Vox Day

Hey Vox, I can understand that you are frustrated with President Bush. He hasn't exactly been the solid Republican that I have been wishing for.

You really have to chill out on your foaming at the mount "independent" status though. You rant from the middle like extremists from the right and left.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40208

You state "the silence from the Republican courtesans in the media is deafening. The Hannitys, Limbaughs, Malkins and the rest of the Republican lapdogs will no doubt soon be rushing to offer their defenses of the ever-innocent president, who just can't seem to stop himself from inadvertantly [sic] expanding the power of the central state."

Obviously you don't listen to any of the people you speak of because most Republicans have been frustrated by President Bush's attempts at "uniting" the Dems and Reps. None of us agree with his health care plan. None of us agree with his working with Ted Kennedy on our Educational system. None of us agree that the people in this country today aren't ready to stop abortion on demand.

I believe President Bush made a big mistake when he came out against the 527 groups. He was part of the creation of that process and he can't come out and whine about it now.

Also, Senator McCain created this monster so he should also stop complaining about the swift boat vets giving us their side of the Vietnam story.

I am a Republican and proud of it. You are an independent and proud of it. Please stop cutting down us folks that don't believe in your perfect world.

Freedom Of Speech Unless...

Unless of course it is speech against the Democrats. They spent over 50 million dollars on their 527 ads insulting President Bush and comparing him to the Hitler. Bush kept quiet on this matter even though the attacks on him included many lies and were vile and disgusting.

Along comes on single 527 ad put up by over 250 veterans of this great country and Sen. John Kerry has a cow. This effective ad cost only $250,000 to produce. Even though there have been many factual items that have come to light due to this ad, ones which Sen. Kerry has admitted to, the swift boat vets are accused of being just a bunch of partisan liars.

Les Kinsolving does a decent job of showing the attacks on the vets here:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40183

Sen. Kerry went after the publisher to try and get them to stop publishing the book. He went after the TV stations to stop them from showing the ads. He stopped short of going into our homes and giving us a legal letter threatening us not to watch the ads or read the books.

Nice try Sen. Kerry. Freedom of speech won out and you are being proven more fake, unreliable and distrustful every day.

You would have been better off to accept free speech, denounced the ads as untruthful and moved on (no pun intended). But noooo, you had to try & shut them up which of course got everyone interested since most folks know if you are crying foul there is probably truth to the matter.

Your staff has since admitted for you that you weren't in Cambodia on Christmas, 1968, even though it was "seared" into your memory. In your own words and those of your campaign staff you were not wounded by enemy action and your first Purple Heart is a sham.

Isn't it amazing what freedom of speech brings out?

Have a nice day Sen. Kerry :)

France whines again

Check this out:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040829/ap_on_re_eu/france_iraq_hostages

After two reporters were kidnapped by Muslamist terrorists French President Jacques Chric "appealed to the kidnappers with an implicit reminder that France opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."

The Muslamists basically said ...So what? You're still western Crusaders.

If you haven't heard, Jacques Chirac made head scarves against the law in France. He knew where the problems were going to come from, from the extremist Muslims, or as I call them, the Muslamists. So what he did was make the wearing of head scarves illegal in classrooms. No, that's not all, here's more:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/02/world/main597565.shtml

Quote from that page:

"The law forbids religious apparel and signs that "conspicuously show" a student's religious affiliation. Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses would also be banned, but the law is aimed at removing Islamic head scarves from classrooms."

So the law is aimed at removing Islamic head scarves from classrooms? Why?

Another quote from that page:

Prime Minister "Raffarin insisted the law was needed to contain the spread of Muslim fundamentalism and ensure that the principle of secularism on which France is based remains intact."

They never had a problem with Jewish skullcaps or Christian crosses before, but now that they want to prevent Islamic fundamentalism from taking over they decide to ban all forms of "conspicuous" religious clothing.

Of course a representative from Bin Laden, AKA known as Terrorists Inc., said that this is "another example of the Crusader's malice, which Westerns have against Muslims."

The French tried to pretend that this is a secularist what's goes for one goes for all speech, but to no avail. Why? Because the Muslamists don't care about anyone else. The only thing they care about is that the French passed a bill against Muslims, not Christians or Jews.

btw, when was the last time you saw a Christian or a Jew bombing a bunch of people? When was the last time you saw a Christian or a Jew defacing gravestones? When was the last time you saw a Christian or a Jew bombing a Mosque?

Some highlights from the first web link:

> "The head scarf issue is a solely French affair and we do not accept foreign interference,"
> The president of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France said "The head scarf issue is a solely French affair and we do not accept foreign interference,"
> Dominique de Filipino said "We want everyone to know that secularism in our country does not divide the French but unites them,"

Not only do the French not get it, the French Muslims don't get it. Calling this a "French affair" is such nonsense. Muslims are Muslims the world over. A Muslamist in any country believes that they should obey the quern no matter where you are. You don't suddenly switch your moral foundation just because you crossed an ocean or moved a couple thousand miles away from the roots of Islam.

People say that extremist Muslims that have "hijacked" their religion. I'll tell you what, if there were Christians or Jews doing this kind of thing the "normal" people in the churches and synagogues would be not only condemning terrorist actions, but they would also be turning in any psycho that either spoke about these issues as a religious leader or would provide the authorities with information that would lead to the arrest and conviction of such maniacs.

Chirac vowed to spare no effort. I hate to tell you this Mr. Chirac, this isn't like opening a bottle of Coke, you can't just try harder in order to succeed. You failed in joining the free world in our efforts to wipe out those extremist Muslims and you are now paying the price.

Expect more of this. Knowing France's history of the last 50 years though, I think we can expect them to back down from their head scarf issue. Because they lost their backbones so long ago there is only mush left.

Joe's Real Schmuck Deal

Joe Scarborough has been trying to play the consultant to Kerry every night since the swift boat vets ads started running. Every night he comes up with what Kerry is doing wrong and what he should do to get back into the race. Tonight he even went so far as to quote Bill Clinton!

I'm not even going to say "If I didn't know better", because in my opinion Joe really wants Kerry to win.

One big reason I say this is because just like the elite media, Joe constantly is questioning the integrity of the swift boat vets instead of trying to find out if what they are saying is the truth.

LOL okay, now he just said that Kerry should call James Carvell!!!

Has Mr. Scarborough been listening to what the vets have been saying? Guess not, but because if he had been he would do everything he could to make sure that this treasonous, lying SOB doesn't make it within 10 feet of the acceptance podium.

Joe, you are out of your mind, get a life & quit your night job.

We come in peace

Anyone who has seen the movie Mars Attacks will understand this.

At the same time that George Soros, Billionaire President Bush hater, openly condemned the moveon ads comparing President Bush to Hitler, he publicly announced a 5 million dollar donation to them.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/4/132659.shtml

A snippet from that article:

---------

Saying he believed the White House was guided by a "supremacist ideology," Soros complained:

"America, under Bush, is a danger to the world . . . When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans . . . My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me."

---------

So Soros condemns the ads but rewards the group that made them? Soros condemns the ads but also made the comparison?

In Mars Attacks the Martians say "We come in peace" while they are killing people. There is something eerily familiar about that with the Democrats.

Debate Every Week

Sen. Kerry says that he wants a debate every week with President Bush.

Since Sen. Kerry has effectively quit his job, with pay, I say he, unlike the President who still does his job, ought to take up debating with the Anarchist protesters who are expected to show up at the RNC convention since they don't like working either.

Here are some of his voting stats:

http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/kerryvotingrecord108th.htm

As you can see our esteemed Senator has been a no-show the majority of the time.

This man has been AWOL for 14 months. That has to be some kind of record.

Well Massachusetts, you got what you paid and are paying for.

whose Health?

A judge ruled that the ban on partial birth is unconstitutional. An announce on the TV news made the comment that there were no "health considerations".

Though it does happen it is extremely rare. A judge decides that it is more important to kill thousands of human beings instead of possibly causing the death of a woman delivering a baby that can cause her death.

First of all, a doctor will know well in advance of delivery if a baby is going to be so deformed that it might cause the death of the mother and they can deal with the issue then.

Second, this law specifically was meant to address the issue of partially delivering a baby and then killing it.

Here are diagrams showing the procedure:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

These murdering doctors have the soul of Joseph Mengele flowing through them. Anyone who can commit this horrible atrocity has no connection to the rest of mankind.

The judges who continue to support this horrible procedure should be removed. These extremist judges don't represent the decency of our great country.

Media Bias

Have I discussed this before?

Simple and to the point.

President Bush was challenged on his record during Vietnam and the elite media burrowed to no end to reinforce their attacks on him.

John Kerry is accused of atrocities and lies by some of the most credible people in American history and the press turn on our veterans like wolves that stumble on a field of sheep.

The Kerry campaign and the media are running ads daily to try and discredit over 250 men who served our country. Why didn't they investigate Kerry at all. Not one single "news" story investigating whether or not hundreds of veterans are telling the truth.

Our media is just as anti-military as they were during the war.

The Devil has another marketing agency and Pfizer likes it

I guess Pfizer has been hurting, limp sales I guess.

Seriously, they ran this ad on TV that I couldn't believe. A guy is shopping with his wife when they spot the lingerie section. The announcer says "Remember that guy who used to be called wild thing?". Then, a V appears behind the mans head while he grins mischievously. Seems harmless doesn't it? What happens though is because the V is behind the head of the man it looks as if he has devils horns.

It is amazing the way people dance with the Devil. Obviously these folks are humanists/secularists who don't fear the Devil. This is typical for people that don't believe evil exists. If the Devil sat down right in front of them ready to bargain for their souls these folks would start talking to him about how something in his childhood must have caused him to turn to the life of crime.

Many of us believe in God and good. Many don't take the Devil seriously though. They think if you talk about the Devil you must be a little wacko. So what they do is they play games with the image. They make the Devil mischievous and thrilling. They make him cartoonish, fun and playful.

The devil will distract you, he will lie to you and he will lure you with lust and greed.

Believing in God requires us to believe in the Devil, because like most things in life, we make important decisions that will be influenced by one or the other.

Bill OReilly and Kerry the noble man

Yep, that's what Bill called John Kerry, a noble guy. Without checking up on the facts himself, he had Chris Wallace do the fact checking for him. Chris Wallace took the position that the swift boat vets were lying since they didn't provide him with one piece of evidence proving their case. He only asked Kerry's man once to provide a document proving his point which of course could not be provided.

The evidence that Chris provided was an after action report that was written by a man that wasn't there and was written 10 days later.

Here's your noble guy Mr. OReilly:

> Kerry didn't want to go into action. He picked swift boats because he thought it would keep him out of action. His own words, proven by the Washington Post. Have Chris look it up for you.
> Kerry's own words were used as propaganda as part of the torture routine in Vietnam against our soldiers.
> Kerry has spoken for and against almost every topic known to mankind.
> One medal that he received was a medal meant for someone under fire by overwhelming odds. Kerry shot a man in the back who was running away after having been shot by 50 caliber machine guns.
> He lied about his "searing memory" of being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve being shot at by Khmer Rouge. They weren't in Cambodia and there weren't any Khmer Rouge in the conflict until years later.
> He submitted his own paperwork for one of the purple heart medals after having been injured by his own explosive.

There are so many facts that prove that Mr. Kerry is anything but a noble man. But hey, Chris Wallace checked this out and gave you the answers you wanted to hear.

Go here for some real facts if you want them.

Par for the course for you. I don't call you a Republican or a Democrat. You are a tyrant who insults and dominates your guests and you are perfectly happy creating news instead of reporting it.

Swift Boat Ads

Someone said to me the other day that the swift boat ads have been getting plenty of coverage compared to the Bush/Vietnam flap.

In case you've been living in a vacuum, here are the two stories in a nutshell:

1) the Dems accused President Bush of dodging his military service and going AWOL since there is a period of six months that went unserved due to his honorable discharge. President Bush served almost 6 years in the Air National Guard flying some of the most difficult and dangerous aircraft in the Air Force and John Kerry accuses him of being AWOL even though Mr. Kerry only served 4 months out of the normal 12 in Vietnam.
2) the Swiftboat vets accuse John Kerry of being Unfit for Command. They say that he lied about his medals, his service, submitted his own requests for medals, embellished his record where possible and performed traitorous and treasonous acts after returning from duty. His statements to congress were played back as propaganda by our enemy to our vets who were still imprisoned and being tortured in Vietnam. Mr. Kerry's comments even made one of our vets experience a flashback so many years later after hearing them played again.

On to the ad coverage. Chris Matthews from Hardball played softball with the Democrat rep. from Kerry's campaign and basically accused Mr. O'Neill of being a Republican hack.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1191005/posts

In case it doesn't load here are some of the statements:

------------

Facts:

1. Matthews did nothing but recite the democrat talking points. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5694561/)
> Well, compare that to Bush‘s record in Vietnam
> You‘re a Republican from Texas.
> But you have a record going back yourself. But you go back to the Nixon era, when Nixon was looking for someone. Colson and those guys were looking for somebody to debunk the Kerry record, because all the records show they were scared to death of this guy. And you played that role. You close to play that role.
> Have you voted Democrat recently for president
> Did you vote for Clinton
> Did you vote for Gore
> Now, there‘s this other force, people who are not his crewmen, who are not the Navy, who have contributed to your book. What is this about? Why are there three different points of view here, the official Navy way, his crew backing him up? And you‘ve arranged it. You‘ve pulled together these people from all over the place who don‘t like the guy.
> because I know most officers are probably Republicans from the Vietnam era.
> And you‘re building a case against the guy on behalf of a guy running for president with absolutely no military experience in the field
> It is a particularly conservative trick, OK?
> Matthews challenged O'Neill's every statement. Fine. I expected that. But he not once challenged Hurley's presentation of facts.
> Matthews was senior aide to Tip O'Neill
> Matthews attended Holy Cross
> Was Matthews was born/raised in Boston, can anyone confirm or deny?
> Kerry, of course, is from Mass.
> Hurley is an attorney who works in Boston

----------------

One study showed that 57 stories were run probing President Bush and his military service. Compare that to 17 stories that were run about the swift boat vets.

The 57 stories were mostly probing attack stories trying to prove that President Bush didn't serve our country honorable. The 17 Stories during that same amount of time were attack ads against President Bush and the swift boat vets. The relentless attacks have continued since the swift boat ads started.

salon.com has even registered the site swiftboatvets.com to attack them under the pretense of being "independent". Their claims are easily smashed by looking at their "must reads" which include The New York Times, Washington Post and other famous lefty newspapers.

Every story that runs on the news accuses the swift boat vets of lying and having an agenda to smear John Kerry. They don't probe at all into whether or not what the swift boat vets are saying is the truth. Every interview attacks the credibility of the vets and not the credibility of a man, John Kerry, that accused our United States military of being the worst thugs since Genghis Khan.

I hope America realizes the insanity of the Democrats and the left wing in this country. Those people are against everything that we stand for and will stop at nothing to remove all our rights and liberties as we know them and our eventual unification with the rest of the world, whom we have nothing in common with.

Democrats and lefties say they believe in freedom of speech, but just you dare try it. Try to say that President Bush is a good president and see how fast you won't get another word in edgewise. Their version of freedom of speech is "I'm right, you're wrong, and don't even try to say anything supporting your argument". If you do try to speak they will cut you off. When you bring up facts they will bring up opinions as if they are just as valid as facts.

A man asked me the other day what curriculum I was using to homeschool our son. I mentioned that William Bennett has a program that we were looking into. His response to that was "oh, that gambler?". I said the former Secretary of Education to which he responded "yeah, that arch conservative gambler". I said that he may have had problems with it before but has come to grips with that & he seems like a decent guy. The man responded with "on that we will part our ways, Bennett is an arch conservative gambler".

I replied "you know, gambling is legal in this country".

Everyone ready to say "I'm Sawwy, I made a mistake".

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105434/

What's interesting about the slate article is it plays on 20/20 hindsight.

It's pitiful how people are coming out saying that they made a mistake with their pre-war hawkish behavior. It's as if they are saying that they didn't have minds of their own before the war.

We haven't found tons of WMD, only enough to kill a few million people instead of tens of millions, and analysis showing that they developed just-in-time capabilities. Why keep it in stock anyway? If you prepare chemical or biological WMD and keep it sitting around it is:

a) dangerous
b) will spoil too fast to be practical
c) easy to find since it has to be developed in facilities where there is advanced equipment

Clinton, Kerry and all the Dems were eager to get rid of Hussein when they were in power, they just never got around to it. That didn't stop them from bombing Iraq during Desert Fox though.

They all said that we either deal with Iraq at that time or sometime in the future, when something horrible happens.

Here's a slate article from 2002 that casts doubt on Ritter's truthfulness.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2071502/

Ritter is either lying or has lost his marbles.

Hussein was a murdering, evil madman. It was time for him to go. People say that there are plenty of other evil murdering madmen and countries in this world and what should we do...play the world cop?

A lot of intelligence went into the reports provided us by Powell and others. Blair and Bush have both been exonerated by post war investigations.

Any man who looks back and gives the old Reagan speech of "if I had known then what I know now I might not have done what I did" is being a fool.

No, that role is supposed to go to the UN, who in actuality plays the world's chicken. They only pass resolutions against Israel and run when nations start attacking innocents around the world. So since the UN can't play the world's cop, we have to protect ourselves when we find it necessary.

Let's not forget, this is a war on terrorism. Hussein publicly announced that he was going to give $25,000 to surviving family members of terrorists who killed themselves while killing Israelis. As crazy as it sounds, since we were letting Iraq make money through the oil for food program you could say that we were sponsoring terrorism.

Who are the terrorists that he and others including Iran and Syria were/are sponsoring? Hezbollah, Hamas, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and more.

Folks like Ritter who played the game of hide & seek with Saddam know better than to believe that he wasn't going to keep trying to develop weapons. After all, Ritter said that the inspectors had done their job & all we needed in Iraq were monitors. Why monitors? Was Ritter afraid Saddam might pull something? Of course he was going to pull something. Saddam has been pulling the wool over our eyes for decades.

Ritter made other comments back in 1998 though. He said that Saddam had "not nearly disarmed". Change of mind? Yep, & no good reason why.

Finally we're rid of that murdering, torturing, psychopathic madman. I say it's a good thing.

A little whine with that cheese?

Russia's Svetlana Khorkina went into a whine fest after she lost to the American Carly Patterson in gymnastics.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/olympics/2004/gymnastics/08/22/bc.olympics.gymnastics.khorkina/index.html?cnn=yes

She "has accused the judges of robbing her of the gold medal" and said "everything was decided in advance."

Another quote:

"I knew well in advance, even before I stepped on the stage for my first event, that I was going to lose."

Sounds to me like she's just a loser looking for a venue to lose in.

I saw her performances. Though she was very good, she made many mistakes and looked clumsy. Carly Patterson on the other hand was smooth and her performances were worth the points that she received. As a matter of fact, I think she was given low scores sometimes.

"She said she was hoping Sydney's experience would cause the judges to be more sympathetic to her plight in Athens"

Why? Should they have given her a higher score because they felt sorry for her?

More from that page:

"Khorkina did not think Patterson was a deserving winner."

Asked if the American was a worthy opponent, she said: "I've seen a much tougher opposition than her. Let's see how long she can remain on top. Can she keep going and compete in two more Olympics like myself."

"No, well, you better write that Patterson is a great champion and she has a great future," she added sarcastically.

Geez, I don't know about you, but I think we can use a lot less of these "Divas" in sports, especially the Olympics.

Khorkina defines the words SORE LOSER

Mike Celizic - Get Your Own Gold

Don't offer to give Medals away you haven't earned.

You say "Paul Hamm had his golden moment, and he grabbed it like a starving wolf latching onto a lamb chop".

Could you be more unkind?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5790612/

Paul Hamm earned that medal. There are many things that happen in competition that throw off how medals are awarded. There is a time to register a complaint, and a time to shut up. If the South Koreans would have submitted their complaint in the allotted time maybe they would have something to complain about. They didn't though, they waited too long and the medal belongs to Hamm.

Why do you think that the Olympic committee hasn't demanded the return of the medal? Because they can't.

What about the gymnastics gold given to the French girl last night? She bobbled all over the place and was awarded the Gold. There's a film she should have a hard time showing to anyone saying "this is the routine I won the gold with".

"the fact remains that he won it because the judges goofed"

Wow, that's amazing, and I bet that's the first time this has ever happened.

"grabbed it like a starving wolf latching onto a lamb chop"?

Did you ever stop to think about the fact that even if they had started the Korean with the right about of points that they might have removed more and he still would have lost?

More of your quotes from that single page:

> And go ahead, be greedy about it
> it taught me that in Korea, the episode was accepted as an American plot to steal a little bit of glory from a people who want winners just as badly as we do
> It’s just incredibly bad luck that Hamm’s medal was won at the expense of a Korean
> But in that country, it’s taken as proof that America is an arrogant and bloated monolith that won’t be satisfied until it owns the world and all the gold medals in it.
> That’s all Hamm had to do. Instead, he got a bit snippy when asked about the affair

And probably one of your finest on that page:

"the opinion mongers, a union of which I am a card-carrying member, are weighing in on this. And it’s not going to look as gracious if you do it only after every columnist in America has beaten you over the head with the course material from Ethics 101."

Mr. Celizic, I doubt you have ethics. You, sir, are a schmuck

When is a building worth more than a human being?

When it's an Arab Mosque.

Al Sadr holed up in one for weeks & orchestrated attacks that killed Americans and Iraqis.

I don't know about you, but I would be livid if my son or daughter had been killed because we were afraid of damaging or destroying a mosque!

We need to pull out the lawyers and the PC crowd from military areas. It was because of them that we have failed in some key military actions.

I'm not saying that we should become brutal murderers. I'm saying that we should engage in war with reason and sensibility.

Our soldiers come first, buildings come second.

Getting rid of a murderer like Al Sadr comes before protecting a building, every time.

Alien VS. Predator

Don't read if you are going to see the movie

For a slice & dice flick, I thought that this one was decent. Plenty of action, enough good suspense but not too much quiet stepping around and boring time wasting suspense. The graphics were great and the story was smooth enough for the time to fly by so fast that it was over before I knew it.

Finally, a movie without the token homosexual. Finally a movie where they didn't have to create a doofus white guy.

Alexa (Lex) Woods, played by Sanaa Lathan was the power actor of the show for sure. She played the part well. Smart, calm, cool and determined to play the battle out in order to save mankind.

One interesting note. As we westerners are battling the Muslamists (my own word for Muslim Islamic Extremists), the director or writer choose to insert the Arabic phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

And maybe it's just me, but if I was there & somehow in the last 24 hours a perfectly clean hole was drilled down to the temple which was 2000 ft. under the ice, something that would have taken our equipment 7 days, I would be calling for a Copter out or at least asked for some hand grenades & firepower.

Nah, I'da ran like a chicken

bawk bawk

:)

The only point of this election and others to come

Outside of the emotional debates and discussions about our candidates for office, the main points to me are,

99% of the time Dems vote for abortion, including ghastly partial birth
abortions.

99% of the time Reps vote for babies to live.

I think that we can bypass all the other stuff and stick with this one issue until it is resolved.

The way I tell it, here's a sword, who do you defend...the baby or the person that wants to kill it? The other day someone said to me "yes, it's killing, but killing isn't murder in this case". He continued "I may not believe it it myself, but it's not my right to tell a woman what to do with her baby".

Who cares if our kids are getting indoctrinated when we're killing them anyway?
Who cares if we have lower taxes if we are killing our children?
Who cares if we have cheaper fuel if we are killing our children?
Insert every other "Who cares" here

When people say choice, what they mean is choose between life or death. Don't confuse it with day to day "Pro-Choice" nonsense that has nothing to do with saving the life of a child.

The sword is our vote. We decide, vote for life or vote for death, it's
that easy. Until we've dealt with this major moral issue nothing else has
meaning.

Are you a coward or a hero?

If you choose to do nothing you are a coward, so if you are going to choose to be a coward at least admit it to yourself.

Sex, Lies and Vietnam Tape

The problem is, most of the lies that Clinton(s), Gore and Kerry have been
proven. Every single bullet point on the buzzflash site is a lie. Every
single one.

Democrats want to believe the lies told by their propagandist
communist/socialist media. Of course none of it is provable. If it were,
and even if it weren't, they would stick to it like super glue until the
offending person quit or when another Trent Lott falls for no reason other
than to stop the incessant attacks.

In my opinion a news agency should have stories that are newsworthy, not
just political rants. That is fine if they just want to be a blog site that
has no desire to tell the truth, but news sites should have some semblance
of truth.

tvnewslies is mostly fear mongering. Some of the material that might be
agreed to aren't lies, but President Bush is just turning around the stupid
laws that President Clinton put in place to protect Giya. Our Government is
supposed to only own land for things that it needs. Military bases and so
on. Instead, our Government has taken over 70% of our land. Something's
wrong with that picture.

I'm not saying that there aren't things that President Bush has done that he
should have done differently. I do believe though that he is acting on
principle and trying to do the right thing for our country.

He's a decent man who loves God (yeah, that drives liberals nuts), his wife,
his children and takes his job seriously, unlike President
It-doesn't-want-to-stay-in-my-pants and gee, why shouldn't I have pardoned
Marc Rich? Clinton. The worst that the liberals have come up with is "isn't
he dumb? yeah, he's so dumb. He must be the dumbest President we've ever
had.

Yep, he was so dumb he flew fighter planes. Not just any plane mind you,
the ones that were known as the "widow makers" because they were so
unstable. He made it through flight school, was the Governor of Texas and
oh yeah, didja know he's the President of the greatest country in the world?
But, he's just dumb.

Another thing, any time a liberal news site talks about anything, and I mean
anything that has to do with the military it makes me want to gag. We all
know that the dream of the liberals is just to hold hands and sing together
with a "why can't we all just get along" speech. Like I'm really supposed
to believe that these people actually care about whether or not our military
personnel get pay raises or have adequate housing? That would be like me
saying that we need to drive less SUVs. Never happen.

Kerry on the other hand has led a shameful life keeping his eye on his end
goal, the Presidency.

> He lied about the purple hearts.
> He lied about the other medals.
> He lied about Cambodia.
> He told the truth about how he committed war crimes.
> He agreed that life begins at the moment of conception but doesn't believe
it's his place to tell anyone else what to do with their children. In other
words, kill 'em if you got 'em. Whoops, he means smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Whoops...
> He wants us to work with the UN on everything. The same UN that didn't
act on 18 resolutions over 12 years. The same UN that has(d) Libya as the
head of the Human Rights Commission. The same UN that has passed more
resolutions against Israel in history. The same UN that didn't act once to
stop the 5 wars that the Arabs have fought against Israel. The same UN that
did not say one word about any so-called Palestinians from 1948-1967, after
the Arab nations stole the supposed "Palestinian" land. On and on of
course.

The Kerry campaign has tried to discredit the swift boat vets. They say
that the vets are a small minority that "weren't there" and don't have a
right to say. Funny that only 1 officer supports him out of the 20 that are in the
picture that Kerry paraded around at first. That picture is nowhere to be
seen now, except at http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php of course, now
that the truth is out. Over 240 military men have stepped up to
discredit the man that made a mockery out of our military and made our
soldiers out to be baby killers.

When he came back from Vietnam he trashed our soldiers and our military. He
had so many loony lefties on his side he actually thought that he would get
elected into office on an anti-war platform. He lost. Then what did our
hero do? He switched to a "I'm a Vietnam war hero" platform and has been
running on it ever since. The swifties have been fighting him since his
dishonorable days as the anti-war fruitcake.

The Democrat party has lost its' moral compass. They are just throwing
noodles against the wall year after year in hopes that something bad enough,
like the Nixon years, will come along and make them seem like heroes, saving
the day from the evil, dangerous right wing extremists.

America is a land built on Judeo/Christian values and people like Kerry want
us to forget that & adapt with the times. Our founding fathers (called the
"founders" in public schools now) knew that this country needed a moral
compass to keep the great country headed in the right direction.

The Democrats have blocked President Bush's judicial nominees, saying that
they are "right wing extremists" that will try to change the Constitution.
They want to protect the right to murder babies. They on the other hand
have no problem nominating totally obvious extremely liberal judges, like
the 9th circuit, that will do whatever they want based on how it "feels"
instead of basing it on the law. To the Democrats, their way of thinking
and their nominees are normal. Everyone else is just a wacko wingnut.

And just in case you think that this was all there was, here ya go...

http://www.kerryquotes.com/

Olympic Double Standards

From http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39977

The Iranian Judo champion says "Although I have trained for months and was in good shape I refused to fight my Israeli opponent to sympathize with the suffering of the people of Palestine and I do not feel upset at all," and the Olympic committee can't decide what to do. He also stated that he would not fight a "Zionist"

If it would have been a white boy that said something along the lines of "I ain't fight'n no ni__ers" we know they would have been able to come up with the proper solution real quick. The person would probably be tossed from the games for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Comments from the committees included:
"There has been no decision and we are considering this situation very carefully," said IJF spokesman Michel Brousse. "This has not been brought to us as an issue and until it is, we would not have any comment," said a spokeswoman for the International Olympic Committee, which pledges to uphold the ideal of sport transcending national barriers.

Why are so many still allowed to get away with their hatred and racist views against the Jewish state?

It's not that they feel sorry for the Palestinians, after all, from 1948 to 1967 when Arab nations ruled the West Bank and Gaza (after they stole the land in wars) not one person spoke out for the "Palestinians".

The fact of the matter is Arab nations don't believe in Israel's right to exist. Prove me wrong, show me one Arab map with Israel on it.

The Olympic games is supposed to be free from politics and race. Think about it if it wasn't.

> We wouldn't compete against the Chinese because they have the worst human rights record in the world.
> We wouldn't compete against the Iranians because they openly sponsor terrorism.
> We wouldn't compete against some of the African nations, especially those who have exterminated over a million Christians in the last decade.

And so on

So, is the Olympic committee going to do the right thing and get rid of this bum? Who knows? They just should not have paused on their decision. It just shows their double standard on what kind of behavior is acceptable.

Peace Negotiations

Peace negotiations are used to regroup and take a rest by forces of evil. Examples include the many negotiations during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Like I said, they regrouped, rested and then attacked.

This is similar to the Geneva Conventions for military action which put restrictions on how we are supposed to kill and house enemy combatants. We tell our troops not to use any weapons of mass destruction and our enemies are free to use whatever they want. They don't have any "Conventions". They kill, torture, terrorize and cut heads off for Saturday night entertainment.

And it is similar to the "one more chance" philosophy. We did that for 12 years through 18 resolutions with Saddam Hussein & he laughed all the way to the bank the entire time.

I think I've mentioned this before but it's worth mentioning again.

If you're not aggressive at being proactive about crime or terrorism you're a victim.

If you expect a fair fight from anyone you will get bitten or kicked between the legs. Or, as has happened to me before, right after you negotiate a truce and turn to walk away, the other person will jump you from behind.

I'm not saying it isn't a nice world. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be a nice person.

Ronald Reagan said it best "Trust but Verify".

President Clinton might have used that concept with North Korea. Maybe we wouldn't be in such a mess over there right now if he had. Nah, then the press and the Democrats wouldn't have had something to point at that was/is "worse then the problems in Iraq". Figures. They screw it up and then say that President Bush should fix it for them.

Anyway, Al Sadr has repeatedly said that he was going to back down and negotiate. Then he steps into the Mosque and calls for the destruction of Americans and anyone that supports us. Verification done. He's evil and has to go. We've been pussyfooting around this guy for months now and all he does is kill our men and give us grief. Enough of this protecting the Mosques routine. If they don't have the respect for their own Mosques then why should we?

And enough of this garbage that everyone is talking about "we don't want to start a religious war". Psst, guys, I hate to tell you, but I believe their battle cry is "praise Allah" and "kill the infidels". They're not hollering for an order of the holes special at Dunkin' Donuts.

Murder by any other name

Is killing murdering? Is murdering killing?

Think I'm being silly?

Look at the modern day definition of killing. Killing is okay if it's in the case of abortion. After all, the baby isn't born and it's "the woman's right to chose" whether or not to have that inconvenient child at that point of time in her life.

The Nazi world view is alive and well.

They too only wanted selective breeding.

One argument for abortion is to Protect Women and babies that might not survive or would be disfigured. Though this argument carries weight when it is used correctly it can't be used as an argument for making the killing of millions of babies legal.

Think that "viability" is a modern day argument?

The first court to rule that "viability" and the "woman's health" were determinate factors in abortion was the Nazi Heredity Court of 1934, when it ruled that "...Pregnancy may be terminated, with the consent of the woman concerned, unless the foetus is already capable of independent life, or unless the termination of the pregnancy entails a serious danger to either the life or health of the woman herself." (The Racial State, 1991, p.141).

Think about that when you have a baby or babies that are born below "normal" birth weight.

Some info from http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/nazis.html:

-----------------------

DR. ERNST RUDIN

The most outspoken spokesman for "abortion rights" in pre-Nazi Germany was the psychiatrist and head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute: Dr. Ernst Rudin. After the Nazis came to power, they made Dr. Rudin the head of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene In April 1933, Dr. Rudin wrote an article for The American Birth Control Review; the official publication of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (which changed its name to Planned Parenthood in 1942).

Dr. Rudin's article was called "Eugenics Sterilization: An Urgent Need" (American Birth Control Review, April 1933).

One of Dr. Rudin's associates at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was Dr. Otmar Freiherr Von Versscheur, whose assistant at the Institute was Dr. Josef Mengele;who later became the director of medical experiments at Auschwitz death camp in Poland. He performed horrendous experiments; mostly on children. Many died or were scarred (emotionally and physically) for life.

MARGARET SANGER AND THE NAZIS

Few people today know that Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Pro-Choice Movement, and the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an admirer of Dr. Rudin, and published several of his articles. Sanger had a white-racist, Lothrop Stoddard, on her Board of Directors. Stoddard was the author of several anti-Semitic and white-supremacist books. He was a well-known admirer of Adolf Hitler, and an open supporter of the Nazis. Sanger herself was a eugenicist and neo-Malthusian.

It is very possible that Sanger got the phrase "Freedom of Choice" from Dr. Ernst Rudin; the Nazi physician who was a contributor to her publications. (see Margaret Sanger and the Pro-Choice Movement online).


--------------------

The strange modern day argument that people make saying that they are personally opposed to abortion but they don't have the right to tell others what to do is absurd.

We have to head off the pro abortion crowd. They want to define ProLife as supporting life...unless Mom doesn't want it.

The terms are defined...

Pro Abortion is to support the right of the woman to kill her child.

ProLife is to support the life of the child and to want it to be born.

Kill = Murder

Stop fooling yourselves

Non-Partisan

Thanks Nanci Pelosi for asking us to be non-partisan. She said "you must keep the politics out of intelligence".

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040811/D84D1OGG0.html

From Jay Rockefeller:

"The selection of a politician - any politician from either party - is a mistake,"

"Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee."

Why are you, Mr. Rockefeller, a ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee? Are you not a partisan? No, as usual, being a Dem is just being normal.

Are we assuming that a person not in politics wouldn't be partisan? Everyone has an opinion and when they go to vote they express that opinion.

This nonsense of not leaning politically in any direction comes from our "independent thinking" media. They claim to be unbiased but when they vote they vote 5 to 1 for Democrats. You don't think this affects what you see on TV? Most of the media push their views on us as if they are doing us a service.

Fortunately the conservative media identifies itself as such and goes after anyone that is doing wrong, Republican or Democrat. The liberal media on the other hand pretends that it is going after anyone, but typically they go after Republicans and prop up Democrats on a daily basis. One look at the swift boat incident by our esteemed Senator John Kerry proves that point. Hundreds of swift boat veterans and all but one of the swift boat commanders that are in Kerry's picture have proven that Kerry is lying his tail off to get into the highest office of our great country. The media is silent. If President Bush had stolen a toothbrush during the Vietnam War we would hear about it 'til election day.

Back to Ms. Pelosi

The most partisan liberal woman (besides Hillary) in politics asks us to separate our politics whenever we do something in Government. She and the other Dems ask us to discard our morals and values in order to be involved in Government in any way. That's why they have held up so many of President Bush's judicial nominees. They say that the nominees are ultra-conservative and right-wing. Here's a site where one of the loonies foam at the mouth:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/11/int03322.html

Why do Republicans have to hide their values and morals? Why is it that the Dems can basically say that in order to qualify for any position in the United States Government you have to leave your morals at the door?

Because they don't have any. Never do they do anything that is in defense of morals or values in any way. They only want to impose their Socialist and Communist ways on us and our country.

Republicans are "accused" of being conservatives. I wear that badge with honor. Democrats used to wear the "liberal" badge with honor, but now that it is turning out to be a bad word they are shunning and denying any affiliation with it.

When they push their partisan nominees on us do we cry?

When they redistrict territories to get their people elected they call it fair play. When Republicans do it they call it cheating.

When they attack people who are opposed to them they call it freedom of information. When Republicans expose their ways they call it politics of personal destruction.

Democrats will lie, cheat and steal elections in whatever ways they can.

Bill Clinton has a blow ___ from Monica with Arafat on the other side of the wall during the Middle East negotiations and the Dems circle the wagons in protect mode. What do the Dems do? They attack relentlessly whenever possible. A Republican man and his divorced wife ask that a judge not open marital records from years ago in order to protect their son and their lives. The Dems push hard and get the records unsealed. They reveal he asked his wife to have public sex in a strip club. The horror! He had to drop out of the race.

Our President of the United States had affairs while in office and not only was caught, but he admitted to them. He lied to the Grand Jury investigation, to his wife and the country, and the Dems circled the wagons.

There are so many cases that prove that Dems can't be trusted with their positions of power, I find it astonishing that they hold any office anywhere in the country.

Hugh Hewitt exposes their ways in his book "If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It."

Democrats nominate their fellow secularists, humanists and pro-abortion representatives without a blink. They believe that they are doing what America wants, that they are the norm and Republicans are just "wingnuts" and "wacko right-wing extremists".

I'm sorry Mz Pelosi, I must have misunderstood you..did you say to keep the intelligence out of politics? If so, you're doing a good job.

Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle

This movie is a great example of where Hollyweird has been heading for many years. White men are redneck racist pigs who have not nothing better to do then shove people of other colors down. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the disgusting, psychotic, religious white man that wanted Harold and Kumar to have group sex. Let's add that to so many homosexual references I can't even believe it. Oh yeah, they were stupid white men too.

Then there were the two white men who couldn't be responsible enough to do their own work. Did I mention they were racist pigs too? Not only that, they were true to Hollyweird's ways, they were, gosh, what a surpise.. stupid white men! I guess that goes without saying though. Many white men according to the movies and TV are morons, racists and homosexuals nowadays.

I guess since they made Harold "cool" they were allowed to make Asians freak-geeks.

This is a perfect movie for degenerate, selfish people who's idea of a good night is to watch a couple of guys go on a quest for the perfect burgers. This was 88 minutes of pot smoking, cussing and good old fashioned values and morals.

What can I say, we had Cheech & Chong when we were teens. We've had garbage poured into our teenage brains for many years.

I really did & still like the Ten Commandments though.

To Get Elected

Democrat politicians will always have their end goal in mind, to get elected.

> They are anti-American, note their constant support for the United (anti-American/anti-Israeli) Nations.
> They are anti-child with over 99% of their votes going to get rid of them. John Kerry said "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." Hard to believe he followed it up with "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist,"
> They are anti-Christ - Their support for "Separation of Church and State" is numbing. Of course this statement doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. I also refer to the previous comment that they are anti-child to support this bullet point.
> Their stance on the necessity of war changes to fit or oppose whomever is in office. Example, the overwhelming support for Clinton and his Iraq attack and their acknowledgment of WMD and the evils of Saddam. When President Bush was elected they opposed any military action against that evil regime. They even made the comment "regime change" against President Bush many times. Yes, even Kerry has made the comment. http://www.drudgereport.com/kerry4.htm.

Until they join America, we must treat the Democrats in this country as if they are our enemy. If they're not running for office we can just consider them misguided. If they are running or are already elected we must prevent them from achieving another term in office.

I don't support any violent action against the Democrats or the media. I support information and action by vote. We have enough power through our vote in this great country of ours to make sure that people that don't belong in office don't remain or never get there.

Those of you who state that you are Independents or Libertarians, make up your minds. Switching to whomever you think will most benefit "you" at the moment is the wrong thing to do. Let your morals and values instincts decide. If you don't have any, go to church or read the Bible.

Media Bias (for the umteenth time)

I have to wonder what it will take for our country to accept that media bias
exists.

Conservatives have no problem stating that they are conservatives and they
run their shows with no pretense of being anything else. They try to
provide information based on facts and certainly will not shy from showing
where they stand on any issue.

For the mainstream media to pretend that it is being objective and that they
don't try to slant the news to favor their candidates and their political
viewpoint is unfair at least and evil at worst. One poll showed that
journalists vote for Democrats five times more often than the average
American. Bruce Walker has a little more info on media bias here
http://www.opinionet.com/article.php?id=8. He names a few "documentaries"
where they released supposed facts that were false. Michael Moore has an
admitted political agenda to remove President Bush from office, yet the
media calls his filth "documentaries".

It is impossible for a person to say they don't have an opinion. We always
have opinions and they affect what we say or do. Some folks like Coke, some
like Pepsi. Some like both. But if you only like Coke you aren't going to
buy Pepsi and vice versa. So if you only like Democrats what are you going
to do with the news?

I believe the news agencies should police themselves. They should watch for
editorial or journalistic favor or disfavor to an individual or story. News
agencies that state their bias can feel free to do whatever they want of
course, after all, we are a free country. If agencies claim to be without
bias though, they should watch out that they don't try to influence American
opinion in any way. Opinion pieces have a place of course, on the opinion
page.

When the New York Times came out and stated they were endorsing Kerry for
president it was no surprise to anyone. Why not? If they're not bias
don't you think that people would wait with bated breath to see which
candidate they would support? It's laughable to think that. Most people
know where the New York Times and most news organizations stand. As Ann
says here http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39813 "In a
front-page story the week the story broke, the Times accused the Bush
administration of leaking the news of the Berger investigation for cynical
political reasons - based on the Times' careful accretion of no facts
whatsoever". The story of the event itself was on page 16. The Times
protected their fellow Democrat. That's just one reason how the media is
dangerous for America. Of course, there are many more.

The media protects its own criminals and acts like Republicans are Satan
personified whenever they find something that can be fabricated into a front
page story. Take the Abu Ghraib incident as an example. The media used
this story week after week to bring President Bush's numbers down. What
did it have to do with President Bush? Nothing. They knew that anything
that could be negatively related to Iraq would be bad for President
Bush so they pushed it, day after day, week after week.

Why isn't it a story now? Because now we find out that Lynndie England was
a very sexual person and loved to role play and more...much more.
Unfortunately for the media, England turned out to be one of their "diverse"
darlings. As Cindy Lauper put it, "Girls just wanna have fun" and yes,
England had plenty of it.

The media wanted this to be a never ending torture story so it could give the appearance that our United States Military was more cruel and evil than the Iraqis whom we were fighting. They then wanted to follow the trail up to Donald Rumsfeld and eventually of course, to President Bush. The media and our Democrat representatives in Government constantly pull out the phrase "What did he know and when did he know it?". They did it after 9/11, even to the point of accusing President Bush of knowing ahead of time that 9/11 was going to happen but did nothing to stop it.

From Cynthia McKinney (D., GA)

"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September
11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about
the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the
innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they
have to hide?"

The media and Democrats feel free to throw accusations of the worst kind
without any proof. They never apologize when they're wrong, which is almost
all the time.

John Kerry told of the atrocities that he committed during the Vietnam war
but he's treated like a war hero, not the criminal that he was. His
admissions are scary:

"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I
committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have
committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted
harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we
were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.
I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All
of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the
Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written
established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.
And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the
free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter
of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

The media treats him as if he were an Alcoholic who has just said "Hi, I'm
John Kerry and I'm a war criminal" (media applause follows).

Democrats and the media (is there a difference?) call Republicans and
Conservatives liars all the time, even while they are the ones lying with
their accusations. They steal jewelry and then point to the person standing
next to them hollering "thief!". Then they walk away unnoticed as the
person they pointed at is being frisked.

All of their mockumenteries are meant to confuse and indoctrinate the
American people. A good example is the Reagan miniseries. CBS was going to
release a lying mocumentary about the Reagans. They figured that President
Reagan was incapable of defending himself so there was no way there would be
any considerable objection. They were wrong. Conservatives the world over
let CBS know that they didn't agree with their view of the Reagans. So the
show was pulled and it was over right? Wrong. They waited a couple of
weeks and snuck it on Showtime. Why did they do that? Why didn't they
broadcast that they were going to show it anyway? Because they didn't want
to bring out the furor again. Why did they run it? Because it probably
wouldn't have been eligible for the 7 Emmy nominations that it received.
Hopefully the only award that they get for that attempt to revise history
will be the one that they already got, the Bee Golden Turkey Award.

The media and the Democrats will kill us if we don't protect ourselves from
them. Their objectives are almost always political. Until ABC, CBS, NBC
and all the liberal news organizations come out and admit to their targeted
stories, Americans should deny them profit.

America, we have to acknowledge and confront the bias that comes out of our
media. We need to call and/or write the radio and TV stations, we need to call and/or write the newspapers.

We need to tell them that enough is enough and we want the truth!