Thursday, September 23, 2004

I didn't know Dan Rather did Heroine? A mini-biography

Google censoring search results in ChinaQuery doesn't bring up news stories critical of Beijing Communists

Bush's REAL Military Record
You owe it to yourself

The Mullah's Europe: How Quickly is Europe Being Muslimized?
very, very interseting

Kerry's Precious U.N. and What Bush Actually Said There:

Victor Davis Hanson's Wall Street Journal editorialA DECAYING BODY The U.N.? Who Cares? Kofi Annan & Co. might as well move to Brussels or Geneva. BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:01 a.m. These are surreal times. Americans in Iraq are beheaded on videotape. Russian children are machine-gunned in their schools. The elderly in Israel continue to be blown apart on buses. No one--whether in Madrid, Istanbul, Riyadh, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York--is safe from the Islamic fascist, whose real enemy is modernism and Western-inspired freedom of the individual. Despite the seemingly disparate geography of these continued attacks, we are always familiar with the similar spooky signature: civilians dismembered by the suicide belt, car bomb, improvised explosive device and executioner's blade. Then follows the characteristically pathetic communiqué or loopy fatwa aired on al-Jazeera, evoking everything from the injustice of the Reconquista to some mythical grievance about Crusaders in the holy shrines. Gender equity in the radical Islamic world is now defined by the expendable female suicide bomber's slaughter of Westerners. In response to such international lawlessness, our global watchdog, the United Nations, had been largely silent. It abdicates its responsibility of ostracizing those states that harbor such mass murderers, much less organizes a multilateral posse to bring them to justice. And yet under this apparent state of siege, President Bush in his recent address to the U.N. offered not blood and iron--other than an obligatory "the proper response is not to retreat but to prevail"--but Wilsonian idealism, concrete help for the dispossessed, and candor about past sins. The president wished to convey a new multilateralist creed that would have made a John Kerry or Madeleine Albright proud, without the Churchillian "victory at any cost" rhetoric. Good luck. For years, gay-rights activists and relief workers in Africa have complained that the U.S. did not take the lead in combating the world-wide spread of AIDS. President Bush now offers to spearhead the rescue of the world's infected, with $15 billion in American help in hopes that the world's financial powers--perhaps Japan, China and the European Union--might match or trump that commitment. Nongovernmental organizations clamor about the unfairness of world trade that left the former Third World with massive debts run up by crooked dictators and complicit Western profiteers. President Bush now talks not of extending further loans to service their spiraling interest payments, but rather of outright grants to clean the slate and thus offer the impoverished a new start. International women's rights groups vie for the world's attention to stop the shameful international trafficking in women and children, whether as chattel or sexual slaves. The president now pledges to organize enforcement to stop both the smugglers and the predators on the innocent. For a half century, liberals rightly deplored the old realpolitik in the Middle East, as America and Europe supported autocratic right-wing governments on the cynical premises that they at least promised to keep pumping oil and kept out communists. Now President Bush not only renounces such past opportunism, but also confesses that "for too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability." He promises not complacency that ensures continual oppression, but radical changes that lead to freedom. The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were once the United Nations' twin embarrassments, rogue regimes that thumbed their noses at weak U.N. protestations, slaughtered their own, invaded their neighbors, and turned their outlands into terrorist sanctuaries. Now they are gone, despite either U.N. indifference or veritable opposition to their removal. The United States sought not dictators in their place, but consensual government where it had never existed. What was the response to Mr. Bush's new multifaceted vision? He was met with stony silence, followed by about seven seconds of embarrassed applause, capped off by smug sneers in the global media. Why so? First, the U.N. is not the idealistic postwar organization of our collective Unicef and Unesco nostalgia, the old perpetual force for good that we once associated with hunger relief and peacekeeping. Its membership is instead rife with tyrannies, theocracies and Stalinist regimes. Many of them, like Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, have served on the U.N.'s 53-member Commission on Human Rights. The Libyan lunocracy--infamous for its dirty war with Chad and cash bounties to mass murderers--chaired the 2003 session. For Mr. Bush to talk to such folk about the need to spread liberty means removing from power, or indeed jailing, many of the oppressors sitting in his audience. Second, urging democratic reforms in Palestine, as Mr. Bush also outlined, is antithetical to the very stuff of the U.N., an embarrassing reminder that nearly half of its resolutions in the past half-century have been aimed at punishing tiny democratic Israel at the behest of its larger,more populous--and dictatorial--Arab neighbors. The contemporary U.N., then, has become not only hypocritical, but also a bully that hectors Israel about the West Bank while it gives a pass to a nuclear, billion-person China after swallowing Tibet; wants nothing to do with the two present dangers to world peace, a nuclear North Korea and soon to follow theocratic Iran; and idles while thousands die in the Sudan. Third, the present secretary-general, Kofi Annan, is himself a symbol of all that is wrong with the U.N. A multibillion dollar oil-for-food fraud, replete with kickbacks (perhaps involving a company that his own son worked for), grew unchecked on his watch, as a sordid array of Baathist killers, international hustlers and even terrorists milked the national petroleum treasure of Iraq while its own people went hungry. In response, Mr. Annan stonewalls, counting on exemption from the New York press on grounds of his unimpeachable liberal credentials. Meanwhile, he prefers to denigrate the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "illegal," but neither advocates reinstitution of a "legal" Saddam nor offers any concrete help to Iraqis crafting consensual society. Like the U.N. membership itself, he enjoys the freedom, affluence and security of a New York, but never stops to ask why that is so or how it might be extended to others less fortunate. Our own problems with the U.N. should now be viewed in a context of ongoing radical change here in the United States, as all the previous liberal assumptions of the past decades undergo scrutiny in our post 9/11 world. There are no longer any sacred cows in the eyes of the American public. Ask Germany and South Korea as American troops depart, Saudi Arabia where bases are closed, and the once beaming Yasser Arafat, erstwhile denizen of the Lincoln Bedroom, as he now broods in his solitary rubble bunker. Deeds, not rhetoric, are all that matter, as the once unthinkable is now the possible. There is no intrinsic reason why the U.N. should be based in New York rather than in its more logical utopian home in Brussels or Geneva. There is no law chiseled in stone that says any fascist or dictatorial state deserves authorized membership by virtue of its hijacking of a government. There is no logic to why a France is on the Security Council, but a Japan or India is not. And there is no reason why a group of democratic nations, unapologetic about their values and resolute to protect freedom, cannot act collectively for the common good, entirely indifferent to Syria's censure or a Chinese veto. So Americans' once gushy support for the U.N. during its adolescence is gone. By the 1970s we accepted at best that it had devolved into a neutral organization in its approach to the West, and by the 1980s sighed that it was now unabashedly hostile to freedom. But in our odyssey from encouragement, to skepticism, and then to hostility, we have now reached the final stage--of indifference. Americans do not get riled easily, so the U.N. will go out with a whimper rather than a bang. Indeed, millions have already shrugged, tuned out, and turned the channel on it. Mr. Hanson, a military historian, is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Michael Moore admits Kerry is a bad candidate! Oh.......My...........GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

Chirac: Time
for global tax

French president supports plan
to fight international poverty


So if the U.S. signed on, could we cease all other foreign aid in that regard? We would save hundreds of millions!

A Fitting Analogy of the Future of Our Children If Kerry Were President:

Kerry campaign donors apparently come in all sizes. He told Philbin and Ripa that a woman in New York gave him $385 that her 8-year-old son had raised selling homemade campaign buttons, and a 6-year-old in Philadelphia handed over a plastic container with $685 he had earned selling homemade campaign bracelets.

Tax 'em early John.

Donald Trump Answer's Reporter Question: 'Yes I Would Fire Dan Rather' LOL I gotta respect his business sense!

Political Affiliations of Viacom Board Could Impact CBS Case

BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 21, 2004

Experts in corporate governance say the directors of CBS's parent company, Viacom, are obliged to assume some role in resolving the fiasco over CBS News's use of what appear to be fake documents about President Bush's military record.

The political affiliations of Viacom's board and senior management, however, could undercut the credibility of any action the board may take.

Viacom's chairman and chief executive, Sumner Redstone, is a self-described "liberal Democrat" and a prolific donor to Democratic campaigns. Of the company's 13 board members, eight contribute primarily to Democratic candidates and party committees. Two other members of the board, Joseph Califano and William Cohen, held cabinet posts under Democratic presidents.

"The board needs to be involved, so to speak, prophylactically," a business ethics specialist at the Conference Board, Ronald Berenbeim, said.


As Rather goes, so goes network news

James P. Pinkerton

September 21, 2004

These are the final days for Dan Rather. But the story of the fake documents aired on "60 Minutes" is deeper than just one man's fall. It is the story of technology's transition-and that's a tale that will never end.

By any fair reckoning, Rather should resign. As a big shot at CBS News-in addition to being anchorman-in-chief, he has been the managing editor of the CBS Evening News since March 1981-he deserves to be held to the same standard as Howell Raines, the executive editor of The New York Times, who was forced to resign last year in the wake of a news-fabrication scandal.

Some might argue that Rather was just a duped news reader, that he was simply following orders. In which case, following the precedent established in the 1998 "Tailwind" scandal-in which CNN's Peter Arnett was forced to quit after he read phony copy about Americans using poison gas in Laos-Rather should still be forced to take his leave.



Monday, September 20, 2004


Future First Lady? Posted by Hello

Sunday, September 19, 2004


Saint Bubba!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by Hello

Christian Persecution at the hands of Hindu's!

Friday, September 10, 2004

Stolen Honor a new film expose on Kerry's ant-war activities after he returned from his four month presidential traing in Viet Nam debut's today.

Kerry's Power Of Pursuasion?
Today's top story is by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times, which begins a three-part series on the French connection. Gertz writes:
New intelligence revealing how long France continued to supply and arm Saddam Hussein's regime infuriated U.S. officials as the nation prepared for military action against Iraq.
The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations. "No wonder the French are opposing us," one U.S. intelligence official remarked after illegal sales to Iraq of military and dual-use parts, originating in France, were discovered early last year before the war began.
French aid to Iraq goes back decades and includes transfers of advanced conventional arms and components for weapons of mass destruction. The central figure in these weapons ties is French President Jacques Chirac. His relationship with Saddam dates to 1975, when, as prime minister, the French politician rolled out the red carpet when the Iraqi strongman visited Paris.
Gertz's report cites chapter and verse. You should read it all; here is just a brief excerpt:
On April 8 came the downing of Air Force Maj. Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. Ewald, one of the first U.S. pilots shot down in the war, was rescued by members of the Army's 54th Engineer Battalion who saw him parachute to earth not far from the wreckage.
Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year, despite French denials.
A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry, confirming what U.S. intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces — and therefore justice.
All of this would have been different, of course, if John Kerry, with his superior charm, had occupied the White House.

Not only do Dan Blather and CBS listen to the DNC marching orders:

Today show devotes 3 days to phony book. Three more next week.
Katie Coulic didn't bother to devote ONE MOMENT to Swift boat Vetern's.

The old media liberals were so excited. Reports had again surfaced of George Bush’s alleged cocaine use, and Kitty Kelly reportedly has them in her latest book “The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.”
Not so fast. While Kelly has already become the darling of the Bush-hating crowd and is scheduled for a full three appearances in three days on NBC’s Today show next week, her allegations are already falling apart.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Ben Barnes, a Democrat politician himself seems to be fishing for a job in the Kerry administration while simultaneously having a book deal coming out soon.

Meanwhile, Killian's widow and son also have questioned the memos' authenticity.
Marjorie Connell told the Washington Post she was "livid" at CBS and described the records as "a farce."
Connell said her husband did not keep files and considered Bush "an excellent pilot."
"I don't think there were any documents," she said. "He was not a paper person."
A CBS reporter contacted her briefly before Wednesday night's broadcasts, she said, but did not ask her to authenticate the records, according to the Post.
Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father, said a memo signed by his father appeared legitimate but he doubted his father wrote another that referred to the performance review.
"I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here," Killian told the AP.
The wire service said another officer who served with Killian and a document expert also said the documents appear to be forgeries.
Internet origins
The White House distributed copies of the memos, apparently dampening speculation they are fraudulent. But the copies are from faxes sent by CBS News yesterday.
Major news outlets such as ABC News and the Washington Post now are advancing the story, but it came to life through the scrutiny of weblogs such as Powerline and Little Green Footballs.
National Review's "Kerry Spot" weblog cited Bruce Webster, an expert witness in U.S. District Court cases on computer document forensics, who said the memo posted online by CBS News "has all sorts of problems" and points out the "typefaces weren't available on typewriters in 1973."
A Powerline reader said the document appears to use the superscript 'th,' but there "are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny "th." The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time."
A number of Web contributors said they could create an exact representation of the document using Microsoft Word.
The author of Little Green Footballs wrote: "I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft's Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date '18 August 1973,' then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as 'authentic.'"
Others pointed out the memo did not have letterhead and the paper size should be 8x10.5 rather than 8.5x11.
According to the weblog INDC Journal, Dr. Philip Bouffard, touted as one of the top two experts in forensic document examination of typefaces in the country, said he cannot make a 100-percent-positive evaluation because the documents appear to have been copied several times.
But he stated, "It's just possible that this might be a Times Roman font, which means that it would have been created on a computer. It's very possible that someone decided to create this document on a computer ... . I've run across this situation before ... my gut is this could just well be a fabrication."
Bouffard noted the document has "proportional spacing," which was on only seven or eight models not widely available in 1972-73.
He also pointed out the number 4 does not have a "foot" and has a "closed top," which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to modern computer word processing programs.
Bouffard told INDC Journal that after further analysis, he's fairly certain the Aug. 18, 1973, document is a fake.
He noted, examining his old papers, the inconsistency of the "4" coming up several previous times with forgeries that attempt to duplicate old proportional spaced documents with a computer word processor.
He said he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but is aware of only one person aside from himself who might be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces.
'Previously unseen'
"60 Minutes II" reported last night it had "previously unseen documents" from Killian's personal office file.
In a memo dated May 1972, Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November."
The docment says Lt. Bush told his commander "he is working on a campaign in Alabama ... and may not have time to take his physical." Killian adds that he thinks Bush has gone over his head, and is "talking to someone upstairs."
One of the Killian memos is an official order to Bush to report for a physical, which never was carried out.
CBS says, in an Aug. 1, 1972, memo Killian wrote, "On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination ... as ordered."
A memo from Aug. 18, 1973, according to CBS, has Killian saying Col. Buck Staudt, head of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to "sugar coat" the evaluation of Lt. Bush.
The memo continues, with Killian saying, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."
CBS News said Staudt, a Bush family supporter, would not agree to an interview request.
Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett responded to CBS's request for comment about Killian's statements in the memos.
"For anybody to try to interpret or presume they know what somebody who is now dead was thinking in any of these memos, I think is very difficult to do," he said.
Bartlett added that Bush's superiors granted permission to train in Alabama in a non-flying status and that "many of the documents you have here affirm just that."
CBS News noted that earlier in his flying career, Bush received glowing evaluations from Killian, who called him an "exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "performed in an outstanding manner."
According to military documents released this week, Bush scored 88 on an airmanship test, 98 on aviation physiology and 100 on navigational abilities.

False Documentation?
CBS used forged documents to "prove case"?
Nooo! Say it ain't so. The media isn't biased!

Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, "George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated'" oops, there's a little egg on your face Terry.
White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Bush did not take the physical because he was not going to be in a flying capacity in Alabama. "Those who are trying to read the mind of a person dead 20 years are stretching at best. The president at every turn did what he was told to do."

Check the superscript error on one of the documents that has the 111th with smaller font for the "th" above and to the right of the 111. The whole document was done in Microsoft Word. If you retype it in Word, print it and lay it on top of the document, the whole thing is a perfect fit. Superscripts and changes in font were not a part of typewriters and Microsoft Word had not been invented yet, not to mention that no one had a PC back then. Bozo's Linked to Kerry!


Wednesday, September 08, 2004

WE will never forget!!! Bush/Cheney '04


The same person that the National Communist Party will vote for. "I will be a good president because I was wounded in Viet Nam. You can't point out where I am wrong in this because I have Purple Hearts! Posted by Hello


Who would Al Qaeda vote for? Posted by Hello


Here's a little reminder Posted by Hello


Just in case any one has.... Posted by Hello


I think Kerry wants us to forget (for now). Posted by Hello