Letter to Bill O'Reilly, re: Swift Boat Controversy Coverage

Hi Bill,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130338,00.html

I read your on-line talking points memo of Friday the 27th today. I wonder if you aren't making judgments yourself about what's truth or not in your idea of 'fair and balanced' reporting, this is the gist of Ann Coulter's comments in regard to your Swift Boat coverage. John Kerry's veracity, character, integrity, and honor are very important questions in this presidential race, as are George Bush's. The left has no problem with it, and your cheap seats on the fence do a disservice to your readership.

I don't believe that you did serious investigation of the issue first, you immediately came out with a blanket condemnation of the story and the Swift Boat organization - I was watching very closely. Now that one Kerry medal after another is falling, now that his crass, opportunistic betrayals of the 70s are being highlighted, you want the story to go away.

Now that Kerry's camp is back-peddling and nuancing at break-neck speed on Kerry's Vietnam/Post Vietnam history you are forced to defend your non-stance. C'mon Bill, they've even now called out Clinton, the master of 'aw, shucks, poor me'.

I believe you were and are still wrong about Swifties, don't you think you should just admit it and cover the story properly before the entire world scoops you? Report and let the chips fall where they may, the events will choose the side, not you.

Okay, your fence-sitting may work for you and your career - but it's cheap journalism and my admiration for you has lessened.

Doug
Harpers Ferry, WV

Hmmm, maybe I begin to understand George's plan...

I may have been a bit hasty in my blog yesterday regarding Bush's announcement with John McCain to sue the FEC to stop the 527s. The following article in The Washington Times lays out the latest moves by George and John:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040827-121044-8895r.htm

The article also includes comments from the Democrats to the effect; "Oh this is just going through the motions, they know that they'll never be able to prevent these ads, and certainly not in the next two months." So! Either the DNC is equivocating due to a deep concern about removing MoveOn and ACT, etc. as Kerry tools, or, the DNC doesn't expect anything to change and is a bit peeved that George got the high ground on this issue.

Kerry's shameless and transparent attempt to get the President to attempt a more direct, personal intervention to stop ONLY the Swifties has fallen on its face. Kerry wanted to appear magnanimous by quickly running the "McCain criticizing Bush" ad, and then removing it in a very public way, trumpeting his actions. He thought this would pressure Bush to step on the Swifties, WRONG. Not only does Bush have no control over the Swifties, he's not going to fall for the one-sided 527 disengagement for which Kerry was angling. Kerry ceded to Bush the high ground on the issue due to his lack of support for stopping ALL 527s and doing without the estimated 100 mil in his (Kerry's) "Bush is a Nazi" 527s.

I was pretty pissed that George is proposing to strengthen the McCain/Feingold Act instead of reacting strongly against censorship, and I still am. This law has got to be repealed, I will never be silenced in my opinions, and no one else should be either.

But I have to realize that George is taking the customary step towards the Liberals that all Republican presidential candidates make 3 months before an election. His more liberal RNC platform, his immigration ideas, his lack of hard-core conservative issue RNC speakers, etc. - it's all (or I hope mostly) window dressing to attract more folks from the Kerry camp. I don't care much that religious folks will be under-represented, but I had hoped for a stronger platform with regard to reducing government spending and stopping illegal immigration.

HOWEVER, elephants and donkeys aside, silencing 527s and other political speech is in the 'best' interests (at least the cynical interests) of all politicians - Dems in particular want to win no matter what. The media loves it too - removing non-media reporting during election cycles consolidates media influence over elections. Lawyers like this as well, it places them in a stronger position during elections - who do you think will be called upon to denounce so-called McCain/Feingold 'violators'?

John McCain needs to admit that while he may have been honestly trying to remove the corrupting influence of money in politics, he's created an unconstitutional and very dangerous law. Any law that attempts to remove the 'people' from 'government of, by, and for the people', or redefine who those 'people' are, must be struck down or it's revolution time again.

Here's an editorial, also from the Washington Times, that lays out these concerns:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040826-084258-1547r.htm

McCain needs to lead an effort to repeal this law, and then enact a campaign finance reform law that actually works. I suggest removing the media's stranglehold on election coverage - election advertising rates are one of the biggest unreported scams in modern history. Doesn't take much thought to understand why, so...

How about a new government broadcast/cable channel dedicated, free of charge, to elections? The Election Channel, where it's all elections, all the time. No commercial advertising allowed, this would be non-profit, government funded, and provide FAIR and FREE election advertising, debates, polls, etc. Let the media go begging for political advertising and I guarrantee that costs will come down hard.

But ol' McCain better keep his laws out of my mouth, or there's gonna be trouble.

Adios MF,

Doug

Oh, okay, let's just eliminate our rights to free speach

Betrayed by Bush!

Unbelievable. Now Bush is caving in to the double standard:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130203,00.html

If Bush continues McCain's effort to squash free political speach in this country then I will no longer vote for him - I guess it's going to have to be Nader. Or else maybe I'll write in someone, say John O'Neill.

Adios MF,

Doug

de Borchgrave up to his usual Euro-tricks...

I have to take issue with Arnaud de Borchgrave's Commentary in the Washington Times on-line today:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040824-085851-9055r.htm

de Borchgrave is a long time 'bomb thrower' and has always been an anti-establishment figure with left leanings. I'm surprised the Times allowed his above referenced piece in - it clearly has little basis in fact and instead seems written in an attempt to discredit Bush despite the objective conditions of the world today.

Arnaud deplores the announced troop movements away from S. Korea and Europe as either American unilateralism, isolationism, or camouflage for a withdrawal from Iraq. No where in his article does he even suggest that in our role as the world's policeman, forced upon us by a deadbeat Europe that won't pay for their own defense and S. Korean anti-Americanism, we have become too stretched in our all-volunteer armed forces. This is a long overdue troop realignment, and I think it's a great idea to place out troops where they will do US (and I do mean the United States) the greatest amount of good. Old Europe and S. Korea can go spit - next time they get run out of their own countries they can go to the UN for help. Ha!

Personally, I think the middle east, say around the Iran/Iraq and Syria/Iraq borders is a great spot for more US troops. Saudi Arabia too. Taiwan is also one of my favorites, or should I say THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CHINA. Time to stop that 'one China' nonsense.

Germany, France, Belgium, and Spain, among others have benefitted for 60 years from the American presence in Europe, subsequently lowering their defense expenditures since good old America is picking up the tab for keeping their work weeks to 16 hrs, or however many it is these days. When the Serbian madness was enveloping their borders back in the 90's Europe couldn't scream loud enough for American intervention. But when American interests were attacked and threatened elsewhere in the world, Europe (except for our buddies in Britain) couldn't be bothered to help. And I include Canada in this bunch of losers too. Instead, our good and true 'allies' in France and Germany, along with their ideological brothers in Russia and China, clearly sold us out to Saddam and the Taliban. Now Arnaud can share in our collective American reaction to EU and Canadian perfidy: Blow it out your ass! Translation: Pay for your own defense now.

As far as I'm concerned, and I think I can speak for many Americans on this, Germany, France, Belgium, Canada, and all of our fair-weather European 'friends' can go jump in Lake Geneva. The Swiss will only charge them a little, and if the French won't pay it they can have a war. Between France and Switzerland if would be a fair fight, as long as Liechtenstein doesn't kick both their butts for all the noise in the middle of the night.

Adios MF,

Doug

Letter to Wolf Blitzer at CNN

Wolf is following the liberal media line of trashing the SwiftBoat messengers rather than actually investigating the story, so I wrote him a letter at wolf@cnn.com:

Dear Mr. Blitzer,

Your liberal bias is showing Wolf.

Whatever credibility you had is 'swiftly' evaporating with your and your network's handling of the SwiftBoat controversy. Instead of actually looking into the sworn affidavits of the overwhelming majority of Senator Kerry's Vietnam compatriots, instead of finding out exactly WHO wrote Kerry's citations, instead of investigating the clear contradictions in Kerry's Vietnam stories over the years, you and CNN choose to shoot the messengers and take at face value official Navy documents that have been convincingly discredited. You even choose to ignore Kerry's own historical comments that contradict himself. You smear, discredit, and otherwise marginalize the Swift Boat heroes instead of doing your job - finding and reporting the news, AS IS. While CNN's reputation is, in my opinion due to their Iraq reporting and other obviously liberal 'news-managing', well beyond salvage anyway, I think yours can still be saved.

Kerry has based his campaign for President on his 'heroism' in the Vietnam war in a clear and cynical attempt to leave his anti-war betrayals behind, and trade on his questionable 'valor'. If, as Kerry clearly stated at the DNC, we are to judge his fitness for office based up on his Vietnam experience, then we NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT IT, and not just what Kerry tells you. He has already waffled on three long standing claims; Christmas in Cambodia, his 1st Purple Heart, and his accusations of 'atrocities'. Average citizens such as myself are very curious about what else he has lied about, a seasoned reporter such as yourself should be ferreting out his complete records and researching the SwiftBoat claims exhaustively and fairly. While you're at it, how about getting Theresa Heinz Kerry's financial statements and highlighting her affiliations with multiple 527 groups? How much of MoveOn's and others millions of dollars in Bush slanders came from Theresa? In this way your biased assertions about Bush's connections to the SwiftBoaters might have more balance, and therefore more impact.

If you care to have any reputation for journalistic integrity at all I suggest you resign at CNN and join a growing network like Fox - CNN is a lost cause. If you choose to stay at CNN, I recommend that you not toe the corporate 'liberal line'. It's clearly not in your best interest as a reporter - will you sacrifice your entire career to stay in Ted Turner's good graces? If he fires you, I'm sure Fox would love to have you. That'd a make a good story, and you'd be a hero yourself to most Americans.

You report all sides, I'll decide if you don't mind.

Sincerely,

Doug
Harpers Ferry, WV

Kerry Can't Answer the SwiftBoat Vets Charges...

...so he intends to attack the messengers in a crass, crude attempt to side-step his past.

Fox's article lays out the Kerry game plan: find a way to get the Swifties discredited, banned, or otherwise silenced - get the media off this story by any means necessary before his liberal media backers are forced into hearing and telling the truth. Kerry's actions prove that the Swifties are making traction against his candidacy, he's called out all the media favors he can. Only Fox, the Washington Times (who ran a very damaging 3 part story on the Swifties and Kerry), and a few others seem to be immune to his threats. The Washington Post ran an anti-Swifty article that didn't even utilize eye-witnesses to the events, it simply regurgitated Kerry campaign allegations and information. The Post reporter refused to speak to anyone in the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth, including any of over 60 Vets who have first-hand knowledge of the events.

At least Fox mentions this, and ran an uncontested (by Kerry's campaign) interview with John O'Neill. O'Neill very efficiently/convincingly answered all the latest Democratic smear/distraction tactics. Unfortunately for Kerry, this man just exudes integrity and honesty - he is instinctively believable, as opposed to Kerry and all his anti-Swifty operatives. Watching O'Neill with John Hurley (Vietnam Verterans Against the War) was hugely entertaining, Hurley was way out of his league. I personally think O'Neill is in fact telling the truth and is motivated by honor, justice, and deeply felt concern for the future of America. Fox also links to a story in which Bob Dole blasts Kerry for his Vietnam lies and his anti-war betrayals:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129729,00.html

It's pretty funny that Kerry's campaign didn't join O'Neill on the Hannity and Colmes interview, but not surprising. Kerry keeps pressuring his liberal media operatives to get this story ignored and discredited because nobody believes anything his campaign has to say about his Vietnam record. So he has to have his media allies at the Washington Post and NY Times take over. Their stories on this controversy over the weekend, as I mentioned above, are travesties of journalistic integrity, which is par for the course these days at those papers, and many others.

To me, that means the Swifties have convincingly won round 1.

The bell for the next round has rung with the release of the Swifties new ad: www.swiftvets.com.

The Swifties now move into the area that is even more dear to my heart than Kerry's fraud of a combat tour: What Hanoi John did after his tour. Kerry's 'war criminals' accusations (which by association included my own father), his meeting with NVA leadership - twice - while still a Navy officer, his involvement in a plot to kill 6 US Senators, his willing complicity in NVA propaganda and psy-operations, his despicable medal-tossing/didn't toss/tossed ribbons fiasco, and worst of all the fact that he and all the other anti-war protesting crowd were wrong: The US was RIGHT to protect S. Vietnam - after the Americans left hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions died at the hands of Hanoi John's socialist N. Vietnamese brothers. Nobody will ever know how many for sure; you can bet Dan Rather certainly isn't interested in finding out.

And after that, Bush can talk about Kerry's disgrace of a Senate career - anti-military, anti-intelligence all the way. Possibly at the same time, Bush and his boys/girls need to highlight Kerry's bona-fide contributions to the 9/11 tragedy. In my mind, Kerry's position on the Senate Intelligence Committee leaves him in prime responsibility territory for the intelligence lapses that led to 9/11. In their oversight role the SIC should have seen this coming; they should have seen that the CIA and FBI were becoming seriously risk-averse due to political correctness concerns.

Kerry and the SIC should have ordered SERIOUS investigations into the Islamic terrorist entities on our soil as far back as 1985 instead of hiding behind the Reno/Gorelick 'terrorists as criminals' idiocy and politically correct (but incredibly short-sighted and naive) 'tolerance for Muslim fundamentalist instititutions' foolishness. Kerry and the modern Democrat's belief in 'moral equivalency' was a huge factor in our 9/11 intelligence holes and for once I would like to seem them held accountable for it, especially in the media. The media is so discredited in mainstream America, this would go a long way to put them on the path to respectability again. I know, I know - dream on - but I can't help it sometimes.

Where is the national media outcry with regard to the fact the Kerry missed 85% of all SIC meetings, even after 9/11? Why does the media bury that story in an attempt to help elect a man who contributed to the loss of 3000 of our American brothers and sisters?

Shame on the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, and all who blindly pledge allegiance to liberal democratic ideals at their customer's extreme expense: their lives.

These institutions are a hair's breadth from becoming the mouthpieces of terrorists, and in the case of CNN, already over the edge. CNN reporting in Iraq pre-war is a clear case of lying to their readers - serving as Saddam's American-based propaganda service - in order to protect their 'access'. CNN is still doing this kind of disservice to Americans all over the world, in Cuba, N. Vietnam, and China to name a few places. To CNN, getting the scoop on their competition is more important than the truth.

I personally boycott CNN and I suggest everyone else do the same. Further, I only read the NY Times, LA Times, and Washington Post in order to get an idea of what America's home-grown enemies are doing...no sense looking for 'all the news fit to print'.

Adios MF,

Doug

PS: Sorry about the delay in posts since last week. Found two new bands to practice with, not much time after work anymore.

Somebody PLEASE Fire Asa Hutchinson

This articles in the Washington Times says it clearly: Asa Hutchinson is not concerned with stopping the suicidal security holes in our borders, the incredible drain on our healthcare and governmental services, and economic pain that illegal immigrants inflict by taking jobs that legal Americans could use. His priority is 'sensitivity':

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040817-011448-1322r.htm

Mr. Hutchinson might be wise to take stock of this country in 2004: After 9/11 we are no longer content in this country to pay only lip service to border security. Americans in this country, including and maybe even especially legal immigrants, don't give a hoot about sensitivity when it comes to our safety. The only folks that care about being nice to criminals, and illegal aliens ARE in fact criminals Mr. Hutchinson, are the Democrats/Republicans who want their votes. Now if ol' Asa is shilling for the Democrats, he ought to say so and resign. Otherwise he ought to be following the law of this country and adhering to the will of the American people with the appropriate gusto required in today's world where average Americans are now targets in our own communities.

George Bush hasn't shown any real leadership in this area either. His plan for 'job matching' is a poorly disguised 'amnesty' program for illegal aliens and clear pandering for the Hispanic vote. I plan on voting for George this fall for other reasons, but this is almost grounds for me to stay home on election day. If anyone but Kerry was my other choice, I'd take the day off and say the heck with it.

But a Kerry administration is too much to risk, this man lies more than any politician I've ever seen, except maybe Clinton. Besides, I will never forgive, much less vote for, a man who called my father a murderer and rapist for his Vietnam service. I don't care how long ago that was, Kerry must pay for his opportunistic and self-serving betrayal of our country, the soldiers, and the American people. The idea that Kerry would in fact not apologize and instead run on the tissue of lies called his 'war record' is despicable. The fact that Kerry hasn't yet been called on his betrayal is a clear indictment of mainstream media; the media enjoys their self-described role as 'agents of change', as opposed to responsible citizen 'reporters of news', too much to ever highlight any of their egregious errors of judgment, such as Vietnam.

But I digress. Illegal immigrants are in some estimations costing Americans an average of $200 in taxes a year, some estimates are as high as $500 per year. Democrats (especially) and Republicans might consider that locking our border to illegals would ultimately eliminate our budget deficit almost in and of itself, and the tax savings would certainly be appreciated by Americans if (for once) the 'crats would give us back our money when, once in a blue moon, the government actually saves us money.

Adios MF,

Doug

McGreevey's Strategy: I'll 'come out' and they won't notice my criminality.

What classic Dem. party maneuvering! Ahh, takes me back to the Kennedy years, and of course the epitome of wild, self-involved exercises of power, the 8-year Clinton debacle. McGreevey is going to attempt to garner sympathy in advance of the coming REAL reasons why he's leaving. Nobody cares, especially in New Jersey, if he's gay or had an affair, even a homosexual affair. Standard liberal tactics; play the victim, trash the accuser, obscure the facts. In Army terms, McGreevey is 'preparing the battlefield' for the coming revelations.

Both Fox News and the NY Times hint that there are much bigger things coming about this scandal. I hear that there are extortion allegations, a sexual harrassment suit that contains some very 'newsworthy' details, much more patronage, and possibly national security concerns. I think McGreevey's coming out now to negate the extortion demands.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128836,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/nyregion/13identity.html?hp

From their article, the NY Times is already on board with the McGreevey 'I'm a victim' strategy, no surprise there. Watch for future articles of sympathy. But on the other hand the writer, James Barron, seems to be very circumspect about supporting McGreevey. It's very possible that his sources are giving him some rumors that have warned him off the sympathetic angle. For the NY Times to be unsympathetic in a story like this there must be something truly awful in it somewhere.

As for Fox, I'm starting to wonder if they suddenly have decided to take a large step to the left in their coverage of the news. The wussy Swift Boat story coverage, the careful McGreevey story, and I've noticed a lot more of Kerry's campaign sound bites on Fox News Channel lately, much more than George Bush's. I wonder what made them think, if they do, that they were too far 'right'? Are they starting to believe the NY Times/Washington Post/LA Times/CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC strategy of claiming liberalism is mainstream?

Moderates and conservatives stick by their principles even though it often costs them in terms of opportunties, public perception, and personal attacks. That has always been my attraction to Fox News, they were the most balanced coverage available and they stood their ground, not caring what folks thought or said about them. They were not as far right as the Washington Times, but well right of the liberal Washington Post. Times seems to be a-changin', now I'll have to be a bit more selective in viewing habits.

The other interesting angle of this story is its possible impact on the Kerry campaign. The Republican backlash in NJ might be enough to give the state to Bush in the election - a very welcome and unexpected bonus for him. McGreevey is very cynically insisting on staying for another 2 months, long enough that NJ doesn't have to have a special election that would further enable the Republicans in the state to take power. Personally, unless there is a true 'bomb' in the details of McGreevey's resignation, I don't think it will be enough - Kerry's hold on the media is too strong. The majority of the media will downplay this enough to minimize the negative impact on the Kerry's chances.

But one can always hope!

Adios MF,

Doug

Please sue the Swift Vets Kerry!

Fantastic article by Thomas Lipscomb on The American Spectator today. I sent two emails like this to Fox News demanding that they quit downplaying this story and cover it in a 'fair and balanced' way. No replies yet.

Mr. Lipscomb's article is spot on:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6969

I would love to see the Kerry sue, lose, and then get counter-sued. I guarrantee that Kerry won't sue however, the truth must be kept secret. He can't let anyone know that his entire career was built on lies and deceit.

Good luck Swift Vets! Keep up the good work, the wall is cracking!!!

Adios MF,

Doug

Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly about Swift Boat Veterans

Fox News is downplaying the Swift Boat Veterans story about John Kerry's Vietnam experience, I think out of a concern that Kerry won't appear on the network if they hammer him on this issue - a financial decision in my view. However, it could be that they want to entice him on and THEN will hammer him on this stuff. Better for them that way, but bad for their viewers who should be treated to constant questions of the Kerry campaign from Fox about this story.

Hi Bill,

I read your talking points memo online today, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128812,00.html, and am a little astounded by your callous disregard for the feelings of Vietnam Vets and your minimizing a very clear window into John Kerry's character. I'm "amazed" that you don't see that Kerry's attempted portrayal of himself as a war hero now, despite the compelling evidence presented by the Swift Boat veterans that he is lying about his service, is a very clear and damning reflection on Kerry's honesty and integrity.

Most Americans will NOT vote for a person they do not trust or respect. I (and probably the Swift Boat veterans themselves) would have been willing to let the Vietnam issue lie with regard to Kerry if he hadn't attempted a clearly cynical and low political trick to run on his war experience now after condemning it along with every soldier who ever served in Vietnam back in 1971, and as recently as 1993. Kerry's attempt to run away from his record at the expense of the truth, and to ascend to the highest office in the land on the backs of the soldiers, sailors, and marines that he betrayed is despicable no matter how long ago the betrayal occured. This is the second time he is using the men he betrayed in this fashion; maybe Massachusetts voters didn't care about Vietnam Vets in 1971, but most Americans always have and still do, even more so today as this traitor is running for President and Commander in Chief. You (and Fox) should report the truth, that most of America's military and much of America feels this way.

Obviously, his plans for Iraq/foreign policy, the economy, the budget, taxes, etc. are very important as well. Kerry doesn't have a clue in these areas either, but even if he did I will NEVER vote for a man who weaseled his way out of danger only to then accuse 2 million Americans (including my father, a career Army officer and 3-tour Vietnam Veteran) of being murderers, rapists, and sadists. I vote for integrity, honesty, and realistic pragmatism, in that order, and Kerry does not belong on the same stage as George Bush in any of those areas.

Kerry made his Vietnam service an issue and therefore you and Fox should not be minimizing that issue. I've long been convinced of Kerry's low character due to his 1971 betrayal of Vietnam Vets and his 20 years as a liberal in congress, the Swift Boat veterans have only added depth to my disgust for the junior Senator from Massachusetts. But there are many, especially younger Americans who may be fooled by Kerry's "I'm a War Hero" campaign strategy and need to be educated. They will need to make an informed choice on who will protect them better from terrorism - a man who cuts, runs, and lies, or a man who will do the right thing no matter how hard or personally costly.

How fair and balanced is it that you and Fox News are not aggressively investigating and following up on the Swift Boat story, in prime time, and daily? You have joined the liberal media in your treatment of this story, and I'd like to know why. Should this continue I will have to find a media outlet that will remain 'fair and balanced'.

Regards,

Doug Hillgren
Harpers Ferry, WV

End of letter.

Probably won't do any good, but I have a feeling from reading the Swift Boat forum that a LOT of folks are sending Bill letters like this.

Adios MF,

Doug

Hoist on their own petard, Dems play dirty

Full disclosure: I'm not religious except that I believe in the positive moral guidance to children and help to the needy some churches provide. I don't agree with them on any presumption of being the judge of my soul or knowing the true nature of any higher power. I strongly believe in the separation of church and state (with state firmly on top). But I also believe that ALL individuals have the right to their opinions and the right to express them as long as doing so is within the law and fair. If I attend a church service I also would expect to be clearly reminded that I am listening to personal views with regard to specific candidates or parties, and church doctrinal views with regard to principles and standards for 'being a member in good standing of the church'.

I don't know how many times I've seen Democratic party candidates endorsed from the pulpit, how many times I've heard about 'vote buying' via Democratic-leaning churches; that the Dem party uses the left-leaning religious organizations to campaign for them is not news. Yet the first time a church even endorses conservative values, with no specific mention of a candidate, the liberals/Dems attack and threaten - clearly not fair. This is classic desperation tactics on the part of the Dems - they know that if the Republicans use the same tactics on them they'll never win another election on liberal platforms. This article outlines the latest liberal attacks:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040809-123149-7630r.htm

Also, I've seen Dems utilize supposedly non-partisan colleges and universities (also tax exempt) for political speeches, as have Republicans. What's the difference, tax-wise, between churches and schools? Who ever said that priests/pastors/teachers/students cannot speak their minds with regard to values to be supported in their elected leaders? As long as no names are mentioned by priests/teachers while in their positions of authority, I see no issue with the law the prohibits tax-exempt organizations from supporting candidates by name - the Dems have been doing it for years, and mentioning candidates by name all along.

Ditto for schools, except that there can be no resistance/impediments to representing conservative and moderate viewpoints (as there currently are in many academic institutions today) in addition to liberal viewpoints. Church attendance is free and voluntary, and congregants have the choice of changing to a church that more accurately reflects their own personal viewpoints if they disagree with their pastor's leanings. I personally don't and won't attend any church, or pay much attention to the political exhortations of religious leaders.

But honestly I don't see the blatant Kerry/Edwards pandering towards religious types as any threat to George Bush. Monsieur Kerry and his Ken doll's attempts are pretty amusing and entertaining, but won't be affective - Kerry/Edwards have the new Dem party moral equivalence that prevents them from understanding folks guided by faith and principle. They both have such a glaring misunderstanding that their overtures look clumsy, condescending, patronizing, and even hilariously insincere.

The Democratic party is out of touch with most folks in this country, and that's bad, but it's scary that Dems refuse to understand religious and conservative types, and that at least 50% of this country is against large parts of the current Democratic platform, especially the social issues, in a very firm way. Many in the liberal community actually make connections between conservative Christians and Islamic fascism - these kinds of people are being produced in mass quantities in today's colleges and universities. Today's schools teach that pride in your country, in its leaders and past accomplishments, in traditional values like honor, freedom, and yes, economic/materiel success are suspect and conceal oppressive motives. The wonderful effect of Karl Marx, Mao, and Lenin on education in this country and the world - con men taking in the dreamers and losers of academia who then feel validated in their mediocrity and pass along that formula to our children.

Not mine - my kids hear all sides and learn what honor and integrity are: everything.

Adios MF,

Doug

Racial profiling or stupidity, take your pick.

Today's UPI article by Michael Kirkland (linked to on the Washington Times' website) essentially supports profiling over 'going fishing for terrorists in the general population':

http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040806-120502-4513r.htm

Very unusual to see someone at UPI finally realizing the obvious and suggesting that the FBI and Homeland Security don't really have much choice. Good of Michael to suggest that we stop the terrorists before they kill us. Kirkland also writes that the ACLU is up to their usual anti-establishment, anti-American tricks. They admit that current law allows for racial profiling in the interest of national security, but in the next breath they say it "violates our most fundamental freedoms" and is "unproductive". The first is a stretch, the second is a lie. So the ACLU would prefer that we don't use critical and necessary tools in our national security defense.

There is no fundamental freedom from racial profiling enshrined in our constitution. The objections about racial profiling come from ethnic groups as a general rule. Should white males be profiled (such as in the DC Sniper case), no objections are raised, including from me. Whatever it takes to catch killers. I can handle a little inconvenience with equanimity, unfortunately unlike many of my ethnic brethren. As for 'unproductive', that is absolute bull. Profiling has led to arrests in thousands of criminal cases, and in fact profilers are highly trained and paid specialists in law enforcement.

Obviously, racial profiling can be abused, just like any other law enforcement technique, and in fact just like 'protecting civil liberties' is often a club to force minority opinions on the majority. Existing discrimination laws make abuse of profiling a crime, unfortunately there is no legal recourse for unfair civil liberties litigation. To me, that is a law worth writing.

The bottom line is that profiling solves crimes, sometimes very quickly, sometimes preventing them altogether. In these days of terrorism, if an attack can be prevented by profiling every middle-eastern-appearing male in the country, Homeland Security MUST do so.

In addition, in the article Mr. Kirkland refers to CAIR who have defended the two men who were recently caught trying to broker a shoulder-fired rocket to an undercover FBI agent, posing as a terrorist. No profiling was used in this case. CAIR has long been associated with Islamic terrorist groups, and always calls for an end to profiling, and for Americans not to associate Islam with violent, murderous, torturing Islamo-facists. CAIR is the terrorist apologizer, a number of their members have been arrested for terrorist activities, support for terrorists, and encitement to terrorism. CAIR is the Sein Finn (political face of the IRA) of Islamic theocratic tyranny and terrorism.

When CAIR holds a conference to officially repudiate in front of the world and remove from the Quran all references to violence, oppression, discrimination, hate, and barbarism, then maybe I'll change my opinion about them. When moderate Muslims are silent on these issues the world assumes that ALL Muslims are fanatics, violent, and barbarous. Until the day that Muslims stand up and moderate their religion, banning for all time the ideology of the fundamentalists, there is NO excuse for stopping racial profiling of Arab men and women. Better a temporary inconvenience to Arab-looking folks then to let one death occur out of political correctness.

Damn the ACLU, they are mostly all failed socialist/communists anyway. It's been a long time since the ACLU gave a crap about the civil liberties of the majority of Americans, they only care about making sure Christianity and white males are repressed. Isn't it one of the most fundamental 'civil liberties' to be able to belong to the religion of your choice without fear of reprisals, discrimination, etc?

The most extreme forms of Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Hinduism, etc. are all protected, but the 'turn the other cheek' Christian religions are obviously too dangerous to permit to survive. I'm not religious, but I'm very sick of the vicious attacks on Christians and conservative ideals by so called 'progressives'. What these people really are, as I said earlier, are socialists and communists. They used to call Stalin's and Hitler's minions progressives too (mostly because they wanted to avoid the negatives associated with Stalin - communists, and Hitler - socialists), and the methods are eerily similar.

Adios MF,

Doug

Kerry's Foreign Policy - UN Flunkies and Euro-Slaves

Excellent editorial in the Washington Times about Kerry's 'UN/Allies' drivel:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040803-082039-9832r.htm

I couldn't have said it better myself. The Kerry approach to foreign policy is in effect saying to the EU and UN: "We'll bend over, you drive." This is the approach that gave us Oil for Food, post-war Iraqi insurgents, no Iran progress, Milosevic still free in Bosnia, thousands being ethnically cleansed in Sudan, and more.

I laughed my ass off with the caller on Don Imus's radio show that suggested a new slogan for Kerry/Edwards's foreign policy: ACCEPT OUR SURRENDER OR WE'LL SUE! Not only hilarious, but very pointed and pithy as O'Reilly would say.

Bush's foreign policy, while more difficult and expensive to implement, at least provides the opportunity for success and tells the rest of the world: Even though the UN, EU, and many American liberals say different, the US can 'slip the leash' anytime we like. It is a much better approach to keep our enemies uncertain, rather than invite them into our policy planning by deferring to the UN and the EU.

Kerry and his ilk are idiots. Left wing 'intellectuals' my ass - I think if Kerry ever had to pay his own bills he'd be conservative/moderate, like most responsible adults.

"Those who are not liberal when they are young have no heart, those who are not conservative when they are old have no sense." - Winston Churchill.

Time to grow up John.

Adios MF,

Doug

Laura Bush, Bush Twins are True Americans

Very interesting to note how the media covered Laura Bush and her daughters' visit to the NYSE on Monday after the terror alert was elevated. The Washington Post didn't even mention it, the NY and LA Times had one line mentions, "First lady Laura Bush had visited the building Monday." - NY Times.

What a brave thing to do, noticed I didn't see Te-ray-za anywhere near these sites. But I read on the American Spectator that the Kerry campaign doesn't want to let the S. African gold-digger out of their control. What Kerry calls 'out-spoken' most folks will call elitest, snobby, 'better than you' rich-talk. Mrs. Heinz (not really Heinz Kerry, according to Te-ray-za) is a former beneficiary of Apartheid, and from my perspective clearly longs for the 'good old days'.

I'm pretty dissappointed that even my favorite news sites, Fox and Washington Times didn't give this the coverage it deserved. Think I'll send them a letter...

Adios MF,

Doug

Manchurian Candidate, Liberal-Style

Good article on The American Spectator website about the remake of The Manchurian Candidate:

The American Spectator

This was a fabulous movie, and very timely back in the early sixties when it first came out. I didn't see the movie until it was re-released in the 80s, but even then it was very interesting and scary. The original movie had statements to make about the dangers of communism, and the lack of basic humanity that shaped this failed ideology.

The newest movie is a shameful, slanted, ridiculous remake perpetrated by the same Hollywood liberals that brought you The Day After Tomorrow, Canadian Bacon, and Farenheit 9/11. Apparently, the dangers of communism and socialism strike too close to home for current H-wood elites. According to them, an insidious vast right-wing conspiracy is a bigger danger - obviously the Repulicans are standing in the way of creating the Peoples Republic of the United States. Thank goodness.

I'm also still very pissed about "The Sum of All Fears" movie with Ben Afleck. Tom Clancy: How could you sit by and let them butcher one of your best novels like that? Rather than point the finger at the real terrorists in the middle east who are trying to kill us, Hollywood prefers to be politically correct and talk about neo-Nazis. Rather than reproduce Clancy's middle-east situation/solution and therefore the driving force for the Palestinian terrorists who nuke Denver, Hollywood prefers in the movie to cast 1930s-style Nazi fascism as the danger from which we should guard ourselves. Clancy's premise in the book makes the Isrealies and Americans the heroes, NO WAY Hollywood can stand doing that.

Hollywood annoys me more every day, their arrogance and presumption are staggering. Not just the college dropouts like Martin Sheen who try to instruct Harvard and Yale grads in the current administration in geo-politics and government. Not just the feather-heads like Sean Penn, Sarandon, Afleck, Garofalo, Goldberg, and Tim Robbins that wouldn't know what it's like to be oppressed and marginalized by religious fascism, but of course don't feel restrained from speaking out against those who would free the oppressed. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but it's not fair that truly gifted and fair minds of the conservative, or even moderate persuasion don't get the green light to speak their minds in entertainment industry. Free speech is only for those 'enlightened' enough to be liberals, socialists, or communists.

The American people are finally seeing through the liberal bias of Hollywood and the media, and responding with their wallets. Liberal propaganda disguised as movies are becomming huge money losers, and rightly so.

BOYCOTT MOORE-ON'S PROPAGANDA!!!

Adios MF,

Doug