Sunday, October 31, 2004

Is early voting constitutional?

My friend Steve brought up a great point, at least as far as food for thought goes:

I was just reviewing the Constitution for a lesson this week, and It occurred to me. Is Early voting Constitutional? The Constitution specifically sets the election day as the "First Tuesday after the first monday of November". The Constitution also gives the state the power to set up and run the election.

Lets make this clear, I'm not one who believes any votes should be thrown out because of this. I also believe every Citizen of the USA should have the right to vote, even Felons and other undesirable people of unrespectable standing. If you're an American, you should be able to vote.and the Vote should count whether or not it's for a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist or Nazi. However, I also agree the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and for good or bad, it's the law we live by in the USA. This could be an issue with the post election debacle to come over what votes get counted or not.

While I disagree with the "right" of felons to vote (another topic for another day, and valid arguments on both sides exist), I do admit that I've thought about the constitutionality of early voting. It's a valid question. My position (and I predict the courts would rule this way, if they haven't done so already):

A court will rule (to avoid throwing out potentially millions of votes) that early voting is permitted, but that LATE voting is not, i.e. AFTER Election Day. Because the argument could be extended to exclude absentee ballots, and courts have allowed those since the beginning of time, the courts would therefore permit early ballots.

Footnote on voting after Election Day (and that's voting, not counting of votes such as overseas votes that come in after Election Day but were cast before):

Recall that in Election 2000, the folks in Palm Beach County who were too dumb to read the butterfly ballot. They sued to get a new election in the county. The court rejected it on two constitutional bases: (1) a federal or state election cannot be held for one county only; and (2) the Constitution specifically states that the Election Day is held on the "First Tuesday after the first monday of November." Argument #2 would seem to exclude absentee ballots (and thus early ballots), but absentee ballots have always been counted (and allowed by the courts), thus early ballots would likely be counted. The court tuled in the Palm Beach County suit, though, that Election Day had come and gone, thus no late (i.e. post Election Day) voting would be allowed.

I'm not a lawyer, so only time (and maybe lawsuits by the losing party) will tell if this holds true or not. Let's hope we don't have to find out the hard way like we did four years ago.

Friday, October 29, 2004

Dick Morris' thoughts on the bin Laden tape

Dick Morris made the following observations on Fox News with John Gibson this evening:

1. al Qaeda attempted to influence Spanish and Australian elections with bombs. They're trying to influence ours with...a tape? Why not a bomb? Because Bush has stopped them!

2. UBL pounds on Bush, and barely mentions Kerry. Tacit endorsement of Kerry by the murderous mastermind.

3. It takes the focus off of Kerry issues and puts it back on Bush issues.

Morris thinks maybe UBL just got Bush re-elected. That may be jumping to conclusions, but his points are well taken.

bin Laden endorses Kerry

I've always maintained that bin Laden was dead, but today's video mentions more recent events. Thus, it appears as though I am wrong. Unlike liberals, I have no trouble admitting that I am wrong.

First we had "Azzam the American" on video endorsing Kerry. Now Osama bin Laden endorses him (so to speak):

Tell me, liberals, since you guys have insisted that Bush is a great recruiting tool for al Qaeda: why are they working so hard to defeat Bush?

Answer: Because they know Kerry is weak, and Bush is not.

Kerry has now made a mountain out of a molehill about the missing explosives...he was wrong. He basically blamed and lied about the troops (he sure has a habit of doing that during war time, doesn't he?)...he was wrong. He now has the ringing endorsement of al Qaeda terrorists. This is a man who is sinking fast.

Boy, if that Swiftie story turns out to be real and not just some Internet rumor, then the Poodle is toast!

Swifties to the rescue?!?

Dear Lord, let's pray this is true!

Don't dismiss PowerLine! They were the ones that brought down CBS with the forged documents story. These guys are good! However, they do have the disclaimer that the credibility hasn't been assessed yet. And to be fair, there's no way to guarantee that it will be verified, especially since Drudge isn't running with it yet. I'm trying not to get my hopes up, but in an election this close, it's hard not to!

If this is true (and notice I did stress if), then we should be so lucky!

Our bumbling, incompetent troops...and what about those weapons?

Kerry said during a campaign stop that Bush bungled the guarding of the explosives. He said that ridding Iraq (and terrorists) of "weapons of ANY destruction" was "why we went into Iraq."

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hasn't he been saying that we went into Iraq for WMD's (weapons of mass destruction), not WAD's (weapons of any destruction)? He's said that failure to find WMD's is proof that they weren't there (contrary to his assessment from 1998 - 2003). And now he's saying that we knew Saddam had WAD's, and that's "why we went into Iraq in the first place"?

Umm...didn't he just prove Bush's point and make Bush's case for invading Iraq? He just flip-flopped (big surprise) his position on why we went into Iraq: finding WMD's vs. finding WAD's. And if failure to find the missing WAD's implies that they existed in the first place, then his claim that WMD's never existed is logically inconsistent with his premise.

Guess it just depends on which way the political winds blow...thus, perfectly illustrating why (among countless reasons) he is unfit for command.

Also, was Bush guarding the weapons bunkers? No, the troops were supposed to. So if Kerry is saying the same thing that his talking points at CBS-NYT is saying, which is that the explosives disappeared after the fall of Iraq, then Kerry is necessarily saying that the troops are incompetent, since they were tasked with guarding the stash, right? No, Kerry praises our troops as "heroic", when what he really means is "heroically incompetent." He is trying to trash Bush, but he cannot do it without by proxy denigrating our soldiers.

Yeah, calling the troops bumbling idiots is a great way to inspire confidence in them to follow you! I swear, this guy is clueless!

Finally, if you're sick of the missing explosives story, please throw me a bone and read this last story about it. I mean, there will be more stories, but this is a short timeline that tells you everything you need to know about it. Read it, then I'll quit asking you to check out related stories...I promise! ;)

No October surprise?

Wes Pruden of the Washington Times says there won't be one. He thinks the missing explosives non-story was an attempt to be one, but it fizzled...thus, there's nothing left.

I hope Bush has one, but I'm not confident that he does.

Speaking of media bias...

Thomas Sowell properly points out the media disgrace.

It seems to me that after this election, the media may suffer a backlash like it's never seen before. If Kerry wins, people will abandon MSM sources in droves. If Bush wins, people will point and laugh at MSM sources...and abandon them in droves. Their ratings and circulations have been in the tank for years, getting worse every year. But the MSM is like Ahab in Moby Dick...they'll forge ahead at their own peril, all in the name of their cause. In the end, like Ahab, their cause will have forsaken them.

I remember when I was in college in 1992, and the day after the election in which Bill Clinton won, our local newspaper had a political cartoon that was funny in its truth. It had a bunch of reporters (wearing badges from the NYT, LAT, Boston Blobe, AP, etc.) jumping up and down in ecstacy screaming "WE won!", then in the second frame, they appeared subdued with their eyes shifting around, calmly proclaiming "Er...I mean...he won!" That says it all, my friends.

Fatal campaign gaffe for Kerry?

Perhaps "fatal" is overstating it, but Dick Morris thinks it's not.

Morris does have good points, though, about Kerry shifting focus of the campaign back to Bush's perceived strengths. However, to be fair, Morris has been all over the map. Early summer, he was predicting a Kerry win. Right before the debates, he said it was over for Kerry. After the first debate, he said Bush had lost the election ("talked himself out of the presidency", to be exact). Now, he's back to picking Bush again.

Granted, it's been a seesaw election, and Morris looks silly by using such definitive predictions, as if each was a foregone conclusion. However, all pundits like Morris' insight, even if they disagree with his ultimate conclusions.

Also, I unfortunately think that Morris gives the electorate too much credit in how much news they consume. I don't know that the average Joe/Jane knows that the weapons disappeared before our troops got there, or that the Russians may have moved them. My guess is that they've seen the CBS-NYT collaboration (as parroted by The Poodle himself), and all they know is "Weapons disappeared. Must be Bush's fault." Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong on this.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

UPDATE: ABC News begrudgingly airs purported al Qaeda tape

Finally, ABC gets off their duff and runs the video. I don't blame them for delaying it in order to have the CIA verify its authenticity, but I do charge them with journalistic malfeasance by sitting on it for so long AFTER said authenticity was verified.

Latinos voting for Bush

Looks like the Latino vote is going the way of "red states" this year:

By the way, a Florida poll showed Bush with roughly 62% of the Latino vote in Florida. This is not just the Miami Cuban vote, which is reliably Republican, but the entire Latino population of Florida.

Looks like Kerry will have to pimp himself in more black churches to get his uninspired base motivated. That, plus he'll need his lawyers on stand-by to fight to have military ballots thrown out again (like Dems shamelessly did in 2000)...can't think of a better way to win over the hearts and minds of soldiers (who are breaking 70-30 for Bush right now) than to have their votes tossed. Seems like Dems are more concerned with votes from non-citizens, dead people, and felons than they are with military votes.

UPDATE: ABC News holding NOW AUTHENTICATED videotape of terrorism warning!

This is an update to yesterday's story of ABC sitting on the video of the terrorist. Their take was that they wanted the feds to authenticate it. Fair enough. Well, it looks like the feds have indeed authenticated it...yet ABC is weighing the political ramifications of running with the story!

Yesterday's story:

Today's story:

I gave ABC the benefit of the doubt when they held off running until it could be validated. That's responsible. Sitting on it because of "political fallout" validates all conservative and libertarian theories that the media is not only biased, but actively pursues its agenda.

FLASH: Russians removed explosives from al Qaaqa

Well, no damned wonder the Russians were against our invasion of Iraq! We knew they had business ties to Saddam, but the levels they went to in order to conceal these dealings borders on an act of war!

From the Washington Times:

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

Full story here:

Now that the Russians have experienced terrorism on their own soil, perhaps they'll be just a tad more sympathetic towards us in dealing with global terror threats.

By the way, when can we expect Kerry and his minions in the media to blame Russians stealing weapons on Bush, hmm?

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Terrorist for Kerry

No surprise here. Iraqi terrorists are hoping to cause Bush political damage, so he'll lose to Kerry. Why would they want Bush gone? Because they fear him, that's why. As long as Bush is in power, he'll stop at nothing to hunt them down. Thus, by implication, they must feel that Kerry will not.

An excerpt from the Washington Times (full article: )

Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.

"If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people," said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance.

Shoots liberals' theories all to hell, doesn't it? They think that Bush is such a polarizing figure that he helps terrorist causes. Clearly, this is not the case.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

FLASH: CBS wanted to break story on Election Eve!

How's this for a clearcut case of CBS News NOT learning a damned thing from their past? Drudge is reporting that CBS News was going to run with the "Missing Explosives" story on Election Eve, but was beat to the punch by the NYT. Just goes to show you that agendas are sometimes trumped by scoops in the media biz. Anywho, here's the story:

In light of the forged documents Bush National Guard story, as well as the e-mail hoax in the Bush draft story, now CBS is adding another blatant Kerry campaign tactic to their arsenal with this missing explosives story. The problem is, the explosives were missing BEFORE the U.S. invasion last year...thus, no Bush admin incompetence!

Folks, PLEASE get to the polls and don't let this overt attempt by the MSM to sway the election work! Repudiate the media, and re-elect Bush!

NBC actually being FAIR for once?

How about this? NBC actually exposes the NYT bias against Bush. Who'd have thunk it? From

NBC News reported Monday night that 380 tons of missing explosives were already gone when U.S. troops arrived at the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation in April 2003 – one day after Saddam's government was toppled.

NBC should know. It had a reporter embedded with the U.S. troops when they arrived at Al-Qaqaa in April 2003.

While the Kerry campaign blasted the Bush administration for "stunning incompetence" on Monday, many Bush supporters questioned the timing of the New York Times' report Monday about the missing explosives, just eight days before the presidential election.

NBC News correspondent Jim Miklaszewski suggested a political motive as well: In his report on the missing explosives Monday night, he quoted one official as saying, "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."

According to the Times, the IAEA said it had warned the Bush administration about the need to secure the Al-Qaqaa facility before and after the war.

In a follow-up report on Tuesday, the Times did not mention the fact that NBC had an embedded reporter on the scene when the missing explosives were discovered - the day after Baghdad fell.

Tuesday's report in the Times, headlined "Iraq Explosives Become Issue in Campaign," covers how the Bush administration "sought to explain the disappearance of 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq that American forces were supposed to secure."

Bush's aides, Tuesday's article said, "tried to explain why American forces had ignored warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency about the vulnerability of the huge stockpile of high explosives, whose disappearance was first reported on Monday by CBS and The New York Times."

The Times' report portrayed the Bush administration as being on the defensive, trying to "minimize the importance of the loss" of the military explosives.

The report noted that President Bush "never mentioned the disappearance of the high explosives during a long campaign speech in Greeley, Colo., about battling terrorism."

Why NEVER to trust liberals with national security

David Limbaugh has a great column about why not to trust liberals on matters of national security. An excerpt:

The Washington Post and Los Angeles Daily News editorial endorsements of Kerry, alone, demonstrate why liberals must never be entrusted with our national security.

Both papers, amazingly, concede that the War on Terror and national security are the most important issues the next president will have to confront. Both admit that Kerry has been wishy-washy on these subjects. But both, ultimately, conclude that Kerry is the better choice, essentially, because he promises to do better. In other words, we should base our decision on some of Kerry's words, not his other words or actions to the contrary.

Precisely what does Kerry promise to do so differently from President Bush? To restore unity at home and heal our alliances abroad, of course. Now don't you feel better?

Note the liberal disconnect here. These papers have the presence of mind to recognize that our national security is the paramount issue. But they have the profound obscurity of mind to believe that sweet-talking corrupt "allies" is the panacea for the War on Terror.

The column can be found here:

Monday, October 25, 2004

Please Don’t Call Him Liberal!

This proves Leffingwell's Theory of Democrat Campaigns: If you are a liberal running in a non-liberal state (or district), pretend like hell to be anything but a liberal! Liberals do not get elected by being liberal, rather they get elected by pretending not to be a liberal. Notice that when it comes to elected office, conservatives admit to being conservatives, but liberals never admit to being liberals?

“I think the ‘liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal,’ seems a little tinny these days. I think it’s a more serious time. I think people understand that. I think Bush, if he simply throws red meat out, that’s trouble.”

– Newsweek Managing Editor Jon Meacham on MSNBC about an hour before the October 13 presidential debate.

Daschle needed in order to avoid total darkness!

"As one of the two leaders of the US Senate, I have the opportunity to sit at one of the most powerful desks in the country, if not the world. And I believe the sun will continue to rise over our state as long as I continue to sit at that desk." - Senator Tom Daschle, taking credit for the sunrise, according to The Independent.

Did Kerry invent the Internet, too?

Remember Christmas in Cambodia? The ribbons and the medals? Well now we have another classic from The Poodle, but this time we have witnesses. Since you won't hear much about this from the mainstream media, I'll regale you with the latest whopper from The Soufflé.

In the second presidential debate, Senator Kerry said about Iraq: "This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the 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." Boy, that Kerry is really on the case...going to the UN and all.

Problem is...John Kerry never went to the United Nations in the week before he voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. In fact, an investigation by the Washington Times reveals that of the 5 ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002, four said they have never met The Poodle. On top of that, a couple say they remember the time well, and would have remembered meeting Kerry. In other words, he lied. John Kerry made it up. Once again, the compulsive liar has lied again to try and impress the voters.

What would have happened had President Bush claimed to have met with people at the U.N. when he really didn't? We'd never hear the end of it from The Poodle and the MSM. The media would be all over that in a heartbeat. As it stands now, the pro-Kerry minions in the MSM let this one pass right on by.

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Dems trying to get al Qaeda to the polls

Seem like a sensational title? Here's the article:

It's not bad enough that Democrats try to steal elections by fighting FOR the votes of dead people, felons, pets, illegal aliens, and non-residents, and by fighting AGAINST the votes of military personnel overseas (since usually the armed forces vote overwhelmingly against liberals...go figure, huh?). And as if it wasn't bad enough that the Ohio NAACP was paying a Democrat operative in crack cocaine to illegally register voters (such as Mickey Mouse). No, on top of tall that, NOW they're trying to register al Qaeda operatives in Ohio.

These sickos know no shame!

Saturday, October 23, 2004

President Bush at my house!

Like Jon Lovitz would say..."Yeah, that's the ticket!"

OK, W. wasn't at my house, but he was in my city. The president came to a packed house in Alltel stadium. There were more people there for him than for a Jaguars game.

By comparison, John Edwards (aka The Breck Girl) was in Jacksonville last night, to a packed capacity crowd of...about 2,500. As opposed to Bush having about 30 times the crowd.

North Florida will pull for Bush big time. Now if only we can offset the condo commando "gimme" generation of geriatrics along the Gold Coast of Palm Beach - Broward - Dade counties. Only time will tell.

Gotta go...throwin' a Halloween party. I know, it's a week early, but with the Florida - Georgia football game being here next weekend, nobody would we're having it a week early.

Friday, October 22, 2004

"Disenfranchise" nonsense...lies, if you will

From Jonah Goldberg:

"Already, in state after state, the Democrats have said that voter confusion over how to vote constitutes voter disenfranchisement. But, as George Will recently noted, disenfranchisement is something the government does to you. It's not something you do to yourself. If you can't figure out how to fill in the ovals or punch the chads - and some minority of voters will always botch it - that doesn't mean your right to vote was rescinded. It means that you didn't take your right to vote seriously enough to pay attention to the instructions.

"Democracy requires two things: an electorate that takes its responsibilities seriously and small-d democrats of all parties who take the process seriously.

"Judged on these two criteria, it's hard to see how the Democrats can call themselves democrats."

Not that liberals understand this. Since nothing's ever really your fault in their eyes, then you can't nullify your own vote through must have been done TO you!

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Excellent poll analysis by Michael Barone

This is almsot required reading:

Barone makes the case that while clearly we can't be certain of poll numbers until after the election, trends are horrible for Democrats. He also b#tchslaps "Old Media" for their role as Kerry's lap dogs.

I didn't know Kerry was also a soldier in Afghanistan!

He apparently understands the situation in Afghanistan better than General Tommy Franks, which means that since Gen. Franks was there, then Kerry must have been there, too! Wow! You'd think Kerry would have pointed to that service instead of his service 35 years ago.

What am I talking about? According to Reuters:

The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan on Tuesday disputed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's charge that the Bush administration let Osama bin Laden escape Afghanistan in 2001.

"I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality," retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks wrote in a commentary published by The New York Times.

The Kerry campaign took issue with the retired general's comments. "Franks is a patriot. But in his attempt to campaign for President (George W.) Bush, he's letting political spin get in the way of the facts," said campaign spokeswoman Brooke Anderson.

So either (a) Franks is an incompetent boob; (b) Franks is lying; or (c) Kerry doesn't know jack about the goings-on in Afghanistan. General Franks says that Kerry doesn't understand reality, so I'll take his honorable word over that of the Poodle.

BTW, "The Poodle" is what Neal Boortz calls Kerry. Why? Because he's French and he's a rich woman's toy.

Flu shot OK for Bill Clinton, not for Dick Cheney


John Kerry's presidential campaign is complaining that Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart patient, received a flu shot this week, even though health officials have urged that only those most vulnerable receive the vaccine.

But apparently team Kerry didn't notice on Monday when Hillary Clinton announced that her heart patient hubby, Bill, also received a flu shot, during an address about the vaccine shortage at a New York City health center.

"Once again, the Bush administration proves that it is the 'do as we say, not as we do' White House," the Kerry campaign said in a statement issued late Wednesday, according to Agence France-Press.

Cheney - a pacemaker-wearing cardiac patient who has had four heart attacks - would fit into the government's definition of those most vulnerable to a looming influenza epidemic, noted AFP.

So would recent quadruple bypass recipient ex-President Clinton.

Surely the Kerry campaign will be issuing a statement any minute now condemning the Clintons for "doing as we say, not as we do."

Geez, the gall of this haughty, French-looking pinko is sickening.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Yours truly is in the Jacksonville newspaper

OK, it's only the letters to the editor, but's intoxicating to see your name in print! :)

By the way, a word on Kerry's recent conversion to being a defense hawk:

After decades of attempts by liberals to screw the military, including Clinton's gay entry social experiment, it galls me to see them now pretend to be for a strong military! Listen, I grew up in a military father and grandfather were both U.S. Marines and served honorably (they didn't march with Jane Fonda and falsely accuse their comrades of being baby-killers). There was a stark contrast in how Republican adminstrations viewed the military and how Democrat administrations viewed it, and their views were implemented in policy.

Today's Democratic party has been overtaken by the dope-smoking, tree-hugging, tie-dye hippie anti-war crowd from the 1960's. Their contempt for the military and for intelligence has been palpable for nearly four decades now. They wanted to make nice with the USSR while Reagan was winning the Cold War against them. They (especially Kerry) fought Reagan's attempt to stop the spread of communism to Central America. They (especially Kerry) fought against the first Gulf War, which had the things Kerry purports to seek today: UN approval, a broad international coalition, etc. Never mind that Iraq had invaded and conquered Kuwait, and was going to do the same to Saudi Arabia after that...seems like liberals never learned the lesson of appeasement from similar German behavior 50 years prior.

Yet now, here we are in a war for our survival, and wouldn't you know it? In their apoplectic fits and insatiable thirst to depose George W. Bush from office, they're trying to convince the American people that they have been converted to military jock sniffers!

Welcome to the game, liberals...albeit about 40 years too late! Their rhetoric today belies their record of 40 years. Oh, well, there are enough "Kerry Kool-Aid drinkers" voting to make this race interesting.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Dixie Chicks won't quit!

As if we didn't hate the bitches enough as it is:

They just haven't learned, have they? Granted, they're trying their hand at pop music, since country music fans have told them to drop dead.

"Election determines fate of nation"

Thanks to a friend for forwarding this to me. This is a piece that was written by Mathew Manweller, Central Washington University political science professor. All text below this is the column in his words.

Title: "Election determines fate of nation"

"In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold:

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Osama bin Laden and October surprise?

Democrats are furiously spinning a rumor that we will announce the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden or, possibly more realistically, al Zarqawi...about 4 - 7 days before the election.

Wow...doesn't give us much time to find either of them, does it? With 14 days before the election, we'd have to produce said terrorist in a matter of days. Of course, the theory goes that we already have him/them captured, or at least, we know where they are today and are waiting for the opportune time to strike.

While I doubt that we'd be willing to wait that long just to score major political points, I do have a hypothetical question:

What if the Dems are right?

Seriously, what if they are? Granted, I'd like to think the administration is a little more honest and a little less political about such a national security issue. But what if I'm wrong and the Dems are right?

Would the American people care?

I would think that Americans by and large would not care, even if they saw it as a calculated political move. They would probably think "Yeah, right...big coincidence! Oh, well, at least we have the bastard(s)!" How could Kerry come out publicly and condemn the adminstration without looking like the biggest cynic on a day that Americans and the world should celebrate?

Sure, he could and his sycophants in the MSM could help him out...but would it really matter? After all, Kerry has hammered Bush on not capturing OBL and al Zarqawi, so if Bush does capture them, then how stupid does Kerry look (more so than he already does)?

I suspect the Bushies have an October surprise, but I doubt it will be on as grand of a scale as producing a big terrorist mastermind.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Heinz-Kerry pays LESS taxes than the middle class!

Terrrrraaaayyyyyyyyyyyzzzzzzzzzzaaaaaaaaa the ketchup heiress pays less in federal income taxes than the middle class that her hubbie purports to represent in his campaign. According to the Wall Stree Journal:

"In 2003, Mrs. Kerry -- or Teresa Heinz, as she declared herself on her IRS 1040 form -- earned $5.07 million, hardly a surprising income for someone estimated to be worth nearly $1 billion.

"The news is that $2.78 million of that income came in the form of tax- exempt interest from what the Kerry campaign's press release attributed to investments in 'state, municipal and public entity bonds.' What the campaign didn't say is that these are the kind of investments that rich people can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to steer their money into.

On her remaining 'taxable' income of $2.29 million, Mrs. Kerry paid $627,150 in taxes, for an overall average federal tax rate of only 12.4% on her $5.07 million in total income. This puts Mrs. Kerry's tax rate at well below that of other filers in her super-rich neighborhood. But it also means she is paying a lower average rate than nearly all middle- class taxpayers paid in 2001, the last year for which the IRS has published the data."

The full article can be found here:

There's a liberal mindset for you. They pointificate about how we need to "invest" (a political euphemism meaning "tax and spend more") in social programs and vote-buying schemes, but they aren't fond of paying for said programs with their own money. Liberals don't give much to charity, and precious few of them gave their tax cuts back to the same government that they wish to bloat further. In short, when it comes to money, liberals are hypocrites.

"Good enough for me, but not for thee!"

Sunday, October 17, 2004

"Backdoor draft"?

John Kerry keeps saying that if Bush is re-elected, he will reinstitute the draft. Never mind the fact that (a) it was Democrat Charlie Rangel who brought up a bill in the House to do just that, and (b) that bill failed by a vote of 402-2 (the two who voted for the draft were Joe Murtha of PA and Pete Stark of CA...both Democrats!).

So Kerry keeps mentioning a "backdoor draft" on the trail. In light of Kerry's recent comments about gayness and his apparent fixation on homosexuality, I think his meaning of "backdoor draft" is not what the rest of us think it is! Maybe he feels a draft at his "backdoor", hmmm? To quote Seinfeld: "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Don't ask, don't tell!

Friday, October 15, 2004

Daschle in trouble in South Dakota race

Senator Tom Daschle, the chief obstructionist of Bush's agenda in the Senate, is in a dogfight in South Dakota against former Congressman John Thune. Thune has been hammering Daschle in their debates, painting Dasshole as a national liberal in DC and a conservative wannabe back in South Dakota. Polls show the race anywhere from a 49-49 tie to a 50-46 Thune lead.

A Dasshole defeat would be like picking up three Senate seats for Republicans.

It doesn't help that Tommy Boy has now homesteaded a mansion in DC. That's right...homesteaded. Seems he's fond of all of us peons paying higher taxes, but he's clearly not fond of them, thus his "homestead" exemption in DC. Tell me...if he's a homesteaded resident of DC, then he can't be a resident of South Dakota. And South Dakota law says a Senate candidate has to be a resident of the state. Hmmmmmmmmm...

By the way, for the best and most comprehensive site for the Thune vs. Dasshole race, check out this site:

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Electoral College observation

A point to consider about the Electoral College:

Bush does not need 270 to win. If he gets 269, that means that Kerry has 269. According to our Constitution, the contest would then go to the House of Representatives. Considering it's solid GOP, Bush would in such a scenario be re-elected.

Or, no doubt the left would call it, re-SELECTED. First by the Supreme Court, then by the House. I almost want to see it just to see the apoplectic reaction from liberals!

Did I actually WATCH the debate?

I must not have, because the MSM (mainstream media) is spinning this as a Kerry win.


Kerry was on the defensive most of the night, and while he didn't implode, Bush clearly had the enthusiasm, optimism, and vision in his statements. Bush especially nailed him to the wall with his voting record, and had Kerry making up numbers and sometimes stammering.

The Fox News panel all thought that Bush won. Leave it to the Can't Believe Sh#t network (that's CBS) to spin it the other way. Speaking of CBS, anyone notice Bush's veiled swipe at them? Kerry referenced how two "leading" news networks said Bush's Social Security plan blew holes in the budget, to which Bush replied (while looking at CBS' Bob Scheiffer) that major news organizations weren't exactly the most credible of sources! Ouch, Bob!

Anyway, I must have dreamt I saw a good debate performance, based on the MSM spinnings this morning. Sorry for last night's fresh post...must have happened in my sleep.

October surprise?

Drudge is reporting that a Kerry/Edwards and DNC guide (66 pages) has been released in a few dozen states, that explicitly encourage supporters to allege voter intimidation "even where none exists" in a type of "preemptive strike."

I'd provide a link, but Drudge's site seems to have just gone down. Traffic, perhaps?

Stay tuned...

Followup: Drudge is back up. Here's the link:

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Debate notes and thoughts

It looked like Bush was happy to be there, a stark contrast from the first debate. He was enthusiastic from the word "Go", and for Bush supporters, it was a blessing. Had he performed like this in the first debate, the contest may have been over at that point.

Kerry was on the defensive a lot, and he threw out a lot of numbers and nauseum. I must concede that a few points I thought were well delivered, such as the assault weapons ban and letting people buy in to the health plan. NO, I did not agree with his positions, only his delivery of them. Alas, many Americans value style over substance. Kerry delivered on style at times, but not nearly as often as he did in the two prior debates.

Bush was more aggressive this time than ever before, using the "liberal Senator from Massachussetts" line quite (pardon the term) liberally. Finally, he pointed out Kerry's anemic voting record, two decades of irrelevancy in the Senate. I was glad to hear an actual number of Kerry legislative passages: 5. Of those, 4 were resolutions. So, he's had one bill with his name on it as a chief or 20 years! And that is reason to be elected President?

It appears, by all measures, to be a clear and decisive debate win for the president. Time will tell how this translates to the polls. Too bad many Americans were tuned in to the baseball playoffs...not sure how much of a difference it will make, though.


Monday, October 11, 2004

Welcome to the Crush Liberalism blog!

Welcome to my blog! I don't know how many people I can get to come here, since unlike liberals, most normal people have actual LIVES to lead. Let me first begin by giving a little background information on me, and on the purpose of this blog.

My name is Jonathan. I live in the metro area of Jacksonville, Florida. I am a software developer by trade. I discovered my political identity while attending Florida State University, and much to the chagrin of numerous liberal professors, I discovered I was not a liberal. Years of being attuned to politics and current events have tweaked my ideology, so in short, I consider myself to be, for the most part, a libertarian. For those who don't know, libertarians generally believe in a small and unintrusive federal government...more so than conservatives do. Whether libertarian or conservative, there's one clear message: I am not, nor will I ever be, a liberal. I love my country too much for that.

The point of this blog is basically a sounding board for people with similar or disparate opinions on the items of the day. I hope to post enough educational information and food for thought so as to advance my agenda, which is to crush liberalism (thus the name of the blog). Liberalism is an ideology, not constrained to one party or another. There are liberal Democrats (such as John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, etc.), and there are liberal Republicans (such as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, who are the Senators from Maine; and Lincoln Chafee, the Senator from Rhode Island). So this is not about Democrats, though they by and large are the manifestation of liberalism today.

Liberalism used to be a fantastic and positive force in this country, though it all began to change with the Vietnam war. Since then, liberalism has become hard to distinguish from socialism or communism, and I do not make that comparison lightly. Here are the similarities (in short...a much more detailed analysis exists in many places, so research on your own):

Opposition to an armed populace;
Confiscating the fruits of labor of the producers and distributing these fruits to the non-producers;
Hostility to religion;
Contempt for the individual and focus on group identity;
Affinity for a strong, bloated central planning government;
Dedication to a global government that seeks to weaken the United States;
Lack of recognition of evil and thus, lack of strength in dealing with said evil.
Domination of and use of mainstream mass media to advance the agenda (i.e. propaganda). (Thankfully, the web, talk radio, and Fox News Channel are changing the dynamics, slowly but surely).

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Compassion is one thing, and socialism/liberalism is another.

I do retain the sole right to remove any offensive content (and no, differing opinions or blatant ignorance are not included), though unlike liberals and the politically correct, I will make few (if any) efforts to stifle the free exchange of views on this board. Realize something, though, that may come as a shock to you Dixie Chicks and entertainment-types out there: Freedom of speech does NOT equate to freedom of consequences of that speech. Be prepared to defend your position at all times, and reason and critical thinking are much more welcome that emotional or moonbattery-laced blather.

This blog may evolve, or it may meander in irrelevancy. Who knows? All I do know, though, is that it is MINE!! ;) Any sources I borrow from will be properly referenced with links, so as not to plagiarize (i.e. Joe Biden) any sources.

OK, that's what I wanted to start with, so let's see where this thing goes!