Thursday, November 04, 2004


The purple-faced partisans are hopefully beginning to morph back to looking normal. Ideology aside, the American people won during this election. The cordial telephone exchange between the President and John Kerry, and Bush and Kerry’s rallying speeches directed to all Americans, should serve to make people proud to be an American and proud of the process.

It seems that in the end, the rhetoric-makers and dirty tricksters, all part of partisan politics, lost, and democracy won. Of course, that’s easy to say, since our guy came out ahead.

And, it wasn’t just at home that the rhetoric was turned up. The rallying cry heard round the world was ‘defeat George Bush.’ Yet, an overwhelming majority of Americans, the largest in U.S. history, voted him back into office.

John Kerry, in his concession speech, said, “In an American election there are no losers because we always wake up in America.” And, the President said, “We have one country, one constitution, and one future that binds us.”

We are Americans first and Democrats, Republicans, and Independents second, or maybe fifth, or tenth, if you consider spouse, parent, sibling, employee, etc. How far down the list is our partisanship, really? It defines such a small part of who we are. We are Americans—first and foremost. Evidence— 9/ll.

Did John Kerry lose? He may have lost the election, technically, but many of the issues his supporters believed in and fought for are well noted, no doubt. But, clearly, Kerry was disconnected from the heartland. When you saw the sea of red covering the U.S. map, it was hard to believe the President could lose. Then, it all came down to one state, Ohio. The pulse of the heartland, where the majority of consumer products are tested, I suppose, because Ohioans are typically so, well…….American.

The pollsters were pretty dead-right on Ohio being THE swing state. But, what about those exit polls? Examine them, beat them to death, sue them, examine them, heck, do whatever you want with them. The fact is……. polls aren’t an exact science. It didn’t take a pollster to tell me Bush was going to win West Virginia. Every car positioned in front of me at a stop light had a Bush sticker!

Then, two days before the election, we were told West Virginia was deadlocked. Still there was no sign of people ripping signs off their cars or tearing them out of their yards. Outcome—West Virginia chose the President by 13 percentage points, ahead of Virginia, even! And, this, in a 3 to 1 Democratic state.

Although pollsters aren’t exactly on people’s “most trusted” list, they probably go with politics like peanut butter goes with say, bananas. Still, even though the exit polls were totally skewed, and the liberal bloggers jumped the gun on them, they have value in an election.

I suppose if the American people were the winners in this election, the media were the losers. To say the mainstream media has lost credibility with many Americans is an understatement. Their biased reporting was shameless, with some reckless and a few ridiculous antics from the likes of personalities like Dan Rather and Katie Couric, among others.

Granted, Dan and Katie are two of the more visible talking heads, but there are a plethora of irresponsible media to choose from—the networks, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and, unfortunately, West Virginia's tiny Charleston Gazette.

Have they forgotten about responsible journalism? Maybe they should take an oath like physicians, “to do no harm.” Despite the Charleston Gazettes’s best effort, West Virginia still went for Bush. But, there were days when it was painful to read the paper. Make that, painful to throw the paper in the trash. And, in a small state, the state’s largest newspaper can have a serious impact. There would be days when there was nothing but gut-wrenching liberal editorials and op-ed pieces.

I hold up the Gazette only because it is my hometown source of frustration. But, this happened in newspapers and on television stations across the country. It should be a national outrage. Not just because it’s liberal, but because these so-called journalists are stealing people’s opportunities to form opinions based on factual data.

I realize editorials open a Pandora’s Box of opportunity for papers to spew their particular brand of vile partisanship. But they could certainly throw in an opposing op-ed piece more than once in a blue moon.

Webster defines journalism as “the collection and editing of material of current interest for presentation through news media.” The problem starts when media pick and choose the “collection and editing of material” based on personal perspective. When the vast majority of journalists are liberal and they are the ones doing the picking and choosing regarding what the rest of us see and hear, how fair can it be? It isn’t fair and it isn’t honest. Somehow, we have to hold their feet to the fire—on blog sites, in letters to the editor, and any alternative means we can find.

Had we listened to the media, no doubt, John Kerry would be the next president. And, while that certainly wouldn’t have been a crushing blow for America, (maybe just a gut-kick for die-hard Bush fans) America would have lost. But, America looked away from the media, the entertainment industry, and hundreds, if not thousands of 527 ads, to find its own truth. And, for that reason, coupled with the graciousness of the candidates, America won.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

America Wins!

It’s a great victory and a great day in the neighborhood! Congratulations to both parties for keeping the fuss to a minimum.

Yes, there’s plenty to say, but today let’s just focus on feeling blessed—and bushed! Pun intended. Last night we did what most of you probably did: glued ourselves to the television set!

There will still be plenty to say tomorrow and if you haven’t totally tuned out politics by then, tune in here! Today, let’s just savor a well-deserved victory for our candidate, President George W. Bush!

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

HOW ABOUT ........... FOUR MORE YEARS! Posted by Hello

It's Election Day!

See you at the polls!

Exercise your right to VOTE!

The Osama Tape—An Arabic Interpretation

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, according to their web site, that was founded six years ago to explore the Middle East through the region's media. Its stated goal is to help bridge the language gap between the West and the Middle East.

MEMRI president Yigal Carmon recently wrote an article titled Osama bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States Not to Vote for Bush, published at the group’s web site. He suggests the tape is warning each individual U.S. state not to vote for the President and that bin Laden clearly has some knowledge of the electoral college system.

According to Carmon, “The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words ‘ay wilaya’ (which means ‘each U.S. state’) to mean a ‘country’ or ‘nation’ other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state.” In a section of his speech, bin Laden harshly criticizes the President, stating: “Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.”

“The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant,” Carmon says. "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy.” In this way, Carmon reasons, Osama is saying he will not treat all Americans the same.

Carmon believes Osama is trying to “drive a wedge” between the American people in order to weaken their resolve. He suggests the fanatical Muslim is offering a “deal” to the American voter: Vote against the President and he’ll leave you alone, but vote for him and he’ll come after you.

How do you reason with someone who adheres to this type of thinking? Are there American’s who could possibly believe this mad sheik—a man responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide?

Remember bin Laden’s promise not to bomb Spain again after effecting a party change in that country and after Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq? Then, recently, seven suspected Islamic militants were arrested for planning a bomb attack on Spain’s High Court!

It’s inconceivable that people could believe the words of a terrorist. It’s equally incomprehensible that any person would vote against the President knowing the terrorists are campaigning for his opponent. Really, isn’t that what Osama is doing? He is essentially saying, “Vote for Kerry and I’ll leave you alone. Vote for Bush and we’ll attack.”

Add to that one more inconceivable notion—that we haven’t heard about this interpretation in the mainstream media! Yes, Osama, we hear you in spite of the effort to drown out your threatening words by our media. But, know one thing: We’re not as naïve as the Spaniards and we don’t believe for one second you’ll ever leave us alone until you’re destroyed.

This Arabic interpretation of the bin Laden tape clearly shows President Bush has terrorists on the run.

Run fast, bin Laden, and run hard. ‘Cause America is at every turn and we’ll eventually get you!

To see the complete text of this article and Osama’s speech go to:

Also see Aging Divas articles:

Whose Election is This, Anyway? and
A Message to Osama

Sunday, October 31, 2004


“After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: ‘We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?’

Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this day he would know: our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.

We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with His purpose. Yet His purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.

Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today, to make our country more just and generous, to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.”

President Bush, in his inaugural address on January 20, 2001.

It is doubtful President Bush had any idea when he spoke these words what a defining statement of truth they would become. The words “we are not this story’s author” came to pass on September 11, 2001, when 19 men took control of four commercial airplanes, killing thousands of innocent people in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC.

The brave men and women of our military have proudly shown, “our duty is fulfilled in service to one another” by their dedication and commitment to punish those who attacked us, and by helping to bring freedom and democracy to the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq.

They, along with President Bush and his Administration, have worked “never tiring, never yielding, never finishing” to “affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.” “This work continues” and “the story goes on,” but only if the person leading this effort has the resolve to see it through.

The choice between truth or consequences will be made when you cast your vote for either President George W. Bush or Senator John Kerry on November 2.

A little over three weeks ago, the Aging Divas for Bush began voicing our opinions and presenting the facts regarding the upcoming presidential election. Our purpose was to convey why we felt President Bush should be returned to the White House for another four years.

We have posted information about domestic issues, including health care, stem cell research, the economy, outsourcing, and the flu vaccine, and how these issues were slanted by the media in an attempt to discredit the president.

We have shown the importance of the U. S. Supreme Court and how the next president will direct this country’s future by making these appointments.

On the international front, we have discussed the corruption of the Oil for Food Program and the continuing threat of global terrorism. We have reported on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the reconstruction effort, security issues, the election in Afghanistan, and the upcoming election in Iraq.

In addition, we touched on the presidential debates, military survey results, election polls, the negative effects of the liberal media, and John Kerry’s military record, both during and after his return from Vietnam.

Countless hours of research and writing went into the preparation of these articles, and at times the two Divas got a bit testy, as could be expected with such an undertaking! However, having studied the facts, we are even more persuaded that President Bush must be re-elected.

In a final effort to state our position, let’s re-examine the two candidates.

John Kerry has run a campaign with no defined plan (although he maintains he has several) for the domestic and foreign issues facing America. He had the opportunity to outline his plans during the debates and in campaign speeches and interviews, (although he was rarely interviewed by heavyweights, unless Dr. Phil qualifies) but skirted the opportunity.

He has made promises, promises, promises: If elected, all Americans will have health insurance equal to the U.S. congress; he will bring all America’s allies to the table, (including France, Russia, and China?) people will rise from their wheelchairs and walk, he will cut the deficit in half in four years, increase the number of active duty military, hunt down and capture all America’s enemies, make tax cuts, revamp tort reform and “fix” the Kyoto treaty, to name a few.

Not bad for a guy with a record of raising taxes and cutting the military, who the military aren’t supporting, and who has a plaintiff’s attorney on the ticket to boot!

Many Democratic party leaders are supporting President Bush, including Senator Zell Miller (D), Georgia; Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City; Brian Golden (D), Massachusetts state representative; and Carl Officer, four-term mayor of East St. Louis, to name a few.

Vietnam became a critical part of Kerry’s campaign as he saluted during the opening part of his speech at the Democratic convention and said, “I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty.” This salute signaled the beginning of the controversy regarding his questionable activities, both during and after the Vietnam War.

We’ve discussed his possible ties to Communists leaders while the war in Vietnam raged and while POW’s were being tortured, and his failure to release all his service records by signing form SF180. The possible implication of the latter? Kerry has something to hide.

His record as a member of the U.S. Senate for the past 20 years is also at issue. Who has done less in terms of record and attendance? Can we only hope his record as president would shine brighter and not be equally devoid of major accomplishment?

His promise to bring “allies” into the fold and the promise of a “global test” are unimaginable. The profile we did outlining the corruption of France, Russia, China, and others, as well as U.N. officials themselves, in the Oil For Food program, clearly shows our supposed allies were working against us. Russia reportedly assisted Saddam Hussein’s regime in transporting weapons out of the country, prior to the U.S. military efforts in March 2003. And, Germany has emphatically stated it will not assist in the war in Iraq.

America and the world are clearly conflicted. Is John Kerry, the person we want to lead our country at such a critical time in history? This undistinguished promise-maker with no Senate record who thinks we need a “global test” to secure America? We think not.

On the other side ………….

President Bush has led this country with determination, conviction, and compassion throughout his presidency. He made a promise to the American people and to the terrorists as he stood amid the rubble at Ground Zero: "I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" And they have heard.

President Bush has developed a rapport with the military and he has their overwhelming support, evidenced by the surveys conducted by The Military Times and the National Annenberg Election Survey.

Despite the fact the economy was entering a recession when the President took office and the setback of 9/11, recovery has been steady. There are record high levels of working Americans, low unemployment rates, rising real earnings, and a continued growth of the GDP.

In Afghanistan, three-quarters of the known principals of Al Qaeda have been killed or captured and on October 9, millions exercised their right to vote for the first time in their life.

In Iraq, the regime of Saddam Hussein has been toppled, his son’s have been killed, and he sits in a jail cell. The people of Iraq, after witnessing millions of their countrymen killed by Saddam’s cruel regime, are on their way to an established democracy with elections scheduled in January 2005. Reconstruction efforts have begun. Schools, hospitals, and roads are being built, and other parts of their infrastructure are on the way to recovery.

President Bush is strong on health care issues, being the first president to allow federal funding of stem cell research, and the first to create a prescription drug program for seniors under Medicare.

His strength regarding education is equally distinguished. His submittal of education reform in the No Child Left Behind program, only three days after taking office, resulted in a bipartisan victory in less than a year.

Is anyone still on the fence? The Aging Divas for Bush believe this candid comparison makes the selection simple.

President Bush has a strong record. John Kerry does not.

One statement from President Bush’s inaugural address which bears repeating is, “And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.” Perhaps it is a stretch to say President Bush is that angel, but there is no question, in our minds at least, the hand of God rests on his shoulder.


The Aging Divas still have more to say. Check out both posts from Sunday morning -

Whose Election Is This, Anyway?


Supreme Court On High


“American elections and Iraq are linked together,” resistance leader Abu Jalal told an Iraqi reporter. He said, “We’ve got to work to change the election, and we’ve done so. With our strikes, we’ve dragged Bush into the mud.”

Abu Jalal went on to say, “They say there are 1,100 dead soldiers. That means 1,100 families hold grudges against Bush and hate him. There are 6,000 families whose sons were injured who hate Bush and will not re-elect him.”

Mohammed Amin Bashar, a leader of a hard-line clerical group that supports the Iraqi resistance, said, “If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge a superman of the American people.”

The British left-wing newspaper, the Guardian, recently encouraged their readers to write to voters in Clark County, Ohio, and to encourage the voters to exercise their vote “to the common good.” An eminent British scientist, Richard Dawkins, did just that. He wrote and asked them not to vote for President Bush by saying, “Don’t be ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn’t vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans traveling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don’t let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden’s dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.”

In March 2004, terrorists killed 191 people in Spain in an effort to change the outcome of the national elections. The Spanish were threatened because they were supporting the Multinational Coalition in Iraq. The people “caved” to the terrorists and voted against the incumbent because they were promised no further attacks would take place if they ousted the current leadership and pulled their troops from Iraq. The new government complied because the Spanish believed the promises of terrorists. Yet, only two weeks ago, seven suspected Islamic militants who were planning a bomb attack on Spain’s High Court were arrested.

In the U.S. this past week, only days away from our presidential election, ABC News acquired a tape, reportedly from al Qaeda, with threats of violence on our country, in an obvious attempt to influence our elections.

Identified on the tape is “Azzam the American.” He said, “No, my fellow countrymen you are guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty. You are as guilty as Bush and Cheney. You’re as guilty as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Powell. After decades of American tyranny and oppression, now it’s your turn to die.” He continued, “People of America, I remind you of the weighty words of our leaders, Osama bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri, that what took place on Sept. 11 was but the opening salvo of the global war on America. And that Allah willing, the magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about Sept. 11.

Then, four days prior to the election, Osama bin Laden reappears and speaks to the American people. He attempts to explain why we were attacked on 9/11, and lets us know that we should expect more of the same. Bin Laden said, “Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands.” He continued, “Each state that doesn’t mess with our security has automatically secured their security.”

There are many things that can influence the outcome of an election. But, before American’s cast their vote for President of the United States based on terrorist threats, or on the advice of people of other countries, we must remember the sacrifices that have been made to ensure our freedom to choose our leaders.

The United States of America gained its independence more than 225 years ago. We have fought wars to keep that independence and we have fought wars to help bring independence to other countries. Independence means self-government, and that means the choice for President of the United States is to be made by Americans.

The people of the United States should stand tall and proud about what has been accomplished by the current Administration in the past four years. After the disaster of 9/11, President Bush sought to bring those responsible to justice. He warned nations that by aiding and abetting terrorists, they were just as guilty. And, he has not backed down.

Much good has come since that fateful day. Afghanistan has held free elections. Saddam’s dictatorship has been toppled and the Iraqis are looking forward to elections in January 2005. The American military is proud of its accomplishments, in spite of the losses and setbacks, and believe that the fight against terrorism is worth the cost.

President Bush made the terrorists a promise as he stood on the rubble at Ground Zero, “"I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" And he kept that promise.

The only right thing to do on November 2, is let him finish the work that he started. This is your election. Don’t let anyone take that away from you.


High school ballgames were special growing up. I remember pre-game, standing room only crowds, band instruments tuning up, and the buzz of people talking and sometimes shouting across the field at the opposing team’s fans.

Then, the announcer came on and people hushed for the pledge of allegiance, followed by the band’s playing of the National Anthem. The final and most stunning quiet followed as a local pastor gave the invocation, usually asking God to bless the crowd, keep the players safe, and the game fair. Afterwards, the fans erupted, the coin was tossed and play began.

The pre-game sent a chill down your spine and offered reassurance. It was a different world, and, many think, a better world.

So, what happened?

As we have grown into a sophisticated people we’ve moved away from those simple, old-fashioned values, where there was a clear definition between right and wrong and good and evil. Where the best feeling came on a cold night at a football game after a prayer’s amen. No, our Legislative and Judicial branches of government have moved us into the 21st century.

What they’ve done, according to them, is what the framers of the Constitution originally intended—to separate church and state. Yet, while the Senate and Congress can pray before their sessions, our children and grandchildren cannot as they begin their school day—or a ballgame. This is only one of many examples showing the far-reaching effects of our Constitution’s reinterpretation by the government’s Judiciary branch.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s recent thyroid cancer diagnosis has brought the Supreme Court Justices to the forefront of the campaign. If you don’t think the appointment of Justices is one of the most important issues of this election you aren’t paying attention. The next president will determine the direction of the Supreme Court, and there likely could be as many as three or four appointees.

“Equal Justice Under Law” as written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building is the ultimate responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court is the final arbiter of the law and functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

There’s little doubt that decisions made in the coming years by the Supreme Court will determine America’s direction. The very heart of our values and beliefs will be put on trial. The court will be dealing with many faith-based issues that raise strong feelings in many: abortion, stem cell research, defining marriage, and religious freedom, to name a few.

Currently, there are nine justices. Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens are in their 80’s. With the exception of Clarence Thomas, 56, the rest are over 65. The President of the United States appoints these men and women for life.

President Bush says he has no “litmus test” for nominees, but, ruled out “activist judges” in the second debate. An activist judge is typically liberal and is prone to redefining or expanding the law.

John Kerry does appear to have a litmus test in one respect, saying he will not name a Justice who would undo Roe v. Wade.

Neither candidate has been forthcoming about who they would appoint, but, from their remarks, it’s clear the president would go with a more conservative choice and Kerry a more liberal one.

What is perhaps not as clear is the importance of future appointments. Consider that although a president may hold office for only four years, if he has the opportunity to appoint like-minded Justices, his philosophy lives on.

Granted, the president doesn’t have the final word. The appointment is subject to Senate confirmation. But, the direction of the country rests largely in the hands of the nine individuals who make up the court.

Our children and grandchildren will be the major recipients of the decisions rendered by these nine people. Certainly, they impact us, but our foundations were built long ago. And, we weren’t bombarded daily with Godless, promiscuous, and violent images as children. Our idols had cleavage, but usually wore clothes. Virtuous images were more prominent than outrageous ones, and we were grounded, praying daily and saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

The media and others point to the president’s base as being evangelical Christians. You don’t have to be evangelical to disapprove of Godless policies and Monica Lewinskiesque episodes pervading our government. The president is the only choice for anyone who adheres to Biblical principals.

We are at a crossroads. Arguably, half of the people who arrive at the juncture disagree with the other half. All of these people live in a state and, in the final say, each state has a sovereign. They function within the framework of the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land.

Many believe in another Sovereign, that it’s His laws that should reign, as outlined not in the sometimes-changing Constitution, but the never-changing Bible. Many of the Framers would agree. Frankly, even if you don’t believe God is supreme, don’t you sometimes yearn for that tingle after the invocation before the game begins?

Saturday, October 30, 2004

A Message to Osama

He’s back! Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader of al Qaeda, is apparently alive and well, evidenced by the release of a video-tape made available to Al-Jazeera on Friday, which intelligence sources have authenticated.

It’s evident from his remarks that the terrorist leader has confused America with some wimpy European nation. His attempt to interfere with our election was anticipated by many and most Americans aren’t intimidated. America has survived and won several wars, including two world wars. The fanatical Muslim must think he’s dealing with France.

Bin Laden’s remarks are ludicrous. He accuses President Bush of leaving U.S. citizens to fight for themselves during the attacks on 9/11 and says the Twin Towers were attacked because of the towers that fell in Lebanon in 1982.

My opinion—Bin Laden’s transparent attempt to sway voters from Bush and eliminate him from office seems all the more reason to re-elect him.

Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks on the Twin Towers, saying, in one translation, “I want to talk to you about the reason behind these events. And yet I, and I’ll be honest with you, that the moment that we took the decision, let me say to you that God only knows that we never thought about attacking the towers. But after we have had enough, and we saw the American oppression and the coalition with the Israeli against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this idea came to our minds.”

To say the U.S. is somehow responsible for what happened in Lebanon in 1982 is like saying Roosevelt was responsible for the Second World War. It is preposterous. Many people, including the Lebanese, wanted a U.S./U.N. presence in Lebanon.

President Reagan did not dispatch Israel to Lebanon. The Marines he sent to help stabilize the country actually met with resistance from the Israelis. Lebanon was a hot bed at the time, divided into two factions—Christians and Muslims. The Christians predominated until Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) moved in.

Israel’s objective was to eradicate the PLO’s military, political, and economic hold on Lebanon and to facilitate a peace treaty with Christian Lebanon. It was a security issue with the Israelis because of their shared border with Lebanon.

The U.S., along with Italy and France, was there on a peace-keeping mission and to evacuate U.S. citizens. The U.S. was also instrumental in evacuating many PLO members and their families, including Yassar Arafat. After a long diplomatic effort, Lebanon and Israel signed an agreement to end the war. The agreement was contingent upon the withdrawal of Syrian and Palestinian forces, as well. Syrians, comprised mostly of terrorists who occupied around 35 percent of Lebanon, did not comply.

There is no need to tell the whole sordid story here, although we should remember that 241 innocent Marines died from of a terrorist bomb.

Bin Laden’s goal is to divide and conquer. His Al Qaeda terrorist attack in Spain disrupted that country’s elections. He would delight in doing that here. The Madrid bombing killed 200 people and wounded 1,647. The attack came days before the Spanish elections, no doubt propelling the Socialists in their upset victory. The new prime minister, true to his pledge, brought Spain’s 1,300 troops home from Iraq.

But we are not Spaniards. We are Americans. Look at the wars we’ve fought in the past and you’ll note we always fight for freedom.

We have a president with resolve and passion who is working for freedom and peace in the Middle East; Iraq is rebuilding, Afghanistan had free elections, and we have new-found ties with Libya and Pakistan. Saddam Hussein is in custody, found hiding like a gopher in a hole, and bin Laden travels incognito and remains on the run.

In his tape, Bin Laden says, “Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.” The problem Bin, is that we didn’t attack you, remember. We are the victims, here.

We were minding our business on 9/11, content to suck our thumbs and let you blow up everything and everybody you disliked abroad. In fact, that was the problem. All the Americans and Europeans had done prior to that was suck their collective thumbs and glorify people like Michael Moore.

But you made it personal. It rightly should have become personal long ago, but we let it go. We let it go a lot, actually—the bombings of our embassies in Tehran, Kuwait, and Beirut, where 63 people died; the attack on our Air Force base at Rein-Mann where 22 died; the kidnapping of the cruise ship Achilles Laura, where we watched a passenger confined to a wheelchair thrown over the side; the high jacking of TWA Flight 840, where four died, the high jacking of Pan Am Flight 104 that killed 259; the initial World Trade Center bombing in which six were killed; the 241 Marines who were killed in Beirut…..need I go on?

But, you are a simple God-fearing man whose only desire is that we leave you alone. Well, you had your chance. Actually, you had numerous chances. Now, most Americans are willing to fight you and your group of terrorists to the death. Beware, bin Laden. President Bush is here to stay. Working together—our government, our people, and our military, and, through the grace of God, we will be victorious!

For a translation of bin Laden’s speech see:

To read about the war in Lebanon go to: and

Halloween in Cross Lanes, West Virginia Posted by Hello


Follow the sequence of events related to the recent controversy of the “missing” explosives at Al Qaqaa……….

10/25 - The New York Times breaks the story Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq.

Kerry blames President Bush for not securing the Al Qaqaa weapons facility.

The Times story is repeated throughout the day by ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN.

Kerry continues to blame President Bush for not securing the Al Qaqaa weapons facility.

NBC Nightly News reports that the explosives are missing before the U.S. troops arrived in Baghdad.

Kerry continues to blame President Bush for not securing the Al Qaqaa weapons facility.

10/27 - Fox News Channels’ Bret Baier reports, “Senior Pentagon officials say they are analyzing satellite images from the Al Qaqaa facility south of Baghdad from before the war. Apparently, they show some large truck activity at that facility [indicating] possibly that Saddam Hussein was moving the explosives out.”

Kerry continues to blame President Bush for not securing the Al Qaqaa weapons facility.

The Washington Times reports, “Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation.” John Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security stated, “The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units. Their main job was to shred all evidence of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units.”

Shaw says Al Qaqaa was a closely guarded site: “That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible. And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to be gone before we got there.”

In an interview with the London Financial Times, Shaw says, “For nearly nine months my office has been aware of an elaborate scheme set up by Saddam Hussein to finance and disguise his weapons purchases through his international suppliers, principally the French and the Russians. That network included …..employing various Russian units on the eve of the hostilities to orchestrate the collection of munitions and assure their transport out of Iraq via Syria.

Kerry continues to blame President Bush for not securing the Al Qaqaa weapons facility.

ABC News reports that confidential International Atomic Energy Agency documents show that on January 14, 2003, the inspectors reported just over three tons of RDX was stored at the Al Qaqaa facility.

Does this mean the explosives were moved prior to the start of the U.S. operations in Iraq?

Kerry continues to blame President Bush for not securing the Al Qaqaa weapons facility.

10/28 – ABC affiliate KSTP of St. Paul, Minnesota, had a crew imbedded with the 101st Airborne Division at Al Qaqaa on April 18, 2003. After reviewing the crew’s film, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said, “The fact that there’s a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means what’s behind those doors is HMX.” No mention is made in the article about the amounts of material that may have been there.

According to the article, the 101st was not ordered to secure the facility.

President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and General Tommy Franks, who served as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Central Command and led the operations in Iraq, say they have not reached a final conclusion on this issue and will not until all information is in.

Kerry continues to blame President Bush for not securing the Al Qaqaa weapons facility.

10/29 – U.S. Army officer Major Austin Pearson, testifies at a Pentagon briefing saying that a team from the 3rd Infantry Division removed about 250 tons of munitions and military material from the Al Qaqaa after the liberation of Iraq.

The Pentagon spokesman says that while they don’t have all the answers, Major Pearson’s testimony is a significant development.

Over the past several days, Kerry has belittled our Commander in Chief, our military leaders, and our troops on the ground by declaring incompetence. All without any facts.

Perhaps he will challenge the words of Major Pearson?

Is this behavior acceptable for someone seeking the highest office in this country? As president, will he rely on information printed in the New York Times to make decisions that involve the security of this country?

This is another example of John Kerry saying or doing anything to become president. The facts don’t stand in his way. Could this be the reason the hometown paper of Teddy Kennedy, the Cape Cod Times, has endorsed President Bush?

Friday, October 29, 2004


The 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, an organization which describes itself “as Americans who have keenly felt the scourge of terrorism,” have written an open letter to the American people in support of the re-election of President Bush. Although the Bush-Cheney campaign originally refused to use the letter for political purposes, they have finally relented and posted it on their website after repeated requests from the Families.

You can read the open letter at

You can also read the letter from Tim Sumner, Sergeant First Class, US Army (retired), and 9/11 Family member, which is his plea to the Bush-Cheney campaign to publish the letter at

Who, more than these Families, have the right to be heard?


Senator Zell Miller of Georgia is likely the most famous Democrat actively campaigning for President Bush. Remember, he’s the Democrat who created a stir at the Republican National Convention when he gave the Keynote Address. It’s interesting to note why he did that. Miller says he barely recognizes his Democratic party anymore; it’s mastered the art of division and diversion.

Now there’s another Democrat on the block supporting President Bush—state representative Brian Golden of Massachusetts. In an interview with the National Review Online (“NRO”), Golden said, “I’ve watched [John Kerry] in elected office for 22 years and still don’t know what he stands for. That’s not the kind of person I have faith in as commander-in-chief.” When asked why he had gone out of his way to campaign for President Bush, he replied, “I’m doing what I think is best for this country, not any political party.”

When asked about the war in Iraq and the choice between Kerry and President Bush, Golden replied, “I’ve been in the Army for a total of 11 years, including three years on active duty since the 1990’s. I’ve been back on active duty for almost 12 months since 9/11, and I have a brother in Afghanistan for most of this year. It’s clear to me that the role of commander-in-chief is the president’s most important responsibility. Senator Kerry has been incomprehensible on the war. The American people and our troops overseas need a leader with a strong voice and clarity of purpose. We have that in President Bush.”

Golden joined Catholic leaders by signing a letter protesting John Kerry’s interpretation of Catholicism and made the following statement in the NRO interview: “Senator Kerry’s willingness to place political expedience before conscience is disturbing no matter what your faith.”

And, finally, it is interesting to note that when asked, “In a nutshell, what’s the best bipartisan case for George Bush and against John Kerry,” his answer was similar to that of many others who have broken ranks with their political party in support of President Bush.

“After the darkest days, George Bush developed and carried out a plan that has kept the American people safe. Think about it. After 9/11, with the United States’ large porous borders, most people believed the acts of terror would become a sporadic part of life here at home. However, for three years, the president and his team have kept the homeland safe. This is an accomplishment that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents can respect.” That, in a nutshell, sums up Golden’s response and, I believe, most people’s thoughts.

Thursday, October 28, 2004


We’ve said it before, as have others—security is the issue in this campaign. However, time is running out and its time to say it again. Although there are many important issues—health care, social security, taxes, deficits, abortion, and marriage, they have little meaning if the homeland is not secure.

President Bush understands this. John Kerry does not. He proved that in an interview when he said, ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.'' How can one who seeks the most powerful office in the world insult the family and friends of those who lost their lives on 9/11 by implying that terrorism could ever be considered a nuisance?

Implicit in Kerry’s statement is that he in no way understands the danger of terrorism.

Others in this country do understand and they believe the only responsible choice on November 2 is to return George Bush to the White House as president and Commander in Chief.

Some of those who understand are:

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police. On October 26, he commended President Bush’s administration for its commitment to strengthening our security at home and to winning the war on terror. Canterbury further said that John Kerry continues to demonstrate his fundamental misunderstanding of the issue, citing a speech given by Kerry in Green Bay, Wisconsin, in which Kerry described America’s mayors as being “on the front lines of the fight to secure America.” Canterbury says, “To suggest that the war on terrorism here at home will be won by elected city officials rather than our public safety officers is the most troublesome example of his disconnect on the issues of importance to these brave men and women in his campaign for the White House.”

Ed Koch, former Democratic mayor of New York City, says he disagrees with President Bush on nearly all domestic issues, but the “issue of our time” is the war on terrorism. Koch, breaking from his party, says that they (referring to Democrats) do not have the “stomach” to fight this war.

Christopher Hitchens, a former self-professed “leftist” and “socialist”, in an article published in “The Nation” titled Why I’m (Slightly) for Bush, explains why he prefers Bush over Kerry. Hitchens states: “This is a single-issue election and that is a good and necessary thing.” The issue Hitchens refers to is the war on terror. Hitchens is disturbed with the “anybody but Bush” thinking that has pervaded this country. He asks? “Anybody? Including Muqtada al-Sadr?” And, he believes, in some cases people would answer yes. Although Hitchens doesn’t paint President Bush in a completely positive light, he seems impressed that the president has stated to the American people and the world that we are involved in this war and he will not apologize for it. Hitchens obviously agrees.

As we, and others, have stated, the only thing Kerry is consistent about is his changing his position on nearly every issue. This was proven true again this week in response to the New York Times article concerning the “missing explosives.” Kerry has proclaimed again and again that the action taken by President Bush is the “wrong war” and a “grand diversion.”

In responding to the Times article, Kerry said, “George W. Bush, who talks tough, and brags about making America safer has once again failed to deliver…. After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq this president failed to guard those stockpiles……Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings.”

We are now being lectured by Kerry regarding the danger these explosives represent in the wrong hands, explosives that were originally controlled by Saddam Hussein and which would still be controlled by Hussein if not for our intervention. If these, and the several hundred thousand tons of explosives and munitions that U.S. forces have already destroyed, were such a danger, would we have been better off to have left them to Hussein to use as he would?

Go figure.

John Kerry—The Benedict Arnold of 1971?

How entrenched was Kerry with the Vietnamese communists? Recently released documents apparently seized from the Vietnamese during the war “strongly support the contention that a close link existed between the Hanoi regime and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) while John Kerry served as the group’s leading national spokesman,” says Winter Soldier in an extensive article at

Jerome Corsi, a specialist on Vietnam and co-author of the Swift Boat Vets and POW’s for Truth, says the documents, called “Circulars,” show how anti-war groups in the U.S., including Kerry’s VVAW, “worked closely to achieve the Vietnamese communists’ primary objective—the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam,” according to a story in For a complete sequence of events, see the article titled “Discovered Papers: Hanoi Directed Kerry” at

The documents are startling and the story weaves us through the maze of the anti-war effort in the 1970’s and Kerry’s possible collusion with the enemy.

Although Kerry admits making one trip to Paris for meetings with the communist Vietnamese delegation, FBI files show he returned to Paris for a second meeting in August, 1971, and planned a third trip in November, according to Winter Soldier.

Is Kerry a modern day Benedict Arnold? Some unequivocally say, “yes.” The most recent veteran to speak out against Kerry is Col. George “Bud” Day, the nation's most highly decorated living veteran. He told a crowd in Sioux City, Iowa, that Kerry "will go down in history as the Benedict Arnold of 1971."

"The notion that this guy would think he is qualified to be president of the United States when he has already pledged his allegiance to North Vietnam makes absolute zero sense,'' Day told the Sioux City Journal.

Day maintains that Kerry dishonored his country by accusing fellow veterans of war crimes and atrocities and for meeting with America's enemy in Paris, according to the newspaper.

The documents in question outline the communist agenda in the form of a 7-Point Peace Plan advanced by Madame Binh, written by the North Vietnamese, and reportedly carried out by various anti-war organizations in the U.S.

The plan “would have amounted to an American capitulation, a virtual surrender that included the payment of reparations to the Vietnam communists as an admission that America was the wrongful aggressor in an immoral war,” according to Winter Soldier.

Additionally, testimony by a defecting Vietcong organizer, summarized for the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 1970, informed the committee that, “The VC will strive to create anti-draft and anti-war attitudes in the US by organizing VC sympathizers in the US to contact families with sons in Vietnam and urge them to call their sons home. Also, VC sympathizers in the US will be organized to distribute anti-draft leaflets to students and young people.”

Winter Soldier reports that “On July 22, 1971, John Kerry held a press conference in Washington, DC, to call upon President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's 7-Point Peace Plan. Kerry surrounded himself at the press conference with POW wives, parents and sisters who had been recruited to promote his message. The event was reported in
The New York Times of July 23, 1971 and the Communist Daily World of July 24, 1971. Each article included a photograph of Kerry surrounded by POW family members.”

“Kerry's use of POW families directly advanced the North Vietnamese communist agenda as described by enemy defectors and in the newly discovered Circular, which suggests that Madame Binh had recommended the same course of action to antiwar activists meeting with her in Paris,” according to Winter Soldier, and further noted below…

“[A number of POW families were contacted by a "liason" group headed by Cora Weiss, the daughter of Communist Party financier Samuel Rubin, with offers to provide mail and information about their husbands if the families agreed to publicly denounce the war. Most POW family members refused to cooperate with this extortion, even when promised better treatment for their husbands or sons in Hanoi. Four angry POW wives protested at Kerry's July press conference, one of whom accused Kerry of "constantly using our own suffering and grief" to advance his political ambitions.]”

Winter Soldier concludes, “The newly uncovered documents help clarify the relationship of the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong, the PCPJ, the Communist Party of the USA, and John Kerry's VVAW. They indicate that these organizations worked closely together, using the Paris Peace Talks as a central point of communication, to employ the strategy and tactics devised by the Vietnamese communists to achieve their primary objective: the defeat of the United States of America in Vietnam.”

Is it any wonder that the Communists honor Kerry by hanging his picture in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants museum (formerly known as the War Crimes Museum) as he greets Communist Party General Secretary Comrade Do Muoi in the early 1970’s?

Can there be any doubt why the Swift Boat Veterans and POW’s for Truth have launched a campaign against the presidential wanna-be?

But, the big question remains: Are Americans willing to elect a president who championed the cause of America’s enemy, put POW’s in harm’s way, and has yet to apologize for his actions?

Let’s hope Americans send a strong message to John Kerry: The leader of the free world must be someone who represents America’s interests, not that of America’s enemy or that of their own political ambitions.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Posted by Hello


Who Is Really In Charge Of The Democratic Campaign? posted earlier today poses possible ties between the Kerry campaign and some mainstream media sources, particularly the New York Times.

For more information, read the article published at


John Kerry has a plan. How do we know? He keeps reminding us that he does. And this week, he has shown us what it is. But, it isn’t his plan alone. No, his plan also involves the mainstream media (“MSM”).

The latest example of this involves the New York Times article, Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq, published on Monday. The Times published the story and was soon followed by ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN, which reported the story numerous times throughout the day.

This was likely Kerry’s cue to attack President Bush. “This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration,” said Kerry from the campaign trail.

John Edwards soon followed: “It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapon sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed.”

Great blunder? Reckless? Irresponsible?

These words more accurately describe the plan that the MSM and the Kerry-Edwards campaign is implementing.

The truth about the explosives, reported by the Times to have vanished, is that they were missing before the U.S. troops arrived in Baghdad. A report filed by a NBC news crew embedded with the troops who moved in to secure the Al Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq, said no explosives were found. And on Monday evening, NBC reported that, again.

But did that stop Kerry? No, again, on Tuesday at a campaign rally, he said, “Without a shred of evidence to dispute the International Atomic Energy Agency, they just flatly said the weapons were gone by the time our troops got there.”

Well, Mr. Kerry, there appears to be some evidence. And that was shown by NBC News on Monday night.

The Times publishes the article, Kerry and Edwards have their responses, and the Kerry advertisement “Obligation” with the New York Times headline shown in the background is released on Tuesday. The entire scenario seems a little too well-coordinated to have been a series of coincidences.

Once again, John Kerry has proven to the American public—he will do anything or say anything in order to win this election.

See additional articles on this issue:

Media matters – or maybe not at

The October Surprise – on Bush at

Bad Thinking = Bad Actions at

America’s Security—From Within or Without

‘Rushing to War’ Against U.N. Objections

President Bush has been criticized by John Kerry and others for ‘rushing to war.’ But, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report prepared by CIA chief weapons inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, documents that the very nations that most opposed the President feared exposure of their corruption in the Oil-For-Food (“OFF”) program, run shamefully by the United Nations’ Secretary General Kofi Annan. And worse, the United Nations (“UN”) and these countries, specifically, China, Russia, and France, tried to actively block sanctions, and, ultimately, a preemptive attack, solely for the purpose of economic gain.

John Kerry has surely read this report. He seized on a tiny part of the 1,000-page document that read ‘no weapons of mass destruction were found’ and naively declared the president had rushed to war. He also surely knows about the OFF scam, but continues to sermonize that he can bring the nations of the world together, unlike the president, who according to him, botched the job.

Ask yourself—do you want the input of France, China, Russia, Germany, and Syria in determining the fate and security of the U.S., these Kerry-blessed countries that were America’s most forceful adversaries, no doubt fearing exposure for their corrupt and illegal behavior?

Rep. Christopher Shays (R), head of one of many OFF investigations, put it into perspective: "Our allies who didn't support the embargo were pretty much shaping it." He also concluded, "We're talking about American lives that are being lost in an attempt to bring democracy to Iraq. If France, Russia, China and Germany had told Saddam it was time to back down and honor his commitments, it's possible the United States may not have needed to go to war against Saddam."

Unfortunately, men with huge egos are blinded by what they see in their mind’s eye. Saddam Hussein is one of these men. His total focus was on “…one set of objectives; the survival of himself, his Regime, and his legacy,” according to Duelfer’s ISG report. His plan centered on breaking free of UN sanctions to pursue his political and personal objectives, none more urgent than manufacturing weapons of mass destruction (“WMD”).

John Kerry is also blinded, evidenced by his mantra that this is ‘the wrong war, at the wrong place, and the wrong time.’ The ISG Report clearly details the dynasty Hussein was trying to shape and the arsenal he hoped to assemble. To ignore these findings shows a dangerous disregard for national security. Of course, interfering with national security isn’t new territory for the Senator, evidenced by his meetings with communists during the 1970’s.

Oil-for-Food or Oil for Palaces?

The OFF program was initiated to allow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to sell a predetermined amount of oil outside the realm of UN sanctions in order to buy food, medicine, and other necessities for the Iraqi people, who were, in effect, prisoners of the brutal regime. The proceeds and administration of the program were handled by the UN.

Michael Reagan writes, “The way it did work out built scores of posh palaces for Hussein and lined the pockets of France, Russia, Syria, China, and the United Nations, which alone raked in more than $1 billion from its 2.2% “commission” on the more than $50 worth of oil Iraq exported under the program, allegedly to pay the costs of running the program.”

Reagan says, “Back in 1997, Hussein found what he thought was a way to block U.S. efforts to stop him from dominating the region. He would get U.N approval to lift sanctions and allow unrestricted oil sale, by bribing France, Russia and China with juicy contracts giving them a right to develop Iraq’s major oil fields – contingent on the lifting of sanctions.

“In short,” he says, “France and Russia strove mightily to keep their good buddy Hussein in power to keep the gravy train running in their direction.”

Duelfer’s ISG Findings Regarding Saddam’s Intent

According to the ISG, Saddam felt UN sanctions:

--Hindered his ability to rule with autonomy, thereby limiting a historic legacy,
--Placed an economic stranglehold on Iraq by determining what Iraq could export,
--Curbed the ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise,
--And limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces.

“In short,” according to ISG, “ Saddam considered UN sanctions as a form of economic war and the UN’s OFF program and Northern and Southern Watch Operations as campaigns of that larger economic war orchestrated by the US and UK.”

Saddam was intent on producing WMD’s. The introduction of the OFF program in 1996 was a turning point for the Regime. “OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions,” says ISG. The devious dictator saw that OFF could easily be corrupted. His goal? According to ISG, “…to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.”

“Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed.” ISG continues, “Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missle and tactical chemical warfare capabilities.” (emphasis added) There was no written strategy for the revival of WMD after sanctions, but his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal.

To secure that goal, Saddam needed to exploit Iraqi oil assets, portray a strong military capability, and foster his image as an Arab leader. ISG states, “Saddam recognized that the reconstitution of Iraqi WMD enhanced both his security and image. Consequently, Saddam needed to end UN-imposed sanctions to fulfill his goals.”

“One aspect of Saddam’s strategy of unhinging the UN’s sanctions against Iraq, centered on Saddam’s efforts to influence certain UN SC (“Security Council”) permanent members, such as Russia, France, and China and some non-permanent (Syria, Ukraine) members to end UN sanctions.”

“Under Saddam’s orders, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs formulated and implemented a strategy aimed at these UN SC members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions and undermining its subsequent OFF program by diplomatic and economic means,” states ISG. One means he used to formulate public opinion and end sanctions was to stockpile bodies of dead children.

The Outcome of NOT ‘Rushing to War’

Saddam’s aim to divide and conquer within the ranks of the UN SC and to garner international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world almost succeeded. He was shrewd, but George Bush was smarter and perceptive.

Journalist Claudia Rosett determined that the UN program “provided cover for Saddam to steal, smuggle, deal and bribe his way back toward becoming precisely the kind of entrenched menace” the UN was supposed to prevent. Saddam was buying materials from North Korea, Syria, Russia, and a myriad of countries to develop his coveted WMDs using UN money earmarked for food and medicine for the Iraqi people. If the president had backed away and let the UN’s Kofi Annan and his conspirators have their way, Saddam would have soon had ballistic missle, chemical warfare, and even nuclear capabilities.

John Kerry says time and again that Osama bin Laden is the main focus of the war on terror. He is either naïve or deceptive. The ISG clearly outlines the serious and deadly threat Saddam posed. For Kerry to ignore these findings is reprehensible. Given the supremacy of Saddam in Iraq, the corruption of UN officials with their cohorts in China, Russia, France…… and the greed of all, Iraq was a time bomb set to go off. The explosion would have no doubt been aimed at its most vocal and freedom-minded adversary — the United States of America.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004


John Kerry has made lots of promises, but none more serious than those involving America’s national security and military.

In the second presidential debate, Kerry said, “Now, I'm going to add 40,000 active-duty forces to the military, and I'm going to make people feel good about being safe in our military, and not overextended, because I'm going to run a foreign policy that actually does what President Reagan did, President Eisenhower did, and others.”

Is this another Kerry promise for which there is no plan? Will he accomplish this in much the same way that he will make people rise from their wheelchairs, or provide health care to all Americans?

Even at Kerry’s website there is no plan, only more promises: In addition to adding 40,000 active duty personnel, he promises to streamline large weapons programs, double special forces by the end of his first term, add a special operations helicopter squadron to the Air Force, increase active duty and reserve civil-affairs personnel, and increase active-duty psychological operations personnel. So in addition to the 40,000 active-duty, Kerry will add an additional 6,000 to 7,000 personnel for other programs.

Kerry, the liberal senator from Massachusetts, who has opposed or ignored every defense bill in Congress for the past two years, now would have us believe he suddenly cares about the military.

His record is atrocious on defense issues, especially since 9/11. Five defense bills were put to a vote during 2003 and 2004. Kerry didn’t even bother to vote on the following four bills.

Bill S 762 – would appropriate $79.5 billion in fiscal 2003 discretionary spending for military operations in Iraq, homeland security, and international counterterrorism activities.

Bill S 1050 – would authorize $400.5 billion in appropriations for defense, military construction, and defense-related work for the Department of Energy. Included in this bill were $130 billion for operations and maintenance and $9.5 billion for military construction and family housing.

Bill HR 1588 – to adopt the conference report that would authorize for fiscal 2004, $401.3 billion for defense and national security spending. Included in the bill was the provision for certain disabled military retirees to be able to receive both their retirement and disability benefits at the same time, and the provision to lengthen the military’s TRICARE health coverage to the National Guard, reservists, and their families if such servicemen have been called to active duty.

Bill S 2400 – Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2005 – would authorize appropriations for fiscal 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy.

In summary, the bills he didn’t vote for involved military operations in Iraq, homeland security, monies for operations and maintenance, military construction and housing, provisions for military retirees, and health coverage for National Guard and reservists.

And for the fifth bill, the one he actually voted on……

Well, this one has become somewhat famous, primarily because Kerry has a difficult time explaining why he voted to authorize the war in Iraq, and then voted against the bill to fund that very war.

The bill was S1689 and appropriated $86.5 billion for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, you guessed it, he voted NO! Among the items funded were $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans’ medical care.

And, now, he is asking the heroic men and women serving America to vote for him, when he voted against them? Is this how you make people ‘feel good about being safe’ in the military?—By voting against measures to provide military necessities, or by not bothering to vote at all?

Our fighting men and women have made it clear—they have no confidence in this man. Sure, he found a few who publicly support him and he uses them in an effort to convince the public the troops are behind him. But, the polls disprove his claims.

Based on the recently released National Annenberg Election Survey, our military had this to say about Kerry.

Of our regular, guard, and reserve military, 74% do not think John Kerry has a “clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion.”

Of our regular, guard, and reserve military, only 16% trust John Kerry “to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief in the military.”

What the survey numbers have shown is the military has confidence in our Commander in Chief, President Bush.

Of our regular, guard, and reserve military, 77% have a favorable opinion of President Bush and 74% approve of the way President Bush is handling his job.

Today, we have soldiers who are reenlisting while on the battlefields in Iraq. We have soldiers who have been wounded and are lying in hospital beds that can’t wait to get back to their mission. And, more remarkably, we have immigrants—not citizens—serving in our armed forces who are willing to give their lives for this country.

But how long will the enthusiasm and dedication last if the Commander-in-Chief says “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place,” and refuses to support them financially? Think mass exodus, rather than the increase in ranks Kerry has promised.

And then what? The draft? I’m not sure where else the 40,000 troops he promised are going to come from.

Yes, the chameleon keeps changing colors, and this chameleon looks really strange in camouflage.

A Father’s Choice for Commander in Chief

On Sunday evening, we posted A Mother’s Choice for Commander in Chief on this site. Today, on the front page of the New York Post, Steve Dunleavy writes about his choice for Commander in Chief as his son prepares to serve his country in Iraq.

You can access his article, I Want My GI Son To Serve Under Bush, at

Monday, October 25, 2004

The Fundamental Test of Leadership

John Kerry’s truthfulness continues to be questioned during this campaign.

The most recent example involves several assertions that he met at length with all members of the United Nations Security Council a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize use of force in Iraq.

The Washington Times reported yesterday that “U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions” by Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the UN Security Council just a week before voting to use force in Iraq.

Kerry talked to several members of the panel, but "…no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred," the newspaper said.

One U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the Security Council’s actions said he was not aware of any meetings Kerry had with members of the panel, according to the Times. And, an official at the U.S. mission to the U.N. remarked: ‘We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council.’”

Here’s the statements that likely started the investigation. Sean Hannity, radio and television commentator, played them on his radio broadcast today.

At the second presidential debate Kerry declared, “This president hasn’t listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about holding Saddam Hussein accountable.”

Then, in December 2003, Kerry had the following exchange at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, according to CNS News citing the Times article:

ANDY NAGORSKI (Newsweek): Senator, it's one thing to say that diplomacy on Iraq was bad. It's another to suggest that good diplomacy could have brought everybody along, as you seem to do. Do you think you really could have brought the Germans, the French along in a commitment to use force, if necessary, if you had been president?

KERRY: Yes. (Laughter, applause.)

NAGORSKI: Would you care to explain how, especially given --

KERRY: Absolutely. Absolutely and unequivocally.


KERRY: I will explain. Let me explain to you very specifically. Thanks to some friends in New York, I was invited to come up and meet with the Security Council in the week prior to the vote, and I wanted to do that, because I valued my vote. And I wanted to know what the real readiness and willingness of our partners was to take this seriously. So I sat with the French and British, Germans, with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Several nations are disputing these assertions.

Of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002, four said they had never met Kerry, and the Times reported that “…no one who worked for their countries’ U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.” The four included Mexico, Columbia, Bulgaria, and a fourth who requested anonymity.

“All had vivid recollections of the time frame when Mr. Kerry traveled to New York, as it was shortly before the Nov. 7, 2002, enactment of Resolution 1441, which said Iraq was in ‘material breach’ of earlier disarmament resolutions and warned Baghdad of ‘serious consequences as a result of its continued violations,’” said the newspaper.

After calls to all missions of the countries on the panel, the Times confirmed that Kerry had only “met with representatives of France, Singapore and Cameroon.” Second-hand accounts say Kerry may have met with a British representative.

“When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate’s previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council,” the newspaper said.

“But after being told late yesterday of the results of the Times investigation, the Kerry campaign issued a statement that read in part, ‘It was a closed meeting and a private discussion. A Kerry aide refused to identify who participated in the meeting’”

After inquiring if the international body had records of Kerry’s meeting with the whole council, a U.N. spokesman said, “Our office does not have any record of this meeting,” according to the newspaper.

The Times stated, “The revelation that Mr. Kerry never met with the entire U.N. Security Council could be problematic for the Massachusetts senator, as it clashes with one of his central foreign-policy campaign themes — honesty.”

And, the Times pointed out that Kerry has faced numerous charges of dishonesty from Vietnam veterans, and his campaign “has backtracked before from previous statements about Mr. Kerry’s foreign diplomacy.”

They cited the example that in March, Kerry told reporters in Florida he’d met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him, saying, “I’ve met with foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say: ‘you’ve got to win this. You’ve got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.’”

But, “The senator refused to document his claim and a review by the Times showed that Mr. Kerry had made no official foreign trips since the start of 2002, according to Senate records and his own published schedules. An extensive review of Mr. Kerry’s domestic travel schedule revealed only one opportunity for him to have met foreign leaders here,” said the newspaper

“The Democrat,” the Times said, “has also made his own veracity a centerpiece of his campaign, calling truthfulness ‘the fundamental test of leadership.’”

It appears that Mr. Kerry, as they call him, has failed the truthfulness test of leadership.

I’m Mad As Hell and I’m Not Going To Take It Any More!

Here’s the scoop on the Sinclair Broadcasting Group brouhaha, in case you haven’t heard. Sinclair was supposedly scheduled to air the documentary “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal” to its 62 affiliates, which represent about a quarter of America’s television households. The film was produced by former prisoner-of-war, Carleton Sherwood, and relays how John Kerry’s actions negatively affected him and others when they were imprisoned in Vietnam.

Sinclair was sabotaged by liberals and democrats who unloaded what must have been thousands of shares of Sinclair stock, causing it to drop by 16 percent according to the AP. (And they call Republicans the party of the rich) Reportedly, after Sinclair yielded and said they’d only broadcast part of the documentary, the AP reported the stock rose 12.6 percent. Sinclair says they never intended to air it in its entirety. Don’t you just bet those stock dumpers are the same people who screamed “free speech” as they scurried to see Michael Moore’s, Fahrenheit 911?

Meanwhile, 16 democratic senators started whining to the FCC filing a complaint to pressure Sinclair into dropping the program altogether, and filmmaker, George Butler, the guy who’s been following Kerry around for decades taking pictures of him, sued Sinclair. The AP says Butler’s taken 6,000 pictures since 1969, convinced Kerry would be president. (Get a life, mister) Butler said the documentary violates his copyright by using pictures and film without permission.

Friday at 8:00 P.M., Sinclair broadcast “A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media.” Not exactly the original documentary by a long shot. Morris Jones narrated. He said Sinclair had asked Kerry to participate and he declined, but Butler, the Kerry photo stalker and Kerry’s co-editor of “The New Soldier” would. The guy looked like someone had a gun to the back of his head. Meanwhile, back at Sinclair’s website, they THANK Kerry’s campaign “for its participation during the private discussions that took place over a period of weeks.”

Call me a skeptic, but there’s little doubt the lawyers and public relations guys have been racking up overtime spinning their webs. The story was balanced. They threw just as much trash at Bush as Kerry. The quandary the Kerry team obviously had is Kerry’s trash is much dirtier! Here’s the oxymoron; if Kerry is as proud of his anti-war activities, as he says he is, why not show the documentary?

The ACLU and liberal activists protect the freedoms and rights of the liberal press, Hollywood, and minority groups who want to take away school prayer, the Ten Commandants, “under God,” and ideals most Americans value—to replace them with what?

Whatever THEY want, that’s what!

Did the ACLU jump in to make sure “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal” was aired? You can bet the election it didn’t.

And, here’s the real rub: This discriminatory action took away the freedom of the very people who gave the liberal bullies the right to free speech in the first place—Veterans!

And, yes, the argument is clear! Journalists have to act responsibly and all that jazz. The New York Times had this to say, “But the FCC. also cannot ignore Sinclair's poor record when it comes to meeting its obligation to act responsibly and fairly in the public interest, a duty it assumed when it accepted custody of a license to broadcast on the public airwaves. Broadcasting "Stolen Honor" within two weeks of the election would clearly violate those commitments.”

What about the networks “poor record?” What about the Times “poor record?” How sick are Republicans of hearing only liberal sound bites? (see Truth, Lies, and Sound Bites from October 11) How many journalists put a positive slant on the things Republicans hold dear?

Michael Moore can spill his vile all over God’s creation and Vietnam veterans can’t tell their story? Give me a break! Meanwhile irony is about to rear it’s head as Michael Moore feverishly works to have his discredited stink-piece aired two days before the election. Where’s the uproar over that? What stock can I dump?

I thought I’d figured out the problem: liberals are more organized. But, it’s much more than that. Liberals have the ear of the media, while moderates and conservatives (the rest of us) don’t. Well, we’d better find an ear or a mouth or something soon, or we won’t have any turf left worth fighting for. When Sinclair Broadcasting caves, the rest of us don’t have a chance unless we organize or form our own group. How about forming “RACLU” — The Real Civil Liberties Union?”

But, thank God this is still America, so there’s hope. After all, Americans live by the creed, ‘where there’s a will there’s a way.’ Sure, you may have to pay a bit to find a way, but sometimes the stakes are more important than money.

Go to and you can either buy the video for “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal” or get it on pay-per-view. Or, better still, go to and download it free. However, here’s a suggestion. Because the veterans have made this available, consider making a donation at the stolen honor site above. It’s a small price to pay for a freedom no one else extended and it’s a story that has earned its right to be told.

Weekend Blogs

Don’t miss the blogs posted over the weekend.

A Mother’s Choice for Commander in Chief
Upholding the Oath
Time Is Running Out!
An Unanswered Question

Sunday, October 24, 2004


On Friday, October 22, at 6:15 a.m., I received word that my son had arrived safely in Kuwait after serving in Iraq with the Army’s 3/2 Stryker Brigade, primarily in the area of Mosul. He was scheduled to leave Mosul on the 19th, then the 20th, then the 21st……… Yes, we’ve waited a lot.

Upon reaching my office, I wrote emails to family, friends, and associates to let them know his status, as promised. Then it hit—he is finally out of danger!

It was an emotional time and as I hit the “send” button I thought, “Someone else’s son has taken his place.” Now, another family and friends will go through what my family and friends have these past months.

Don’t misunderstand. I’m proud of his service in Iraq. I am proud of our brave men and women contributing to a people deprived of freedom, but, still… there are many difficult moments.

The first few months after his deployment, I struggled to find some good news about Iraq. Very little was positive, as the mainstream media focused mostly on negative reporting.

Then I found!

I checked it routinely, usually first thing in the morning, then after lunch, and again in the evening. The site sums up the positive and negative aspects of the war. Some reports mentioned a soldier being killed or injured, and time stood still until I heard from my son. To maintain sanity, I purposely limited the amount of time I spent on the site.

The Stryker site led to others—soldier blogs, Iraqi blogs, blogs from all over the world. For months I read. What I found is that our military personnel and the majority of Iraqis believe America is doing the right thing.

When asked in a recent poll, what the most important reason for being in Iraq was, the number one answer given by the military was “to remove Saddam Hussein from power.” The poll didn’t ask why, but can there be little doubt that the Iraqi’s were empowered by the removal of Saddam and that our unselfish military men and women witnessed this first hand?

The decisions made by President Bush following 9/11 and his decision to fight terrorists in Afghanistan were grave ones that I support. I also support his decision to send troops into Iraq. Someone asked if I would feel as strongly if my son had been killed or injured. It was a disturbing question and a mother’s nightmare, but the answer was “yes.”

Our current Commander-in-Chief bases his decisions on beliefs and facts, not on politics and polls. He has proven to be a true leader, one who will continue to fight terror and to keep this nation secure. He doesn’t “blow with the political wind” as his opponent has done his entire career.

My beliefs and opinions have always been strong concerning what a government and its people should do for each other, but I’ve never been a political activist— until this year. Why? Because of the possibility that John Kerry could become my son’s Commander-in-Chief.

I remember watching Kerry walk to the podium at the Democratic Convention, salute, and say, “I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty.” It’s a scene indelibly etched in my mind. My personal belief is that John Kerry surrendered his right to “report for duty.” His anti-war activism upon returning from Vietnam was in direct conflict with the oath he took as a member of our armed services. He defamed those who had served before him, those soldiers still fighting, and the POW’s being held in Vietnam.

Regarding Iraq, he has said, “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time,” belittling the efforts of our troops and coalition troops, as well as the Iraqis who are struggling for democracy. Can we place our country in the hands of a person whose words to wage a “more sensitive war” are an encouragement to terrorists?”

Will we allow John Kerry to report for duty?

My son and many other men and women take their service to America seriously. As a military mother, my hope and prayer is that the American people will elect President Bush, a man who has shown himself to be worthy of the trust my son and others must have in a Commander-in-Chief. Let’s don’t let my son and the soldier who replaced him in Iraq down.

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Stryker soldier taking the Oath of Reenlistment
while serving in Iraq.

The oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Upholding the Oath

John Kerry officially left active duty on March 1, 1970, and, in 1972, was transferred to Standby Reserve, where his participation was not required. In 1978, he was honorably discharged.

During the early 70's, Kerry participated in anti-war protests, testified before a Senate committee about Vietnam atrocities not reported to his superiors--a requirement for officers--and secretly met with Communist party members in Paris regarding the war. All the while, Americans continued to fight and others were held as prisoners of war.

Did Kerry uphold his Oath of Enlistment? Does the breach of this oath deem him unfit to be commander-in-chief of soldiers who take the oath seriously? We believe he breached his oath. This is one of many actions that make him unfit to be commander-in-chief.
Posted by Hello

Time Is Running Out!

Only ten more days until ballots are cast! The Divas have worked long hours to cover as many issues as possible but can’t possibly do justice to some of the most important ones in such a short time.

Thank God for other bloggers helping to get out the truth. The issues are grave, and although health care, stem cell research, social security, jobs, and many other issues are certainly significant, nothing is more important than the security of this country.

We believe America will not be secure if John Kerry is president.

This morning I viewed the film, Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, and read portions of John Kerry’s book, The New Soldier. Now, more than ever, it is important to understand who this man, vying for the most powerful seat on earth, really is. On the cover of The New Soldier, Kerry uses men from the Vietnam era to mock the famous heroes of Iwo Jima by reenacting that famous photograph, and by flying the American flag upside down.

I urge you to view this film, and review the book. I believe many of you will come to the same conclusion I have: John Kerry will bring dishonor to the office of the president. However, don’t take my word for it. You decide by visiting the following sites.

To find out about The New Soldier, go to:

To view Stolen Honor, go to: and go to the article, Watch “Stolen Honor” for free on the Internet, and click on one of the links provided.

Or visit “John Kerry’s The New Soldier,” at to link to The New Soldier, Stolen Honor, and other documents about the service of John Kerry.

These are serious times. We need to elect a president who will honor and respect the service of our military, not degrade it.

An Unanswered Question

Most of us learned lessons from Vietnam.

We learned that when our country is at war we must support those who fight, regardless of politics.

We learned that the men and women who fight are heros.

And, we learned there is honor in fighting for freedom regardless of where that fight occurs.

This link takes you to a video made by the children of Vietnam vets. If you haven’t seen it, please take the time now.

On October 11, on the Aging Divas site, an important question was asked of Senator Kerry regarding Vietnam. We’ve never seen this question asked or answered.

“John, why did you feel the need to publicly discredit America’s military to the world, yet felt no need to film the atrocities while you were there?”

Kerry had the equipment, including an 8mm camera, and somehow managed to film his heroics.

Yet, when he hit U.S. soil after leaving his comrades behind, (only a soldier truly understands this) four months and several medals later, the supposed atrocities were so important to him, he did what many consider subversion: Put POW’s in harm’s way, conferred with the communist enemy in a Paris meeting, and essentially put our soldiers on trial before the world and our enemies.

But, concerning the mayhem, the atrocities he alledgedly witnessed?—when he had the opportunity, he took no pictures, no film……. nothing.