Oliver North: Bring it on, John: " But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.
When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote 'The New Soldier,' which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.
On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops 'had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam.' And you admitted on television that 'yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed.'"
==============
A great article by Oliver North. This is the reason that John Kerry is not going to be President of the United States. Not this year, not next year, not ever. Protest is one thing. Treason is another.

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World: "Why should Jews want the re-election of George W. Bush? Let's start with the removal of Saddam Hussein, his resolve in fighting Islamic terrorists, his unequivocal support for Israel's government and people, his willingness to confront the appeasers of terror in the United Nations, and his steadfast commitment to the principle of prevention.
The case for George W. Bush is the case for a clear and consistent US foreign policy. In three and a half years, President Bush has done more for Israel than any other president in the last 50. And, unlike his opponent, he has never wavered, vacillated, or equivocated in his support. "
==============
Amen. FYI. Israel is the only real friend of liberty in the Middle East, and the staunchest friend of America. If we allowed Islam to "push Israel into the sea" as they have been promising for the last fifty years, that would not make Islam love and trust the United States. It would just mean war on a different level and a different front. Why can't these imbecels in the liberal press see that this is just a reignited conflict that goes back for 1300 years or so. Islam hates the U.S. and wants her dead. Islam hates Christianity and wants her dead. Islam hates the church and wants her dead. Islam hates the modern secular state and wants her dead. What part of dead don't these people understand?

If these things are not so, let the Mullahs say so plainly in the native language of the streets of the Muslim world, and not just for public consumption for the liberals in the West.

Guardian Unlimited Sport | Olympics 2004 | Olympic gold hero accuses Bush: "America's biggest Olympic hero yesterday accused George Bush of exploiting the Athens Games for his own political advantage in the run-up to the presidential election."
========
And now Carl Lewis is using his Olympic Games platform for political purposes, and he is much discredited by it. I will buy nothing he endorses. He is a disgrace to the flag as well as to the Olympics, to use both for his narrow political opinions. Shame on him.

Who would listen to Carl Lewis if he had not won Olympic gold, wearing the American flag? And now this rag from England is exploiting Carl Lewis and the Olympics to slam America. Carl Lewis' picture may well be placed on some Islam hall of fame wall some day, God forbid. He exploits his gold medal shamelessly, and ought to be rejected by every American. What is his reward for bashing Bush? Invitations to posh, liberal, Democratic parties in effete Left Coast mansions? Better stick to running, Carl; you are better at it. Of course, you are over the hill, now, and I expect you still long to get your name in the paper, so any little crumb of publicity will do. But, Carl Lewis as a political commentator? Come on!

But some day, Carl Lewis may be running from this news conference, just as John Kerry is running from his in that other war.

OpinionJournal - Wonder Land: "Alongside support for the civil-rights movement in the 1960s, opposition to Vietnam forms the moral bedrock of the modern Democratic Party. John Kerry (whose fidelity to principle, on the available evidence, is weaker than that of those who voted him into this role) is obliged to stand by his 1971 testimony as a matter of principle. Abandon that, and the party abandons him. "
===========
fyi.
This is a very astute article from the Wall Street Journal. A man as politically and morally ignorant as John Kerry is dangerous as President. Clinton was morally ignorant, but even his worst enemies recognized his political savvy. He did some things right for political purposes and that saved his presidency to a point. John Kerry will not have that.

davidwarrenonline.com - ESSAYS ON OUR TIMES: "(My reader will immediately grasp why no Republican administration could ever wish to annex Canada. Conquer and enslave us perhaps, but no plan that involved an extension of the franchise could fail to subvert the invaders.) "
-------------
A thoughtful article on our election by Canadian David Warren. Following is my letter to him:

Dear David Warren,
Thank you for your thoughtful article on our election. I think that most Republicans in this country know and accept the uniqueness of America--some faint vestige of the "Light on the Hill" concept of our Puritan forebears. The modern concept, though, would be as startling to those forebears as the present "post-Christian" culture would be repugnant to them There is no one today who could create a United States of America, even in the United States.

Our Democratic citizens, even if they had ever heard of the "Light on the Hill" would not be prone to accept the concept or treat it with sympathy. In the present drabness of ordinariness, the Democratic party is much too concerned with narcissicism to ever think of converting anybody to anything except their own brand of selp-absorption. They are obsessed with acceptance, not conversion. They believe nothing but cultural and moral agnosticism. They only want to be secure in their conceived right to freely fornicate and to destroy the results. Nothing else really matters, don't you know.

You got one thing wrong, though, I think. No Republcan would ever conquer and enslave Canada. That belongs to the Democratic party that still hold millions of our citizens in bondage on the plantations of multi-culturalism and affirmative action. These are those who are content to walk zombie-like into voting booths to vote the straight party line, if they can figure out how to punch the ballot or use the touch scrreen. Senator Kerry is afraid that Republican hackers will corrupt the voting machines in Florida; no Democrat on the intellectual plantations described above could ever figure out how to do that! Our democrats might be interested in delivering from your intellectual plantations,but only if you would be content to live on theirs. They despise all capital, intellectual as well as economic.

But no-one is right about every thing. What is strange is the intellectual naivety of those who honestly thought that Senator Kerry could run as a patriot in light of his Viet Nam tour. Amazing!

Isn't it interesting? The word is out that if Bush wins Florida this election, the results will be suspect, because Kerry has led in the polls, that there are security flaws in the voting machines that will allow hackers to change the results.

This is just setting the stage for more hand-wringing and hate-mongering like the last election. This paves the way for a descent on Florida the day after the election by swarms of trial lawyers, Edward's buddies, to really try to steal the election.

But there is a hidden assumption here: Republicans are more computer savvy than Democrats. Just like in the last election, it was the Democrats who were too stupid to use the ballots, so they will not be able to compete in this election with the smart and evil Republican hackers.

Maybe the world has changed. Mayor Daly used to steal Illinois on a regular basis. ['How many votes do we have in Chicago? How many do you need?"] But that was by old fashioned ward-heeling and intimidation. Lyndon Johnson and the Rayburn machine stole Texas for JFK in 1960.

But the opinion of this writer is this: the election won't be that close. I guess that Bush will get in the neighborhood of 325 electoral votes. He is even in striking distance of California.

One of the first rules of propaganda is this: Don't believe your own lies. The Democrats have disregarded this rule to their own destruction in this campaign. They have hysterically maintained since the last election that Bush is stupid, a hypocrite, evil, and probably has bad breath. He isn't, of course, but they believe it. Thus, they constantly underestimate and misunderstand him. He might not be a master politician, but he is no slouch, and he is running circles around them in this campaign, in spite of the millions spent on attack ads by the supporters of John Kerry [without coordination from the campaign, which would be illegal, and Democrats always obey the law, donchknow.] Besides, we have campaign reform and there is no money in politics anymore.

Nota Bene: "It is an excellent time for this kind of piece. While the misty details of John Kerry's military service momentarily monopolize the election
debate, Podhoretz steers us back to the opposing camps of accommodation versus containment, American the Ugly versus America the Noble, military assertiveness versus diplomatic compromise, and treaties versus compulsion. (Notice that John Kerry, despite his chest-thumping rhetoric at the Democratic convention, has done some prominent work on the wrong side of this ledger.) Much of Podhoretz's essay defies summary, but it seems worthwhile to cite and describe a couple of its best insights. Perhaps doing so will encourage a few more people to wade into its length to experience its breadth and timeliness for themselves."

"'THE FIRST RUMBLINGS of the current crisis came in the '70s, and over the next three decades the United States did much to give Osama bin Laden the impression that we were "a paper tiger." Podhoretz makes the rounds through a series of terrorist episodes that form a narrative--of murdered diplomats, kidnapped Americans, and attacked American buildings abroad--started by the PLO in the early '70s. Lowlights include the Iranian hostage crisis under Carter, while Reagan (as far as terrorism is concerned) doesn't get off any easier. 1983 was a bad year for us, and a good year for Hezbollah as they killed 63 employees at the U.S. embassy and, later in the year, 241 Marines in Beirut. Bush 41 gets low marks, too, for his reaction to the hijacking of Pan Am 103, in which 270 people died. Clinton's performance was perhaps even more miserable, as the Democratic standard-bearer who was received like a conquering hero this summer at the convention in Boston, did little in response to the '93 bombing of the World Trade Center, the attempted assassination of former president Bush, or the simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.'"

"There is much more to the Podhoretz take, and much, much more worth savoring. Go ahead and remind yourself of how we got here."

----------------
Time to read this article and get it out to all your friends. The alternatives are not total war or surrender. The idea is containment, not appeasement. We can win the war of attrition. We learned that during the cold war. Freedom will always outproduce and out gun slavery, whether it is religious or economic or social slavery. The building of real alliances with people who have a desire to resist Islam and who have the military wherewithal to do so [rather than the paper tigers and impotent sad sacks of France, Germany,and Russia]. Nato should go if it does not awaken to the new realities. Emergent nations like Poland and a remilitarized Japan would serve well in this new war. It must be won if we do not want our women behind the veil, our churches closed, and prayers five times a day toward Mecca.

We need to resist all unnecessary curtailment of our liberties as a free people, including whether or not this or that ad can play. Free people can sort out who the fools and liars are if they have the information.

9NEWS.com: "Democratic senate candidate Ken Salazar sent a letter to local TV station managers asking them to pull a negative ad that criticizes his environmental record. "
-----------
What is it with these Democrats? Everytime you turn around, one of them is trying muzzle free speech and freedom of the press.

Where you, Mr. Salazar, when Michael Moore released Farenheit 9/11 and other of your bedmates called Bush a Hitler and a conspirator to invade Iraq for oil? Shame, shame, shame.

If you cannot take the heat, you don't belong in the Senate. We need more freedom, not less, when it comes to political debate.

New York Daily News - Ideas - Opinions - Zev Chafets: Bush pulls a Swift one: "Everybody knows President Bush is a bass fisherman. But the President has spent most of August reeling in a more exotic specimen: the Giant New England Slack-Jaw."
==============
If you only click on link today, click this one. It is exquisite.

So Much for Free Speech: washingtonpost.com: "The government may screen what voters see and hear. The Kerry campaign has asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to ban the Swift Boat ads; the Bush campaign similarly wants the FEC to suppress the pro-Democrat 527 groups. We've arrived at this juncture because it's logically impossible both to honor the First Amendment and to regulate campaign finance effectively. We can do one or the other -- but not both. Unfortunately, Congress and the Supreme Court won't admit the choice. The result is the worst of both worlds. We gut the First Amendment and don't effectively regulate campaign finance. "
===========
McCain/Feingold and all attempts to limit campaign finance are blatant attempts to infringe free speech, and all need to be repealed.

Dangers of Defaming a War Hero: washingtonpost.com: "What a strange, out-of-sync country is America. Here we are fighting a real war in Iraq and our presidential campaign has been bogged down in a nasty debate about what did or didn't happen on a river patrol boat 35 years ago in Vietnam. "
==============
How strange and out-of-sync are liberals and the rag called the Washington Post. If something is wrong it is America's fault. Not Kerry, who defamed, slandered, and betrayed his comrades; opposed the Viet Nam War, and now is trying run on his record as a war hero.

Put the blame where it is Mr. Ignatius.

To me it is a no-brainer. Senator Kerry served four months in Vietnam. I do not care which account of his service is true. But this is true:

At the Democratic National Convention his service in Vietnam was made the centerpiece of his qualifications for President. He "reported for duty," to come to his nations defense again.

What he was counting on, was that the majority of people who grew up or were born after the Vietnam war do not know their history. [How could they? They went to public school.] He hoped that the old guys wouldn't remember. But he was wrong.

We remember how he came back and knifed the military. We know that he made alliances with Jane Fonda and the other extreme leftists to smear the Vietnam warriors. It was largely do to John Kerry that returning Vietnam veterans were called "baby killers" or worse. They haven't forgotten, and we haven't forgotten.

Only in a post-modern world would the ploy have a sucker's chance of working. John Kerry wants to be honored and made President of these whole United States because of his honorable and brave service in Vietnam, but he have spent your whole life smearing and dishonoring the other soldiers who fought there. It is not surprising that a great many of those who served honorably there have come forward to say, "Wait a minute. Will you serve and defend the United States as President the same way your served us in the aftermath of your tour of duty?"

John Kerry is honored in Hanoi as a Vietnam hero in their struggle against the United States and his picture hangs on the wall there, for betraying his country and serving the cause of our enemies. Will John Kerry's picture some day hang in mosques throughout the world because of his defense of the United States against terrorism? I am sorry, but this is one American who has a long memory. I will not be taking that chance.

Boston.com/News/Boston Globe/Opinion/Op-ed/Smear by veterans may hurt Bush: "As The New York Times reported last week, O'Neill had been selected by Richard Nixon's White House to counter the profound impact that Vietnam Veterans Against the War were having on public opinion in the spring of 1971. As the Times also reported, Nixon's political henchman, Chuck Colson, had specifically recruited the Navy lieutenant, like Kerry a swift boat commander in the war, to debate the antiwar movement's freshest star on Dick Cavett's television program."
===
And we can really trust the New York Times, can't we? This shows how desperate the left is. When all fails, whip Richard Nixon again. They were wrong about Viet Nam, about communism, about most everything then, and they are wrong now, and continue to prop up their house of cards.

But truth is the daughter of time.