Sunday, February 29, 2004
GREAT NEWS- 9 DAYS WITHOUT A COMBAT DEATH IN IRAQ!
Our Soldiers in Iraq are doing a Extraordinary, Amazing and Unbelievable
Job. This is the Longest Period of time since the War Begin without a Combat Death. You will Not See or Hear this in the Media Today
Iraq is still a Hazardous Place. We lost 4 Soldiers in Accidents since Feb 21st.
GO TO THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND SITE FOR DETAILS.
May the Lord Continue to Bless and Watch Over our Soldiers Everywhere.
Our Soldiers in Iraq are doing a Extraordinary, Amazing and Unbelievable
Job. This is the Longest Period of time since the War Begin without a Combat Death. You will Not See or Hear this in the Media Today
Iraq is still a Hazardous Place. We lost 4 Soldiers in Accidents since Feb 21st.
GO TO THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND SITE FOR DETAILS.
May the Lord Continue to Bless and Watch Over our Soldiers Everywhere.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
MEDIA CHANGES “Defense Of Marriage” TO “Banning Gay Marriage”
Look at the Media Headlines:
Reuters-
“Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage”
MSNBC
“Bush endorses Constitution Ban on Gay Marriage”
NY Times
Bush “Backing a Gay Marriage Ban”
Fox
“Bush Backs Amendment Barring Gay Marriage”
CNN
“Bush is Banning Gay Marriages” also "Bush is Barring Same Sex Marriage”
I have read President Bush’s Speech 4 Times- I can't fine the Words:
"Gay",“Ban”, "Banning", “Barring”, and Others Words used by the
Media Today.
Below is a Copy of President Bush’s Speech:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.
Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.
For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.
In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.
Thank you very much.
Look at the Media Headlines:
Reuters-
“Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage”
MSNBC
“Bush endorses Constitution Ban on Gay Marriage”
NY Times
Bush “Backing a Gay Marriage Ban”
Fox
“Bush Backs Amendment Barring Gay Marriage”
CNN
“Bush is Banning Gay Marriages” also "Bush is Barring Same Sex Marriage”
I have read President Bush’s Speech 4 Times- I can't fine the Words:
"Gay",“Ban”, "Banning", “Barring”, and Others Words used by the
Media Today.
Below is a Copy of President Bush’s Speech:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.
Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.
For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.
In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.
Thank you very much.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
PRESIDENT COMES OUT FIGHTING!
The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts. (Laughter and applause.)
Our opponents have not offered much in the way of strategies to win the war, or policies to expand our economy. So far, all we hear is a lot of old bitterness and partisan anger. Anger is not an agenda for the future of America. (Applause.) We're taking on the big issues with strength and resolve and determination, and we stand ready to lead this nation for the next four years. (Applause.)
The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts. (Laughter and applause.)
Our opponents have not offered much in the way of strategies to win the war, or policies to expand our economy. So far, all we hear is a lot of old bitterness and partisan anger. Anger is not an agenda for the future of America. (Applause.) We're taking on the big issues with strength and resolve and determination, and we stand ready to lead this nation for the next four years. (Applause.)
NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno":
"Nader is so serious about running this time, he is actually thinking about pressing his suit."
"As of midnight Thursday night, John Kerry began receiving Secret Service protection -- a three-car detail of heavily armed agents and a bulletproof limousine pulled up in front of his house and stayed there all night. You see that's what you get when you're the front-runner. Dennis Kucinich got a whistle and a can of Mace."
"Nader is so serious about running this time, he is actually thinking about pressing his suit."
"As of midnight Thursday night, John Kerry began receiving Secret Service protection -- a three-car detail of heavily armed agents and a bulletproof limousine pulled up in front of his house and stayed there all night. You see that's what you get when you're the front-runner. Dennis Kucinich got a whistle and a can of Mace."
Monday, February 23, 2004
SEN. JOHN KERRY’S KERRYMANDERING
VOL. 2, ISSUE 1
Kerry Evasive And Confusing On Gay Marriage
_________________________________________________________
FACING POLITICAL PRESSURE, KERRY SAYS HE MIGHT
SUPPORT AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE
Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Amendment To Massachusetts Constitution Banning Gay Marriage. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)
BUT IN 2003, KERRY SUGGESTED HE MIGHT SUPPORT
GAY MARRIAGE IF IT BECAME PUBLICLY ACCEPTABLE
On Question Of Gay Marriage, Kerry Said, “We Need To Achieve What We Can, And Then We Will See Where We Are.” Kerry believes civil unions “would be more acceptable to the public than marriage for homosexual couples. Kerry indicated he might eventually back gay marriages if a public consensus developed for them. ‘We need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are,’ he said.” (Ronald Brownstein, “Gay Issues Get Democratic Field’s Backing,” Los Angeles Times, 7/16/03)
IN 2002, HE SIGNED LETTER REJECTING MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE
Kerry Said It Would Be “Grave Error” For Massachusetts To Adopt Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)
AND IN 1996, HE VOTED AGAINST DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
Kerry Was One Of Only 14 Senators To Vote Against 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), Which Banned Federal Recognition Of Gay Marriage And Same-Sex Partner Benefits. (H.R. 3396, CQ Vote #280: Passed 85-14: R 53-0; D 32-14, 9/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Called DOMA “Unconstitutional, Unprecedented And Unnecessary,” And “Politics At Its Worst.” “DOMA is unconstitutional, unprecedented and unnecessary. Again, I return to the original questions: What is its legislative purpose? What is its motivation? What does passage of this bill mean for the country? It is hard to believe that this bill is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans. That is politics at its worst …” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 9/10/96, p. 10108)
… Confused? We Are, Too.
VOL. 2, ISSUE 1
Kerry Evasive And Confusing On Gay Marriage
_________________________________________________________
FACING POLITICAL PRESSURE, KERRY SAYS HE MIGHT
SUPPORT AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE
Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Amendment To Massachusetts Constitution Banning Gay Marriage. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)
BUT IN 2003, KERRY SUGGESTED HE MIGHT SUPPORT
GAY MARRIAGE IF IT BECAME PUBLICLY ACCEPTABLE
On Question Of Gay Marriage, Kerry Said, “We Need To Achieve What We Can, And Then We Will See Where We Are.” Kerry believes civil unions “would be more acceptable to the public than marriage for homosexual couples. Kerry indicated he might eventually back gay marriages if a public consensus developed for them. ‘We need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are,’ he said.” (Ronald Brownstein, “Gay Issues Get Democratic Field’s Backing,” Los Angeles Times, 7/16/03)
IN 2002, HE SIGNED LETTER REJECTING MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE
Kerry Said It Would Be “Grave Error” For Massachusetts To Adopt Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)
AND IN 1996, HE VOTED AGAINST DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
Kerry Was One Of Only 14 Senators To Vote Against 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), Which Banned Federal Recognition Of Gay Marriage And Same-Sex Partner Benefits. (H.R. 3396, CQ Vote #280: Passed 85-14: R 53-0; D 32-14, 9/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Called DOMA “Unconstitutional, Unprecedented And Unnecessary,” And “Politics At Its Worst.” “DOMA is unconstitutional, unprecedented and unnecessary. Again, I return to the original questions: What is its legislative purpose? What is its motivation? What does passage of this bill mean for the country? It is hard to believe that this bill is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans. That is politics at its worst …” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 9/10/96, p. 10108)
… Confused? We Are, Too.
IS IRAQ BETTER?
The week of Feb. 8 was a particularly bloody week for the people of Iraq. More than 100 Iraqis died in two suicide bombings
Yet by historical standards, it was sadly a comparatively good week for Iraq. During Saddam Hussein's maniacal 25-year reign, between 300,000 and 600,000 Iraqis were gassed, beaten, shot and murdered in unimaginably cruel ways as enemies of the Baathist regime.
Do the math, and you'll find that at the minimum, on average Saddam killed 230 Iraqis every week of every one of those 25 years. As horrible as the week of Feb. 8 was for the Iraqi people, it amounted to only a fraction of Saddam's normal, murderous toll.
The week of Feb. 8 was a particularly bloody week for the people of Iraq. More than 100 Iraqis died in two suicide bombings
Yet by historical standards, it was sadly a comparatively good week for Iraq. During Saddam Hussein's maniacal 25-year reign, between 300,000 and 600,000 Iraqis were gassed, beaten, shot and murdered in unimaginably cruel ways as enemies of the Baathist regime.
Do the math, and you'll find that at the minimum, on average Saddam killed 230 Iraqis every week of every one of those 25 years. As horrible as the week of Feb. 8 was for the Iraqi people, it amounted to only a fraction of Saddam's normal, murderous toll.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
DID REPUBLICANS PAY NADER TO RUN?
Governor Haley Barbour on CSpan was asked: "How much money
did the Republicans pay Nader to Run?"
Governor Haley Barbour reply: " You democrats have been paying
Nader to attack the republicans for years, Maybe he just saved up
some of that Money and will use that Money to run on now."
Governor Haley Barbour on CSpan was asked: "How much money
did the Republicans pay Nader to Run?"
Governor Haley Barbour reply: " You democrats have been paying
Nader to attack the republicans for years, Maybe he just saved up
some of that Money and will use that Money to run on now."
THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS CREDIBILITY ISSUES?
AND PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS CREDIBILITY ISSUES? Compare this quote from the Times a couple of weeks ago:
"I don't think I could vote for George Bush again when I think of the 500 people killed in Iraq and what's happened to the economy in this country," said George Meagher, an independent, who runs the American Military Museum in Charleston and said he now favors Mr. Kerry.
with this quote from today:
George Meagher, a Republican who founded and now runs the American Military Museum in Charleston, S.C., said he threw his "heart and soul" into the Bush campaign four years ago. . . . "People like me, we're all choking a bit at not supporting the president. But when I think about 500 people killed and what we've done to Iraq."
This looks suspiciously like the same quote, recycled and relabeled. But thanks to the Internet, we can fact-check your ass. (Originally spotted here, with what I think is an appropriate comment: "Shame on the NYTimes....but then, it says alot that they have to keep interviewing the same guy over and over for different stories, to gather the right soundbite.") Or, more likely, recycling the original quote in a different story.
And as for relabeling the source guy from "independent" to "Republican" to fit the slant of the story, well, that's pretty lame -- especially as the stories are by the same reporter.
posted at 09:02 PM by Glenn Reynolds
AND PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS CREDIBILITY ISSUES? Compare this quote from the Times a couple of weeks ago:
"I don't think I could vote for George Bush again when I think of the 500 people killed in Iraq and what's happened to the economy in this country," said George Meagher, an independent, who runs the American Military Museum in Charleston and said he now favors Mr. Kerry.
with this quote from today:
George Meagher, a Republican who founded and now runs the American Military Museum in Charleston, S.C., said he threw his "heart and soul" into the Bush campaign four years ago. . . . "People like me, we're all choking a bit at not supporting the president. But when I think about 500 people killed and what we've done to Iraq."
This looks suspiciously like the same quote, recycled and relabeled. But thanks to the Internet, we can fact-check your ass. (Originally spotted here, with what I think is an appropriate comment: "Shame on the NYTimes....but then, it says alot that they have to keep interviewing the same guy over and over for different stories, to gather the right soundbite.") Or, more likely, recycling the original quote in a different story.
And as for relabeling the source guy from "independent" to "Republican" to fit the slant of the story, well, that's pretty lame -- especially as the stories are by the same reporter.
posted at 09:02 PM by Glenn Reynolds
Friday, February 20, 2004
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Cleland drops a political grenade #2
Ann Coulter
"In Cleland's own words: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate." That is why Cleland didn't win a Purple Heart, which is given to those wounded in combat. Liberals are not angry because I "lied"; they're angry because I told the truth."
Ann Coulter
"In Cleland's own words: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate." That is why Cleland didn't win a Purple Heart, which is given to those wounded in combat. Liberals are not angry because I "lied"; they're angry because I told the truth."
NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno":
"Howard Dean dropped out of the race today; at least he can't claim his voice wasn't heard...
"John Kerry has denied the rumor that he had an affair with a younger woman; turns out the rumor is totally false; anyone who knows John Kerry knows he's always been attracted to older money...
"Howard Dean dropped out of the race today; at least he can't claim his voice wasn't heard...
"John Kerry has denied the rumor that he had an affair with a younger woman; turns out the rumor is totally false; anyone who knows John Kerry knows he's always been attracted to older money...
KERRY SELLS OUT TO GET AFL-CIO
HOFFA ON CHRIS MATTHEWS-(You Have to love this!)
MATTHEWS: How about ANWR? You guys want to see ANWR because you want to see guys working in your business. I guess there are a lot of Teamsters jobs up there lined up and organized, if you could put a pipeline up to the Alaska wilderness. He is against that.
HOFFA: Well, we talked about that. He (Kerry) says, look, I am against ANWR, but I am going to put that pipeline in and wea're going to drill like never before.
MATTHEWS: What, are they going to run water through it? (LAUGHTER)
HOFFA: ... more jobs than the ANWR would have ever created.
MATTHEWS: What are they going to run through the pipeline?
HOFFA: And that is the position he is taking.
MATTHEWS: But he is against drilling up there. What are they going to run through the pipeline?
HOFFA: Well, they are going to drill all over, according to him. And he ((Kerry) says, we are going to be drilling all over the United States. And he says that is going to create more jobs.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: It just seems amazing that he (Kerry) has turned around on NAFTA, turned around on WTO, turned around on ANWR, anything to get the Teamsters.
HOFFA: Oh.
MATTHEWS: Who is going to be boss if he gets in there, you or him?
HOFFA: Well, I think that
MATTHEWS: It sounds like you are the boss.
Kerry says, I'm against ANWR, but "I am going to put that pipeline in" and we are going to drill like never before.
Is This like the Road that goes No where? If you have a Pipeline and no oil, as
Matthews said, "What, are they going to run water through it??"
Kerry will do anything to Get the AFL-CIO Backing-"It just seems amazing that he has turned around on NAFTA, turned around on WTO, turned around on ANWR, anything to get the Teamsters."
HOFFA ON CHRIS MATTHEWS-(You Have to love this!)
MATTHEWS: How about ANWR? You guys want to see ANWR because you want to see guys working in your business. I guess there are a lot of Teamsters jobs up there lined up and organized, if you could put a pipeline up to the Alaska wilderness. He is against that.
HOFFA: Well, we talked about that. He (Kerry) says, look, I am against ANWR, but I am going to put that pipeline in and wea're going to drill like never before.
MATTHEWS: What, are they going to run water through it? (LAUGHTER)
HOFFA: ... more jobs than the ANWR would have ever created.
MATTHEWS: What are they going to run through the pipeline?
HOFFA: And that is the position he is taking.
MATTHEWS: But he is against drilling up there. What are they going to run through the pipeline?
HOFFA: Well, they are going to drill all over, according to him. And he ((Kerry) says, we are going to be drilling all over the United States. And he says that is going to create more jobs.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: It just seems amazing that he (Kerry) has turned around on NAFTA, turned around on WTO, turned around on ANWR, anything to get the Teamsters.
HOFFA: Oh.
MATTHEWS: Who is going to be boss if he gets in there, you or him?
HOFFA: Well, I think that
MATTHEWS: It sounds like you are the boss.
Kerry says, I'm against ANWR, but "I am going to put that pipeline in" and we are going to drill like never before.
Is This like the Road that goes No where? If you have a Pipeline and no oil, as
Matthews said, "What, are they going to run water through it??"
Kerry will do anything to Get the AFL-CIO Backing-"It just seems amazing that he has turned around on NAFTA, turned around on WTO, turned around on ANWR, anything to get the Teamsters."
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Monday, February 16, 2004
The Denials Raises More Questions Than Answers
Can You see a Pattern Here? This Morning "John Kerry Girls Tells All" This
Afternoon "John Kerry Girl Denies All"
Yesterday Her Father said: “I think he’s a sleazeball. I did kind of wonder if my daughter didn’t get that kind of feeling herself. “He’s not the sort of guy I would choose to be with my daughter.”
Yesterday Her Mother said: Kerry once chased Alex to be on his campaign team and was “after her”.
Both said Today: "We intend on voting for him for president of the United States."
Kerry himself Denies: "There is nothing to report" and then when that was challenged as a Clinton style non-denial, he stated clearly enough: "I just deny it categorically. It's untrue."
Do you see the same Pattern here? Stay Tune! Come back later to the see the list of Questions these Denials Raises!
Question Number 1 on the List: Why Did BBC Scrub Quotes?
The BBC version printed Monday at 3:26 Greenwich Mean Time has the quote:
"We intend on voting for him for president of the United States."
The BBC 2nd version (The Quote) had been sanitized – despite bearing the same time stamp!
Why did the Washington Post's Glenn Frankel Say:"All we have at the moment is the woman's parents who are Republicans and they don't like Senator Kerry."
When it was pointed out that the young woman's parents are actually Democrats,
Glenn Frankel Quote was scrubbed.
More Questions Are Coming!
Can You see a Pattern Here? This Morning "John Kerry Girls Tells All" This
Afternoon "John Kerry Girl Denies All"
Yesterday Her Father said: “I think he’s a sleazeball. I did kind of wonder if my daughter didn’t get that kind of feeling herself. “He’s not the sort of guy I would choose to be with my daughter.”
Yesterday Her Mother said: Kerry once chased Alex to be on his campaign team and was “after her”.
Both said Today: "We intend on voting for him for president of the United States."
Kerry himself Denies: "There is nothing to report" and then when that was challenged as a Clinton style non-denial, he stated clearly enough: "I just deny it categorically. It's untrue."
Do you see the same Pattern here? Stay Tune! Come back later to the see the list of Questions these Denials Raises!
Question Number 1 on the List: Why Did BBC Scrub Quotes?
The BBC version printed Monday at 3:26 Greenwich Mean Time has the quote:
"We intend on voting for him for president of the United States."
The BBC 2nd version (The Quote) had been sanitized – despite bearing the same time stamp!
Why did the Washington Post's Glenn Frankel Say:"All we have at the moment is the woman's parents who are Republicans and they don't like Senator Kerry."
When it was pointed out that the young woman's parents are actually Democrats,
Glenn Frankel Quote was scrubbed.
More Questions Are Coming!
FOOLS BROUGHT ANOTHER KNIFE TO A GUNFIGHT
MR. RUSSERT ON MEET THE PRESS SUNDAY: Max Cleland, the former senator from Georgia, was interviewed recently by NBC News. Let me show that interview and come back and talk about it. (Videotape, January 30, 2004):
MR. JONATHAN ALTER: Do you think that it is fair to say that George W. Bush was AWOL... MR. MAX CLELAND: I do.
MR. ALTER: ...from the Vietnam War?
MR. CLELAND: Not a deserter, but AWOL. He missed some drills in the National Guard. When you miss drills you are AWOL. You're not present for duty, and that was back in the States. That's not under fire. John Kerry showed up for two tours of duty in Vietnam. (End videotape)
TWO TOURS OF DUTY IN VIETNAM?
He served twice in Vietnam, neither time completing the regular one-year Tour. His first assignment lasted six months, aboard a guided-missile frigate in the Gulf of Tonkin. He returned to "the world" (as the GIs called home) and five months later, in December 1969, was assigned to command "swifts," small gunboats patrolling South Vietnamese rivers.
After only 4 Months This Time, Kerry applied to take advantage of a Navy rule that entitled a thrice-wounded man to take his leave from a combat zone. He asked for duty as a personal aide in "Boston, New York or Washington," and came home to be an admiral's aide. Eight months later, he asked for an early discharge to run for Congress. Once out, he joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, an antiwar organization largely funded by Jane Fonda and did NOT run for Congress..
So Max- Kerry Did Not complete two tours (2 Years) of duty in Vietnam.
Max Cleland, speaking at a veterans' rally with Kerry on Friday, said the nation should NOT have a president ''who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the guard.''
So Max-the nation should not have a president like Kerry ''who didn't even complete his tour on 'Active Duty.' "?
Also Max, You cannot be AWOL in the Guard unless you are on Active Duty.
Look it Up!
MR. RUSSERT ON MEET THE PRESS SUNDAY: Max Cleland, the former senator from Georgia, was interviewed recently by NBC News. Let me show that interview and come back and talk about it. (Videotape, January 30, 2004):
MR. JONATHAN ALTER: Do you think that it is fair to say that George W. Bush was AWOL... MR. MAX CLELAND: I do.
MR. ALTER: ...from the Vietnam War?
MR. CLELAND: Not a deserter, but AWOL. He missed some drills in the National Guard. When you miss drills you are AWOL. You're not present for duty, and that was back in the States. That's not under fire. John Kerry showed up for two tours of duty in Vietnam. (End videotape)
TWO TOURS OF DUTY IN VIETNAM?
He served twice in Vietnam, neither time completing the regular one-year Tour. His first assignment lasted six months, aboard a guided-missile frigate in the Gulf of Tonkin. He returned to "the world" (as the GIs called home) and five months later, in December 1969, was assigned to command "swifts," small gunboats patrolling South Vietnamese rivers.
After only 4 Months This Time, Kerry applied to take advantage of a Navy rule that entitled a thrice-wounded man to take his leave from a combat zone. He asked for duty as a personal aide in "Boston, New York or Washington," and came home to be an admiral's aide. Eight months later, he asked for an early discharge to run for Congress. Once out, he joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, an antiwar organization largely funded by Jane Fonda and did NOT run for Congress..
So Max- Kerry Did Not complete two tours (2 Years) of duty in Vietnam.
Max Cleland, speaking at a veterans' rally with Kerry on Friday, said the nation should NOT have a president ''who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the guard.''
So Max-the nation should not have a president like Kerry ''who didn't even complete his tour on 'Active Duty.' "?
Also Max, You cannot be AWOL in the Guard unless you are on Active Duty.
Look it Up!
Sunday, February 15, 2004
George Stephanopoulos Inflated Casualty Reports
George Stephanopoulos at the end of his Feb 8th "This Week" Show, while Smiling from ear to ear, Said "We had 4 Soldiers Killed in Iraq Last Week" We went to the United States Central Command Web site: http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/casualties.asp
and learned that their were only 2. (I wish their were none.)
So we called George Stephanopoulos and "This Week" show on this and Said:
You must think we viewers are too dumb to look up Facts. You said at the end of Your Program "We had 4 Soldiers Killed in Iraq Last Week"- Wrong! Why Do you tell these lies? Go to the United States Central Command Web site, Click on Casualty Reports for week Feb 1-7. There were only 2 Deaths-Are You playing politics with the lives of our soldiers? You were Smiling from Ear to Ear. You should apologize! When their is not enough deaths, you make up 2 More!
This Week Wrote Back:
With all due respect, we would never play politics with the lives of the
men and women who pay the ultimate sacrifice. Our information comes
directly to from the U.S. Military. The website you refer to is not
always up to date. Our intention in mentioning those who've died in
Iraq is to honor those who serve and pay the ultimate price. I'm sorry
you feel we would purposely air incorrect information.
Richard Harris
Senior Producer
THIS WEEK
Richard Harris said, "The website you refer to is not always up to date"
Wrong Again! The United States Central Command Said the Casualty Reports are correct! We watched the show today for corrections. Their were no Corrections, but instead of Smiling He showed the Bodies of the Dead in Iraq. Is George blaming the United States Soldiers for these bodies?
George Stephanopoulos at the end of his Feb 8th "This Week" Show, while Smiling from ear to ear, Said "We had 4 Soldiers Killed in Iraq Last Week" We went to the United States Central Command Web site: http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/casualties.asp
and learned that their were only 2. (I wish their were none.)
So we called George Stephanopoulos and "This Week" show on this and Said:
You must think we viewers are too dumb to look up Facts. You said at the end of Your Program "We had 4 Soldiers Killed in Iraq Last Week"- Wrong! Why Do you tell these lies? Go to the United States Central Command Web site, Click on Casualty Reports for week Feb 1-7. There were only 2 Deaths-Are You playing politics with the lives of our soldiers? You were Smiling from Ear to Ear. You should apologize! When their is not enough deaths, you make up 2 More!
This Week Wrote Back:
With all due respect, we would never play politics with the lives of the
men and women who pay the ultimate sacrifice. Our information comes
directly to from the U.S. Military. The website you refer to is not
always up to date. Our intention in mentioning those who've died in
Iraq is to honor those who serve and pay the ultimate price. I'm sorry
you feel we would purposely air incorrect information.
Richard Harris
Senior Producer
THIS WEEK
Richard Harris said, "The website you refer to is not always up to date"
Wrong Again! The United States Central Command Said the Casualty Reports are correct! We watched the show today for corrections. Their were no Corrections, but instead of Smiling He showed the Bodies of the Dead in Iraq. Is George blaming the United States Soldiers for these bodies?
Mr Polier:About Kerry "I think he's a sleazeball"
Friday, February 13, 2004
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Clark stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue"
CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN -
Story Developing.......DRUDGE REPORT
CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN -
Story Developing.......DRUDGE REPORT
POWELL SHOT DOWN Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
When Brown contrasted Powell's military experience to Bush's record with the National Guard, saying the president "may have been AWOL" from duty, Powell exploded.
"First of all, Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president because you don't know what you are talking about," Powell snapped.
"I'm sorry I don't know what you mean, Mr. Secretary," Brown replied.
"You made reference to the president," Powell shot back.
Brown then repeated his understanding that Bush may have been AWOL from guard duty.
"Mr. Brown, let's not go there," Powell retorted. "Let's not go there in this hearing. If you want to have a political fight on this matter, that is very controversial, and I think it is being dealt with by the White House, fine, but let's not go there."
Powell then went on to defend the Bush administration's assertions on Iraq's prewar weaponry. "We didn't make it up," Powell said. "It was information that reflected the views of analysts in all the various agencies."
But the dispute with Brown did not end.
"Are you shaking your head for something, young man?," Powell asked when he noticed an aide to Brown apparently disagreeing.
"I seldom come to a meeting when I'm talking to a congressman and I have people aligned behind you giving editorial comment by headshakes," Powell said.
Brown, defending his assistant, said "I think people have opinions."
The political hack tried to get a cheap shot about Bush in the Congressional Record, and Powell shot him down. Watch the video- look at the expression on Brown'sface. Like the rest of the lying, loudmouthed truth bullies, he backed down at the first sign of a fight. Loser Democrats- can't win on the issues, so they sink to this Garbage. They thought they finally had an issue with this tawdry smear campaign, and all they have done is get our dander up. Fools brought another knife to a gunfight.
P.S. Sherrod Brown gave the Democrats Weekly Address August 30. 2003
Our Research Group Called Him on 2 Lies In that Address, He backed down again at the first sign of a Fight!
When Brown contrasted Powell's military experience to Bush's record with the National Guard, saying the president "may have been AWOL" from duty, Powell exploded.
"First of all, Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president because you don't know what you are talking about," Powell snapped.
"I'm sorry I don't know what you mean, Mr. Secretary," Brown replied.
"You made reference to the president," Powell shot back.
Brown then repeated his understanding that Bush may have been AWOL from guard duty.
"Mr. Brown, let's not go there," Powell retorted. "Let's not go there in this hearing. If you want to have a political fight on this matter, that is very controversial, and I think it is being dealt with by the White House, fine, but let's not go there."
Powell then went on to defend the Bush administration's assertions on Iraq's prewar weaponry. "We didn't make it up," Powell said. "It was information that reflected the views of analysts in all the various agencies."
But the dispute with Brown did not end.
"Are you shaking your head for something, young man?," Powell asked when he noticed an aide to Brown apparently disagreeing.
"I seldom come to a meeting when I'm talking to a congressman and I have people aligned behind you giving editorial comment by headshakes," Powell said.
Brown, defending his assistant, said "I think people have opinions."
The political hack tried to get a cheap shot about Bush in the Congressional Record, and Powell shot him down. Watch the video- look at the expression on Brown'sface. Like the rest of the lying, loudmouthed truth bullies, he backed down at the first sign of a fight. Loser Democrats- can't win on the issues, so they sink to this Garbage. They thought they finally had an issue with this tawdry smear campaign, and all they have done is get our dander up. Fools brought another knife to a gunfight.
P.S. Sherrod Brown gave the Democrats Weekly Address August 30. 2003
Our Research Group Called Him on 2 Lies In that Address, He backed down again at the first sign of a Fight!
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Sunday, February 8, 2004
Imminent Threat Lie Again And Again!
The case for war was built largely on the opposite assumption: that waiting until Iraq presented an imminent threat was too risky. The president himself made this argument in his 2003 State of the Union address:
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
In their prepared speeches, in the National Security Strategy, in media appearances, Bush administration representatives mostly avoided such hype. They did consistently advocate preempting the Iraqi threat--that is, acting before it was imminent. That's precisely what was controversial about their policy.
Senator Ted Kennedy, for one, objected. The day after the 2003 State of the Union address, he introduced a short-lived bill that would have required the administration to show that Iraq posed an imminent threat. It was the administration's willingness to go to war even while conceding that the threat was not imminent that provoked opponents of the war. Inspections could continue, the critics urged, because there was no imminent danger.
But in the present politically charged season, positions have shifted. Many of the same people who criticized the Bush administration before the war for moving against a threat that was not imminent are today blaming the administration for supposedly having claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat.
The case for war was built largely on the opposite assumption: that waiting until Iraq presented an imminent threat was too risky. The president himself made this argument in his 2003 State of the Union address:
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
In their prepared speeches, in the National Security Strategy, in media appearances, Bush administration representatives mostly avoided such hype. They did consistently advocate preempting the Iraqi threat--that is, acting before it was imminent. That's precisely what was controversial about their policy.
Senator Ted Kennedy, for one, objected. The day after the 2003 State of the Union address, he introduced a short-lived bill that would have required the administration to show that Iraq posed an imminent threat. It was the administration's willingness to go to war even while conceding that the threat was not imminent that provoked opponents of the war. Inspections could continue, the critics urged, because there was no imminent danger.
But in the present politically charged season, positions have shifted. Many of the same people who criticized the Bush administration before the war for moving against a threat that was not imminent are today blaming the administration for supposedly having claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat.
Friday, February 6, 2004
Kerry insults Tennessee-Not Part Of The United States.
Responding to inquiries about why Kerry hasn't scheduled a visit to Tennessee for next Tuesday's primary: "John Kerry is not trying to run a regional candidacy. He's running for president of the United States, with an emphasis on the united," said Kathy Roeder, spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign in Tennessee."
Huh? So Tennessee isn't a part of the United States? Or we're not united? Or is this some sort of Civil War reference? Is this Kerry's "Confederate Flag" moment in reverse?
And how exactly do you ignore an entire region and an important state in that region and say you are running a "national" campaign?
This very telling remark needs to get out there far and wide before next Tuesday's primaries, and needs to stay out there for the "other United" States so when they vote in their primaries they can consider which candidate will truly represent the concerns of all Americans.
Responding to inquiries about why Kerry hasn't scheduled a visit to Tennessee for next Tuesday's primary: "John Kerry is not trying to run a regional candidacy. He's running for president of the United States, with an emphasis on the united," said Kathy Roeder, spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign in Tennessee."
Huh? So Tennessee isn't a part of the United States? Or we're not united? Or is this some sort of Civil War reference? Is this Kerry's "Confederate Flag" moment in reverse?
And how exactly do you ignore an entire region and an important state in that region and say you are running a "national" campaign?
This very telling remark needs to get out there far and wide before next Tuesday's primaries, and needs to stay out there for the "other United" States so when they vote in their primaries they can consider which candidate will truly represent the concerns of all Americans.
Tuesday, February 3, 2004
Max Cleland-Are You Playing Politics with Our Veterans?
Max Cleland, speaking at a veterans' rally with Kerry on Friday, said the nation should NOT have a president ''who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the guard.''
In Vietnam Kerry applied to take advantage of a Navy rule that entitled a thrice-wounded man to take his leave from a combat zone. He asked for duty as a personal aide in "Boston, New York or Washington," and came home to be an admiral's aide. Eight months later, he asked for an early discharge to run for Congress. Once out, he joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, an antiwar organization largely funded by Jane Fonda and did NOT run for Congress..
So Max-"Kerry asked for an early discharge" and received a discharge from Active Duty?
So Max-President Bush-''who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the guard''?
So Max-Why didn't Kerry, who was with you at the veterans' rally,
tell you that he had not completed his tour on "Active Duty" ?
So Max-the nation should not have a president ''who didn't even complete his tour on 'Active Duty.' "?
So Max-Are YOU Playing Politics with Our Veterans?
I did not get a response from Max Cleland, but I did get email from Kerry:
Dear Sir,
Thanks very much for your note. What you have sent us is a scary example
of what's out there on the Internet. We know these character attacks are
to be expected -- we are also aware of the awful lies that have been told
about John McCain, Max Cleland and too many other veterans.
Below are copies of John Kerry's citations for his Bronze Star and his
Silver Star as well as his recent speech at the Vietnam Wall in Washington
where he spoke and received a standing ovation this Veterans Day.
In the many Pages of speeches I received from Kerry, He did not answer the
Number One question- "Did Kerry asked for an early discharge" and received a discharge from Active Duty?"
The Number Two Question today- " Is Kerry Also Playing Politics with Our Veterans?"
Max Cleland, speaking at a veterans' rally with Kerry on Friday, said the nation should NOT have a president ''who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the guard.''
In Vietnam Kerry applied to take advantage of a Navy rule that entitled a thrice-wounded man to take his leave from a combat zone. He asked for duty as a personal aide in "Boston, New York or Washington," and came home to be an admiral's aide. Eight months later, he asked for an early discharge to run for Congress. Once out, he joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, an antiwar organization largely funded by Jane Fonda and did NOT run for Congress..
So Max-"Kerry asked for an early discharge" and received a discharge from Active Duty?
So Max-President Bush-''who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the guard''?
So Max-Why didn't Kerry, who was with you at the veterans' rally,
tell you that he had not completed his tour on "Active Duty" ?
So Max-the nation should not have a president ''who didn't even complete his tour on 'Active Duty.' "?
So Max-Are YOU Playing Politics with Our Veterans?
I did not get a response from Max Cleland, but I did get email from Kerry:
Dear Sir,
Thanks very much for your note. What you have sent us is a scary example
of what's out there on the Internet. We know these character attacks are
to be expected -- we are also aware of the awful lies that have been told
about John McCain, Max Cleland and too many other veterans.
Below are copies of John Kerry's citations for his Bronze Star and his
Silver Star as well as his recent speech at the Vietnam Wall in Washington
where he spoke and received a standing ovation this Veterans Day.
In the many Pages of speeches I received from Kerry, He did not answer the
Number One question- "Did Kerry asked for an early discharge" and received a discharge from Active Duty?"
The Number Two Question today- " Is Kerry Also Playing Politics with Our Veterans?"
Monday, February 2, 2004
