How Democrats Treat Black Americans

For four decades now you have routinely given 80-90% of your votes to whomever is the Democratic candidate. As a Republican, I realise full well that we have not done nearly a good enough job getting our message out to you - have not done the things necessary to understand your hopes and desires. We are, however, working on it and we hope that in future years we will earn more and more of your votes - after all, there's not a dimes worth of difference between the views of a white and a black conservative Christian. But I'd like to bring to your attention this little incident:

The New York Post's Robert George tells a story from the Kerry campaign trail that helps show why the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, is having trouble with black voters. Two weeks ago tomorrow, Kerry gave a speech in Xenia, Ohio, a largely black town outside Dayton. On his way was historically black Wilberforce University, where "organizers were led to believe that if there were at least 100 people, Kerry's motorcade would make a quick stop":

Eventually 150 students and supporters . . . gathered for four hours on a cold (rainy and snowy) Ohio day. And the Kerry caravan drove right on by. All the long-suffering got from the candidate was a clenched "victory" fist out the window.

According to Shavon Ray, president of Wilberforce's NAACP, the students were devastated--with comments such as "This is why I don't vote." . . .

After the incident--and Ray's criticism--made the local paper, the Democratic Party sent one Ken Miller to Wilberforce to meet with Ray. He offered 50 tickets--and 8 VIP tickets--to a Kerry event in Dayton. Ray declined what she saw as "hush tickets." . . .

Next, Miller offered to have Rev. Al Sharpton stop by as a speaker. That annoyed Ray even more: "We don't want a black face to speak to black students."

The final straw was when Miller said Sharpton would be sent to speak to Central State University--along with X-rated rapper Foxy Brown.

When Ray reminded Miller that they didn't want anything to do with Sharpton, Miller allegedly responded, "What do you want--Kerry to lose the f---ing race? We got you Al Sharpton. What more do you want?"

"Meanwhile, this past Wednesday, George W. Bush had a huge rally in the Pontiac Silverdome in the battleground state of Michigan," George adds. "On stage with him were two of the most popular black gospel singers--Marvin Winans and Freeport, Long Island's own Donnie McClurkin."

What more do you want? Hopefully its a political Party which respects you as Americans; not a political Party which just considers your vote an unalienable right of whatever jerk the Democrats nominate for an office.

Hat Tip: Best of the Web Today

Why Bush Will Win

For Pete DuPont, the question of conviction goes to the heart of "Why Bush Will Win":

President Bush is not going to win because of Mr. Kerry's style or Boston blue blood, as out of sync with most Americans as they may be. He is going to win because he believes in things, while Mr. Kerry is a candidate of concern, consensus and compromise.

Mr. Bush believes in the "transformational power of liberty"; that "freedom is on the march"; that the spirit of liberty that created America in 1776 has brought freedom and opportunity to Afghanistan and will bring it to Iraq and every other nation that grasps its principles. It is a powerful message that Americans understand. Mr. Kerry believes we are imposing democracy on people, instead of which we must bring everyone together in international forums where America's decisions must pass a "global test." As the New York Times noted, Mr. Kerry "sees himself as an ambassador president," intending his first act in office to be a speech to the United Nations to recast American foreign policy.

Kerry, The UN, The Red Sox, .. & More Lies

Let's to go back to the third debate in St. Louis. John Kerry made a statement during that debate on October 8th. This was it.

This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable. I came away convinced that if we worked at it, if we were ready to work at letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us.

Now this story.

UN ambassadors from several nations are now disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the UN Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

He did not meet with all of them. He did not. Remember the story he told about his mother? Let's relive that story.

Here is Kerry again:

If I could just say a word about a woman that you didn't ask about, but my mom passed away a couple years ago, and just before I was deciding to run, and she was in the hospital, and I went in to talk to her and tell her what I was thinking of doing and she looked at me from her hospital bed and she just looked at me and she said, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity." Those are the three words that she left me with.

Sounds like Mr. Kerry is admitting his mother knew him pretty well. She had to remind him three times to use "integrity, integrity, integrity," and he still is having trouble doing so. He out-and-out lied in the debate on October the 8th in St. Louis in which he said that he had gone to New York, he talked to all of the Security Council members prior to his October 2002 vote. He did not. (story)

"U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council... Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the 'real readiness' of the United Nations to 'take this seriously' because he met 'with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein.' But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either. The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified.

"A U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the Security Council's actions in fall of 2002 said that he was not aware of any meeting Mr. Kerry had with members of the panel. An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations remarked: 'We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council.' Jean-David Levitte, then France's chief U.N. representative and now his country's ambassador to the United States, said through a spokeswoman that Mr. Kerry did not have a single group meeting as the senator has described, but rather several one-on-one or small-group encounters."

Kerry did not meet with the Security Council. They're out there denying that he did, and this, folks, is something you have to just put this in your pipe and smoke it. He's lying about a number of things throughout this campaign. He's flip-flopping all over the place. If you don't like the word 'lying,' he's misstating. He's forgetting. He's misleading. I don't care what you want to say, but to me this is an out-and-out lie when he said he met with the members of the Security Council and didn't.

He also is famous for saying that he sat 30 yards away at the 1986 World Series in Shea Stadium when Bill Buckner blew a ground ball; let it roll between his legs. Kerry has spoken often of the agony that he personally witnessed. The problem is he wasn't there. He was in Boston. He was at the World Trade Center in Boston for a meeting and fund-raiser with other Massachusetts Democrats. He was not in Shea Stadium in 1986 during Game 6 of the World Series between the Red Sox and the Mets! He did not meet with members of the UN Security Council. He cannot get France and Germany into our alliance; they've already said they're not going to come. The man is not operating with "integrity, integrity, integrity." You can't count on what the man says.

Bush support with Blacks doubles

Here is a story from the LA Times "Kerry Seeks to Connect to Blacks." "After spending much of the spring and summer courting swing voters, Sen. John F. Kerry is now hurriedly trying to rev up enthusiasm among African Americans, turning his attention to a stalwart Democratic constituency that some community leaders complain he neglected for too long. In the last several weeks, Kerry has tapped the Rev. Jesse Jackson as a senior advisor, held a summit of African American clergy in Philadelphia and visited black churches in Cleveland and Miami, joined by Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton..."

Kerry's support now is down from the usual 82 to 83% to 69% in the black community, down to 64% in the Jewish community.

"Surveys taken by the Washington Post and ABC News in September showed that while nearly 80% of African Americans respondents said they planned to vote for Kerry, less than half of those considered themselves 'very enthusiastic' about his candidacy."

More:
(LA Times: Kerry Seeks to Connect to Blacks)
(AP: Poll: Bush doubles support among blacks)
(AP: Kerry courts Jews with Hebrew stickers)

Why is Bush AND Kerry touring BLUE states? 'Cus Kerry is behind

The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll that came out yesterday that shows Bush up eight in likely voters.

When you get down and look at all these polls over the past six months, throughout the whole race once the primary season ended for the Democrats, Kerry's never led this race. When you get right down to it, Kerry has never been in front in this race, and he's not now, and you could take all the big polls and you could lump them together as RealClearPolitics.com does and average them out and you get a Bush lead of plus 3.5. I tried to tell you, these polls, the horse race polls, don't tell you what you need to know. You need to go to the battleground states and look at the state polls. Look at the Electoral College map and see how things are shaping up there. However, there are also some other polls that are taken out there that we never know about.

We're never told about these polls, and these are the polls that are run by the campaigns. Kerry campaign has its own poll out there and they do their internal polling and focus grouping, and the Bush campaign is doing same thing. Now, we don't know what these polls say, but we can get a pretty good idea what they say by watching some things. We can, A, watch where the candidates go, and, B, we can listen to what they say. Now, I'm not trying to get anybody's false hopes up here, but I'm going to tell you something, folks: The Kerry campaign is not behaving as though they are confident of a win. In fact, they are acting desperate. The Kerry campaign is going places they shouldn't be going. They're going to places like Wisconsin which they ought to have wired. Kerry is going to states he already ought to have in his camp.

Bush, on the other hand, is going to states that are marginally in the Kerry camp but may be still up for grabs like Oregon. Bush last week spent a lot of time in Oregon. You're saying, "What's he doing in Oregon, it's a Kerry state?" It means something. It means that Bush maybe, based on polling, thinks they've got a chance to do something in Oregon. It means that Bush is secure in his base and that Kerry is not. Kerry’s people are not nearly as excited about Kerry as Bush people are as excited about Bush.

Edwards needs to look in the mirror and shut up

Bush was in New Jersey today and here's Edwards making a speech in Fort Myers. Edwards says,

"'George Bush is exploiting a national tragedy for personal gain,' in a blistering speech preceding Bush's own address about terrorism in a state in the shadow of September 11th, 2001. Accusing the president of using scare tactics, Edwards charged George Bush is playing on people's deepest fears. 'He's exploiting a national tragedy for personal gain. It's the lowest kind of politics.'"

What!!? Get a grip man! Considering the comment about all of these quadra/paraplegics out there in wheelchairs last week in Iowa - that if Kerry gets into office they would walk out of their chairs. I ask now, who is doing the exploiting?

Take for instance lets some of Edward's closing arguments for his past jury summations. What's up with the channeling of the thoughts of a fetus in a woman's womb, senator? Are you not exploiting that for your own personal gain? You've got no room to talk about this.

The point is Democrats cannot talk about issues. The Democrats are not out trying to get votes talking about what they're going to do and what their issues are going to mean. They're out there doing the same old dumb stuff from the same dumb playbook.

Canadians to Kerry: No Cheap Drugs

In a new report from the Financial Times says that more and more Canadian online pharmacies are rejecting bulk orders from U.S. states and municipalities. The concern seems to be that the increased orders will result in shortages and thus increase prices for Canadian residents.

"We don't want to give Americans the impression that we have unlimited supply for them to tap into on a commercial basis," said David Mackay, the association's executive director. "We can't be your complete drugstore."

So far, about 30 pharmacies have decided not to accept bulk orders of prescription drugs from U.S. states and municipalities.

Prescription drug prices are significantly lower in Canada than the United States, because of price controls and bulk buying by the 10 provinces.

But I am sure that Kerry has a "plan" for this as well.

Link: Canada reins in Internet drug sales

Kerry's Liberal Big Mouth Screws Haiti

What's up with this guy's "global test"?

The United Nations commander in Haiti blames John Kerry's remarks in support of Jean-Bertrand Aristide for continued violence in the country. Aristide supporters feel that if they can hold out till Kerry is elected they can convince him to re-install Aristide to power.

The Brazilian UN general, Augusto Heleno, said Mr Kerry's comments had offered "hope" to Aristide supporters. Much of the recent unrest has centred on areas loyal to Mr Aristide.

More than 50 people have died over the past fortnight.

NAACP: Office Debate turns Political

My buddy Greg Giddens of Davidson County, NC sent this to me today in an email. It was to help settle a dispute (with other co-workers) on the relative nature of the NAACP in respect to the black community. I totally share his sentiment and he it expressed it much better than I could have.

Let me finish what I was saying about the NAACP and other roundtable issues we were discussing. In my opinion, the NAACP is nothing but an extension of the Democratic Party and negatively labels any blacks that don't share their political view. Julian Bond said blacks that don't share the NAACP's view are "puppets" and members of the Republican Party are the puppet masters. The NAACP during the height of the civil rights movement, was an effective and relevant organization. Today they have a strictly political agenda that I don't agree with. I had an incident happen to me a few years ago that was a clear case of racial profiling (I'll tell you about it another time). I contacted them to see what I could do about it or if there was something they could do to help me. I got no help from them. If I experienced some sort of racial discrimination right now, I might contact them, but I would probably just consult an attorney. I don't feel that the NAACP is helping us as a people like they used to and they aren't as relevant.

When Bill Cosby recently spoke the absolute truth about too many blacks using improper English and being more worried about buying their kids $200 sneakers than their education and black males demeaning their mates and blaming the White man for all of his problems, the NAACP and many other black groups distanced themselves from Cosby and what he said. If these groups truly are for the advancement of blacks, then they should have supported Cosby 100% and really should have been voicing this message years ago. To emphasize my point that the NAACP and other groups that supposedly represent our interests are not focusing on what they should, every black individual I've seen comment on it said that Cosby was absolutely right and his statements were long overdue.

There is a stigma attached to blacks who are Republican that they are somehow "out of touch with their culture and history" or somehow less black. Charles Barkley is a Republican -- he grew up poor in Leeds, Alabama (the heart of the South). Is he less black? Comedian Sheryl Underwood is a Republican. Is she less black? Don King supports George Bush. Is he less black? Colin Powell is the Secretary of State and Condaleeza Rice is the National Security Advisor. Rod Paige is the Secretary of Education. George Bush appointed them. Did you see blacks in such high profile positions in the Clinton Administration? More and more blacks feel like the Democratic Party is taking them for granted and they are. To say the Republicans don't offer opportunities for minorities is dead wrong. These folks I just mentioned wouldn't be Republicans or affiliated with the party if they felt that way. James Meredith worked for Jesse Helms on one of his re-election campaigns. Can you say Mr. Meredith -- the first black to be admitted to the University of Mississippi is less black?

I've said all of that to say this -- we as black people aren't born Democrats. We are born with our own minds and as we grow and develop, we recognize what our values and views are and "hopefully" form our own opinions on the issues. At that point, we should investigate both sides and determine which side is more representative of our views and beliefs. Automatically labeling ourselves Democrats or allowing society to label us as Democrats is detrimental to us as a people. If the Democratic party knows it has 90% of the black vote in the bag, what is their motivation to truly address our needs? Anytime you get anything without working hard or not at all for it, you get complacent and take what you are getting and the source for granted. There are always two sides to every story, I'm just hoping that more blacks will take an educated look at what the Republican Party has to offer and what it stands for before they categorically dismiss it.

Thanks Greg.

I Voted

Today as part of the North Carolina early voting program, I got my chance to vote for the US general elections. Local news was there and I was interviewed twice; one of which made the 5 o'clock time slot. My wife taped it and there was not much really there but it was fun nonetheless. They did not show my 15 second sound bite of my support for Bush. Go figure.

Here is what I said:

I voted for President Bush because I feel that his administration has a clearer
understanding of how to deal with issues as they pertain to the black community.
I feel that Kerry has nothing to offer other than the usual pandering. Culturally and traditionally speaking, African-Americans are compassionate. We are conservative but vote the opposite. I am here to help reverse that trend. George W. Bush is the compassionate conservative that fits our bill.

Can anyone explain to me why this did not make the evening news?

Needless to say I voted for the president. It was the first time in my life that every voted for a republican for president. I am OK with that. I feel I made the right choice for myself and my family.

Kerry is a liar

There now was that hard to say? Are we too politically correct these days to call things as they are? I am sick and tired of Kerry getting away with his blatant distortions and yes... lies.

Last night John Kerry showed how far he's willing to go to deceive the American people about this record when he said "I've actually passed 56 individual bills that I've personally written." The fact is that he has only been the lead sponsor of 5 bills and 4 resolutions that have become law. And that was in 19 years of Senate duty.

Its time folks to take the gloves off. Lets all call a spade a spade and get on with getting the work done.

Read more John Kerry lies

BUSH WINS AGAIN!

Again, never take my word for it:

"I think Bush knocked Kerry out tonight. I think it was just, he just slaughtered him." -- Bill Kristol on Fox News

"I think [Bush] won this debate." - Mort Kondracke on Fox News

"This makes Bush the comeback kid of these debates." - Mort Kondracke

President Bush "was particularly effective tonight." - George Stephanopoulos on ABC

President Bush "did exactly what he needed to do in debate two into debate three." - Joe Scarborough on MSNBC

"Bush scored in 'Global Test' and terrorism as a 'nuisance.'" - Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC

"Bush won it. ... Kerry was generally back on his heels throughout the night. ... Bush really did pull it out." - Jonah Goldberg, National Review

Now the real works begins. Donate money, organize a Bush walk, attend or host a party, volunteer at your local campaign headquarters. It is going to take all of us to come together to prevent these aweful two words being used over and over for the next four years: President Kerry. It almost makes me want to puke.

Nobel Prize Winner Praises Bush Tax Cuts

I wonder how John Kerry will try and spin this.

Nobel Laureate calls for more US tax cuts

Washington - Edward Prescott, who picked up the Nobel Prize for Economics on Monday, said President George Bush's tax rate cuts were "pretty small" and should have been bigger.

"What Bush has done has been not very big, it's pretty small," Prescott said.

"Tax rates were not cut enough," said Prescott.

Lower tax rates provided an incentive to work, Prescott said.

Prescott and Norwegian Finn Kydland won the 2004 Nobel Economics Prize for research into the forces behind business cycles.

The American analyst, who is a professor at Arizona State University and a researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, said a large tax cut in 1986 had lowered rates while collecting the same revenue.

But "in the early nineties the economy was depressed by the tax increase in 1993 by about four percent, and it's right at that level now," Prescott said.

Bush, who is fighting to get re-elected on November 2, has cut taxes by about $1,7-trillion during his term.

The US leader accuses his Democratic rival John Kerry of favoring tax increases, despite Kerry's promise to cut taxes for everyone earning less than 200 000 dollars a year. - Sapa-AFP

What he trying not to say is that if Clinton had CUT taxes we would have had an even BETTER economy in the 90's.

But...

Quote montage from last weeks debate:

The Patriot Act, I support it, but I just don't like the way John Ashcroft has applied it. I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat, believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president, but I would have used that force wisely. I will never stop at anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists. But you heard the president just say to you that we've added money. Folks, the test is not if you've added money. I don't support a draft, but let me tell you where you president's policies have put us. Go to JohnKerry.com and you'll find a tort reform plan. Yes, it's a problem. Do we need to fix it particularly for OB-GYNs and for brain surgeons and others? Yes. But it's less than 1% of the total cost of health care. We should look at the punitive and we should have some limitations, but look what's really important is the president's just trying to scare everybody here. We're throwing labels around. The Kyoto treaty was flawed. I was in Kyoto and I was part of it. I know what happened, but this president didn't try to fix it. You can't stop all outsourcing, I never promised that and I'm not going to because that would be pandering, you can't. But what you can do is create a fair playing field. I believe in the Patriot Act. We need to be stronger on terrorism, but you know what we also need to do as Americans is never let the terrorists change the Constitution of the United States. Religion has been a huge part of my life, it helped lead me through a war, it leads me today, but I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it.
I can talk to people about making other choices and about abstinence and all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society, but as a president I have to represent all the people in the nation. No Child Left Behind Act, I voted for it and I support it, but the president has underfunded it. I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. The president just said, My opponent's against, this my opponent's against that," you know, it's just not that simple. No I'm not. I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've gotta have an exception. I'll never give a veto over American security to any other entity, not a nation, not a country, not an institution, but I know as I think you do that our country is strongest when we lead the world, when we lead strong alliances. I will not stop in our effort to hunt down and kill the terrorists, but I'll also have a better plan. I believe America's best days are ahead of us. I'm an optimist, but--

Former Clinton aid sees Bush as clear winner

Writing in the New York Post, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris says that President Bush turned in a masterful performance in St. Louis last night. On substance and style, the President was the clear victor:

Bush won this debate by acing the issue of Iraq. He explained the rationale for the war and tied it to protecting homeland security. He defended his deficit by saying he was not willing either to raise taxes or to endanger our troops by underfunding the War on Terror.

The dignified, coiffeured John Kerry came out behind his podium and paced the floor. But he was shown up by George W. Bush. He showed how superficial were his arguments and how contradictory was his record. In a forum that seemed more real for the participation of the voters, Bush made it clear that he is in charge and that he is protecting us in a way that John Kerry never could do.

Kerry's debating gimmicks, his briefing notes, his talking points all came up against Bush's presidential-ness — and came up short. He was reduced to quibbling while the president focused on national policy and our public interest.

Once again, John Kerry fails to meet the threshold of commander-in-chief:

Bush seemed ready to pounce. When Kerry spoke, it was Bush who crept up behind and rebutted the Democrat's talking points. Even on the question of abortion — where I agree with Kerry and disagree with Bush — the president did a good job of casting himself as a centrist and labeling Kerry as a leftist. ...

By labeling Kerry as the most liberal member of the Senate, he pushed the Democrat into the corner and showed him to be outside the mainstream of American politics.

Bush took control of the debate. The president took over. Kerry was reduced to the posture of an outsider, a pretender, an advocate contrasted with the president.

UN Food for Oil Scanal: Briefing

Cross post from Blogs for Bush:

A recent article in Investor's Business Daily highlights why the U.N. Oil For Food Scandal is more than a simple corruption of some foreign political body. IBD shows how the unravelling Oil For Food scandal lies directly at the heart of the battle over the Iraq war.

It shows that despite John Kerry's assertions that George W. Bush failed to build international coalitions because he's a cowboy or because he 'rushed to war', the real reason a coalition with the likes of France, Russia and China could've never been built (yes, even with a 'President Kerry') is because those so-called "allies" were working with Saddam Hussein and guaranteeing him they'd protect him against a U.S. invasion... to protect their business contracts.

That is right. The entire international rift over the Iraq war has to do with France, Russia and China's illegal dealings with Iraq - not some "unilateral" action by the U.S.

A great debate has raged over why so many of the world's major countries suddenly went all weak in the knees when the U.S. went after Saddam Hussein. A new CIA report makes the reason clear, and it isn't pretty.

The report by Charles Duelfer, chief weapons inspector of the Iraq Survey Group, sketches out in plain language what could be the biggest bribery scandal of the last century ˜ one that reaches into the highest political circles. It makes for shocking reading.

It shows how Saddam evaded U.N. sanctions from 1997 to 2003 by illicitly selling oil through other countries and bribing world leaders, up-and-coming politicians, journalists, businesses, even the U.N. itself. In the process he cleared $11 billion in illegal profits.

The report names names. Anyone who could help him regain weapons of mass destruction was a target. He settled on Russia, France and China ˜ three of the five U.N. Security Council members that, with the stroke of a veto pen, could stop the U.N. from going to war or end economic sanctions against his country.

Even more stunning than the fact of the bribery is its scope and depth. The list of those who helped Saddam cheat and got paid for it is long and depressing.

This thing went so deep and so wide that no American President could've built a coalition to stop Saddam. And as the Duelfer report showed, Saddam was working to end the sanctions so he could resume building WMDs. This means it wasn't an "if" so much as it was a "when" Saddam would have the weapons we all fear.

It shows that George W. Bush has the clarity, the vision and the determination to take the right action in the interests of the United States of America and that John Kerry's "global test" and desire to be popular in Europe would've led us to an Iraq with destructive WMDs. (Think "North Korea")

It includes Charles Pasqua, France's former interior minister; Megawati Sukarnoputri, president of Indonesia; and Benon Sevan, former head of the U.N.'s Iraq sanctions program. Also named are a large number of Russian government officials and fixers and the governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt and China.

And that's just a few. The list is hundreds of names long.

And John Kerry keeps demanding we should've played nice with these folks.

Saddam's strategy was simple: keep the U.S. off his back. American and British planes were buzzing over Iraq's "no-fly" zones since the 1991 end of the Gulf War, and Saddam was forced to suspend his WMD program due to U.N. inspections.

To get his way, Saddam gave, in the words of the report, "preferential treatment to Russian and French companies hoping for Russian and French support on the UN Security Council."

That is, he bribed them. He wanted U.N. sanctions ended so he could go back to making chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

And according to the Duelfer report, he was "eroding a lot of sanctions". Again, it was a matter of "when", not "if".

AND THEN, THE BOMBSHELL:

Still, a member of the French Parliament, according to a memo sent to Saddam in May 2002, "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the U.N. Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq." That is, once bribed, France would stay bribed.

There you have it. France had assured Iraq they would use a veto against the U.S. resolution to attack Iraq. Essentially, because of bribery and illegal dealings with Saddam, France would never have supported an invasion....EVER.

So let's look back to 2003 and the actions of France and others in the U.N.

In an Wall Street Journal article from 2003:

...regardless of who runs Iraq today, tomorrow or next week, Iraq is still under sanctions until the U.N. Security Council lifts them. The oil-for-food program, unless extended by the said Council, also expires on June 3, 2003. A slight modification of this program was recently approved to allow the U.N. to supply a variety of previously restricted goods according to more flexible delivery schedules. This alone required much negotiating, "as France and Russia disputed language that could impute legitimacy to the U.S.-led invasion and opposed provisions that might endanger contracts between Iraq and suppliers in those nations". And, in a now familiar pattern, "The French have been threatening to veto resolutions [on Iraqi reconstruction] before they've even been circulated," one council diplomat said."

No wonder France was threatening a veto supporting an invasion... even before the draft resolution had been circulated. They were not going to support ANY resolution... ever! And it wasn't because of anything George W. Bush did. It was plain and simply because France had been bribed by Iraq and they were going to fight like hell to save Iraq.... they were going to do what they'd been paid to do.

All in all, a scandal of epic proportions. But what can be made of it? Well, a number of things:

For one, it's a devastating blow to John Kerry's much-ballyhooed "plan" to end the war in Iraq by holding an international conference of nations ˜ including France, Russia and China ˜ to decide Iraq's future. Given what we know of those nations' complicity with Saddam's murderous regime, that's no longer an option.

Kerry wants to deal with those paid by the enemy to oppose us? That says a lot.

Also shattered is Kerry's assertion that patient diplomacy might have disarmed Iraq and brought Saddam to heel. French, Russian and Chinese efforts to subvert U.S. actions against Iraq show they would have opposed us no matter what. They were merely providing the service they were paid for.

Kerry wants to pin this on Bush... he HAS to pin it on Bush. Otherwise, Kerry can't win with the truth, because the real truth is that the supposed "allies" John Kerry demands we work with, those 'judges of a global test' were on Saddam's payroll to oppose us. It would be like John Kerry saying we needed permission from Saddam to invade Iraq.

If Kerry acknowledges the truth, he's done. Essentially, he'll have to admit that George W. Bush had the resolve and determination to see through on of the largest international scandals known, to build a coalition of true allies and take decisive action against a gathering threat.

We commend the Duelfer report to your attention. It shows clearly we were right to get rid of Saddam. Perhaps more important, it shows just as clearly whom we can still call friends.

Now would someone please call John Kerry and let him know that we don't want to hear anymore about "Bush's failure to build a grand coalition" or how America must pass a "global test".

John Kerry has proven that he doesn't have the ability to lead our country... if he would rather coddle countries conspiring against us, than recognize the efforts of countries helping us keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists- then he doesn't have the judgment to be President of the United States.

If John Kerry would've had his way, we would've continued down a road of meaningless sanctions from a world body that was so corrupted by the very target of the sanctions that we would've awaken some time in the near future to the realization that Saddam was armed to the hilt and we'd been suckered by "allies" who were on the take.

Wrong war? Wrong time? Wrong, Kerry!

Thank God for George W. Bush.

A DECISIVE WIN!

But don't my word for it:

NBC’s Tom Brokaw: “Well, I Think That The President Stepped Up His Game Tonight, And I Think That He Came With A Game Plan In Mind, And Tried To Execute It On That Stage.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/8/04)

NBC's Andrea Mitchell: "Bush Came To Play Tonight." (MSNBC's "Hardball Special Debate Edition," 10/8/04)

ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "I Think President Bush Was Most Effective, Is When He Brought People Into The Oval Office, Talked About Meeting With The Iraqi Finance Minister, Talking About Going To The Situation Room And Talking To General Tommy Franks, And Then, Finally, Also, Bringing Up Senator Kerry's Senate Record. But You Did See, I Think, A Lot Of Skill Out There Tonight." (ABC's "Special Coverage," 10/8/04)

Charles Franklin, University Of Wisconsin: “Kerry Was Way Too Wordy And Bush Was Folksy, Feisty.” (Ron Fournier, “Bush Fights Against Emotion, Scowls In Testy, Personal Debate With Kerry,” The Associated Press, 10/8/04)

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "The President Did Well" And Exuded An "Air Of Confidence." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 10/8/04)

Fox News' Chris Wallace Says "George W. Bush Came To Play." (Fox News' "Special Coverage," 10/8/04)

MSNBC Analyst Pat Buchanan: "The Guys In Western Pennsylvania, Working Class Guys In West Virginia, Ohio, These Guys Who Are Concerned About Their Lost Jobs, They Like A Tough Customer As President, And The President Came Off As Tough, Assertive, Confident, Even Defiant." (MSNBC's "Hardball Special Debate Edition," 10/8/04)

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I Think This Keeps The Game Open. … I Do Think That Bush Certainly Came To Play Tonight, Certainly Put In A Strong Performance." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 10/8/04)

USA Today: "Bush Appeared More Relaxed And Forceful." ("Voters' Questions Energize Candidates In Second Debate," USA Today, 10/8/04)

Time Magazine's Perry Bacon: "The President Actually Did Better, Did Stronger, And Put Kerry On The Defensive On The Domestic Section." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 10/8/04)

The New York Times' Katharine Q. Seelye: "The Format Served [President Bush] Well. He Looked Comfortable And Sounded Confident." (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Live Webcast," The New York Times Web Site, 10/8/04,

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/200401008_SEELYE_LIVE/index.html?hp, Accessed 10/8/04)

NBC's Tim Russert: "George Bush Was More Energetic." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 10/8/04)

Charles Franklin, University Of Wisconsin: "Bush Looked Comfortable, And Produced A Plausible Story Line." (Ron Fournier, "Bush Fights Against Emotion, Scowls In Testy, Personal Debate With Kerry," The Associated Press, 10/8/04)

Pat Buchanan, MSNBC: "He Wiped Up The Floor With John Kerry." "I think quite candidly, Chris, maybe I'm the only one here, I thought he wiped up the floor with John Kerry." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 10/8/04)

National Review's Stanley Kurtz: "I Think The President Won This Debate – Certainly As A Matter Of Momentum And Beating Expectations, But In An Absolute Sense As Well." (Stanley Kurtz, National Review's "Corner" Website, www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp, 10/8/04)

The Weekly Standard's Steven Hayes Said "I Would Say That President Bush Won The Debate, And For Me, It Was Actually A Rather Decisive Win." (CSPAN's "Special Coverage," 10/8/04)

New York Times Columnist David Brooks: "I Thought He [President Bush] Won This Debate, Not By A Lot But By A Significant Chunk." (PBS's "Special Coverage," 10/8/04)

• New York Times Columnist David Brooks: "So I Think Overall, The Effect Of The Debate Will To Be To Give The Bush Campaign A Boost." (PBS's "Special Coverage," 10/8/04)

The Houston Chronicle: President Bush Had A "Looser, Folksier Delivery And More Varied Phrasing Of His Answers," And He "Could See The Glass Half Full, But For Kerry The Glass Was Still Leaking." (Cragg Hines, "St. Louis Debate: Can Bush Have It Both Ways?" The Houston Chronicle, 10/8/04)

Columbus, OH Undecided Voter Lisa: "I Was Kind Of On The Border, But After Hearing Both Candidates Tonight, I Think That I've Kind Of Swayed Over To Bush's Side." (CNN's "Special Post-Debate Wrap-Up," 10/8/04)

Robin Toner And Adam Nagourney, New York Times: "Mr. Bush Came Back Swinging This Week." (Robin Toner And Adam Nagourney, "Bush And Kerry Trade Attacks In Their Second Presidential Debate," The New York Times, 10/8/04)

Columbus, OH Undecided Voter Larry: "I Think This Was The Best Of The Three Debates So Far. I Think The Tone Was Positive In Some Degree And Negative In Others. I Think Bush Stuck With His Agenda That He's Had All Along And I Think Kerry Was On A Very Negative Attack Tone During The Debate." (CNN's "Special Post-Debate Wrap-Up," 10/8/04)

The New York Times' Katharine Q. Seelye: "He's Very Comfortable In His Own Skin." (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Live Webcast," The New York Times Web Site, 10/8/04, http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/200401008_SEELYE_LIVE/index.html?hp, Accessed 10/8/04)

• The New York Times' Katharine Q. Seelye: "Bush Seems To Have The Crowd." (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Live Webcast," The New York Times Web Site, 10/8/04, http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/200401008_SEELYE_LIVE/index.html?hp, Accessed 10/8/04)

• The New York Times' Katharine Q. Seelye: "Bush Was Well-Prepared For The Environment Question, Citing A Couple Of Items That Even Environmentalists Give Him Credit For." (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Live Webcast," The New York Times Web Site, 10/8/04, http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/200401008_SEELYE_LIVE/index.html?hp, Accessed 10/8/04)

Columbus, OH Undecided Voter Bob: "I Think President Bush Is Strong On Security And Fighting The War On Terror." (CNN's "Special Post-Debate Wrap-Up," 10/8/04)

National Review's Katherine Jean Lopez: "'Enjoyable.' Bush Means That, You Can Tell. Bush Wins." (Katherine Jean Lopez, National Review's "Corner" Website, www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp, 10/8/04)

CBS's Bob Schieffer: "I Thought The Best Part Of The President's Presentation Tonight Was His Closing Statement, When He Truly Seemed To Be Speaking From The Heart." (CBS's "Special Coverage," 10/9/04)

The Washington Post: "President Bush Sharpened His Performance Considerably." (John F. Harris, "Candidates' Differences On Vivid Display In Debate," The Washington Post, 10/9/04)

• The Washington Post: President Bush Used "Impassioned And Plain-Spoken Language." (John F. Harris, "Candidates' Differences On Vivid Display In Debate," The Washington Post, 10/9/04)

CBS's John Roberts: "No Question That President Bush Was Amped Up Tonight." (CBS's "Special Coverage," 10/9/04)

New Republic Columnist Andrew Sullivan: President Bush "Was Aggressive, Clear Most Of The Time, Had A Good Rapport With The Audience And, As The Debate Went On, Became More Relaxed." (Andrew Sullivan, "A Draw," AndrewSullivan.com, 10/8/04, http://andrewsullivan.com/, Accessed 10/8/04)

The New York Times: "Mr. Kerry Was Weaker When He Had To Respond To A Woman Who Wanted To Know About Spending Federal Money On Abortions. Social Issues Seem To Bring Out The Senator's Worst Tendencies To Paint A Word Picture In Shades Of Gray And Equivocation." (Editorial, "The Town Hall Debate," The New York Times, 10/9/04)

Howard Fineman, Newsweek: "There Were A Number Of Points I Thought Where The President Really Put Kerry On The Defensive." (MSNBC's "Special Coverage," 10/9/04)

• Howard Fineman, Newsweek: President Bush Made "Kerry Feel Uncomfortable About His Own Record." (MSNBC's "Special Coverage," 10/9/04)

University Of Pittsburgh Communications Professor Gordon Mitchell: President Bush "Expressed An Air Of Confidence That Was Missing In The First Debate." (David M. Brown And Bobby Kerlik, "Regional Experts Call Round Two A draw," The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 10/9/04)

MSNBC: President Bush Was "Clearly Energized By The Opportunity To Interact With The Audience." ("Bush, Kerry Go Toe-To-Toe In Quarrelsome Debate," MSNBC.com, 10/9/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6191353/, Accessed 10/9/04)

• MSNBC: President Bush "Set The Tone Immediately." ("Bush, Kerry Go Toe-To-Toe In Quarrelsome Debate," MSNBC.com, 10/9/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6191353/, Accessed 10/9/04)

Time Magazine's Joe Klein: "I Think That You Saw One Of Those Classic Flip Flops" When Kerry Answered Questions On Taxes. (CNN's "Newsnight," 10/9/04)

National Review Magazine's Rich Lowry,: President Gets An A-Minus On Substance, "Surprisingly Strong On Domestic Issues." (Fox News's "On The Record With Greta Van Susteren," 10/9/04)

US News And World Report Magazine's Michael Barone: "I Give President Bush An A." (Fox News's "On The Record With Greta Van Susteren," 10/9/04)

The Washington Post's Tom Shales: "Bush Came Through As More Passionate In His Beliefs Than His Challenger And Covered A Lot More Territory As He Moved Around The Stage." (Tom Shales, "Bush And Kerry Come Out Of Their Corners," The Washington Post, 10/9/04)

Cheney never met Edwards in the Senate - I thought that was clear

Please somebody explain to me which one of these are part of the U.S.. Senate:

1. A prayer breakfast
2. A Meet the Press taping
3. The swearing ceremony of Elizabeth Dole

The reason why I ask is because these are the occasions where Edwards and Cheney met. Of course the liberal media wants us to "remind us of this". However, this was not the point that Cheney was trying to get across. The context of what he said had to do with Senator "Gone" Edwards awful senate attendance record. He has missed almost all of his committee meetings.

Hey libs, stop diverting the facts!

More "In-sourcing" Than Outsourcing

EIB echo:

Here is some outsourcing statistics from Elaine Chao, the Secretary of Labor: In the past year in America, employers have eliminated about 300,000 jobs in the U.S. in favor of cheaper labor elsewhere. Yet, about eight or nine million Americans currently work for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies.

Now, people talk about outsourcing a lot. The anxiety belies the numbers, and you can look at it, well, any number of ways. We in-source more jobs from foreign countries by four to five times than we outsource. We in-source about 6-1/2 million jobs, outsource, you know, 300,000 this year, and we're talking about a total of 140 million jobs overall of this country. It's a wash. In fact, it's a net gain, which is the point. If we're going to talk about outsourcing and we're going to be consistent about it, if we're going to stop outsourcing, we're going to build a wall around the country and no foreign companies can build factories here and employ American workers at the same time. You know, "outsourcing" has now come to be a bad word, and the Democrats are trying to associate outsourcing in this way. They actually want people to believe that the Bush administration wants Americans to lose their jobs so that American companies can profit more.

Bush Record on Civil Rights Enforcement

I think I should point this out to all of those who buy into Bush being a heartless bigot.

1. First president ever to ban racial profiling
2. Increased prosecutions of bias-motivated and color-of-law crimes
3. Increased pattern & practice investigations into civil rights violations by law enforcement agencies
4. Tripling human trafficking prosecutions
5. Substantially more favorable resolutions for title vii plaintiffs before the equal opportunity employment commission
6. Increased focus on equal employment opportunity
7. Vigorously enforcing voting rights
8. Doubling enforcement of laws protecting institutionalized persons
9. The president’s "new freedom initiative" for the disabled
10. Increased protection of civil rights in housing, lending, and public accommodation
11. Increased attention to desegregation cases

But of course this is never enough for the liberals.

Read More:

Policy Memo: The Bush Administration Record on Civil Rights Enforcement

Bush's secret draft plan = Libs insanity

What's up with this that Bush has a secret plan to re-instate the draft? Never mind the fact that this is totally preposterous, but the mainstream press continues to report this as fact. However yesterday in the U.S. House, it was Republican leaders who were attempting to make a political point by decisively defeating a Democrat bill that would reinstituted a military draft.

The fact is that it was the Democrats that have introduced a bill to reinstate the draft. This was nothing more than an attempt to perpetuate the rumor that Bush has a covert plan to bring back the draft.

Here is the funny part, liberal token Charles Rangel devised a bill to do just that. He thinks that
the rich kids are not fighting while the poor kids are. This was his idea of pointing out this view.

The Republican leadership decided late yesterday to add to the suspension calendar a measure, H.R. Bill 163 introduced in January of 2003 by Charles Rangel. the bill said all U.S. citizens between 18 and 26, including women, to perform national defense service. Now Rangel says that the GOP is playing politics and he will vote against his own bill.

Vote against his own bill!!? Charley, what are you doing?

Articles:

(Washington Times: House expected to reject draft proposal)
(CNN.com - Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft - Jan. 8, 2003)

Kerry losing blacks' support

By focusing all of his rhetoric on Iraq, Kerry has alienated a good portion of the African-American democratic base. This is not the time first either.

Here is a snippet from a Washington Times article out today:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has seen a 10 percent decline in his support among black voters in the past month that has forced him to devote more campaign resources to energize one of his party's most loyal constituencies.
"Kerry continues to hold a big lead among African-Americans," but his "advantage is narrower than it was last month," Pew Research Center said in a national poll.
Pew said that in a head-to-head matchup with President Bush, Mr. Kerry's support among black voters has fallen from 83 percent in August to 73 percent now, while Mr. Bush's black support has doubled, from 6 percent to 12 percent.

Read the full article here: Kerry losing blacks' support

Halliburton: Is this the best they've got?

It seems as though last nights debate highlighted the the fact that the Bush-Cheney ticket is about protecting the country and the Kerry-Edwards ticket is about protecting lies. One of these is the age old Halliburton. I am telling you right now, if this is the best the dems have then this election is over.

For more information on the false “Hullabaloo over Halliburton,” check out this article from the non-partisan FactCheck.org criticizing the Kerry campaign for making false accusations about the Vice President and Halliburton.