Black Man for GOP

BUSH WINS!

2004-11-03T06:29:00.000-05:00

The Honorable Andrew Card made a statement to supporters gathered at the Bush Victory celebration this morning:

“Thank you very much.

“I want to thank all of you for staying up so late with us and good morning. I'm Andy Card, I’m President Bush's Chief of Staff.

“We are convinced that President Bush has won re-election with at least 286 Electoral College votes.

“And he also had a margin of more than 3.5 million popular votes.

“President Bush's decisive margin of victory makes this the first presidential election since 1988 in which the winner received a majority of the popular vote.

“And in this election President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country's history.

“Republicans also scored other great victories in this election. We won important victories adding to our majority in the House and adding to our majority in the Senate.

“In Ohio, President Bush has a lead of at least 140,000 votes. The Secretary of State's office has informed us that this margin is statistically insurmountable even after the provisional ballots are considered. So, President Bush has won the state of Ohio.

“President Bush has also been declared the winner in Nevada. The other victories that he has had will be added with the strong showing of margins that we are looking at in Iowa and New Mexico and we’re also going to put those states in the winner's column as well. This all adds up to a convincing Electoral College victory as well as a strong endorsement of President Bush by his fellow Americans in the popular vote.

“President Bush decided to give Senator Kerry the respect of more time to reflect on the results of this election. The President will be making a statement later today. Again I thank all of you who stayed up these many hours waiting for the opportunity to celebrate this victory. And I also thank all of the volunteers all across this great country that worked so hard. But, most importantly, I thank the many voters who participated in this important election. It was a great celebration of our democracy. Thank you and God bless you.”

How Democrats Treat Black Americans

2004-10-30T06:23:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-27T16:54:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-27T13:37:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-22T20:14:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-18T18:35:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-18T18:20:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-18T17:54:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-18T09:20:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-14T14:08:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-14T14:00:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-14T07:10:00.000-04:00

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!

2004-10-14T01:10:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-13T10:20:00.000-04:00

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...

2004-10-12T01:58:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-10T14:24:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-10T14:04:00.000-04:00

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!

2004-10-09T06:46:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-08T08:50:00.000-04:00

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

A prayer breakfast
A Meet the Press taping
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

2004-10-08T08:39:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-08T06:17:00.000-04:00

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

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

But of course this is never enough for the liberals.

Policy Memo: The Bush Administration Record on Civil Rights Enforcement

Bush's secret draft plan = Libs insanity

2004-10-06T21:08:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-06T13:43:00.000-04:00

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?

2004-10-06T13:39:00.000-04:00

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.

The Democratic Party: The Last Plantation In America

2004-09-28T22:00:00.000-04:00

This is a LaShawn ditto and very interesting point of view. The article entitled Last Plantation In America is from the Las Vegas Sun and follows the reaction to Clark County Commissioner Lynette Boggs McDonald comments concerning the Democratic party. Here is a clip.

Some local black Republicans said they understand why Clark County Commissioner Lynette Boggs McDonald last week called the Democratic party the “last plantation in America.”

Democrats quickly held a press conference Friday to call for an apology from Boggs McDonald, saying it was “unconscionable” and “inexcusable” to use slavery – one of the nation’s darkest periods – in political campaigns.

“To invoke the comparison is irresponsible,” said Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates.

But the Republican party is increasingly using powerful language to say that Democrats take blacks for granted and aren’t doing enough to empower the black community…

[E]qual opportunity, school choice, tax relief and faith-based organizations that help the community…."Those are the things that matter most to my family and why I’m supporting our leaders in Congress and President Bush,” she says.

Local black Republicans said they agree that the Democratic Party pays lip service to blacks during election season but does little to bring blacks to the table when it comes to setting policy….

“African-Americans have to look more toward self reliance, less government and being able to create more opportunities for themselves….We’re dealing with the remnants of the ’60s,” [Cornell] Clark said. “But these young, so-called upwardly mobile people — they’re open minded. They don’t think like the old crowds."(my emphasis)

Any chance I get to expose the liberals for who and what they really are I am going to jump on it. Check out the response from the democrats:

Democrats quickly held a press conference Friday to call for an apology from Boggs McDonald, saying it was "unconscionable" and "inexcusable" to use slavery -- one of the nation's darkest periods -- in political campaigns.

"To invoke the comparison is irresponsible," said Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates.

Ok fine. But really, let's be honest. Is it not the democrats that every four years whip out the race card to scare the mess out of potential black voters? Isn't it the DNC and their lib buddies that constantly label conservatives as racist and bigots? The libs can dish it but they sure as heck can not take it.

The fact is that it has been the 30 plus years of liberal policies that have kept African-Americans from reaching our full potential. And we as a people are beginning to see that. Black power indeed.

It Could Be All Over for Democrats

2004-09-27T23:15:00.000-04:00

I think I know why the libs hate George W. Bush so muuch. I think I am beginning to see why the democrats are in a near panic mode. Their days may numbered. As Grover Norquist writes, and this is in the Washington Monthly article:

The modern Democratic Party cannot survive the reelection of President George W. Bush and another four years of Republican control of both Congress and the White House.

No brag. Just fact.

Now that's an attention grabber. He goes on to say:

The modern Democratic Party is the party of government. Its growth is the health of the state--and vice versa. Over time, all the party's building blocks are dependent on continuous support and reinforcement by the power of the central government. Trial lawyer money is now a major part of the Democratic Party, but it is wholly dependent on legislators and courts maintaining the present tort laws that allow lawyers to interject themselves into any and all contracts and relationships.

Now that I have your interest. Read the rest of the article.

Hey Libs! 9/11 Changed Everything!

2004-09-27T22:20:00.000-04:00

Sorry libs, I aint forgetting...

It's 9/11 stupid. That's all you have to say to the next liberal that has anything to say to you about supporting George W. Bush. I was one of them. I still have a hard time dealing with the fact that I voted for Gore. I plan to make up for that bone headed mistake the best way I know how...by shedding the light on these weak knee-nimrods.

This is Ronald Brownstein in the Los Angeles Times today. According to Mr. Brownstein and the LA Times, the liberals are just realizing that 9/11 changed everything. "Has Sept. 11 tipped the 50-50 nation toward the GOP?"

This article is full of a bunch of false assumptions. One of the assumptions is that we live in a 50-50 nation. It's not a 50-50 nation. It's not even 50-50 when you look at voter registration, party by party. It's not 50-50 if you look at ideological distribution. The only way you can say it's 50-50 is by virtue of the closeness of the race in 2000. But you look at the way people live their lives, you look at the way people think and the way they act and you will not find anywhere near half this country is liberal. If half this country was liberal, it wouldn't even be a close contest because the number of Democrats that are registered to vote would be twice what it is. The biggest secret in the world is that liberals can't even admit that they're liberal. They don't dare admit they are liberal because it's a death knell. How the hell can this be a 50-50 country when half of it has to lie about who they are? If half of them have to lie about who they are it can't be 50-50. There's just no way.

Where The WMDs Are...

2004-09-27T17:59:00.000-04:00

Cross post from Blogs for Bush

Where The WMDs Are...

Kevin McCullough heard Retired Lt. General Michael "Rifle" DeLong (USMC) (who was the No. 2 man in CentCom under General Tommy Franks) on New York talk radio today. Kevin wrote that DeLong said that "U.S. Military Intelligence had been able to determine that WMDs were smuggled out of the country as U.S. military forces were preparing to liberate Iraq."

Kevin recorded and transcribed DeLong's remarks, which you can check out by clicking here...

I wonder how the Kurds feel about all of this.

Kerry's Sister Betrays US, Undermines Aussie Support

2004-09-26T12:50:00.000-04:00

Look folks. It's bad enough that Kerry:

Now his sister is in Australia undermining support for the U.S.

Well I guess being a traitor runs in the family.

Does it concern anyone that the only winning team that Kerry has ever been on the side of is the VietCong?

Green Kerry Elitists (Bigots) Screwing Africa

2004-09-26T11:50:00.000-04:00

Here is a perfect example that reflects that the envirmmental wackos don't really give a hoot about people.

Green versus Black

Among the many luxuries that wealth can buy is insulation from reality -- the most dangerous luxury of all. Another dangerous luxury is a sense of being one of the wonderfully special people with superior wisdom and virtue. Environmental extremism flourishes among those who can afford both luxuries.
Did you know that people in the wealthy San Francisco suburb of Sausalito, across the bay, own 80,000 acres of land in Kenya? What are they doing with it? They are setting it aside as a nature preserve, in order to keep poor people in Kenya from hunting animals for food on those 80,000 acres.

There are laments from Wildlife Works of Sausalito, the owners of the land, that poachers are hunting in this sacrosanct wilderness anyway and that 20 percent of the meat sold in Nairobi comes from animals killed in this preserve. According to the San Francisco Chronicle: "With half the population living below the poverty line, the temptation to poach for bush meat is strong."

What are rich people doing, in the first place, trying to stop poor people on the other side of the world from getting something to eat? They are feeding their own egos by hindering poor Africans from feeding themselves.

It's not a racial thing. The green zealots would stop anybody from doing anything they don't approve of. They talk grandly about "protecting" this, "preserving" that, or "saving" something else.

From what? From other people. Nor is this just a matter of buying up things to keep them out of other people's hands. Far more often, green zealots want the government to deprive other people of the right to use land or resources for their own purposes, rather than for the recreational or other purposes preferred by the green zealots.

They want bans on the building of housing under "open space" laws. They want "historical preservation" laws to keep old buildings -- even an old racetrack -- from being torn down, because that could be a prelude to building homes for other people.

In the United States, those other people have just as much right to the "equal protection of the laws" under the Constitution. But what is the Constitution when the green zealots are on a crusade?

Denying other people the same rights that you claim for yourself is the essence of bigotry. People who call themselves environmentalists could more accurately be called green bigots.

Selfishness is never a pretty thing but it is at its ugliest when it masquerades as some kind of lofty nobility. That pose not only gets the green bigots good press, it also helps recruit the young and uninformed to their movement -- especially the young who have been misinformed on college and university campuses.

There is another selfish aspect of the green bigots that the media never seem to discuss: Restrictions on the building of new housing raises the value of existing housing -- and the leaders of the environmental movement usually already have theirs.

As David Whelan of Forbes magazine put it: "They preserve their 25 percent annual appreciation by extending everyone else's commute."

Every community has to have nurses, teachers, and policemen, but people in these occupations are seldom paid enough to be able to live where they work when local housing prices skyrocket because of laws banning the building of homes on most of the local land. That means commuting from far enough away to be able to afford a house or an apartment.

It is not just the poor who cannot live in the places where affluent environmentalists have political clout. People making a hundred grand a year often cannot afford to live in Palo Alto, adjacent to Stanford University, or in much of Marin County or San Mateo County, adjacent to San Francisco. Especially if they have a family to support.

These are all enclaves "protected" by the green bigots.
People with children are being forced out of these places so much that schools are being shut down for lack of students. The black population of these places is also declining, even though the total population is rising. But green trumps black.

What "protecting," "preserving," and "saving" mean is using the law to impose the will of the green bigots on others.

Real Women want to vote for a Real Man

2004-09-25T09:20:00.000-04:00

I have always said that because of 9/11, women this year will want a president that is going to stand up for them. They will want leaders who will protect them and their children. They do not want wimpy, indecisvive, girly men. This is evident in the lastet pollings where we see Bush gaining considerable ground on Kerry.

With time running out, Kerry has much important work to do in his campaign, the AP-Ipsos poll suggested.
Bush holds a 17-point lead among men. And Bush and Kerry are tied among women, a traditionally Democratic group that now favors Bush on protecting the country.

Democrat Al Gore won the women's vote by 11 percentage points in 2000, while Bush won men by a similar margin.

Betsy Bodenhamer, a 33-year-old teacher's aide and mother of two from Galesburg, Ill., says she has always voted for Democrats in recent presidential elections. This year, she's leaning toward Bush.

"I think if Kerry gets elected, he's going to pull everybody out of Iraq and they'll have to fend for themselves," she said. "Situations like 9/11 will happen again and again."

Don't believe me? Well seeing is beliving...

Any questions?

Kerrynomics: An Agenda for Calamity

2004-09-23T16:06:00.000-04:00

Columnist and professor Ralph R. Reiland today looks at a new study which finds that a Kerry presidency would be disastrous for America’s small businesses. Small businesses account for 99.7 percent of all employers in the U.S. and create 75 percent of the net new jobs.

Without the small business sector of the economy, America would be flat on its back -- economically, politically, and militarily. And presidential hopeful John Kerry has consistently taken positions over the past decade that are a direct threat to the strength and survival of entrepreneurial activity and small businesses in this country.
That's the ominous conclusion of a new report from the D.C.-based Small Business Survival Committee, "Bigger Government on the Way? Senator John F. Kerry's 10-Year Voting Record on Key Small Business Issues."…

Overall, on an array of matters that impinge directly on the bottom line of the nation's key source of new employment, SBSC reports that Kerry voted on the side of small business "a mere 13 times out of the 101 votes that SBSC rated during the past decade, giving him a weak 13 percent rating on key small business issues."

Year after year, on issue after issue, Kerry's votes on small business issues reveal an approach that time and again threatens to undermine the strength and vitality of the precise sector of the American economy that's now shouldering the greater part of job creation and innovation.

"Senator Kerry voted against small business 94 percent of the time on tax-related legislation rated by SBSC," says research associate Chris W. Myers. "Given 34 opportunities to support business on tax issues, Kerry chose to do so on only two occasions."…

On regulatory reform, SBSC reports that Kerry voted against small business 25 out of 30 times…

On votes over the past 10 years in the area of legal reform, the SBSC analysis shows Kerry voting in opposition to small business 90 percent of the time…

On health coverage issues, "Senator Kerry voted against the interests of small business 100 percent of the time," reports SBSC.

The list goes on and on. Read the whole article for a full report on Kerry’s “agenda that's the perfect prescription for fewer business start-ups, more bankruptcies, less entrepreneurship, less economic growth, more unemployment, slower income growth, smaller take-home pays, more poverty, more regulators, more lawyers and bigger government.”

Hey Libs! A Great Tax Lesson of Oprah's "Free" Cars

2004-09-23T15:00:00.000-04:00

They're not happy at the Oprah Winfrey Show. Well, some of the audience members have got those cars. This is a great tax lesson . They're upset. These people that got "free" cars? Basically it's going to cost them over $7,000 each to get the free car, because the cars are worth about 30 grand. So that 30 grand is going to be added to their income this year. That's 30 grand in addition to whatever they make at their jobs, or if they don't work it's 30 grand of income, period. They have to pay income taxes going to bump them up into a higher bracket more than likely, then there's the sales tax. So these freebie cars are going to cost these people, some of them are upset about this, and some people are saying, "Well, where am I going to get $7,000 to pay taxes?" That's exactly what I think every taxpayer needs to face.

(NBC: Recipients In Oprah's Car Giveaway Face Hefty Taxes)
(Chicago Sun-Times: Oprah's car giveaway not totally 'free')

One of my points always has been that most people don't know what they're paying in taxes. I do this test all the time. I go ask somebody that seems to be doing well, "Do you know what you're paying in taxes?" No, I usually get a refund. You what? "Oh yeah, I get a big refund. I get a big refund every year." Well, you don't know how much you're paying in taxes? "No, it's withheld from the check. I'm doing okay." So you don't even know how much you're paying in taxes? No wonder when tax cuts come along people don't get revved up about it because they don't even know -- and especially if they're goofing up, and I do mean "goofing up," if they're goofing up arranging their affairs so they get a big refund, they really have no idea how shafted they're getting, or being. I've run into so many people get a big refund check. "I can't tell you how I'm screwing the government. Look at my refund! Ha-ha! Look what they have to give me back." The truth is, look at how much of your own money they kept all year, and they gave it back to you with no interest, and you think you screwed them? You try not paying them for one month and find out what the interest is gonna be. You don't pay 'em for a month. You think you're screwing the government, you're getting shafted by the government in more ways than you can count on Sunday.

Black, Gay Republicans for Bush

2004-09-23T08:41:00.000-04:00

Bush picked up another huge endorsement yesterday. It seems as though the libs are losing their monopoly on their core base of disenfranchised constituents.

Black Gay Republicans Break with Log Cabin Republicans, Endorse Bush

The ALBRC was co-founded by Don Sneed, a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, to address the political issues and needs of young Black gay Republicans, who he says: "Our voices are never heard, yet we exist and are growing in numbers." The endorsement was fueled by the Log Cabin Republicans' refusal to endorse President Bush. "We think that the 'Republican Tent' is inclusive and there is room for differences, but one does not pick up their marbles and go home if there are a few points of disagreement," stated Anthony Falls, Republican Precinct Chairman

The article goes on to say...

"With this election as close as it is, especially in the battleground states, any movement of the Black vote towards President Bush, could make a significant difference," stated Sneed. "We are determined to use whatever resources we have to get the word out, especially to Black voters of why a vote for Bush is a vote for economic, social and political self- upliftment."

The dems are digging their own grave by lining up with the wacko left fringe. I say more to ya! You are just making our job easier.

Rev. Peterson Announces Campaign To Expose Leftist Black Entertainers

2004-09-22T21:52:00.000-04:00

Spike Lee, Danny Glover 'Black' Listed; Rev. Peterson Announces Campaign To Expose Leftist Black Entertainers

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, author of SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America, announced today the start of The "Black" List Campaign, a campaign to expose Hollywood's most anti-American black entertainers who are viciously criticizing the U.S. war on terror and lying to black Americans. Celebrities on the list include: Spike Lee, Danny Glover, Whoopi Goldberg, Harry Belafonte, Sean "P. Diddy" Combs, Will Smith among others.
Rev. Peterson said, "I'm sickened by black entertainers who drive $350,000 Bentleys and still cry 'racism.' Americans of all colors pay to see their movies, and they have the nerve to bash the U.S.? American servicemen and woman watch their shows; yet, they travel to foreign lands and badmouth our forces? Enough is enough! The goal of The "Black" List Campaign is to expose these people so they can no longer deceive the American public."
As an example, Rev. Peterson mentioned actor Will Smith, who in a recent interview with a German newspaper, responding to a question of whether 9-11 had changed anything for him, said: "When you grow up black in America you have a completely different view of the world than white Americans. We blacks live with a constant feeling of unease. And whether you are wounded in an attack by a racist cop or in a terrorist attack, I'm sorry, it makes no difference."
Will Smith is not the only black celebrity downing America. Actor Danny Glover has charged that President George W. Bush is a "racist." Whoopi Goldberg, Harry Belafonte, and Director Spike Lee have also joined the anti-American rant. Lee's latest movie, "She Hate Me," aims to smear American business and President Bush. Lee said: "I'm very nervous about this election, because we're all going to hell if George Bush wins."
Rev. Peterson said, "Our campaign seeks to educate Americans about the beliefs, statements and actions of these entertainers. The more the American people know, the less likely they are to support or believe these people." For more information go to http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=36692&Link=http://www.bondinfo.org
http://www.usnewswire.com/

Young Black Woman for George W. Bush

2004-09-22T15:00:00.000-04:00

This was aired yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh show
Young Black Woman for George W. Bush (membership required)

It's good to see that there are young African-Americans out there that can think critically. Hope is indeed on the way. It is in the form of new black conservatives.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Here's Quinesha. Quinesha in Columbus, Georgia.

CALLER: Hi, how are you, Rush?

RUSH: Thank you. Great. How are you?

CALLER: I am absolutely wonderful. I just want to tell you thank you so much for all you do, and I can honestly say I started listening to your program about a year ago, had some people in my family, and I will tell you that just your insight on everything -- just like the previous caller said -- is amazing. I'm a black American. I'm in my twenties. I will tell you that I have chosen to change the party that I belong to because I can follow someone with character like our president, and I just want to tell you that things are changing in the black community. I had a quick comment about the UN address.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: I thought it was awesome, Rush. I'll tell you that just to hear him stand firm and not worry about the criticism, you know, to say, "We can't leave until the job is done," and I'm a veteran, and I can stand behind that, and (laughs) Kerry is just running around saying a lot of the same things that the president is saying about his plan, and to me none of these countries in the UN can fund the war, never have they put their troops and their money where their mouth is. I mean, didn't we do this in Somalia? RUSH: Oh, exactly. Not only that, Quinesha. I asked this earlier in the program. Terrorism is what it is. It is the taking and the threatening and the frightening of innocent people. You would think that all these nations who profess to have a concern for human rights would be rising up in righteous indignation that it is occurring in their countries, on their soil, or in neighboring countries and would be hell-bent on destroying it --

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: -- and yet we, the ones who take the lead in this are considered the ones to be causing all of this. It's outrageous! It's incomprehensible -- unless you understand the mind-set of the left. So when you see Bush, here's aaaaall this criticism. I don't know if you saw some of the networks today doing the prelude to his appearance. Now, they're all given the speech as many advance, some of it in advance, but they all were speculating, "Will Bush pull back? Will Bush express his regrets? Will Bush admit mistakes?" and what does Bush do? Comes down and just hammers them and says, "I haven't made any mistakes. Mistakes? We're not talking about mistakes. We've got difficulties. Difficulties always occur when you're trying to do things right against such odds, but we're going to stay the course." That's why I wanted everybody to hear this because it is inspiring, and it is such a contrast to what we're hearing from the left in this country.

CALLER: Well, I feel that Democrats and liberals in the UN, what they want is they want freedom when it comes to the ACLU, and anything-goes mentality in this country, but when it comes to freedom of other countries and other people, it seems like they're selective and they want to pick and choose who can be free to say what they want to say, to do what they want to do, and it seems like if you're a Republican or Christian or anything like that or you have values, that you are attacked and you're told, "You can't believe what you want to believe, how you want to believe."

RUSH: Why do you think that is?

CALLER: Well, I really justly believe it's just a lack of standards. It's a lack of standards. I heard -- RUSH: No, no, no, no, no. It's not. There is that, but there's a bigger reason. It's called fear.

CALLER: Oh, yeah. That's true.

RUSH: When you start talking about "right and wrong," "good and evil," and so forth, what you're doing is saying that there are such thing as moral absolutes, and this just scares them. CALLER: It does, and I heard something this past weekend on one of the radio shows. They said, you know, "Liberals make decisions based on emotion and conservatives make decisions based on facts," and I just actually sat and watched all the different things that Kerry said, and he blatantly lies about the facts in what he said two days ago, and that scares me to think that he has no plan, and he's just going to go by what the polls say, and I'm not going to bow to France, you know? That's what makes our country great. We've always taken the lead because that's just the position and the responsibility that we've taken in history and I just feel like, you know, the question I want to ask people that are out there as liberals is: Who do you think Osama bin Laden wants as president? That's the biggest question that scares me. RUSH: Well, Bill Gertz has a story in the Washington Times. He's also has a great book out, by the way, Bill Gertz's book on "Treachery," about how our supposed allies undermined us and continue to do so. Bill Gertz: the name of the book is "Treachery." He's got a piece in the Washington Times today that basically says the U.S., U.S. officials are ramping up their preparedness for a heightened terror season based on our election all the way through to the inauguration, taking it very seriously. One thing also, Quinesha, that when you talk about John Kerry's speech yesterday that you never, ever hear John Kerry talking about -- and I want to make a little point about this. I've been saying this for years. You never hear John Kerry talk about victory. You never hear him talking about prevailing in this. John Kerry's strategy is getting us out of there. The hell with what happens after we leave -- somewhat similar to his beliefs in Vietnam. Now, beginning in the early 90s, mid-90s, those of you who have been with me that long, you may recall that I have said: You can't avoid this. We're always in the midst of generational shifts and generational evolution in this country, and because of the aging of the World War II generation, we have arrived or are very near arriving at a point where presidential candidates will come from generations that will have no memory of a U.S. victorious in war. Which I think is, frankly, unfortunate. It is crucial I think that we have people who seek to lead this country who have memory, experience, belief in a victorious America -- and that of course must coincide with a belief that America is good and just and decent. Well, here we have an aspect of this coming to fore in the reverse. We have the Vietnam generation, which for the last ten years and perhaps who knows how many years more, ten more, will produce candidates for leadership whose only memory is of a U.S. that was immoral, ignoble, criminal, and defeated in war. That's their experience with it. That is what they think the U.S. is good for: criminality, ignobility, worthlessness and defeat, and that's what we deserve and the reason they think this is because that's what they believed when they were young during the war itself, the war in Vietnam, and their protest of that war gave them their identity and they don't want to look back on their youth as wasted days and so they have to validate what they did. They have to validate their views, so they animate their current lives with those same views applied to today's U.S. military -- and ergo, we have John Kerry. We have a presidential candidate with no memory of an America victorious at war and it's no coincidence, therefore, that we don't hear John Kerry talk about victory in war. We hear him talk about defeat, staving off defeat. We hear him talking about leaving, retreating, getting out. We hear him talk about the doom and gloom that results from engaging in these great causes. So this is important stuff. Another reason why this war is important: This was a war brought to us, let us not forget. A war brought to us, not on September 11th. That's just the most recent example and the deadliest, but it was brought to us on countless previous occasions. Only now do we have a leader willing to do something about it because during the nineties we had a 60s generation president who did not have any experience with America victorious at war, just the opposite. So it is important that this prevail and that we prevail and that this generation thus produce leaders who remember an America victorious and just, moral and good in times of war, because this is a world governed by the aggressive use of force, folks. You can have all the UNs in the world you want, all the UN charters and all of these agreements and conventions and whatever you want to call them and all these treaties -- and they don't mean diddly-squat, because this is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. END TRANSCRIPT

Gates And Race Politics

2004-09-21T18:14:00.000-04:00

The Following is posted on LaShawnBarber.com
Permalink

The last time I mentioned Henry Louis Gates, it was in reference to skin color preferences at Harvard University, where Gates is a professor. See this post.

In July, he and Lani Guinier (Bill Clinton’s “Quota Queen") wanted to commission a waste-of-time-and-money study to determine why black immigrants outnumbered and outperformed black Americans at the Ivy League school. Clarence Page, who is no conservative, offered a possible explanation: “Immigrant kids work harder.”

I don’t care too much for Gates’s ideas (that blacks need extra help to succeed), but I wanted to blog about his article, “Swallowing the Elephant.” He offers the usual explanation why blacks vote for Democrats and will continue to do so. From the New York Times (registration req.):

The moment when the Republican Party lost black America can be given a date: Oct. 26, 1960. Martin Luther King Jr., arrested in Georgia during a sit-in, had been transferred to a maximum-security prison and sentenced to four months on the chain gang, without bail. As The Times reported, John F. Kennedy called Coretta King, expressing his concern. Richard Nixon didn’t.

This is true. While doing research for a column titled “Why Courting the Black Vote Won’t Work", I found pretty much the same thing. I wrote: “So why did blacks switch from voting for Republicans in large numbers to voting for Democrats? Some say it was President John F. Kennedy’s perceived sensitivity to the oppression of minorities that endeared him and the party to black Americans, and they’ve been voting for Democrats in droves ever since.”

Current Electorial College Projection

2004-09-21T16:57:00.000-04:00

Election 2004 Projections
Last Updated: 09/19/04

EV's: Bush 328, Kerry 210

Pct: Bush 51.1%, Kerry 47.1%

Latest Changes: 09/19/04

New Polls:
CBS - New York Times, Gallup
Annenberg, New Democrat, Zogby,
Democracy Corps, Pew Research

National Margin
+4.0% (down from +4.1%)

Bush gains Wisconsin!
Bush gains Pennsylvania!
Bush gains Oregon!
Bush gains New Mexico!

Who is really supressing the black vote?

2004-09-21T16:23:00.000-04:00

Over the weekend 2 weeks ago Senator Kerry was in panic mode. He played the race card way earlier than most Democratic presidential candidates flip that card. Normally they wait till the last week of the election. Kerry flipped it out with this baseless, panicked, obscene, outrageous charge that the Republicans "have plans to suppress a million black votes this year."

Just a question. How would if you could, suppress the black vote? Your quess is as good as mine.

The Democrats have figured out how to do it because they're the ones that always have done it. The Democrats have always suppressed the black vote. The history of voting rights in this country is that the Bull Connors and the George Wallaces of the world are the ones that did it. We have to go back and read their biographies to figure out how to do this. It was the Democrats in Florida during the gubernatorial primary suppressed the black votes down there while they tried to get out the convict felon vote.

Kerry goes on to say in a ,story (9/14) in the Washington Times.

"Sen. John Kerry is losing the interest of black voters after spending several weeks defending his Vietnam service records and responding to attacks from fellow swift boat sailors, but black lawmakers said the Democratic challenger needs to get back to his domestic-policy ideas in order to boost black voter turnout on Nov. 2."

What the Congressional Black Caucus leaders are saying is, "You better start telling people what you're going to give them if you expect them to come out and vote for you, because if you don't start telling them what you're going to give them, if you keep harping on your service over there, that ain't what they're caring about."

Representative Elijah Cummings, Maryland, Democratic, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) said,

"He cannot let himself get sidetracked and taken off focus by Swift Boat ads. He must stick to the issues affecting African-Americans," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). By and large, he said, "We don't care about swift boats."

"The CBC held its 34th annual legislative conference last week, hosting hundreds of black state representatives, city council members and mayors from across the country. Most shared Mr. Watt's position on Mr. Kerry, saying he has "100 percent" of their support, but not necessarily their enthusiasm."

It sounds like from this that it's Elijah Cummings that's talking about suppressing the black vote. Does it sound like the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus are threatening Kerry? That the dems are saying, "You better tell us what you're going to give away or we aren't going to show up and vote for you"?

So who is really supressing the black vote? Sounds to me many like it's Elijah Cummings of the Congressional Black Caucus. I don't see any Republicans at this meeting, and I don't see any Republicans at this meeting telling Kerry what he better do or not do to get the black vote. It does seem to me that any talk of suppression of the black vote is coming from the Democratic side of the aisle.

527s Split Democrats from Civil Rights Coalition

2004-09-21T16:21:00.000-04:00

Ladies and gentlemen. The black dems are fighting over the money. This article highlights how divided the party has become.

Division is growing between Democratic-leaning 527 groups and black civic advocacy groups over funding and control of the issues and messages targeted toward the black community in the November presidential election.
The 527 groups — tax-exempt, private political groups named for their Internal Revenue Service filing code — have positioned themselves as powerful players and are siphoning contributions from black voter mobilization organizations that historically have enjoyed a boost during presidential elections.

Link:
Black voter groups lose money, control to 527s

Black liberals beginning to see the light

2004-09-21T13:56:00.000-04:00

Blacks for Bush have won my respect

This Chicago Sun-Times editorial is a great article to send to your liberal buddies. While it will not convice the liberal masses, it will convey an honesty and sincerety conveyed by the author. I really don't think that the vast majority of African-Americans identify the values of the Repulican party with their own.

"I was raised in a Democratic household," actor Joseph C. Williams told me. Williams, who appeared on the "Cosby Show," "General Hospital" and "The District," was the co-chairman of the "African Americans for Bush" steering committee. "The Republican values are the same values that are in most African-American homes. This party reflects those values much more than the opposition."

Let's take education. Mary Mitchell mentions existing problems in school districts that don't seem to have the children's best interests in mind.

"I lived in a school district that had the lowest test scores in the state of Pennsylvania, and the population was about 99 percent African American. We fought so hard to bring in a company as a consultant to improve one of our schools, but we had a teachers union that fought us every step of the way. I decided then that I didn't need to be part of a party that continued to say that they are for education, health care and jobs in our community and they do not support the very essence of our community, which is our children."

She further disspells the myths of No Child Left Behind.

Although Democrats bash Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, those same Democrats rarely mention that one of the architects of the plan is Rod Paige, an African American who was appointed Education secretary in the Bush administration. Having attended segregated schools in his youth, I'm convinced that despite the act's shortcomings, Paige is committed to challenging what the Republicans call the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

I salute you Mrs. Mitchell. You may end up voting for Kerry, but at least you are fair and honest in looking at both sides.

Welcome to The Black Man for Bush Blog!

2004-09-21T12:49:00.000-04:00

I was featured in the Winston-Salem Chronicle this past Summer. You may read that article here (you need to click on the picture)

This blog will feature posts that are relevant to the opposition (Kerry) as well as support for our President. Hopefully this will promote dialog among both sides and further promote the spread of truth in this expanding New Media.