Kerry Must Be Defeated

British historian Paul Johnson masterfully articulates the stakes in this, the most important election in American history:

All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit—politically, financially, and emotionally—from the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced. His defeat on November 2 will be greeted, in Arab capitals, by shouts of triumph from fundamentalist mobs of exactly the kind that greeted the news that the Twin Towers had collapsed and their occupants been exterminated.

I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively.

Back in Business

Managed to get things up and running again, for now at least. Too swamped with work to post big today, but here's a couple of pithy quotes from Dawn Eden:

"Planned Parenthood . . . treats abstinence as an unwelcome wallflower at the orgy."

And from Michelle Malkin:

"Bush-haters + Moore-haters + European nosybodies + Democrat paranoiacs + Republican crusaders + FBI agents + 24/7 media coverage + computer glitches + ballot confusion + fear of possible election-day terrorist attacks

If this isn't a recipe for trouble, I don't know what is."

But go out and vote for President Bush anyway. After all, we're not voting in Afghanistan. Now there's voter intimidation.

Technical Difficulties - Testing, Testing

For some reason, for the past two days I've been unable to successfully log into Blogger.com and post. I'm sending this post by e-mail, to see if it will
work. Another instance of computers making our lives easier. Not.

Violence

Today Daniel Pipes blogs the story of a recent column in Britain's ultra-left Guardian, calling for the assassination of President Bush. Amid the predictable public outcry, the Guardian pulled the column and put the following apology in its place:

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

Violence of any kind? I'm sure that would include the horrific violence the US perpetrated in protecting Britan and liberating Europe from Nazi Germany. Yes, those sophisticated Euros deplore violence of any kind. And their continent will again shake for it.

A Tyranny of the Stupid

How did such a big chunk of the electorate get duped into supporting pampered cypher John Kerry? Mona Charen knows:

Ilya Somin, a professor at the George Mason School of Law, published a study in the Cato Institute's magazine about voter ignorance that offers a peek into the empty spaces between many voters' ears.

Seventy percent of voters apparently were completely unaware of the fact that the federal government adopted a huge prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare during the term of President Bush. Fully 65 percent did not know that the government had passed a ban on partial birth abortions. Some 58 percent acknowledged that they knew little or nothing about the Patriot Act (a figure Somin argues persuasively is probably low-ball). Sixty-one percent thought, incorrectly, that there had been a net job loss in 2004. Only 32 percent were aware that Social Security is one of the two largest expenditure areas in the federal government. Only 25 percent could correctly state that the Bush administration does not believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Only 22 percent knew that the current unemployment rate is lower than the average for the past 30 years.

Political observers make much of swings in voter sentiment -- like the elevation of Republicans to majority status in the House of Representatives in 1994. Yet Somin reports that in the election of 2002, only 32 percent of voters knew that the Republican Party controlled the House. Hmmm.

Frankly, if Americans want to remain ignorant about the people who have the power to tax their money, condemn their property, declare war, inflate the currency to worthlessness, permit terrorists to prey on innocents and much, much more, that is their choice. But why oh why must the chattering classes ceaselessly urge them to inflict this ignorance upon the rest of us?

Suicide by Stupidity: The White House and Open Borders

Michelle Malkin today highlights why, even with (please, God) a Bush win on Nov. 2, the country is still in deep, deep trouble:

In an even more shameful betrayal, the White House is now reportedly pressuring stalwart House Republicans into scrapping important immigration enforcement provisions of the House Intelligence Bill that speed up the deportation process and bar illegal aliens from obtaining valuable driver's licenses or using easy-to-fake foreign consular ID cards. Why? Because they are politically unpopular with ethnic constituencies.

This race is not just about who is better able to hunt down and destroy our enemies abroad. It's about who is more willing to hunt them down right here, jail them, kick them out and keep them out of our home. President Bush has shown he can stand up to the international Axis of Weasels. He must show the same resolve against La Raza, the immigration lawyers and Teddy Kennedy.

Her post includes a call to action with the relevant contact information. Just for good measure, here's the White House contact page.

An "Unbiased" Press Shills for Kerry

Today's alert from Ed Gillespie further underscores that President Bush is not only running against the the Democrats, but also the entertainment industry and the press:

CNN's HOWARD KURTZ: "It is a tight race. Do you believe that most reporters want John Kerry to win?"

NEWSWEEK'S EVAN THOMAS: "Yeah, absolutely."

KURTZ: "Do you think they're deliberately tilting their coverage to help John Kerry and John Edwards?"

THOMAS: "Not really."

KURTZ:"Subconsciously tilting their coverage?"

THOMAS:"Maybe."

KURTZ:"Maybe."

THOMAS:"Maybe."

KURTZ:"Including at Newsweek?"

THOMAS:"Yeah."

KURTZ:"You've said on the program 'Inside Washington' that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as young and optimistic, that's worth maybe 15 points. That would suggest."

THOMAS:"Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. I do think that the mainstream press, I'm not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don't thin k it's worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say."

KURTZ:"Is it worth five?"

THOMAS:"Maybe, maybe."

(CNN's Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004)

According to one of the most established members of the "mainstream media," the fact that "most reporters want John Kerry to win" could be worth 5 to 15 percentage points- or 5 to 20 million votes- on Election Day.

Much of the Kerry campaign's political calculation relies on the media reporting as fact baseless charges of voter intimidation, "privatizing social security" and "reinstating the draft," blaming President Bush for the flu vaccine shortage when Kerry opposed liability reform for vaccine manufacturers, and the demonstrably false charge that the President has banned stem cell research.

We must remain vigilant and hold the press accountable if and when the fact "most reporters want John Kerry to win" evidences itself in articles and on-air stories between now and November 2.

Call and complain, write letters to the editor, call talk radio, forward our factual e-mails to your friends and post facts on blogs. This will help make sure voters have accurate information on which to base their decision on Election Day.

With your help in setting the record straight over the next two weeks, President Bush will be re-elected.

Ed Gillespie
Chairman,
Republican National Committee

Two Voters in Two Weeks

GeorgeWBush.com has a new campaign:

As the campaign enters its final days, President Bush has seized the momentum and is well-positioned to win re-election in a close race.

Supporters should use the momentum to recruit two new George W. Bush supporters between now and Election Day. In the next two weeks, let's each try to get two new people to vote for the President who we haven't touched yet -- two in two!

And here are their recommendations for action over the next two weeks:

1. Vote Early. You may be able to cast your vote now via an absentee ballot. State laws allow absentee ballots to be cast if you cannot vote on Election Day. Please refer to www.GeorgeWBush.com/VoteEarly to determine whether you are eligible to cast an absentee ballot in your state. If you will not be able to vote on Election Day, and meet the criteria, I encourage you to take this chance and vote absentee. In addition, in the next two weeks, get two new people to vote for the President who we haven't touched yet.

2. Volunteer for the President. Four years ago the President lost a commanding lead on the weekend before the election because the liberals orchestrated a massive get-out-the-vote operation; it nearly cost him the election. Volunteer now for the Bush Team's vital phone banking and door-to-door efforts. Click on www.GeorgeWBush.com/72hour.

3. Write a Letter to the Editor of your local newspapers. Call Talk Radio.

To these I would add: Make sure that everyone you know whom you think is going to vote for President Bush actually is going to do so. Just after the 1992 election, I was chagrined to learn two people whom I was sure had voted for Bush 41 actually voted for Ross "they're coming to take me a way ho-ho" Perot. It pays to double check.

Putin Identifies Elephant in Livingroom

Oh how the Dems would scream if a Republican said this:

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that terrorists are aiming to derail President Bush's chances at re-election through their attacks in Iraq...

"I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush," Putin said at a news conference after a regional summit in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.

"International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term," he said. "If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power."

Fit to Command

Those who are risking their lives to fight the war on Islamic terror, and their families, have a clear opinion as to whom they trust to be commander in chief:

Poll: GIs, Families Trust Bush Over Kerry

WASHINGTON - When asked who they would trust as commander in chief, people in military service and their families chose President Bush (news - web sites) over Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), a decorated Vietnam veteran, by almost a 3-to-1 margin.

Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard, was more trusted by 69 percent while 24 percent said they trusted Kerry more, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey released Friday.


Among all Americans, Bush has a more narrow advantage on trust to be commander in chief, 50-41.


The military sample was far more likely to be Republican than Democratic, which could help explain the more favorable view of the president. Four in 10, 43 percent, of the military sample said they were Republicans, while 19 percent said Democrats and 27 percent independents.


Those in the military and their families have a more favorable view of Bush than Americans generally, and they take a more optimistic view about Iraq (news - web sites), the economy and the nation's direction.


A majority in the military sample, 64 percent, said the country is on the right track. Among Americans generally, 55 percent said the country is headed in the wrong direction.


The National Annenberg Election Survey found that seven in 10, 69 percent, had a favorable view of Bush. Only three in 10, 29 percent, had a favorable view of Kerry.

Snake-Oil Salesmen

Charles Krauthammer, who is a medical doctor, and paralyzed, has a powerful response to Kerry-Edwards' rise-up-and-walk pandering:

I'm not making this up. I couldn't. This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: ``If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.''

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

Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?

First, the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology. The answer is not remotely around the corner. It could take a generation to unravel. To imply, as Edwards did, that it is imminent if only you elect the right politicians is scandalous.

Second, if the cure for spinal cord injury comes, we have no idea where it will come from. There are many lines of inquiry. Stem cell research is just one of many possibilities, and a very speculative one at that. For 30 years I have heard promises of miracle cures for paralysis (including my own, suffered as a medical student). The last fad, fetal tissue transplants, was thought to be a sure thing. Nothing came of it.

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

Third, the implication that Christopher Reeve was prevented from getting out of his wheelchair by the Bush stem cell policies is a travesty.

Read on for Charles' take on the mythical "ban" on stem cell research.

Better Off Heathen

In his most recent column, John Leo exposes how the once benign mainline churches are now doing Satan's work:

Apparently they cast a stern moral glance around the world, look for possible abuses in China, North Korea, and Iran, and seeing nothing disturbing there, decide to focus once again on Israel. The conservative Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) released a measured and devastating report on the human-rights efforts of mainline churches and groups--the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), plus the reliably leftist National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches. The report, covering the years 2000 to 2003, found that of 197 human-rights criticisms by mainline churches and groups, 37 percent were aimed at Israel and 32 percent at the United States. Only 19 percent of these criticisms were directed at nations listed as "unfree" in Freedom House's respected annual listing of free, partly free, and unfree nations. So Israel was twice as likely to be hammered by the mainliners as all the unfree authoritarian nations put together. The fixation on Israel left little time and inclination for these churches to notice the most dangerous violations of human rights around the world. Not one nation bordering Israel was criticized by a single mainline church or group, the IRD report says. No criticisms at all were leveled at China, Libya, Syria, or North Korea.

Human-rights groups are normally accorded great respect for the work they do. But the rights work of the mainline churches is basically a one-sided expression of ideology--America is essentially viewed as a malignant force in the world, while Israel is seen as nothing more than a dangerous colonial implant of the West. The IRD report says the mainliners' "pervasive anti-Americanism is demonstrated time and again in their public-policy advocacy, and one need not investigate far to find it." Later, the report says, "When U.S. policy cannot be blamed, the mainline denominations seem less interested in speaking up for the victims."

Or Maybe He's Jesus . . .

From John Edwards yesterday:

"We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases...When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

John Kerry, Malignant Narcissist

Today World Magazine's blog has a powerful post with some astute psychological insight from an airborne ranger infantry veteran of Viet Nam:

John Kerry needed no recovery time from his three “wounds.” How does one get “wounded” and yet not need to recover from those “wounds”? John Kerry did not earn his purple hearts; he wrangled them from the system through deception so he could go home early and get out of eight months of combat. That is despicable and shameless. I’ve heard commentators and even veterans say that they respect John Kerry’s service in Viet Nam. I have no respect whatsoever for his service in Viet Nam, or for him. John Kerry exhibits the characteristics of a Narcissist. Narcissus, for whom this malignant character flaw is named, fell in love with his image in a pool of water. The image replaces the self as the center of concern. The main problem is that the image is two dimensional: it has breadth and width, but lacks depth. Further, while the image may appear grand and heroic on the surface, there is no substance to it. My high school friend, a true hero, didn’t take a camera with him to Viet Nam, but Kerry did—with the express purpose of recording his imaginary exploits and feeding his grandiose image of himself. Narcissists cannot be trusted; and they can be very dangerous: especially when they become paranoid about protecting their image, especially when they occupy positions of great authority and consequence. A man without depth and substance—a man who stands for anything and everything depending on how it affects his image—is not fit to be president. We need truthfulness and character in the White House, and John Kerry lacks both.

And yet 45 percent or thereabouts of the US population wants this turncoat in the White House. The post-1960s rise of narcissism among the general population has normalized the behavior of a John Kerry. Scary.

Making Terrorists Deportable

Daniel Pipes is endorsing an amendment to H.R. 10 which:

Strengthens immigration law in regard to the inadmissibility and deportability of alien terrorists and their supporters. Provides that all terrorist-related grounds of inadmissibility would also be grounds of deportability. Makes attending a terrorist training camp an inadmissible and deportable offense. Strengthens the grounds of inadmissibility and deportability regarding providing money or other material support to a terrorist organization.

It's amazing that "terrorist-related grounds of inadmissability" are not already grounds for deportation, but such is the course of suicide by stupidity the nation has chosen. You can use our Basic Contact Links to express your support for the amendment to your congressional rep.

The Undead Issues

Just a reminder that, during this long dark posting drought, lots of still-pending action issues can be found in the archives both here and at my former blog Political Devotions. In fact, for your convenience, Political Devotions has the posts categorized by topic at the left of the page. It's all part of the service, ma'am. :-)