Senator John “F#$%ing” Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts, failed Presidential candidate, and all-around dork, took advantage of a campaign trip for Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm to bash President Bush and inflate his own ego. Talking about the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Sen. Kerry pontificated: “If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened.” And how would the French-looking Senator have prevented this? As he sees it, the problem is how President Bush has concentrated so much on Iraq. “The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East,” Kerry said. “We’re going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it.”

So diplomacy would have saved the day, but only if Senator Kerry were in charge. But the Senator doesn’t explain how you can negotiate with someone who wants you dead. Hezbollah has shown that its desire and ultimate goal is a world without the nation of Israel, so where is the middle ground when one side wants the other side dead and gone? Would Hezbollah settle for just killing half of Israel? Would they be willing to just maim and deal out grievous bodily harm as a compromise?

Not bloody likely.

But here’s the kicker of Kerry’s comments, as quoted in the news article:

Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush has focused military strength on Iraq.

“This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq….We have to destroy Hezbollah,” he said.

Note that the “Kerry solution” entails going after various terrorist organizations “such as al-Qaida and the Taliban,” and, by his crystal-clear hindsight, Hezbollah. Instead, says he, President Bush made the mistake of taking out Iraq, and as Kerry already mentioned, there were no terrorists there in Iraq. And Senator Kerry explains what needs to be done: “We have to destroy Hezbollah.”

So what happened to the art of diplomacy that Senator Kerry loves so dear?

Today is Election Day in the United States. Initially I thought this was a day specifically prescribed by the Constitution, but a quick reread shows that the first Tuesday of November (assuming it isn’t also the first day of the month) is not specified as election day. That was later decreed by Congress. This would explain why several states have come up with the idea of “early voting” this year as a response to the many cries of “disenfranchisement” raised in the 2000 election.

What is disenfranchisement? Rather than the generic definition of depriving someone of a franchise (“Go away, you! This is my McDonald’s now!”), disenfranchisement in this political arena means to deprive someone of the right to vote. There are laws on the books right now that strip convicted felons of the right to vote, as well as the rights of freedom and free assembly, among others. Because of their actions, felons have lost their right to vote. Our laws also disenfranchise another large group of people — non-Americans. If you are not a citizen of the United States, you may not vote in our elections. But give it some time, and you will find that more people will petition that non-citizens be given the right to vote here.

There are people who claim that accidentally voting for the wrong candidate disenfranchised them. Remember the folks in Floriduh? “I’m such a blithering idiot, I can’t follow a simple punch ballot.” Assuming that these people actually were thickheaded enough to pick the wrong guy, they did vote, so they were not disenfranchised. They were just morons. Then there is the often-used lie that a million blacks were disenfranchised in Florida because their votes were not recounted, or because there were over-votes (more than one vote for President on a ballot) or under-votes (no votes for President on a ballot). In each case, the people were allowed to vote; thus their rights were not denied. About the only voters who ran the risk of being disenfranchised were the military voters whom Democrat lawyers petitioned the state to ignore — this from the same people who chanted “every vote should count” later in November. Oh, the irony.

In reality, when Democrats and Republicans say that every vote should count, they mean two different things. Democrats mean that every vote should count by all the people, dead or alive, citizens or not, for as many times as they voted. This is why the dead of Chicago vote again and again, and why Chad Staton got crack cocaine from a NAACP worker in Ohio for filling out 124 false voter registration forms. “Vote early and vote often” is not just a silly phrase for Democrats. Republicans mean that every vote should be counted once, and only once, for every legal voter because that is what the law says. But this idea is too strict and narrow-minded for the Marxist Left. They want their power back, and what’s a little voter fraud between friends as long as they get what they want?

I’ll tell you what I want — I want every American citizen who cares to vote, to vote once and only once. I would not force people to vote. I would not fine people who choose not to vote. But I would strictly prosecute anyone who votes illegally in any way. The first thing I would do is require everyone to register to vote again, making all current registrations null and void. To register to vote, each citizen would have to prove his or her identity with a valid photo ID and proof of U.S. citizenship. When I got my new driver’s license last month, I had to prove I was who I said I was with a valid out-of-state license and birth certificate papers, and having proven who I was, I took advantage of the “motor voter” laws to register right then to vote. But I could have walked down to the county voter registration office and registered to vote with nothing but some proof that I lived in the county. No photo ID or proof of U.S. citizenship was necessary in that office; it would have been easy to fool them. Clearly, proving your identity for a driver’s license is more important in this state than ensuring a clean voter registration roll.

Second, I would ensure that you must be present to vote. This means I would not allow absentee ballots, since unless you are present there is no way of proving you are who you say you are. If you cannot be in your home district to vote, then you cannot vote. The only exception I would allow would be for active military deployed overseas. When a voter arrives to vote, three things would be necessary: a valid photo ID like a current state driver’s license or U.S. passport, proof of citizenship, and proof of registration.

Third, I would ensure that the ballots are not easily tampered with. After proving identity and citizenship, the voter would then sign his or her name to the voter roll and fingerprint both the signature and the ballot. This ballot would be numbered and trackable. Punch-card ballots are too easily tampered with and would not be allowed. Neither would I allow the paperless electronic voting machines being advocated around the U.S. It is too easy for votes to disappear when there is nothing physical to count again if needed. I would only allow optically scanned ballots that the voter completes by filling in the appropriate circle with a pen. These ballots can be read quickly by counting machines, and recounted easily. This system combines the best parts of computer ballot tabulation and the physical paper trail necessary to ensure the honesty of elections.

Finally, I would punish harshly anyone who falsely registers or tampers with ballots. Since these people have tampered with the voting process, one just punishment would be permanent disenfranchisement. It is only fitting, after all.

Sadly, I am realistic enough to know that these steps will never be taken in my lifetime. But I can dream.

So get out there and vote today. If you are registered, and if you do it honestly. If not, let me sincerely invite you to go directly to hell, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

Addendum (11/2/2004): Drudge is reporting some exit poll results before the polls officially close with a caution that these results are very unreliable. If the results are unreliable, and have been historically unreliable, WHY THE #@$% ARE YOU REPORTING THEM! Grrr! If I could, I would ban all reporting of exit poll results until after the polls actually close. You can scream about a violation of your freedom of speech, but I believe that right is trumped by the responsibility of not allowing the election to be affected in mid-polling.

Addendum (11/3/2004): Here I am, awake at 5 am, and looking over election results for the past hour. I am so very glad that President Bush pulled such large numbers to make it harder to repeat the prolonged vote haggling we got in 2000 in Florida. This year it looks like Ohio is the contested state, but with President Bush significantly in the lead, Ohio’s 20 electoral votes should be given to President Bush and seal the election. The only possible snag are the provisional ballots, and while there are currently more than the vote difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry, they won’t matter. Captain Ed points out that Ohio will only swing to Senator Kerry if 100% of the provisional ballots are accepted and if 100% of the accepted ballots go to Senator Kerry. And neither will happen. I hear the fat lady singing, Senator, don’t you?

Addendum (11/3/2004): Apparently Senator Kerry heard her and conceded. This shows some class on his part more than Al Gore. What else can I say but “Four more years!”

Addendum (11/9/2004): There are people who are so sorry that President Bush won. And others who are not sorry. I submitted the following image to the sad-sack crowd, but I doubt it will ever be posted.

Yarr harr harr harr!

Stem cell research has been a big deal during this political season. Actor Christopher Reeve was a proponent of stem cell research before his death earlier this month. Senator Kerry and others have used it as a tool to beat on President Bush, who supposedly banned stem cell research. Of course, that’s a lie — President Bush never banned it, as I’ve pointed out before. The topic simmered in this year’s political soup, occasionally rolling to the top like a carrot in boiling stock. Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post wrote of this latest burst on October 15th:

It turned out days later that the Kerry campaign has a plan — nay, a promise — to cure paralysis. What is the plan? Vote for Kerry.

This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: “If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.”

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable….

As a doctor by training, I’ve known better than to believe the hype — and have tried in my own counseling of people with new spinal cord injuries to place the possibility of cure in abeyance. I advise instead to concentrate on making a life (and a very good life it can be) with the hand one is dealt. The greatest enemies of this advice have been the snake-oil salesmen promising a miracle around the corner. I never expected a candidate for vice president to be one of them.

Recently, stem cell research hit the news again with California’s Proposition 71. This proposition would take $3 billion from Californians ($6 billion after interest kicks in — yes, that’s billion with a b) to fund embryonic stem cell research. The Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is backing Prop. 71, but not all Republicans are equally in favor of it. Actor and director Mel Gibson has come out publicly against Prop. 71.

In an October 28 appearance with Diane Sawyer of ABC’s Good Morning America, Mel Gibson had this to say:

I’m very concerned with, with, with the stem cell question. I’m for stem cell research. I think it can do a lot of good. When I heard about Proposition 71 to sort of promote stem cell research, I was overjoyed, you know, because it can do so much good. But then I began to look further into the proposition and I found that the cloning of human embryos will be used in the process, and that for me, I have an ethical problem with that.

Here is another exchange from the same show:

[Diane Sawyer] One challenge that is raised is this is not a human being. This is a group of cells clustered in a petri dish, barely visible …

[Mel Gibson] Well, I was never in a petri dish, but at one stage, I was that little cluster of cells myself, as were you, as was the doctor, as is everybody. Tell me anybody who wasn’t that at some point in their development and I’ll give you a cigar.

You can read the whole transcript from this show on LexisNexis. In addition to this show and other media interviews and radio guest spots, Mel Gibson recorded a short ad speaking out against Prop. 71. The transcript is below; you can listen to the original on www.NoOn71.org:

Research on adult and umbilical cord stem cells have led to cures in 300,000 cases. But that’s not what Proposition 71 is about.

This is Mel Gibson. I’m concerned that people aren’t fully informed about Prop 71. We’ve got a lot of questions to ask, like, “Why are we being misled into thinking Prop 71 isn’t about cloning, when it is?” That’s what it says. “Somatic cell nuclear transfer,” and that’s a scientific term for cloning.

If cloning human embryos for destruction is so promising, why aren’t private companies paying the six billion dollars? Because in 23 years, embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single human cure. All it’s yielded is tumors, rejection and mutations.

See, bad science doesn’t attract venture capital, so why should the taxpayers be bled dry?

This is Mel Gibson. I’m voting No on Prop 71. Creating life simply to destroy it is wrong, particularly when there are effective alternatives readily available.

Why should the public be forced to fund something that could be handled by private industry? If this really is the end-all, be-all cure of the century, wouldn’t you expect wise-minded investors to toss a few dollars toward embryonic stem cell research? Of course they would. But they don’t, because the interesting research is coming from adult and umbilical cord stem cells. Heck, they have even found adult stem cells in fat, and if there is one thing the adults in this country have in good supply, it is fat.

There is no need to push embryonic stem cell research while adult and umbilical cord stem cells are available. And it certainly should not be achieved at public expense.

Addendum (11/3/2004): Well, Californians passed it. I hope they don’t mind ponying up the six billion dollars.

The other day I came across a list of reasons why President Bush should not be re-elected. Here’s the list:

  1. Bush is destroying workers’ rights and outsourcing jobs instead of protecting the right to organize and creating new jobs rebuilding schools, bridges, roads and hospitals.
  2. Bush is privatizing Medicare, Social Security and public education with phony reforms instead of enacting health care for all, protecting retirement funds and full funding for public education through college.
  3. Bush is bankrupting the Federal Government with giant tax cuts for the very rich and super-funds to the military instead of securing the budget for human needs by taxing the rich and spending on human needs.
  4. Bush is rolling back civil rights gains instead of enforcing and expanding affirmative action to end racism in all areas of life.
  5. Bush is curtailing women’s rights and choice by undermining Roe v. Wade instead of upholding the right to choice and ending the gender wage gap.
  6. Bush is abusing immigrant workers in low-wage jobs instead of providing a clear path to citizenship and equal rights.
  7. Bush is exploiting and ruining the environment by protecting corporate polluters instead of conserving our natural resources for the public good.
  8. Bush’s war in Iraq is a disaster for our security and economy. He is pushing for more preemptive wars and for first strike nuclear military policy instead of negotiations and cooperation utilizing the UN.
  9. Bush is denying civil liberties and free speech in the name of fighting terrorism instead of repealing the USA Patriot Act and helping cities, towns and states fund firefighters and police.
  10. Bush discriminates against Gays and Lesbians with a Constitutional Amendment instead of expanding civil rights and liberties for all.

If you have been following the latest election cycle as I have, you’d recognize these are reasons being used by Democrat Senator John Kerry’s campaign against President Bush (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10), but there is one catch — this list didn’t come from the Democratic National Committee site. It came from the Communist Party USA site. There is virtually no difference between the Democratic objections to President Bush and his administration, and the Communist ones. Why? The answer is simple enough — the modern Democratic party is Marxist by its very nature.

The American Left didn’t start out Marxist, but it has increasingly become so in the past decades. I pointed out before that the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto have been fully accepted by the Left (and, sadly, by the Right in too many instances). But the Marxist rot has spread the farthest and been accepted the most by the Democrats and the Left.

Numerous pundits have noted a double standard between how members of the Left and Right are treated. Republican Senator Trent Lott made an off-the-cuff remark about fellow-Republican Senator Strom Thurmond’s presidential run of four decades earlier, and the subsequent backlash and cries of “Racist!” from the Left forced him to step down from his position of power in the Senate. Yet Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was an active member of the Ku Klux Klan in his past, and he recently used the word “nigger” multiple times on national TV. There were no similar calls of outrage and horror from the Left, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) dismissed this obvious demonstration of racism. Former President Clinton has been accused of multiple rapes and has confessed to multiple adulterous affairs, yet the National Organization of Women (NOW) has not only excused these actions, they actually stood by Clinton during the exposure of his affair with Monica Lewinsky and subsequent impeachment. The Left proudly claims to champion the rights of racial minorities and women, but willingly accepts bigotry and misogyny when it comes from within their own ranks. Lawrence Auster explains why this double standard exists: the American Left has become Marxist.

The basic reason for the “liberal” double standard has already been alluded to. It is that today’s “liberals” are really leftists who have rejected the older liberal belief in a shared equality of citizens before the law and have embraced the socialist vision of “equality as a fact and equality as a result,” as Lyndon Johnson famously put it. Since people are unequal in their ability to accumulate property, as Hayek argued in the Mirage of Social Justice, equality of results can only be pursued by treating people unequally. This is the origin of the double standard.

Still don’t believe me? I have already demonstrated the link between the Communist Party USA and the Democratic party in their shared anti-Bush message, and I previously wrote how the DNC fully embraces the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, but you can also see it in some of the Democrat campaign slogans. Senator John Edwards’ “Two Americas” speech has been used repeatedly on the campaign trail:

Today under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one. One America does the work, while another America reaps the reward. One America pays the taxes, while another America gets the tax breaks.

Tell me whether there is any material difference between Senator Edwards’ stump speech and this quote by Joe Cannon, from the 1948 Socialist Workers’ Party convention speech:

There are two Americas — and millions of the people already distinguish between them. One is the America of the imperialists — of the little clique of capitalists, landlords and militarists, who are threatening and terrifying the world. This is the America the people of the world hate and fear. There is the other America — the America of the workers and farmers and the ‘little people.’

Another slogan for the Kerry/Edwards ticket, “Let America Be America Again,” was taken from the first line of a poem by Langston Hughes — a known Communist activist. This particular poem shows the poet’s admiration of Joseph Stalin, the most murderous of all the Soviet leaders. Senator Kerry wrote the preface to a recent re-release of Hughes’ poetry, so he seems to have no difficulty with the very pro-Communist flavor of Hughes’ work.

Speaking of Senator Kerry, the Left is rallying around him because he is their appointed leader. When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group started to voice its concerns and opposition to Senator Kerry’s Navy record and service in Vietnam, the Left responded not by refuting these claims, but by launching attacks on the Swift Vets themselves. Apparently it is OK for the self-proclaimed “party of the little guy” to attack the little guys of the Swift Vets group when they dared to challenge the Left’s anointed leader. Any lie, dishonesty, sneaky behavior, or illegal act is defensible and right if it is done to uphold Marxist ideals.

This is why Leftists don’t care about their own hypocrisy. This is why it is useless to expose the Left’s double standard. Since treating people differently to achieve equality of result fits with Marxist ideals, the hypocrisy of their actions simply doesn’t matter. It is part of what they must do to achieve their desired ends. I believe in calling a spade a spade, so from now on, I will stop calling radical Democrats “the Left” or “the liberal Left” and call them by their true name: the Marxist Left.

As I type this, the Marxist Left is being exposed again. On October 14th, just a few weeks before the national election in November, the Democrat election playbook was leaked to the press. Chapter 2 of the playbook directs Democrats to “launch a pre-emptive strike” if no sign of voter intimidation appears. In other words, if nothing goes wrong, the Marxist Left is to go ballistic and claim voter intimidation anyway. You can see this in the shrill verbiage from the Marxist Left on the subject of the 2000 vote in Florida. They claim that a million blacks were disenfranchised, but nobody can point to a single black person who was prevented from voting. But since it assists their goal of regaining power, it’s acceptable for the Democrats to lie. In a further attempt to muddy the waters, the “Colorado Election Day Manual” says to round up the useful idiots and parade them before the media: in other words, describe “party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting”. The truth doesn’t matter to these people; all that matters is getting and keeping power. That is the essence of Marxism.

Have you been following the news lately? If not, let me sum up last week. On Wednesday, Dan Rather interviewed former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Governor Ben Barnes. Barnes said, “First of all, I want to say that I’m not here to bring any harm to George Bush’s reputation or his career.” (Yeah, right.) “It’s been a long time ago, but [Sid Adger, common friend of Barnes and then-Congressman George Bush] said basically would I help young George Bush get in the Air National Guard,” said Barnes. President Bush countered this revelation: “Any allegation that my dad asked for special favors is simply not true. And the former president of the United States has said that he in no way, shape or form helped me get into the National Guard. I didn’t ask anyone to help me get into the Guard either.”

Here we have two groups with completely different stories, and they can’t both be telling the truth. So how do you tell which group is lying? Well, who has something to gain if their story is believed? The Bushes, both father and son, would lose politically if it shows up that their denials are incorrect. But CBS News failed to mention that Barnes is a major Kerry supporter and donator. If Barnes’ story succeeds in blackening Bush and getting Kerry into office, Barnes stands to be rewarded with sweet political plums.

Both sides have something to gain and lose, so we must look at the facts and evidence surrounding the claims. Both Presidents Bush have denied these charges, but here’s another interesting quote from Barnes in May of this year: “I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard when I was lieutenant governor of Texas, and I’m not necessarily proud of that, but I did it.” But Barnes wasn’t lieutenant governor in 1968, the year George W. entered the Texas Air National Guard. It could have been a slip of the tongue, but since this quote was used in a TV commercial, you’d think Barnes would have done a retake for a simple slip. He must have believed it when he said it.

Then CBS begins to wave around some memos apparently written by President Bush’s commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. These memos purport to show that people like Brigadier General “Buck” Staudt were pressuring Killian about Bush’s service and lack thereof. For now, let’s ignore the glaring fact that Gen. Staudt had retired in 1972 and would have had no say in the Guard’s business, and focus on a bigger problem with these memos: they are fakes.

Within twelve hours of the documents being aired on the 60 Minutes II program, Internet blogging sites like Free Republic, Powerline and Little Green Footballs had dissected the memos and showed how exactly the same documents could be produced with a current copy of Microsoft Word for Windows. And you don’t have to change any of Word’s default settings to do so. What is the likelihood that a 1972-era typewriter could center, kern, line space, tab, and superscript in a way that is literally identical to the workings of a high-tech word processor used three decades later? Not likely at all. In fact, several of the bloggers have produced animated images to show how closely the documents from 1973 and modern documents relate. If you’re interested, I suggest spending some time at Little Green Footballs’ memo logs..

As a former Air Force brat, I can recognize that some of the formatting in these memos is highly suspect. Look at a stack of real military documents, and notice that the typewritten documents are all in non-proportional fonts, exactly what you’d expect from a typewriter. Notice, too, that the names and ranks show up in the same format all throughout the documents: name, rank, organization. Here’s a few examples:

MATTHEW F. HEIMAN, Lt Col, TEXANG
G B GREENE, JR, MAJGEN, USAF
WILLIE J HOOPER JR, Capt, TEXANG
JOSEPH R. JELINEK, Colonel, NGB

But none of the four memos show this format. The two with signatures are formatted thus:

JERRY B. KILLIAN
Lt. Colonel

No TEXANG, and with a period after Lt. This doesn’t fit the standard military format. Incidentally, where are the initials of the secretary who typed these memos? I don’t know if it is standard operating procedure for the military to leave the typist’s initials off memos, but if a civilian memo is typed by anyone other than the person who signs it, those initials show up. Killian’s widow has stated that he could barely type, and his son said, “It was not the nature of my father to keep private files like this, nor would it have been in his own interest to do so.” Can you believe that a man whose wife said that he did not type would create memos – casual business documents – with fancy superscripts and perfect centering, and keep them for no practical purpose? I don’t believe it either.

William Safire weighs in with his opinion that these memos “have all the earmarks of forgeries.”

It may be that CBS is the victim of a whopping journalistic hoax, besmearing a president to bring him down. What should a responsible news organization do?

To shut up sources and impugn the motives of serious critics – from opinionated bloggers to straight journalists – demeans the Murrow tradition. Nor is any angry demand that others prove them wrong acceptable, especially when no original documents are available to prove anything.

Despite all the evidence brought to light by bloggers, CBS stands behind the memos. But when the evidence can no longer be ignored that they are fake, will CBS fall by its memos? The blogosphere’s work is a legion of Davids to Dan Rather’s Goliath.

Step back, folks. He’s coming down.

Addendum (9/14/2004): Power Line has a good summation of Rathergate.

Jonah Goldberg sees Dan Rather being dealt a mortal blow with this memogate issue. And he brings up a good point: President Bush had information many times more concrete about Iraqi WMD. But Bush lied, says Rather. “Dan Rather had a couple shoddy Xeroxes – not all of which were examined thoroughly or at all. He interviewed a partisan – Ben Barnes – a huge backer of Kerry whose story has changed several times. But because many who hate Bush believe he lied, they are willing to believe any lies that confirm what they already know to be true.”

Addendum (9/15/2004): CBS releases their excuse, and Captain Ed correctly sums CBS’ stand that the memos are “accurate” but not “authentic”.

Little Green Footballs weighs in with an expanded statement on the memos.

Deacon of Power Line Blog ponders whither the major media.

Addendum (9/17/2004): Both Hindrocket of Power Line and Captain Ed of Captain’s Quarters comment on ABC interviewing Walter Staudt about his allegedly pressuring Killian about Lt. Bush.

The sound you hear is the flogging of a dead horse. The memos are fakes, and the allegations are, too, but this won’t stop both Dan Rather and CBS from busily rearranging the deck chairs of their own Titanic.

Addendum (3/9/2005): It’s the last day for Dan Rather as he ends on the same day he started 24 years ago. If this were a planned retirement, why end at 24 years and not a much better sounding 25 years? So long, Dan. Don’t let the screen door smack you on the butt as you leave.

Democrats are widely recognized as the party championing free speech. You can see this by how the Republicans react to bad press. When Richard Clark published Against All Enemies, Vice-President Dick Cheney condemned it and demanded that national bookstores not carry it. When Michael Moore’s anti-Bush film Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, President Bush sent his lawyers to several prominent theater chains and threatened them with lawsuits if they showed the movie.

Remember that? If you do, you are proof positive that alternate Earths exist. In this reality, it is the Democrats who have attempted to stifle the political speech of their conservative opponents. When Unfit for Command, the book by John E. O’Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, hit the presses, Senator Kerry sent his minions to tell the bookstores they should think of withdrawing the book from the shelves. When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group started airing its first ad against Senator Kerry, the Democrats issued letters to TV stations in an attempt to stop the ads.

Senator Kerry is demanding that President Bush condemn the Swift Boat Veterans and force them to stop their ads. Kerry wants this for a good reason — the ads are proving to be extremely effective against his campaign. This coming from the candidate who proudly claimed, “Well, if [Bush] wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: ‘Bring it on.’” When the Swift Boat Veterans actually brought it on, Kerry’s response was to whine about how mean they are: “[The Swift Boat Veterans are] a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the president won’t denounce them tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work,” Senator Kerry said. Is it far-fetched to think Kerry and other Democrats would muzzle the Swift Boat Veterans and other political opponents if they believed they could get away with it?

Have you noticed the interesting shift in focus with Senator Kerry, President Bush, and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Despite what Kerry’s campaign has claimed, this organization isn’t a front for President Bush. The Swift Boat Veterans are a bunch of Democrats and Republicans who have come together to protect their collective reputation from a man who, thirty years ago, vilified their actions as war crimes before the Senate. The issue is between them and Senator Kerry, but Kerry is trying to bring President Bush into the fray. Kerry has even dispatched some Democrat veterans to President Bush to plead with him to stop the Swift Boat Veterans group. Free tip to Senator Kerry: men fight their own battles. You can stop all of this simply by releasing your records and telling the truth.

But the truth is far from what Senator Kerry wants. How can I say this? Precisely because Kerry refuses to release his full military record. President Bush has done so, but Senator Kerry won’t. Rather than dealing with the facts as they are, he and his liberal friends are calling for their political opponents to stop talking. They are all in favor of their own right to free speech, but when others try to exercise that same fundamental freedom, they call it “hate speech” and try to suppress it. You can sum this up as “free speech for me, but not for thee.”

The Swift Boat Veterans group is a 527, named after the legal code number permitting these third-party groups to exist. Thanks to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act to stop the spread of “soft money” in campaigns, we now have 527s spending more soft money on this presidential election than they ever did before. Behold Jim Quinn’s First Law in action: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of its stated intent. Anyway, here’s Senator Kerry complaining to President Bush about the Swift Boat Veterans 527; odd, when the liberal 527s are far better funded. Let’s compare the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against MoveOn.org, a liberal organization. This information is filed data from Aug. 23, 2004.

Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth
MoveOn.org
Contributions: $158,750 $9,086,102
Expenditures: $60,403 $17,435,782

It’s pretty sad to see Senator Kerry get all jittery over the Swift Boat Veterans, demanding that President Bush make them stop airing their ads, when the Swifties have spent barely 3/10 of 1% of the money that MoveOn.org has spent on its negative ads against President Bush. Granted, these numbers are a bit old and the Swifties have picked up more contributions since the first ad aired, but the disparity is still enormous. But that’s not a problem for the liberals. Spending money on their own viewpoints is OK, but heaven help the little guy who tries to speak out against liberals.

President Bush has spoken out against all 527s, saying “I hope my opponent joins me in condemning these activities of the 527 — I think they’re bad for the system.” So far Senator Kerry has refused to do so, and it is financially in his interest to remain mum. After all, the liberal 527s are waging his war for him, and “schlocumentaries” like Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 have provided over $100 million in attacks against President Bush. Don’t wait for the Democrat condemnation. It’s not coming.

The Left has made much of Benjamin Ginsberg, who was serving both as an election lawyer for President Bush and as an adviser for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group, and who has since resigned from the President’s service. But here’s a key sentence from the sixth paragraph: “Lawyers on the Democratic side are also representing both the campaign or party and outside groups running ads in the presidential race.” What? Democrats are doing the same thing?!? But did you hear any of this on the nightly news? Nope. Nor will you hear about these Democrat lawyers quitting due to conflict of interest. If you want to read about the ties between Senator Kerry’s campaign and liberal 527s, you will have to search outside the dominant liberal press, but the truth is available — regardless of how much Senator Kerry doesn’t want you to know about it.

And why doesn’t he want you to know about it? Because the truth is sinking his run for President, and the liberals can’t have that. So it is free speech all day and night for them, but when conservatives exercise the same right, the liberals cry foul. It’s free speech for me, but not for thee.

Addendum (8/28/2004): Captain Ed of Captain’s Quarters Blog sums up the whole 527 brouhaha nicely. You best be reading this fine work.

I know a boy who lies continually. I could regale you with stories about the many lies he has told, but let me sum it up thus: he lies about small things, he lies about big things, and he lies about things even when he doesn’t need to lie. To top it off, he is a really bad liar. Too often, when he is confronted with one of his lies, his first tactic is to play dumb, muttering, “Uh, what do you mean?” and otherwise trying to dismiss the lie. Then comes the distraction: “I’m sure you didn’t see my car there.” Sometimes this distraction takes the form of a changed and continually changing story. You know the type: “I was alone. I was with my sister. I was with my sister and her friend. OK, I was alone with this girl.” Finally, when confronted with irrefutable proof, this boy (I refuse to call him a man) will sullenly admit that you are correct. This pattern — the lie, the denial, the distractions, and finally the admission — is common with liars.

Two murder cases have been in the news recently. Mark Hacking has been charged with the slaying and disposing of the body of his wife, Lori. Scott Peterson is on trial for the murder of his wife, Laci, and their unborn child. In both cases it is apparent that the husband lied to his wife. Mark had lied about graduating from college and being enrolled in medical school. This wasn’t a new development; Mark had told lies routinely and consistently for years. Things came to a head when Lori found out Mark wasn’t enrolled at the University of North Carolina as he had claimed. A few days later she went missing; her body remains undiscovered at the time of this writing. Scott was lying both to his wife and to another woman with whom he was having an affair. The prosecutor in Scott’s trial has played audio tapes of him lying to his girlfriend; these have been damaging to his character as well as to his legal case. While our legal system requires a defendant to be proven guilty, I am not the law and I believe both men are guilty as charged. When they are found guilty, I hope that in both cases the punishment will be death. A death sentence for both would show that our society cannot condone the brutal slaughter of wives and mothers, especially not when the murderer kills in an attempt to conceal his lies.

Murder is the worst possible outcome of continual lying, but there are numerous other social problems associated with liars. New Jersey Governor James McGreevey recently held a press conference to announce his adulterous affair. “And so, my truth is that I am a gay American,” the Democrat governor said. Some people question the timing of this announcement. Governor McGreevey said he would step down on November 15th, making the New Jersey Speaker of the House — another Democrat — the next governor. Both Republicans and Democrats are calling for McGreevey to step down soon, since New Jersey law allows for a run-off between the various candidates if the Governor steps down 60 days before an election. My quick count puts that at September 3rd, and I am predicting that Governor McGreevey will resist the demands of the people and stay in office past the September 3rd deadline.

I am distressed that the Governor may have been adversely affected by his sexual feelings, causing him to do a less than capable job in office. One Golan Cipel has threatened to bring a lawsuit against McGreevey, claiming that “[he] was the victim of repeated sexual advances by [Governor McGreevey].” Something fishy is going on here. Cipel, an Israeli citizen, was appointed to the coveted post of New Jersey’s Director of Homeland Security. Under a storm of opposition from New Jersey lawmakers and claims that he was unfit for office, Cipel left this post for a similar-paying job, and finally left state government altogether. Why would Governor McGreevey pick a nobody like Cipel for this important post, particularly when he could have had former FBI director Louis Freeh instead? Freeh had been approached for the position, and he was willing to accept the post if both acting Governor DiFrancesco and incoming Governor McGreevey made the offer. McGreevey did not do so. So instead of a former FBI director and New Jersey native, Governor McGreevey chose Cipel, a non-citizen who had no real world experience to bring to the job.

While the Governor did not name his lover in his announcement, people close to him have said it was none other than Golan Cipel. I don’t know whether that is true, but it would explain the Governor’s piss-poor choice if he had been thinking with his gonads rather than his brain. His confessed lies and adultery are taking a back seat to the announcement that he was in a gay relationship. I frankly don’t care about the sex of the person with whom he was having an affair; anyone engaged in adultery has broken the sacred promises made at the time of marriage and has lied. Anyone who is willing to break marriage vows, who is willing to lie to the very person he or she should care for the most, is frankly unfit to hold a position of power, whether local, state, or national. This is why a liar such as President Clinton was not a good person to have as President of this nation. It is also, incidentally, why Senator John Kerry shouldn’t be president.

Senator Kerry served his nation for four months in Vietnam. I thank him for his service. But since he has made this tour of duty such a pivotal part of his run for the presidency, it is only fitting that people examine his war record. Speaking of war records, when Senator Kerry and others accused President Bush of being AWOL from his National Guard unit, President Bush released his full military and corresponding medical records. You don’t hear this charge any more from serious news people, because the facts showed that President Bush was never AWOL from service. But although people have asked Senator Kerry to release his records, he has steadfastly refused to do so.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization is made up of combat veterans who served with Senator Kerry in Vietnam. They display a picture used by the Kerry campaign to show the “Band of Brothers” who supposedly support him in his bid for the Presidency. But the before and after images show just how many of those “brothers” actually support him — one.

Why do I lump Senator Kerry in with people like Mark Hacking and James McGreevey? Because I can’t help but see him as a liar also. Here is a statement made by Kerry on the Senate floor on March 27, 1986: “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me.” Considering how seared his memory is, it seems odd that no one else recalls being in Cambodia. This story has shifted, as lies often do, in the past few days as Senator Kerry and his minions backpedal wildly to try to regain plausibility. He was there. It was winter. It was around New Year’s. It was in the border between Cambodia and Vietnam. He inadvertently strayed into Cambodia. He was on super-secret missions for the CIA.

Remember, when the story starts to change, it’s a good bet that the story is a lie.

If you’re interested in the unfolding Christmas in Cambodia story, I strongly suggest you read the last 2-3 weeks of posts at the Captain’s Quarters, an excellent blog that is on my daily must-read list. Captain Ed has
posted many good questions about Senator Kerry’s service in Vietnam. While the mainstream media is mostly ignoring the Swift Vets and others who question inconsistencies in Senator Kerry’s “memories,” blogs such as the Captain’s Quarters have been doing a smash-up job.
To make this easier, I have listed a bunch of the latest posts here:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

There is one simple thing Senator Kerry can do to clear up all the confusion: release his full military and medical records from his tour of duty in Vietnam. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them.

Addendum (8/24/2004): President Bush has come out denouncing the all 527 organizations, and has asked that Senator Kerry denounce them as well. Since almost 90% of all the money going to 527s goes to support Democrat groups, I doubt Senator Kerry will be speaking out against them anytime soon.

There is an old movie cliché where someone stands up in the middle of a town meeting and bellows, “There oughtta be a law!” My friend, Fen, Libertarian-leaning lady that she is, has a favorite phrase: “Just because it’s a good idea doesn’t mean it needs to be a law.” Brushing and flossing after every meal is a very good idea. But this doesn’t mean the government needs to pass the Dental Hygiene Act.

Yet not everyone believes as Fen does. Don’t think so? Some people thought it would be a good idea for Americans to use only 1.6 gallons of water with each flush. Did they communicate their idea to the commode makers, buy commercial time, or create radio spots to explain the benefits of using less water? Of course not! Their idea was so good that the government had to mandate the manufacture of all new toilets to conform to their specifications. This scenario has occurred time and time again.

I have harped before (and again and again) on the Constitutional responsibilities granted to the Congress, and by extension, to the whole federal government. Article 1, Section 8 should be engraved in three-foot-high letters in the House and Senate halls. This section of the Constitution should be the first page of every proposed law, with the part(s) that grant Congress the authority to make that legislation highlighted in red. What a great idea! There oughtta be a law! Well, no, my Libertarian leanings recognize that just because it is a good idea, it doesn’t mean that there should be a law. Let me modify Fen’s statement a bit more: “Just because it is a good idea, it doesn’t mean that the government should be involved.” Which brings me to the main point of this article–stem cell research.

Stem cells are special cells that can become any type of cell in the body. Your skin cells are different from your muscle cells, and they are both different from your brain cells. If they divide, they divide into more skin and muscle and brain cells. They cannot, for instance, suddenly shift into blood cells. Stem cells are blanks that can become any type of cell. You can think of them as the basic building blocks of the body. At the critical moment when a human egg is fertilized and starts to divide into two cells, then four, eight and sixteen, it is hard to see any difference between these first cells. After a short time, the cells of the growing embryo begin to differentiate; some are destined to become skin, muscle, or brain cells. It is this early stage of development that has drawn the attention of scientists and, more recently, politicians.

In the last Democrat weekly radio address, Senator and presidential aspirant John Kerry took President Bush to task for not doing more to fund stem cell research. The CNN article summing up his address says Senator Kerry is “pledging to lift a partial ban President Bush put on the research three years ago.” On his political website, Senator Kerry has the following text: “John Kerry And John Edwards Support Lifting The Ban On Stem Cell Research.” But here’s the dirty little secret that isn’t mentioned much by the media–there is no ban on stem cell research. Senator Kerry said, “We are a land of discovery, a place where innovators and optimists are free to dream and explore.” And he is right! In this country, innovators and optimists are completely free to dream about and explore stem cell research, and no one will stop them, regardless of what the media and the Democrats would have you believe. There are no laws against private stem cell research–it is completely open to private organizations and companies.

The problem is that some people think stem cell research is such a good idea that the government should be involved. Read “involved” as “paying for it.” After all, curing Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, rabies, scabies, and babies is worth every dime of taxpayer money, right? Okay, so we don’t want to cure babies–but babies are actually part of the stem cell debate. Scientists harvest stem cells primarily from the unborn. Senator Kerry believes, as do I, that life begins at conception, but he is calling for the government to step in with money to increase the research on stem cells. Harvesting stem cells from the unborn and from viable embryos makes them unviable–in other words, each harvest ends a potential life. Is it right to be opposed to the destruction of life? If you hold the opinion that life begins at the moment of conception, as Senator Kerry does, then scientists are committing murder as they harvest these cells–unnecessary murder, in fact, since scientists have recently found stem cells in the bodies of grown adults.

If adult stem cells continue to perform as well as they have in early research, there is no need to destroy the unborn. And if we aren’t murdering the next generation, then there is no moral reason to oppose government research into stem cells. After all, Democrats like John Kerry and John Edwards and Republicans like Nancy Reagan support funding stem cell research with government money. And when I say “government money,” I mean “your tax dollars and mine.” But again, just because something is a good idea, it doesn’t mean that the government should be involved. And if the government pays the bills, then the government can call the shots. That’s pretty involved.

I am completely in favor of scientific research, both practical and theoretical. But I do not see the need for government to spend a dime of tax money on research. Please find for me the part in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to fund stem cell research. While you are doing that, I think I’ll spend some quality time on my low-flush toilet–the one forced on every American because some eco-freak shouted, “There oughtta be a law!”

One of Congress’ specific responsibilities is to propose amendments to the Constitution. This requires a two-thirds vote of both houses to start the process moving. Once Congress has voted on and passed with sufficient numbers the proposed amendment, it is then handed to the 50 states to be voted up or down. Once three-fourths of the states have voted in favor of the proposed amendment, it is fully ratified and becomes part of the Constitution. This has only been accomplished 27 times in our country’s history, with the last amendment ratified in 1992. (Not that the government pays any attention to this simple amendment.)

A majority of the people of the United States are in favor of legally defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This definition would effectively block people of the same sex from being married, as well as polygamy, bigamy, group, clan, line, and a myriad of other non-traditional marriage arrangements. If “adult” is added to the definition, as in “an adult man and an adult woman,” it would also prohibit the man/boy unions championed by organizations like NAMBLA. While “adult” doesn’t appear in the text, here is the exact phrasing of the proposed amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

What would the passing of this proposed amendment accomplish? Well, for starters, it would stop various judges in the U.S. from messing with what is a legislative function, as stated in Senate Resolution 275: “the power to regulate marriage lies with the legislature and not with the judiciary and the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts specifically states that the judiciary ‘shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men’…” What I find interesting in the various judicial rulings is that marriage has already been defined by Congress: the “word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” This legal precedent was set by the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton.

I find it interesting that marriage was defined in the law years before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 that the Massachusetts state constitution prohibits denying a marriage license to same-sex couples. Why are these justices allowing same-sex marriage licenses when federal law prohibits it? The most wet-behind-the-ears lawyer could remind them that when there is a conflict between state and federal laws, the federal law trumps. Don’t believe me? There was a heated debate that settled the matter some years ago.

Since people who should know better have been ignoring the law of the land, it is understandable that some senators have wanted to strengthen the laws by elevating them to the status of a Constitutional amendment. But this isn’t likely to happen any time soon. On July 14th, the Senate voted on a motion of cloture, a legal term for ending the debate in preparation for a final vote on the bill. A motion of cloture requires 60 votes in the Senate, and the motion died with only 48 voting in favor. Three Democrats voted in favor of the motion: Robert Byrd, Zell Miller, and Ben Nelson. But six Republicans voted against it: Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins, John McCain, Olympia Snow, and John Sununu. Even if all the Republicans had voted for the motion and the three Democrats joined in, the motion still would have failed to reach the 60 votes required.

Regardless of what the senators and pundits may say about why they voted against this motion, the reality is that the 50 senators who voted against it did so because they consider you, Joe and Jane Citizen, too stupid to be bothered with this proposed amendment. I often hear Democrats talk about the importance of democracy and how every vote should count, but when it comes to putting issues before the people, Democrats have proven that they’d rather not have you deal with government. The Senate could have passed the proposed amendment and placed the decision at the feet of the masses, but in the mind’s eye of roughly half the Senate, the masses are asses and shouldn’t be bothered. In addition to this attitude of disdain for the American voters, Democrats couldn’t vote for the amendment because they were afraid that it might actually be ratified. After all, 38 states currently have laws with language similar to this proposed amendment, and 38 is the magic number of states needed to ratify a proposed Constitutional amendment.

This 48-50 vote also exposes something else important — Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democrat President and Vice-President hopefuls, didn’t show up to vote at all. They say that their presence wasn’t necessary to defeat the motion, but the reality is they were too busy campaigning to do their senatorial jobs. As pointed out by Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, Senator Kerry was absent 64% of the time in 2003, and 87% of the time in 2004 when the Senate voted on legislative issues. How would you respond to an employee who only showed up to do his or her job 13% to 36% of the time? And being a senator is John Kerry’s job. Kerry took an oath “that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter,” but it is clear from his working history that he doesn’t hold this oath too seriously.

In a news article published today, Lee Davidson discusses how Senator John Edwards’ record is equally lackluster. Davidson points out that Edwards has been consistently at or near the bottom of attendance in the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the three years he has served on this committee, he has attended only 18% of the hearings and 20% of the business meetings when the average for the entire committee was double and triple Edwards’ attendance. In the 108th Congress alone, Edwards’ attendance at business meetings has slipped even more; his attendance at three out of 34 meetings means his 9% attendance is almost eight times lower than the committee average.

So Senators Kerry and Edwards want to be your next President and Vice-President. If elected, they will place their hands on a Bible and swear, “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of (Vice) President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Does this mean the “best of [their] Ability” lies somewhere between 9% and 36% of their time? Boy, that’s the kind of work ethic I really want to see in a President. Not!

This November, people will gather at the voting booths to choose the next American President. Third-party candidates notwithstanding, the contest will boil down to the incumbent Republican candidate, President George W. Bush, and the Democrat candidate, Senator John F. Kerry. (I am choosing to ignore the rumors that something sneaky will happen between now and November, putting Hillary Clinton into the race.) While I have already written why I won’t be voting for Senator Kerry, I haven’t formally written why I will be voting for President Bush. It’s about time I did.

Of the serious Republican candidates for the 2000 race, I was pleased to see George W. Bush get the nod to be the Republican candidate. Since his election, I have had occasion to see that he hasn’t been a perfect, ideal President, but I believe he has been the right President for our time. Besides, we can’t hold the Good hostage to the Perfect. While we strive for perfection, at times we must accept the merely good. The other option would be settling for something far inferior.

I have problems with several of President Bush’s propositions – the illegal aliens amnesty program, expanding Medicare with prescription drug benefits, signing the anti-free-speech Campaign Finance Reform Act, and other acts which promote commonly-held liberal ideas. I understand that President Bush may have done these things to take the issues away from the Democrats, but it still doesn’t make me happy to see liberal items made law. In this case, the Perfect would be the passing of conservative issues only, but the Good is seeing a few liberal ideas made law and realizing that President Bush is still President for the important things.

So what are the important things? President Bush has correctly identified that we are a nation at war. He has shown that he has the right idea about this war, Michael Moore’s silly “documentary” Fahrenheit 9/11 notwithstanding. In addition to realizing that we are at war, President Bush has correctly identified our enemies as evil. And yes, I absolutely mean it when I say that the fanatics who have declared war on the U.S. and the Western world are evil. What else would you call the action of specifically targeting noncombatant civilians, of beheading innocent people whose only “crime” is not being part of their particular brand of evil, of openly proclaiming their utter lack of concern for the lives of others? Don’t believe me? One of the leaders in the “religion of peace” recently said, “We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity.”

President Bush was certainly willing to bring the worthless United Nations into the conflict to free Iraq, but he was not willing to sacrifice the Good of freeing Iraq and reducing its threat against the United States on the altar of the Perfect of a unified world response. With 17 resolutions against Iraq, the UN Security Council had recognized the threat of Saddam Hussein and realized that he had ignored their wishes, but they were still unwilling to actually do something about it. President Bush and the other coalition nations were willing to stop Saddam’s threat.

So President Bush knows that you cannot negotiate with evil. Senator Kerry does not. President Bush is willing to call these attackers by their rightful title: evil. Senator Kerry is not. President Bush is willing to ask for international aid, but he is not willing to wait for the international leaders to get off their bribed butts before he does what is necessary to keep America safe. Senator Kerry wants international approval at any cost. President Bush has the vision and drive to free 50 million people from the tyrannical governments that oppressed them. Senator Kerry does not.

We are a nation at war, and this war must be fought and won. The War on Terror is the driving issue of this election, and while I often disagree with President Bush on some domestic issues, the War on Terror is more important than any of these. Once the War has been won, the domestic issues will once again be important. Wrangling about minor domestic issues when we are embroiled in a war for our nation’s survival makes as much sense as debating hair color while a murderer stands behind you with a drawn knife, chanting “Allahu akbar.”