  acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the media!

by Thomas Sowell

 As if to prove that the Dan Rather forged document scandal was not just an isolated incident, CBS News was ready to run another bogus story against President Bush on "60 Minutes" -- right before the election -- until an old NBC report surfaced, showing that the great amounts of high explosives supposedly "missing" from an ammunition dump in Iraq were not there when American troops arrived on the scene more than a year ago.

 Hundred of tons of these high explosives were known to have been at that ammunition dump before the war started but an NBC reporter who was with the American troops when they arrived at the dump in April 2003 saw no sign of them then. Since it was known in the spring of 2003 that these high explosives were not at that ammunition dump, why was it suddenly front page news in the New York Times on the eve of an election?

 Much of the rest of the media joined in publicizing what has turned out to be a bogus story. John Kerry seized on this story and began loudly denouncing President Bush on TV for not adequately guarding high explosives that we never had.

 How much can we trust anything reported by a biased media with its own political axes to grind? Thank heaven there are some alternative sources of news, such as talk radio, Fox News and the Internet.   Full Article

*   *   *


Radio station KFI's John Ziegler points out that when it comes to Iraq, there are at least three John Kerrys.  The first is Kerry before 9/11, then there is Kerry after 9/11, and finally there is Kerry post-Howard Dean.  Can you tell the difference between the three?

John Kerry before 9/11
John Kerry after 9/11
John Kerry post-Howard Dean (in the Democrat Primaries)

*   *   *

OCTOBER 23, 2004

A Letter from Elder Statesman John Hospers


October 23, 2004

Dear Libertarian:

As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in l972, and was the author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles at the first libertarian national convention in 1972. I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this year -- more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian Party -- I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting Americans.

There is a belief that’s common among many libertarians that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties -- between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of liberty.

The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly realized, a catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current campaign speeches, his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world. The Democratic Party itself has been undergoing a transformation in recent years; moderate, pro-American, and strong defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson are a dying breed. Observe how many members of the Democrat Party belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from the Democratic Socialists of America. That caucus is the heart and soul of the contemporary Democratic Party.

Today’s Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that they are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve it, including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; for them any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is construed as a defeat for them.

The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loath private property. It is opposed to free speech – witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college campuses, and Kerry’s threat to sue television stations that carry the Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk radio and in the university system. They will attempt to enact “hate speech” and “hate crime” laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries. They will call it “defending human rights.” This sort of activity may well make up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against opponents.

There are already numerous stories of brownshirt types committing violence against Republican campaign headquarters all over the country, and Democrat thugs harassing Republican voters at the polls. Yet not a word about it from the Kerry campaign. Expect this dangerous trend to increase dramatically with a Kerry win, ignored and tacitly accepted by the liberal-left mainstream media. This is ominous sign of worse things to come.

Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us that he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed repeatedly in the l970s. But in fact he will weaken our military establishment and devastate American security by placing more value on the United Nations than on the United States: for example he favors the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, and opposed the withdrawal of the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. He has been quoted as saying that it is honorable for those in the U.S. military to die under the flag of the U.N. but not that of the U.S. Presumably he and a small cadre of bureaucrats should rule the world, via the U.N. or some other world body which will make all decisions for the whole world concerning private property, the use of our military, gun ownership, taxation, and environmental policy (to name a few). In his thirty-year career he has demonstrated utter contempt for America, national security, constitutional republicanism, democracy, private property, and free markets.

His wife’s foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack transparency to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor in a Kerry administration.

Already plans are afoot by the Kerry campaign to steal the coming election via a legal coup, e.g. to claim victory on election night no matter what the vote differential is, and initiate lawsuits anywhere and everywhere they feel it works to their advantage, thus making a mockery of our election process, throwing the entire process into chaos -- possibly for months -- and significantly weakening our ability to conduct foreign policy and protect ourselves domestically. Let me repeat: we are facing the very real possibility of a political coup occurring in America. Al Gore very nearly got away with one in 2000. Do not underestimate what Kerry and his ilk are going to attempt to do to America.

George Bush has been criticized for many things – and in many cases with justification: on campaign finance reform (a suppression of the First Amendment), on vast new domestic spending, on education, and on failing to protect the borders. No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would fail to be deeply appalled by these. His great virtue, however, is that he has stood up -- knowingly at grave risk to his political viability -- to terrorism when his predecessors, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property. Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence, to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with “the big one:” 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than a series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U.S. and indeed to the entire civilized world long before his administration. He decided that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9/11s involving weapons of mass destruction, including  “suitcase” nuclear devices.

Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens the world just as Nazis fascism and Soviet communism did in previous decades. The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-Muslims without a tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in wishful thinking on this issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of nuisance, which can be handled without great inconvenience in much the same way as one swats flies, rather than as hordes of genocidal religious fanatics dedicated to our destruction.

The president has been berated for taking even minimal steps to deal with the dangers of this war (the allegations made against the Patriot Act seem to me based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on reality). But Bush, like Churchill, has stood steadfast in the face of it, and in spite of the most virulent hate and disinformation campaign that any American president has had to endure. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. Saddam’s regime is no longer a major player in the worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished their weapons of terror. The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass destruction has been eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah. Terrorist cells all over the world have been disrupted, and thousands of terrorists killed. The result: Americans are orders of magnitude safer.

National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely excoriated for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a party I attended in l962, in response to complaints that “taxes are too high” (then 20%), “Pay 80% if you need it for defense.” It is not the amount but the purpose served that decides what is “too much.” And the purpose here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the face of vastly increased threats to its existence.

Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These cuts got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs have been added to the economy since August 2003. Bush has other projects in the wind for which libertarians have not given him credit. For example:

(l) A total revision of our tax code. We will have a debate concerning whether this is best done via a flat tax or a sales tax.  If such a change were to occur, it would be a gigantic step in the direction of liberty and prosperity. No such change will occur with Kerry.

(2) A market-based reform of Social Security. This reform, alone, could bring future budget expenditures down so significantly that it would make his current expenditures seem like pocket change. Kerry has already repudiated any such change in social security laws.

The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes time and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans, who labor under a plethora of economic fallacies and political misconceptions. It will involve a near-total restructuring of the educational system, which today serves the liberal-left education bureaucracy and Democratic Party, not the student or parent. It will require a merciless and continuous expose of the bias in the mainstream media (the Internet, blogs, and talk radio have been extremely successful in this regard over the past few years). And it will require understanding the influence and importance of the Teresa Kerry-like Foundations who work in the shadows to undermine our constitutional system of checks and balances. Most of all, it will require the American people -- including many libertarians – to realize the overwhelming dangerousness of the American Left – a Fifth Column comprised of the elements mentioned above, dedicated to achieving their goal of a totally internationally dominated America, and a true world-wide Fascism. Thus far their long-term plans have been quite successful. A Kerry presidency will fully open their pipeline to infusions of taxpayer-funded cash and political pull. At least a continued Bush presidency would help to stem this tide, and along the way it might well succeed in preserving Western civilization against the fanatic Islamo-fascists who have the will, and may shortly have the weapons capability, to bring it to an end.

When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a ‘minor party’ candidate who cannot possibly win, just to “get the word out” and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning.  The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical “Battle Ground” states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.

We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote libertarian, we may win a tiny rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war.

John Hospers
Los Angeles, California

*   *   *

by John Ziegler

 Amazingly John Kerry is on the verge of perhaps being the next President without having to even TRY to answer numerous legitimate and important questions. While the election for John Kerry would be disturbing based on principle alone, it is even more so when it may happen with the vast majority of Americans having no idea who he is and with the news media allowing him to slide by without ever facing any remotely tough challenges. Here are just a few of the questions that John Kerry has never been asked during this campaign.

Where were you on Christmas of 1968? If you weren't in Cambodia, why did you say you were on the floor of the Senate and that this moment was seared in your memory?

What atrocities did you commit in Vietnam?

What impact do you think your anti-war protest had on POWs and fellow Vets?

Why did you write in your journal that you had never been under fired AFTER you had already applied for a purple heart?

What happened during your Paris meetings with the North Vietnamese while the war was still going on?

Why didn’t you take the free airtime Sinclair offered you to respond to their broadcast on your post-Vietnam activities?

Why don’t you think they have the right to broadcast the documentary “Stolen Honor”?

Why haven’t you signed the form to allow all of your military records released to the public?

Why did Bob Dole and Barry Goldwater resign from the Senate to run for President, while you and John Edwards have not?

Why were you so sure that no one in the second debate audience could possibly make $200,000 a year, even jointly with a spouse?

Why did you and John Edwards both mention Mary Cheney's homosexuality during the debates when the questions had nothing to do with her?

Where in the Constitution is a woman’s “right” to a federally funded abortion?

How can you simultaneously say that your “faith” can’t influence your political views and that faith without works is dead and that your faith influences everything you do?

Why did you vote against the first Gulf War? Why did that war not pass your “Global Test”?

Can you please explain how your vote for the second Iraq War was simply to provide a bargaining chip, when your numerous statements for years prior to the vote indicate that was clearly not the case?

Why should any future pro-war vote in the Senate not be taken less seriously by prospective enemies thanks to your explanation of your vote?

What evidence is there that one million black voters were disenfranchised in 2000?

If that charge is not true, as two federal investigations have concluded, does it not create and exacerbate the divisions in this country that you constantly decry and blame the President for?

What evidence is there that a second Bush Administration would impose a draft or raid social security?

How was it exactly that the President caused the national and political unity to be destroyed post 9/11 and why don’t the Democrats deserve a lot of criticism for that happening?

Do you believe that General Tommy Franks, when he says you are dead wrong about what happened in Tora Bora in the pursuit of Usama bin Laden, that he is lying?

Do you believe that when John Edwards was channeling unborn children as a trial lawyer suing doctors that he was lying in order to exploit the emotions of the juries to get more money from them, or that he really has this ability?

Do you agree with Senator Edwards that if you had been President instead of Bush that Christopher Reeve would have walked instead of died?

Since you ridiculed John Edwards’ qualifications for President what can Americans conclude about other appointments you would make based on the fact that you chose him to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

How are your insulting comments about the Iraq coalition in general and Iyad Allawi in particular consistent with your promise to be the diplomacy President?

In light of the U.N. Oil/Food Scandal, why should we care what the U.N. says and why should the Bush Administration be criticized for the lack of a U.N. resolution authorizing war in Iraq?

Is it a coincidence that you have not once but twice married women who are richer than you?

Why is it that your friends were shocked to find out that you were finally divorced from your first wife, whom you left while she was very depressed, because you had acted like a bachelor for so long?

Why is it that in 20 years in the Senate you are not known for one major idea, bill, or initiative?

When you go to Communion in Catholic Church, which some say you shouldn’t receive because of your stance on abortion, do you believe that you are receiving the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus Christ?

How much of Michael Moore’s movie is true and if there are falsehoods, name two.

*   *   *


The story about insufficient supplies of flu vaccines, which John Kerry is now using against President Bush as a campaign issue, turns out to be one caused more by Kerry's own Democrat Party policies than by George Bush or Dick Cheney.  To the extent that a shortage does exist (which itself has been overblown), it has nothing to do with the Bush policies, but actually goes back to price controls imposed by President Clinton and the Democrats who wanted to take the profit out of producing flu vaccines.  Read the full story on "Kerry's Flu-Shot Foul" from the New York Post.

OCTOBER 22, 2004


George Tenet, the man appointed by President Clinton to head the CIA and later retained in that post by incoming President Bush, now admits to errors and inconsistencies in the information about the continued presence of weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq, but insists the war to liberate Iraq was still worthwhile.  "When I look at the regime (Saddam Hussein) ran, and the elaborate depth he took to deny us the ability to build our intelligence, I can't say it was a waste," Tenet said. "I believed he had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't. At the end of the day I have to stand up accountable for that. In the meantime our nation needs to honor the commitment we made in Iraq."  Full Story
*   *   *
(It figures:  a corrupt politician to head a corrupt organization.)

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming U.N. secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior U.N. source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named leader of the world body when Kofi Annan's term ends early in 2006.  Full story

*   *   *


by Charles R. Smith

Smith, an expert in military and foreign policy issues tells the story of  Chinese espionage successes against the US  and describes how China's nuclear program went from fledgling to state of the art within eight years based on acquiring technology from American companies. China's long-range plan, he says, is to overtake the U.S. militarily and economically by 2015-2020, and eventually assert global domination.

Smith also warns of cyberterrorism. There are three levels of cyberterrorism he reports: amateur, professional/criminal and military. Smith estimates that China has an army of "information warriors," numbering between 6,000 to 7,000, many of whom have visited the U.S. to observe our security systems.


Editorial Reviews from Amazon.com:
This is the true story of the greatest Chinese espionage successes against the USA. Deception takes the reader through a documented tale of spies, secrets, money sex and power that dominates the US government.

Get the full story from the journalist that broke the China-Gate scandal along with the documented evidence that turned China-Gate into a full blown investigation. Author Charles R. Smith names the Chinese generals -- and the greedy corporate bosses that sold America out to China.

Deception details the Clinton Administration and it's trade in weapons, US defense secrets and money using documented evidence obtained from nearly 50,000 of official and classified US Government documents. For the past decade, investigative journalist Charles R. Smith used the freedom of information act to get these documents and bring home the truth.

Find out about General Ding Heng Gao, commander of the Chinese espionage unit, COSTIND, or the Commission on Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense. The documented evidence includes letters from General Ding to Ron Brown and Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry.

General Ding is the most successful Chinese military commander since Mao. Mao took Mainland China in 1949 after fighting a twenty-year war against both the warlords and the Imperial Japanese Army. General Ding, armed only with a checkbook, took the U.S. White House.

The Chinese Army turned its Second Artillery Corps - the PRC's strategic missile force - into a feared world power and defeated America without firing a shot in the short span of six years.

The spectacular success of General Ding and COSTIND turned China into a regional power that dominates Asia and a world power capable of flexing military force anywhere on earth. It is no surprise that General Ding and COSTIND recently won the honors of the Chinese communist party.

The Chinese Generals who engineered the espionage success against America have all retired with the highest rewards from the communist party. Their operations against the United States were carefully planned and executed. Their meetings were quietly withheld from public view by a U.S. administration seeking to reap the benefits from "military" sales to the People's Liberation Army.

President Clinton personally approved of the penetration of the U.S. aerospace industry by the Chinese Army. Documentation shows that Chinese General Shen Rougjun of COSTIND played a game of financial brinkmanship with Hughes and Loral while getting his son a classified position inside the U.S. space industry.

According to U.S. Commerce Department documents, Gen. Shen met with Ron Brown and Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz. President Clinton personally approved the meeting. The resulting espionage success of General Shen led directly to improved ICBM missile guidance and reliability for the Chinese Army.

Get the real story behind the Chinese "Tiger Song" air defense system. Read how the Chinese Army penetrated the U.S. Defense Department and obtained an advanced air defense system that was re-exported to Iraq. The story includes detailed letters and meetings between Chinese General Ding Henggao and U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry.

The penetration of General Ding included hiring Perry's personal paid consultant, Dr. John Lewis, to help the Chinese Army obtain a secure communications computer network and getting his wife, Madam General Nie Li to erect a false front company. The book also includes details of suspected Chinese spy Hua Di who worked closely with Secretary Perry and then fled back to China in 1996.

The Bush administration is painfully aware that the original Tiger Song fiber-optic air defense network was shipped directly the Chinese Army in 1994 after being approved by then Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry.

U.S. officials are convinced that the Afghan Taliban's fiber-optic air defense system was constructed using U.S. parts exported to China. Ironically, Saddam Hussein also purchased the same air defense system of U.S. made fiber-optic parts purchased under commercial contracts by the Chinese Army.

  • --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Product Details:

    Paperback: 270 pages
    Publisher: The Pine Lake Media Group (June, 2004)
    ISBN: 0976116804

    *   *   *

    OCTOBER 20, 2004


    Conspiracies do exist, of course, but I do not believe in most of the conspiracy stories that the Left and the DNC have been churning out about Bush or Cheney (I see little or nothing in the claims about Halliburton).  It's mostly a bunch of Michael Moore type of propaganda targeting intellectually lazy and epistemologically promiscuous mentalities.  But repeated enough, some people buy into them.  John Kerry and his campaign are picking up and using several outright lies against Bush.  Kerry is lying to young people that Bush is planning to bring back the military draft, which is absolutely untrue.  But this scare tactic is working on a group that often does not know the truth of the issue and often is disengaged from political matters; so, I am sure many will vote for Kerry for fear that the rumors about Bush bringing back the draft might be true.  They fail to understand that America is immersed in a sea of propaganda and outright lies, often in the form of rumors of conspiracies and intrigues.

    Kerry is also lying to old people that Bush is planning to take away their Social Security, which is absolutely untrue. This is the same lie that LBJ and the Dems used against Goldwater back in 1964.  (To his credit, Bush is at least timidly wanting to go in the direction of partially "privatizing" Social Security as recommended by the libertarian think tank CATO Institute.  This gives people some control over their future rather than just having their earnings stolen out of their paychecks.  But in any case, Bush would only give people the option, the choice, of having a small portion of their FICA taxes placed in such private investment accounts or staying with the current system in which they have no control whatsoever.  No one would be forced to change.)  Although some Senate Democrats have proposed their own plan for investment accounts (with the government bureaucrats having complete control over which stocks or other vehicles that the funds in those accounts will be invested), Kerry himself has no plan for fixing Social Security.  He obviously makes this stuff up as he goes along.

    Kerry is lying to Negroes about being disenfranchised in Florida.  You may recall that it was the Democrats in West Palm Beach and other Dem strongholds in Florida who tried to steal the election in 2000 by having people stuff several blank ballots in the voting machine at the same time and punching the Democrat Party slate -- giving rise to "hanging" and "pregnant" chads (partially punched out ballots).  If a single ballot is placed in a Vote-a-Matic machine, which is the proper and legal way to vote, it is virtually impossible to punch one's vote in such a way as to produce either a hanging or bulging chad; each punch is clean and complete, producing a perfectly punched-out hole. Knowing they had stuffed the ballots in those heavily Democrat (and heavily Negro) areas, the Democrats demanded recounts in only those areas, hoping that if enough of the ballots with the hanging and pregnant chads were counted -- instead of discarded for being spoiled as they should have been -- that their man Gore might win.  At the same time, the Gore lawyers worked to disenfranchise native Floridian military personnel serving overseas from voting by absentee ballot on the assumption (probably correct) that most of them would be for Bush and not Gore. But, despite these political games, their man never got enough votes in Florida to beat George Bush.  Yet, by repeating the lie that the Republicans "stole the election" from Albert Gore by getting the Supreme Court to stop the game of constant ballot recounting over and over, and with their allies in the media not challenging this false montra, many people who are less engaged mentally in what's been going on have bought into this falsehood.

    I believe that if it looks like Kerry is losing the election by Election Day, the DNC is already planning to claim the Republicans have somehow stolen it -- charging their political opponents with what they are themselves guilty of.  Already, in Ohio last week, at least one Democrat has been caught using crack coccaine to pay a man to fraudulently fill out a hundred blank voter registration forms for the Democrats. Whatever their faults, the Republicans have not been guilty of anything like this.

    It is true, as Dems love to point out, that Dubya did not go to Vietnam while Kerry did.  But it turns out that Kerry's Vietnam War exploits are not as heroic as he would have people believe and that he did not earn some of his medals and ribbons in an honorable way as did the others who served there.  Bush may indeed have got away with not serving the full usual term in the Air National Guard; that's hard to say.  But it is absolutely untrue that he disobeyed orders, as some have claimed.  Indeed it is now clear that when Bush was away on leave to do political work, that his superiors knew about it and that it was OK with them -- contrary to the false report put out by CBS and Dan Rather.

    At the same time, Kerry and his lawyers have tried to impose government censorship against independent broadcasters to keep them from airing the documentary Stolen Honor, a film in which Vietnam veterans and former American POWs get to tell their side of the story by responding to the anti-American charges made by John Kerry who marched in Washington under the flag of the North Vietnamese Communists in 1971.  Kerry even tried to get the Federal Communications Commission to intervene to stop Sinclair Broadcasting Network from airing the film, but was unsuccessful in this attempt at fascistic censorship.  Intellectual honesty requires us to note that while many Americans boycotted Michael Moore's anti-Bush propaganda flick Fahrenheit 911, neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney, nor any of their campaign people, ever tried to use any government censorship to keep this left-wing hate film from showing anywhere.

    Because of their dominance in the media, the Liberal-Left Establishment partisans have a huge advantage in influencing the way people think and vote.  This has been true for decades.  Millions of people voted for LBJ in 1964 because they believed the scare tactics of the Democrats that Goldwater would escallate the war in Vietnam, lead the world into a nuclear holocaust, and take away Social Security money from senior citizens.  Of course, this was all nonsense.  Kerry and his team of ruthless spinmeisters are using similar tactics today.  Scare tactics do work.  As the election day approaches, you can expect to see more desperate measures from the Kerry campaign.  The lies and conspiratorial propaganda have got so out of hand that anti-Bush and anti-Cheney violence is being encouraged.  Already Democrat union goons have broken into and vandalized several Bush-Cheney headquarters in some states, and shots have even been fired into some with the clear intent of intimidating people from supporting Bush.  Republicans are often shameless appeasers of the leftist Senate Democrats -- and they often seem to have all the imagination of a petrified rock  --  but I don't see this kind of violence or even the kind of outrageous lies coming from their side that I do see from the Kerry Democrats. The main conspiracy to watch out for is the conspiracy against the truth by the DNC and the Liberal Establishment media.

    *   *   *

    VVAW-supported demonstration in 1971. Notice the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong flags.

    * * *

    On April 23, 1971, Kerry led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol.

    * * *

    Sen. John Kerry in Hanoi seated under a bust of Communist Vietnam's deceased leader, Ho Chi Minh.

    Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry

    Winter Soldier, Kerry's Book He Now Wants Suppressed

    *   *   *
    Honor Reclaimed
    POWs have their say.
    by Kate O'Beime

    If the powerful documentary featuring highly decorated Vietnam POWs recounting how Lt.(jg) John Kerry's antiwar activity affected them was seen by the huge audience it deserves, Massachusetts's junior senator wouldn't get elected to a sanitation commission. In Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, 13 POWs, whose cries of pain, defiance, and despair went unheard during their hellish captivity, share their stories about the betrayal they felt when a fellow officer claimed American forces were guilty of widespread war crimes. Over 30 years ago, antiwar veterans (both faux and real) basked in the media spotlight; now proud veterans who endured their slanders, along with years of cruelty and abuse, are having their say. These indisputable heroes include two Medal of Honor winners, one of whom explains, "This is an effort that was long in coming, but would not have come about if not for the Democratic candidate 'reporting for duty.'"

    The 45-minute film opens with scenes of the dank cells at the Hanoi Hilton where the oppressive silence would only be broken by "cries of pain." One POW recalls the intense pain of the torture they suffered, explaining that "the rope was the worst." Following one such session, designed to win a confession of war crimes, another explains that for days afterward he was unable to move his body from his shoulders down. Ken Cordier, held for over six years, explains that they would be brutally manacled until they "screamed loud and long enough" to be released in exchange for information and confessions. Any injury was specifically targeted in order to break the captives more quickly. Tapes of Jane Fonda accusing them of being war criminals were played in their cells.

    Mary Jane McManus had eloped in Hawaii and was married for three days when her husband Kevin returned to Vietnam to complete his tour. She didn't see him again for almost six years. While she kept her lonely vigil, she witnessed the charges being leveled by John Kerry and others. She couldn't fathom that anyone would believe American troops were capable of routinely committing atrocities, because "they were our husbands, and sons and brothers."

    James Warner, held for over five years, recalls being made to stand motionless inside a small chalked circle on the floor. He lasted for 97 hours, during which he had a view of the camp's front gate. He saw the author Mary McCarthy and Tom Hayden enter the camp. His mother attended the Winter Soldier hearings and issued a statement criticizing the war, which his captors shared with him along with statements by John Kerry. He explains that Kerry met with his mother and sister and thinks it was a "contemptible act" to take advantage of a "grieving old lady and manipulate her grief to promote your own political agenda." He adds, "He burned up his Band of Brothers membership card when he did that."

    When John Kerry was the prized spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), there were 700 American POWs in Vietnam. Many of those involved in this documentary, funded by $200,000 in donations from Pennsylvania veterans, believe that antiwar activists encouraged their captors to hold out because the "war would be lost in the streets of America." They point out that the immediate withdrawal of troops demanded by the VVAW would have abandoned them to whatever fate their captors chose when they were no longer bargaining chips in a negotiated end to the war.

    Paul Galanti, who flew 97 combat missions before being shot down on June 17, 1966, spent over six and a half years as a POW. Referring to the Winter Soldier hearings that have been thoroughly debunked, Galanti says that John Kerry "should have known those guys he was with were frauds." The film includes a short clip from the Winter Soldier hearings that drew chuckles from the audience. An alleged veteran is having his memory refreshed about an alleged atrocity he was having trouble recalling. Galanti reminds the audience that "the cruelties of My Lai were exposed by the soldiers there."

    Leo Thorsness, who was awarded the Medal of Honor, talks about the strict rules of engagement governing pilots flying over North Vietnam, ruefully noting that as a result the enemy had "plenty of chances to shoot us down."

    Colonel George "Bud" Day, who also won the Medal of Honor and is considered one of the most decorated veterans of the last century, recalls being outraged to learn that veterans were warned not to wear their uniforms when they returned home. The film depicts protesters waving signs reading, "No Parades for Murderers" and "See Nixon's War Criminals" in front of veterans. "Right to this day we still have not recovered our good name," Day angrily declares. He charges that John Kerry wants them to forget the role he played in blackening the name of all Vietnam veterans. "I can never forget," he says.

    The documentary is available on the Stolen Honor website. Its producer, Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize wining journalist and Marine Vietnam veteran, points out that "there is no fog of war here" given the public testimony of John Kerry. He explains that the motivation is "deeply personal" rather than political.

    An Army Vietnam veteran recently told me, "When John Kerry loses, it will be the parade we never had." They've earned it.

     *   *   *

    Kerry's Hometown Paper Endorses President Bush!
    (Where Is The National Media On This Story?)

    The following paragraphs are from the Lowell Sun of October 15:

     It's about national security. That's the key issue on the minds of Americans planning to vote in the Nov. 2 presidential election. They must decide whether Republican President George W. Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry, a Democrat, can provide the leadership to safeguard America from foreign terrorism.
    Americans aren't fools. They know that without safe cities and towns, America will lose its greatness. Our cherished freedoms and sacred liberties will be diminished, along with our opportunities for economic prosperity and our basic pursuit of happiness. Our children and their children will live vastly different lives if we fail to guarantee a future free of turmoil.

    Islamic extremists, both here and abroad, have one purpose: To destroy America and halt the spread of democracy and religious tolerance around the globe. They'd like to be plotting in our streets right now. They'd like to be sowing murder and mayhem with suicide bombers and hostage-takings, and spreading fear in the heartland and everywhere else. They'd like to be wearing us down and bringing our nation to its knees. Since the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, one American leader has maintained an unbending resolve to protect our homeland and interest against Islamic savages and those foreign governments appeasing them.

    That leader is President Bush.

    While out-of-touch U.S. politicians and world leaders have attacked President Bush's tactics, they can't question his steely commitment to keep America safe. In the ashes of ground zero, where nearly 3,000 innocent Americans perished, President Bush vowed to find the perpetrators, in domestic cells and distant lands, and bring them to justice. He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists never strike again on U.S. soil.

    Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered?  America the terrorists' No. 1 target has recovered from its tragic wounds and rebounded. It remains safe to this day.

    What might a lesser leader ! have done, faced with the daunting task of deciding America's course against withering, partisan attacks from Democrats, media propagandists, disingenuous U.N. officials and disloyal White House operatives selling their souls for profit during a time of war?  A lesser leader might have caved in. President Bush has stood his ground.

    In this year's election, the question isn't whether we are safer now than we were four years ago. We already know the answer. Sure we are and that's because of President Bush. The critical question is: Four years from now, will America be safer than it is today?  In our book, Americans have to place their trust in President Bush. He's proven to be as sturdy as a mighty oak when it comes to saying what he means, meaning what he says and acting decisively. When it comes to the war on terror, President Bush means to keep our military strong and our country secure.

    John Kerry, on the other hand, has all the attributes of the shape of water when it comes to telling us what he believes and what he'd do for America. Like incoming and outgoing tides, Kerry is content to go with the flow. In a dangerous world infested with sharks, Kerry would be chum at America's expense.

    We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell.  In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero, hasn't risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He's been inconsistent on major issues. First he's for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then he opposes it. First he's for the war in Iraq, then he's against it. First he's for a strong U.S. defense, then he votes against military weapons programs. First he's for the U.S. Patriot Act, the n he opposes it.

    Kerry's solution to stop terrorism? He'd go to the U.N. and build a consensus. How naive. France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don't want America to succeed. They want us brought dow! n to their level. And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent campaign speech, Kerry said America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. No doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country, but we believe he's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.!

    Americans should think back three years ago to the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center. There among the mist lay the images and memories of fallen firefighters, police, a Catholic chaplain and ordinary working citizens moms, dads, sons, daughters. President Bush, through heartfelt tears, told us never to forget the twisted carnage and the massacre of the innocents. Yet some of us are forgetting. President Bush told us the attacks must never happen again. Yet some of us are wavering because of the brave sacrifice of soldiers that our nation's security demands.

    Well, President Bush hasn't forgotten. Nor has he lost the courage and conviction to do what is right for America. We know if there is one thing the enemy fears above all else, it is that George Bush's iron will is stronger than his iron won't.

    The Sun proudly endorses the re-election of President George W. Bush

    10.15.04 09:01 AM

    *   *   *

    George W. Bush for President

    Published October 17, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    - - -

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

    But that is not the whole story. Consider:

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

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

    But that is not the whole story. Consider:

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

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

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

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

    Many of these cross-currents in Bush's and Kerry's worldviews collide in Iraq.

    Bush arguably invaded with too few allies and not enough troops. He will go to his tomb defending his reliance on intelligence from agencies around the globe that turned out to be wrong. And he has refused to admit any errors.

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

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

    - - -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

    *   *   *

    Instead of interviewing former American POWs and American Vietnam veterans, ABC Nightline went to Vietnam and interviewed those who fought for the North Vietnamese Communists!  In their war museum, the Communists have a tribute to honor John Kerry's anti-American pro-Communist efforts during the war.  Yet, this is not an issue that the Liberal Establishment news media wants to talk about.

    OCTOBER 12, 2004


    Usually the Democrats wait until a person's body is at least a few days cold before they desperately exploit the death for their political agenda. But John Kerry's running mate John Edwards told an audience today: "'When John Kerry is President, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk -- get up out of that wheelchair and walk again"!  John Edwards obviously is strongly implying that if George Bush had not been President, people in wheelchairs, like Christopher Reeve, would have been able to walk by now!  There is no evidence that the stem cell research, which President Bush is the first President to fund with taxpayer money, will do anything to heal spinal injuries and allow paralyzed people to walk again.

    There is no attempt by either Kerry or Edwards to level with their audiences, to be honest and straight with the American people for a change.  Conman and ambulance chaser John Edwards has so low an opinion of the voters that he acts as if he is giving a spiel to a religious revival tent meeting -- or making outrageous claims before a jury in a lawsuit trial.  John Edwards is the lawsuit attorney who made news when he claimed to psychically "channel" the words of an unborn baby girl in 1985 before a jury in a medical lawsuit case!  His medical malpractice lawsuits are notorious and have helped to  push doctors' malpractice insurance to absurd levels and have also made it more difficult for pregnant women in some areas to find ob-gyn specialists to deliver their babies.  Is this scoundrel worthy to hold the office which is a mere heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States of America?

    *   *   *
    In April of this year John Kerry attacked President Bush for allegedly planning a secret deal with Saudi Arabia to pump out plenty of oil so that gasoline prices would be low just before the presidential election to help give him the popular edge for re-election.  With oil and gasoline prices at all-time highs just days prior to Election Day, that scenario evidently did not happen; so, Mr. Kerry has changed his conspiracy theory without skipping a beat -- now claiming that Bush has chosen instead to keep oil prices high to enrich his friends in the oil industry!  So, are we supposed to believe that Dubya is now more interested in helping his oil buddies get rich than he is in getting re-elected?  Apparently, John Kerry is betting on the American people not remembering what he says from month to month, or maybe even from week to week. Conspiratorial speculations without factual basis are a dime a dozen -- and are used to stimulate the overactive imaginations of certain kinds of vulnerable mentalities in our society. There are those among us who are "intellectually promiscuous" in that they let any old idea into their minds as true if it sounds fascinating or outre enough and if it just "feels right" to them.  They don't worry too much about whether the known facts substantiate such conspiracy theories or whether they are consistent with what is already known about the situation.  These are the people who are targets for the Left's disinformation campaign of phony conspiracy theories -- whether they originate from Trotskyite Communist Lyndon Larouche and his cult followers or John Kerry and the Democrat National Committee.  Of course, conspiracies do exist in politics -- on more than one level -- but not all conspiracy scenarios offered to the gullible are correct or even plausible.  The Marxist Left has long used anti-capitalist class war conspiratorializing as part of its propaganda campaigns -- and the DNC uses anti-Bush and anti-Cheney (the Halliburton smears) conspiracy claims as part of its propaganda war, especially during an election year.  Carville, Begala, McAuliffe, Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards all know that if you repeat a story over and over enough, some people will begin to believe it.  And they have their allies in the "mainstream" TV network media to help them bury the stories they want buried and repeat the stories they want repeated.

    We must all be on guard not to let our virtue of rational suspicion of Big Government and special-interest machinations degenerate into the vice of intellectual promiscuity when it comes to accepting conspiracy speculations whose clear aim is to advance the political agenda of the Democrat Party or the Far Left in general.

    OCTOBER 11, 2004

    With amazing gall, John Kerry is now campaigning in western states with the claim that the Bush Administration and the Republican-led Congress have not done enough to reduce U.S. dependance on imported oil!

    But anyone who has kept up with the record knows that it has been Kerry and the other Senate Democrats -- not Bush and Cheney -- who have consistently opposed a freer market in domestic energy and especially any drilling for oil in the petroleum-rich Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge or anywhere else in the United States.  Vice-President Cheney and the Republicans have attempted to lift restrictions on domestic oil drilling -- only to have such efforts blocked by uncooperative Senate Democrats along with a handful of liberal Republicans.

    So, for Democrat Kerry to dare criticize Republicans Bush and Cheney for keeping America dependent on imported oil is somewhat like a professional burglar (who sells defective locks and burglar alarms to his neighbors) who blames home owners for not installing better burglar alarms and locks for the neighborhood breakins. As a Senate Democrat who consistently votes against freer energy markets, Kerry has been a major part of the problem.

    Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt pointed out today, "John Kerry's obstruction of a national energy policy makes his current political opportunism completely hypocritical."

    OCTOBER 9, 2004

    The Leaked Memo Confirms
    ABC "Reporters" To Be
    Essentially Shilling for Kerry

    Matt Drudge reports:


    An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."

    The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."

    But Halperin claims that Bush is hoping to "win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions."

    "The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," Halperin writes.

    Halperin's claim that ABCNEWS will not "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" set off sparks in St. Louis where media players gathered to cover the second presidential debate.

    Halperin states the responsibilities of the ABCNEWS staff have "become quite grave."

    In August, Halperin declared online: "This is now John Kerry's contest to lose."

    x x x x x

    Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004:

    It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave

    I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

    The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

    Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

    We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

    I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

    It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

    *   *   *

    Evidently more comfortable with a "townhall" type  audience present, President Bush won the second debate with ankle-biting political golem John Kerry.  He pointed out Kerry's long record of ultra-liberal votes in the Seante and his flip flops on various issues during the campaign.

    Believable Bush by Doug Giles

    How Bush Won Round Two by William Saffire

    Bush Defends the War as 'Just' by Bill Sammon and Stephen Dinan

    OCTOBER 7, 2004


    A new report admits the CIA was wrong in its reports to Presidents Clinton and Bush (and to Congress) about Saddam Hussein still having Weapons of Mass Destruciton inside Iraq in 2001. But the pro-Kerry media spin wants people to believe that the President somehow knew for sure there were no WMDs and went to war anyway -- even though it was the CIA's claims for the existence of WMDs in Iraq that President Bush (and Congress) acted on amd used as part of the grounds for taking military action to remove Saddam for breaking the conditions of the peace.  The Kerry spinmeisters and their shills at ABC, CBS,and NBC seem to be operating on the assumption that Americans have collective amnesia and that the United States is a nation afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder!

    Was the incorrect information about Saddam's WMDs, given to both President Bush and Congress (yes, including the U.S. Senate), simply the result of a CIA screwup -- or did Clinton holdovers and other Democrats inside the CIA deliberately try to trip Bush up or set him up for later embarassment?

     Duelfer Report Reveals
    Saddam Worked Secretly on WMDs

    By Guy Taylor

    Saddam Hussein's goal through the 1990s and until the 2003 U.S. invasion was to end U.N. sanctions on Iraq, while working covertly to restore the country's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, a report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector says.

        "Saddam wanted to re-create Iraq's WMD capability — which was essentially destroyed in 1991 — after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities," the report said.

        Charles A. Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee in testimony yesterday that "Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually."

    In the interim, Mr. Duelfer said, Saddam hoped to keep "the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future."

    Mr. Duelfer said that officials with the Iraq Survey Group continue to receive a "stream of reports about hidden WMD locations" and in one recent case turned up a "partially filled nerve agent container from a 122 mm rocket."

    But, "like others recovered, [it] was from old pre-1991 stocks," he said, adding "despite these reports and finds, I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq."

    Mr. Duelfer was appointed chief weapons inspector in January after then-chief David Kay made headlines by asserting that pre-war assessments of Iraq had been "almost all wrong."

    The White House did not endorse Mr. Kay's findings at the time, saying the Iraq Survey Group had not completed its post-war search for weapons. Several senior Bush-administration officials, meanwhile, had touted Saddam's weapons "stockpiles" as a central reason for invading.

    Mr. Duelfer yesterday said inspectors still cannot "definitively say whether or not WMD materials were transferred out of Iraq before the war," although he stressed how Iraq's ability to produce them weakened under the U.N. sanctions implemented after the 1991 Gulf war.

    With Iraq's economy badly damaged and U.N. sanctions, Mr. Duelfer's report says, Saddam's plans for a skeletal weapons program that could be mobilized quickly led him to pursue the needed materials through illegal and indirect channels.

    Starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001, he developed a giant smuggling operation that hinged on the establishment of "a network of Iraqi front companies, some with close relationships to high-ranking foreign-government officials," the report says.

    Those officials, it says, "worked through their respective ministries, state-run companies and ministry-sponsored front companies to procure illicit goods, services and technologies for Iraq's WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs."

    Syria was Iraq's "primary conduit for illicit imports" from late 2000 until the start of the U.S. invasion last year, according to the report, which also maintains that the Iraqi Intelligence Service set up front companies to buy prohibited arms from a Syrian totaling $1.2 billion.

    "The central bank of Syria was the repository of funds used by Iraq to purchase goods and materials both prohibited and allowed under U.N. sanctions," the report says.

    Totaling nearly 1,000-pages, the report includes a broad history of Saddam's regime, how he operated and held power through the Iran-Iraq war and the first war with the United States.

    Mr. Duelfer noted that "given the nature of Iraqi governance, one should not look for much of an audit trail on WMD."

    As a result, key findings on Iraq's efforts to finance and procure weapons and delivery systems, are based largely on interviews with senior Ba'ath Party officials detained in Iraq.

    For example, former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and others "answered questions in writing several times, providing information on both the former regime and the mindset of those who ran it," according to the report.

    Interviews with Saddam were conducted by a single "FBI person" and the "only thing" offered in exchange was a stake in shaping his legacy, according to an official familiar with the report.

    Regarding nuclear weapons, Mr. Duelfer said that during the 12 years after the Persian Gulf war "Iraq's ability to produce a weapon decayed" and that "the time for Iraq to build a nuclear weapon tended to increase for the duration of the sanctions."

    "Despite this decay," he said. "Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions."

    Regarding chemical weapons, the report outlines Saddam's belief that the extensive use of such weapons and of long-range ballistic missiles was key to Iraq's ability to avoid defeat in the eight-year war with Iran.

    Mr. Duelfer also noted that Saddam "used chemical weapons for domestic purposes — in the late-80s against the Kurds and during the Shi'a uprisings after the 1991 war" — a point noted regularly by administration officials in justifying to critics the need to invade Iraq.

    While Iraqi chemical-weapons activity "shifted from production to research and development of more potent and stabilized agents" after the Iran-Iraq war, Mr. Duelfer said that when U.N. sanctions were on Iraq, Saddam sought to sustain the knowledge base to restart the program eventually.

    "With the infusion of funding and resources following acceptance of the oil-for-food program, Iraq effectively shortened the time that would be required to re-establish [chemical weapon] production capacity," Mr. Duelfer said. "By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two."

    Mr. Duelfer said it is "still difficult to rule" on whether Iraq had a mobile biological-weapons production effort, but he noted that Iraq secretly destroyed stocks of biological weapons in 1991 and 1992, after having denied to weapons inspectors that it had such a program.

    *   *   *

    John Edwards Psychically "Channeled" the Words of an Unborn Baby Girl in 1985 before a Jury


    *   *   *

    OCTOBER 6, 2004

    Cheney Trounces Edwards on National Security

    If you consider substance more important than style or looks, Cheney was the clear winner, says Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com. Read their full analysis of the debate.
    *   *   *

    Troops Back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry!

    An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.  In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.  Read full article
    *   *   *
    OCTOBER 4, 2004

    SpaceShipOne Wins $10 Million X Prize
    Also Breaks X-15 Altitude Record
    Astronaut Pilot Brian Binnie Topped 367,442 Feet

    Astronaut Brian Binnie on SpaceShipOne after perfect landing
    from his suborbital flight on Monday morning

    Read the full, updated article by Alan Boyle
    See also Free Video (courtessy of MCNBC) of Prize-winning flight, Oct. 4, 2004: SpaceShipOne detaches from its carrier airplane and rockets into space.


    Virgin's Sir Richard Branson Announces Agreement with Rutan
    to Have Five 5-Seater Commercial Space Ships Built in the next three years

    See BBC version of the story

    Sir Richard Branson hopes
    to send 3,000 astronauts
    to space in five years

    *   *   *

    Clinton Legacy Lives On Inside Russian Missile
    by Charles R. Smith

           For nearly three decades the U.S. Navy has
                     depended on a missile designed in 1948. The MQM-8
                     Vandal was derived from the ramjet-powered Talos
                     missile that protected the Navy during the Cold War.

                     The massive missile duplicated the performance of
                    deadly Russian anti-ship missiles, flying faster than a
                    rifle bullet for more than 50 miles at extremely low

                    In 1991, the Navy canceled the replacement for the
                    Vandal. The AQM-127 SLAT (Supersonic
                    Low-Altitude Target) project was terminated because
                    of climbing costs and long delays. The move left the
                    Navy with a limited inventory of usable Vandal missiles
                    to act as realistic targets.

                    In 1992, the Clinton administration took over and three
                    years passed before a replacement for the aging
                    Vandal was selected. However, President Clinton
                    decided to purchase a Russian-made missile for the
                    U.S. Navy.

                    The Clinton decision came after Vice President Al
                    Gore tripped to Moscow in 1995 and shook hands
                    with Russian leaders. As a result of U.S.-Russian
                    politics, the Navy was stuck with the Zvezda-Strela
                    MA-31 – a derivative of Zvezda's Kh-31 NATO, code
                    name "Krypton," anti-ship missile.

                    Yet the Russian Krypton was not ready. It required
                    more money and lots of additional development to
                    turn it into an operational weapon. Thus, the Clinton
                    administration gave U.S. defense dollars to Moscow.

                    In 1995, according to the official U.S. Navy
                    documentation, McDonnell Douglas proceeded under
                    Clinton administration orders to help Russia develop
                    the Krypton missile as part of a U.S. Navy target
                    drone project. The catch: The missile did not work,
                    was highly dangerous to fire and needed improvement
                    to meet the specifications.

           U.S. Improves Russian Missiles

                    According to documents obtained through the
                    Freedom of Information Act, U.S. Navy and
                    McDonnell Douglas engineers suggested a series of
                    "P3I," or "pre-planned product improvements," to
                    extend the range of the Krypton, improve its flight
                    performance and enable jet fighters to safely fire the
                    weapon without blowing up.

                    "The MA-31 [Krypton] target will need P3I
                    [pre-planned product improvements] in order to meet
                    the range and ground/surface launch requirements for
                    the Supersonic Sea Skimming Target program
                    (SSST). The range of the MA-31 target in its FCT
                    configuration is approximately 15 nm [nautical miles]
                    at low altitude," states the 1995 review document.

                    According to the 1995 McDonnell Douglas review, one
                    "extended range option" given to the Russian
                    contractor Zvezda "adds an auxiliary fuel tank, a
                    reduced drag nose cone, changes the fuel to JP-10
                    (which has a higher specific energy content than the
                    Russian fuel), and modifies the ramjet nozzle. The
                    extended range modification is intended to increase
                    range to approximately 42 nm [nautical miles] at 10m
                    [meter] altitude."

                    Another more crucial design improvement given to
                    Russia involved "Ground Jettison Testing" done by the
                    U.S. defense contractor against the Russian missile.
                    According to a 1995 program review document, the
                    Russian-built AKY-58M missile launcher for the
                    Krypton was fatally flawed and could destroy the
                    firing plane.

                    "In three emergency jettison tests, the lanyard stayed
                    with the launch rail instead of with the target. In all
                    cases the booster would have been armed, and
                    ignition could have occurred for any of several
                    reasons," stated the 1995 report.

                    "MDAC [McDonnell Douglas] has determined that use
                    of a longer lanyard and slower separation velocity
                    would allow proper operation of the emergency
                    jettison sequence. The problem has been turned over
                    to the Russians for resolution," states the 1995 review

           Russia Sells Missiles to China

                    Despite the lucrative deal with Washington, Russia
                   began to market the missile on the open market as
                    soon as the U.S. engineers worked out all the bugs.
                    In 1999, Russia negotiated a multibillion-dollar arms
                    deal with China for the now operational and newly
                    improved Krypton.

                    One such export deal supplied the Krypton missile as
                    part of the Russian SU-30MK fighter jet sale to China.
                    Both the SU-30MK N-001 and the J-10 Zhemchoung
                    radars are designed to support the advanced Zvezda
                    Kh-31 Krypton cruise missile supplied by Russia to
                    the People's Liberation Army Air Force.

                    In fact, according to the new Russian weapons pact
                    with Beijing, China will eventually manufacture and
                    export the improved Krypton under license to the
                    Middle East and Asia. Ironically, the Krypton would
                    not have been available to China without the
                    assistance of the Clinton administration and the U.S.
                    tax dollars sent to Moscow.

                    Still, the Krypton was a failure inside America. It could
                    not meet the specifications laid out by the Navy
                    despite several attempts to revise them down.

                    In addition, the U.S. deal with Moscow fell through
                    because the facts surrounding the Krypton deal
                    became public. Another good reason to cancel was
                    the excessive price of the Krypton – reportedly over
                    $200,000 a copy.

           New U.S. Missile

                    Four years later and 12 years after the new search
                    began, the U.S. Navy finally got its missile. Orbital
                    Sciences Corp. (OSC) was awarded a contract for
                    development of the GQM-163A "Coyote"
                    non-recoverable target vehicle.

                    The Coyote target missile design integrates a
                    four-inlet solid-fuel ducted rocket ramjet propulsion
                    system into a compact missile airframe 18 feet long
                    and 14 inches in diameter. The Coyote is boosted to
                    supersonic speed by using a decommissioned Navy
                    MK 70 solid rocket motor for the first stage.

                    The highly maneuverable Coyote achieves cruise
                    speeds of over twice the speed of sound. The range
                    of the target vehicle system is approximately 50
                    nautical miles at altitudes of less than 20 feet above
                    the sea surface.

                    On Aug. 27, 2004, Orbital Sciences announced that it
                    carried out the second successful flight test of the
                    Coyote GQM-163A Supersonic Sea-Skimming

                    "We are very pleased with the results of the recent
                    flight test of the Coyote target vehicle," said Mr.
                    Keven Leith, vice president of Navy Programs for
                    Orbital's Launch Systems Group. "By meeting all the
                    objectives for the flight test, we believe we are well
                    down the road toward moving the program from its
                    developmental phase to providing the Navy with a
                    robust operational anti-ship target system."

                    The Coyote has arrived just in time. The aging 1950s
                    Vandal missiles are running out. Today, the few
                    remaining Vandals act as high-speed targets to test
                    and train U.S. Navy anti-missile warships.

                   The Vandal, designed during the era of the slide-rule,
                    can still outpace even the best air defense systems.
                    The Vandal set a blistering performance, exceeding
                    1,500 miles an hour at less than 9 feet above the

                    Eight years of Clinton indecision left nothing to show –
                    at least for the U.S. Navy. The millions sent to
                    Moscow ended up developing yet another missile
                    threat aimed at America. The Clinton legacy lives on
                    in the Krypton missile pointed at U.S. forces.

                                   See also "John Kerry's China Links"

        Kathleen Parker Adds More on the Far Left's Bogus "Return of the Draft" Scaremongering Rumors

                                                    * * * * * *

    SEPTEMBER 29, 2004


    At 8:13 this morning PDT, SpaceShipOne (SS1) coasted above the 100 km altitude point and successfully completed the first of two X-Prize flights. The peak altitude reached was 337,500 ft. Read complete article

    The second X-Prize flight is tentatively scheduled for Monday, October 4.

    Virgin Galactic to license SpaceShipOne technology
    Virgin inks deal with Paul Allen and Scaled Composites to develop world's first commercial space tourism operator (READ MORE)

    Ansari X Prize webcast of this morning's historic event

    *   *   *
    CBS has been caught engaging in spreading another fraudulent anti-Bush rumor as a "news" story.  For months the Far Left has been using left-wing unions and their propaganda mills to make many believe that the Bush Administratoin is secretly planning to bring back the military draft.  C-BS has now jumped on this propaganda bandwagon by promoting this bogus story, obviously intended to hurt President Bush's chances for re-election.  Trying to keep the old TV news networks honest is a full-time job. The more we dig, the more partisan bias and BS we find at CBS.  It turns out that CBS actively peddled the already widely lampooned "the draft is coming, the draft is coming" hoax.  The CBSers are so anxious to help the increasingly unpopular John Kerry win in November, that they grasp at any rumor or claim that could possibly make Bush look bad.  Read about it and then go back to the affiliates and demand the arrogantly out-of-control Dan Rather and his obviously Democrat partisan colleagues step down now or be fired.

    Bloggers Expose Another CBS "News" Fraud



    Little Green Footballs


    Other Recommended News Articles & Commentaries

    The Death of a Media Monopoly -- Conservative Republican Michael Reagan optimistically proclaims, "The long reign of the liberal-dominated old media is over . . . ."  Let's hope he's right!

    Intelligence Failure: How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage For 9/11 by David Bossie

    Unfit for Command, the #1 Best-selling Expose of John Kerry

    Treachery (new dynamite best-selling book) by Bill Gertz

    SEPTEMBER 14, 2004


    Dan Rather and his pals so want to get rid of George Bush they are perfectly willing to sacrifice what little remains of their credibility. The discrepancies are so obvious it would seem that any person of reasonable intelligence would have had serious qualms. I guess hatred tends to cloud one's judgment.  In their pro-Democrat zeal to discredit President Bush any way they could, the C-BSers wanted so badly for the claims to be true -- the Democreat-fabricated story  that Bush disobyed a direct order to report for a physical exam -- that they failed to check the sources for credibility.  Not only were the documents cited completely fake, but Democrat partisan Ben Barnes, the man interviewed by Dan Rather in support of the story, turned out to be a completel liar; he wasn't even in office at the time he claims he was Lieutenant Governor of Texas.  This is just one case of many in which CBS, NBC, and ABC journalists reveal themselves to be little more than shills for the DNC, despite their disengenuous claims to the contrary.
    Dan Rather Dishonestly Ignores Counterevidence by Jim Geraghty

    CBS Expert admits:  "I didn't authenticate papers."

    Forged Press Credentials from the American Spectator

    What Did Dan Rather Know and When DId He Know It?

    The Anatomy of a Forgery The Prowler

    Byron York Follows Up on the False Story Aired by CBS

    Some Days Being A Newsman Sucks by Paul M. Rodriguez, Editor, Insight Magazine

    See Previous Comments and Links about Rathergate on September 9

    New Book Exposes More Journalistic Fraud from World Net Daily

    The L.A. Times -- All the News That's Unfit to Print

    *   *   *

    Junk Science & DDT
    By Keith Lockitch
    The West Nile virus deaths being reported across North America are a grim echo of a larger tragedy. Each year a million lives are taken worldwide by another mosquito-borne killer: malaria.

    Though nearly eradicated decades ago, malaria has resurged with a vengeance. But the real tragedy is that its horrific death toll is largely preventable. The most effective agent of mosquito control, the pesticide DDT, has been essentially discarded--discarded based not on scientific concerns about its safety, but on environmental dogma.

    The environmental crusade against DDT began with Rachel Carson's antipesticide diatribe "Silent Spring," published in 1962 at the height of the worldwide antimalaria campaign. The widespread spraying of DDT had caused a spectacular drop in malaria incidence--Sri Lanka, for example, reported 2.8 million malaria victims in 1948, but by 1963 it had only 17. Yet Carson's book made no mention of this. It said nothing of DDT's crucial role in eradicating malaria in industrialized countries, or of the tens of millions of lives saved by its use.

    Instead, Carson filled her book with misinformation--alleging, among other claims, that DDT causes cancer. Her unsubstantiated assertion that continued DDT use would unleash a cancer epidemic generated a panicked fear of the pesticide that endures as public opinion to this day.

    But the scientific case against DDT was, and still is, nonexistent. Almost 60 years have passed since the malaria-spraying campaigns began--with hundreds of millions of people exposed to large concentrations of DDT--yet, according to international health scholar Amir Attaran, the scientific literature "has not even one peer reviewed, independently replicated study linking exposure to DDT with any adverse health outcome." Indeed, in a 1956 study human volunteers ate DDT every day for over two years with no ill effects then or since.

    Abundant scientific evidence supporting the safety and importance of DDT was presented during seven months of testimony before the newly formed EPA in 1971. The presiding judge ruled unequivocally against a ban. But the public furor against DDT--fueled by "Silent Spring" and the growing environmental movement--was so great that a ban was imposed anyway.

    The EPA administrator, who hadn't even bothered to attend the hearings, overruled his own judge and imposed the ban in defiance of the facts and evidence. And the 1972 ban in the United States led to an effective worldwide ban, as countries dependent on U.S.-funded aid agencies curtailed their DDT use to comply with those agencies' demands.

    So if scientific facts are not what has driven the furor against DDT, what has? Estimates put today's malaria incidence worldwide at around 300 million cases, with a million deaths every year. If this enormous toll of human suffering and death is preventable, why do environmentalists--who profess to be the defenders of life--continue to press for a global DDT ban?

    The answer is that environmental ideology values an untouched environment above human life. The root of the opposition to DDT is not science but the environmentalist moral premise that it is wrong for man to "tamper" with nature.

    The large-scale eradication of disease-carrying insects epitomizes the control of nature by man. This is DDT's sin. To Carson and the environmentalists she inspired, "the 'control of nature' is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy." Nature, they hold, is intrinsically valuable and must be kept free from human interference.

    On this environmentalist premise the proper attitude to nature is not to seek to improve it for human benefit, but to show "humility" before its "vast forces" and leave it alone. We should seek, Carson wrote, not to eliminate malarial mosquitoes with pesticides, but to find instead "a reasonable accommodation between the insect hordes and ourselves." If the untouched, "natural" state is one in which millions contract deadly diseases, so be it.

    Carson's current heirs agree. Earth First! founder Dave Foreman writes: "Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere."

    In the few minutes it has taken you to read this article, over a thousand people have contracted malaria and half a dozen have died. This is the life-or-death consequence of viewing pestilent insects as a "necessary" component of a "vibrant biosphere" and seeking a "reasonable accommodation" with them.

    To stop this global health catastrophe, the ban on DDT must be rescinded. But even more important is to reject the environmental ideology on which the ban is based.

    Keith Lockitch is a Ph.D. in physics and a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute

    SEPTEMBER 11, 2004

    Intelligence Failure:  How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage For 9/11 by David Bossie

    Unfit for Command, the #1 Best-selling Expose of John Kerry

    Treachery (new dynamite best-selling book) by Bill Gertz

    From the Inside Flap of Treachery
    In his explosive new book, New York Times bestselling author Bill Gertz uncovers the most significant threat to U.S. national security today: America’s enemies—including radical terrorist groups—are arming themselves with the world’s most dangerous weapons. And they’re doing it with the help of America’s supposed allies. Worst of all, the U.S. has let it all happen.
    Using his unparalleled access to the U.S. intelligence and defense communities, Gertz names names, revealing which of our "friends" have placed greed over principle to make America’s enemies far more deadly and the world a far more dangerous place. In Treachery, Gertz tells the whole story, complete with previously unpublished classified intelligence documents, and based on dozens of exclusive interviews with senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

    In shocking detail, Treachery exposes:

    •How Iraqi insurgents are killing U.S. soldiers with weapons that France, Germany, and Russia sold them
    •How the French and German governments turn a blind eye to arms sales to rogue regimes and terrorist states like Iran, Syria, and North Korea
    •How intelligence reports show that China supplied arms to al Qaeda after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America
    •The real story of why Libya dismantled its nuclear program—how U.S. intelligence caught the Libyans red-handed trying to smuggle in nuclear weapons technology
    •How Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation network is even more extensive than has been reported
    •The CIA report revealing that al Qaeda is pursuing—and may already have—nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
    •The classified intelligence showing that Russia and France were cooperating with Saddam Hussein even after the 2003 Iraq war broke out
    •The full story of how Saddam exploited the United Nations "oil for food" program, not only to line his own pockets but also to rebuild Iraq’s weapons and missile programs
    •How U.S. security lapses have enabled our enemies to target Americans using our own weapons technology secrets

    Only Bill Gertz has the contacts and the knowledge to tell the complete story of how France, Germany, Russia, China, and other countries have armed our enemies to the teeth. Treachery is also the definitive account of what the U.S. government is doing to counter the threat—and of how our leaders have too often failed us.

    "Gertz is legendary among national security reporters for the quality of his sources...He is the envy of his competitors."—Washington Monthly

    "Treachery, with its reams of classified and other inside information, reveals how our nation’s enemies obtain weapons from China, Russia, France, Germany, and other supposed friends. The book is must-reading if you want to know the confidential story of the growing danger of global arms proliferation."—Rowan Scarborough, Pentagon reporter, Washington Times, and bestselling author of Rumsfeld’s War

    "Two big factors will determine America’s national security over the next twenty years. The first is the capability of our military systems as determined by the health of our defense industrial base. And, second, the extent to which our adversaries are able to buy or steal advanced military technology from the U.S. and our allies. Bill Gertz focuses superbly on the hemorrhaging of critical military technology to our enemies. Treachery should be read by all our policymakers."—Congressman Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee

    "Bill Gertz has written a bone-chilling exposé about what has been done behind our backs. Can we ever be safe? You must read this."—Greta Van Susteren, host of Fox News’s

    "Bill Gertz gets it! Treachery brilliantly exposes our allies who have become our enemies in the War on Terror just because the U.N., France, Germany, and Russia looked at Iraq and other rogue states as trading partners rather than enablers of terrorism. This is a major piece of work in the War on Terror."—Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.), bestselling author of Endgame

    "[Gertz] has access to more intelligence information than anyone I know."—Former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen

    *   *   *

    SEPTEMBER 9, 2004


    Independent llibertarian talk show host John Ziegler (KFI 640 KHz 10 PM - 1 AM Mon thru Fri) broke the hot story tonight on how easy it is to prove that the documents used by Dan Rather and CBS Sixty Minutes are obvious forgeries evidently passed to Rather's team by the Democrat National Committee.  The real author of the forgeries is still to be determined, but it is clear the documents which claimed that young Bush disobeyed a direct order when he was in the Air National Guard were in fact typed using a modern version of Microsoft Word and not typed by any typewriter in the early 1970s.  In their zeal to make Bush look bad during an election year, Dan Rather and his C-BS team of "journalists" have revealed themselves to be little more than shills for the DNC.  The son of Jerry Killian, the officer who was Bush's superior at the time who allegedly typed and signed the memos in question, points out that the signature doesna't match that of his father and the content and tone of the writing is absolutely not his father's.  Handwriting experts have pronounced the documents as forgeries. The documents are clearly phony.  In their zeal to find dirt on Bush that would help elect Kerry, Dan Rather and his CBS spinmeisters did not check the authenticity of the documents which were presented to them and now have plenty of embarassing egg on their faces.  Whether one likes Bush or not (I don't espeically), this should help discredit the already waning credibility of the old major TV news networks, especially CBS, which have been dominated by liberal Democrat partisans for decades.

    The Democrat politician, Ben Barnes, interviewed by Rather to support the false allegations against Bush turns out to be one of the top fundraisers for John Kerry in Texas and who was not even in office at the time he says he was Lieutenant Governor and pulled strings to help Bush get into the Guard.  He made up the story.

    Thanks to the Internet and talk radio, this phony CBS "news" story was revealed for the bogus that it is.  Without the Web and talk radio, the real story (that the documents on which the allegations were based are poor forgeries) could not have been forced into public awareness.  Fifteen years ago, this story about the anti-Bush allegations would probably have gone through with plausibility.  Now that John Kerry has hired Clinton henchmen Begala and Carville for his campaign dirty work, the smears and attacks can be expected to get really ugly from now on.  Kerry and his people are desperate now that Bush's polling results are passing Kerry's.

    What Did Dan Rather Know and When DId He Know It?

    Questions Mount on Authenticity of Memos Used by CBS




    Speculations About the Anatomy of a Forgery

    See also John Ziegler's website and his Internet Links section:



    AUGUST 30, 2004


    Col. North zeroes in on the real issues which has vets so riled up.

    Mark Alexander discusses "Kerry's Quagmire"

    An Embarassing Question to Ask Liberal News Media

    AUGUST 25, 2004

    'Unfit for Command' Hits #1
    on NY Times Bestsellers List!

    What is arguably the country's most controversial new book has now become the country's best-selling book.

    "Unfit for Command," which vaulted onto the New York Times Bestsellers List at #3 last week, climbed to the #1 spot this week.
    "The book is now in its 10th printing with more than 650,000 copies in print or on order," according to Jeff Carneal, CEO of Regnery.

    "Demand for 'Unfit for Command' has exceeded our highest expectations and shows absolutely no sign of stopping."

    Carneal confirmed that about 325,000 books have shipped to the trade so far. The balance of the books will ship within the next 5-7 days.

    "Despite what some customers may believe, it isn't the stores' fault that supplies are scarce. I wish I could blame it on a vast left-wing conspiracy," joked Carneal, "but I just can't. The book's record-setting demand just couldn't have been anticipated by the stores or by us."

    Initially slated for September publication, demand for "Unfit for Command" reached a fevered pitch in early August when several incidents from the book, which calls John Kerry's war record into question, appeared on The Drudge Report.

    Carneal reported the entire book trade's initial order was a modest 30,000 copies, yet Regnery printed 85,000, based on their higher expectations. But even that number proved woefully inadequate, as customers clamored to buy copies when the Swift Boat Veteran's story broke.

    *   *   *

    Swift Boat Vietnam Vets versus John Kerry
    by Sam Wells

    At the Democrat national convention, John Kerry and his running mate made Kerry's "war hero" status as a Vietnam veteran a big deal -- a major campaign issue, while trying to downplay his anti-defense record on national security affairs since he returned from Vietnam.  But when over 250 Swift Boat veterans who served with Kerry in Vietnam (yes they did) tried to set the record straight by contradicting some of his boastful claims, he tried to intimidate stations from carrying their ads.  But Kerry has so many holes and contradicitons in his own stories, as revealed by his own diary entries, that even the Kerry campaign people have had to admit that Kerry was never in Cambodia on any "secret mission" for anybody as he had claimed. He made it up, Walter Mitty style. He doesn't have shrapnel from enemy gunfire in his butt as he claims.  Those who were there testify he had rice particles blown into his butt as a result of Kerry not running away fast enough after using a grenade to blow up a store of rice which they didn't want the enemy to get.  His other wounds were also accidentally self-inflicted and relatively minor, accofrding to the doctor who examined him.  He was never in a hospital as a result.

    This is not to say that he should not be proud of his service in Vietnam (and neither Bush nor Cheney have disparaged Kerry's military serivce in Vietnam), but that he exaggerated and lied about it.  Worse still, when he returned from his four-month tour of duty, he joined traitor Hanoi Jane Fonda by making false accusations about what was going on in Vietnam, slandering his fellow soliders.  His "anti-war" allegations in Congress were used as propaganda by the Communists by playing his remarks over loudspeakers to demoralize American POWs.

    Now, today, he is trying to discredit over 250 Vietnam vets who are trying to set the record straight about what really happened versus Kerry's stories about widespread atrocities.  The Swift Boat Veterans are not a "Republican front" as Kerry claims.  They are an independent group consisting of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, and non-partisans who served in the same group of boats as did Kerry.  It is John Kerry who is putting out the real smear campaign.  So obsessed with gaining political power, Democrat Golems like John Kerry will say almost anything, promise almost anything, shamelessly lie and contradict themselves trying to be all things to all people -- as long as they think it will help them get into office. Before any American votes for John Kerry, he or she should read Unfit for Command, the book the DNC and its network media allies want to suppress.

    Some Related Links

    Vets vs. Kerry:  Thomas Sowell knows who's lying and who's teling the truth about Vietnam.

    Former Marine Corps artilleryman and intelligence officer Paul Crespo agrees with Swift Boat Vets that Kerry is Unfit for Command

    Subscribe to Human Events & Get a Free Copy of Unfit for Command!

    *   *   *

    August 24, 2004 -- JOHN Kerry went to Vietnam. Voluntarily. Given that President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and every chicken-hawk in the coop did all they could to avoid getting the mud of Indochina on their loafers, his service should make Kerry the election-year choice of those who serve, or once served, in our country's uniform.
    Instead, military men and women are overwhelmingly suspicious of Kerry. Many despise him so intensely that their emotions verge on hatred.

    What went wrong?

    There are three big problems with Kerry from the standpoint of those who are proud of their military service. And one of those reservations has been overlooked entirely by the parade of talking heads, so few of whom have served in uniform themselves.

    As far as the swift-boat controversy goes, it's likely to remain a he-said-she-said issue through Election Day. The red flag to military men and women is that so many swift-boat veterans have come out against John Kerry. Not just one. Not 10. Dozens upon dozens.

    This is as rare as humility in the Hamptons. Vets stick together. Kerry likes to play up his "band of brothers" image, but if he's got a band, his opponents have a symphony. And even if the first violinist turns out to be a "Republican stooge," it's nonetheless stunning for so many vets to denounce a former comrade publicly. It just doesn't happen unless something's really wrong.

    As for Kerry's support from his own crew, that's normal military psychology. You get the most objective view of a junior leader from his peers — the other swift-boat commanders (and their crews) who had to fear a weak link in the chain.

    I'm not a Vietnam vet, so I don't have as big an emotional dog in the fight as those who served so bravely and so thanklessly in Indochina. But some values are universal among those who wear or wore our country's uniform.

    Yes, Kerry deserves credit for serving, whether he volunteered out of patriotism or because he had cast himself as the "next JFK," with a swift boat subbing for PT-109.

    The first show-stopper problem with Kerry began after his return. He had the right to protest against the war — more than most, since he had served himself. But he had not earned the right to lie about the honorable service of millions of others.

    Kerry's lies — and they were nothing but lies — about "routine" atrocities committed by average American soldiers and sanctioned by the chain of command were sheer political opportunism. Kerry knew that none of the charges were true.

    He'd been there. He may have done some stupid things himself, but atrocities were statistically very rare. Contrary to the myths cherished by film-makers, American troops behaved remarkably well under dreadful conditions.

    John Kerry lied. Without remorse. To advance his budding political career. He tarnished the reputation of his comrades when the military was out of vogue.

    Now, three decades later, camouflage is back in the fall fashion line-up. Suddenly, Kerry's proud of his service, portraying himself as a war hero.

    But it doesn't work that way. You can't trash those who served in front of Congress and the American people, spend your senatorial career voting against our nation's security interests, then expect vets to love you when you abruptly change your tune.

    Kerry might have won support had he apologized frankly for what he said in the early 1970s. But he no more disavowed his lies than he disclaimed the lies of Michael Moore.

    Which brings us to problems two and three.

    John Kerry doesn't show a trace of integrity. Those constant flip-flops to suit the prevailing political winds are more troubling to military folks than many of the issues themselves.

    Integrity matters to those in uniform. You have to be able to depend on the guy in the next foxhole — or swift boat. Trust is more important than any technology.

    And John Kerry just doesn't seem trustworthy.

    Finally — and this is the one the pundits have trouble grasping, given the self-promoting nature of today's culture — real heroes don't call themselves heroes. Honorable soldiers or sailors don't brag. They let their deeds speak for themselves. Some of the most off-putting words any veteran can utter are "I'm a war hero."

    Real heroes (and I've been honored to know some) never portray their service in grandiose terms, telling TV cameras that they're reporting for duty. Real heroes may be proud of the sacrifices they offered, but they don't shout for attention.

    This is so profoundly a part of the military code of behavior that it cannot be over-emphasized. The rule is that those who brag about being heroes usually aren't heroes at all. Bragging is for drunks at the end of the bar, not for real vets. And certainly not for anyone who wishes to trade on his service to become our commander-in-chief.

    I wish Kerry were better. The truth is that I'm appalled by Bush's domestic policies. I believe that the Cheney-Halliburton connection stinks to high heaven. And I'm convinced that Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld & Co. have done colossal damage to our military and to our foreign policy.

    But we're at war. And for all his faults, Bush has proven himself as a great wartime leader. Despite painful mistakes, he's served our security needs remarkably well. And security trumps all else in the age of terror.

    Kerry says many of the right things. But I can't believe a word of it. I just can't trust John Kerry. I can't trust him to lead, I can't trust him to fight — and I can't trust him to make the right kind of peace.

    I have reservations about voting for George W. Bush. But I have no reservations about voting against John Kerry. And I'm not alone.

    Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and a regular Post contributor.

    AUGUST 20, 2004

    August 17, 2004

     BRITISH military wags define ex perience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that measure, we now have abundant experience in Iraq.

    We're in Najaf. Again. Once again our troops performed superbly, cornering Muqtada al-Sadr and his gang while inflicting lopsided casualties on these enemies of a rule-of-law Iraq. And once again the cease-fires and negotiations have begun, undercutting our military's achievements.

    We could have eliminated Sadr a year ago, when he first embarked upon his campaign of terror. It would have been easy. But our political leaders, exaggerating the possible consequences, lacked the fortitude to take care of a small problem before it became a big one.

    Now Sadr's a very big problem.

    We had another chance this spring, when the Army brought Sadr's Mahdi Army to the brink of annihilation. Again, our civilian leaders folded, choosing to defer the problem until Iraq's interim government took over.

    Sadr became a greater problem still, attracting many who previously had doubts about him. A Shi'a religious outlaw who started out with minimal support could claim he'd defied America.

    And he was right. Despite the accomplishments of our troops, the transformation of the Pentagon's neo-cons into neo-Clintons threw the fight to Sadr, just as they folded in Fallujah when faced with Sunni terrorists. The Bush administration tossed away essential victories, one after another. We've become the enemy's best recruiters.

    This month, at the request of Iraq's interim prime minister, our Marines went into Najaf to finish Sadr and his gang. The Marines performed superbly, methodically tightening the noose around the terrorists. Army reinforcements rolled in for the final push. Our troops would do the heavy lifting, then Iraqi forces would clean out any dead-enders from the shrine of Imam Ali, a sort of Shi'a Vatican.

    But in unconventional warfare, he who hesitates is truly lost. We have conditioned ourselves to fight slowly, to be cautious both of casualties and of collateral damage. We've trained ourselves to use a scalpel even when we need a sledgehammer.

    In today's irregular conflicts, we must win fast. No matter how high the short-term cost, victory is cheapest in the end.

    And our forces are fast. At the strategic level that spans oceans. At the operational level that sweeps across borders. Even at the tactical level, when armored maneuvers and open country are involved.

    But in this urbanizing world, our enemies fight from cities. Despite real progress, urban combat remains the American weak spot. Our doctrine tells us to go slowly and methodically. In a vacuum, that would make sense. But we don't fight in vacuums.

    Our troops fight in streets and alleys, amid civilian populations, against unscrupulous opponents determined to run out the clock until the political referees toss a flag. A hostile media not only magnifies American errors, but invents American atrocities. Our allies panic, followed by our own leaders.

    The new American way of war is to quit on the edge of victory.

    This really isn't hard to figure out: When we fail to win fast, we lose. Our military is slowly digesting the lesson, but our political leaders ignore the truth entirely. They don't want "excessive" casualties or collateral damage. So we dither. And, over months and years, the casualties and damage soar beyond what a swift victory would have cost.

    Now the feckless dithering in the White House and the Pentagon has resulted in an even more difficult situation in Iraq, with the addition of yet another political layer. By delaying resolute action against Sadr until sovereignty was handed over, we gave a minority of Iraqis a veto over what must be done to protect the majority.

    Interim Prime Minister Iyan Allawi looked as if he had the will that our own leaders lacked. But faced with the need to placate a conference of disparate parties convened to choose a national assembly, Allawi, too, has been forced to back down. Instead of victory, we've got another round of truce talks. While Sadr transforms himself into a hero.

    A point may come soon when it just won't be worth risking the lives of our troops any longer. If we cannot fight to win, we're foolish to spend our soldiers' blood for nothing. If Iraq lacks the will to save itself, our troops won't be able to save it.

    And then there is the bogus issue of mosques, which our leaders approach with superstition, not sense. While Najaf's Imam Ali shrine truly is a sacred place, the fact is that there are mosques and there are mosques.

    Our unwillingness to target even a derelict neighborhood mosque packed with ammunition, weapons and terrorists is not only militarily foolish — it's based upon the assumption that Muslims are so stupid that they don't know the rules of their own religion. That's nonsense. They know that mosques aren't supposed to be used as bunkers. But they're not going to shout it from the rooftops to help us out.

    Were we to destroy a series of local mosques used by terrorists throughout Iraq, there would be an initial outcry — which the media would exaggerate. But it would blow over with remarkable speed. The only lasting effect would be to put the terrorists on notice that we won't let them make the rules any longer.

    Make no mistake: It's our folly and moral cowardice that encouraged our enemies to make widespread use of mosques. We created this monster, as surely as our timidity inflated Sadr. Prime Minister Allawi may yet summon the courage lacked by President Bush (and certainly by that human weathervane, John Kerry). But if Allawi folds and lets Sadr walk again, it means our troops are merely pawns in a game we're determined to lose. Our troops deserve better. We need to let them win.

    Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

    AUGUST 13, 2004




    Is Teresa Heinz Kerry Funding Red Dictator's Internet Web?

    ANN COULTER: "I'll have the Sandy Berger and a side of lies."

    Liberal Democrat Reporters Let Their Pro-Kerry Bias Hang Out
    at "Journalists of Color" Convention

    AUGUST 9, 2004


    Have you heard that Secretary of State Colin Powell has invited some "international" inspection group to watch over this year's presidential elections in the U.S.?  I don't know where these inspectors will come from -- possibly France, Germany, Russia, or Haiti.  Gee, I feel like a citizen of the New World Order!

       Again, we see the Bush Administration caving in to the slightest pressures from the Senate Democrats!  And every time any part of U.S. sovereign independence is sacrificed for some political reason, what's left of our Constitutional liberties and rights of person and property become that much less secure and more vulnerable to socialistic attacks.   I may sound like a right-wing "crank" -- but I think my concerns over the years have been justified and vindicated by the anti-American shenanigans at the very corrupt United Nations and our European "allies" (which have been embroiled in the Oil-for-Food bribes from Saddam Hussein's regime).  It is only a militarily strong America that keeps what's left of our freedoms from being trampled on in today's world in which we are surrounded by freedom-loathing Islamofascists and envious socialist regimes.

      *   *   *


     August 5, 2004 The Canadian da Vinci Project Team has notified the ANSARI X PRIZE of its intention to launch its rocket Wild Fire on October 2nd, 2004, marking its official entry in the international, commercially-funded manned space race competition. Read rest of story

      *   *   *


    The folks at Fox Network, as well as conservative talk radio, have increasingly been on the liberal-left hit list to discredit.  They are trying to claim that Fox is unfairly biased, but that the establishment liberal networks NBC, CBS, and ABC are not!  Talk about turning truth on its head!   It's not that Fox News is "conservative" or "right wing" (pro-individual liberty and American independence) so much as it is much more ideologically diverse compared to the virtual monolithic left-liberalism which dominates the old mainline networks, and it is that they (the liberal "news" networks)  are so establishment liberal/left-wing (and partisan Democrat too) that Fox just seems "conservative" by comparison.

    On Fox you have liberals, moderates, conservatives, and mixed populists (such as Bill O'Reilly, who got his indoctrination in  Keynesian economics -- the economics of left-liberalism --  at Harvard).  Fox tends to give Bush and the Republicans an even break, which the other networks do not.  That upsets MoveOn Democrat activist and left-wing propaganist Robert Greenwald, of course, who sees the other networks not so much as "liberal' but as committed to "the truth" in the same way the Communist Party under Stalin identified the Party's position with The Truth.  That is why he is being so critical of Fox these days -- espeically now that the presidential elections are approaching.

    Of course, Bush is hardly a conservative in the classic Goldwater or Reagan tradition.  His equivocation and betrayal of conservatives on Affirmtive Action and other issues are items pointed out many times before on this site.  but the liberal networks usually portray Bush as if he's "conservative" or not going nearly far enough when he signs legislation which expands government to new levels of mega-mischief.

    The bottom line is that liberals and hard--core leftists claim to be supporters of "diversity" but not when it comes to conservatives or libertarians or anyone who disagrees with them.  They do not want the American people to have a choice of alternative templates through which to view the news and analysis.  They want a monotonic echo of their establishment line.  That's the way they've had things for many decades and they want to keep it that way.  But the virtual media monopoly enjoyed in the past by the liberal establishment is breaking down.  This is one of the reasons they are panicking and attacking such alternative news sources as Fox News.


    Michael  Kranish is a paid Kerry/Edwards campaign activist who has not only written the official Kerry biography (in which Kerry admits to shooting the VC kid in the back), but also the Kerry/Edwards campaign manual which will be out next week.  He pretends to be a "reporter" for the Boston Globe.  His attempt to discredit the Swift Boat Vietnam Veterans was much more than simply "spin" -- it was a "news" article full of prevarications.  The Boston Globe has long been an arm of the DNC propaganda machine anyway.

    The press release yesterday from the Swift Boat Veterans made it clear that Kranish's article was false -- totally misrepresenting one of the vets by claimning that he had recanted his support of the claim that Kerry had shot a lone fleeing VC kid in the back (which, again, according to Kranish's own biography of Kerry, Kerry admits to doing.)

    The mainstream media -- from Democrat partisan Andrea Mitchell (Greenspan's wife, I believe) on down -- is mainly just repeating, almost verbatim, the Kerry campaign rapid response propaganda in reaction to the Swift Boat Veteran efforts to set the record straight.  Somehow the fact that some of those who financed the Swift Boat truth project are Republicans is supposed to discredit the claims they make -- while America-hating left-wing moneybags like George Soros, Barbra Streisand, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, Leonard David, Harvey Weinstein, et al somehow do not discredit the anti-GOP and pro-Kerry programs which they help finance.  A glaring liberal double standard.

    The sooner people appreciate and come to terms with the fact that the old-line TV networks are controlled by and under the influence of liberal Democrat bias, the sooner they will search for real alternatives for news and analysis.


    Vietnam Vets Expose Kerry's Real Record:
    Pronounce Him "Unfit To Command"

    Anti-Kerry Vietnam Veterans Hold Strong;
    "Swifties" counter claims made by Boston Globe.

    Watch TV Ad from Swift Boat Veterans
    Which Democrats Are Trying To Suppress

    *   *   *
    Bill Clinton's True Legacy
    Bob Barr Speaks Out
    by Gary Aldrich
    August 3, 2004

    It’s said that those in power are the ones to write the history books, but this isn’t always true, according to the evidence.  The few serious books about the Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton were written by advocates for Clinton’s removal from office.

    The newest book is from former Congressman Bob Barr, a republican from Georgia.  Many have encouraged Mr. Barr to write his version of events because those who worked hard to bring Clinton’s high crimes and misdemeanors to the attention of the public know that Congressman Barr was the insider who led the charge.  Barr’s well-timed book is entitled, “The Meaning of Is: The Squandered Impeachment and Wasted Legacy of William Jefferson Clinton”.  This 239-page hardcover is an objective answer to Bill Clinton’s recently released autobiography and is published by Stroud Hall.

    I’ll disclose that I’m a good friend of former Congressman Barr.  He was the first of the congressional leadership to support my efforts to surface serious wrongdoing in the Clinton White House, and he now serves on the legal advisory board of my Patrick Henry Center foundation.

    When I first approached Congressman Barr and others with information about national security being damaged by Bill Clinton, Barr was an attentive listener.  Barr’s interest in hearing what I had to say had nothing to do with suspicions about Clinton’s abhorrent sex-life but everything to do with Clinton’s abuse of power and the damage he was doing to our national security.  Slowly, a plan to impeach Clinton was developed, in large part thanks to Barr’s efforts.  By late fall of 1997, Barr had introduced legislation to begin the process.  But in early 1998, the focus shifted immediately to Clinton’s reckless womanizing due to the revelations of Linda Tripp regarding Monica Lewinsky.

    While the nation’s media was obsessed with Clinton’s sex life, Congressman Barr remained steadfast in his quest to hold Clinton accountable for the damage done to our national defense.  He knew what else Clinton had done, and it was much worse!

    The 9/11 Commission confirms in its report what Barr and few others knew in 1995, the year I left the White House – the nation as a whole had little concern for national security.  But Congressman Barr, having spent years working for the C.I.A., understood the ramifications of Clinton’s high and low antics.  Clinton’s policies and behavior placed us in grave danger.  His sexual proclivities distracted him from important matters of his presidency.  Of course his defense against the claims that he had violated the precious trust placed in him by voters consumed much of his attention.  But Barr makes a persuasive case that even if Clinton wasn’t chasing Monica or trying to lie about it to protect himself, he would not have given any more attention to the growing problem of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

    Barr’s book is an easy and enjoyable read.  It takes the reader behind the scenes into the corridors of power and exposes the weak politicians on both sides of the aisle who failed to hold Clinton liable.  They let Clinton off the hook, not because Clinton was falsely accused, but because his removal from office would have taken the political establishment into uncharted waters and that made them very afraid.

    Former Congressman Barr describes the brave thirteen House Managers who stepped forward to move the case to impeach Clinton into a hostile Senate environment.  They knew from the beginning that the “fix” was in and that Clinton would never be removed from office.  They also knew that their duty would bring them much scorn and retribution.  With their political careers on the line, they marched forth because each of them had a greater vision for this country.

    The 9/11 Commission Report makes a point that one reason we were attacked so easily by Al Qaeda in 2001 was because the nation lacked leaders with imagination.  The commission had it half right.  We have such leaders.  Bob Barr and his fellow House Managers not only had the imagination, they also had the goods on Bill Clinton, and, more importantly, they possessed the political courage to bring Clinton to justice.  There should be monuments to these men and their courage. If we were a nation who really embraced a vision for a better government as our founders’ intended, those monuments would be in place, and well visited.  But for whatever reason, our nation’s vision of itself as a “Shining City on a Hill”, as Ronald Reagan so wonderfully put it, is in remission.

    However, there are those like Bob Barr who believe that this remission is a temporary circumstance.

    These men of reason – most of them lawyers - had seen all the evidence against Clinton, not just about his antics with Monica.  They knew Clinton had weakened this country’s defenses for a possible terrorist attack, practically inviting acts of blatant espionage. Having that knowledge drove them to press on in spite of tremendous political pressures.  They tried to warn the nation by holding Clinton responsible. But it was the U.S. Senate leaders who lacked both imagination and political courage.  They could not imagine what might happen if Clinton was actually removed.  They were afraid their own careers would be negatively impacted somehow.  They never understood that such publicly displayed political weakness not only encourages our enemies but also gives license to an abusive executive.

    After he had escaped removal from office, Bill Clinton knew he had been given a blank check.

    Bob Barr believes our nation would have easily survived the removal of Bill Clinton for good cause, and he knew it would have been made stronger in the process.  But most of our current political leadership could never imagine that, so they voted to maintain the status quo.  In this his first book, Bob Barr, clearly a man of vision, makes his case for political courage in a well organized, thoughtful recording of what really happened when William Jefferson Clinton was impeached in 1998.

    Gary Aldrich is president and founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a Townhall.com member group.

    *   *   *
    The American people need very much to understand and acknowledge what Bill Clinton and his administration did to American defense preparedness and national security -- and the lies and coverups used to hide this from the public.  I hope Bob Barr's book will help open more peoples' eyes to this appreciation which  is critical to an understanding of what has happened since Clinton left office and what is still going on inside the Bush Administration.

    *   *   *



    Even as an "Orange Alert" is issued by the Bush Administration for certain areas of the country, such as New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., it continues to ignore the growing problem with illegals coming into our country and the lack of sufficient border control.  This political issue could come back to bite President Bush in his behind come November.  The Bush Administration is failing, indeed refusing,  to defend the country's borders -- and we know the Democrats won't.  Recent instances at the southern border have revealed that people from the Middle East and many other countries besides Mexico are either coming over illegally across the border from Mexico or using phony documents which are now  sophisticated enough to fool some border checkers.  No one has a "right" to enter a country or tresspass on its land without permission.  But beyond that, the Bush Administration, in issuing the Orange Alert, says Americans have been targeted for attack by Islamoterrorists in Al Qaeda. How can we protect ourselves from terrorists invading the country if our government does not do a better job of controlling entry?

    *   *   *
    Although we were pleased last year when Ahnuld the Terminator stepped in to save the State of California from both a continuation of the corrupt Gray Davis regime and from the possibility that Far Left Democrat Cruz Bustamante might become Governor, now that he is in the Governor's office, he has turned out not to be the "fiscal conservative" he claimed he would be.  I have to agree with talk radio personality John Ziegler (KFI 640 from 10 PM to 1 AM on week nights) when he describes Governor Schwarzeneggar as "a p-whipped Manchurian candidate" because he acts like a Democrat in Republican clothing.

    The former Hollywood  actor has not really tried very much to use his powerful influence from his widespread name recognition, movie star charisma, and obvious popularity with the voters to press for real cuts in spending from the Democrats who control the legislative branch.  Instead he has agreed to accept a huge budget in which a big part of the revenues will be made up by borrowing rather than raising taxes.  This does not solve the problem but only postones it to a later time.  It means that at some point taxpayers will be forced to pay for this borrowing and the high interest charges associated with it.  It is sort of like someone borrowing off his credit card (with a high interest rate) to pay for debts incurred on another credit card (of lower interest rate).  It is unfortunate that the voters of California did not have the political wisdom to give Tom McClintock a chance as Governor.  At least McClintock has a plan and has obviously done considerably more thinking about the problem of how to deal with the state budget and reform the Workman's Comp mess.  Meanwhile, the legislators in Sacramento become even more arrogant as they find they can get away with politics as usual under Schwarzeneggar as Governor. Of course, this is partly because they have gerrymandered their districts to make it almost impossible for current incumbents to be defeated.  To his credit, Governor Arnold is trying to get reforms passed that would weaken this entrenched oligarchy.

    *   *   *


    Exposing the Deceptions of Michael Moore

    Bogus Front Page Headline In Fahrenheit 9/11.  It turns out that Moore fabricated a phony headline in his movie as it depicted the front page of the Bloomington (Illinois) newspaer. Neither the headline nor the claim were true.

    Saudis Deny Moore's Claim that Bush Ordered Saudi Nationals Flown Out of the U.S. When All Commercial Flights Were Frozen

    New survey shows voters are not being fooled by Fahrenheit 9/11

    JULY 28, 2004


    Last week two Americans won new victories for excellence of achievement -- one in the area of factual knowledge and quick memory retrieval, and the other in the more physical arena of athletic competition.

    On Friday, July 23, long-running champion Ken Jennings, a software developer from Salt Lake City, finished the regular season of the TV series JEOPARDY! (and his 38th consecutive show) by setting a new one-day record. Jennings won a whopping $75,000, eclipsing the previous high mark set by Brian Weikle of Minneapolis, Minnesota, who earned $52,000 on April 14, 2003.

    Friday’s win brings Jennings’ total earnings to $1,321,660 and makes him the highest cumulative winner in JEOPARDY! history. Brad Rutter of Lancaster, Pennsylvania previously held the title after winning the Million Dollar Masters Tournament and a total of $1,155,102.

    By all accounts, Ken now holds every JEOPARDY! record for winnings… and he’ll be back to try for more. From July 26 – September 3, JEOPARDY! will present encore shows of some of the highlights from the past year, notably the College Championship from Yale University, the Teen Tournament and Power Players and Kids Week from Washington, D.C. Then, on Monday, September 6, Ken Jennings returns to defend his championship in his 39th appearance, kicking off the 21st season of JEOPARDY!

    Ken Jennings


    Lance Armstrong's sixth straight victory in the Tour de France international bike race was totally awesome! Only eight years ago, Armstrong was near death from cancer. From inner strength and emotional courage, Armstrong drove himself to beat the deadly malady and become one of the most famous cyclists in the world in a real-life athletic comeback that would astonish even movie hero Rocky Balboa.

    Lance Armstrong

    Lance Armstrong Biography

    Live Strong -- resources for cancer survivors

    Lance Armstrong Foundation

    *   *   *
    Although I don't always agree with economist Larry Kudlow, I generally do and I especially recommend the column at the end of the following link.  Kudlow explains something that most journalists do not understand and therefore needs reiterating so that people will eventually get it.  He shows how profits and investments and capital accumulation are the motor of economic expansion  -- and brings forth evidence that the Bush Administration's tax-cutting policies are working in a very salutary way.  Of course, abolishing the tax on dividends and capital gains altogether would be much better -- but the liberal Republicans and leftist Democrats in the U.S. Senate would never pass that.  Intellectually honest libertarians and conservatives should give credit where it is due -- to President Bush for managing to get the tax cuts he did get through Congress, meager though they may be compared to what we would want.  A President Albert Gore (or a President John Kerry) would never have fought for this.  Bush did.

    A Capital Idea from Microsoft by Larry Kudlow

    *   *   *
    John Ziegler Talk Radio Show
    Makes Huge Gains In Spring Ratings!

    The John Ziegler Show on KFI 640 AM, in only its second ratings "book" in Los Angeles, is already the 2nd most listened to show in the 10 pm-1 am time slot for listeners in the all-important 25-54 demographic. The program's ratings in that demo are 40% higher than the same time period in 2003 and 130% higher than the winter of 2004. The show is now by far the most listened to talk show in Southern California for that demo.

    For ALL listeners, the show is now ranked #3 in its time slot, 30% better than Spring of 2003 and 114% better than the winter of 2004.

    The controversial talk show maven, who describes himself as a libertarian, is obviously very pleased and said, "Thanks to all of those who supported the show. You clearly have good taste and are obviously not alone!"

    *   *   *


    Republican activist G. Gordon Liddy went to prison for almost five years for burglary.  What kind of jail time should top Clinton advisor Sandy Berger get for stealing classified government materials, destroying or hiding very important documents from the 9/11 Commission, and obstruction of justice?  Or will the Bush Republicans continue to give the Clintonistas a pass rather than expose the American people to the truth about the Clinton sellout of American national security?

    Berger Destroys Records

    Berger's Top Secret BVDs - Kerry Caught in Security Flap

    Recommended Internet Links

    Charles R. Smith, Defense & Cyber War Expert, Warns America

    Charles R. Smith is one of America's leading experts on cyber technology and its implications for war, terrorism, privacy and every way technology interacts with our lives. He currently is President and CEO of SOFTWAR, his own consulting company. He received a US government "Top Secret" clearance as a top-level computer engineer for EDS. There he was assigned to work with the U.S. Army on logistic projects during the Cold War. Smith provided war games programs that were used by the U.S. Army, as well as the U.S. Naval weapons center at Dahlgren, Virginia, and North American Rockwell. He has worked for over a decade with the government of Virginia and the Virginia State Police on stolen vehicle tracking using the FBI National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) and the National Law Enforcement System (NLETS). He has also testified before Congress on matters relating to cyber war.

        Columns by Charles R. Smith


        Recap, Audio Clips, & Downloads of Recent Interview with Coast to Coast AM

        Kerry's Chinagate - Loral Money Going to DNC

    The Propaganda War Against America

        The Deceptions in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911

        The Democrat National Convention Camouflage Strategy:  How Can We Fool 'Em This Week?

        Bubba's Life: Huang and Riady Left Out of Latest Book

        Kerry -- Candidate of the Far Left by Star Parker

    JULY 19, 2004


    Senators Kerry, Edwards, and other Democrat Party leaders want people to think that the Republican Party under Bush and Cheney is the party of hate and personal attack; but, the truth is that most of the hate has been generated by the vicious and hateful anti-Bush and anti-U.S. propaganda from the DNC and its allied leftist spinners such as Michael Moore and Al Frankenstein, and pro-Democrat enablers in the TV media. By contrast, the Republicans in general, and Bush in particular take a "love thy enemy" approach and just "turn the other cheek"!  The Democrats spit in Bush's face and he calls it dew.

    Ayn Rand was certainly right:  what's killing America is the morality of stupid self-sacrifice.  Bush and the Republicans must realize what the Democrat leadership already knows -- that politics is just war conducted under other more subtle means.  And, as General George Patton observed, the goal in war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.  Turning the other cheek is just stupid and is perceived as weakness.

    The Democrats and the extreme leftists want to kill Bush and Cheney politically -- get them out of office -- so they can take over.  But their anti-Bush rhetoric has become so shrill that I would not be surprised if some kook, under the influence of this left-wing propaganda, doesn't try to assassinate Bush or Cheney or Rush Limbaugh -- so intense have the flames of loathing been fanned by the Left against these their primary hate objects.  I hope this does not occur, but I would not be surprised if some weak-minded leftist nut, who has absorbed the putrid conspiratorial nonsense and repeated lies about stolen elections in Florida, generated by the left-wing propaganda mills, tried to do physical harm against either the President, the Vice President, or a prominent radio talk show personality.

    How many Americans, many of whom are disengaged from the news in general and from what's really happening politically, get their news only from watching television? How many people are gong to be taken in by the deceptions in Michael Moore's latest "documentary" propaganda film Fahrenheit 911?  An atmosphere of hate is being fomented by the left in this country -- and I believe some persons are under its spell.  The hate is based on outright lies and (in the case of the Moore flick) clever editing and half truths and calculated deceptions.

    The cognitive dissonance -- the chasm between what many dupes of left-wing propaganda have been led to believe and the truth as revealed by the two-way exchange of ideas of talk radio -- is too much for some of the less stable personalities to cope with.  I would recommend that Rush and other talk radio people beef up their security for the next few months.  The country is full of potential Oswalds now.

    Bush had better wake up to the fact that he is in a domestic war as well as one in Iraq.

    *   *   *
    Who Should Be Greenspan's Successor?
    by Sam Wells
    Alan Greenspan has announced that he plans to step down as Fed Chairman of the Federal Reserve before the end of his term.  The other day I was asked "Who do you think should replace Alan Greenspan when he steps down?" and "What should the rediscount rate be set at?"

    When someone asks me,  "What 'should'  the price of a can of beans be?" -- or "What 'should' the correct interest rate be set at?" their question arises from and reveals certain false assumptions about the nature and role of market prices, and how they are determined.  That sort of question assumes that there is such a thing as a "perfect" or eternally "correct" price for something -- that every item in commerce has some intrinsically "just" price associated with it.  But in the real world of the marketplace, a price -- such as the price of a can of beans -- is merely the exchange ratio, the ratio at which a voluntary exchange takes place between two commodities or between units of money and a good or service.  A price is one of the terms in an exchange arrived at by voluntary agreement between buyer and seller.

    The field of economics shows us that there tends to be a "prevailing price" within a market for a particular kind of good of a certain quality, and is determined by the factors of demand and supply.  Since demand and supply are dynamic factors which are ever-changing in a market economy, prices and profit margins vary according to economic conditions and technological changes.

    In a free market, the price of a good tends to be set high enough to bring the quantity of the good demanded down to the level of the limited supply of it available for sale.  When this market tendency is interfered with by government intervention in the form of politically fixed price levels, economic disruption ensues.

    A basic study of market economics should tell us what happens when government uses its coercive powers to positively intervene in the non-coercive marketplace to affect prices.  If the political authorities hold a price down below what it would be otherwise, the result tends to be shortages of the product.  If, on the other hand, government intervenes to mandate an artificially high price for a product -- a price higher than what otherwise would obtain on a free market -- the result is unconsumed surpluses of that product (with shortages of resources artificially diverted from other areas of production).   We have seen this over and over.

    Politically imposed price controls are really people controls -- controls over human beings.  When the government imposes price controls, it restricts people in what decisions they can legally take as they buy and sell in the market.  It limits their freedom of choice.  It introduces coercive restrictions on the peaceful behavior of people in what would otherwise be a non-coercive environment.  Prices result from freedom of choice.  Government intervention disrupts the role that prices play in the market.  Violent force always stomps on freedom of choice.  When the political authorities use the violent force of the police power at their disposal to meddle with market prices, it tends to result in either unconsumed surpluses or unnecessary shortages.  If strictly enforced, price controls not only lead to shortages, but also "black markets" -- underground (illegal) markets run by sleazy criminal types -- and eventually the threat of rationing by government bureaucrats.

    Interest rates are prices -- prices for borrowing money.  Since money is something that is used throughout an economy, the interest rate is a very special price and plays a very important role as an economic sign post or signal for people in their role as investors.

    What "should" the "correct" interest rate be set at?  This question not only assumes that interest rates (prices) are (or should be) intrinsically fixed ratios, but it further implies that they ought to be set by political fiat -- that is, by government edict or by a "central bank" (such as the Federal Reserve Board in the United States) with government-granted powers and privileges.

    There is no good reason why the price called "interest rate" should be an exception to free-market operations of demand and supply.  Indeed, when government (or its central banking establishment) intervenes to keep interest rates artificially low, the result is credit inflation that leads to malinvestment and an artificial boom in some sectors (at the expense of other sectors) which ultimately leads to a liquidating bust (recession).  Throughout the 1920s, for example, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates artificially low, creating a credit balloon which set the stage for the Great Depression of the 1930s.  Contrary to what left-wing propagandists tell us, the Great Depression (and other recessions and panics which came before) resulted from government intervention, not laissez faire.

    Any time the government or the Federal Reserve meddles with interest rates -- as they have been doing since at least 1914 --  this distorts the crucial economic signals that interest rates provide to consumers and on which investors rely to make decisions, and this in turn distorts the structure of the capital markets which depend on economically sound investments.  The entire direction of production -- what and how much is produced -- is distorted by rigging interest rates through government intervention.  As Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz have demonstrated, there has been far more economic instability after  the creation of the Federal Reserve (by an act of Congress in December, 1913) than what prevailed prior to its creation.

    Again, it must be pointed out that the Federal Reserve is not a market entity that arose spontaneously under laissez faire; it was a creation of the U.S. Government and has certain powers and privileges bestowed on it by government -- powers and privileges that no private-enterprise market business has.

    Ideally, in a fully free market economic system, interest rates, like all other prices, would be set by the non-coercive interaction of demand and supply, not by political meddling.  Just as there would be no government-imposed price floors or price ceilings, there would be no Federal Reserve central banking monopoly on legal counterfeiting.  There would be no monetary czar -- no Arthur Burns, no Paul Volcker, no Alan Greenspan.  Instead of government-imposed fiat currency, a non-inflationary market-chosen money (gold and silver coins and notes fully redeemable in gold or silver) would serve an expanding prosperity.

    There are those, such as Dr. George Reisman of Pepperdine University and Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who have advanced detailed plans for a transition from our current debt-based fiat money arrangement to such a gold-based monetary system, one in which money would be independent of political control.  Unfortunately, it is not yet politically feasible to realize any such reforms as too many people still believe that our modern economy needs some kind of political monetary authority to set basic interest rates or try to control the supply of money or money substitutes.  There is the contention that "there is not enough gold" to serve as money for a modern, expanding economy.  How much would be "enough"?  These and other objections are based on certain faulty assumptions about the way a gold monetary system, or how parallel systems of money (not to be confused with the so-called "bimetalic standard"), would operate in a free-market society, and it ignores the role that price plays in helping people resolve differences between quantity demanded and available supply.

    For those open-minded enough to investigate market alternatives to the current fiat monetary muddle, I recommend such works as Mark Skousen's Economics of a Pure Gold Standard,  George Reisman's monumental Capitalism  (Chapter 19),  and the two booklets What  Has Government Done to Our Money?  and The Case for the 100 Percent Gold Dollar by Murray Rothbard.

    So, in answer to the question I am sometimes asked, "Who do you think should replace Alan Greenspan when he steps down as Chairman of the Fed?" I say that ideally there should not be a monetary policeman or national interest-rate tinkerer at all, that there doesn't have to be a "central banking" authority at all, and that we should try free-market private enterprise for a change.  (I know -- many students have been led to believe that true laissez faire has already been tried in this country in the past and that it resulted in ills requiring the intervention of government to correct; but, this is not accurate.)

    I realize that many Republicans regard Alan Greenspan as the best thing since free breadsticks, but I am in no way impugning his abilities or merits, or pointing out the lack thereof, when I observe that the job he has as national legal counterfeiter is virtually inherently inflationary and coercive of human rights.  What has Greenspan done or what can he (or anyone else) do to promote freedom and free markets as Chairman of the Federal Reserve System?

    If the person to be appointed head of the Fed would take the job only under the condition that he preside over its dismantlement and assist in an orderly transition to a sound money system, then I might venture an opinion about who might be best suited for that task.  Until then, the question doesn't really interest me much.  The real question is:  should money be politically manipulated at all?

    *   *   *

    The Battle Against Anticapitalist Drivel
    by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
            Two years ago I was on a faculty committee to choose the one book that incoming freshman would be asked to read and discuss in discussion groups during freshman orientation. It was the school of business’s turn to choose the book, so I thought it would be valuable, for once, for the freshman to read a book that was not the latest popular left-wing polemic, as seemed to be the practice.
    Academic politics being what it is, I had little hope of convincing the other members of the committee to choose a book by Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman or Rand. But still, since the committee members were all part of a school of business and management, I had hopes that we would at least adopt a book on the history of American entrepreneurship, the debate over globalization, the high-tech revolution, etc. I quickly learned that the only positive role that I could possibly play on that committee was to hopefully embarrass the other members out of adopting another truly awful, economically ignorant attack on capitalism.

    The most passionate debates centered over two books that were favored by several members of the committee and which, it turns out, have become almost cult classics among the academic left. These are Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the American Meal, by Eric Schlosser and Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. Both are New York Times bestsellers and both are shockingly ignorant of the most elementary level of economic logic. (I did succeed in embarrassing my colleagues out of choosing them).

    In The Constitution of Liberty Friedrich Hayek made the point that one of the keystones of socialism is the denial of individual responsibility. Thus, the crusade for socialism always included attacks on individual responsibility. For if individuals do not have free will, and are not responsible for their actions, then their lives must be controlled somehow – preferably by the state – according to the socialists. They must be regulated, regimented and controlled – for their own good.

    This is the underlying message of Fast Food Nation, in which the author makes the remarkable scientific discovery that a steady diet of chocolate milkshakes and French fries, combined with little or no exercise, will make you fat. Schlosser has nothing at all good to say about the fast food industry despite the fact that millions of Americans (and others) express their disagreement with him every day by spending their money at these establishments.

    Schlosser fails to acknowledge that American consumers are as educated as they have ever been and can judge for themselves where the best place to eat is. Just as everyone has understood that smoking is bad for your health for well over a hundred years, if not longer, it is common knowledge that a super-sized double cheeseburger with fries has considerably more calories than baked chicken and broccoli. We don’t need Eric Schlosser to inform us of this.

    One gets the impression that despite his voluminous discussion of the alleged problems of the fast food industry, Schlosser has never paid close attention to the menu items at Wendy’s, McDonald’s, or Burger King. These fast food restaurant chains, and many others, have adapted to the American public’s demands for healthier foods by cutting down on fat grams, offering more and more salads, wrap sandwiches, and other more healthful items, as well as all kinds of low-carb offerings. The free market is working, in other words. But Schlosser’s book is nothing if it is not an uninformed attack on the free market in the food industry.

    Schlosser reveals his true agenda in the book’s epilogue, where he sings the praises of "scientific socialists," a term that Lenin used to boast of the alleged accomplishments of Soviet socialism. He lambastes capitalism in general and waxes eloquent about the alleged munificence of government intervention, from the job-destroying minimum wage law to "public works" departments and road-building programs, which have been perhaps the most colossal examples of government waste, fraud, inefficiency, and corruption.

    He ends the book by recommending a blizzard of government intervention, as though that will make us all thinner, fitter, and healthier. We need more government "job training" programs, he says, despite the fact that such programs were even deemed to be abysmal failures by the U.S. Congress itself in the 1970s when it sunset the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). We need more laws that give special privileges to labor unions, says Schlosser, who is apparently ignorant of how such union power played an important role in almost destroying the American steel and automobile industries, among others, over the past several decades.

    The food industry is regulated by federal, state, and local bureaucracies, and by "consumer activist" busybodies in the nonprofit sector, but that is not enough for Schlosser, who advocates layers and layers of additional regulatory regimentation. He ignores the most important type of "regulation" of the fast food industry: consumer sovereignty. It is the quest for the consumer’s dollar that creates the most potent incentives to offer safer, tastier, and healthier food, but Schlosser makes no acknowledgement at all of this important fact.

    Creating a new Soviet-style bureaucracy to control, regulate, watch over, and punish ranchers, farmers and supermarkets is also on Schlosser’s policy menu, further revealing his rather childishly naïve, pie-in-the-sky view of government as some sort of omniscient and benevolent nanny.

    Free commercial speech is also a problem that could be corrected with advertising bans. This, too, reveals Schlosser’s economic ignorance: Advertising makes the fast-food industry more competitive, and therefore more likely to offer healthier food. If McDonald’s is the first to come up with say, a tasty, low-carb meal, it will want to advertise that fact heavily. And if it is popular, the profitability of the meal will induce all of McDonalds’ competitors to produce similar offerings.

    Schlosser does nothing more than repackage some of the same tired old myths about capitalism that earlier generations of muckraking socialists perpetrated. Indeed, on the back of the paperback edition of Fast Food Nation is a blurb from the San Francisco Chronicle proclaiming that Schlosser is "channeling the spirits of Upton Sinclair and Rachel Carson." Indeed he is. Sinclair was the early twentieth-century socialist author of the book, The Jungle, which turned out to be a wildly inaccurate and unfair portrayal of the meat packing industry. Rachel Carson’s fable about the alleged dangers of pesticides, the 1962 book, Silent Spring, became a classic of the environmental movement despite the fact that it was a work of fiction. The book had a powerful influence, however, and governments throughout the world banned DDT and other pesticides beginning in the early 1970s. This ban has led to the death of literally millions of people in the Third World from malaria. It has also caused numerous crop disasters as voracious insects that were once killed off with DDT are no longer, and substitutes are often unaffordable in Third World countries.

    In 1970, shortly before DDT was banned, the National Academy of Sciences determined that DDT had saved 500 million lives over the previous three decades by eradicating malaria-carrying mosquitoes. DDT was banned by the U.S. government in the early 1970s despite the fact that no science was presented that it had the effects that Carson and the environmental movement claimed it had.

    Even if the National Academy of Sciences estimate of lives saved by DDT is off by a multiple of two, Rachel Carson and her crusade against the pesticide would still be responsible for more human deaths than most of the worst tyrants in world history.

    The second, and truly asinine, book of choice by the academic left is Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich. Although she is a Ph.D. biologist who has written for Time, Harper’s, The New Republic, The Nation, and the New York Times Magazine, Ehrenreich pretended to be an indigent, entry-level restaurant and hotel worker so she could write a book about her experiences. To add to Eric Schlosser’s remarkable scientific discovery that pigging out on fast food seven days a week will make you fat, Ehrenreich makes the momentous discovery that entry level jobs at fast food restaurants don’t pay very well.

    Her main theme is that people who leave the welfare rolls and go to work have a tough time of it. Of course, that is true of many who are entering the job market for the first time, whether they have been on welfare or not. On the other hand, the hordes of immigrants from Mexico and Central America – legal and illegal – seem, for the most part, overjoyed at the prospect of having such jobs and moving up and on from there, as generation after generation of Americans has done. They obviously have not read Nickel and Dimed.

    What Ehrenreich’s sob stories about the rigors of work at entry level jobs shows is not that capitalist bosses are greedy, uncaring exploiters – the watered down Marxist theme of her sophomoric book – but that the welfare state, combined with the disastrous government-run school system, has destroyed the work ethic and job prospects for millions of Americans. Why prepare oneself for a life of work if it is possible to simply sit back and collect a welfare check?

    This of course is yet another example of what economists call the moral hazard problem of the welfare state. By supposedly helping "the poor," the welfare state harms them by inducing them to avoid doing the very things that will make them un-poor – learning how to interact in society, such as at a job; learning a skill or trade; learning how to be a responsible citizen and employee; saving some of your earnings; and getting married and staying married.

    The fact is, every mentally capable person looks at entry-level jobs as a first step on the economic ladder. And it is certainly true that there is a great deal of upward mobility in the U.S. labor market for those who want to work, gain experience, learn on the job, and continue to educate themselves. Ehrenreich makes no mention at all of any of this.

    Like Schlosser, Ehrenreich whines like a baby about the alleged "cruelty" of capitalism while championing the same tired, old socialistic agenda that Schlosser does. She advocates a super minimum wage that would price out of jobs thousands of the very people she claims to be so concerned about – entry level restaurant and hotel workers. She urges government to build more government housing projects, bemoaning the fact that public housing subsidies declined during the 1990s.

    For one thing, welfare subsidies of all kinds often fail to rise as rapidly during times of vigorous economic growth, such as in the 1990s (even if that growth was artificially fueled by expansionary monetary creation by the Fed). Ehrenreich simply does not understand this. Nor does she seem familiar with the disaster that government-run housing projects have been in every city in America. The absence of property rights in "free" public housing has created a nationwide system of gigantic, abysmal slums plagued by crime and squalor. Ehrenreich thinks we need more of this.

    Moreover, all the increases in government spending Ehrenreich calls for would only siphon even more resources from the private sector – the source of all government funding – causing fewer jobs to be created there. It would also place a larger tax burden on all workers, including the ones she claims to be speaking for. The average American family already pays more in taxes than for food, clothing and shelter combined, as Amity Shlaes documents in her book, The Greedy Hand, and Ehrenreich’s big-government agenda would only increase this already confiscatory burden.

    Authors like Schlosser and Ehrenreich get big book contracts from major publishers, are treated like celebrities on college campuses and paid hefty speaking honoraria, and are always optimistically portrayed as the next Upton Sinclair or Rachel Carson. But their books are nothing more than carefully scripted, anticapitalist drivel that is void of even the most elementary level of economic logic or analysis. This is why economics is so important: today's college students who remain ignorant of economics are all the more likely to be bamboozled by books such as these that call for an end to the very system that is the sole source of American prosperity – and of their own economic futures. Capitalism and its essential ingredient – private property – are also a prerequisite for freedom. For as Ludwig von Mises wrote in The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth (p. 67):

    Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which he is free of the state. It sets limits to the operation of the authoritarian will. It allows other forces to arise side by side with and in opposition to political power. It thus becomes the basis of all those activities that are free from the violent interference on the part of the state. It is the soil in which the seeds of freedom are nurtured and in which the autonomy of the individual and ultimately all intellectual and material progress are rooted.
    Or as Congressman Ron Paul has warned, if we continue to pay attention to authors like Schlosser and Ehrenreich who "reject capitalism and blame it for all the problems we face," and fail to challenge these false views, then capitalism will be "even further undermined" and "the prosperity that the free market generates will be destroyed" (Ron Paul, "Has Capitalism Failed,"

    * * *

    June 21, 2004

    The First Non-Government, Privately Funded
    Manned Space Flight

    A privately-developed, privately-funded rocket plane, SpaceShipOne, became the  world’s first commercial manned space vehicle this morning when it soared to an altitude of 62 miles (100 kilometers) above Earth in a brief suborbital flight.  Mike Melvill, the first private civilian astronaut to fly a spaceship out of the Earth's atmosphere, made the historic flight above the Mojave Civilian Aerospace Test Center, a commercial airport in the California desert at about 6:40 a.m. and then glided the rocket plane back to a safe landing.

    “Today’s flight marks a critical turning point in the history of aerospace,” said Scaled Composites founder and CEO Burt Rutan. “ We have redefined space travel as we know it.”

    “Our success proves without question that manned space flight does not require mammoth government expenditures,” Rutan declared. “It can be done by a small company operating with limited resources and a few dozen dedicated employees.”

    Investor and philanthropist Paul G. Allen (and cofounder of Microsoft) and aviation legend Burt Rutan teamed up to create this project, which will attempt to win the $10 million X Prize within the next several months.

    Allen, founder and chairman of Vulcan Inc, is the primary financing source for the project. Along with Allen, Vulcan’s technology research and development team -- which takes the lead in developing high impact science and technology projects for Allen -- has been active in the project’s development and management.

    Sub-orbital space flight refers to a mission that flies out of the atmosphere but does not reach the speeds needed to sustain continuous orbiting of the Earth. The view from a sub-orbital flight is similar to being in orbit, but the cost and risks are far less.

    “Since Yuri Gagarin and Al Shepard’s epic flights in 1961, all space missions have been flown only under large, expensive Government efforts. By contrast, our program involves a few, dedicated individuals who are focused entirely on making space flight affordable,” said Burt Rutan. “Without the entrepreneur approach, space access would continue to be out of reach for ordinary citizens. The SpaceShipOne flights will change all that and encourage others to usher in a new, low-cost era in space travel.”

    SpaceShipOne was designed by Rutan and his research team at the California-based aerospace company, Scaled Composites. Rutan made aviation news in 1986 by developing the Voyager, the only aircraft to fly non-stop around the world without refueling.

    “To succeed takes more than the work of designers and builders”, Rutan said, “The vision, the will, the commitment and the courage to direct the program is the most difficult hurdle. We are very fortunate to have the financial support and the confidence of a visionary like Paul Allen to make this effort possible.”

    To reach space, a carrier aircraft, known as the White Knight, lifted SpaceShipOne from the Mojave runway. About an hour later, after climbing to approximately 50,000 feet altitude just east of Mojave, the spaceship was released into a glide. SpaceShipOne's pilot then fired his rocket motor for about 80 seconds, reaching Mach 3 in a virtual vertical climb. During the pull-up and climb, the pilot encountered G-forces three to four times the gravity of the earth.

    SpaceShipOne then rocketed up to its goal altitude of 100 km (62 miles) before falling back to Earth. Pilot Mike Melvill experienced a weightless environment for more than three minutes and, like orbital space travelers, saw the black sky and the thin blue atmospheric line on the horizon.

    The 61-year-old civilian pilot (actually a new astronaut at that moment) then configured the craft’s wing and tail into a high-drag configuration. This provided a “care-free” atmospheric entry by slowing the spaceship in the upper atmosphere and automatically aligning it along the flight path. Upon re-entry, the pilot put the ship back to a normal glide configuration, and then spent about 15 minutes gliding back to earth, touching down like an airplane on the same runway from which he took off.

    Although this flight was flown solo, SpaceShipOne is equipped with three seats and is designed for missions that include the pilot and two passengers.

    Unlike any previous manned space mission, this historic event permitted the public to view, up close, the takeoff and landing as well as the overhead rocket boost to space.  A huge crowd of thousands of enthusiastic onlookers gathered at the Mojave Airport to watch the momentus flight take place, as did millions of others all over the world who viewed the event on television.  Dignitaries attending the event included U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, the Commanding Officer of Edwards Air Force Base, General Pearson and the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center, Admiral Venlet; former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, and Konrad Dannenberg, one of Werner Von Braun’s lead scientists on this country’s original space development effort.

    Today's flight was part of a series in preparation for SpaceShipOne to later compete for the Ansari X Prize, an international competition to create a reusable aircraft that can launch three passengers into sub-orbital space, return them safely home, then repeat the launch within two weeks using the same vehicle.  A Canadian team and several European efforts are also in the competition, but the Rutan group is the clear front runner at this point.

    Clinton Apologists Continue To Use Lewinsky Affair
    to Distract the Public from the
    Much More Serious Clinton Scandals
    On the eve of the publication of Clinton's presidential "memoirs" in which the disgraced former Chief Executive seeks to make the case that he left a great legacy of accomplishments, faithful Democrat Party hack Dan Rather did a lengthy (and boring) intterview with Bill Clinton to help give initial book sales a boost.

    Of course, Rather asked no questions about Chinagate or the sellout of U.S. national security during the Clinton years or the role the Clinton Administration played in helping to build up the military-industrial complex of Red China in exchnge for huge illegal campaign contributions from the Red Army.  Nor weere questions asked of the former President about the crucial role played by the Gorelick memo which established a policy that sabotaged cooperation among America's intelligence agencies and helped create the lack of preparedness that led to the infamous attacks of 9/11/01.

    By focusing on the juicy Monica story, while ignoring the truly major scandals such as national security and Chinagate, the Democrats can make it seem as if conservative and libertarian opponents of the Clinton administration and its policies are "just about sex" and that Clinton's impeachment was motivated merely by political partisanship. Since the Lewisnky scandal could not be covered up after matt Drudge broke the story over the Internet, the national Democrat establishment decided to make the most of it and use it to divert attention away from the far more serious issues and policies about which conservatives and libertarians really opposed Clinton.  The liberal Democratgs and Clinton himself are actually using one irrepressible scandal to cover up others,

    Clinton will get huge coverage from his friends in the media as he tours the country to promote his book (which some suggest is a thinly disguised campaign biography for Hillary in anticipation of her running for Prez in '08).  For the same reason as network TV shows like "Sixty Minutes" and major publishing houses like Simon & Schuster helped promote anti-Bush authors like O'Niell and Clarke, they will assiduously avoid giving any publicity or interviews to those (such as Bill Gertz, Gary Aldrich, Frank Gaffney, Jr., William Triplett, Col. Robeert Patterson, Richard Miniter, and others) who have been trying to warn the American people about the breakdown of America's intelligence capabilities and national security effectiveness -- which suffered so much during the Clinton years.  The major non-cable TV networks and big city newspapers are dominated by highly partisan Democrats who twist the news with a leftward bias to help liberal Democrats and hurt conservative Republicans or anyone else who dares oppose the "politically correct" authoritarian Liberal Thought Police.

    June 17, 2004


    In the socialist propaganda tradition of Riefenstahl, Goebbels, Ginzberg, and Franken, Hollywood leftist Michael Moore has now produced his latest contribution, Fahrenheit 911. With a heavy anti-Bush and anti-American theme, the film is designed to be used as part of the Kerry for President political campaign to defeat President Bush in the elections this Fall.  Not surprisingly, those who have seen previews say the movie bears little resemblance to the known facts.

    Fight Back Against Michael Moore

    Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood

    Move America Forward

    June 9, 2004


    Journalists who bashed and trashed Ronald Reagan during the 1980s are biting their tongues this week amidst the outpouring of love and affection toward the GOP icon from a grateful nation.

    But the cease-fire won't last long, judging by the comments of major network new anchors Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings yesterday.

    Rather told the Philadelphia Inquirer the week-long commemoration of Reagan's life was journalistic overkill and hinted that he was anxious to return to stories he thought were more important, such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

    "Even though everybody is respectful and wants to pay homage to the president, life does go on," he groused. "There is other news, like the reality of Iraq. It got very short shrift this weekend."

    The CBS newsman blamed "herd journalism" for the media's fixation on Reagan.

    NBC's Tom Brokaw suggested that the media's current presentation of the Reagan legacy was far too positive, noting that while Reagan "was a beloved American leader ... at the same time our journalistic obligation is to put his whole life and his political career in context."

    He told the Inquirer that a single day's worth of tribute to Reagan would have been enough. After that, it was time to examine "scandals" like "Iran-contra [and] his failure to recognize early on the AIDS epidemic."

    ABC's Peter Jennings concurred, telling the Inquirer, "If we waited for the president to be buried before doing a critical analysis, the world would move on quite a bit."

    Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz seemed to agree that the focus on Reagan was too much, noting during an online chat on Tuesday, "Nixon got two or three days of very heavy coverage, but nothing like this week-long, nonstop extravaganza."

    "If you were too young to remember Reagan and just tuned in since Saturday," he contended, "you'd have very little idea that he was a controversial figure with legions of detractors as well as admirers."

    Longtime Reagan watcher and Post reporter Lou Cannon said Reagan critics could look forward to new ammunition to use against their nemesis.

    In a separate online chat, Cannon said that still-sealed documents on Reagan's presidency will be released in the coming years, noting that "what is revealed in these documents may again change our opinions."

                                                                                    --NewsMax.com, June 9, 2004

    *  *  *

    Talk show host Michael Savage is a "mixed bag" and I certainly don't agree with everything he says.  He is relatively uneducated, especially in the area of economics (but that is true of most talk show hosts).  BUT, he is smart enough to identify the real Enemy Within our society -- American left-"liberalism" -- the neo-fascists who dominate the leadership of the Democrat Party, the TV news networks, the U.S. Senate, the eastern wing of the Republican Party, most of Hollywood, and America's schools and universities.  Savage does a pretty good job of exposing the liberal-left bias in the news media and the following "open letter" illustrates why Savage is on balance a force for good.

    An Open Letter to American Media: Enough Is Enough

    The following '''Open Letter to American Media'' was written by Dr. Ted Miller, a professor of military studies at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado.  In it, he expresses the frustration many of us feel about our mainstream media's seeming bias against their own country.

    I have long perceived a bias in the mainstream media and have for years been frustrated with its implications for our society and nation.  The political slant inherent in modern journalism is no longer unexpected and is even tolerable when social and political issues are the topic of debate.   When media bias begins to affect our national security, however, the threshold of acceptability is crossed.  When media takes the side of our enemies because of political differences with our president, it's time to say ''enough is enough.''

    My conviction that our mainstream media has indeed crossed that line was cemented last week.  Love him or hate him, Michael Savage is a bold, in-your-face radio personality who regularly points out ''the enemy within,'' the politicians and journalists who work against the United States' best interests, whether by pushing backward legislation, distorting the Constitution, or supporting our foreign enemies.  He notes that, whether consciously or blindly, by underhanded political tricks, dishonesty, or left-biased news reporting, they consistently oppose policies, programs, strategies necessary to preserve the strength, freedoms, and prosperity of our nation, and they even obstruct and sabotage our efforts to defeat our terrorist tormentors.  The media's big contribution to this effort is reporting that gives the benefit of the doubt to our terrorist enemies, often actually apologizing for American actions against them.  On his radio program last week, Savage painted a vivid picture of the deterioration of American media and the depths to which it has sunk in its opposition to American efforts in our war on terrorism and in its support and encouragement of our enemies.

    Savage used simple comparison to highlight the disturbing evolution that has degraded the mainstream media since World War II.  Although grammar and semantics were quite similar, the journalists of the 1940s differed from modern journalists in one important sense. The journalists of that period allowed bias to creep into their stories just as modern media members do.  But in contrast to the current focus on American wrong-doing, criticism of policies, attacks on Administration officials, civilian deaths, collateral damage, second-guessing of strategy, angry locals, harsh treatment of captured enemy fighters, and frustration with the U.S. occupation, those journalists were biased in SUPPORT of the American war effort.  They made it clear they were Americans, despite their political orientations, they knew that the support of the American people was vital if we were to defeat the sinister forces threatening the world, and their reporting reflected that understanding and patriotism.

    Frequent use of terms like ''enemy,'' ''foe,'' ''bad guys,'' ''Jap,'' etc., to refer to our WWII opponents contrast sharply with the ''insurgents,'' ''freedom fighters,'' ''opposition forces,'' and other benign terms used today.  Instead of stories praising heroic Marines decimated by treacherous ''Japs'' who lured their prey in by flying a flag of truce or by whistling the Marine Corps hymn, modern journalists use military setbacks to suggest that the entire military campaign is wrong-headed.  Rather than proudly reporting the story of allied paratroopers who killed over 200 German soldiers on a Dutch bridge when they refused to surrender, modern reporters ignore the hostile fire taken by our helicopters from an Iraqi gathering and report that American troops murdered dozens in a wedding party.  Rather than reporting the military victory the U.S. Navy narrowly won vs. the Japanese at Leyte Gulf and minimizing stories of the campaign's command-and-control failures, modern journalists now, as a rule, focus on the failures and negatives and minimize the positive.  Rather than celebrating our armies' victory against the fight-to-the-death Germans in the Ruhr valley and ignoring the destruction of nearly every house and factory, our reporters today decry the wall of a mosque damaged in a firefight and ignore the fact that terrorists were firing at our boys from this supposedly sacred site.

    I am fully aware that sensationalism sells and that capturing scandal, mistakes, and death is your goal.  Nevertheless I call on you - editors, producers, writers, reporters, anchors, and on-line media journalists - to take Michael Savage's lead and spend an afternoon in the library, archive, or micro-film room.  Peruse the war coverage of the past and then ask yourself what is different about your own coverage.  Once you recognize the shameful deterioration that has occurred since 1941, I call on you to re-assess your practices, your biases, and your patriotism.  No doubt many of you will be offended that I have questioned your loyalty, but if you honestly weigh your handiwork against past journalism, you will question YOUR OWN patriotism.  Consider this an integrity check.  How many of you will pass?

    Again, I am not surprised and generally not offended by the generic liberal bias of the mainstream media - it's become your trademark.  The use of this bias to denigrate, demonize, and undermine the efforts of our military forces and our Commander in Chief and his staff in a time of war, however, does offend me.  Your falling subscribership and ratings should tell you that many Americans are equally offended.  I call on you to examine your biases and your practices ... and start supporting our troops, our President, and our nation in a non-partisan manner.  Your political differences, as during World War II, should not be forgotten, but they should be put on the back burner when reporting on our war effort or national policies.

    Dr. Ted Miller
    Professor of Military Studies
    U.S. Air Force Academy, CO

    MEMORIAL DAY, 2004

     How Chinagate Led to 9/11
    The Gorelick Coverup

    By Jean Pearce
    FrontPageMagazine.com | May 25, 2004

    As the 9/11 Commission tries to uncover what kept intelligence agencies from preventing September 11, it has overlooked two vital factors: Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton. Gorelick, who has browbeaten the current administration, helped erect the walls between the FBI, CIA and local investigators that made 9/11 inevitable. However, she was merely expanding the policy Bill Clinton established with Presidential Decision Directive 24. What has been little underreported is why the policy came about: to thwart investigations into the Chinese funding of Clinton’s re-election campaign, and the favors he bestowed on them in return.

    In April, CNSNews.com staff writer Scott Wheeler reported that a senior U.S. government official and three other sources claimed that the 1995 memo written by Jamie Gorelick, who served as the Clinton Justice Department’s deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997, created "a roadblock" to the investigation of illegal Chinese donations to the Democratic National Committee. But the picture is much bigger than that. The Gorelick memo, which blocked intelligence agents from sharing information that could have halted the September 11 hijacking plot, was only the mortar in a much larger maze of bureaucratic walls whose creation Gorelick personally oversaw.

    It’s a story the 9/11 Commission may not want to hear, and one that Gorelick – now incredibly a member of that commission – has so far refused to tell. But it is perhaps the most crucial one to understanding the intentional breakdown of intelligence that led to the September 11 disaster.

    Nearly from the moment Gorelick took office in the Clinton Justice Department, she began acting as the point woman for a large-scale bureaucratic reorganization of intelligence agencies that ultimately placed the gathering of intelligence, and decisions about what – if anything – would be done with it. This entire operation was under near-direct control of the White House. In the process, more than a dozen CIA and FBI investigations underway at the time got caught beneath the heel of the presidential boot, investigations that would ultimately reveal massive Chinese espionage as millions in illegal Chinese donations filled Democratic Party campaign coffers.

    When Gorelick took office in 1994, the CIA was reeling from the news that a Russian spy had been found in CIA ranks, and Congress was hungry for a quick fix. A month after Gorelick was sworn in, Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 24. PDD 24 put intelligence gathering under the direct control of the president’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to govern (that is, stifle) intelligence sharing and cooperation between intelligence agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, intelligence sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare that required negotiating a befuddling bureaucracy that stopped directly at the President’s office.

    First, the directive effectively neutered the CIA by creating a National Counterintelligence Center (NCI) to oversee the Agency. NCI was staffed by an FBI agent appointed by the Clinton administration. It also brought multiple international investigations underway at the time under direct administrative control. The job of the NCI was to “implement counterintelligence activities,” which meant that virtually everything the CIA did, from a foreign intelligence agent’s report to polygraph test results, now passed through the intelligence center that PDD 24 created.

    NCI reported to an administration-appointed National Counterintelligence Operations Board (NCOB) charged with “discussing counterintelligence matters.” The NCOB in turn reported to a National Intelligence Policy Board, which coordinated activities between intelligence agencies attempting to work together. The policy board reported “directly” to the president through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

    The result was a massive bureaucratic roadblock for the CIA – which at the time had a vast lead on the FBI in foreign intelligence – and for the FBI itself, which was also forced to report to the NCOB. This hampered cooperation between the two entities. All this occurred at a time when both agencies were working separate ends of investigations that would eventually implicate China in technology transfers and the Democratic Party in a Chinese campaign cash grab.

    And the woman charged with selling this plan to Congress, convince the media and ultimately implement much of it? Jamie Gorelick.

    Many in Congress, including some Democrats, found the changes PDD 24 put in place baffling: they seemed to do nothing to insulate the CIA from infiltration while devastating the agency’s ability to collect information. At the time, Democrat House Intelligence Chairman Dan Glickman referred to the plan as “regulatory gobbledygook." Others questioned how FBI control of CIA intelligence would foster greater communication between the lower levels of the CIA and FBI, now that all information would have to be run through a multi-tier bureaucratic maze that only went upward.

    Despite their doubts, Gorelick helped the administration sell the plan on Capitol Hill. The Directive stood.

    But that wasn’t good enough for the Clinton administration, which wanted control over every criminal and intelligence investigation, domestic and foreign, for reasons that would become apparent in a few years. For the first time in Justice Department history, a political appointee, Richard Scruggs – an old crony or Attorney General Janet Reno’s from Florida – was put in charge of the Office of Intelligence and Policy Review (OIPR). OIPR is the Justice Department agency in charge of requesting wiretap and surveillance authority for criminal and intelligence investigations on behalf of investigative agencies from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. The court’s activities are kept secret from the public.

    A year after PDD 24, with the new bureaucratic structure loaded with administration appointees, Gorelick drafted the 1995 memo Attorney General John Ashcroft mentioned while testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The Gorelick memo, and other supporting memos released in recent weeks, not only created walls within the intelligence agencies that prevented information sharing among their own agents, but effectively walled these agencies off from each other and from outside contact with the U.S. prosecutors instrumental in helping them gather the evidence needed to make the case for criminal charges.

    The only place left to go with intelligence information – particularly for efforts to share intelligence information or obtain search warrants – was straight up Clinton and Gorelick’s multi-tiered chain of command. Instead, information lethal to the Democratic Party languished inside the Justice Department, trapped behind Gorelick’s walls.

    The implications were enormous. In her letter of protest to Attorney General Reno over Gorelick’s memo, United States Attorney Mary Jo White spelled them out: “These instructions leave entirely to OIPR and the (Justice Department) Criminal Division when, if ever, to contact affected U.S. attorneys on investigations including terrorism and espionage,” White wrote. (Like OIPR, the Criminal Division is also part of the Justice Department.)

    Without an enforcer, the walls Gorelick’s memo put in place might not have held. But Scruggs acted as that enforcer, and he excelled at it. Scruggs maintained Gorelick’s walls between the FBI and Justice's Criminal Division by threatening to automatically reject any FBI request for a wiretap or search warrant if the Bureau contacted the Justice Department's Criminal Division without permission. This deprived the FBI, and ultimately the CIA, of gathering advice and assistance from the Criminal Division that was critical in espionage and terrorist cases.

    It is no coincidence that this occurred at the same time both the FBI and the CIA were churning up evidence damaging to the Democratic Party, its fundraisers, the Chinese and ultimately the Clinton administration itself. Between 1994 and the 1996 election, as Chinese dollars poured into Democratic coffers, Clinton struggled to reopen high-tech trade to China. Had agents confirmed Chinese theft of weapons technology or its transfer of weapons technology to nations like Pakistan, Iran and Syria, Clinton would have been forced by law and international treaty to react.

    Gorelick’s appointment to the job at Justice in 1994 occurred during a period in which the FBI had begun to systematically investigate technology theft by foreign powers. For the first time, these investigations singled out the U.S. chemical, telecommunications, aircraft and aerospace industries for intelligence collection.

    By the time Gorelick wrote the March 1995 memo that sealed off American intelligence agencies from each other and the outside world, all of the most critical Chinagate investigations by American intelligence agencies were already underway. Some of their findings were damning:

    In an investigation originally instigated by the CIA, the FBI was beginning its search for the source of the leak of W-88 nuclear warhead technology to China among the more than 1,000 people who had access to the secrets. Despite Justice Department stonewalling and the Department’s refusal to seek wiretap authority in 1997, the investigation eventually led to Wen Ho Lee and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    The FBI first collected Extensive evidence in 1995 linking illegal Democratic Party donations to China, according to the Congressional Record. But Congress and the Director of the CIA didn’t find out about the Justice Department’s failure to act upon that evidence until 1997, safely after the 1996 election.

    According to classified CIA documents leaked to the Washington Times, between 1994 and 1997, the CIA learned that China sold Iran missile technology, a nuclear fission reactor, advanced air-defense radar and chemical agents. The Chinese also provided 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan, used in producing weapons-grade uranium. The Chinese also provided uranium fuel for India's reactors.  In many cases the CIA resorting to leaking classified information to the media, in an effort to bypass the administration’s blackout.

    Gorelick knew these facts well. While Clinton may have refused to meet with top CIA officials, Gorelick didn’t. According to a 1996 report by the legal news service American Lawyer Media, Gorelick and then-Deputy Director of the CIA George Tenet met every other week to discuss intelligence and intelligence sharing.

    But those in the Clinton administration weren’t the only ones to gain from the secrecy. In 1994, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation transferred military-use machine tools to the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation that ended up in the hands of the Chinese army. The sale occurred despite Defense Department objections. McDonnell Douglas was a client of the Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin, L.L.P. (now called Baker Botts), the Washington, D.C., law firm where Gorelick worked for 17 years and was a partner. Ray Larroca, another partner in the firm, represented McDonnell in the Justice Department’s investigation of the technology transfer.

    n 1995, General Electric, a former client of Gorelick’s, also had much to lose if the damaging information the CIA and the FBI had reached Congress. At the time, GE was publicly lobbying for a lucrative permit to assist the Chinese in replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear plants. A 1990 law required that the president certify to Congress that China was not aiding in nuclear proliferation before U.S. companies could execute the business agreement.

    Moreover, in 1995, Michael Armstrong, then the CEO of Hughes Electronics – a division of General Electric and another client of Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin – was publicly lobbying Clinton to switch satellite export controls from the State Department to the Commerce Department. After the controls were lifted, Hughes and another company gave sensitive data to the Chinese, equipment a Pentagon study later concluded would allow China to develop intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles aimed at American targets. Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin partner Randall Turk represented Hughes in the Congressional, State Department, and Justice Department investigations that resulted.

    The Cox Report, which detailed Chinese espionage for Congress during the period, revealed that FBI surveillance caught Chinese officials frantically trying to keep Democratic donor Johnny Chung from divulging any information that would be damaging to Hughes Electronics. Chung funneled $300,000 in illegal contributions from the Chinese military to the DNC between 1994 and 1996.

    It was this web of investigations that led Gorelick and Bill Clinton to erect the wall between intelligence agencies that resulted in the toppling of the Twin Towers. The connections go on and on, but they all lead back to Gorelick, the one person who could best explain how the Clinton administration neutered the American intelligence agencies that could have stopped the September 11 plot. Yet another high crime will have been committed if the September 11 Commission doesn’t demand testimony from her.

    *  *  *

    Remember:  it's not what's reported; it's what's repeated that people remember.  The media's rule is:  If the story hurts Bush .. repeat it over and over.  If the story helps Bush, bury it as quickly as possible.  This is an election year.
    * * *


    Why American Conservatives Should Reject the False Economics of Populism and Left-wing Union Propaganda and Continue to Support the Freedom of American Consumers to Freely Trade

    by Gary North

    Back in 1976, I was Congressman Ron Paul’s research assistant. I had contacts with other Congressional staffers on Capitol Hill. One evening, I attended an informal get-together in the Georgetown area. The host was a retired diplomat whose daughter worked in Senator Jesse Helms’ office. I had been invited by Howard Segermark, also a Helms staffer.

    One moment in the evening’s chit-chat has stuck in my mind ever since. In discussing free trade, one man, whom I had never met before, expressed his view of free trade. "Free trade is when you stick a .45 automatic to the temple of some Asian and tell him, ‘Gook, we’re going to trade . . . on my terms.’"

    I dismissed him as an ideological aberration. I don’t think he was on any Congressional staff. But, over the years, I have come to the conclusion that both conservatives and liberals share his view of free trade.

    The various multinational trade agreements that have been signed by the United States government, most notably those authorizing the control of the terms of trade by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), are essentially forced-trade agreements. They require private companies in each nation to meet production standards that are imposed by international bureaucracies. Reductions in tariffs and import quotas are accompanied by labor restrictions, pollution standards, and large printed volumes of other impositions. These restrict the operation of free markets. What appear to be reductions in government control (sales taxes and import limits) are accompanied by increases in government control (production codes). "The large print giveth, and the fine print taketh away."

    All participating nations are required by international law to interfere with voluntary transactions within each nation, as well as voluntary transactions across national borders. Officers of these nations must abide by the legal interpretations made by unelected international bureaucrats.


    There is a border down the middle of your street. Cars travel in one direction on one side of that border. They travel in the opposite direction on the other side. Laws govern the movement of cars on each side of the border, including that most powerful of laws, the law of inertia.

    We are taught from an early age to respect these laws. "Don’t run into the street," we are told from the time we can walk. "Look both ways before crossing" is another.

    The dividing border, which is usually marked by painted lines on asphalt, has nothing directly to do with trade or other communications between people living on each side of the street. If you want to offer to mow the lawn of someone who lives across the street, what does that have to do with highway safety laws governing drivers? Assuming that you don’t push your lawn mower in front of a passing car on either side of the dividing line, what business is it of your next-door neighbor or the non-mower’s next-door neighbor?

    The emotional power of a border can be very great. The border may divide two cultures, such as the border between Mexico and the United States does, or the border between India and Pakistan. But a person on one side of a culture-dividing border still may see an advantage in exchanging property or services with a person "just across the street."

    If a person on one side of a national border is allowed to cross the street and buy from the person on the other side, he knows that he must abide by the laws of the jurisdiction governing the other person. He takes this factor into consideration, or should if he wants to avoid legal problems. He counts the cost of compliance on the other side of the street. But for as long as he stays on his side of the border, he should not worry about what the laws are on the other side of the street. They do not apply to him.

    The problem comes when his political representatives or their agents decide to negotiate in his name with the politicians across the border. They seek to change the terms of trade. He will soon learn that the politicians on both sides of the border respond, not to consumers as voters, but to producers as campaign donors and bribers. Producers’ economic interests are highly focused. Consumers’ economic interests are not. Producers are skilled in the art of political lobbying. Consumers are not.

    The governments on both sides of the border hold the equivalent of that .45 automatic. Consumers do not. When an official holding a .45 sets the terms of trade, we "gooks" must either comply or face the consequences.


    Free trade begins with two people, each of whom sees the possibility of improving his circumstances by exchanging the legal ownership of assets with the other. Each wants to own what the other possesses. Each is willing to surrender something of value in order to obtain legal possession of what the other person legally possesses.

    The decision to buy and sell – one man’s "buy" is the other man’s "sell" – is made by the parties involved. Each assesses the value of that which he seeks to obtain and compares it to whatever he is willing to surrender.

    Next-door neighbors on one side of the street go through the same mental processes of value-assessment that across-the-street neighbors do. There is nothing about the line down the middle of the street that changes the mutual evaluation processes.

    But, say critics of free trade, a barbed wire border is different from a highway dividing line. This is true, physically speaking. Barbed wire can hurt you. But why does the composition of the dividing line make the process of buying and selling fundamentally different?

    Both borders mark legal differences. A highway dividing line marks the separation of cars travelling in opposite directions. A barbed wire border between nations imposes restrictions on the flow of people. But why should the flow of goods across a national border be different from the flow of goods across a highway border?


    Get on the internet. Type an address. You cannot be sure if the owner of the Web site lives in your town, your nation, or your hemisphere. A .com suffix tells you nothing about where the seller lives. Spelling on the Web page may reveal the background of the site’s owner, but the Web host server could be anywhere.

    There are no borders on the Internet. There are only addresses. A person can buy a report posted on a Web site and never know where the report writer lives, or where the server is, or where the seller’s bank is. He downloads the report onto his hard disk, never knowing where the original electrons are stored. He does not care.

    Politicians care. Politicians running Government A may not want its citizens to be able to obtain information from sites located in unfriendly countries, meaning political entities run by rival politicians. There are legal borders separating political entities that the Internet does not acknowledge. But politicians on both sides of these invisible borders acknowledge differences that the Internet ignores.

    Why should a politician in Nation A be granted the right to control the buying of electrons from people living in Nation B? What factors, morally or logically, authorize politicians in Nation A to restrict the purchase or sale of electrons across the nation’s border, when those same electrons may be legally exchanged by people who live inside Nation A? What does it matter where the seller’s site server is, or where I live, or where the seller lives, or what bank the seller uses?

    It matters to politicians. It matters to bureaucrats who are employed by the WTO. But since they can do very little about the flow of electrons on the Internet, they have kept in the background.

    When it comes to molecules rather than electrons, government officials do not stay in the background. When commerce moves from electrons to atoms, and especially to entire molecules, politicians and their agents insist on controlling the terms of trade. Violate these terms, and you risk facing a group of molecules in the shape of a .45 automatic.


    Molecules impose burdens on the environment, we are told – burdens not produced by electrons. So, governments impose restrictions on the production of certain molecules.

    Businesses in Nation A therefore face higher costs of production for certain molecules than businesses in Nation B face. Molecule producers in Nation A have higher costs of production. But if they raise prices, they lose business if consumers in Nation A are allowed to purchase similar products made in Nation B, where production costs are lower, and therefore sales prices are lower.

    So, when a consumer in Nation A seeks to purchase a product made in Nation B because the selling price is lower than a product made in Nation A, producers in Nation A complain to the government. "Nation B’s producers are taking advantage of you politicians, who have the best interests of our great nation at heart. They are selling goods at lower prices. Our people are being encouraged to harm the environment of Nation B, whose politicians are not far-sighted, the way you are. You must put a stop to this, for the sake of the world’s environment. You must defend Planet Earth. You must impose restrictions on the importation of goods produced in Nation B or any nation that does not enforce environmental laws. After all, we need a level playing field."

    This level playing field may be level on one side of the border, but it is elevated compared to playing fields on the other side of the border. So, the producers on the high side of the border ask their government to dump enough dirt at the border so that producers on the other side must spend a lot of money to climb up this added layer of dirt.

    Consumer A is now hit twice. He pays more for goods produced in his nation, and he pays more for goods produced in other nations. He is forced to accept the more expensive playing field because of the mountain of dirt – judicial barriers – at the border.

    Politicians can do this because molecules are less expensive for bureaucrats to monitor and control than electrons are.


    The fellow at that party had the idea that he, as an American, could put a .45 at the head of the Asian and get what he wanted at a price he was willing to pay. He forgot the obvious: a U.S. government trade official has a gun at his head, not the Asian’s head. The Asian is over there on his side of the border. The American is over here.

    Of course, there will also be an Asian bureaucrat with a gun at the Asian’s head.

    On each side of the border is an official who has a gun. The American bureaucrat has a gun at the American’s head, and the Asian bureaucrat has a gun at the Asian’s head.

    Occasionally, the American bureaucrat and the Asian bureaucrat shoot at each other, which is to say, they point a gun at their own people and tell them to get into uniform and go shoot the other people on the other side. World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War are examples.

    The problem with bureaucrats with guns is that they use them mainly on their own citizens. These citizens stand at the border and make offers to people on the other side. But there are bureaucrats on both sides of the border who point guns at their own people and tell them, "You can’t make that offer" and "You can’t accept that offer."


    The problem with conservatives who favor restrictions on cross-border trade is that they do not seem to recognize at whose head the .45 is pointed.

    * * *

    Charlie Daniels Versus Ted Kennedy
    & the Anti-American Liberal Media


    I would never mistreat one of my horses, one of my cows nor my dog or cat, much less mistreat another human being. Therefore I am just as shocked and outraged about the treatment of the prisoners in Iraq as anybody is.
    I think, no I know, it's deplorable and the people responsible should be sought out and punished.

    Now having said that let me say this.

    This thing has been blown so far out of proportion it's a wonder it doesn't explode.

    I was in Germany during the high point of the controversy and about the only English speaking channels I could get were BBC and CNN. Well take the anti-American position of CNN America and multiply it by ten, and then you've got CNN International.

    If the BBC represented, which it doesn't, the opinions of the majority of the British people we would have to consider England an enemy. It is so blatantly anti-American. They spent hours and hours on the Iraqi prisoner abuses. You would think that it was the only thing happening in the world.
    I heard one woman anchor ask, "Will the Americans ever be able to take the moral high ground again?"

    That's not only stupid, it's insulting and asinine. A handful of people out of a population of two hundred and sixty million plus go rogues and this ignorant wench condemns the whole nation? Should we condemn the whole of the British Isles because of Kim Philby, the English traitor who helped give Russia our nuclear secrets?

    I dare say his actions caused ten million times the pain and anguish than those of a few outlaw American soldiers.
    Where were you BBC and CNN when our American citizens were hung from a bridge and set on fire in Iraq? Where were you when Idi Amin was dragging our dead soldier around the dusty streets of Somalia?
    Did you devote hour after hour of coverage condemning the monsters? Did you continue to show the awful images almost non-stop and call in puffed up, so called experts to tell us just how bad the events were.
    Hell no you didn't.

    And you Ted Kennedy, you supercilious old gas bag, how dare you compare the acts of a few soldiers to the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein.

    Senator, in case you hadn't noticed no one died here. In fact your car has killed more people than these misguided soldiers did.
    We have 130,000 military personnel in Iraq. How many were involved in this atrocity? 10? 20? 30? And yet to listen to Kennedy and his ilk, or the major media you would think that they were all involved.
    Let's look at this thing for what it is. An isolated incident which does not in any way, shape or form represent the character of the fine young men and women who serve in our Armed Forces.

    This is the third time Senator Kennedy, but I'll extend the invitation again.
    How about you, me and a camera crew hopping on a plane and going over to Iraq and Afghanistan and talk to the men and women who are fighting the war, so you can get a little attitude adjustment? Or had you rather continue to be blinded to reality by your hatred of our Commander and Chief?
    Check your calander, we're trying to put a trip together for November.

    Pray for our troops.

    Charlie Daniels
    Copyright © 2004 Charlie Daniels
    All rights under copyright reserved. Used by permission.

    * * *

    I am very thankful that in these troubled times of terrorism and war that we don't have someone as emotionally unstable as Albert Gore or Howard Dean.  Gore has certainly demonstrated his unworthiness to be President in both his lack of judgement and general temperment.
    * * *
    The Latest Attack on Rush Limbaugh:-- Byron York on who's funding David Brock and why.
    Pakistan Test Fires Nuclear-Capable Missile

    The Clinton Legacy:  How Chinagate Led to 9/11

    Why Stay Vulnerable?

    Saddam Had WMDs; The Left Couldn't Care Less


      So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats. "Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million.
    But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club - those kicking in $1 million or more - the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts - $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats - the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent.

    In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money into Democratic causes, while a broad base of folks donated respectable [but not overwhelming] amounts to Republican candidates. That goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats' shallow support in the midterm elections, and should give an indication of which party's agenda has been hijacked by the big money-men.

    But it also sheds light on the president's first round of tax cuts - arguably the highest-profile domestic referendum in the midterm elections. We can't help but notice that only those who are so stinking rich that money doesn't matter supported the Democrats' opposition to tax cuts. Meanwhile, the many more who form the backbone of America's economy supported the Republicans. As the White House and congressional Republicans prepare a new tax package, we hope they bear that in mind. And just to show that there are no hard feelings, we'll still support tax cuts for the limousine liberals. With all that extra change in their pockets, maybe they'll put it to more productive uses than propping up the rejected policies of the Democratic Party.  --Washington Times

    Bush did not mention Chalabi or weapons of mass destruction for which some recent evidence was uncovered.  President Bush may believe it is expedient to turn to the United Nations to help with the transition to a more free iraq, but of all the mistakes Bush could have made that is perhaps the worst.  The United Nations is corrupt to the core and is not a friend of the United States or freedom.  The Oil for Food payoff schemes were administered by the Secretary-General's own son.  This does not bode well for an operation which has suffered several setbacks as well as several successes.  It almost seems to me as if Bush's Iraq policies are a sort of mixture of elements from two very different foreign policy perspectives from two very different factions within the administration.  Turning the administration of a post-Saddam Iraq over to UN control is a betrayal of the Iraqi people and any aspirations they might have for freedom under the rule of law.

    *   *   *

    Well, the "neo-conservatives" do seem to like him.  Here is Frank Gaffney's perspective:

    In Search of a Scapegoat

      (Washington, D.C.): Ahmed Chalabi has suddenly become a kind of Arabian piñata, presented to the world as everything from a con-man, felon and liar to the man who singlehandedly duped the U.S. government into invading Iraq on the basis of fraudulent intelligence and promises of a flower-strewn cake-walk. To the extent the Bush Administration is contributing to this transparent effort to find a scapegoat for its increasingly troubled Iraq policy - presumably, in the hope of improving the President’s sagging popularity here at home - it has made not only an epic strategic mistake, but a potentially costly political one, as well.

    A Strategic Error

    First, consider the ineptitude of trying to undermine Chalabi as a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and a force in Iraq’s future by, among other things, mounting a U.S.-backed raid on his home and offices, destroying property and stealing his Koran. Such high-handed and illegal behavior is seen by Iraqis as of a piece with the American misconduct now known the world over as "prison abuse." Call this variant "politician abuse."

    Even those in Iraq who might accept that only rogue military police officers were responsible for the former find it totally implausible that the take-down of Chalabi is other than an authorized power-play by a government already seen as unreliable and scarcely more committed to the rule of law than Saddam Hussein’s regime. We don’t exactly have a surfeit of friends in Iraq. It is hardly an incentive to those still on the fence to join our team when we publicly humiliate and punish people who have been our closest allies.

    An Iraqi Patriot’s Grounds for Discord

    One of the purported justifications for this ham-handed effort to take down Ahmed Chalabi is that he has been less and less of a U.S. ally in recent months. This ignores the fact that Chalabi is an Iraqi patriot, first and foremost, not the American puppet his critics make him out to be. As a University of Chicago-trained PhD, he believes passionately that the things that make this country great - our freedoms, values and democratic institutions - can make his own great, too. And it can credibly be argued that he did more over a longer period of time than any other Iraqi to give his countrymen the chance to put that proposition to the test.

    Imagine, then, the anger and frustration felt by an Iraqi patriot who sees such an opportunity being squandered, especially by those whom he has reason to believe are sacrificing his country’s long-term interests to U.S. domestic political expediency. If the situation were reversed, would an American patriot not be at odds with his sometime allies?

    This is especially true of the effort to fob off decisions critical to Iraq’s future onto the United Nations. Most Americans are clueless about the contempt felt not just by Chalabi but by millions of Iraqis for an organization that helped prop up the Butcher of Baghdad and perpetuate his reign of terror. Matters can only be made worse if the raid on Chalabi’s organization actually was designed to prevent the release of damning documents from Saddam’s era said to be in the Iraqi National Congress’ possession, documents that could further inflame the burgeoning UN Oil-for-Food scandal and raise more questions about UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi’s role in anointing a new, interim government.

    Long before Ahmed Chalabi became a critic of the Coalition Provisional Authority’s conduct and decisions - and a target of its enmity, however, he was reviled by the U.S. State Department and CIA. His determination to create a free and peaceable Iraq was anathema to these agencies’ other regional clients (notably, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and traditional modus operandi (consorting with "stabilizing" authoritarians, not untidy democrats). And for years before the liberation of Iraq, they worked to thwart his efforts to bring it about and to preclude his broadly representative umbrella group, the Iraqi National Congress, from becoming a powerful and legitimate alternative to Saddam.

    It is tragic that Chalabi’s advice was not heeded long ago. In 1998, he helped draft a plan that was embraced by a diverse group of policy-practitioners - many of whom now hold senior positions in the U.S. government (including not only the Defense Department’s Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, but Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage). This plan ultimately gave rise to the Iraq Liberation Act that was adopted by overwhelming, bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

    Had it been implemented, the present war might have proved unnecessary. At the very least, there would have been a provisional Iraqi government that could have taken over upon Saddam’s overthrow and invited us to help provide security, sparing us the costs (political, military and financial) of an occupation. Could that have been worse than what we have now?

    The Bottom Line

    Unfortunately, the decision to destroy Chalabi and the INC seems no more likely to help George W. Bush politically than to improve our situation on the ground in Iraq. After all, allowing Chalabi to be painted as someone who successfully duped the President is unlikely to reflect well on the man whose principal claim to reelection is his clear-eyed, visionary conduct of the war on terror.

    Mr. Bush should appreciate, moreover, that those savaging today’s scapegoat are after bigger game. Already, they claim that Chalabi’s success was due to the connivance of the Administration’s so-called "neo-conservatives." Were the President to succumb to the logic of throwing them to the same wolves as are now devouring Chalabi, Mr. Bush would only be ensuring that he, too, will be consumed in due course.

    *  *  *


    The Liberal-left Establishent's anti-Bush propaganda waves are getting even more deep and nasty than usual as the November elections approach.   Now we learn that the TV networks will ignore Presient Bush's speech on Iraq tonight in favor of airing such critically important programs as "Swan" and "who Loves Raymond?"!

    Contrary to what Democrat partisans would have us belive, Challabi was by no means the only source of information or claims about Saddam's W<Ds.  The fact that he was phony does not make other sources phony as well, and does not erase the facts about WMDs.  Iraq is a country as large as California.  Where the WMDs are may not be known for years.  They could be buried underground in Iraq -- or transported to Iran or Syria prior to the toppling of Saddam's regime.  But plenty of evidence exists for the WMDs even though the WMDs themselves have yet to be located.

    Media & Leftists Evade Acknowledging Recent Discoveries
    Iraqi Nerve Gas, WMD Find Blows Away Pundits
    by Charles R. Smith
    from NewsMax.com
    The discovery of an Iraqi artillery shell armed with nerve gas has the liberal community and mass media in a panic. The 155mm nerve gas shell was rigged to kill U.S. troops but it failed. U.S. Brig. General Mark Kimmitt confirmed the discovery during a news conference in Baghdad.

    Yet, the discovery of nerve gas was followed by a second revelation. A second shell, equipped with mustard gas was found two weeks ago.

    The mustard gas shell identified by the special WMD inspection team in Iraq appears to be one of 550 declared by Saddam to U.N. inspectors during the early 1990s. These shells disappeared later in 2002 when Hans Blix asked to see them.

    The sudden discovery of nerve gas and mustard gas in Iraq can be added to two other recent events ignored by the mainstream media.

    Saddam and Osama

    The first took place during the 9/11 hearings when former Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified that in 1998 Saddam's top nerve gas experts met with several members of al Qaeda in Baghdad. Clearly, such a meeting places the top terrorist with the leading Middle East dictator in the same basket. The dangerous combination of two madmen, mixed with weapons of mass destruction, seems to blow the "no threat here" argument out of the water.

    However, that is not enough for the left.

    The second event, a foiled gas attack in Jordan, piles more facts higher and deeper. The attack, led by Al Qaeda operatives, reportedly could have killed 20,000 people. The Jordanians were very clear about the foiled attack, the weapon involved was deadly gas and the terrorists, based in Iraq, entered by the Syrian border.

    Jordanian diplomats have informed me that the investigation into the foiled gas attack is still under way and that at least two other members of the terrorist team are still on the run. Still, this is not enough proof for the anti-war fanatics.

    Kill U.N. Teams

    It is very clear from what we have found so far that Iraq did have chemical weapons and was trying to hide its arsenal. The discrepancies between documentation, box markings and actual items found clearly show that an intentional effort was made by Iraqi troops to mislead U.N. inspection teams. In some cases false shipping documents written in English were discovered with the weapons.

    The effort to find chemical or biological weapons is being hampered by the vast quantity of conventional munitions stored under dangerous conditions. The Iraqi Army was well known for storing chemical weapons with its conventional explosives.

    The Iraqi program to hide its weapons programs from U.N. inspectors was no small effort. Aviation Week and Space Technology noted in an article published in September 2002 that Iraq went to great lengths to conceal its arms technology.

    According to Aviation Week, the Iraqis tried to destroy a German aircraft and its crew on a U.N. mission. The Iraqis were trying to prevent documents produced by the U.N. inspectors from leaving the country.

    The U.N. documents covered details found on Iraq's nuclear weapons programs and a blueprint for aggressive, military-backed, inspections to root out the underground WMD programs. The documents also contained "rough" details of Iraqi command authorities, weapons production and delivery systems.

    France and Russia

    Iraq did most of its killing using Russian-made MiG and Sukhoi aircraft equipped with chemical sprayers. In addition, Saddam used French-made artillery and helicopters to dump gas on the Iranians and his own people.

    The 155mm shell found outside of Baghdad airport was made for Iraq's arsenal of French made artillery. Clearly, the shell was designed to meet French military standards to fire and used advanced safety techniques to protect Iraqi gunners.

    It was that safety technique, of separating the nerve gas into two inert chemicals, and placing them in two chambers inside the shell, that foiled the terrorist attack. The "binary" chemical weapons design has a metal or plastic diaphragm designed to keep the two inert chemicals apart until the massive force or shock of firing it down a cannon bursts the wall, allowing the chemicals to mix.

    Ironically, the binary weapons design originated inside the former Soviet Union. Saddam Hussein rose to power backed by Russian weapons and Russian money. Saddam still owes Moscow over $8 billion for the arms he purchased from Russia.

    The primary Iraqi chemical weapons are nerve gas and mustard gas, a blistering agent, standard equipment for the 1980s Soviet era military machine.

    According to "Russian Military Power" published in 1982, "It is known that the Soviets maintain stocks of CW (chemical weapons) agents." The two primary Russian chemical weapons in the 1982 Soviet inventory were "nerve" gas and "blistering agents - developments of mustard gas used so effectively in World War I."

    Iraq obtained Russian chemical delivery systems and the same inventory of Russian made chemical weapons at the same time. Iraqi SU-22 Fitter attack jets have been armed with Warsaw Pact designed bombs filled with chemical weapons.

    Iraq used these Russian jet fighters to drop chemical weapons on Iranian troops during the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq tried to use these SU-22 jets during the 1991 Gulf war and was foiled by the allied air superiority.

    The Next Attack

    We are indeed fortunate that the two weapons discovered so far were not used correctly. However, it is clear, that much like cockroaches - when your find one it is an indication of many more. Saddam did not make just one - he made tons.

    Saddam had 220 tons of nerve gas, counted previously by U.N. inspectors that he could not declare to Hans Blix. The deadly gas, and the delivery systems, vanished into the Iraqi desert and points beyond.

    U.S. satellite's detected large convoys of unspecified equipment flowing over the Iraqi/Syrian border just prior to the war. The General in charge of our space assets has publicly noted the photos showing what appeared to be weaponry passed from Iraq to Syria.

    We all know from the anti-war fanatics that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - the leftist media and pundits have pounded that assertion into the American TV fact file. We are told again and again that George Bush lied.

    The recent discovery of nerve gas and mustard gas in Iraq is clearly proof that it was Saddam Hussein that was lying. Saddam lied about his weapons and has hidden more than one for future use.

    The fact is the left will not be satisfied with the recent discovery. How many need to be found - two - ten - a thousand? The left does not feel that any number of these dangerous weapons reaches the level of adequate proof.

    Yet, the one important question they will not answer is: How many have to die from such a weapon to qualify?


    Getting It Wrong:  Robert J. Bidinotto Exposes Wm. F. Buckley's Most Recent Self-Serving Revisionism

    Vice President Cheney Fires Back At "Anti-War" Critics

    Paul Crespo on "Democracy and Free Markets versus Socialism and Pacifism"  Here is a guy who is finally beginning to "get it" -- to know the difference between his Left and his Right.  I may "nit pick" on his use of the term "democracy" instead of constitutional republic, but his observations in this piece are otherwise essentially correct and I am gratified that someone is saying in syndicated print what I have known and been saying for over thirty years. My only real criticism is that he seems to give the GOP a bit more credit for being truly conservative than some of its members deserve.

    Neo-CONNED!  This controversial exposition warns against an alleged conspiracy by "neocons" to turn the U.S. into a fearsome force of global imperialism.  Though this speech was delivered in Congress on July 10 by Representative Ron Paul of Texas, some have speculated that perhaps it was written for him by Llewellen Rockwell or Justin Raimondo since the material closely parallels themes on Rockwell's website.  I generally concur with Congressman Paul, who is the most libertarian member of either house of Congress, but I do not share all of his concerns expressed here.

    Congress Blasts Intelligence Failures Revealed in 9-11 Report

    Krauthammer provides valuable perspective in the war against terrorism.

    "Killing the Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs" by Mona Charen Conservative Republicans blast Bush for Mediscare cave.

    Calif. Democrats Caught Trying to Further Sabotage the Economy and Blame it On Others; Didn't Know Microphone Was On!

    To make sure you get the latest in Eddie's Rants & Raves, use your "refresh" or "reload" button on your web browser.

    You may help support this website with a voluntary contribution.
    amount To help support this site, choose the amount at left and click the Donate button below. Thank you!

    A Few Selected Links
    Talk Radio Station Program Schedules -- Los Angeles Area

    Recommended Books & Tapes

    Dr. Jack Wheeler's To the Point Intelligence Bulletin

    stratfor.com (a digest of global intelligence)

    The Gertz File

    Jane's Flashpoints


    Center for Security Policy (Frank Gaffney, Jr.)

    Cliches of Politics

    What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen  by Frederic Bastiat

    *   *   *

    SOS Home
    This Support Our Soldiers site owned by
    Eddie at Laissez-FaireRepublic.com.
    Want to join Support Our Soldiers?

    "Never letting the military forget we care."

    [ Previous 5 Sites | Previous | Next | Next 5 Sites | Random Site]
    Why not send a letter to a deployed service member? 

    Get politics out of education.


      You may leave comments, questions, or even rude remarks via the form below:

    Email Address : 
    Positive Feedback : 
    Negative Feedback :