Thursday, July 29, 2004

This is "Going it Alone"?

The DNC this week has been full of rhetoric about the United States "going alone", and the Bush Administration "acting unilaterally". This strikes me as an insult to every Brit, Pole, and others who have lost their lives in our war on terror. It also is quite naive, considering the efforts spent by the administration in the months leading up to the war. The fact that the French and Germans did not participate in Iraw is a function of anti-American sentiments in those countries, and the extent to which those countries were in bed with Saddam's regime financially.

But today, we have further proof that the US is not alone. One could hardly consider Pakistan a strong US ally, but the Bush Administration has succeeded in gaining their cooperation, and even participation, in this war on terror. Our efforts in Afghanistan would have been doubly difficult if not for the Pakistanis. And today, the Pakistanis again show their commitment to this war on terror as Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was captured by Pakistani authorities. Ghailani is an Al Qaeda operative and is wanted in connection with 1998 bombings of US embassies in Africa.

Thank God that we are not alone in this war on terror.

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Lies and Distortions Part II

Just a few of the many lies put forth this evening at the DNC:

  • Al Sharpton claimed that if Bush had been the president in 1954 and appointed the Supreme Court, that Brown vs. Board of Education would not have passed the court. Given the fact that Bush has appointed the first African American Secretary of State and the first African American National Security Advisor, it's clear that Sharpton was just spewing race-baiting lies.

  • Al Sharpton stated that this administration wants to roll back civil rights. His evidence is that Bush doesn't support affirmative action. Gee Al, just because Bush doesn't believe you should get a job before me just because you're black that means he wants to roll back civil rights?

  • John Edwards said that minorities don't have the same opportunities that others do. Well, if he means that minorities have more opportunities, than he is correct. If he means they have less, then he is just spewing race-baiting lies.

  • John Edwards claimed he's a self made man, and that America is still a place where a person can make it on their own. Then he went on to say that there are too many people in this country who can't help themselves, and there are 44 million who don't have health insurance. So which is it, land of opportunity or land where only rich Republicans can make it? Clearly the experiences of Edwards and Barack Obama (who also worked his way to the top) illustrate that Edwards comments are lies.

  • John Edwards claimed that there are two Americas. If he means rich and poor, well it's always been that way. If he means black and white, it's always been that way. If he means educated and uneducated, then it's always been that way. If he means Catholic and Protestant, it's always been that way. If he means men and women, well you get the idea. Exactly what the heck was he talking about in regards to "two Americas"?

  • Some pinhead politician from Maine on CNN was talking about the reasons only 50% of the nation votes in a presidential election. This moron stated that "the barriers are too high for some". This would imply that poor or minorities are somehow excluded, but when pressed he said "you've got timing windows and locations to worry about". So he's admitting that Democrats are too stupid to tell time, and they're so inept that they can't find their way to the polling locations?

It should be clear to even the most casual observer that the Democratic party is living 40 years in the past. The Democratic party is race-baiting to win this election. The Democratic party is run by a bunch of rich white men exploiting minorities, the poor, and the ignorant to win the presidency.

What minorities, the poor, and the ignorant need to hear is that America is the land of opportunity. They need to be told to stay in school. They need to be told to do whatever it takes to work your way through college. They need to be told that with hard work they can be a success in life. Instead, the Democrats tell them that the only thing standing between them and success are the Republicans. What a shame.

USANow Cheap Shot

Commander in Chief or Dukakis In-Waiting?

With all the lies and distortions coming out of the DNC, I thought I'd join the fray. I'm sure we can find a picture of anybody looking like a fool, and I have a great deal of respect of our space program, but this photo of Kerrystein in a space suit just cracked me up.

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Dick Gephardt: More Lies and Distortions

Gephardt was interviewed on Fox tonight after the convention. Here are but a couple of the lies and distortions this man presented as truth.

Gephardt stated that Bush has acted unilaterally, and prefers to go it alone. Never mind the fact that the administration bent over backwards to get the French and Germans involved in Iraq. But the kicker is when Greta Van Sustern reminded Gephardt that we did have help from allies, notably Great Britain, Gephardt said "It's the French and Germans, the Chinese and the Japanese that are most important".

Let's see, the United States and China have rarely, if ever, been allied on anything. Japan does not even have an active military and is constitutionally bound to stay out of foreign conflicts. And since when are France and Germany more important to US interests than Great Britain?

Gephardt went on to claim that "the economy is in the ditch". Excuse me? There have been over 1 million new jobs created this year. Our projected GDP growth for this year is projected at 4.6%, which is considered very high by most any measure. To top it off, just today consumer confidence came in at a 2 year high. And Gephardt has the nerve to state on national TV that the economy is in the ditch, all in the name of partisan politics?

Say Dick, how about trying a novel approach to getting your man elected....just speak the plain truth. Or does the truth hurt?

How to Convert a Democrat

Last night I was asked how best to convey the idea to a Democrat that the Republican party offers more, and that Republican candidates are worthy of their vote. I suppose this request is only slightly less challenging than trying to convince a Catholic to become Protestant (or vice versa). But here goes - this is USANow's 10 Minute Evangelization Script. The intent is to offer a concise, clear, and friendly set of talking points that would help a liberal friend see the error of his/her ways.

We are the party of Equality. We believe that all men and woman were created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. These rights include equal access to education and employment regardless of race, color, or religion. We don't believe that college admissions programs that provide preference to certain races at the expense of others exemplifies "equality". We don't believe that federal hiring practices that give preference to minority or women owned businesses exemplifies "equality".

We are the party of Choice. We believe individuals should be able to make choices regarding their children's education and about their retirement savings. We also believe that families are free to choose the number of children they would like to raise, we just don't believe that families should be allowed to make the "choice" to murder their unborn children. We believe that the real reproductive choice is made hours before conception.

The Republican party is the party of Freedom. We believe that small and large businesses alike should operate in an environment that protects the public interest, without placing unnecessary regulatory burdens on business owners. We believe that individuals are free to practice their religion of choice. We do not believe that practicing our religion in public, nor professing "one nation under God", infringes on any Americans freedom of religion.

We are the party of Opportunity. We believe that our Melting Pot culture has been an import aspect of our success as a nation. We encourage immigration and the creativity, energy, and original thinking of those people seeking a better life in this great nation. We celebrate our ancestry and our diversity. We also recognize that our success as a nation has created a tremendous immigration demand. We recognize that our public school system is operating at full capacity, and cannot possibly maintain acceptable standards if immigration is not properly managed. We also recognize that our national language is English, and that governing a dual language nation is costly, inefficient, and divisive. It is our expectation, therefore, that immigrants will learn the English language to the extent necessary for educational, legal, and professional purposes.

We are the party of National Security. We recognize that immigration policies must be balanced by national security interests. We would rather inconvenience 10,000 people than see 100 people murdered by terrorists. Our opponents are more concerned about the civil liberties of the 10,000. We understand that our system of freedom, democracy, and capitalism is not embraced by the rest of the world. We recognize that our nation would have been destroyed long ago were it not for our men and women in our Armed Forces. In order to ensure our way of life for generations to come, we must support a strong military.

We are the party of Prosperity. We encourage small business development. We have successfully lowered the marginal tax rate from 70% when Reagan took office in 1980 down to 31% when George Bush left office in 1992. It is not a coincidence that the Republican-driven tax policy led to 20 years of US prosperity. Our counterparts promote a European model of social services and healthcare. We do not subscribe to that model of taxation and wealth redistribution.

We are the party of Capitalism. We believe that all 300 million Americans should be free to participate in the free enterprise system. We believe that profits are good, and serve as a mechanism to reward high achievement. The profit motive encourages creativity, efficiency, and productivity. We believe that corporations of all sizes are good for America. Our counterparts work to hamstring large businesses, and proclaim that what is good for big business is bad for the individual. A strong business environment contributes to a strong nation.

And finally, we are the party of Democracy. Our founding fathers had the foresight to implement a governmental system that ensured equal representation, and balanced states rights vs. federal rights. We believe that our system of democracy has been a key pillar upon which our freedom and prosperity has been built. We believe that democracy should be promoted throughout the world, so that the rest of the world can share in our prosperity. We will take up arms, if necessary, to fight the spread of Communism, Fascism, and any other regime which sponsors terrorism. We will take up arms to defend democracy under the banner of the United States of America, not the United Nations.

There you have it - 8 pillars of the Republican platform. See your local party representative for a much more well thought out and effectively written summary.

Monday, July 26, 2004

Election Wildcard: Teresa Heinz Kerry

USANow has previously reported some of the bizarre causes supported by the Heinz Kerry foundation. Her switch from ardent Republican to Democratic National Convention speaker is also a little bizarre, although one can't fault her for following her husband to the far reaches of the liberal left. But we learn today that Ms. Kerry lost patience with a reporter from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and told him to "shove it". Clearly Teresa hasn't quite grasped the fact that, as potential first-lady, she is part of the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

Think back, has any other first lady in recent history displayed this type of behavior in public? Well, besides Hillary Rodham Clinton, that is. Of course not. First ladies are the closest thing this nation has to royalty. Americans expect their first ladies to be bright, caring, honest, and most of all, classy. First ladies are supposed to soften the image of the White House, and help us connect with the human side of the president.

Mark it down: This won't be the last newsworthy incident to be instigated by Heinz Kerry. In fact, USANow is betting that her speech this week does more harm than good to John Kerry's polling numbers. Stay tuned.

PS - for a great tongue in cheek summary of this week's schedule, check this out.

Friday, July 23, 2004

Has the NAACP's Time Passed?

President Bush caused a stir recently when he chose to reject an NAACP invitation to speak at their annual convention. Many questioned Bush over the matter, and implied that the Bush snub was a sign that he is not eager to win the black vote. Given the fact that roughly 90% of black voters cast their ballots for Gore in the 2000 election, it wouldn't be too surprising to see Bush using campaign resources on more fertile ground.

However, Bush's decision to refuse the NAACP invitation has nothing to do with his poll numbers in the African American community, and everything to do with the incompetent NAACP leadership. Witness the latest quote from NAACP President, Kweisi Mfume. Mr. Mfume labeled Bush's black supporters as "ventriloquist dummies".

At the 2001 NAACP Convention, after Bush appointed the first black National Security Advisor (Condaleeza Rice) and the first black Secretary of State (Colin Powerll), NAACP Chairman Julian Bond stated that Bush's cabinet appointments were recruited from the "Taliban wing of American politics". These two morons were at the helm of the NAACP when two great achievements for the African American community took place, and they responded to the Bush appointments with hate rhetoric. These two simpletons witness the fruits of 95 years of NAACP work in the name of obtaining African American representation in the highest levels of government, and they don't acknowledge the victory because Rice and Powell are Republicans. Under these two race-baiting political hacks, the NAACP touted the 2001 Cincinnati riots as a "courageous achievement".

The behavior of Bond and Mfume leads us to one of three possible conclusions:

  • The NAACP suffers from incompetent leadership, who fail in their efforts to represent the beliefs of NAACP members.
  • NAACP constituents are fully in line with the politics espoused by Bond and Mfume.
  • NAACP constituents are not truly engaged in the political process, and simply rely on leaders to fight for their needs with little regard for the competence and behavior of those leaders.

Given the tenor of Bond, who has served as NAACP Chairman since 1998, it's safe to assume that the truth lies somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd scenarios.

Do divisive politics belong in an organization purported to be a bipartisan "National Association"? Does labeling 10% of African Americans as "vetriloquist dummies" really promote the "Advancement" of the black community? Clearly the NAACP is myopic in their liberal stance on American politics. Clearly the NAACP is itself an organization that not only divides this nation along black vs. white lines, it also divides its own constituents along Democrat vs. Republican lines.

Let's hope that NAACP members wake up to the fact that their leaders are taking them down a path that is morally and socially inconsistent with values upon which the organization was founded.

Thursday, July 22, 2004

Should The Constitution Ban Flag Desecration?

The Senate Judiciary Committee today once again approved a proposed constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag.  It seems that this would be viewed as positive news, right?  Who doesn't think that Old Glory should be respected in this manner?

Of course, there is one organization that thinks this is a "misguided measure that would write censorship into the constitution".  Who could be so un-patriotic, so dim-witted, so out of touch with mainstream America to take such a stance?  You guessed it, the ACLU.

Here is their opinion.

Friday, July 16, 2004

Kerry & Edwards Bonding

This video is just a little over the top, but even the unedited images are a little creepy.

Kerry and Edwards


John Kerry has again changed course, offering an invitation to Hillary Clinton to speak at the Democratic National Convention. The slight of Senator Clinton was a source of outrage for many Democrates. On Wednesday, Judith Hope, the former chairwoman of the New York State Democratic Party, said the slight of Clinton was a “total outrage” and “very stupid.” “It’s a slap in the face, not personally for Hillary Clinton, but for every woman in the Democratic Party and every woman in America,” she went on to say.

Interesting that no woman I've come across has felt this "slap in the face". But Kerry, quick to knuckle under pressure from the Clinton political machine, apparently could not stand the backlash from fellow Democrats.

If Kerry bows to pressure from his own party members on issues as small as the DNC speaking agenda, what will he do when the NAACP Chairman of the Board, Julian Bond, starts spewing venomous rhetoric at him, as he has done to George Bush? Bush is intelligent enough not to sink to the level of the likes of Bond, but with Kerry's record it is clear he'll bow down to even the slightest pressure. More importantly, what will Kerry do when the likes of Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, and Kofi Annan blast US policy under the Kerry administration? How soon before we adopt the Euro and begin flying the UN flag over the Capital?

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Kerry and Edwards Again Prove to be Gutless

Read the roll call of the Senate vote to ban gay marriage.

98 of our 100 senators voted yesterday. 98 of our senators had the guts to express their opinion. Although USANow strongly favors this amendment, it is clear that the 50 senators who voted "No" deserve our respect more than Kerry and Edwards.

Many suspected these two didn't have the guts to show up to vote for the Constitutional Amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. These two cowards will do ANYTHING to avoid taking a stand between now and the election. John Kerry hasn't even done his job 10% of the time this year, and the Democrats want to give him a promotion?

These two make Chirac look like a man of moral clarity and conviction. These two neolibs make Clinton look like Pat Buchanan. These two fanatically pro-infanticide candidates make Planned Parenthood seem compassionate.

The Kerry-Edwards ticket is quite possibly the most inept and spineless duo to ever run for the office of President of the United States.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

"May God Keep Bush"

It's a busy day for blogging. Check out this photo-essay from the BBC. Many Iraqis are interviewed and you'll find that the common thread seems to be optimism. Nobody said "death to the infidels", or referred to America as "the great satan". So perhaps this wasn't quite such an unjust war afterall?

BBC Photo Essay

PS - this post title is taken from the gentleman in frame 4.


"I oppose abortion personally. ... I believe life does begin at conception."
John Kerry

John Kerry believes that human life begins at conception. Yet in 30 of 31 votes since 1995, Kerry voted pro-abortion. These votes include:

  • A vote to federally fund abortions. He thinks the government should fund murder?
  • Voted against requiring parental consent for minors. He believes that grandparents shouldn't be notified when their daughters are about to murder their grandchildren?
  • Voted against the Partial Birth Abortion act 3 times!

The National Right to Life Committee has given Kerry a rating of 0% on his stance related to pro life issues.....yet he believes that life begins at conception?

The only logical explanations for this paradox are:

  • This man is a blatant liar and does not really believe life begins at conception. His statements are intended to play both sides of the fence so as to appeal to Catholics and National Organization of Women (NOW) members.
  • This man is honest and fully understands the implications of abortions because he understands life begins at conception. He understands abortion constitutes the taking of a human life, but supports abortion. Why would a man acknowledge that abortion is the taking of a human life, yet spend his career defending a woman's right to abortion? Clearly Kerry sees the deaths of millions of unborn children as a price worth paying to advance his career.

Take your pick - John Kerry is either a liar, or a man who has thrown away his moral compass in order to advance his political career. In either case, this is a man who has no business in the US Senate, much less the White House.

AIDS Crisis - Answering Critics of USA

It has become quite clear that the International AIDS Conference in Bangkok this week has devolved into a good ol' fashioned bash America conference.

International "Gratitude"

French president Jacques Chirac accused the USA of "blackmail". UN Secretary-General Koffi Annan spoke up, stating that the US has not done enough to fight AIDS.

Here are the FACTS:

  • The United States is spending more than any other nation on earth in the fight against AIDS. In fact, the USA is spending nearly twice as much as every other nation combined! Yet the likes of Chirac and Annan find reason to bash our country.
  • The United States is promoting a policy that promotes Abstinence first, Being faithful second, and Condoms third. This policy is referred to as "ABC", by the US. This policy is being pursued in Uganda, and was touted by Ugandan President Yoweri Musaveni, who stated that "the principle of condoms is not the ultimate solution". Apparently Chirac and Annan were too busy giving CNN soundbites to listen to Mr. Musaveni.
  • The United States has stated that foreign aid will be delivered to countries which supports its ABC (abstinence first) policy. This insistence on pursuing an abstinence-first policy has enraged critics. Gee, didn't this epidemic begin as a result of sexual promiscuity? Don't these mental midgets understand that abstinence is 100% more effective at preventing AIDS than is the use of condoms? Apparently Chirac and Annan believe that the US must pay to solve the world's problems, without placing any expectations on the beneficiaries. In other words, "pay to fix my problem, but don't make me change my lifestyle".
  • The United States policy also states that nations must purchase name-brand drugs. These drugs do not have to be US made, only name-brand (not generic). Of course, nations are screaming that they want US money, and they want to spend it with their local generic pharmaceutical companies. This would be a reasonable request except for the fact that because US aid dwarfs the rest of the world's aid, we should have some say in where that money is spent. Even after adjusting for the cost difference between name-brand drugs and generics, the United States is still funding more drug treatments than any nation on earth. Yet the criticism continues.

Perhaps it's little surprise that Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan never let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to bash the United States. But you would think that even these two would understand that the US policy on AIDS is effective, our motives are rationale, and our generosity is unparalleled.

Monday, July 12, 2004

Major League Baseball Too White?

Yes, according to Houston Chronicle columnist Richard Justice. On June 20, Mr. Justice published an article contending that the Houston Astros, as well as Major League Baseball in general, do not have sufficient African American representation. Justice apparently was driven to switch from sports reporter to civil rights analyst in the wake of the Richard Hidalgo trade. Hidalgo, who was the Astros lone African American in the starting lineup, has failed for years to live up to the Astros' expectations. On June 15th of this year, Hidalgo lost his starting job. He had been hitting .198 over the prior 6 weeks, and was due $15 million next year if the Astros were to pick up his option. Obviously, trading Hidalgo was a sensible move both competitively and financially.

Unfortunately, Richard Justice doesn't seem to understand that the Astro's objective as an organization is to win. He doesn't understand that $15 million is too much to pay for a player like Richard Hidalgo. Justice seems to think that the trading of Hidalgo was another example of the Astros' racial bias. In the heat of the pennant race, Justice apparently believes the Astros are more intent on bleaching their lineup than with winning a pennant. Obviously, any baseball fan with half a brain could see that the Astros made a smart move. In an attempt to fabricate additional evidence to support his theory that the Astros discriminate against African Americans, Justice states that only 3 of their 49 players drafted in 2004 were African American. In other words, the Astros were only 2 players shy of matching the demographic makeup of the US. Justice concludes the Astros are racially biased against blacks because they trade an over-paid player and because they fell 2 players short of drafting a representative number of blacks? (What is sad is that I pay for this half-witted analysis to be delivered to my door each morning).

Justice then poses the question: "Do I believe the Astros are racist?", to which he answers "I absolutely do not". He states that if the Astros were racist, they would have responded to this "issue" with a statement to-the-effect of "we're color blind and simply have attempted to acquire the best players". Interesting that Justice believes that a public declaration of being color blind would be evidence of organizational racism. Exactly what does one have to state today to deflect accusations of racial bias?

Fast forward to today, and Justice again attempts to make news out of the fact that African American representation in baseball is dropping. Justice again fumbles with statistics to make his point when he cites the fact that African Americans represent only 10% of big league baseball players today, vs. 1974 when 27% of major league players were African American. seems that the current numbers are much more reflective of US demographics than the 1974 figures. Why is this a problem? Why is he spending two columns on race issues in baseball, when the racial disparity in the NBA is much more stark? According to Justice, baseball, unlike the NBA, has a history of problems with issues of racial fairness. So to follow this logic, because baseball has supposedly had a problem with racial issues, the National Basketball Association is exempt from analysis? It is OK for African Americans to comprise more than 75% of NBA rosters, but the 10% representation in baseball is a sign of racial bias? In other words, African American representation in the NBA is a factor of 7 times greater than the US population, yet it is baseball that is racially biased.

Mr. Justice, please stick to your expertise, that is sports writing. Your attempts to make a story where none exists are insulting to those of us who see through your unsubstantiated contentions of institutional racism. As in life, lets let everyone compete and may the best players win.

As a Detroit Pistons fan, I was delighted to see Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, Chauncey Billups, and Rip Hamilton bring the NBA championship back to Detroit. You won't hear me publishing nonsense about how the Pistons aren't white enough, because results, not player's colors, are what truly matters.

Saturday, July 03, 2004

MSNBC Headlines Distort The Facts

Well, our Residence Inn has free internet access, so I thought I'd take a quick look at MSNBC. I had heard earlier that the jobs report came in weaker than expected, although 112,000 new jobs were created in June. So what does MSNBC show in their headline?

    The disappointing jobs report suggests the economy is cooling, making life easier for the Fed but harder for Bush’s campaign.

If you read the article, you'll see that every economist and analyst quoted said the report was good news. They cited the fact that the numbers represent steady growth, and in fact the Fed may not need to raise rates again in the short term. This is good news for all of us.

So how does MSNBC manage to take a positive story on the US economy, and state in the headline that this is bad news for Bush? The implication is that Bush's economy is now faltering, despite the fact that the news is clearly good, if not quite as good as analysts had expected. If the extreme bias of CNN and MSNBC wasn't evident before, this little example sealed the deal for me. These news outlets are not merely distributors of news, they are passively campaigning for John Kerry. The sad part is that most of the readers of those sites aren't even aware of the bias.

PS - It's hard to beat a rocky mountain summer night.

Thursday, July 01, 2004

Off to the Mountains

USANow will be silent for nearly 2 weeks, as I'm headed to the Rockies for a vacation. I'm hoping to find an internet cafe and post a couple times. Perhaps the clean, crisp, rocky mountain air will cleanse me of my intolerant, right wing extremist, Christian point of view?

Perhaps I'll come home with a new attitude, one that loathes America and all she stands for, one that believes that all lifestyle choices should be not only protected but encouraged, one that believes that unborn children are really just tissue masses to be disposed of when inconvenient, one that seeks to eliminate God from our collective national conscience?

Don't hold your breath.

More Iraqi Comments

This is from

    Congratulations to Iraq and Iraqis on this great day.. A day which is considered a big blow on the heads of those who call the United States and the coalition: ‘occupiers’.. Well.. thank you very much for the ‘occupiers’.. Those who helped us in liberating our country from the tyranny, the ‘occupiers’ who liberated Iraq on the 9th of April, the ‘occupiers’ who sent Mr.Paul Bremer as we did not have a governor at that time..the ‘occupiers’ who helped us in forming a governing council.. The ‘occupiers’ who helped us in the interim constitution.. The ‘occupiers’ who stood against the terrorists.. The ‘occupiers’ who helped us in forming and training our army......etc.. then those ‘occupiers’ handed over the sovereignty to the Iraqis.... they are the best ‘occupiers’ I’ve ever seen.. I hope they’ll ‘occupy’ the countries who are in need to be improved !
    Thank you very much...

Hmmm, he doesn't seem to think the CPA was incompetent. The more I read, the more it seems that the liberal media outlets' political bias is more closely aligned with Al-Jazeera than with Fox News.