Friday, October 29

'Misleading America'

Those are supposedly the words of Osama bin Laden, in a brand new videotape released today. Bush 'misled America.'

Interesting words. The same words that the Democrats and other enemies of George Bush have been uttering for 12 months.

Here's an important question to ask yourself. Which side are you on?

Do you agree with the President? Do you agree that it is important to protect America and Americans at all costs? Even if it means pre-emptive wars?

Or do you side with the Democrats, the Liberal press, Europe and Osama bin Laden and say that Bush is 'misleading America?'

RFL Election 2004: Red State Preview

AL (9)
AR (6)
AZ (10)
CO (9)
GA (15)
ID (4)
IN (11)
KS (6)
KY (8)
LA (9)
MO (11)
MS (6)
MT (3)
NC (15)
NE (5)
ND (3)
NM (5)
NV (5)
OK (7)
SC (8)
SD (3)
TN (11)
TX (34)
UT (5)
VA (13)
WV (5)
WY (3)

I suck at math, but I think that totals 232. I also believe that the President will win all of the 'Toss Up' states, which include the following:

FL (27)
IA (7)
MN (10)
NH (4)
OH (20)
PA (21)
WI (10)

If correct, the 'Toss Ups' combined with the earlier total of 232 would give Bush 331 electoral votes.

RFL Election 2004: Blue State Preview

CA (55)
CT (7)
DC (3)
DE (3)
IL (21)
MD (10)
MA (12)
NY (31)
RI (4)
VT (3)
ME (4)
NJ (15)
OR (7)
WA (11)

That totals 186 electoral votes.

Call me crazy, but at this point, I don't think Kerry will win any of the 'Toss Up' states.

RFL Senate Spotlight 2004: DeMint Vs. Tenenbaum (SC)

Represenative Jim DeMint appears to be cruising to an easy victory in the South Carolina Senate race. I'm thrilled at the prospect of grabbing Ernest Hollings' seat. It's way past time that old bastard retired.

The only thing I've ever heard DeMint's opponent, Inez Tenebaum, South Carolina's Superintendent of Education, say was that DeMint advocated higher taxes, which is completely untrue. A Republican for higher taxes? C'mon.

Looks like the voters ain't buying either, because DeMint has opened up an 8 point lead.

Bush's IQ Is Higher Than Kerry's

Now, actual proof. Even if it is in the NYT.

Uncovering The Myth

I've never believed John Kerry was a hero in Vietnam. There's simply too many people, over the past thirty years that have challenged Kerry's claims.

O'Reilly Settles

Have you heard that the woman accussing Talk Show Bill of harrassment is somehow aligned with Loony Lib Al Franken?

Missing WMD, Democratic Desperation & Voter Fraud

The Democrats have been telling us that there were no WMD in Iraq, that the war was illegal, that Bush rushed to judgement.

Now that Kerry is behind in the polls, SUDDENLY there were WMD in Iraq after all AND Bush LOST THEM!

Oh the mental gymnastics one must engage in to be a Democrat in 2004. Complete hyprocrisy!

History certainly does repeat itself. Kerry, provided aid and comfort to our enemies during the Vietnam war. He's doing the same damage today, criticizing our troops on the ground in Iraq.

Unless the Democrats have created new ways to cheat, I smell a Bush victory next Tuesday.

Thursday, October 28

The Case For The Electoral College

Abolishing the electoral college is the issue de jour among many Democrats this election cycle. Ironically, the party that wants to 'count every vote' actually wants to disenfranchise 60% of the electorate!

Just imagine a map of the United States. I think we're all familiar with the Red State, Blue State thing by now. If not, the Blue States are those that were carried by Al Gore in 2000. New York, California, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, among others.

The electoral votes of a particular state are directly tied to the population of that state. California has the biggest population, so it gets 55 electoral votes, more than any other state. New York, casts 31 electoral votes. Texas has 34. Florida, 27. And Pennsylvania kicks in 21.

By contrast, states with significantly smaller populations like Hawaii, New Mexico, Maine, Idaho and Nebraska have electoral votes of 4, 5, 4, 4 and 5, respectively.

Two weeks after every Presidential election, the electors in each state get together and vote for the candidate that won 270 electoral votes on election day. Every voter who casts a ballot has a say about who the President will be. As such, candidates seeking the Presidency must run a national campaign to appeal to people in every region of the country to win.

Abolishing the electoral vote and electing Presidents by a straight popular vote would ensure that future Presidential campaigns would focus exclusively on those states with huge populations and ignore just about everyone else. A candidate could then win the Presidency without running a national campaign and without appealing to a majority of the electorate.

Which is exactly why the Democrats want to amend the Constitution.

CNNfn R.I.P.

Damn. The only good thing about CNN--CNNfn, it's business-only sister channel--is dead.

Terrorists Prefer Democrats

Muslim Americans fear the Patriot Act and over 90% are planning to vote for Kerry. Just another great reason to vote for W.

Wrong War?

It amazes me that so many of you have such a difficult time connecting the dots on the War On Terror, specifically with regard to Iraq.

The torture, the genocide, the depravity of what Saddam was doing to his own people has not gotten the attention it deserves. Here's a passage from 'Misunderestimated' by Bill Sammon:

'Saddam had a sadistic streak a mile wide. He favored firing squads, hangings, poison, bombs and mafia style assasinations. His victims were beaten, whipped, burned, frozen, shocked and sodomized. Fingers, arms and legs were chopped off by specially designed machines. Genitals were zapped with electric wires. Toenails, fingernails, teeth and facial hair were ripped out with pliers. Prisoners were hung upside down and dipped into vats of acid or boiling water. Some were thrown off the roofs of tall buildings. Men were made to watch as their wives and daughters were raped and then killed. Women were forced to listen to the wails of their sadistically starved babies. Ordinary Iraqis disappeared in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. Or their bodies simply showed up on the side of some lonely desert road.'

President Bush is a great humanitarian for liberating Iraq. He deserves praise and respect for his courageous leadership.

Another Bad Decision

The final nail was driven into John Kerry's campaign coffin on Monday when his campaign prematurely seized on the erroneous NYT story about 380 tons of 'missing' explosives in Iraq.

Wait. 'Seizing' isn't the word considering that the Kerry's entire campaign is now all Iraq, all the time. They are so desperate, they don't seem to realize how fast they are sinking and pathetic they look.

They talked about the NYT piece non-stop on Monday. They worked all night on a new TV spot for release on Tuesday. Wednesday's subject? The missing exposives. Don't they have anything else to talk about?

Today is Thursday. Election day is six days away. What is Kerry talking about? A bogus, and now widely discredited story, from a hyper-partisan, much discredited newspaper.

Everything Kerry says and does seems to further underscore the fact that he has incredibly poor judgement. How anyone with a brain, any thinking person possibly think that John Kerry is qualified to be President of the United States?

RFL Senate Spotlight 2004: Murkowski Vs. Knowles (AL)

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski is in a big re-election fight against former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles.

Knowles, in new polls, has a lead of anywhere from 2-6 points.

Apparently, her father, another former Alaska Governor, Frank, is a big liability. So much, in fact, that Murkowski's campaign signs say only "Lisa!"

So check out "Lisa's!" website and send Senator Murkowski back to DC.

Tuesday, October 26

Andrew Sullivan Takes The Gay Bait

Andrew Sullivan is a tremendous writer. I've had, until today, huge respect for him and his political views. For those of you unfamiliar with him, he's a British journalist, the editor of The New Republic, and one of the most influential bloggers around. And he's gay.

He endorsed Bush in 2000 and I've largely agreed with his takes on virtually everything that has occurred on the world stage the last four years. Sullivan has been extremely pro-Bush during this entire period, and he has blogged from time to time about the grief he gets regularly from his Liberal buddies.

Now take a read of the paragraph below from today's column on Sullivan writes:

"Kerry has actually been much more impressive in the latter stages of this campaign than I expected. He has exuded a calm and a steadiness that reassures. He is right about our need for more allies, more prudence, and more tactical discrimination in the war we are waging."

What campaign have you been watching, Andrew? What exactly about John Kerry could you or anyone describe as steady? He changes positions every day. Day to day, his campaign is the definition of undisciplined. He has no 'plan' contrary to his frequent claims to the contrary. He just meanders from one criticism to another.

Kerry insults our allies, diminishes their contributions and sacrifices. How exactly will Kerry explain away his 'coerced and bribed' comments to our allies? Will he just tell the 54 nations that are fighting with us in the War On Terror that he didn't mean what he said? Will he just attempt to excuse his words as campaign rhetoric? Yeah. 'I'm the new President. Take my word. You can trust me.'

'Tactical discrimination?' What does that mean? Does that mean that a President Kerry will fight 'a more effective, more sensitive' war on terror? Does that mean he would confer more with France, Germany, Russia, China and his good buddies at the United Nations?

To me, tactical discrimination means that a President Kerry will be a coward. It means that instead of being a clear headed, decisive leader, he will debate every side of every issue repeatedly, until either we've been attacked or the threat facing us is so imminent that it is too late to take action.

If history is any guide Andrew, Kerry, like Carter and Clinton before him, will not be nearly as aggressive protecting the homeland. He will cut and run from Iraq, destablizing the entire Middle East. As a result, the United States will be immediately more vulnerable to attacks.

If history is any guide, Kerry will raise taxes, which will sink the economy. Then he will sign the Kyoto Treaty, which will permanently kill our economy.

The election of Kerry will send a very dangerous message to the world. That message will be this. 'Hey. We were wrong. The strategy of pre-emption was wrong. And we're sorry. We are so damn sorry. We just don't know what we were thinking, electing that dumb Bush guy. Please, pretty please will everyone like us again? We just want to be liked again.'

I don't believe that you are thinking about the ramifications of your endorsement, Andrew. What I do think is that you, and many other gay people, are simply responding to what I can only describe as Kerry's shameful gay baiting.

More than anything else, your sexuality, defines, clouds and perverts your world view. And more than anything else, being gay and having a President that will positively reinforce your existence as a gay man, in your mind, trumps the safety of 280 million people.

How, I wonder, could I have ever respected the opinion of a gay man? You're not even intelligent enough to understand what to do with your penis.

Vive Le Hilton!

It seems like we'll always have Paris...

Clinton & Kerry

John Kerry, speaking to supporters yesterday in Philadelphia, praised Bill Clinton for keeping America safe for eight years.

Yeah. Clinton, along with his Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick are the ones responsible for 9/11. Keeping us safe, my ass!

But when he said that, the huge Philly crowd erupted with applause and cheers. Unbelievable! Cheering the man directly responsible for the worst terrorist attack in American history!!

We truly are a nation of idiots. How else to possibly explain that, seven days from an election, an empty suit like Kerry, a man of zero achievements, is tied neck and neck with President Bush?

I think I'll answer my own question. The press. I know I've really been picking on the mainstream media today but let me vent. The Left wing press has been carrying water for Kerry all year long.

This is a guy that has never faced a tough question about his Senate voting record. This is a guy that has never been asked a hard question about his extremely murky military record. This is a candidate that has gotten a pass from the press since he became his party's nominee.

Contrast that with the coverage afforded to President Bush. Everyday, we've seen what I can only describe as bullshit story after bullshit story attempting to portary Bush as ill equipped to manage, too idiotic to lead, too unreliable to be believed.

Here's a big case in point: Bush's National Guard service. Every single document related to his service has been released to the press. And yet we are treated to periodic probes that insinuate improper activity by Bush.

John Kerry has yet to release his military records. He has yet to directly deny the charges leveled against him by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. And he very well might be elected our President a week from today.

Patriot Act: Misinformation Part II

Ashcroft asserts, in this morning's WSJ, that both the NYT and Washington Post, were forced to print corrections after falsely reporting that an 'important surveillance provision' of the Patriot Act had been overturned by a Federal Judge.

I choose to believe Ashcroft, mainly because his legion of critics have been unable to tarnish his veracity as AG. And this is not for lack of effort.

The press, true to form, has been on the front line of the mythology of what the Patriot Act isn't. As such, I cannot find, after searches on both Google and Yahoo, any evidence of printed corrections by the NYT or the WP regarding recent rulings on the 1986 Leahy sponsored ECPA.

Patriot Act: Misinformation Part I

Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of the most falsely accused men in history, has a great opinion piece in today's WSJ, acknowledging the third anniversary of the Patriot Act. I'd link the story here, but I realize most of you aren't likely subscribers to WSJ Online.

Suffice it to say that Ashcroft is going to vigorously defend his tenure as AG. As such, he's a big proponent of the much maligned Patriot Act and is, like me, extremely frustrated by the mountain of misinformation advanced by the Leftist Media.

You may remember about a month ago a federal judge in New York overturning an 'important surveillance provision' of the Patriot Act. It turns out that the judge, Victor Marrero, did no such thing. In fact, as Ashcroft points out today, Judge Marrero, ruled on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, authored in 1986 by Senator Pat Leahy, (D, VT).

This Act has nothing to do whatsoever with the Patriot Act. But by purporting that key provisions of the Patriot Act have been overruled by a federal judge, the increasingly Left wing Media has a 'story' that dovetails nicely with their false agenda.

The link below, published 10.4.04, is a great example.

RFL Senate Spotlight 2004: Coors Vs. Salazar (CO)

Again, I urge Republicans to pay close attention to several Senate races around the country. The GOP holds such a slim majority every seat is critical.

In Colorado, Republican Beer Mogul Pete Coors is defending retiring Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell's seat. The challenger, Ken Salazar is another tax and spend phony Liberal.

Beer me.

October Surprise Reporting

I wonder if Mary Mapes is behind this story too?

Bogus Reporting

I didn't comment yesterday about the NYT story alledging that the Bush Administration lost 380 tons of explosives in Iraq. And for good reason. It was a bogus story. Surprise, surprise.

The day after the liberation of Iraq, April 10, 03 NBC News, embedded with the Army's 101 Airborne Division, reported that while the Army found large quantities of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the extra powerful explosives now in question.

But that didn't stop the Times, that paragon of journalistic virtue, from attempting to further assist the desperate KE04 Campaign by advancing the lie that Bush has badly mishandled the Iraqi war.

Additionally, there are clear links between the bogus NYT story and the UN. According to the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, they first learned that the explosives had vanished two weeks ago by the Iraqi Government. Apparently this was the fault of improper security by American forces.

Let's recall that Mohamed ElBaradei, former wingman of international idiot arms inspector Hans Blix, is also the head of the IAEA. He is hoping to remain in that position but the White House has made their opposition well known.

Isn't it just too coincidental that this news comes out a week from an election?

Monday, October 25

Ohio Dems: Voter Fraud 101

Democrats have been busy registering new voters like 'Dick Tracy' and 'Mary Poppins.'

Can we really take the Democrats seriously when they are being exposed daily as cheats and liars?

FDR and Truman must be rolling over in their graves at the current state of the once great Democratic Party.


The mainstream press adores John Zogby. He's THE pollster in the minds of many.

If the 'Z Man' is to be believed, it looks like a big Bush victory next Tuesday.

P.S. Zogby works for Kerry.

When Bush Is Re-Elected

The Liberal Media elites are getting really worried.

Bush (Still Up) In The Polls

Scott Rasmussen, the most inaccurate pollster of 2000, has Kerry up two points.

Dubya is trending everywhere, even Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, even Michigan.

Check out this excellent analysis from Real Clear Politics.

The Kiss Of Death

So whaddaya know? Bill Clinton stumped for Kerry today in Philly. One question.


Philadelphia is going to go for Kerry, no matter what. As the link below points out, Kerry is not doing well with black voters. This appearance is meant to stop the wholesale defections of black voters to Bush/Cheney.

But not so fast. Clinton, since leaving the White House, has proven time and again to be a liability on the campaign trail.

Think back. In 02, every congressional candidate Bill advocated lost. In 03, he endorsed my former Governor, the incompetent Gray Davis. Remember how that one turned out? Clinton also went to Florida and campaigned against Jeb Bush. Bush won.

Could it be that Clinton might sink Kerry this time around? One thing for sure, it can't hurt Bush.

Saturday Night In L.A., Good Eatin' + Gays Love Edwards

Saturday night, after shrimp risotto, I found myself standing on a street corner in North Hollywood. Now I'm not one to listen in on other people's conversations. That's just not me. Besides, it's rude. My mom raised me better than that.

But...I couldn't help overhearing the conversation between three people about John Kerry. One of the people, a guy, was a waiter at the restaurant where I had just eaten. It went something like this:

'If Bush wins, I'm moving to Europe...'

'You know, Kerry is up in all the swing states...'

'The drug companies have numbed everyone to reality. Everyone's afraid...'

'Chris Matthews says...'

It took quite a bit of self control NOT to inject myself into this conversation. I wanted to say something like, 'Start packing your crap, dude,' 'Got any drugs?' or 'Your restaurant sucks!'

Instead, I walked to my car and headed to a bar with a group of friends. I talked to some hot women, had a few Heinekens and watched the Red Sox commit four errors before beating the Cardinals and taking a 1-0 lead in the World Series.

Across the room, I noticed a guy wearing a tshirt with the likeness of John Edwards on the front. I couldn't tell what the caption under the image said and didn't much care. But later on, I found myself standing next to the guy. You know what his shirt said?

'John Edwards Is Hot.'


If Hawaii, a Democratic state every election, is trending toward Bush, what do you think that says about John Kerry?

Judicial Advocacy

Bush speaks regularly about judicial advocacy on the campaign trail. When he says that he refers to the tendency of Democrats to appoint judges that want to rewrite the constitution. They 'legislate from the bench.' By contrast, Republicans appoint judges that follow the laws already in place.

This is a key election issue. Stated simpy, as a voter, do you want judges making up laws to fit their rulings or do you want judges to craft their decisions in accordance to existing law?

Whichever candidate becomes President next January most likely will be filling at least three vacancies on the Supreme Court.

Friday, October 22

More Oil For Food

A pity that the Oil For Food scam isn't getting more mainstream press attention.

Tuesday, October 19

NRO: Battleground Analysis

I don't have much time today to opine, but I thought you all would enjoy this amazing Battleground Roundup from National Review Online.

Getting Into The Bushes

African American support for the President is on the upswing.

American Media: President Kerry

CNN's HOWARD KURTZ: "It is a tight race. Do you believe that most reporters want John Kerry to win?"
NEWSWEEK'S EVAN THOMAS: "Yeah, absolutely."
KURTZ: "Do you think they're deliberately tilting their coverage to help John Kerry and John Edwards?"
THOMAS: "Not really."
KURTZ:"Subconsciously tilting their coverage?"
KURTZ:"Including at Newsweek?"
KURTZ:"You've said on the program 'Inside Washington' that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as young and optimistic, that's worth maybe 15 points. That would suggest."
THOMAS:"Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. I do think that the mainstream press, I'm not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don't thin k it's worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say."
KURTZ:"Is it worth five?"
THOMAS:"Maybe, maybe."
(CNN's Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004)

Election Reform

It's time for the Federal Government to get serious about election reform.

National standards must be developed to oversee:

Voter Registration--Establish a national deadline to register. No exceptions. No excuses.

Voter Identification--Types of ID that must be shown, drivers' license, Social Security No ID, no voting.

Poll Worker Education--Professional, licensed, paid poll workers to manage the entire process.

Vote Counting--Like it sounds. Counting the votes, straight up. No more trying to determine 'intent' of the voter. Each individual ballot would be a legally binding document. Tampering would result in prison time.

Standardized Ballots--One ballot for all 50 states.

Standardized Voting Machines--One voting machine for all 50 states.

Oil For Food: Cash For Saddam & The UN

Once again proving that they are the only media American media outlet that is willing to do actual reporting, the Fox News Channel aired a remarkable expose on the UN’s Oil For Food program on Sunday night.

Bush Up In The Polls

A spate of new polling is out which shows President Bush, not Senator Kerry, with the momentum with 15 days until the general election.

Newsweek, Zogby, Rasmussen, Time, USA Today, CNN, Gallup, all show Bush with leads from 2-8 points.

Reading Is Fundamental (Part 2)

The hair on the back of your neck will stand up when you read ‘Shadow Wars’ by Richard Miniter. This is a very important book, because it offers a different account of Afghanistan, Iraq and Al Qaeda.

The fact is that we are kicking butt in the War On Terror. Since 01, we’ve killed over 3,000 Al Qaeda members. We’ve cut off Al Qaeda funding around the globe. We have expanded law enforcement capability with the Patriot Act. We have pre-emptively attacked our enemies before they have had the opportunity to hit America and Americans. We have broaded and expanded the battlefield to South East Asia and North Africa and the Mediterranean, and we are winning the war in the air, on the ground, on the sea and in space.

How have we done this exactly? We’ve done it through extraordinary alliances with countries all over the world. Morocco, Sudan, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Singapore, Yemen, Malaysia, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Turkey among others.

One great story from ‘Shadow Wars’: The President of Yemen visited Bush at the White House in early 02. He had expressed optimism that Bush’s resolve to fight terror around the globe had waned. Sitting face to face with the President, the Yemini leader spoke of a Muslim proverb involving a cat. Some BS about 'a wise cat.' President Bush, never one to mince words, replied that ‘the cat has fleas and we must cut off its head.’

As a result of that meeting, Yemen became a partner with the United States in the War effort. This relationship immediately yielded fruit as Yemen became a staging ground for American Predator drone missions, which resulted in the deaths of the Al Qaeda terrorists who bombed the USS Cole in 2000.

Miniter also explains, in vivid detail, the Madrid Train bombings on March 11, 2004 and how the Spanish press, four days later, helped to sway public opinion by reporting false information and elect a Socialist Government.

Before reading this book, I haven't paid much attention to this atrocity, I admit. Reading the account of the attacks in this book is chilling. You really get a sense of how terrible it was that morning. You also get a detailed explanation of Spanish terror group ETA, their decades-long history of terror, their attempts on the life of Jose Maria Aznar, Aznar's the attempts to crack down on the group, and how in the hours immediately after the attacks all signs pointed indeed to ETA as the perpetrator of these heinous acts.

‘Shadow Wars’ underscores the threats, the all too real threats our nation faces on a daily basis. Anyone who reads this book will see how important it is that we re-elect President Bush.

Reading Is Fundamental (Part 1)

I spent my weekend immersed in two books. These are books I highly recommend for you.

First, Hugh Hewitt has written what I would characterize as a handbook to American Political History/Modern Political Activism. ‘If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat,’ spells out the history of Democratic political machinery, from Tammany Hall in New York, Pendergast from Kansas City and Daley in Chicago.

These historical figures created and invented the art of obtaining and retaining political power and have been mastered with panache by modern politicos. Clinton and the Chinese in 1996; Gore, with the military absentee ballots in Florida in 2000; and the Ninth Circuit and the California Gubernatorial Recall in 2003.


But even better was my discovery that Hewitt and I seem to be political soulmates. For as long as I can remember, I have held as a core conviction that the most important word in politics is Majority. Without majorities, political party success is impossible.

The GOP controls both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate. My friend, Congressman JD Hayworth of Arizona, is a part of the majority in the House. The party with the majority is the party with the power. The majority party gets to pass the bills and control the legislative agenda.

In other words, the majority is all that matters. Winning is all that matters.

This fact became clear to me a long time ago. I vote based on which candidate I believe has the best chance to win. I might not agree with the best candidate 100% of the time on every issue. But to me, the most important thing is winning. Argue specifics later.

A great example of this was the recent California Recall. There really was only one serious Republican candidate: Arnold Schwarzenegger.

But a great many people in my party held a dim view of Arnold because of his liberal stance of most social issues, like abortion, gay marriage and the environment. To these people, State Legislator Tom McClintock provided a ‘purer Republican’ candidate.

What the hell good is it if a candidate can't win?

Tom McClintock is a great guy. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Tom. But as much as I like Tom personally, he didn’t have a chance to be the Governor of California. And yet, some narrow-minded people in my party cast their votes for McClintock anyway, preferring a Democrat over Schwarzenegger.

When you vote think of the Big Picture. Think about how to build majorities. If you focus on the small stuff, you're destined to become a minority.

54 Flags

Did you know that @ US Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, that 54 flags fly? It’s true. Those 54 flags represent the 54 nations that are engaged, with America, in the global War On Terror.

Dammit. I wish Bush hadn't acted alone.

Cracking Up

Those wacky Democrats! Register new voters in Ohio, get yourself some Crack.

High Maintenence

Nice hair. Now, what can we do about that juicy mole on your upper lip?

Friday, October 15

Level Fallujah

It's about time we got serious about pummeling Zarqawi and the insurgency. Blow up the mosques, too.

American Idiots

Yes, the world hates America. They always have. The Democrats are just waking up to this fact.

Sure, the French were 'all Americans' for, like, five days. Then they started hating us again.

And yet we hear all these stupid Liberals talk about how Bush 'squandered all the good feelings' the world had for us immediately after 9/11.


A Bad Rap

Rapper KRS-One celebrated when planes hit the World Trade Center.

Thursday, October 14

MS. Is BS.

I did the post mortem on Debate # 3. I watched CNN. As if I didn't already know that Bush had won the look on Judy Woodruff's face told me all I needed to know.

Then when I turned to MSNBC I almost didn't recognize Chris Matthews. He wasn't yelling. It was as if the President's strong debate performace had on calming effect. 'Hardball' was rather flacid.

On Fox, Greta Van Susteren was interviewing Elaine Lafferty, the editor of Ms. Magazine. Greta asked Lafferty whom she thought won the debate. 'Oh, Kerry was wonderful,' and 'He's so strong on women's issues.' When asked about the President's record on women's issues the smile on Lafferty's face changed. She suddenly looked like she was constipated.

'The Bush Administration is just so anti-women. They've been terrible on women's issues.'

Hey Elaine. What about the fact that, thanks to George Bush, more women in the Middle East can now go to school? What about the fact that thanks to Bush, the President you think is so 'anti-woman,' more women now can vote? What about the fact that, thanks to the policies of the Bush Administration, fewer Middle Eastern women are being killed and raped?

Really Elaine. You and your elite feminist friends are the people that are anti-women. You've brainwashed an entire generation of women into thinking that killing unborn babies is a viable 'choice.'

Call me crazy but I happen to think that the new freedoms being enjoyed by women in Afghanistan and Iraq are much more important than your right to spread your legs without consequence.

Mary Cheney 'Outed' By Tolerant Democrats

The more Democrats continue to insult and offend, the lower their poll #'s go.

Whatever Happened To Journalism?

When I went to J school, I was taught to always remain objective. My opinion was never to creep into the story. The story, the subject, the event or events was always to stay the focus of the reporting.

Today, whenever I watch television news or read a newspaper, I'm inevitably left shaking my head, amazed, at the level of commentary injected into what should be a straight-forward presentation. What I see scares me because we are not getting the information we should be getting. What we get is a filtered assembly of what about a dozen 'journalists' want us to see or read. What we get is a hybrid of stories that a select few deem 'news.'

ABCCBSCNNNBC all look and sound the same. It's easy to understand how Fox News is so popular. Thank goodness for the web.

But I must say that the coverage of the Presidential campaign has reached an entirely new level of inobjectivity. I've followed political campaigns for 24 years and I've never seen the press corps do less analysis on the issues. I've never seen such deliberate omission of world events from coverage. I've never witnessed such shameless partisanship--the media is openly cheering for Kerry.

The WSJ points out this morning in an op-ed by Richard Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-1999 and member of the Iraq Survey Group, how the media has completely ignored the facts of the Duelfer Report. Charles Duelfer, who presented the ISG's report to Congress two weeks ago, spoke of the fact that Saddam Hussein was producing 'chemical nerve agents, sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, ricin, aflatoxin, and other unspecified biological agents.'

Duelfer asserts that Iraq 'had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the the United States and Europe.'

'Ricin was being developed into stable liquid to deliver as an aerosol.' Sounds like WMD to me.

Was Iraq supporting terrorism? Yes. Non-Iraqi's were trained at Salman Pak in techniques like assassination and suicide bombing.

Immediate threat? Damn right.

Where is the press on this story? Did they not read the report? Of course they did. Are they so blinded, so obsessed with getting Kerry elected that they knowingly supressed the meat of the report? Looks like it. What's the point of having a free press if they don't report the truth?

I Wish I Was A Trial Lawyer

Election day is November 2 but we might not have the results until December.

RFL Debate Scorecard: Bush 2 Kerry 1

'A litany of complaints is not a plan.'
--President George W. Bush, October 13, 2004

KE04: Pre-Emptive Cheating

The Dems actually have a plan in place to steal the election and here's the proof.

Wednesday, October 13

The Future Is Here

Planting digital chips into human beings for the purpose of personal identification and storing private information? Hmm...I think I've read about that before.

Debate #3: An RFL Preview

So the Democrats are 'sensing a surge' for John Kerry. Really? I guess that's why Bush leads in ten of the eighteen battleground states.

Final debate tonight. Too bad it's not another town hall.

I'm looking for Bush to hit Kerry pretty hard on his stupid 'terrorism is just a nuisance' statement from Sunday's NYT. And I think he'll continue to hammer on the now infamous 'coerced and bribed' comment about the allies in the war on terror.

Speaking of the 'coerced and the bribed' did you hear what Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski had to say about Kerry?

'It is really sad that a Senator with 20 years of experience does not notice the Polish input into the coalition and the Polish sacrifice. It is immoral. It is something immoral not to note the commitment which we embarked upon. We (the Polish) accepted this challenge convinced that terrorism had to be fought, that we had to show international solidarity and that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world.'

I was right about Bush's big victory in Debate #2. He's going to be even better tonight. Just watch.

Voter Intimidation

Bush Cheney campaign offices have been vandalized in Tennessee and Washington State. But who cares? Republicans are evil and they deserve it!

Democrats Are Children

Democrats can't speak intelligently about the issues facing America. They can only threaten legal action, scare old people, offend our allies and offer false hope to the disabled. And make a video about beheading Dick Cheney.

RFL Senate Spotlaight 2004: Thune Vs. Daschle (SD)

I'm watching the South Dakota Senate campaign very closely, where Republican John Thune is challenging Mr. Obstructionist himself, Tom Daschle.

When he's home, Daschle sounds like a Republican. I've always thought he was shameless, but then I noticed that he's even running television spots that show him hugging Dubya. But once he gets back to DC, he's got the knives out for Bush. The President has no greater enemy.

He's a liar, a phony. Tom Daschle is the poster boy for everything that is wrong with politics in general and the Democratic party specifically.

This race is almost as important as the Presidential campaign, so please contribute to Thune's campaign. I sent him $50 yesterday.

The Art Of The Filibuster

Although they have a minority in the US Senate, Democrats have used a little known Constitutional trick to form a 60 vote 'supermajority' by which they have filibustered ten Bush judicial nominees. This supermajority which allows a small group of Democratic senators to override popular will. The people's business isn't being attended to, the Senate isn't doing it's job, largely because of a group of obstructionist Democrats.

While claiming to be the party of the people, Democrats have managed to smear the reputations of qualified judges like Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, Bill Pryor, Carolyn Kuhl, Janice Rogers Brown, Henry Saad, David McKeague, Richard Griffin, and William Myers, for a variety of political reasons.

Estrada's confirmation has been filibustered because he is a conservative Latino. Latino's are a vital Democratic voting block.

Owen, has been blocked because she favors parental notification for teenage abortions.

Pickering, once an attorney, represented a white supremacist.

Rogers Brown, because she is a black conservative. Blacks are another vital Democratic constituency.

The next president, Bush or Kerry, will very likely have two-four Supreme Court vacancies and a chance to shape ideology of the nation's highest court for 50 years. No wonder everyone is talking about the importance of this election.

Terrorists Targeting American Schools

It could happen here.

Voter Fraud?

Democrats, armed with millions of dollars from Bush haters like George Soros, have been registering new voters in record numbers in battleground states like Nevada, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, New Mexico and Colorado.

Women Studying In Afghanistan

America is educating Afghani women.

Afghanistan: A Victory For Democracy

I keep expecting the mainstream media to trumpet the remarkable progress being made in Afghanistan. What am I thinking? Given the fact that the media are active cheerleaders for the Kerry campaign, there's just no way in hell that good news about the accomplishments of the Bush Administration will ever be reported.

Afghanistan is an extremely backward country. While only 6% of the population has electricity, nearly everyone has a radio.

The medium proved important. Presidential candidates took to the airwaves to troll for votes. American embassy workers explained the concepts of democracy and voting to an anxious populace. Voters were directed to the polls via broadcasts.

And vote they did. Over 10 million people went to the polls. In the snow. A large number of voters were women. Democrats, who claim to be the party of the people, of human rights, of women's rights, should be singing the praises of President Bush, who truly is a global hero.

If this backward country can embrace democracy doesn't it stand to reason that Iraq, a nation with a rich history of education, infrastructure, commerce, can and will embrace democracy as well?

Mass Graves In Iraq

Oh yeah. Illegal war.

Tuesday, October 12

Is Terrorism Merely A 'Nuisance'?

Democrats continue to underscore daily just how inept they are, just how unqualified they are to hold national office and just how John Kerry and John Edwards are to lead this country.

Kerry thinks a low level of terrorism is acceptable. In Kerry's dreamworld, it is simply too much to expect to eradicate terrorism, it requires too much heavy lifting, too much sacrifice. Why it might actually require the deployment of troops to defend America from radical extremism. We can't entertain that possibility.

I wonder how Kerry's comments (from a NYT magazine interview published on this past Sunday) affected the people who lost loved ones on 9/11? Do they think their loss is just a 'nuisance'? I wonder how the families of fallen soldiers reacted to Kerry's words? Do they think the death of their sons and daughters are just a 'nuisance'? What about the active duty troops on the ground as I write these very words? Are they fighting in vain to defend this country from a mere 'nuisance'?

How would any of these people react to Kerry, a man who might be the next President, comparing terrorism as we know it in 2004 to illegal gambling and prostitution? Is that a correct comparison? Is that an appropriate comparison?

A better use of the word nuisance would be to describe the Kerry Edwards campaign. Frankly, I find it a nuisance that a man like John Kerry who doesn't have a single threat of integrity running through his body has the gall to run for President. I find it a nuisance that Democrats expect to be taken seriously when they, as a political party, are mostly to blame for the position this country suddenly found itself on September 11, 2001. I find it a nuisance having to defend the record of President Bush, a brilliant man who has done, and will continue to do, great things for America and the planet.

John Kerry doesn't understand what is going on in the world. On November 2, I am going to send him a message that I don't understand him. Please do the same.

KE04: False Hope To Disabled Americans

As a disabled American, I am disgusted by the comments made by Dem VP candidate John Edwards regarding the death of actor Christopher Reeve.

How dare Edwards, a former ambulance chasing trial lawyer, invoke the passion of people who desperately hope for a cure for their disease? How dare he inject the subject of stem cell research into a political campaign.

Democrats appeal to the less intelligent, less informed people among the electorate. Intelligent people don't believe the lies told by Democratic candidates every two and four years. They live in reality. They look at life, the nation and the world in a realistic way. For example, it is a scientific fact that the human spinal cord does not regenerate.

And yet the clear implication by Edwards is that the day after Kerry is elected President, millions of spinal cords will somehow magically regenerate, that by virtue of the fact that KE04 have promised to increase federal funding for stem cell research, people will suddenly stand up on their own, get up and walk away from their wheelchairs.

This is another attempt to imply that the Bush Administration isn't allowing funding federal stem cell research at the present time. That simply isn't true. In fact President Bush is the first president ever to allow stem cell research. Progress is being made. So don't believe what the Democrats say about this subject.

John Edwards is an immature politician. He has no place running for Vice President of the United States. His comments about stem cell research are petty, incorrect, shameful, offensive and insulting to anyone with a disability and to anyone with a brain.

Monday, October 11


John Kerry has been consistent in two areas of his life: Marrying wealthy women and voting to raise taxes.

In yet another example of Democratic hypocrisy, we find out that Kerry and his goofball wife pay the lowest tax rate: 12.8%. By contrast President Bush pays the 2003 effective tax rate of 30.4%, while middle class taxpayers pay 20%.

But that doesn't stop Kerry from raising taxes on the middle class, as he has countless times throughout his 20 year senate career, while he lowers his own tax liability.

At War With Himself

Whenever I see Kerry on television or hear his voice on the radio I always am struck by the fact that he seems fighting with himself to say just the right thing. He struggles to say the right things and he usually screws up anyway. Kerry knows if he makes a mistake (and he's made a lot of them this election year) it will result in further erosion of his already shaky credibility.

The Kerry interview in yesterday's NY Times Magazine was frightening not only because it is a bold attempt at revisionist history, but also because it highlights the sheer stupidity and ignorance of a man who could very well become our next President in a matter of weeks.

The piece begins with a revision of Kerry's activities on the morning of September 11. Previously we've heard the fact that Kerry was in Tom Daschle's office and was 'frozen' for 40 minutes. According to his own words at the time, Kerry sat down at a table and 'couldn't think.'

But wait. Courtesy of the NYT, a newspaper more concerned with propping up the pathetic Kerry Campaign than actually reporting the news, we read about how unworried, unconcerned Kerry appeared as he walked down the steps at the Capitol.

''I remember looking up at the sky as I walked down the steps,'' Kerry told me recently, when I asked him about the film clip. He said that he and other members of the Senate's Democratic leadership had just watched on television as the second plane hit the World Trade Center, and shortly after that they heard the sonic boom of an explosion and saw, through a large window, the black smoke rise from the Pentagon. ''We'd had some warning that there was some airplane in the sky. And I remember seeing a great big plane -- I think it was a 747 or something -- up there, but it wasn't moving in a way that, you know, I was particularly concerned. I remember feeling a rage, a huge anger, and I remember turning to somebody and saying, 'This is war.' I said, 'This is an act of war.'''

He's right about that. It was an act of war. And President Bush responded correctly to the events of 9/11 and he continues to prosecute the war on terror precisely the correct way.

But the Democrats don't agree. In fact, truth be told Democrats don't think we're in a war at all. ''We're not in a war on terror, in the literal sense,'' says Richard Holbrooke, the Clinton-era diplomat who could well become Kerry's secretary of state. ''The war on terror is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It's just a metaphor. What we're really talking about is winning the ideological struggle so that people stop turning themselves into suicide bombers.''

Do you think George Bush believes this? What does the President think about every morning when he wakes up? I bet he thinks about the safety of the country. He thinks about terror on the homeland. He thinks about Iraq. He thinks of the troops and the commanders.

What does John Kerry think about terror?

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

Running & Hiding

The town hall debate format works so well, and I say that not only because it favors my candidate. I love the format because it affords voters the chance to directly interact with the next President. No more of that tired old podium crap for future debates. It's politics. Let them battle it out. Let them argue. Let them make faces. Let them wrestle. "Kick em in the 'nads, George!"

Clearly, Bush won on both style and substance Friday. It wasn't even close. He oblitherated the Democrat on every question posed and gutted Kerry's credibility on Iraq, the war on terror, taxes, tort reform, partial birth abortion and national security.

From the start, it was apparent that the President was on his game, passionate, invigorated, briefed, and in command. I loved it when he spoke over the objection of moderator Charlie Gibson, who regularly gave Kerry more time. And Bush was finally Bush, winking at audience members, dutifully taking notes and showing the eagerness and vigor which compiled a 3-0 debate record in 2000.

Kerry, at one point, in responding to a tax question talked about how only he, Bush and Gibson would be effected by Kerry's tax hikes. That's just another way of saying to the audience 'hey, I think you're all just a bunch a low income stiffs.'

Bush had the best line of the night: Of Kerry's extremely sketchy and contradictory senate record he said, "You can run but you can't hide."

I've had enough of this say-anything phony candidate Kerry. He's an embarrasment to the process. Maybe in 2008 the Democrats will actually nominate someone with deeply held convictions and core principles.

Friday, October 8

Debate #2: An RFL Preview

Q. "If you are elected, given Paul Bremer's remarks, and deteriorating conditions as you have judged them, would you be prepared to commit more troops."

A.  "I will do what the generals believe we need to do without having any chilling effect, as the president put in place by firing General Shinseki, and I'll have to wait until January 20th. I don't know what I am going to find on January 20th, the way the president is going. If the president just does more of the same every day, and it continues to deteriorate, I may be handed Lebanon, figuratively speaking. Now, I just don't know.  I can't tell you.  What I'll tell you is, I have a plan. I have laid out my plan to America, and I know that my plan has a better chance of working.  And in the next days I am going to say more about exactly how we are going to do what has been available to this Administration that it has chosen not to do.  But I will make certain that our troops are protected.  I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, and I will make sure that we are successful, and I know exactly what I am going to do and how to do it."

Has John Kerry lost his mind? He said these words yesterday at a press conference. With each passing day, everything that comes out of his mouth sounds crazier and crazier. Here we are 26 days out from the election and the Senator, well, he just sounds desperate. His campaign must realize they are in trouble.

The Shinseki comment is a lie. And Kerry knows it. But what is this 'chilling effect' he's talking about? Does he mean that the miltary commanders in the field are reluctant to do their jobs out of fear of losing their jobs? Is he serious? The military adores Bush and they despise Kerry. A new poll shows our servicemen and women prefer Bush by a 4 to 1 margin over the Democrat. What does that tell you? It should tell you that the military believes that Bush is being straight with them, that they respect the job he's doing as Commander In Chief and that they are committed to doing their jobs.

Trust me. KE04 knows it's in deep doodoo. Even though national and state polls continue to show a tight race, the internals consistently show that on matters of trust, conviction, likeability, honesty and leadership Bush retains double digit leads over Kerry.

All Bush has to do tonight is be his usual likeable self and he wins. Tonight's town hall debate format strongly favors the President. If he's warm and approachable and funny it will be an easy victory.

On the substance he wins hands down anyway. Who better to present his case to the American people than George W. Bush?

The Al Qaeda/Iraq Connection

How can irrational Lefty's like Chris Matthews repeatedly claim that the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no al Qaeda/Iraq connection.

Tolerant Liberals

Democrats are such accepting, tolerant, reasonable people, aren't they?

Preaching To The Choir

"I find it slightly offensive that they're going out of their way to influence young people's politics."

Thursday, October 7

All About Israel

The root cause of terrorism around the world is the intense hatred of Israel.

Team America: World Police

The latest work from the South Park creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, is coming to offend you later this month. Can't wait.

Bipartisan National Security?

This wouldn't have happened if we weren't three weeks out from a Presidential election.

Australian Elections 2004: Latham Vs. Howard

Afghanistan is not the only country going to the polls this Saturday. Australia will too, as incumbent Prime Minister John Howard will be defending his record against upstart Australian Labor Party candidate Mark Latham.

The process works this way. Voters cast ballots for seats in Parliament. The party that gets a majority of those seats controls the government and picks a Prime Minister. Througout the six week campaign Latham's ALP has made virtually no forward progress on what were once thought to be vulnerable seats.

The Prime Minister is a staunch US ally in the war on terror and is almost considered to be a lock for re-election. Australia's economy has been booming at an almost unparalled level, the country's security has been managed well during a period of instability and his Liberal Party is considered to be in good position to be returned to power.

Hence the desperation on Latham's part. Get this. He's suddenly playing the race card, by re-introducing a twenty year old charge of racial discrimination against Howard.

Flashback Afghanistan: Three Years Ago Today

October 7, 2001--the first American bombs began raining down on Afghanistan in response to the September 11th attacks on the United States. The strikes were intended to disrupt and destroy the Taliban regime, demolish Taliban training camps and to liberate the long suffering Afghans.

This coming Saturday, October 9, 2004, free and fair elections will be held in Afghanistan.

God Bless America.

Charlie Rangel Is Obsessed With Race

Nearly every bill Charlie Rangel authored in 2003 and 2004 has a racial component.

The UN Oil For Food Program: Saddam Pocketed $10.9 Billion

One of the best things President Bush has done is exposing the United Nations for what it truly has become: The most corrupt, most fraudulent, most impotent, 'humanitarian' organization in the history of the world.

For years, the UN did nothing while genocide occured in Rhwanda. For years, the UN ignored genocide in Somalia. For years, the UN has allowed genocide to continue in Sudan. For years, the UN allowed Saddam Hussein commit genocide on his own people, to systematically destroy the infrastructure of a once proud, progressive nation and to catastrophically destroy the environment of Iraq.

And yet, Democrats like John Kerry and European leaders like Jacques Chirac of France take the view that no country can do ANYTHING without the express blessing and permission of Kofi Annon and the UN.

House Resolution 163: Charlie Rangel & Reinstating The Draft

You've undoubtedly heard the rumor about the draft being reinstated if President Bush wins re-election. It shouldn't surprise you that the draft bill introduced in Congress was written by a Democrat.

Charlie Rangel (D, NY) is the biggest racist in Congress, always touting how oppressed African Americans are, how little opportunity is available for blacks, how the deck is stacked in favor of whites, blah, blah, blah. The House voted on Rangel's bill this week and it failed. Rangel even voted against it. So much for sincerity.

Back in 2002, Rangel introduced a bill in Congress that advocated reinstating a mandatory military draft. Officially, Rangel claims that he did this to influence debate if President Bush chose to take the country to war. I don't really get how debating the merits of a mandatory draft would have prevented the Iraq invasion, but whatever. Rangel has never made any sense to me. I don't expect him to suddenly start sounding reasonable.

Nevertheless, Democrats have been busy spreading this rumor to further inflame passions of people in an election year, and it's really taken hold. If you do a Google! you'll find links to tons of sites like Rock The Vote, and others, that have taken this draft business seriously. College campuses coast to coast are abuzz with this topic. Many people are going to vote based upon this one false issue.

My good buddy Michael H. is going to vote against Bush precisely bacause of the draft issue. He's worried about his son having to go fight in the war on terror.

Take a look at some of the co-sponsors of HR 163. The usual truth deficient, hateful, angry, bitter Democrats.

Jim McDermott (WA)
James Moran (VA)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX)
Elijah Cummings (MD)
John Lewis (GA)
Alcee Hastings (FL)
John Conyers (MI)
Jesse Jackson (IL)

Playing political games with the people's business, with national security, the military is outrageous. Willfully and knowingly introducing misleading legislation in an attempt to scare people in an election year is insidious.

Democrats Don't Understand Economics, Reality

John Kerry and the Democrats continue to argue that the American economy is bad. As usual, hard data proves them wrong:

"The unemployment rate today is lower than the average of the past three decades. Household wealth has soared to a new record, and 69 percent of Americans own their own homes, the highest proportion ever.

Last week, the final figures for Gross Domestic Product in the second quarter were announced. GDP, the nation's total economic output, grew nearly 5 percent for the year. That's greater than in any 12-month period during the Clinton administration. Personal income is up 5 percent in the past year, and business spending is strong. Inflation is tame, and interest rates are low. Compare the United States with Kerry's paragons abroad. Unemployment in France is 9.9 percent; in Germany, 10.6 percent.

On Friday, statistics on employment will be released. August showed a gain of 144,000 jobs, but, because of the hurricanes, the increase could be smaller for September. But there should be a dramatic upward revision for past months as the Bureau of Labor Statistics reconciles the payroll survey, which shows a net loss of about 800,000 jobs during Bush's term, with the household survey, which shows a gain of 2 million jobs.

Kerry, through distortions and obfuscations, will try mightily to convince Americans that Bush has messed up the economy. If reality counts, he won't get away with it."


When Bush gave the WMD rationale for going into Iraq, I thought it was a mistake. I felt at the time that he more compelling story for the American people--who are an extremely compassionate lot--was to outline the legion of human rights abuses that have been going on in Iraq since the late 1970's: the rape rooms, the tortue chambers, wholesale genocide, the gassing of the Kurds, the squalor the majority of the country lived in, and, more recently, the fradulent UN-sponsored Oil For Food Program.

I remember thinking, 'Hey, you know something? Saddam has had all these years to either hide his weapons, or move them to neighboring countries.'

Certainly, as has been noted here and elsewhere ad nauseum, every leading political leader from Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, and Kennedy said that Hussein had WMD. World leaders from Great Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, Australia, Spain, Italy, Egypt, Israel and even Saudi Arabia said Iraq had WMD.

It was, as former CIA Director George Tenet said, 'A slam dunk."

That's not yet the way it's turned out, according to the CIA, the Left wing press and the now suddenly dovish, yet power-obsessed Democrats.

I give credit Bush with liberating Iraq. It was the morally responsible thing to do. It was the humane thing to do. Bush is a man of strong principle, he has an amazing capacity to care for people, a passion for spreading democracy and freedom around the world, and an unwavering commitment to protecting America.

What person in their right mind, knowing what Saddam was doing and had done to his people, would have turned away and not helped? Apparently Democrats and some other people. But it's pretty easy to question what occurred now, after all the tough decisions have been. That's too convenient. People like John Kerry and John Edwards seek to exploit the Iraq issue for political gain. They are all playing Thurday morning quarterback. Second guessing. Even though they both voted to give Bush the authorization to remove Hussein. Rather strange, I think, considering that the Democrats talk endlessly about human rights and women's rights, yet somehow these freedoms should not apply to Iraqi's.

I read a story in 2002 about how Saddam's thugs would load people into paper shredders feet first and then watch as the machine would shred them into pieces. There of thousands of other similar stories.

It simply is unconscionable, based upon the paper shredder story ALONE, that anyone could be opposed to the liberation of Iraq. Do you think overthrowing the regime of Hussein was a mistake? You're stupid.

With that being said, the CIA's released it's final report yesterday. The report was presented to Congress by Charles Duelfer, who concluded that although no WMD had been made since 1991, Saddam was actively seeking to end the sanctions that had been placed on his country after the first Persian Gulf War. Once the sanctions were lifted, the thinking goes, and the attention of the world had again been diverted, according to Duelfer, Saddam was going to again begin manufacturing WMD.

The way Saddam was going to revive his weapons program was by funnelling money from the UN's Oil For Food program directly to the development and manufacturing of nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry.

The CIA believes that Saddam's first and foremost to protect goal was to protect Iraq from Iran, whom he correctly guessed would become a nuclear power. But it stands to reason that Hussein, a sworn enemy of the United States, had he possessed WMD, would have been able and willing to provide weapons to terrorists worldwide committed to attacking America.

I mean, this is so logical, even a four year old could understand it. Small kids grasp this stuff.

Bush was correct to act, with or without WMD. The world, and the US, are safer as a result. Case closed.

RFL Must Read: "Shadow Wars: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror" by Richard Miniter

I have enormous respect for Richard Miniter. He's a terrific author. His last book "Losing Bin Laden" outlined how Bill Clinton failed to capture Osama Bin Laden when he was offered to the US by the Sudanese government in 1998.

Miniter's new book, "Shadow Wars" describes in copious detail how the US, under the leadership of President George W. Bush is winning the war on terror.

The war on terror is truly a worldwide affair. We're so accustomed to getting all the negative news about terrorism and especially Iraq. But the truth is that there's a lot of positive things happening around the world, everyday. As Miniter points out, one terrorist plot is thwarted everyday someplace in the world and numerous potential attacks on American soil have been foiled since 9/11/01.

Over 3,000 members of al Qaeda have been slain or seized in 102 countries. Three quarters of the senior al Qaeda leadership have been captured or killed. Dozens of training camps have been destroyed. The financial infrastructure of al Qaeda has been interupted. And as of October 2003, OBL was spotted inside Iran.

The bottom line? Bush has the terrorists on the run.

Wednesday, October 6

RFL Senate Spotlight 2004: Martinez Vs. Castor (FL)

Career bureaucrat Betty Castor, former president of the University of South Florida and Commissioner of Education, is just another obstructionist Democrat. And that's not what is needed in the Senate. It's time for new blood, fresh ideas, and a smarter perspective.

I like Mel Martinez a lot. He was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bush and he's got a compelling story to tell about his childhood. A Cuban immigrant that came to America, has worked hard and has realized the American dream.

I can't think of anyone better to take Bob Graham's Senate seat.

This race is just like many others around the country in that the Republican candidate stands head and shoulders above the Democratic candidate in every conceivable metric. All signs are positive because the latest polls show Martinez leading Castor 50%-46%. All it takes is money to get the message across. So read all about Mel and contribute what you can to his senate victory.

Morning In Pennsylvania

"My opponent says he has a plan for Iraq. It should sound pretty familiar. It's already known as the Bush plan"--President George W. Bush, in Wilkes-Barre, PA.

No wonder Bush's poll numbers are are the upswing again.

John Who?

It's amazing how aggressively the press investigates anything and everything Republican. So Vice President Cheney first met John Edwards at a prayer breakfast in 2001, NOT before the debate last night. What a scoop!

Isn't it nice to see the media so concerned with minutia? After all the bogus stories about Cheney and Halliburton, I wonder when the press is going to do a story on Senator Edwards' six million dollar deferred compensation package from his former law firm?

Would it be fair for me to say that the Veep has a bunch of IMPORTANT stuff on his mind? Apparently Edwards didn't make much of an impression on Cheney. And who gives a rat's ass about the junior Senator from North Carolina, anyway?

Veep Debate Analysis: Mucho Gravitas

Gravitas! Cheney, elder statesman, brilliant political mind, noted historian versus Edwards, young, energetic, rich trial lawyer, junior senator. It's like comparing an encyclopedia to a comic book. It was no contest. Edwards didn't even belong (or deserve to be) on the same stage as the Vice President. Cheney was the winner by TKO.

I thought Edwards was too eager, too aggressive, too confrontational in his approach last night, which tells me one thing. That the Democrats aren't as confident in their position as they claimed after the first presidential debate. And what about the lack of gravitas? We were told four years ago how important is was to have gravitas. Oh yeah, I forgot. Qualifications don't matter if you're a Democrat.

For all the bluster from the Left and the relentless reporting that Kerry crushed Bush, the polling tells a different story. The truth is that Bush has bounced back this week after a soft bump for Kerry last weekend. ABC/Washington Post has Bush up six. Gallup has it tied. Zogby shows Bush up three. The electoral map is completely red except for CA, NY, MI and NE.

I think the substance of what Bush said last Thursday night is beginning to take hold over the independents and the undecideds. It's beginning to trump Kerry's perceived victory on style. BC04 seemed to acknowledge that dynamic Monday and Tuesday and Cheney's game plan last night further underscores this point.

From the start, Edwards attacked Cheney's veracity, not only about Iraq, but about Halliburton, about the allies, about the costs of the war, both human and financial. Oh yes, Edwards displayed why he's on the Democratic ticket: He's glib. He speaks well and sounds good. But, just like Kerry, very rarely does anything truthful come out of his mouth.

Cheney's responses repeatedly knocked Edwards off his game, so much so that Edwards was reduced to repeating himself over what seemed to me to be at least half of the debate. The substance of Cheney's responses, both to moderator Gwen Ifill and to Edwards, assured it was the VP's debate from start to finish. Cheney owned the debate. And made only one mistake: Responding to another lie about Halliburton, Cheney directed people to go to a website for factual analysis about Halliburton. But he gave the wrong address,, instead of Unfortunately the first address is a George Soros-sponsored site that dispenses anger, hate and anti-Bush misinformation.

Some highlights. Cheney talked about the importance of consistent positions specifically about foreign policy. He ticked off a number of Kerry's senate votes about national defense, the first Persian Gulf War, intelligence funding, and Iraq. Then he wisely swerved into the fact that Edwards' own senate record was 'not very distinguished,' and listed a litany of missed votes by Edwards--33 out of 36 votes on the Judiciary Committee; 70 percent of the meetings on the Intelligence Committee.

And then this: "You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.

Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

Ouch. That's quite a record. And wasn't it great to hear Cheney illustrate it?

Not to belabor the subject, but I can't emphasize enough just how out of place Edwards appeared to me. The sight of Edwards sitting next to Cheney, a man of superior intellect, knowledge, experience and wisdom, reminded me again how unqualified John Kerry is to be President, picking this empty suit Edwards to be his running mate.

I loved it when Ifill asked Edwards what qualfied him to be 'a heartbeat away' from the Presidency. He responded by saying the American people want a President and Vice President that have good judgement, will keep them safe and will tell them the truth.

How original. Now for a real answer. Here's what Dick said:

"Well, I think the important thing in picking a vice president probably varies from president to president. Different presidents approach it in different ways.

When George Bush asked me to sign on, it obviously wasn't because he was worried about carrying Wyoming. We got 70 percent of the vote in Wyoming, although those three electoral votes turned out to be pretty important last time around.

What he said he wanted me to do was to sign on because of my experience to be a member of the team, to help him govern, and that's exactly the way he's used me.

And I think from the perspective of the nation, it's worked in our relationship, in this administration. I think it's worked in part because I made it clear that I don't have any further political aspirations myself. And I think that's been an advantage.

I think it allows the president to know that my only agenda is his agenda. I'm not worried about what some precinct committeemen in Iowa were thinking of me with respect to the next round of caucuses of 2008.

It's a very significant responsibility when you consider that at a moment's notice you may have to take over as president of the United States and make all of those decisions. It's happened several times in our history.

And I think that probably is the most important consideration in picking a vice president, somebody who could take over."

Ifill then asked the Vice President if he believed, as he's stated before, that it would very dangerous if John Kerry were elected President. He answered it this way:

"I'm saying specifically that I don't believe he has the qualities we need in a commander in chief because I don't think, based on his record, that he would pursue the kind of aggressive policies that need to be pursued if we're going to defeat these terrorists. We need to battle them overseas so we don't have to battle them here at home.

I'm not challenging John Kerry's patriotism. I said in my acceptance speech in New York City at the Republican convention that we respected his service in Vietnam, and I got applause for that.

We've never criticized his patriotism. What we've questioned is his judgment.

And his judgment's flawed, and the record's there for anybody who wants to look at it.

In 1984, when he ran for the Senate he opposed, or called for the elimination of a great many major weapons systems that were crucial to winning the Cold War and are important today to our overall forces.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and occupied it in 1990 and '91, he stood up on the floor of the Senate and voted against going in to liberate Kuwait and push Saddam Hussein back to Iraq.

The problem we have is that, if you look at his record, he doesn't display the qualities of somebody who has conviction.

And with respect to this particular operation, we've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed — body armor, spare parts, ammunition — they voted against it.

I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.

Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?"

On to St. Louis.

Tuesday, October 5


"It's not a science. On its best day, it's a crude art. What you try to do is be an honest broker of information."

That's Dan Rather on journalism. Funny. I wouldn't use the word honest to describe the way Rather does his job. I would say that he slants significantly to the left in how he reports the news and how he decides what is news. No wonder his ratings are in the toilet. The numbers for CBS Evening News are colder than a polar bears' testicles.

When we talk about media in 2004, it really is a new ice age. The web has killed mainstream television news. And there are no three bigger dinosaurs on the planet than Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.

I was touched by Brokaw and Jennings speaking up and defending their colleague Rather because it reminded me of support group meeting. A bunch of broken, unstable people agreeing with each other for no particular reason. Brokaw's comments about 'a political jihad' are especially pathetic. So are we to believe that the false National Guard story is the fault of partisan Republicans? How can that be? Did the RNC forge the documents and force CBS to run the story?

Good night. Thanks for watching.

Freedom Of Religion?

Christianity is under attack in America and around the world. This is hardly new. What is new and somewhat surprising, at least in the US, is the lengths to which opponents of the Christian faith will go in attempting to silence people with whom they disagree.

I think that the faith of President Bush, of which he has been extremely vocal since he announced his candidacy for the White House in 1999, is a big reason he is so unpopular across secular Europe, and with a portion of the American electorate.

The Light Of Truth

Arm yourself with this invaluable information! Have it on hand tonight for the VP debate and for the remaing two Presidential debates. Print this stuff out and forward it to friends, family, colleagues, anyone who has been misled by the Democrats. There is no excuse for not knowing the truth in this campaign. There is no excuse for voting for Kerry/Edwards.

Cheap Oil For France

A new CIA report will be released tomorrow that outlines Iraqi oil vouchers for countries France and Russia. Interestingly enough, those two nations opposed the liberation of Iraq.

Apparently the report underscores the relationships Saddam Hussein enjoyed, particularly with France. Hussein would provide vouchers to nations he deemed friendly to purchase Iraqi oil at below market prices.

Stay tuned. I'll be on this like a cheap suit.

Fat Bastards

Over the weekend I saw an incredible documentary, 'Supersize Me.'

Not only are we a nation of idiots, we're a nation of fat idiots. So Morgan Spurlock decides to see just how much weight he can gain by eating nothing but McDonald's for an entire month. The picture of health at the beginning of the film, he eventually gains 24 pounds and has massive health problems, like liver failure.

So, for your health, stop eating junk food. And vote Republican.

Sound Fiscal Policy

Cutting taxes shows guts and intelligence. It's economics 101. Too bad Democrats don't understand that.

Vice Presidential Debate Preview

"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country"
--Senator John Edwards (D, NC) February 24, 2002.

"If you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind"
--Senator John Edwards October 4, 2004.

Tonight Dick Cheney will come out of one of his undisclosed locations and will show the nation and the world just how inexperienced and unqualifed John Edwards is to be Vice President.

Monday, October 4

Dead Even (Again)

So it looks like Dubya hasn't lost much ground in the polls, even after his dreadful debate performance.

As always, the methodology of each poll is what's important. Does the polling company poll over the weekend? We know Republicans tend to not be home on Saturday and Sunday, the opposite of Democrats. Does the polling sample interview a larger proportionate number of one party? Often times, that's precisely the case. How are the questions asked? Do they clearly reflect a partisan bias? Again, yes. Very common. There are literally hundreds of factors that go into determining the results of the hundreds of polls released daily, weekly and monthly. Just remember to take what you read with a grain of salt.

The Time and Newsweek polls from the past month had Bush up anywhere from 12 to 14 points, which I always believed to be artificially high. Now those same polls are even or show Kerry with a slight lead. I think this can be attributed to a psychological campaign by the press. Laugh all you want, but we've seen it before. And I think that's exactly what's going on here with these new post first debate numbers.

It becomes even more compelling when I tell you that DNC Chair Terry McAullife circulated an email last week to Democrat loyalists instructing them to vote like hell on internet polls Thursday night and Friday, to, in effect, inflate the number of voters who thought Kerry had won the debate.

So what's the damage? It looks like the race is back to where it was before the Republican convention. Even. Kerry is up one to two points in some. Bush up by the same margin in others. He's up by five in a new Washington Post poll. Big yawn.

But the President cannot screw up on Friday. He's got to act and look aggressive and engaged. He damn well blow Kerry off the stage while simultaneously charming the pants off the crowd. I think he will. He should get some wind into his sails by a knock out performance tomorrow night by Dick Cheney in the Vice Presidential debate too.

The First REAL Black President

President Bush has been a true friend to the African American community. Since 2000 the policies of the Bush Administration have greatly benefited blacks in urban areas with crime reduction, tax relief, job creation and economic empowerment.

The Bush Administration depends on the hard work of two brilliant African Americans, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. No other President has ever appointed blacks to higher positions of power in the federal government than George W. Bush.

In addition, the President has prioritized funding to help fight AIDS and other highly contagious diseases on the African continent.

And yet, in one election cycle after another, blacks vote overwhelmingly for a Democratic Party that refuses to help them, refuses to educate them, refuses to empower them.

I ask. Who's really the first Black President?

Thanks to JC Watts, Ken Blackwell Michael Williams and others for this uplifting article from WSJ.

A Bad Production

John Fund provides an inside look at Mary Mapes the 60 Minutes producer. The network news bureaus are full of people just like Mapes: Liberal partisan hacks masquerading as serious journalists.

Good News

I had no idea that there was any good news coming from Afghanistan. And to think that the BBC is reporting it?

Friday, October 1

Global Testing: No Foreign Country Left Behind

John Kerry is a pretty good debater. He wore a nice suit and a smart tie. He looked pretty good. Spending his pre-debate time at the spa getting a manicure really put him in the right frame of mind.

'F-In' wins points for his debate style, as Bush did for the substance of his remarks. I thought Kerry did as good as anyone could have expected him to do. But what exactly did Kerry say? He flipped flopped all over the place and he committed an inexcusable gaffe.

The Junior Senator from Massachusetts was concise, with some success, while contridicting himself multiple times. First he claimed to have one consistent position on Iraq. That was funny. Then he spoke incorrectly about Iran. He clearly had no idea what he was talking about, specifically the history of sanctions against Iran. Kerry spoke at length, albeit incorrectly, about North Korea. He clearly doesn't understand the nature of the role of China with regard to North Korea. He claimed that the subway in NYC was closed during the Republican National Convention. What? And Kerry once again claimed that General Eric Shinseki lost his job as Chief Of Staff of the US Army because he publicly disagreed with the Bush Administration over current troop levels in Iraq.

It seemed to me that Kerry, after nearly twenty years in the Senate, doesn't have the foggiest notion about what is happening around the world. He didn't sound very Presidential.

And he mentioned Vietnam four or five times. He just couldn't help himself. That was funny too.

I thought the big sound byte of the night--and a major gaffe--was when he spoke of ' a global test.' I have long thought Kerry to be a globalist and that opinion was strongly reinforced in his performance. And I have another opinion. The thought of Kerry actually being my President is an incredibly scary proposition.

'Global test' is code for kissing the butts of France, Germany and the United Nations. It remains beyond my comprehension why any thinking person would give any credence to what Europe thinks of us. Or what the crooks and despots that comprise the United Nations thinks of us. Really. George Bush could care less, to his credit. I don't care either. I thought that Bush's responses to the 'Global Test' comment proved to be one of his better moments against Kerry.

Strangely, Kerry's use of the term 'global test' sounds strikingly similar to words used by France's Interior Minister, Dominique De Villepin on 'The Charlie Rose Show' just this past Tuesday. De Villepin, a vile, pompous elitist, spoke of the 'importance of a worldwide test' with regard to matters of war and peace. Sounds like the Kerry Campaign was listening.

If given the chance, President Kerry would abdicate America's role as the world's only remaining superpower by cowtowing to Europe. American troops would be under the direction of Kofi Annan after Kerry cedes American military sovreignty to the UN. The US economy would be permanently destroyed after he signs the Kyoto Treaty. And a Kerry Administration would allow America to be governed by the International Criminal Court. Again, very scary.

I don't think the American people respond well to the idea of leaders from foreign countries having undue influence over American policy. I don't believe Americans want France or Germany making decisions about the future of our great country. And I think they will reject, in large measure, a Presidential candidate who advocates such positions.

One debate down. Two to go.


I thought President Bush's performance in Debate # 1 was positively putrid. He seemed tired and pissed, and not necessarily in that order. His syntax was even more mangled than usual. If pauses can be described as preganant, Bush's long stretches of silence were somewhere in the vicinity of the third trimester. His halting manner of speech was especially disconcerting.

So much for that perfect debate record.

Certainly I agree with Bush on substance. Substance, after all is what really matters. The disconnect between the Left and the Right about what really counts in debates--Liberals focus on style. Conservatives on substance. But what about style? Kerry's style won out.

But I have questions. I must question Bush's wardrobe choices. I hated that suit and that grim looking tie. And I also question the debate format, which the Bush team, led by James Baker, supposedly negotiated with the President's debate skills in mind. Why not let this warm, friendly, likeable President walk freely across the stage and interact with his opponent and the audience? That's the format in which he presented himself with great success in 2000.

Why not let these two candidates just slug it out? Give them two hours to debate each other, no time limits, no limitations on subject matter. Let them get into a fistfight. I want to see Dubya kick Kerry's elitist ass! Just let 'em go!

But what do I know? Today's Washington Post says Bush performed credibly.

RFL Senate Spotlight 2004: Jones Vs. Boxer (CA)

The only thing that would make me happier than the re-election of President Bush would be witnessing the demise of the political career of uber Liberal Senator Barbara Boxer. She's done enough damage to our great state.

Bill Jones is a great candidate, a man with a long history of valiant public service. He's the architect of California's Three Strikes Law. He was CA Secretary of State. He's a former businessman. He's a rancher. He's a man's man.

In Boxer's ten incompetent years in the Senate, the percentage of federal money sent back to California from Washington has fallen dramatically--from 91 cents on every dollar, to 79 cents on the dollar. Fiscal irresponsibility, a permament hallmark of the Democratic Party.
Copyright 2004-2013, All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission. 0