Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Victims in the Eyes of the ACLU

Please take a look at this picture, and think about what word comes to mind to describe this group of people:


If you're an ACLU attorney, the correct answer is D. These pinheads were demonstrating along George Bush's motorcade route in Lancaster, PA, in an effort to protest the "attrocities" at Abu Ghraib prison. They were subsequently arrested for disorderly conduct. One of the men "had his arm twisted"! Said ACLU attorney Paula Knudsen, "These unjustified arrests were motivated by politics, not law. The actions of these men are clearly protected under the First Amendment."

Somehow I doubt James Madison, the primary author of the First Amendment, had "mooning the President" in mind as a method of peaceful assembly.

Friday, December 10, 2004

HISD Gets Their Hombre

Houston Independent School District named Abe Saavedra Superintendent yesterday. Mr. Saavedra will earn $270,000 in base pay and will have incentive based bonuses of $60,000. Mr. Saavedra fits the districts long list of requirements, namely:

  • Candidate must be Hispanic
  • Candidate must be alive
  • Candidate must be Hispanic

    The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) lobbied hard to ensure that a Hispanic was hired. They went so far as to say the new superintendent "must be Hispanic" in order to fix the "dropout problem". USANow will now anxiously await Saavedra's unique programs in an effort to discern precisely what he will do that no Anglo nor African American could do.

    Prior to hiring Saavedra, HISD went through the motions by interviewing three other candidates for the job. Two of the candidates were in the last year of their contracts, and their contracts are not to be renewed. The third candidate was being forced into early retirement after the Tucson school board lost confidence in his leadership. Apparently, HISD searched nationwide to find 3 "candidates" who would make Saavedra look like the only man for the job. HISD was forced to find weak candidates because Saavedra himself was forced to resign by his former school district in Corpus Christi.

    During yesterday's board meeting, Saavedra stated that his race had nothing to do with his hiring. "I think I offer a certain level of sensitivity to that culture. I intend to be the superintendent for all kids". Saavedra then thanked the board in both English and in Spanish, which makes no sense because every HISD board member is fluent in English. So much for being a superintendent for "all kids" - a good portion of HISD students aren't even able to understand his comments to the school board.
  • Wednesday, December 08, 2004

    $20 Million for Palestinian Authority, $0 for Boy Scouts

    From CNN today:

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Citing a "renewed opportunity for peace" in the Middle East, the Bush administration said Wednesday it will give $20 million directly to the Palestinian Authority.

    Assistant Secretary of State William Burns made the announcement in Oslo, Norway, at a meeting of the Palestinian Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, a group representing various countries and organizations promoting Palestinian reforms.

    Burns said the decision to give the money to the authority was made after the group fulfilled its promises for financial reform, and reflected U.S. "confidence" in the continuation of its reform program.

    Hmmmm, it seems that the Palestinian Authority is pretty ardent in their support of Islam. In fact, their former president, Yasser Arafat, has been known to murder in the name of Islamic jihad. So where are the pinheads from the ACLU when we need them? How come they're not outraged by the US government sponsorship of an entity whose very existence is grounded in religious extremism? ACLU attorneys fought vigorously against government sponsorship of scout troops, because a fundamental expectation of every scout is a belief in God. If sponsoring Boy Scouts is such a bad idea, why is it OK to fund the Palestinian Authority?

    Thursday, December 02, 2004

    A Father's Love, Iranian Style

    Persian Pride!

    Isn't this a lovely photo? We see a father lovingly helping his daughter with her apparel in a park setting.

    The occasion? Iran's Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement held this very special ceremony for 200 recruits today. Each of the recruits has volunteered to carry out suicide/homicide bombings against Americans and Israelis. Can't you see the pride of the father, as he gazes in approval at his daughter, who will soon blow herself up into tiny pieces in the hopes of murdering others?

    Thursday's "ceremony" also included the unveiling of a large stone column commemorating a 1983 attack on U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon as "the biggest suicide bombing operation against global blasphemy." The martyrs-to-be and their parents must have been filled with great pride as they commemorated the murder of 241 US Marines.

    Word to your Mullah: Don't put any Iranians in charge of your efforts to market Islam as the "religion of peace".

    Full Story from CBC.

    Tuesday, November 30, 2004

    GDP Growth Revised Upwards

    In another signal that the US economy is growing at a nice clip, third quarter GDP growth was revised upwards to 3.9%. The Commerce Department originally reported a growth rate of 3.7% for the quarter. The adjustment was due to higher exports and consumer spending than was originally estimated for the quarter.

    While this good news is certainly welcome, there are some dark clouds on the horizon which will be examined more closely in a future post. Specifically, consumer, commercial, and federal debt are very high by historical standards, and interest rates are too low. Combined with our tremendous trade deficit, our current economic environment is unsustainable over the long term. We are already seeing the implications of our debt-laden society in the form of the weak dollar overseas, as the US Dollar recently set another record low vs. the Euro. Other possible adjustments include rising interest rates, inflation, and downward pressure on wages.

    Sunday, November 28, 2004

    The ACLU War on Boy Scouts

    Over the past 5 years, the ACLU has vigorously fought the Boy Scouts of America in several law suits. It what should come as a shock to nobody, the ACLU has a big problem with the Boy Scout requirement that members swear an oath to ...... God! Apparently the ACLU is deeply concerned about the civil liberties of all those teen age boys who feel violated and oppressed because they're asked to profess faith in our Creator.

    As a result of the latest lawsuit brought by the ACLU, the Defense Department is dropping support for hundreds of Boy Scouts units. The ACLU of Illinois charged that the Boy Scouts’ policy violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate, but do not wish to swear a religious oath. According to Adam Schwartz, an ACLU attorney from Illinois, "This agreement removes the Pentagon from direct sponsorship of Scout troops that engage in religious discrimination."

    All scouting organizations include a profession of faith, and all organizations award religious medals. However, distinct medals are offered for children of different faiths, including Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc. But in the eyes of the ACLU, any faith based organization that is open to all people of faith is guilty of "religious discrimination" because atheists are not included.

    Extrapolating the ACLU's attack on all things religious, as well as the court's decision in this case, it is only a matter of time before the tax exempt status of all religious organizations is challenged. After all, tax exemptions enjoyed by religious organizations are a form of government subsidy. And last I checked, every Christian, Jewish, and Muslim church professes faith in God.

    Wednesday, November 24, 2004

    How Can 1 Kerry Voter be so Dumb?

    The post-election headline from the British tabloid, The Daily Mirror, has been widely reported. "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?" asked the Mirror. Personally, I'm not too concerned about what the Daily Mirror has to say about American Politics, just as I suspect Brits don't too get worked up about how the US press covers Tony Blair.

    However, there is a man who takes this international critique very seriously. Op/Ed writer John Nichols from The Nation states that there is evidence that the 59 million voters are indeed dumb. His evidence? Apparently Bush voters didn't fully grasp Bush's lack of support overseas. According to a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, only 31% of Bush supporters recognized that the majority of people in the world opposed the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. In addition, 57% of Bush supporters assumed that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection.

    This is big news to Mr. Nichols. Clearly, American voters made their choice of President before learning who the Indonesians preferred. And any self respecting Texan would change his vote if he knew that the French preferred Kerry, right? And I'm sure that at least 70,000 Ohio residents would have switched their vote if they knew Kerry was the candidate of choice in Iran. Nichols is so disconnected with mainstream America that he believes votes would have changed if Americans were more informed about international polling. Furthermore, the man is so "dumb" that he draws this conclusion: Bush voters were kept in the dark in regards to international opinion due in part to the pro-Bush coverage by the US Media! Apparently, CBS, NBC, and major US newspapers spent the past year putting a positive spin on the Bush Administration.

    USANow is left to wonder: How is there any self-respecting journalist alive in America today who is not aware of the liberal bias in our mainstream media? How can a man call out CBS News as an organization biased in favor of the Bush administration? How can 1 Kerry voter be so dumb?

    Monday, November 22, 2004

    A Lesson in Generosity from The Stranger

    This past Friday I had the misfortune of waiting for two hours for the Metro bus to take me to my park and ride. It was noon when I arrived at the stop, and I was looking forward to spending the rest of the day with my wife. But what I learned over the next two hours was well worth the inconvenience.

    This particular bus stop is right next to Pierce Elevated, which is a large Interstate 45 overpass, populated by many of Houston's homeless. The stench from under Pierce Elevated is a combination of exhaust, garbage, and urine. Most Houstonians don't want to have their days interrupted by the harsh reality presented by this section of downtown.

    As I sat down waiting for my bus (which was supposed to arrive in 3 minutes), I noticed a large bearded man sit down close to me, sitting in a position so that he was staring at me. I assumed he wanted money, but I happened to have no cash and had a mere quarter in my pocket. I didn't make eye contact with The Stranger until he asked me for a smoke. He spoke in very low tones, stumbling on his words. I told him I wished I could help him, but I don't smoke. I then gave him my quarter explaining that's all I had. Shortly thereafter a much older man approached the stranger, holding out a handful of change and exclaiming "can you believe it, and I didn't even have to ask". Judging from their brief conversation, it became evident that neither of these two men liked asking strangers for money.

    Over the course of the next 45 minutes, The Stranger and I began to get to know each other. I was particularly interested in how he came to be living under the bridge. His grungy hair and dirty clothes hid a handsome man who was well groomed a short time ago. His clothes were relatively clean, and I was shocked to see he carried a cell phone. Something didn't add up.

    The Stranger told me he was kicked out of his house by his wife a few weeks ago. She will not answer his calls, and his cell phone was to be disconnected any day. And although he came to Pierce Elevated with some cash, 3 weeks of homeless life had nearly depleted his money. According to the stranger, asking people for money was "fucked up". His wife kicked him out of the house because he "fucked up". And the fact that so many people were in his same position was "fucked up". For three weeks, he had been doing his best to take care of himself, to protect his 3 new buddies, and to give them cigarettes when they asked. But now, he was the one asking for smokes. He was the one who would soon have to start asking for change if he wanted to eat.

    As it became clear that my noon bus was not going to arrive, I decided to do something to help these folks. The nearby McDonalds accepted debit cards, so I asked The Stranger if he was hungry. He motioned to his buddies and said they were all hungry. We walked over to their small patch of real estate where they slept, and I asked "who wants lunch?". All 3 jumped up with a resounding yes, and I took their orders. A mere $15 bought 4 quarter pounders, 4 apple pies, and a large coke. Each man expressed his gratitude for what I'd done, and I was quite happy to help them. I was also proud of myself for being so generous. I discovered shortly that my generosity was nothing compared to The Stranger's.

    As the men pulled out their meals, a woman who was eating a sandwich nearby asked "Do you have anything for me?" I apologized and said I just bought lunch for the folks who were there at the time. Without hesitation, the stranger handed his meal to the woman. I looked with disbelief, saying "she already had something, don't you want to eat"? The stranger just shrugged and said "I know her. That sandwich was probably bad, and she's hungry". I had given of my excess, The Stranger gave nearly everything he had.

    As I continued to wait for the 1:00 bus (which would never arrive), The Stranger and I continued to converse. He repeated many times how generous I was, and how my actions would be repaid. I told him his generosity far exceeded mine. As we spoke further, The Stranger told me his downfall lied in his water bottle. He has been an alcoholic for 10 years, and now drinks straight vodka from a water bottle all day. Asked if he could go back to his wife to try to get his life back in order, he said no. Asked if he could go back to his wife if he quit drinking, he said yes. He then asked "Can you help me?". At that moment, The Stranger's burden hit me squarely in the face. His dependence cost him his job, his home, and his wife. He wants all of those things back, but cannot get past his addiction. But despite his situation, his reluctance to ask for money and his incredible generosity make it clear that he is still holding strong to his dignity.

    When the 2:00 bus arrived, I shook The Stranger's hand. His grip was strong and his hands were calloused, revealing years of hard manual labor. He thanked me for what I'd done, and I thanked him. For he had given me far more than I had given to him.

    Now I'm left to ponder his question - "Can you help me?". The fact that I don't know what else I can do for him is "fucked up". So I'm left to spread these words as we approach the holidays: Be generous with others, reach out to strangers in need, and if you know anybody with a dependence problem, take action now before it's too late.

    God bless, and have a happy Thanksgiving.

    Thursday, November 18, 2004

    Racial Chip on Tony Dungy's Shoulder

    Much has been made about ABC's Monday Night Football lead-in this week, involving Nicollete Sheridan and Terrell Owens. Sheridan, a star of Desperate Housewives, bears all in her attempt to seduce Owens in the Eagles' locker room. Owens, who is black, was reluctant at first. He then agrees to skip the game after Sheridan, who is white, jumps into his arms.

    Much can be made about ABC's attempt to promote their new series. Most importantly, why do young football fans have to be exposed to seduction? Why did Sheridan have to get completely naked in this skit? With this backdrop, any guesses as to what offended the Indianapolis Colt's headcoach about the skit? Dungy found the skit to be racially offensive. He also said the skit perpetuated the idea that players are "sexual predators".

    Let's see, Tony, who was the "predator" in the skit? The white woman. Who got completely naked in the skit? The white woman. Yet somehow Dungy thinks that the black man was exploited. The absurdity in Dungy's conclusion reveals just how big of a chip this man carries on his shoulder. A white woman was the aggressor, a white woman got naked, a white woman jumped in a black man's arms. But showing the black man simply consenting is racially offensive to blacks and to athletes. Were the roles reversed, and a Halle Berry bared all in her attempts to seduce Payton Manning, you can bet that Dungy wouldn't have been crying about the skit being offensive to whites.

    Perhaps Dungy should open his eyes to the real problem in the skit - the portrayal of casual sex on prime time network TV, and the portrayal of a white woman as a desperate tramp.

    Wednesday, November 17, 2004

    One Iraqi's Take on Fallujah

    If you get the chance, check out The Mesopotamian blog. Here is a recent entry from Salaam, offering his take on what's happening in Fallujah. What strikes me most is that much of the violence today is being committed by the same people using the same methods deployed by the Saddam Hussein regime. These people always have, and always will be obstacles to peace in Iraq.


    The killers who are loose in Dialla province this morning have murdered policemen in cold blood and distributed leaflets warning the population to stay away from government offices and schools; imagine this: schools! So what do they want: to stop life altogether? Their spite is driving them berserk. They want to murder everybody and everything. What do they mean: schools? That is very significant in understanding the psychology of these creatures, who by the way are the very same people of the old security forces of Saddam; the perpetrators of the mass graves.

    I want to draw the attention of all the people of the world to the mentality of these, our home grown monsters. What they mean by “schools” is a direct threat against children, Iraqi children; because, children are the dearest things in the world; because if one can withstand all sorts of tortures and even death, still the thought of harm to one’s children is something unbearable. That, they know very well and therefore they want to use it and it is typical of these animals. That’s how they used to twist our arms before, for so many years, and they are at it again. It is not fear of death that used keep us subjugated. In fact we learnt something terrible and very real. Death is not the worst thing that could happen to you; it is not even in the “top league” of “worst things”. And they have hurt children before, and have tortured children before, and killed children before. The spite, hatred and cruelty of this race is something beyond the comprehension of normal human beings. And it is clear that the existence of the normal Iraqi human being and these is mutually exclusive. It is either “them or us”, as you say.

    For the valiant soldiers doing battle in Falujah today: like the medieval knights, you have engraved on your shields severed heads of kidnapped victims, murdered children, the hundreds of thousands of the dwellers of mass graves. You are the instruments of the Lord’s retribution. Have no mercy on this vermin, they do not deserve any.

    God bless you and protect you for you are doing his work.


    Monday, November 15, 2004

    Chum for Liberal Sharks from Maureen Dowd

    In a column yesterday in the NY Times, Maureen Dowd tried again to paint Christian conservatives as intolerant. Her adjective of choice in this column happened to be "vengeful". After reading her recent article, one is left with the impression that she is simply catering to New York liberals' insatiable appetite for Christian bashing. Well, two can play the game of hurling hate rhetoric, so here's USANow's rebuttal using the Maureen Dowd Demonize Your Opponent with Inflammatory Rhetoric Technique:

    In order to discredit the agenda of the faithful right, liberal columnist Maureen Dowd paints Christians as a "vengeful mob - revved up by rectitude - running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels". Her evidence? A letter written by noted anti-Catholic Bob Jones III. Since when does Bob Jones speak for 60,000,000 Americans?

    Dowd goes on in dramatic fashion, saying "The Christian avengers and inquisitors, hearts hard as marble, are chasing poor 74 year-old Arlen Specter through Capitol's marble halls, determined to flagellate him and deny him his cherished goal of taking over the Senate Judiciary Committee." What's utterly reprehensible about Dowd's hyperbole is that the idea of Arlen Specter in the role of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman is anathema to her. Clearly, she would prefer any Democrat on earth before Arlen Specter. But now that she's on the wrong side of history (again), she can do little more than jump in the middle of Republican party lobbying, and paint Christians as demons taking away an elderly man's "cherished goal". Quite pathetic. Since when does every 74 year old man have an inalienable right to his "cherished goal"? More importantly, since when does our Constitution mandate that Supreme Court Justices pass some sort of Roe v. Wade litmus test?

    The brings us to the heart of the matter, which is that the Specter issue relates solely to maintaining the pro-infanticide status quo. Dowd, clearly shaken by the prospect of a Supreme Court which would protect unborn children, is now interjecting her opinions in Republican party machinations. She is terrified that a pro-life judge may be appointed to the Supreme Court, jeapordizing women's freedom to choose to dismember their unborn children. So Ms. Dowd would prefer to bow down to the most liberal Republican rather than let our democratic processes work their course.

    Perhaps Ms. Dowd could spend more time writing about what went wrong with the neo liberal agenda in this year's election. Perhaps she could learn what it means to be compassionate, and at least try to develop an appreciation for Christian America's "cherished goals". More likely, however, Ms. Dowd will continue pandering to her liberal readers and feeding chum to the anti-life sharks of the Democratic party.

    Saturday, November 13, 2004

    Tony Blair!

    Tony Blair is a great man to have on our side. In today's joint press conference with George Bush, he made a great point. Paraphrasing, he said about the US - English relationship: "We aren't fighting this war together just because we're allies, we are allies because we are both fighting this war".

    In other words, this isn't a matter of Great Britain going to Iraq just because the United States is calling in a favor from an ally. Great Britain shares the same view of the world as we do, and they understand the importance of this fight on terror. They would naturally be engaged in this fight against global terror, and this common world view is what makes the United States and Great Britain such strong allies.

    I'm not stating that Blair would have independently invaded Iraq without US participation. But I am saying that given the evidence, and given the history of Saddam Hussein, and given recent trends in the spread of Islamic terrorism, Great Britain reached the same conclusions we did about Iraq. It's this view of the world, the belief that freedom and democracy will serve to spread peace, and the belief that we have to be aggressive in our fight against terror, that binds our nations.

    Here's hoping Blair is as successful as was George Bush in Great Britain's upcoming elections.

    Thursday, November 11, 2004

    More Tough Talk on Terrorism From Europe

    Tough minded Americans have had a lot of fun lately mocking Europeans as being weak-kneed surrender monkeys. As was noted previously on USANow, the French have come out with tough anti-terrorism legislation, the types of laws which would make John Ashcroft proud.

    In the wake of Theo van Gogh's murder by Muslim extremists, lawmakers in The Netherlands have also come out talking tough. The leader of the Christian Democrat party, Maxime Verhagen, said "When it comes to preparing a terrorist attack, it's better to have 10 possibly innocent people temporarily in jail than one with a bomb on the street". Other leaders have suggested the closing of any mosque that preaches violence, as well as arresting 150 Muslim extremists on the government's watch list.

    For three years now, the United States has led the War on Terror. For three years, we have struggled to match our need for homeland security with our desire for civil rights. John Ashcroft has been unfairly crucified by our liberal media as well as the ACLU as a result of the Patriot Act. The US policy related to Guantanamo Bay detainees has also come under fire from all directions. But with the recent turn of events in Europe, US policies don't seem so tough after all.

    With blood thirsty Muslims committing atrocities across the globe, and with more and more governments cracking down on Muslim extremists, it is clear that Americans are not alone in this fight. Let's hope US legislators listen to the advice of Maxime Verhagen, and resist calls by out of touch liberals to weaken anti-terror laws in the name of civil liberties.

    Wednesday, November 10, 2004

    More Denial from the "Cultural Elite"

    Take a few moments to read what this so-called "cultural elitist" (he's actually just a guy who writes political cartoons) has to say about the election.

    In the wake of the Democrat's crushing defeat, it's sad to think that Ted Rall's pompous drivel is being offered up as the reason they lost. Ted has tried (unsuccessfully) to package up his disconnection with mainstream America as a rationale for looking down on Republican voters. Ted tells us his life story, of growing up disenchanted with the Midwest because it was "culturally bland". So now Ted makes a living as a liberal lemming, doing his best to look, talk, and act just like every other media elitist. Of course, this irony is lost on Ted.

    Ted cites bad Chinese food, cultural homogeneity, and lack of "high quality news coverage" as reasons to look down upon the Bush states. Ted seems to think he gets to watch "cooler movies" because he lives in a coastal city. Ted confuses "different" with "interesting" when he states that he gets to "meet more interesting people".

    Ted, you can keep thinking "authentic" Chinese food can only be found on the East coast. Perhaps you haven't spotted the hundreds of thousands of Chinese living in the red states during your fly overs, but they're here and their fine food is available everywhere. In fact there are so many Chinese here in Houston that I've managed to pick up some Mandarin, and to you I say Ni bu xi dong xie.

    I'm not sure what you consider to be "interesting", but based on your politics I can make a good guess. But I find neither American self-loathing nor alternative lifestyles to be interesting, so I'll continue to enjoy the company of people who don't have to be different to be interesting.

    You can have your NY Times with its plagiarized stories and left wing propoganda spun just the way you like it. I've discovered that I don't have to live in the city that spins the news, I can enjoy the variety of online news services anywhere in the country. You are familiar with the internet, aren't you Ted? Or perhaps you're hesitant to logon in the fear of discovering there's more to the story than the neo-liberal spin you've been swallowing.

    As for movie entertainment, you can spend your time watching recent Cannes Festival winners like "Sud Pralad". Frankly, I'm too busy enjoying life to catch every good mainstream Hollywood movie, much less to watch obscure movies you consider "cool".

    Finally, for somebody who claims to be a part of the "better educated" party, you fail dismally at drawing the proper conclusion from your own statistical analysis. You state "You are 25 percent more likely to hold a college degree if you live in the Democratic northeast than in the red state south." You then draw the erroneous conclusion that Kerry voters are "25 percent more likely, therefore, to understand the historical and cultural ramifications of Bush's brand of bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy". Gee Ted, have you even bothered to correlate actual votes with education? Just because a person lives in the northeast does not mean that person voted for Kerry, and just because a person lives in the south does not mean that person voted for Bush. Any 6th grader could grasp the concept that just because a state went to Kerry does not mean that every person in that state voted for Kerry. Perhaps I'm overstating this - any 6th grader in Texas could figure this out. For further proof, according to CNN, the college vote was split evenly at 49% each for Bush and Kerry.

    My suggestion is to follow the lead of the countless other liberal media lemmings, and avoid heavy math the next time you try to trash 60 million Americans.

    Tuesday, November 09, 2004

    Post Election Pulse: National Organization of Women

    Much can be learned by observing various political and social organizations in the wake of George Bush's election victory. Will left-of-center groups do their best to put the country first and their political agenda second, or will they do their best to undermine the efforts of our president?

    Take a look at the National Organization of Women (NOW) website to see their response to the Bush victory. When you access their site, you are hit in the face with this message: "Four More Years. Let's Not Make it Easy." Perhaps I'm foolish to have expected more from NOW, considering a good portion of their website is dedicated to slandering the president and perpetuating lies about his administration.

    Just in case NOW comes down with a severe case of decency and moral clarity (and removes their distasteful popup), here is a link directly to their popup political message.

    My advice is to remember NOW's demeanor in these days after the election. Four years from now we can count on NOW chastising the Republican administration for "dividing America". But today, it is clear that groups like NOW are the ones responsible for ensuring that our country becomes further divided.

    Sunday, November 07, 2004

    Move On, MoveOn.Org!

    The great Bush victory of '04 has left many people in its wake. Half-wit celebrities like Cameron Diaz and Bruce Springsteen toured the country trying to turn the electorate away from Bush. They failed. Misguided businessman George Soros spent millions of dollars trying to buy the election for John Kerry. He failed. Shortly we'll see Michael Moore's fiction move Farenheit 9/11 in the $4.99 bargain bin at target. But of all the people and organizations who deserve their sad fate on the wrong side of history, MoveOn.Org is near the top of the list.

    MoveOn was formed in 1998 as a political action committee focused on convincing America to "move on" to other issues in the wake of the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Apparently the activists with MoveOn didn't have a problem with Bill Clinton lying under oath. But remarkably enough, they've spent millions trying to push George Bush out of office, claiming he lied to the American people. Apparently MoveOn believes George Bush relying on US intelligence is a crime worthy of censure, but Bill Clinton's lies purely benign.

    During the campaign, MoveOn lobbied senators to censure the president, they issued press releases stating Bush manipulated the war on terror for political purposes, and they organized a national "town hall meeting" around viewers of Farenheit 9/11 to brainstorm how to defeat George Bush. Apparently, MoveOn couldn't muster enough brainpower from their 2.2 million members to get the job done.

    As I celebrate the great win for George Bush and for the entire Republican Party, it gives me great pleasure to say move on, MoveOn.org.

    Friday, November 05, 2004

    Economy Roars, Market Soars

    In the 2 1/2 days since John Kerry conceded the presidential race on Wednesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up roughly 350 points, or 3.5%. Given the close nature of the presidential race, the equity markets have been stuck in a holding pattern for months. Now that Bush has emerged as the clear winner, the equity markets are now responding to recent economic growth and, more importantly, expected growth in Bush's 2nd term.

    In related news, the Department of Labor issued the first employment report since Bush's victory. The report stated that 337,000 new jobs were created in October. This figure widely exceeded expectations of economists, who were projecting a gain of 175,000 jobs. Further proof that the policies of the Bush administration are indeed providing the catalyst our economy needs.

    In total, 1,982,000 jobs have been created in the first 10 months of this year.

    Wednesday, November 03, 2004

    Kerry Comes Around

    Nice to see a gracious John Kerry concede the election this morning. It appears that John Edwards was one driving force behind pushing the issue to the bitter end. But more rational thinking on the part of John Kerry prevailed.

    Kerry's actions serve America and his constituents very well, because it's clear that any attempts to challenge the results in Ohio would have been futile given Bush's large lead. In addition, the wide popular victory by Bush combined by the Republican gains in Congress illustrate the nation's preference for conservative leadership.

    Kerry, unlike Gore, has lived to fight another day. Hopefully his gracious concession will serve as a catalyst for improved cross-party cooperation in Washington DC.

    What Would Bush Do? He'd Be a Man and Concede

    Let's assume for a moment that yesterday's vote was reversed, and John Kerry had won the popular vote by 3.5 million votes, and was winning in Ohio by 135,000 votes. What would George Bush have done? Bush would recognize that our nation wants clarity, our nation wants closure. My bet is that Bush would have demonstrated the honor and integrity to concede defeat. My bet is that Bush would have congratulated John Kerry, and asked our nation to support the president for the next 4 years.

    But John Kerry is not that kind of man. Kerry campaigned vigorously to divide this nation, rich vs. poor, black vs. white, everyone vs. Bush. Kerry worked tirelessly to undermine George Bush's policies, his character, and legitimacy as Commander-in-Chief. What does he hope to accomplish today by stubbornly refusing to admit defeat? With this latest charade, it seems that Kerry is intent on promoting his divisive agenda beyond election day. I suspect he's also hoping to build the case that our president does not have a clear mandate of the people, which might undermine the legitimacy of Bush's second term.

    Regardless of Kerry's slash and burn politics, his agenda is not supported by the majority of our nation, as over 58 million Americans cast their ballots in favor of George Bush. Unfortunately, Kerry does not have the honor nor the integrity to concede graciously. He'd rather pursue his divide America and undermine Bush strategy to the bitter end.

    His exit from the American political scene can't come soon enough.

    Tuesday, November 02, 2004

    Bush Wins Florida!

    Major networks are too afraid to call the state for Bush, so let me be the first.

    With over 95% of precincts reporting, George Bush has a 320,000 vote lead. USANOw reports George Bush the winner of Florida.

    On to Ohio!

    Monday, November 01, 2004

    How Do We Fight Terror Internally? Ask the French!

    France has long been ridiculed by American critics (including USANow) as militarily weak, a nation quick to avoid a fight and even quicker to surrender. However, it is becoming clear that France is setting the pace with respect to combating terrorism within their own borders.

    Specifically, France has implemented counter-terrorism laws which which would be considered tantamount to marshall law in your local ACLU office. Specifically:
  • Suspects can be preemptively arrested
  • Ethnic profiling is allowed
  • Law enforcement officials are able to interrogate suspects for days without involvement of a defense attorney.
  • A law was passed this year which allows for the deportation of non-citizens who preach "discrimination, hatred, or violence" against any group. A dozen Islamic clerics have been deported as a result of this law.
  • Detainees released from Guantanamo Bay by the United States are publicly blasting the US across Europe. Four detainees who arrived in France after their release recently were immediately detained. Under French law, they could be detained for up to 3 years while their fate is determined.

    More details are available here, in an article from Washington Post's website. The bottom line is that the United States has not cornered the market on being tough on terror. Clearly, we could learn a thing or two from the French. Although implementing a model similar to the French would be challenged at every level by liberals in congress as well as the ACLU, the power and flexibility that our intelligence services would gain make this a battle well worth fighting
  • Wednesday, October 27, 2004

    Bush Tax Cuts Put Into Perspective

    With all the class warfare being fought by the Democrats, I found this story to be a great analogy for the recent Bush tax cuts. This gets to the heart of who benefitted from the tax cuts, and the absurdity of liberal Democrats claims of "tax cuts for the rich".

    by: David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
    Professor of Economics
    University of Georgia

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7.
    The eighth would pay $12.
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
    So, that's what they decided to do.
    The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
    "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
    'fair share?'
    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from verybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
    So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
    And so:
    The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
    The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
    "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
    "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
    "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
    "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
    The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
    And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    Monday, October 25, 2004

    Expensive Bird Cage Lining

    The NY Times reported earlier today that the US military failed to secure 380 tons of explosives in Iraq. These explosives are now unaccounted for, and are presumed to be in the hands of terrorists. Of course, John Kerry was quick to label US efforts in Iraq "incompetent". Apparently, the Bush administration was warned in May of 2003 about the explosives cache.

    The NY Times failed to report that the US military has either destroyed or secured over 400,000 tons of munitions since the invasion began. That's no typo - 400,000 tons! Granted, the munitions secured and/or destroyed to date are of various types and strengths. The 380 tons supposedly missing are apparently quite lethal.

    However, it is still unknown as to whether the missing explosives were taken in the buildup to war, during the invasion, after the invasion and before the warning to the Bush administration, or after the warning to the Bush administration. Given the harsh critique of the Bush administration by the Times, and because the article failed to provide proper context by mentioning the munitions that have been destroyed, it's clear that the NY Times is using their front page as a massive pro-Kerry editorial. Once again, another issue of the NY Times is better suited to catch parrot guano than it is to provide fair and accurate reporting.

    Numbers Kerry Does Not Want You to See

    To further expose John Kerry as a political fraud, let's turn our attention to the Kerry Tax Myth.

    Kerry has repeatedly stated that the Bush tax cuts favored the rich. Kerry would have you believe that the wealthy are not paying their fair share. Kerry would have you believe that our existing tax policy favors the wealthy. Let's take a look at the numbers.

    In 2002, total individual income tax receipts were roughly $850 billion. 2.4 million filers earned over $200K in 2002, and paid 40% of all Federal income taxes, or $133,740 in taxes per return. The 92.6 million filers who earned less than $50K paid less than 13% of all Federal taxes, or $1,100 in taxes per return. Clearly, US tax policy is structured so that the wealthiest Americans pay a disproportionate share of taxes, by a factor of over 100:1.

    It should therefore come as little surprise that the wealthiest Americans received a larger total dollar tax break as a result of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a man paying $1,100 per year to tell a man paying $133K per year "I deserve a tax cut, and you don't".

    The truth is that any across-the-board tax cut such as George Bush's would have provided a larger tax break to the wealthy, simply because they pay so much more. But John Kerry ignores this truth, and contends that Bush favors the wealthy.

    The truth is that Kerry would not be significantly impacted by any tax increase because most of his (wife's) assets are invested in tax free assets. But Kerry implied in the third debate that he'd be impacted by his proposed tax increases.

    The question for American voters on Novemer 2nd is becoming: Do you want the truth, or do you want John Kerry?

    Thursday, October 21, 2004

    Stay at Home Moms: Need a "Real Job"

    According to the woman who just might be our first lady for the next 4 years, stay at home moms don't have real jobs. This was revealed in a recent interview in which Teresa Heinz Kerry stated about Laura Bush: "I don't know that she's ever had a real job - I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things".

    On the one had, Heinz Kerry nominally acknowledged the importance of being a stay at home. But on the other, she has the nerve to 1) state that stay at home motherhood isn't a real job, and 2) assert that somehow Laura Bush's "validation" is different from other women.

    So USANow asks: What is it about a housewife's work that isn't "real"? Are maintaining a home and doing charity work not "real" accomplishments. Is cooking dinner not "real" work. Is volunteering as a room mother at your child's school not a "real" contribution? Is having the flexibility to stay at home to care for your sick children not a "real" benefit to your family? Is being home all summer for your children so they're not in day care not of "real" value to children? This is not to say that working outside the home is a bad thing, but rather attempts to minimize the contributions of stay at home mothers compared to working mothers are misguided at best.

    We can conclude either 1) Heinz Kerry judges our contributions to society based purely on the monetary implications, or 2) Caring for our families is an insignificant contribution to society when compared to "real" professions.

    Today we learn that Heinz Kerry has since apologized, stating "I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a school teacher and librarian". Apparently Laura Bush had a couple of "real" jobs, before she became a stay at home mom. This apology tells us all we need to know about Heinz Kerry's view of stay at home motherhood.

    Tuesday, October 19, 2004

    MAJOR News From the ACLU

    The ACLU has a long tradition of breaking new ground with respect to destroying the fabric of this nation. The organization's attempts to remove any and all references to God are well documented. ACLU lawyers have worked very hard to ensure teenagers can get abortions without parental consent. They have sued Catholic Charities in an attempt to force the charitable organization to provide employee benefits that are contrary to Catholic teaching.

    In this backdrop, today's news is still a shock. The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations have recently adopted new standards for organizations which receive financial aid. The ACLU has found this new language so offensive, and so restrictive, that they have turned down over $1 million in financial assistance. On one hand, the ACLU deserves respect for upholding their standards and resisting the urge to compromise for financial reward. However, let's take a look at this new language that the ACLU finds problematic:
  • Ford Foundation: Bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that "promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state."
  • Rockefeller Foundation: States recipients of its funds may not "directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity."

    In short, the ACLU refuses to agree to refrain from activities that promote violence, terrorism, bigotry, or state destruction. If there was any debate that the ACLU is a destructive force in this nation, these latest developments remove all doubt. Let's just hope that neither the Ford nor the Rockefeller Foundations knuckle under and change their language to suit the ACLU.
  • CNN Again Shows Bias

    At the risk of being nit-picky about our nation's liberal media, I must point out yet another example of bias displayed by CNN.

    CNN has been tracking the results of the weekly CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls. In the latest poll, for the period October 14 - 16, George Bush came out with an 8 point lead. Given the fact that this race has been too close to call, an 8 point lead by either candidate is major news. In addition, Kerry was leading by 1 point in the previous week, so the results indicated a 9 point swing in one week.

    Given these results, what headline would you write? How would you clearly convey these surprising results in an eye-catching headline?

    USANow would publish this headline: "Major Swing in Presidential Poll". Alternatively, "Bush Takes Lead in Latest Poll". Considering Bush went from 1 point down to 8 points ahead in one week, either one of those headlines would be appropriate. In fact, even "Bush Surges Ahead in Latest Poll" is a fair headline.

    How does CNN characterize these poll results? "Poll: Presidential Race Still Tight". Still tight? An 8 point lead is "tight"? Perhaps CNN's wishful thinking is bleeding through to their headlines.

    Here is the graphic and the accompanying headline from CNN's website.

    Friday, October 15, 2004

    Democrats Leaving Dirty Work to Black Leaders

    At this point in the presidential campaign, it should be obvious to even the most casual observer that the Democratic party uses race-baiting as a strategic weapon. Simply put, they prey on black fears of racism to garner votes. Although class warfare and the victim game are other Democratic party favorites, creating racial divisions is clearly their weapon of mass destruction.

    In yet another example of race baiting, Drudge is reporting that the Democrat party is instructing their members to make up voter intimidation stories where none exists. Specifically, they say "If no signs of intimidation have surfaced, issue a preemptive strike". What is the nature of this "preemptive strike"? They are giving their minority leaders talking points to bring up issues from the past. They are also encouraging minority leaders to express concern about intimidation tactics, even if no such tactics have been observed. Clearly, Democrats expect blacks to vote in larger numbers through the mere mention of the word "disenfranchisement". So tell me: Who ends up looking like the idiot when a minority leader makes unsubstantiated claims - the scumbag Democrat who came up with the talking point, or the minority leader? Clearly, the minority leader.

    This is quite pathetic. The Democratic party has sunk to such lows that they are willing to feed the flames of racial division just to get their man elected. They are putting up minority leaders as sacrificial lambs, left to cry wolf again and again. I can't wait for the day when the black community wakes up to the reality that the Democrats are making them play the stooge on the national political scene just to get a few votes. The Democrats know politicians like Sharpton, Jackson, Sadiki Kambon, Jew Don Boney, etc., will never get elected to national positions because they've burned so many bridges with voters who see through their race baiting tactics. But the Democrats don't care about their black activist henchman, for they are disposable. They are simply pawns used to stir up racial tensions and to demonize Republicans. Quite ironic that those same politicians refer to Colin Powell as "Uncle Tom".

    Here is the snippet of the instructions from the Democratic Party.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2004

    Aussies Prove Strong

    In what may be a foreshadow of things to come on November 2nd, Australia voted this past weekend to re-elect the conservative incumbent, Prime Minister John Howard. The labor party campaigned vigorously against Howard's war record, and their candidate, Mark Latham, promised to bring troops home by Christmas. Howard, on the other hand, pledged to keep Australian troops in Iraq until Iraq security forces are prepared to handle the job themselves.

    To be fair, Howard scored well on domestic issues. Like the United States, Australia's unemployment, inflation, and interest rates are low by historical standards. In addition, the Australian economy has grown in each of Howard's 9 years in office. As a result, the liberal Labor Party was forced to make the Iraq War the centerpiece of their campaign. Unfortunately for the liberals, not only did Howard win the election, but the conservative party increased their majority in parliament.

    USANow is left to wonder: Will the United States follow the path of the Aussies or the Spaniards?

    Monday, October 11, 2004

    Kerry Hypocrisy: Tax Avoidance

    During Friday's presidential debate, John Kerry again stated that he plans to raise taxes on people making more than $200,000 per year. He worked the class-warfare issue by suggesting only 3 people in the auditorium would be impacted by the plan; Kerry, Bush, and moderator Charles Gibson. As it turns out, John Kerry was distorting his personal reality, as his overall tax rate is nowhere near that paid by a family making $200K/year. In fact, Kerry pays taxes at a rate less than a family making $30K/year!

    As reported in today's Wall Street Journal, John and Teresa Heinz Kerry made roughly $6.8 million dollars in 2003. Assuming the Kerry's could claim $1 million in deductions, they would be expected to pay $2,011,000 in taxes. But somehow, the Kerry's managed to limit their tax liability to $725K, or slightly more than 10% of their income. By comparison, a family making $30K per year pays 14% taxes.

    Kerry cannot be faulted for utilizing available tax deductions. However, Kerry's statements Friday night clearly gave the false impression to the American people. Kerry stated that he should bear a greater tax burden than the average American, when in fact the myriad tax shelters employed by the Kerry's ensure they pay far less. If Kerry was sincerely concerned about fairness in the US tax policy, if he sincerely believes he should carry a greater burden given his resources, he'd campaign to implement meaningful revisions to the Alternative Minimum Tax. But Kerry is not interested in fairness, he's interested in getting elected. To that end, he demonizes the wealthy and advocates tax rate increases to which he is personally immune.

    On a related note, George Bush paid over 30% of his income in federal income taxes.

    Friday, October 08, 2004

    Iraqi Sanctions Were Collapsing

    Lost in the headlines about the lack of WMD in Iraq is the fact that the UN sanctions against the Hussein regime were collapsing. After years of accepting bribes from Saddam Hussein as part of the UN Oil for Food Program, it appears that French politicians had assured Hussein that they would veto any US resolution which called for the use of military force in Iraq. Similarly, Russia and China (two other members of the 5 member UN Security Council) were beneficiaries of below-market crude contracts, and favored the removal of UN sanctions.

    In a report issued this week which detailed contract recipients and bribes by Hussein's regime, French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and businessman Patrick Maugein were cited. Maugein, who owns a refinery in Mantua, Italy and was considered a "conduit to Chirac" by Iraqi officials, was awarded contracts for 25 million barrels of below-market oil by Iraq. As a close associate and financial backer of Chirac, Maugein was clearly in a position to influence France policy. As Interior Minister, Pasqua held the same influence.

    Fast forward to today under the assumption the United States never invaded Iraq. UN sanctions would have likely been lifted. Saddam Hussein's regime would be financially strong through Oil for Food kickbacks (which yielded billions of dollars) and $50/barrel crude. Al Qaeda, who would be looking for a new base of operations, and Saddam Hussein, would share a common enemy: The United States.

    John Kerry would lead you to believe that (Saddam Hussein - UN Sanctions + $billions + Al Qaeda) = World Peace. I'd like to think that even Jacques Chirac could see the flawed logic of that equation.

    Wednesday, October 06, 2004

    Democrats Harassing GOP Offices

    Yesterday, 100 Democrats barged into the GOP headquarters in Orlando Florida and vandalized offices. Several of the "protestors" now face assault charges. More details here. In March of last year, the GOP headquarters building in Madison, Wisconsin was hit with bricks and paint bombs.

    Today on the Drudge Report we see a snapshot of Democrats protesting inside GOP headquarters in Milwaukee.

    Democrat Protestors Inside GOP Headquarters

    Several questions come to mind:

    1) Who would be so stupid as to plan such an event?

    2) These people were hollering in bull horns and standing on tables in other people's offices. Who would be so brazen and uncivil as to participate in such an event?

    3) What did these dimwits expect to gain out of this event?

    4) Most importantly, what will happen when American voters come to realize that Democrats seek political gain through intimidation and harassment?

    Democrat Proposal to Reinstate Draft Fails House

    Fortunately, the Democrat proposal to reinstate the military draft failed by a wide margin yesterday. The proposal, introduced by Democratic Representative Charlie Rangel, failed the house in a 402 - 2 vote. The lone support came from Democratic Representatives in Pennsylvania and California.

    In what is becoming standard operating procedure for the Democratic party, Charlie Rangel voted against his own bill.

    Draft Bill Sponsor Charlie Rangel

    Tuesday, October 05, 2004

    John Kerry Comments "Immoral"

    USANow has covered John Kerry's tactics of ignoring coalition contributions in the war on terror. We have covered John Kerry's irresponsible comments about Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi. Today, as reported by Matt Drudge, the President of Poland speaks out about John Kerry's tendency to ignore allied contributions for political gain.

    Here is what Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski had to say:

      "It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience underestimates Polish sacrifice, this is sad. I do not think this was out of ignorance. There is one thing which should be stated clearly: this coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain, Australia alone; it also involves participation of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who have died. It is immoral not to recognize the involvement we contributed based on our conviction that there should be unity in fighting terrorism, that there was a need to display international solidarity and that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous individual of this world. President Bush acted like a real Texan gentleman, he made sure to show appreciation for other countries' involvement in the coalition."

    Well said, President Kwasniewski.

    More from the Sistah (sic)

    Another article from Sistah (sic) Hill.

    Not only does this woman preach hatred and segregation, she does so in a rather inept manner. Her thesis is indiscernable admist a quagmire of run on sentences and incoherent thoughts. I would suggest that her message would come across much more clearly if she simply published "White bad, black good".

    So how does the Sistah (sic) make a living? Where is there a niche for a woman with such racially divisive views? Apparently the University of North Texas felt she was qualified to lead their Division of Equity and Diversity. Quite ironic that a woman such as Ms. Hill, who consistently writes of the evils of the white man and the perils of diversity in black schools, would have been chosen to lead UNT's diversity department. Fortunately for UNT students, it appears that Sistah (sic) Hill is no longer employed by the university.

    Make no mistake, diversity is a good thing for our nation. We all benefit from the collective knowledge gained through association with people from many cultures, relitions, and races. How unfortunate it is that purported "civil rights" activists are turning their backs on 50 years of progress, and preaching venemous messages of division and bigotry.

    Monday, October 04, 2004

    A Lesson in Diversity

    While waiting for the Metro bus a couple weeks ago, I picked up a copy of African American News & Issues. This paper is distributed at no charge to a couple dozen cities across Texas. I expected columnists would make the case that major universities are not diversifying rapidly enough. I expected that the columnists would make the case that diversity is an essential component of a world class education. I expected to hear a message of peace, unity, and equal opportunity. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

    According to Sistah (sic) Dr.Safisha Nzingha Hill, white members of state agencies have the unspoken mission of shutting down black universities. She suggests that white men and women in Austin are just waiting for any slip up on the part of administrators to shut historically black schools down. At that point in the article, it becomes clear that Sistah (sic) Hill is quite paranoid, not to mention racially adversarial.

    As I read further, I was shocked as the Sistah (sic) stepped up the racially divisive rhetoric. She states in her article that white folk have yet another plan to bring down black colleges.....through diversity! Yes, that's right. The civil rights activist, Sistah (sic) Dr. Safisha Nzingha Hill is proclaiming that too many whites will be admitted to black universities, at which point those universities will be nothing more than a memory. Unbelievable? Read the article yourself where she makes her case that diversity (in black schools) is the weapon that the white man will use to bring down black universities. Apparently the Sistah (sic) Doctor is so intolerant of whites that she views diversity as tantamount to extinction.

    What's really sad is that the African American News & Issues is supposedly distributed to 2 million people in the state of Texas. Perhaps USANow should not be surprised at the rhetoric being published. After all, this publication boasts that it is "100% black owned and managed". So at least the Newspaper is consistent in their message that diversity is a one way street, and whites are not welcome where blacks are the majority.

    Friday, October 01, 2004

    Why Bush Lost

    After watching the full 90 minute debate last night, I believe John Kerry was the victor. As many pundits have noted, Kerry was smooth and well spoken, while Bush was agitated and nowhere near the top of his game. To be sure, Bush had his moments, but the night belonged to Kerry for one simple reason: George Bush had several opportunities to expose the flaws in John Kerry's arguments, and he struck out.

    So now it's USANow's turn to bat.

    John Kerry repeatedly hammered Bush on the fact that the Iraq war is a distraction, and as a result we're allowing trouble to brew in North Korea and Sudan. What Bush should have said:
    "My opponent has said for several years that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. My opponent had access to the same intelligence to which I did, and voted in support of military action. As to whether we should be focused on North Korea or Sudan, it is clear to anyone who has followed world events for the past 20 years that Iraq presented the clearest and most imminent danger to world peace. Iraq's nuclear weapons program was not as advanced as is North Korea's, due in part to Israel's pre-emptive strike on a nuclear facility many years ago. But regardless of their progress on the nuclear front, Iraq was ruled by a dictator intent on waging war in the middle east. This dictator attacked 3 separate nations over the past 20 years. This dictator deployed chemical weapons. This dictator would clearly do whatever he could to harm Israel and the United States. North Korea, on the other hand, has done no such thing. Certainly the intent of my administration is to help in the containment of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, but if I had to choose between containing North Korea or Iraq under Saddam Hussein, I'd make the same choice once again. With his statements, my opponent is showcasing the type of judgement that makes him unfit for command. He does not understand the nature and severity of global threats, and he does not understand that it is impossible to simultaneously negate every world threat. We must address the most severe threats first, and that is what we've done in Iraq."(confident head nod to moderator)

    John Kerry said this administration let Osama Bin Laden escape in the mountains of Tora Bora. Kerry said Bin Laden is still in Afghanistan. What Bush should have said:
    "What my opponent fails to realize is that the commander in chief does not dictate battlefield tactics. I am as disappointed as anybody that we have not yet brought Bin Laden to justice, but to suggest that his escape was a result of a poor strategy is a mistake. More importantly, it is not clear that Bin Laden is in Afghanistan. It is suspected that he is actually in the tribal regions of Pakistan, which leads me to a very important point. Before September 11th, Pakistan was not necessarily our ally. In fact, Pakistan helped bring the Taliban to power, and was a supporter of the Taliban. But through the diplomatic efforts of my administration in this war on terror, we are now receiving unprecedented cooperation from Pakistan. They are with us in our search for Bin Laden. They were instrumental in capturing Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. And in the face of great public opposition at home, President Musharraf remains committed to our alliance and committed to dismantling Al Qaeda. My opponent campaigns on the premise that we have no allies. My opponent says we are going it alone. My opponent says we have alienated the entire Muslim world. I'll ask my opponent to tell that to President Musharraf next time he visits our great nation." (confident not to moderator)

    John Kerry said we have spent $200 billion in the war against Iraq. What Bush should have said:
    Actually, $80 billion of that is allocated to the war in Afghanistan. I'm just thankful that my opponent's vote against so many of our key weapons systems were not deciding votes. Had other senators voted so consistently against defense initiatives, our military would not have had the tools they needed to perform so admirably on both fronts. (confident nod to moderator).

    So there you have it; Three John Kerry hanging curveballs, and three missed opportunities by George Bush to knock the ball out of the park.

    Wednesday, September 29, 2004

    Revised GDP Numbers: Good for You, Bad for Kerry

    Revised GDP growth numbers for the 2nd quarter of this year were published this morning. Last month, GDP growth for Q2 was reported to be 2.8%, which was disappointing news to economists, who had projected 3.0% growth. The John Kerry campaign was all-too-happy to pounce on the numbers. Said Kerry's spokesman, Phil Singer:
      "The ink on George Bush's economic record is starting to dry. These GDP numbers are the latest piece of evidence that George Bush is misleading Americans when he says the economy has turned the corner.

    Flash forward to today, and the Commerce Department reports final numbers for second quarter GDP growth. It turns out that our economy expanded at a 3.3% annual rate, much stronger than previously reported and stronger than economists had forecasted for the quarter. Key drivers behind the revision were upward revisions in US export figures, as well as a downward revision in US import figures for the quarter. USANow would like to ask Phil Singer: Tell me again who is misleading us on the economy?

    Tuesday, September 28, 2004

    CNN Getting Desperate

    USANow has documented previous occasions when CNN headlines seem to present a distorted and biased view of the state of US politics. Today is no different.

    In the wake of yet more poll results which show President Bush has a firm lead over John Kerry, CNN offers these two headlines:

  • Kerry Using Humor Read this article and you'll learn all about the budding comedian that is John Kerry. In the article's first example of "Kerry Humor", the candidate chastised Bush for saying he'd follow the same plan for Iraq if he had to do it again. Said Kerry, "How can he possibly serious?". Wow, with jokes like that I'm surprised the guy's not writing for Leno!
  • Edwards slams Bush campaign 'lies' "They will absolutely lie about anything", said Edwards. CNN considers this worthy of a headline on the main page of their website.

    Of course, there is no mention of the Bush campaign. There is no mention of their own CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll which shows Bush with a clear lead!. The results of this poll came out today, yet the headline is buried two pages removed from the main page, and the headline states Bush apparently leads Kerry in pre-debate poll. Hmmmm, the poll shows Bush ahead by 52 to 44 percent, yet the Democrats at CNN say Bush "apparently" leads. Had the results been reversed, rest assured the results would have been on the main page with the title "Kerry clearly leads Bush". Also buried in that story is the fact that the president's approval rating is the highest since January of this year.

    So there you have it, another day, and more clear examples of CNN doing their best to paint a positive picture for John Kerry.
  • Friday, September 24, 2004

    John Kerry's Big Claim: He'll Disarm North Korea!

    Yesterday, we saw that John Kerry was too busy to go to work and listen to Prime Minister Allawi speak to congress. But he was quick to question the integrity of the Prime Minister. Obviously, the campaign is desperate, and we get better insight into the character of Kerry every day as he feels the pressure of his faltering campaign.

    So what is Kerry saying today? He's speaking live right now, and he just said that he will forge an agreement with North Korea which will "end their nuclear weapons program completely and irreversibly". Excuse me? John Kerry is simply going to waltz into Pyongyang and convince dictator Kim Jong-il to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program forever? Is Kerry smoking crack? China, Russia, the United States, and South Korea have been working diplomatic channels for years to disarm North Korea, with little success to date. It's clear that North Korea's nuclear ambitions are strong, and their disarmament demands are unreasonable. Yet Kerry tells us he alone can disarm North Korea with a stroke of a pen.

    The Democratic campaign is under intense pressure as the election nears. Yesterday, their candidate proved he is a poor statesman, prone to insult visiting heads of state. Today, he showed the world that he is naive, if not totally clueless, in regards to international diplomacy and nuclear proliferation. Despite the radical machinations within the Democratic National Committee including mixed messages, forged documents, and a staff makeover which put the Clinton team in charge, polls continue to show that Bush is leading this race. Message to Terry McCauliffe: It's the candidate, stupid.

    Thursday, September 23, 2004

    Kerry Now Insulting Foreign Heads of State

    Prime Minister Ayad Allawi spoke before congress today and gave his assessment of the situation in Iraq. As we've come to expect, John Kerry did not make the time to attend Allawi's speech. Yet that didn't stop Mr. Kerry from immediately assailing Allawi. Kerry today said, “I think the prime minister is, obviously, contradicting his own statement of a few days ago, where he said the terrorists are pouring into the country. The prime minister and the president are here to put their best face on the story"

    Is Kerry justified in accusing Allawi of changing his story? Did Allawi change his message just to paint a rosy picture for congress?

    Let's take a closer look at what Allawi said a few days ago on ABC: “Foreign terrorists are still pouring in, and they’re trying to inflict damage on Iraq to undermine Iraq and to undermine the process, democratic process in Iraq, and, indeed, this is their last stand,” Allawi said. “So they are putting a very severe fight on Iraq. We are winning. We will continue to win. We are going to prevail.

    Again, John Kerry is too busy to go to work. And again, there seems to be no limits to the depths that Kerry will sink in order to get elected, including distorting the statements of a visiting prime minister.

    Quotes taken from MSNBC online story and video clip of Kerry on Fox News.

    Wednesday, September 22, 2004

    BREAKING NEWS: al-Zarqawi Spiritual Aid Killed

    The "spiritual aid" of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed in a US strike today.

    Waiting on details to emerge, but I'd be really surprised if the United States has been able to take out Satan.

    John Kerry in Crisis Mode

    The last 4 weeks have been the worst of times for the Kerry campaign. We've seen turnover in his campaign staff, we've seen more commercials about Kerry throwing away United States issued military medals, we've seen strong economic numbers, and we've seen George Bush surge in the polls.

    So how does Mr. Kerry respond to such a campaign crisis? Apparently, he cozies up to the comfort his old liberal idealogies in a virtual liberal fetal position, trying to isolate himself from the rest of the political world. Kerry has apparently found security in his liberal causes such as attacking the military, affirmative action, and painting US big business as the enemy.

    Speaking yesterday, Kerry labeled "every step" of the US prosecution of the war in Iraq as "arrogant" and "incompetent". I'm sure that will play well in the homes of the families of our nation's service men and women.

    Today, we hear that Kerry labeled Bush's Social Security privatization plan as a "ripoff". Citing a University of Chicago that stated that financial institutions would, heaven forbid, profit from the plan, Kerry stated the program caters to "special interests". Since when are US corporations "special interests"?

    In the strongest sign of Kerry's march to the far left, he resorted to racial division while speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus. During his speech, Kerry labeled the black community as a "nation within a nation", and he pledged to "end the division between the fortunate America and the forgotten America". I'm not sure what Kerry is alluding to here, because neither the Bush administration nor the Republican Party has "forgotten" about the African American community. Clearly, Kerry is simply trying to fire up the African American vote by inflaming racial tensions.

    Apparently when the going gets tough, Kerry goes left.

    Saturday, September 18, 2004

    Houston Tax $$ Used to 'Memorialize' White on Black Violence

    The Houston City Council, with support of mayor Bill White, approved a project which would allocate $2,000,000 city dollars to pay for a black history museum. Many have questioned the initiative, since city dollars are not typically spent on the needs of discrete racial, religious, or cultural groups.

    As stated in the Houston Chronicle, the city council felt it appropriate to buy land in the city's expensive museum district for the proposed Houston Museum of African American Culture, which would highlight the contribution of blacks to Houston's history and memorialize the discrimination and violence they suffered at the hands of whites.

    The Chronicle article continued by quoting from U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee"Nearly two centuries ago people of African ancestry helped to establish the Houston and Galveston areas by assuming some of the most oppressive jobs on the railroads, building roads, and dredging the mosquito-infested bayou to make it more navigable for shipping," em>

    So not only are tax dollars being allocated for something expressly for the African American community, the purpose of this museum is to memorialize white on black violence. And according to Jackson Lee, African Americans should be commemorated because they took tough and oppressive jobs. Does she think that blacks cornered the market on the tough jobs? Does she really believe that there were no English, Irish, Spanish, etc. who also worked hard to build Houston?

    More importantly, why should violence from 100 years ago be "memorialized"? 100 years from now, will the City of Houston pay for a museum to memorialize the black on white crime that takes place in our city every day? Some how I doubt it, because even mentioning the fact that black on white crime is far too prevalent in this nation is viewed as "intolerant" and "racist". White and Jackson would prefer that we close our eyes to black on white violence while at the same time spend tax dollars to "memorialize" white on black violence.

    Thursday, September 16, 2004

    CNN Biased or USANow too Sensitive?

    We've all heard the accusations that the media is clearly liberal. Study after study reveals a liberal bias in the media, but is this bias obvious and influential, or subtle and benign?

    Right now, CNN's website has 3 headlines related to the presidential election. These are the headline titles:
  • Kerry:Bush 'living in fantasy world' on Iraq - This headline is conveniently placed beneath two other headlines with negative news on Iraq.
  • Kerry focusing on Bush record
  • Kerry rips Bush on jobs.

    There you have it: 3 headlines from CNN and every one highlights Kerry attacks on Bush, even to the point of including Kerry talking points in the headline.

    Subtle and benign, or obvious and influential?
  • Wednesday, September 15, 2004

    More Good News on the Economy

    As reported by CBS MarketWatch, output of U.S. factories, mines and utilities rose modestly in August after July's gains were revised upward, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday. Industrial output rose 0.1 percent last month to 116.6 on the Fed's index, surpassing the pre-recession peak of 116.4 recorded in June, 2000. What CBS did not mention was that the size of the July revision, which was a robust .6%.

    What does all this mean? United States industrial production is now at an all-time high, 116.6% of it's 1997 average. Obviously, one would expect our economy to grow most years, so 'all-time high' industrial production numbers are not necessarily a big story, unless of course you're John Kerry and you're trying to paint our economy as faltering. However, after the recession of 2000 and the terrorist attack on 9/11/01, industrial output plummeted and stood at 110 as of June last year. The climb from 110 to 116.6 over the prior 14 months is yet another indicator that our economy is indeed steadily growing, despite what the Kerry camp would lead you to believe.

    Monday, September 13, 2004

    Kerry is Desperate: Again Turns to Lies and Distortions

    Question: What does the Democratic nominee for president do when the going gets tough?

    Answer: Stirs up racial tensions through lies and distortions.

    From an AP report this weekend, John Kerry said: "We are not going to stand by and allow another million African American votes to go uncounted in this election," the Democratic presidential nominee told the Congressional Black Caucus. "We are not going to stand by and allow acts of voter suppression, and we're hearing those things again in this election."

    These are major accusations made by Mr. Kerry. As you would expect, a principled man like John Kerry would never make such a public accusation without considerable evidence to support his cause. Here is the littany of substantiating facts that John Kerry has produced in support of his allegations:

  • There you have it. Outrageous, race-baiting accusations, without so much as 1 piece of supporting evidence. Tell me again why I should vote for this man?
  • Friday, September 10, 2004

    Wow! The Tide has Turned!

    Few would argue that this has been a bad couple of weeks for John Kerry. The Republican National Convention was a clear success, Democrats are unable to convince the nation that John Kerry is indeed strong on defense, and the economy is picking up steam.

    I heard last week that Bush had taken a double digit lead in the polls, but I was skeptical. Then more polls came out showing Bush up anywhere from 5 to 11 points. However, Fox News/Opinion Dynamic's poll, which typically seemed to favor Bush, showed the incumbent with a mere 2% lead. What to believe?

    Well, take a look at the latest story from MSNBC, which includes an opinion poll on the election. Over the past several months, this poll seems to consistently show Kerry with a double digit lead, even when other polls were much closer. I had written this up to the fact that perhaps MSNBC online viewers were more heavily Democratic than the rest of the population. However, today MSNBC's poll shows George Bush with an 11% lead, 55% to 44%! This poll includes over 219,000 respondents.

    Of course, there could be some shenanigans going on by clever Republicans, but it's more likely that even among MSNBC online readers, George Bush has now surged ahead of Kerry by a wide margin.

    Thanks be to God.

    Thursday, September 09, 2004

    HaloScan Comments Down

    My comment provider, HaloScan, has been having technical difficulties lately. Performance has been horrible, and tonight they are not rendering on my blog. I've recently received several comments challenging my point of view. I sincerely welcome any and all comments, so I want to make it clear that I haven't disabled comments just to avoid taking any heat.

    On another note....are those documents about Bush's National Guard service that were surfaced by CBS forgeries? Apparently the document has superscripts on military unit numbers. My IBM Selectric didn't have superscripting in 1982, so it would be a surprise if military typewriters in 1972 supported superscripting. The companion document does not show any superscripts, but there is a space between unit numbers and the 'th'. For those of you familiar with Microsoft word, the user must put a space before the 'th' in order to avoid a superscript. Perhaps the 2nd forger was a little smarter than the first, and tried to avoid the telltale superscript. This story is still developing, and at this point I'll assume the documents are legitimate, but between the superscripting issue and the purported proportional font used on the documents, they appear circa 2004 as opposed to 1972.

    Taking On FactCheck.org

    FactCheck.org is a purported non-partisan group attempting to uncover the real truth behind political advertisements and campaign rhetoric. After a quick review of one of their fact checking analyses, it appears they are simply another flagrant example of the media dressing up as non-partisan. FactCheck readers are led to believe they are consuming unbiased analysis, when in fact they are only getting liberal spin.

    FactCheck recently published this analysis of Zell Miller's speech at the Republican National Convention. This analysis has been used throughout blogsphere and on political bulletin boards as de facto proof that Miller's characterization of Kerry's military service was inaccurate. FactCheck attempts to paint Kerry as strong on defense, and labels Miller's speech as "out of date".

    After a quick review of FactCheck's analysis, the errors and false premises become obvious to even the most casual observer. Here are but a few:

  • FactCheck admits that "Kerry did oppose all the weapons Miller cited when he was a candidate for the Senate in 1984, and did vote against the B-2 bomber, Trident nuclear subs and "star wars" anti-missile system more than a decade ago. Kerry also voted in three different years against the entire Pentagon budget."
  • In defense of Kerry, the analysis goes on to state "in his nearly 20 years in office Kerry's record has evolved. Kerry hasn't opposed an annual Pentagon appropriation since 1996. And he's voted for them far more often than against them." The only "pro-defense" evidence that is uncovered by FactCheck are Kerry's votes for general Pentagon appropriations...hardly the hallmark of a strong-on-defense senator.
  • In chastising the Republicans, FactCheck.org states "The best they (Republicans) can do is point to occasional votes Kerry cast against the entire Pentagon budget, which hardly constitutes opposition to any specific weapon." How can this statement be made in good faith when the site admits that Kerry voted against the B-2, Trident subs, anti-missile systems, etc.? Secondly, if casting a vote against the entire Pentagon budget "hardly constitutes opposition to any specific weapon", then how can voting for the appropriations bills in other years constitute support for specific weapons? The answer is that it cannot. FactCheck attempts to use a double standard, and as a result their partisan bias becomes clear.
  • Finally, the article states: "Miller (in his speech at the RNC) was a bit more careful in his wording than some previous Republican critics, and avoided saying anything factually incorrect."

    This is the best the Democrats can do? We get a half-baked, swiss cheese analysis from a supposedly 'non-partisan' group? This group states Miller and the Republicans are off-base in criticizing Kerry, but even they admit that everything Miller said was factually correct. Given the incompetence of Democratic organizations like FactCheck, it is little wonder that Bush is surging ahead in the polls.
  • Wednesday, September 08, 2004

    Another Judge OKs Partial Birth Abortion

    In another blow to the pro-life movement, US District Judge Richard Kopf from Nebraska ruled against the government's ban of Partial Birth Abortion. See the full story here.

    "Highlights" of the story reveal that 1,200,000 abortions are performed in the United States each year. It is estimated that the number of partial birth abortions range from 2,200 to 5,000 each year.

    In issuing his ruling, Judge Kopf stated that he ruled against the law passed by congress because it does not include a health exception for the woman. Let's be clear that the law does include an exception if the mother's life is in danger. A rational person would expect that this law, in its current form, as passed by both houses of congress and by the president, would not be subject to the whims of radical judges. Unfortunately this ruling makes it clear that activist judges are hell-bent on legislating from the bench in order to protect a woman's right to terminate her preganancy anytime, anywhere, for any reason, using any means.

    USANows' prediction: If a revised law is passed to include a health exception, abortion rights activists will continue to support the grisly procedure using the mother's mental health as the basis on which to make exceptions.

    Tuesday, September 07, 2004

    More Bush Records Uncovered

    We now have a clearer picture of George Bush's military record during his Air National Guard. Notable findings include:
  • Bush was ranked number 22 out of 53 pilots.
  • Bush made a grade of 88 on total airmanship and a perfect 100 for flying without navigational instruments.
  • Other scores ranged from 89 in flight planning to 98 in aviation physiology.

    Quite interesting how Bush's record of achievement offers a stark contrast to critic's claims that Bush is a dimwit. Although questions remain about why Bush missed a medical exam and therefore lost his pilot's status in August of 1972, it's clear that he performed well while in the Air National Guard.
  • Monday, September 06, 2004

    Jobs News

    Late last week the Department of Labor announced that 144,000 new jobs were created in August. In addition, the minimal gain of 12,000 jobs previously reported for the month of July was revised upwards to 73,000. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.4%.

    Over the past 12 months, 1.68 million new jobs have been created. Year to date, 1.44 million new jobs have been created in the US. At our current pace this year, nearly 2.5 million jobs will be created in 2004, which exceeds the administration's projections. You might recall that the Bush administration was largely ridiculed when their projections for 2.2 million new jobs was announced.

    This is great news for everyone, except possibly the John Kerry campaign. Of course, the Kerry campaign will likely respond to the tune "these aren't the right kind of jobs, they're low paying". Just to head that argument off at the pass, the Department of Labor just announced that average hourly wages for non-supervisory workersagain increased last month. The wage gains realized in July and August represent the largest back to back gains in 2 years.

    It's fair to conclude that our economy is growing, new jobs are being created, and hourly workers are indeed seeing wage growth.

    Friday, September 03, 2004

    US Navy Now Challenging Kerry's Medals

    Check out this story on Newsmax which cites a Navy spokesman as stating that the Kerry campaign website overstates his number of bronze stars, and overstates the nature of his Silver Star medal.

    The Silver Star is the third highest medal our nation offers. Kerry's website lists his Silver Star with a 'combat V' for valor. However, the 'V' designation is never awarded with the Silver Star.

    Personally, I think this is a non-issue. Take a look at John Kerry's DD214 and you'll see that his records do indeed state the 'combat V' designation for his Silver Star. We can conclude that either 1)some desk clerk made an error decades ago, 2)the Navy spokesman is incorrect, or 3) the records have been altered. USANow chalks it up to a desk clerk error at this point, but I suspect this isn't the last word on the story.

    Liberal Comedienne Plays Radical Feminist on MSNBC

    How in the world Janeane Garofalo ever landed a spot on MSNBC's political analysis desk during the Republican Convention I'll never know. For a little background, Garofalo is the former Saturday Night Live actress who has now taken up radical feminist causes. She is an out-spoken supporter of abortion rights, and has participated in several feminists marches and demonstrations.

    Janeane Garofalo

    Her performance last night suggests she should stick to acting. Bemoaning Bush's usage of the "ownership society" term, Garofalo went on a tirade at other Republican slogans. Stated Garofalo: "It's not partial birth abortion. There's no such thing....it's 'dilation and extraction'!".

    Wow, for somebody so confident in her support of anytime/anywhere abortions, she sure is defensive about this partial birth abortion thing. If something is such an inalienable right, if a 6 month old unborn child really is part of his/her's mother's body, what difference does it make what we call it? And why are radical feminists trying to coin a term that doesn't even include the word 'aboortion'?

    As previously covered by USANow, partial birth abortion involves partially delivering the unborn child prior to performing the abortion. Partial birth abortion is a term which is 100% accurately descriptive of this inhumane procedure. How this label is offensive to Garofalo is beyond me...unless of course hearing the truth hurts.

    Tuesday, August 31, 2004

    Democrats in Action

    The Drudge Report linked to this story from the New York Times. The report summarizes the activities of the hundreds of protestors who have descended on New York City this week.

    Some of the 'highlights' include:
  • Kicking and punching a police officer, who is now hospitalized in stable condition.
  • Interrupting/harassing delegates during meals at outdoor restaurants.
  • Swearing at delegates as they enter theaters and restaurants.

    The ugly face of the Democratic party has reared its ugly head. Granted, this behavior is not in any way a representation of the average Democrat, but consider that the Republican party has nothing near this type of radical element. We're not facing reasonable people in this political battle, we're facing a large group of scumbag mental midgets who would rather incite anarchy than engage in intelligent political debate.
  • Monday, August 30, 2004

    John Kerry and Infanticide - Graphic Image Warning

    It's clear to everyone by now that George Bush is the pro-life candidate, and John Kerry is the pro-'choice' candidate. But where does Kerry stand on the most flagrantly vile form of abortion, partial-birth abortion?

    Before we proceed, let's take a look at an unborn child at 6 months:

    Let's also take a look at a schematic of the partial-birth abortion procedure as published on the Christ's Faithful People website.

    Clearly, partial-birth abortion is barbaric, cruel, and highly unusual. Where does Kerry stand on this procedure? Here is the record:
  • December 7, 1995 - Kerry was one of 44 senators who voted against the partial birth abortion ban (HR1833).
  • September 26, 1996 - Kerry was on of 41 senators who voted against a measure to override Bill Clinton's veto (HR1833).
  • May 20, 1997 - Kerry was one of 36 senators who voted against the partial birth abortion ban (HR1122).
  • September 19, 1998 - Kerry was one of 36 senators who voted against a measure to override Bill Clinton's veto (HR1122).
  • October 21, 1999 - Kerry was one of 34 senators who voted against final passage of the Santorum partial-birth abortion act of 1999.

    In other abortion related votes:
  • September 11, 1996 - Kerry was one of 45 senators who voted against a measure to kill federal employee health insurance coverage for abortions (HR3756).
  • June 25, 1997 - Kerry was one of 39 senators who voted against a measure to ban the use federal funds for abortions (S947).
  • June 30, 2000 - Kerry was one of 41 senators who voted to kill an amendment to prohibit funding of 'morning after' pills for schools (HR4577).

    In 2003, Kerry gets presidential aspirations and begins his extended vacation from congressional duties and tries to remake himself as a moderate by failing to vote on several key amendments:
  • March 11, 2003 - Kerry was one of 4 senators who did not vote on the Murray Amendment to provide "morning after" abortifacient pill as part of the Partial Birth Abortion Act (SA258).
  • March 12, 2003 - Kerry was one of 5 senators who did not vote on the Feinstein Amendment designed to gut the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (SA261).
  • March 13, 2003 - Kerry was one of 3 senators who did not vote on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

    This year, Kerry again shows his true colors and takes a stand:
  • March 26, 2004 - Kerry is one of 38 senators to vote against "Laci and Conner's" law which protects unborn children from assault and murder.

    These facts lead to one simple conslusion: Kerry is a radical, uncompromising supporter of even the most vile forms of abortion. This man does not belong in the senate, much less the White House

  • Friday, August 27, 2004

    Things Not Always What They Seem

    From today's Wall Street Journal we find an excellent analysis of the recently reported data related to uninsured Americans. Yesterday, the US Census Bureau reported that 45 million Americans lived without health insurance during at least part of 2003. This total represents 15.6% of the US population. On the surface, this is a staggering total.

    The Census Bureau report prompted John Kerry to issue a written statement, outlining the choices the US faces in this presidential election:
      "Four more years of an administration that puts the narrow interests of the few ahead of the interests of most Americans, or new leadership that will serve as a champion for the middle-class and those struggling to join it."

    So does the US Census Bureau support Kerry's notion that the Bush administration is putting "the narrow interests of the few ahead of the interests of most Americans"?

    During the 'Clinton boom years' of 1997 and 1998, the percentage of uninsured Americans was actually higher than what it was in 2003. So while it is true that there were more Americans uninsured in 2003 than there were in 2002, yesterday's number confirms that we are no worse off in this regard than we were under the previous administration. So much for Kerry's premise.

    Taking a closer look, we see that there are as many 14 million Americans who are eligible for Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance, but who have failed to apply. Clearly, these 14 million should not be classified as "uninsured" because insurance is indeed available. Secondly, the census data reveals that, of the 43 million uninsured, 15 million earn more than $50,000 per year. Clearly, these citizens could afford health insurance but choose to roll the dice, so to speak, and prefer consumption over health insurance.

    To conclude, 29 million of the uninsured Americans are either eligible or should realistically be able to purchase insurance. This leaves 13 million Americans, or less than 5%, without health insurance and without the means to provide for themselves in this regard. Clearly it is in our nation's best interests that adequate medical coverage be provided to all Americans, but the current 'crisis' is not nearly as broad in scope as the Democrats would lead us to believe.