Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Here is the statement by John Kerry's Minister of Information, Baghdad Bob, during today's press conference about the Swift Boat Veterans and the charges that they have brought forth about John Kerry:
"We are not afraid of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned.Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies! Lying is forbidden. John Kerry will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts.
We have placed them in a quagmire from which they can never emerge except dead. Our initial assessment is that they will all die! I blame Fox News - they are marketing for the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth! They do not even have control over themselves! Do not believe them!
I can assure you that those villains will recognize, will discover in appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they are pretending things which have never taken place. They are like a snake and we are going to cut it in pieces. God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of John Kerry."
Monday, August 30, 2004
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
After the war the hawks and doves went their separate ways and made lives for themselves. You had hawks like John McCain who after serving honorably as a pilot and as a prisoner of war go home and became a Senator running on his honorable record. Jerry Brown, a dove became Mayor, a Governor and ran for the Presidency on his honorable record.
With any group there are good people and bad people in them. The good hawks were the soldiers who served with honor and did their job. On the flip side were people like Lt. William Calley who was responsible for the Mai Lai massacre of 300 civilians. For the doves the good ones were the Americans who voiced their opposition to the war but were respectful about it. The bad doves were those who spat upon soldiers, plotted against our government and turned to violence.
John Kerry wasn't a hawk or a dove. Instead he was the worst of both. As a hawk he has personally admitted to committing war crimes such as burning down villages. As a dove he attended a meeting where his anti-war group plotted to have pro-war Senators assassinated and painted his brothers in arms who at the time still were in Vietnam as murders, rapists and war criminals.
He was the worst of both worlds and I truly am lost to why he wants to run on his Vietnam record because all it does is drive us apart again and focus our attention on one of this nation's darkest hours and how he was the worst of all sides.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's blog.
Like Adlai Stevenson before him, Mr. Kerry has an aura of unelectability that may yet prove fatal to his hopes. But a Stevenson win in 1956 would have transformed the subsequent course of American political history. Conservatives may ask themselves with good reason whether defeat then might ultimately have averted the much bigger defeats they suffered in the '60s. In just the same way, moderate Republicans today may justly wonder if a second Bush term is really in their best interests. Might four years of Mr. Kerry not be preferable to eight years or more of really effective Democratic leadership?
First, what big defeats in the 60's is he talking about? Kennedy barely beat Nixon in 1960, and LBJ was riding the JFK sympathy wave in 1964, and there was no way he'd have lost.
So, to accept the logic of this Harvard "genius," Bush should lose so Kerry can be an ineffective leader for the next 4 years so the Republicans can regain the Presidency in 2008. This is what liberals have been reduced to doing in order to supply reasons why Kerry should be elected.
When it comes down to it, you must accept on face-value the professor's argument that Bush has been an ineffective leader (which I don't) and that we are exactly like the British. (Which we aren't) Those teabags are secular, government-dependent Socialists, while we are religious, inependent-minded capitalists. (Give the British this: There are still quite a few of them who still have iron balls. Thank God for them)
Read the whole thing. This is liberal thinking at its apex. It sounds brilliant, but falls apart under the most minimal of scrutiny.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
MTV, ROLLING STONE and the rock and roll establishment -- past and present -- have cast their vote, and their man is John Kerry.
So on Sunday night when John Kerry's daughters were announced to speak at the annual MTV VIDEO MUSIC AWARDS, the MTV youth were expected to welcome his daughter's as pop culture princesses.
Instead, in an era of the unexpected, the daughters of the Democratic candidate were met with a resounding wall of boos at the filming in Miami.
From the moment Alexandra and Vanessa started speaking, the boos outweighed anything close to cheers, and the reaction turned worse when the daughters asked the VIACOM youth to vote for their father. So shocked by the reaction, the taller of the two daughters tried to 'shhhhhh' her peers to no avail.
I may actually watch the awards now, just to see if they edit out the boos, or even show them speaking. Do I think they'd stoop that low to edit out the boos and turn them to cheers? You bet I do. After all, when Hillary Clinton was booed at a 9/11 benefit, VH-1 turned her boos to cheers.
(For the record, I am against treating Kerry's daughters disrespectfully, just like I would the Bush twins. It is their Dad, not them, running for office.)
Well, of course they do. They think the country revolves around New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and that "flyover country" doesn't matter. Without the Electoral College, the race for President would take place in these states: New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Michigan, and Arizona, and maybe a few others. That's it. The New York Times knows that the New York City could swell to 30 million liberals and it wouldn't matter one bit in Presidential elections.
If they understood history as it was, rather than how they wished it was, they would know that Abraham Lincoln did not get one vote in the South, and won the Presidency anyway. That did more to lead to the Civil War than slavery ever did. Northenr liberlas will have you believe today that they became fed up with the inhumanity of slavery and put an end to it.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they designed the Electoral College. Those jerkoffs at the New York Times may not like that the rural states are over-represented to a degree, but too damn bad.
However, if you truly want to see what the Democratic Party is all about, watch this news report.
[Hat tip: The Daily Recycler]
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Just watch this video to learn the truth about W.
[Hat tip: Erick Erickson]
The problem is that it looks like John Kerry's records have not all been released.
Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."
I'm curious about what's actually in those hundred pages of records that John Kerry has not released? How can his "Official Naval Records" be released when there are a hundred pages that still haven't seen the light of day. If John Kerry would finally sign his Form 180 (.pdf file) and release his full record maybe all of this controversy would be cleared up and over with. I'm also curious as to why Kerry says "all" his records have been released. It's an interesting definition of "all", isn't it?
Bill Clinton: "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
John Kerry: The definition of "all" is "all the things I want you to see".
Democrats. Re-writing Websters since 1992.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Friday, August 27, 2004
Thursday, August 26, 2004
I first saw how controversy sells back in high school when 2 Live Crew released "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" (which is the tamest and lamest of their albums). The album was destined for a speedy route straight to the cut out discount bin when the American Family Association and their lawyer Jack Thompson stepped in with a quest to ban the album. After shouting about how the album was obscene and ruining the country the album that was on the way to sell just five thousand copies went onto being one of the years largest selling albums with over two million copies sold all because of the hoopla.
The next controversial item that would have died a quick and painful death but was skyrocketed to huge sales numbers was Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses". It is hands down the worst book that I ever have read but because the book angered Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini enough to put a price on Rushde's head the book sold tens of millions of copies.
If something is controversial no matter what it is people run out to see what's so bad about it because we are naturally curious about what the hubbub is all about.
Fast forward to 2004 there is a group called Swift Boat Veterans For Truth who served with John Kerry but disagree with his recollections of his four months of service in Vietnam and disagree with his actions after he got home that gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Knowing that controversy sells what would you do? The best bet would be to ignore them or to politely refute their claims and then move on. John Kerry, his campaign team, his surrogates and the Democrat party instead of taking the high road and sticking to the campaign issues decided to attack the Swift Boat Vets on every form of media thus making them controversial.
So what has all happened because of John Kerry and his team's ineptitude? The Swift Boat Veterans TV ads have been played thousands of more times all across the nation when they were just supposed to run a handful of times in two or three battleground states. Their book "Unfit For Command" is now a bestseller. Instead of having just a couple of hundred thousand dollars to work with the Swift Boat Veterans now have millions to go after the Senator with. For a final example of how dumb the Kerry Campaign is the Swift Boat Veterans are now hurting him in the polls and have put George W. Bush out front which is due to widen Bush's lead since the Republican Convention is just around the corner.
John Kerry could have diffused this situation a long time ago and probably would have had a chance at the Presidency but like I have said before John Kerry is too stupid to get elected President or dog catcher.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Col. George E. "Bud" Day, the man pictured to the left, is the most decorated officer since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and was Senator John McCain's cellmate in the Hanoi Hilton. In John McCain's book, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain credits Day with saving his life (pg. 200). Col. Day is also one of The University of South Dakota School of Law's most prominent alumni, and gave the keynote address to the law school's class of 2004. The tale behind his Medal of Honor decoration is awe-inspiring.
Today, Col. Day weighed in on the controversy surrounding John Kerry and the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, firmly on the side of the latter
The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been, what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam.
Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies.. fabrications.. perjury.. fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and gave "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies..the Vietnamese Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left..McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers". A returned war hero said so....
My what a badly-flawed man Senator Kerry is. Or maybe Ole Bud is lying too.
Savagery awaits you when you click.
So why a hand-delivered letter? Did Kerry forget the password to his email account? (Hint: try "ketchup") Couldn't he wait three days for the Post Office to deliver it? Perhaps Kerry never heard of Federal Express? No, nothing like that... Kerry callously used wheelchair-bound Vietnam veteran Max Cleland, a man who lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, as a photo-op delivery boy, just to stir up your emotions. What an incredibly low opinion Kerry seems to have of the American public. "Oh, that poor guy," you're supposed to say. "He has to deliver mail for Kerry because Bush is so mean. I'm voting for Kerry now!" (If this "thought" actually did cross your mind, please stop reading this now. Really.) And Cleland is allowing Kerry to use him, his disability and his Vietnam service just to score political points.
President Bush has praised Kerry's service many times, and denounced the activities of all 527 groups (so named for the section of the tax code which allows them). "All of them," Bush responded to a reporter's question about whether he specifically condemned the SBVT ad. "That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s." Kerry and the Democrats don't want anyone denouncing MoveOn.org and the Media Fund, however -- two of the 527 groups that have spend over a year and millions of dollars bashing President Bush in the most vicious ways possible, under cover of the First Amendment right of free speech. They demand that President Bush "order" SBVT to take their ads off the air -- an abridgement of their own right of free speech. According to a March 2004 press release from Kerry's web site, however, those two left-wing groups have been "assailing the president and serving as the Democrats' answer to Bush." The press release also declared that "when [Kerry's ad] buy is combined with those from the Media Fund and MoveOn, the Democratic message saturates the airwaves in some places." Collusion? Collaboration? Of course not!
Rather than answer the claims of the SBVT by signing form 180 to release all his military and medical records and possibly prove himself in the right, Kerry has sent platoons of lawyers to threaten TV stations running their ads and bookstores selling their book, Unfit for Command. He sends the pathos-inspiring figure of Max Cleland to trundle up to Bush's door in a wheelchair -- followed by a fleet of camera-wielding media types -- to hand-deliver a letter asking that the President denounce this group of people exercising their right of free speech and this group alone. The letter was signed by Senators Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Tom Carper of Delaware and Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, both of New Jersey. It should go without saying that they're all Democrats. In response to Kerry's accusatory letter, a group of Republican veterans prepared a letter of their own for Senator Kerry.
Senator Kerry may be forced to release his records soon enough. Judicial Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that investigates government corruption. Now they've turned their sights on the allegations made against Senator Kerry. On 18 August 2004, Judicial Watch filed a "Request for Investigation, Determination and Final Disposition of Awards Granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, USNR." The request makes special mention of Kerry's anti-war activities (including meeting with the leadership of the enemy during wartime, while still an officer in the Naval Reserve). The request concludes:
Serious, credible reports of dishonorable conduct; false official reports and statements; aiding the enemy; dereliction of duty; misuse and abuse of U.S. government equipment and property; war crimes; and multiple violations of U.S. Navy regulations and directives, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and U.S. Code by Lieutenant (jg) John Forbes Kerry, USNR (Senator Kerry) are now before you.The truth will come out... one way or the other. When the SBVT came out with their book and their first TV ad, Kerry blamed the attacks on President Bush rather than answer them directly. He intoned, "Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on." The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have indeed brought it on, and not even a direct order from President Bush -- were it legal for him to do so -- can make it stop.
These reports are specific as to the nature of the wrongdoing, the timeframe and location. There are corroborating witnesses. These witnesses have made public statements detailing their specific knowledge of wrongdoing by Senator Kerry. The claims against Senator Kerry – both concerning his fraudulently obtained awards for valor and combat wounds, as well as his dishonorable and potentially illegal conduct as a commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve – are gravely serious matters that demand your immediate and direct action.
I only hope we can find time between now and election day to debate plans for the future instead of the past.
From Cavalier's Guardian WatchBlog
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Captain Ed has more.
Edwards says Bush could stop 'lies' about Kerry
COLUMBUS - In his first solo visit to Ohio since John Kerry picked him as running mate, John Edwards said if President Bush "had the backbone and courage and leadership," he could stop "negative, personal attacks" and "lies" about Mr. Kerry's military service in the Vietnam War.
Silly me. I didn't know that part of Bush's job description was defending his election opponents. Edwards, Kerry, and their fellow Democrats have been slandering Bush for years, and now that they are getting punched back, they cry like the pussies that they are. The only difference here is that the attacks on Kerry are credible. If they weren't, why has Kerry sent his lawyers all over the place to stop the book and the TV ads, which have run only in 3 markets? If the Democrats think that they are going to turn this issue around on Bush, they are sadly mistaken.
Kerry has called the Swift Boat Vets book a "hoax," yet has already admitted the portion of the book that disputes that Kerry deserved his first Purple Heart is accurate. The evidence is right in Kerry's own journal!! (Of course, some of you dope Democrats will claim Kerry was misquoted in his own journal, a la Charles Barkley)
A primary claim against Mr. Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans is that Mr. Kerry's first Purple Heart — awarded for action on Dec. 2, 1968 — did not involve the enemy and that Mr. Kerry's wounds that day were unintentionally self-inflicted.
They charge that in the confusion involving unarmed, fleeing Viet Cong, Mr. Kerry fired a grenade, which detonated nearby and splattered his arm with hot metal.
Mr. Kerry has claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, returned fire, and received his "first combat related injury."
A journal entry Mr. Kerry wrote Dec. 11, however, raises questions about what really happened nine days earlier.
The liberal media can't protect him anymore, no matter how hard they try. And Kerry and Edwards look like girlie men asking Bush to help them.
John Kerry speaking at a Martin Luther King day celebration in Virginia last year said, quote, "I remember well April 1968, I was serving in Vietnam. A place of violence. When the news reports brought home to me and my crew mates the violence back home and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of Dr. King." That date, of Dr. King's death, was April 4, 1968. According to kerry's website, it was not until November 17, 1968, that he reported for duty in Vietnam.
And then there's this:
"The president has won every debate he's ever had," Kerry said. "He beat Ann Richards. He beat Al Gore. So, he's a good debater."
Lowering expectations, are we? Even Kerry knows Bush is damn good. So much for him being a dope now, huh?
WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- The White House slammed Sen. John Kerry Wednesday for staging a "political stunt" at the president's ranch and for a double standard on attack ads.
Spokesman Scott McClellan said Kerry's dispatch of former Sen. Max Cleland and Vietnam veteran Jim Rassman to Crawford to press President Bush to condemn and stop ads by a veterans group that questions Kerry's war record was an attempt to divert attention from Kerry's "out-of-the-mainstream record and out-of-the-mainstream views."
C'mon, has Kerry no shame? He uses Max Cleland like Jerry Lewis uses those kids in wheelchair's during his telethon. (I'll bet many of you didn't know that Cleland is doing all of this on the taxpayers' dime.)
Kerry wanted to talk about Vietnam, and he got what he asked for. And it has blown up in his face.
A senior House Democrat, Michigan Rep. John Dingell, sent a letter asking Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate the possible "illegal coordination" between the two. The Bush campaign and the veterans group have denied any coordination.
I'm all for it. Ashcroft should investigate all the Kerry staffers working at Moveon.org while he's at it. And look into The Media Fund too. Really, Democrats, do you want to go down this road?
Face it, Kerry is sinking fast. If Ashcroft investigates (or refuses), the Democrats will just recycle the Ken Starr attacks. And, you know what? IT WON'T MEAN SQUAT!! The only people they'll convince are the already-convinced.
Dear Senator Kerry,
We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.
That’s why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that’s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.
We’re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.
You said in 1992 “we do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.
We are veterans too – and proud to support President Bush. He’s been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He’s made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.
He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 – in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he’s praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.
We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran’s right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.
Texas State Land Commissioner
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"It's obvious that John Kerry still has no idea that he stabbed each and every Vietnam War Veteran in the back. He gave aid and comfort to the enemy and he slandered all of his brothers in arms as soon as he returned stateside. He is clueless that his actions were wrong and actually emboldened the enemy thus prolonging the war.
BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there."
KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."
Kerry then asked if he could meet Brant ["You were one of the best"] -- man to man -- face to face. Brant declined the invite, explaining that Kerry was obviously not prepared to correct the record on exactly what happened during Vietnam and what happened when Kerry came back.
I'm sorry but John Kerry is too stupid to be President.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Monday, August 23, 2004
With the recent concern shown by the New York Times about activity between 527s and the Bush Campaign, I'm sure they'll want to investigate the appearance of impropriety between 527s and the Kerry Campaign. It might be worth a week long series.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Is there any truth to this ? I haven't been able to find anything on it, but am really interested to know if it is true.
The Lord has a way of revealing those of us who really know him, and
> those that don't! Think about it! Kerry gave a big speech last week
> about how his faith is so "important" to him. In this attempt to
> convince the American people that we should consider him for
> he announced that his favorite Bible verse is John 16:3. Of course the
> speech writer meant John 3:16, but nobody in the Kerry camp was
> enough with scripture to catch the error. And do you know what John
> 16:3 says?
> John 16:3 says; "They will do such things because they have not known
> the Father or me."
> The Spirit works in strange ways.
> Pass it on VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!!
At long last, the troops are coming home. No, not the troops in Iraq -- the job there isn't yet finished. America has more than 200,000 military personnel stationed all over the world, almost half of them in Germany. In most cases those soldiers are there for reasons that no longer exist, protecting old allies against enemies long gone. It's about time the Pentagon has taken a serious look at our overseas deployments and began the process of reconfiguring them to meet our current needs. While speaking before a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, President Bush announced his plan to remove some troops from foreign bases altogether, and to move others to where they can be more effective. Over the next ten years, more than 70,000 soldiers -- including two divisions in Germany -- will be based in the United States instead of places like Germany and North Korea. Not only will having them home benefit them and their families psychologically, but with today's faster transportation methods, they can get to the action just about as quickly.
Kerry raised some questions about the redistribution plan that simply aren't valid. Kerry called it a "hastily announced plan" and asked, "[W]hy are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea — a country that really has nuclear weapons?" It was an interesting remark from a man who stated on the Senate floor in 2002, "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." Perhaps someone ought to let the Senator know that no amount of American soldiers -- no matter how well-trained and well-equipped -- can stand up against nuclear weapons. Those 37,000 soldiers became more like hostages than protectors the minute North Korea developed the Bomb.
The redeployment plan is neither hasty nor unilateral -- although why the United States would need another country's permission to bring our own troops home is another question for Senator Kerry. What would he do if, as President, he decided to move troops out of Germany and the German government refused to agree to it? The fact is that these moves have been planned meticulously, and have been discussed with the leadership of the countries involved. A December 2003 UPI article called it "a long-studied repositioning of U.S. forces and bases" as the US was negotiating with Poland for the use of several bases there. "Informal talks have been under way for weeks with old allies such as Japan, South Korea and Germany about a possible reduction of U.S. troops in their countries, and there have been negotiations, too, about establishing new bases in the former Eastern Bloc countries of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria." In February 2004, Germany and America agreed to a schedule of US troop reductions. It was during talks in June 2004 that the government of South Korea may have suggested that the troop withdrawal take place over ten years, as the Associate Press reported at the time. The only person surprised by President Bush's announcement, it seems, was Senator Kerry.
The punchline is that just two weeks before President Bush made his announcement, Senator Kerry himself was advocating the very same thing. Once again, John Kerry has shown that he can take either side of any issue, as long as he believes it will get him votes. "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry said on 1 August 2004, on ABC's "This Week", declaring his intention to remove troops from Iraq. "If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there, but elsewhere in the world; in the Korean peninsula, perhaps; in Europe, perhaps." The problem with his Iraq hopes is that no country that doesn't already have troops in Iraq will send troops, no matter who is President. The French and German governments have made clear that sending troops is out of the question. If "help is on the way," it's not speaking French or German.
Kerry's insistence that other countries will suddenly, mysteriously reverse their positions -- flip-flop, if you will -- is solely based on wishful thinking, like his belief that creating a more business-hostile environment will create jobs in America. Unless he starts coming across with specific, credible plans to explain exactly how he intends to accomplish his aims, Senator Kerry is campaigning on smoke and mirrors.
Read the entire article here
According to the Drudge Report:
The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag
I guess the Senator and presumptive war hero can't actually answer his critics and their charges so he's resorting to trying to censor the men that served with him because they aren't toeing his line. It's really a sad day in America when the men who served and sacrificed in our armed forces have a Presidential candidate actively working to take their freedom of speech away.
In addition to Kerry's pro censorship view I'd like someone to ask the presumptive war hero for proof for his allegations that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a "front organization for Bush". The only thing that he has is that someone who gave money to the Swifties also gave money to Bush and that is not proof of President Bush breaking campaign finance laws.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
War veterans Jere Hill, middle, from Warham, Mass., and Robert Gibson, right, from Lexington, Ky., stand with their backs turned during Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's speech at the 105th Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Cincinnati on Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004. Man in foreground is unidentified. Kerry received a polite if not overwhelmingly positive reaction from the VFW. But there was a clear divide, with scores of veterans sittings with their arms folded while others clapped. (AP Photo/David Kohl)
Oh well. Kerry can always go to another journalists convention or visit Dearborn again if he needs some love.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
With this in mind let's look into the pages of the Yale yearbook at the two candidates who are now running for President and what they're experienced in:
Here is John Kerry top row third from left in his Yale Debate Club picture. Debating, well that's the perfect preparation for endless begging and pleading at the UN for permission to defend ourselves after being attacked.
Now this is the kind of leader that I want. Instead of debating or negotiating with the opposing team he takes action and kicks a little ass in order to win. Personally I respect President Bush a bit more for being a Rugby player because it's one of the most brutal sports ever. I knew several Rugby players in college and I'd rather have them on my side then on the other side because they will do what's necessary to protect their friends and loved ones.
In a world where people want to not only kill us but would rain fire down on our cities if given the chance who would you want as a leader, a debater or a Rugby player?
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Saturday, August 14, 2004
French Town Quietly Cheers On a Son: Kerry
Residents of the village where the Democrat's grandfather settled hope the candidate, if elected, will improve transatlantic ties.
ST.-BRIAC-SUR-MER, France — Imagine the scene here a year from now if this genteel village enters U.S. history.
On Aug. 15, 2005, President John F. Kerry returns with great fanfare to St.-Briac-sur-Mer, where his parents met and where he spent childhood vacations in a Breton coastal landscape immortalized by Renoir.
Escorted by his cousin, Mayor Brice Lalonde — a former candidate for the French presidency — Kerry leads the celebration of the 61st anniversary of the Allied liberation of the village from the Nazis.
Speaking fluent French, Kerry greets crowds filling narrow lanes and a town plaza festooned with flags of both nations. Kerry announces that he has chosen this community of 2,000, a cherished refuge of his globe-trotting family since 1923, to symbolize the rapprochement of the United States and France — indeed, Europe — after years of transatlantic tension.
That's a bigger pipe dream than the Maginot Line.
Friday, August 13, 2004
I wondered just how one would fight a "sensitive" war against the kind of subhuman slime who cut the heads off innocent victims on videotape. Kerry has offered few specifics on his plan for fighting terror, aside from forming a "real coalition" of nations (a massive slight on the British, Italians, Poles, Australians, Japanese, Spanish, and dozens of others who have been with us in both Afghanistan and Iraq, if you ask me). He has said he sees fighting terrorism as "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation." On his web site, Kerry's plan for making America safer consists mainly of tracking terrorists once they arrive, "hardening targets," and making sure first responders have what they need to clean up the carnage after the terrorists strike. Apparently, the lack of mess is supposed to discourage them. Nothing about preventing them from coming here in the first place, of course... nothing about letting them know it's not going to be worth the price. Nothing about stopping the nations who support them from doing so, by either diplomatic or military pressure. That sort of thing just isn't done, it seems.
In any case, it looks as though John Kerry needs help coming up with specific ways in which he can fight a more thoughtful and sensitive war on terror. In the spirit of cooperation, I'd like to suggest the following helpful list...
"Armed" with these suggestions, I'm sure John Kerry will be able to convince the terrorists to stop hating us in no time, should he win November's election. As for me... I'll be in the mountains building a bunker.
10. Stop calling it a "war." Rename it to the "Protest Against Terror." Protests always get people's attention and lets them know that
what you're protesting against is wrong.
9. Use softer bullets. Metal bullets hurt the terrorists, and that makes them hate us more.
8. Perhaps President Kerry can invite Osama bin Laden to the White House for a "cuddling party" with Kerry/Edwards. Nothing makes friends faster than a good cuddle.
7. Only go to war if the French and the UN say it's okay. Everyone knows how skillful the French are at dealing with other nations, and the UN has proven time and again its efficacy in dealing with terrorists.
6.Pull the troops out of Iraq within six months, but stay the course and even send more troops. If you have to ask, it's too nuanced for you.
5. Gently but firmly remind the terrorists that he was in Vietnam for
four months thirty-five years ago. They won't dare pull anything then.
4. Ensure government paid and operated health care for all Americans, paid for with higher taxes. Terrorists won't bother to attack if they know all Americans have health care; it won't do any good then.
3. Stop eating pork and cover the women. Don't let them read or vote. That will show the terrorists that we understand them and appreciate their culture.
2. Don't call them "terrorists." They feel bad enough about our bullying, abusive foreign policy as it is. Call them "armed peace demonstrators." They'll feel more... peaceful.
1. Don't send soldiers; send social workers. All they really need is love
from Cavalier's Guardian WatchBlog
"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real." - John Kerry In an Oct. 14, 1979, letter to the editor of the Boston HeraldDo you know who was President during Christmas 1968? It was not Richard Nixon no matter how many times John Kerry has made these claims. The fact of the matter is that Nixon was elected in 1968 but did not become President until January of 1969. Lyndon Johnson was President when Kerry claims to be in Cambodia. In addition to that none of his commanders remember ordering him into Cambodia and several of John Kerry's "Band Of Brothers" dispute the claim as well. Personally it sounds like as military people call it a bunch of "bravo sierra" to me.
A new bar opened and everyone in town was talking about it. The buzz was because it had a robot-bartender. One fellow had to see this for himself, so in he goes and sits at the bar.
Sure enough, a robot was bar tending. The man orders a drink, and the robot asks him what his IQ is. The man replies that his IQ is 150. With that, the robot begins discussing nuclear physics, hydrogen power cells, and the current state of the global atmosphere.
This fellow is impressed. He wants to see what happens if he doesn't claim to be quite as bright. So, he leaves the bar and comes right back in and sits at the bar. Again, the robot asks him for his IQ. This time the guy tells him it's 100. So the robot starts discussing football, basketball, and the proper way to grill a steak.
Wow, this is amazing and it peaks [sic] the man's interest in seeing how good this robot really is. Thus, he leaves and comes back in for a third time. This time he tells the robot that his IQ is 50. The robot replies: "So, are you democrats really going to vote for Kerry?"
Thursday, August 12, 2004
- The Mudville Gazette is pleased to announce the First Annual John Kerry Fan Fiction Contest.
- The Viking Pundit has written a new song about John Kerry, "Flipper's Delight."
- USA Today has this editorial: "Kerry's been consistent about his nuances, at least."
- Lee at Right-Thinking says, "Those who know vote Bush."
- Power Line has the dope on Dick Cheney mocking John Kerry for wanting a "sensitive" war on terror.
- Kerry said, "I Have Been Consistent All Along." The California Yankee begs to differ. (and does he ever!!)
- The Vodka Pundit asks this question; "If A Candidate Lies About Cambodia, But Nobody Reports It, Did It Actually Happen?"
- A person or persons of brilliance have started a great website called MoveOnPlease.org. Great work guys!!
- Q And O says, "The "they didn't serve on the same boat" meme is dead.
- And, finally, the picture of the week:
"I believe I can fight... (a) more sensitive war on terror" - John Kerry
Since John Kerry wants to wage a "more sensitive war on terror" what steps will he take to make war sensitive?
1. Out with real bullets for our soldiers, in with rubber ones.
2. Warn terrorists at least twenty-four hours before any attacks or bombings.
3. Out with camouflage, in with Earth tones.
4. Negotiating with terrorists rather than defeating them.
5. "Get Well" cards for injured terrorists.
6. Paintball guns for our soldiers rather than real guns.
7. Surrendering to terrorists rather than defeating them.
8. "Run away, run away".
My big question is what sensitivity did the terrorists show to us before murdering 3,000+ of us on 9-11-01? I don't remember any.
What suggestions for making the war on terror "more sensitive" do you have for John Kerry?
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
(By the way, add LaShawn Barber to your regular reading. A highly underrated blog, to say the least)
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Republicans have leveled the same charge against Kerry, saying he supported the project on several occasions.
But Kerry says those were procedural votes, and when the real votes were taken he opposed the project.
That's right. He voted for nuclear waste in Yucca before he voted against it, or maybe he didn't. Who knows with this guy?
And, how come the pliant media lapdogs never ask the natural follow-up question?
"Senator, if elected, where will you put the nuclear waste?"
Of course, he would never answer that directly. He call for studies or anything to avoid the issue. But, wouldn't it be just wonderful if the media actually put him in a position that any honest reporter has an obligation to?
"President Bush should immediately condemn this sleazy book written by a virulent anti-Catholic bigot. It says something about the smear campaign against John Kerry that it has stooped to enlist a hatemonger," - Kerry Campaign Spokesman Chad Clanton
Ok, so one of the authors has said some despicable things but the real question is why won't the Kerry Campaign actually refute the charges brought about by the men who served alongside John Kerry in Vietnam? If anything their refusal to answer the charges directly speaks volumes about which side is telling the truth.
Monday, August 09, 2004
On a campaign conference call on Friday, Kerry advisers in Washington tore into regional and state party organizers for not getting U.S. Senators out pushing the Kerry candidacy.
"Only a third of the Senate is running for re-election, so it's not as if all of our guys have to run away from their presidential candidate," says a Kerry campaign adviser. "But you sure get that feeling out on the road."
Most prominent in her lack of campaign energy: New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. While the junior senator has been attending party fundraisers, and was prominent during Kerry's Boston party, she has been less than cooperative in attending Kerry campaign events. She isn't alone. Few if any sitting Southern Democratic senators want to be seen with Kerry or for that matter his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.
Sad when your fellow Democrats don't want you anywhere near them, isn't it?
If stem cell research has the potential benefits that many people claim it does, the private sector will indeed chase the vast profits that will come with it. As Kerry continues to press this issue, just remember that it is nothing more than a part of the complete end game, which is total government control over health care.
Everyone knows by now that John Kerry served for four months on a "swift boat" in Vietnam. Don't say you haven't heard, unless you've spent the last year in a cave. Kerry mentions it several times per minute in every campaign speech he intones. He deflects nearly every question asked of him by holding up his Naval service in 1968 and 1969, especially questions about his plans for national security and defense should he become President. His campaign ads feature pictures of him in uniform. Former servicemen flank him at every campaign stop, some of whom even served with him. When he made his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, he made a show of saluting the audience and "reporting for duty." (Perhaps President Bush should take him at his word, and send him to Iraq.) The "highlight" of the evening was a nine-minute biographical movie directed by Steven Spielberg protege James Moll, and narrated by Morgan Freeman. The bulk of the movie featured -- surprise! -- John Kerry in Vietnam, including footage filmed at the time by Kerry, or at his direction. (No one, of course, seems to have asked who gave him authorisation to use military personnel to shoot his personal home movies if the films were actually shot while in combat. No one has asked who authorised him to take military transport and personnel to visit areas where action had taken place in order to recreate the action for his own purposes, if the films were shot while off duty.)
So... we get it. John Kerry was in Vietnam. What no one can explain is how that alone qualifies him to be President of the United States. No one can explain how spending four months on a patrol boat thirty-five years ago is a better qualification than spending the last three years destroying terrorist training camps, breaking up terror cells in the US and abroad, uncovering a multinational nuclear proliferation ring, forcing belligerent North Korea to the bargaining table, cowing Libya into giving up its WMD programs and terrorist support, and winning two wars against terrorist-supporting Islamofascist dictatorships in the process.
Now a group of Kerry's fellow swift boat veterans has spoken out against him, saying that his service was undeserving of the medals he won in those four months. They claim that he was untrustworthy and manipulative. They call his leadership of Vietnam Veterans Against the War treasonous, pointing to the lies told about soldiers before Congress in the Winter Soldier investigation. They say that he isn't worthy of being entrusted with the Presidency of the United States, in their opinion. The media, if doing its job, would be asking for proof of their accusations about Kerry's deeds and misdeeds, so the truth can be exposed to public view. When President Bush's Air National Guard service was questioned, the media repeatedly demanded that he provide proof of his service. Instead, the "mainstream" media is obsessed with the group's sources of funding. The media never seems to mention multi-billionaires George Soros and Peter Lewis funding MoveOn.org and other anti-Bush political action committees (PACs). Democrats are shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that some Republicans may have contributed money to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I'm not sure I understand their rather one-sided objections. Are the same Democrats equally outraged that Soros and Lewis contributed to the Kerry campaign? Democrats attack the swift boat veterans as liars (though how they know this is unclear). Are they as outraged by the outright lies and manipulations in Michael Moore's hours-long anti-Bush commercial? No... they give Moore a seat in former President Jimmy Carter's skybox at the 2004 Democratic convention.
The reason Kerry showcases his brief Vietnam service is three-fold. First, doing so paints him as a tough combat veteran -- precisely the image a Liberal Democrat needs to cultivate when trying to convince most Americans to vote for him, especially during a war. Second, it insulates him from questions about defending America from our enemies -- President Bush's strength. When the answer to any question is, "I served in Vietnam, so I know what I'm doing," there's nothing a non-veteran can say without appearing to attack his Vietnam service. That's where people like these swift boat veterans, Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry and POW/MIA Families Against John Kerry come in, people who can ask questions about Kerry's Vietnam service and his anti-war activism upon his return. However, doing so plays right into Kerry's third reason for touting his abbreviated Vietnam tour. Talking about Vietnam generates headlines for a media generally devoted to convincing the American people to vote for Kerry.
Personally, I don't care about Kerry's Vietnam service in the context of the Presidential election. I'm grateful that he and more than three million Americans served in that war. If this election was being held to decide who was the better swift boat commander, then John Kerry would win hands-down over George W. Bush... although Bush would probably win an election for best fighter pilot. But it's not about that. This election is to decide who should lead the nation through the troubling and dangerous four years ahead. We're still recovering from the terrible effects of 9/11, a massive recession, the exposure of long-term corporate scandals that further rocked the economy, and the first two major battles of a war that will likely span decades. The 2004 election should be about experience -- recent, relevant experience. "What have you done for us lately?" is the question we should be asking the candidates.
John Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee for eight years in the 1990s, so he had access to up-to-date information on al-Qaeda and its activities. What steps did he take to fight terrorism? Why did he propose cutting the military in bill S.1163, just months after the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing? Two years later, why did he propose in bill S.1290 to "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000?" In 1996, why did Kerry propose in bill S.1580 to reduce military funding by $6.5 billion? Why did he vote against funding vital military equipment like the MX missile, the Patriot missile, the Apache helicopter, the Blackhawk helicopter, the B-1 Bomber and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, as his voting record clearly shows? More recently, why did he change his vote to deny our military in Iraq the equipment they needed so desperately? Kerry explained, "I actually voted for the $87 billion... before I voted against it." Partisans excuse his vote switch by saying that he did so only because those eeevil Republicans refused to take money from the citizens to pay for the war. Did the troops suddenly need the body armor any less? Would the bullets kill better if paid for by higher taxes instead of pork barrel reductions? In his nineteen years in the Senate, what vote, what piece of legislation can John Kerry trot out to show us he would make a better President than George Bush? Kerry's answer to questions like these is merely, "I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president." We're back to Vietnam again, although this election is supposedly taking place in 2004.
John Kerry is hiding behind his Vietnam experience to avoid talking about the nineteen years he spent in the Senate voting against defending America, and the media is aiding and abetting him. The more we allow Vietnam to dominate the election discussions, the less we will be able to find out what a vote for Kerry would mean for our future.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
If you listen to the Democrats those men do not have the right to question Kerry's version of events even though they served side by side with him. I guess if you were in Vietnam longer than four months you don't have the basic rights like freedom of speech that the men in the military guarantee for all of us with their service and sacrifice according to the Democrats. Selective rights is not a principal that this nation was founded on.
Friday, August 06, 2004
"You bet we might have."
[Hat tip; Viking Pundit]
Excellent character analysis of John O'Neill, author of "UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" by a lawyer who once questioned him under oath.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
But rather than answering the shocking alegations of killings and the torching of villiages by their candidate the Kerry camp is attacking the funding of the group. They have been screaming that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth is funded by a wealthy Republican supporter from Texas. Oh the humanity! Of course they forget that their attack dogs, Moveon.org and others who like to portray President Bush as Hitler are supported by a wealthy Democrat supporter, George Soros.
It's obvious that the Democrats can't take their own medicine so my advice to them since they hitched their cart to someone who wants to use his four months in Vietnam as his campaign cornerstone is to sit down and shut the fuck up. If you're going to dish it out you better as hell be prepared to take it.
Click here to read Paul Drabek's Blog.
First, Senator John McCain is upset....at the veterans! (the original said "McCain slams ad questioning Kerry's service.")
McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad
WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry (news - web sites)'s military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
McCain is wrong for doing this, especially since he was once a POW forced to hear his jailers run Kerry's speeches for propaganda, and he didn't like it one bit.
The answer to why McCain did this is simple: He is running again for President in 2008. Sadly, McCain thinks that all the fawning media coverage he has been getting for the last few months will transfer to the next campaign. It won't. He has made the mistake of believing his own press. Plus, let's face it, he doesn't like Bush. He thinks that Bush underhanded him out of the nomination. I'm sure McCain thought that after winning New Hampshire, he was going to sail to the Republican nomination. Obviously, that didn't happen, and the press has played up the "Bush skull-fucked him" angle to no end.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
That McCain plans to run for President in 2008 is the only plausible explanation for his active efforts for the Bush campaign. By doing this, he is helping to gain support for himself down the road. I am disappointed that, as a POW and Vietnam Veteran once slandered by Kerry now comes to his aid.
With all that being said, if I am still here in Arizona when he runs for re-election, or if he runs for President in 2008, I won't hesitate to vote for the man. He is a good man trying to appeal to a future electorate. I don't agree with it, but I respect him enough to not hold it against him.
Also, the DNC is trying to crush this ad. If Bush did this, could you imagine the "censorship" cries?
DNC Lawyers Work To Muzzle Swift Boat Vets' Ad
HUMAN EVENTS has obtained a copy of a letter which lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry have sent to television station managers attempting to suppress the blistering anti-Kerry TV spot created by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (click here to view the ad) and first reported here on HumanEventsOnline.com.
The letter claims the ad is "false" and "libelous" and suggests, in not-so-subtle terms, that TV stations should use their "legal authority" to refuse any requests for advertising airtime, stating that "because your station has this freedom [to refuse the ad], and because it is not a 'use' of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor" (emphasis added).
I really don't like treading in these waters, questioning Kerry's service. But, since Kerry has basically used it as the sole justification for his candidacy, he needs to answer for this.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
All of those supporting Kerry are highlighted, and one of the highlighted is Kerry!
I was just trying to get an understand on one's point of view. Supporting
the work Dubya is doing intrigues me. If your world only exists for the
benefit of you, then I understand. If your truly interested in the well
being of other people how is what Dubya is doing apart of that? I don't see
any sort of responsibility or interest in what is the best for the people in
this country. His regime has not only destroyed education but they are
dismantling the middle class. The middle class didn't just appeared it took
years and sweat to build. The state of the economy is that of the wake of a
teen age spending spree. Who gets to pay for this black hole? I know the
money Halliburton is making in Iraq isn't going towards it. I have a buddy
in Iraq running security for the employees of Halliburton. He's risking his
life in the name of freedom so this company can steal this oil. Justify that
to me, please. The educational system I see being destroyed before my eye's
as I work at a high school. No child left behind is a joke it's making
school's look at kids as products that need to be built on a conveyor belt.
Art, music, wood shop, any classes that deal with the expressive side of the
brain are being cut. Math, science, history, English classes of this nature
are being taught in away that the material isn't being learned, but
memorized for the standardize tests. The way teacher's are being forced to
teach doesn't give these kids any understanding of this information, just
the knowledge to fill in the circle with a #2 pencil. Talk to any teacher
that gives a shit about these kid's future, they'll tell you how these kids
are being screwed. I guess they don't need an education to stuff boxes and
assemble cheep crap make in China. Please respond to this because I would
really like to know how someone can support this guy's decisions.
First off, Rob, I appreciate your efforts as a teacher, especially since my girlfriend and the mother of my baby is a teacher. I realize that it is not an easy job, and most teachers truly care. With that being said, let me show you the error of your thoughts, point by point.
- regime has not only destroyed education but they are
dismantling the middle class. You show your ignorance immediately by calling the Bush administration a "regime," which is nothing more than leftist crap. Anyway, how is Bush destroying education? Never in the history of this country has the federal government spent more money on education. And, who wrote most of No Child Left Behind? Ted Kennedy, the NEA hero.
Ever been to an NEA convention? All they talk about is gay rights, abortion rights, multiculturalism, and the environment. Basically the entire left-wing agenda. What is the one thing they hardly discuss? That's right, education. High schools in this country didn't all of a sudden turn to crap on January 20, 2001. The problem you and your fellow teachers have with Bush is accountability and the threat of competition from school vouchers. When Stephanie worked at a public school, she was not allowed to acknowledge Christmas or Thanksgiving, lest they offend a student who might not celebrate those holidays, while spending 3 days on Cinco de Mayo and Chinese New Year. The multicultural crap she was forced to teach was shameful.
This is my favorite part of your e-mail:
Art, music, wood shop, any classes that deal with the expressive side of the
brain are being cut. Math, science, history, English classes of this nature
are being taught in away that the material isn't being learned, but
memorized for the standardize tests. The way teacher's are being forced to
teach doesn't give these kids any understanding of this information, just
the knowledge to fill in the circle with a #2 pencil.
I have heard this nonsense time and time again. You want to teach the touchy-feely rather than the useful. I've heard the "teaching to the test" gripes many times. It's all bull. This isn't about the kids, it's about teachers worried about covering their asses. Why blame yourselves or your administrators when you can blame Bush? Take a look at the D.C. school district as a perfect example. They spend over $13,000 a year per student, and the school district is a complete joke. Don't tell me it is about not having enough money. The private schools, who must be competitive to survive, do much better teaching for a lot less money. Bush is absolutely right in trying to introduce competition to the public schools. You and the NEA-controlled Democrats (or is it Democrat-controlled NEA?) just want to keep your jobs for life without accountability, no different than the money-losing post office.
Why the problem with standardized tests? Shouldn't there by some measure of whether or not children are learning? Art and music are nice, but THEY ARE WORTHLESS IN PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE. Math, Science, and English are what one needs to be successful in life. Without those, our kids will indeed be qualified to do nothing more than assemble boxes.
Your attitude is exactly why Stephanie now teaches at a private, Christian school, and why we will never send our daughter Emily to a public school.
As for your friend working for Haliburton in Iraq, "risking his life in the name of freedom so this company can steal this oil," exactly whose fault is it that he is working there? Haliburton is paying a couple grand a week, and people are taking advantage of it. They are taking the risk for the money, which is exactly how the free market should work. (If you try to tell me he is a member of the armed forces assigned simply to make Haliburton rich, then you've lost all credibility with me. Peddle that over at the far-left websites. My cousin is on the ground in Iraq and I get reports from him directly, and I am well aware of what is going on there)
In sum Rob, if you think your kids are getting screwed, simplying blaming Bush is a waste of time, and you know it. Schools for the most part are locally controlled, so you need to start looking at your local school district. If you don't like having accountability standards or other conditions attached to receiving federal money, then what can I say? Too bad. The NEA are a bunch of greedy liberal bureaucrats who know that the Democrats are their buddies and that the Republicans aren't. If your school sucks, then YOU and your fellow teachers need to fix it.
Also, you should read some of Diane Ravitch's work, especially The Language Police.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
There is an article in GQ this month about Bush's missing years... I am confused at whether or not they are trying to be serious... you tell me.
GQ : FEATURES : GENERAL
Remember my friends, this is GQ we are talking about here. Not exactly top-notch journalism. It's emphasis on vanity surely assures a liberal slant.
A friend and I have written a book about John Kerry. Would you link your web site to our book site?
The link is: http://www.savinggraceorsavingface.com/
Let me now if you would like a complementary E-version for your review.
Via DL: Kerry' speech dissected.
Via Jason Li, a high schooler from Pasadena, California:
I am from the great State of Massachusetts, and I'm not even voting for Kerry. I can't justify to myself to vote for someone who says that he is Catholic and Irish on St. Patricks Day, but in actualality is Jewish. Another thing he has been a senator for MA for about 20 years, he has never drafted or co-sponsored a bill in his carear. Thats crap. His great plan to save the nation from economic crisis and he can't even tell us what it is. I would rather vote for someone's agenda that i don't like rather than vote for someone whos agenda i don't even know. He flip flops to much and is unstable and a pathological liar. Thats all I got. Thanks gentleman.
Junior at UMass Dartmouth
N. Dartmouth, MA 02747
thought that you would appreciate what some Kentucky Republicans are doing. http://www.republicancollectibles.com/
For background do a google search on "Kentucky kerry bin laden bumper stickers" You'll find plenty my friend.
Pass it ON.
I discovered your site via a Slashdot link, and I looked over a few of
the articles & comments on your front page. It's an interesting site,
but you (perhaps intentionally) suffer the same problem as the
"worthless liberals" you make fun of - you believe you are inherently
correct in your biases and perceptions, and that the liberal perspective
is just as inherently wrong. Makes for fun, inspired reading, but
hardly educational. Sort of like Fahrenheit 911 - fun to watch, but
easy to see the blatant Bush-hating, too. I am still curious/concerned
about the Bush-Saudi connection (which I've read about from other
sources, so it's not just something Moore made up), however.
For what it's worth, I probably fall into the libertarian flock. I'm
definitely liberal, but in my view the Democratic party is just the
other side of the same coin as the Republican party. Both parties have
far too much bureaucracy, politics, and money to actually do anything
for the true good of the American people and the future of this country.
That said, I'm disgusted by Kerry's "Anybody but Bush" campaign. I
actually agree with you on this point - Kerry needs to give me a good
reason to vote FOR him, instead of AGAINST Bush. If he doesn't, I'll
probably vote Nader. You'll probably appreciate that, since everyone
says that's effectively a vote for Bush ;-)