Friday, November 05, 2004


Invite a Leftie to stand by your computer and then click and gloat!

The Slanderous Left

Kerry and the Left slandered the US military in Vietnam: "war criminals murdering for no just cause, but only to enrich the Military -Industrial Complex." They were wrong; our military is and was honorable and the cause was just; merely look at South Korea and see what Vietnam MIGHT have been; (instead, it resembles North Korea).
The Left slandered Reagan: "a buffoon, a mere actor, a war-monger fronting for the Military-Industrial Complex.". But he reinvigorated our economy, and our patriotic spirit, and defeated the USSR and ended the Cold War.
The Left Slandered W: "an idiot chimp" fronting for Halliburton and Carlyle and the Military-Industrial Complex." But he has liberated 50 MILLION people, and reinvigoated our economy, and kept us safe from the Jihadoterrorists.
The Left slanders religiously observant Christians and Jews: "the evangelical right are peas in the pod of the Jihadoterrorists." But I don't recall any evanegelicals flying any jets into any towers.
The Left slanders advocates of the 2nd Amendment: "the NRA is a bunch of gun-nuts and vigilantes." But restrictive gun laws have had no effect on gun crime - anywhere in the world.
The Left slanders Ashcroft: "he is taking away your civil liberties" even though they cannot name a SINGLE instant of any citizen's rights being abridged by Ashcroft or the Patriot Act. And they slander him even as they applaud the McCain-Feingold Bill which put HUGE limitations on Free Speech and did NOTHING to reduce the amount of money in campaigns.
Thank God, the majority of Americans see through these slanders - or ignore them.
The fact remains: If the Left did not dominate the Old Media, then their slanderous attacks would have absolutely the effect it deserves: NONE.
As it stands now, they merely dominate the Old Media and the Democrat Party.
It's time that Democrats took their party AWAY from the Leftists, (again and for good).
And it's time for the Old Media to become the LATE Old Media!

How Old Media Denied W a Landslide

According to the FAIR FORMULA - which extrapolates economic facts and demonstrates their historic effects on the electorate - Bush should have won with at least 58% of the vote, and with over 300 in the EC. Bush did not.
Because for the last two years the Old Media did not report the true state of the economy, and as a result the electorate perceived the economy to be worse overall than it really was.
Had the electorate been truthfully informed by the Old Media, then they would have known that the economy in 2004 is every bit as as good as it was in 1996 (maybe even better), when Clinton won reelection by 8% (over his nearest rival, in a 3-way race). This is more than the 3% margin Bush enjoyed.
I believe accurate and truthful reporting on the economy would have led Bush to win 6 states that were VERY CLOSE: Wisconsin, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan and New Hampshire - each of which Bush lost by less than 3%. These states had a total of 69 Electoral Votes. Bush would have won with 355 EV - a huge win - if he had won these 6 states.
I believe that biased reporting on the economy had a greater overall negative effect on the election than Rathergate, alQaqaagate, Nigergate, Plamegate, or even Abu Ghraib.
The biased reporting on the economy was a longer, deeper, more peravsive BIG LIE than any of the others which were - by comparison - all mere flashes in the pan which didn't erode Bush's base.
The New Media must continue to do whatever it takes to get the truth out and thereby prevent the Left-wingers who dominate the Old Media from getting their Leftist propaganda out unchallenged.
A well-informed electorate is the best defender of liberty.
Those who keep the electorate well informed are the vanguard.


According to "Reuters," Chirac may have been the last person to visit Arafat. If this is true, then I hope Yassir's condition is contagious. Heh.

UPDATE: "Arafat had smiled at Chirac and the two had held hands."

UPDATE: Chirac went to see Arafat, but refused to see Allawi.

Thursday, November 04, 2004


The real divide in the electorate is NOT religious versus non-religious, or regular church-goers versus non-church-goers.
The real divide is much more basic. The real divide is suburban/ex-urban/rural traditionalists versus URBAN/urbane faddists. The RED versus BLUE county map proves this (hat tip VODKAPUNDIT).
Need more proof? Here: the anti-homosexual marriage referenda went down about an average of 70% - or 2-to-1. That's a MUCH larger percentage than those who voted for either candidate or than those who attend church regularly - or evangelicals. And they are not all homophobic, and they MUST include Democrats.
Why did so many people want marriage to remain what is has always been? Because they are traditionalists. And to these traditionalists religious values are an important source of (BUT NOT THE ONLY SOURCE) - inspiration for ALL life's crises, issues and debates. This doesn't make them anti-secularists - Bush in fact is a committed secularist as much a committed Christian; the two are not mutually exclusive - no matter what you hear about Bush's Faith Based Initiative.
The BLUE states are IN FACT merely the states dominated by large cities that are themselves dominated by anti-traditionalists - what I call "faddists" - people who eat at the latest hot-spots, read the newest books, wear the trendiest fashions, see the newest movies and watch the hottest TV shows.
These trendy urbanites value the "next new thing" (especially ones that are "EDGY" - that PUSH THE ENVELOPE, and challenge traditional values and norms) more than they do the classics or traditional values.
But traditional values are time-tested and dependable -especially in a time of great strife or war. And MORE people will always seek guidance and shelter in traditional values in tough times. They are our bedrock; they are dependable; that's why they survived and continue to inspire us to be our best.
SO... how and why did Kerry get the votes of so many people who opposed homosexual marriage? Well, first, because Kerry lied about where he stood on the issue, and then couched his lie in so many nuances that many people couldn't tell he was lying. Second, many people who are traditionalists are also traditional Democrats who would have as tough a time voting for a Republican as worshipping in a church of another faith.
The results of the homosexual marriage referenda, and of the exit polls (which revealed that MANY people put "MORAL VALUES" at the top of their priorities), and the results of the presidential election should be a warning to the Democrat Party that these traditionalists will not long suffer the onslaught of those who would turn their party into a party of anti-traditionalists run by Left-wing moral relativists.
[PS: I'm still a registered Democrat - though not for long - and I'm NOT a regular attendee of religious services. I'm an urban traditionalist.]

Bush announces the first act of his second term

The first act of his second term will be to discontinue using "Hail To The Chief."
To hear the new song that will be used just before all presidential appearances just click here.

Play this song for your sad Democrat friends

Play this song for your sad Democrat friends - it will cheer them up - NOT!


New Small Smart Bomb Ready for use in Fallujah

According to Defense Tech : "... 500-pound GBU-38 -- half the size of what had been the smallest Joint Direct Attack Munition, [JDAM] or satellite-directed bomb. F-16s at Balad Air Base in Iraq are now being loaded up with the bombs. The U.S. Air Force hopes to "hopes within days" to begin using them, according to Defense News. [...] The Air Force is [also] developing an even smaller weapon, the 250-pound Small Diameter Bomb. [The] weapon will bring not only a more measured use of explosive power, but the ability to load more bombs on a fighter, expanding the number of targets that can be hit in a single sortie."

My Cabinet Suggestions

Here're my cabinet suggestions for W:

State - Danforth
UN - Condie
NSA - Wolfie
DOD - Rummy (or Franks)
DOJ - Estrada (or Rudy)
CJ - Clarence Thomas
AJ - Larry Thompson
(a former Deputy AG; a black conservative)-(or Rudy)
DHS - Franks (or Rudy)
Commerce - Jack Welch
NID - Goss (or Rudy)
DOT - Frost

Message to the ascendant GOP: ASSERT AN URBAN AGENDA

Looking over the electoral map (by county) one cannot help but make at least one huge conclusion: the Democrats are still the majority party most of the big old cities - most majorities are HUGE. WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THIS?
First, the cities have long been voting slaves to local Democrat machines. Second, the Democrats have long been the majority party for immigrants. Third, cities have long been magnets for ethnic diversity and the Democrats have traditonally been more diverse. Fourth, the urban poor have long been bought off by the largesse of the liberal welfare state.
All this is changing, but not enough. Clinton moved more toward the center and toward the GOP when he pledged "to end welfare as we know it." This helped Clinton at the polls.
The GOP must make bigger and better overt overtures to the urban electorate, and it can do this merely by asserting its inclusive, color-blind, pro-business, anti-crime, personal empowerment (anti-welfare/anti-state dependency), school choice/teacher accountability, and low tax URBAN agenda.
This effort should be led by former mayors Giuliani and Riordan, and Senators Coleman and Lugar - both former mayors, and Mayor Bloomberg.
This newly assertive GOP Urban Agenda would help the cities, and just as importantly - it would be the death knell for the Left.

FALLUJAH: "Iraqi lights, Iraqi cameras, MARINE ACTION!"

"Iraqi Journalists Prepare for Front Lines in Fallujah:
Reporters to Embed With Marines, National Forces if Battle Starts in Insurgent-Held City"
"First Lt. Lyle Gilbert, a spokesman for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said it was important to allow the Iraqi journalists to cover any upcoming offensive in their own style and manner. 'The hope is that in the end, as much as possible, they will be able to take information they get here and inform their publics,' he said."
Could it be the Marines are embedding Iraqi reporters - instead of Old Media reporters or Arabs from alJazeera - so that the Marines can be sure that the Iraqi people get unbiased coverage of the liberation of Fallujah?

Wednesday, November 03, 2004


Yesterday, John Forbes Kerry was found
by the American People.

Old Media, Glenn Reynolds, Ray Fair - and George Bush

"... the real losers in this election -- the Old Media, still angry that they couldn't deliver their fifteen percent."
Oh, but Professor: they DID deliver their 15% - it just wasn't enough!

IOW: Can you imagine how much bigger the Bush win would've been had the Old Media had even slightly examined the Kerry bio or his mish-mash of policies or his plethora of misstatements?

I'd say that instead of winning 51-47% it would have been 58-40 - EXACTLY what the Fair formula predicted - AND - a 7.5% UP TICK for W - and EXACTLY what Mr. Evan Thomas predicted the Old Media was worth to the Left!


The Democrat Party: a national party no more

VODKAPUNDIT linked to a "election result by county map" in PDF.

A simple perusal of the map reveals that the ONLY place where the Democrats carried every county in any state - or EVEN a mere majority of counties in any state is in New England - with a candidate from New England.

Truly Zell Miller is right: the Democrat Party is a national party no more.

Phraud in Philly?

"In 2000 Gore won by a greater margin in PA:
47% Bush: 2,264,309
51% Gore: 2,465,412.
In 2004, with 99% of all precincts reporting, things were closer:
49% Bush 2,746,856
51% Kerry 2,868,674.
As predicted, the Achilles heal for Republicans like Bush in PA was the Democrat juggernaut called Philadelphia county. The vote totals in Philadelphia County were just too much for W, who lost that county: 517,054 (80%)-124,710 (20%). That's a loss of a little less than 400,000 in ONE COUNTY, and a bigger Democrat candidate vote total than when Gore beat Bush in Philly by nearly 350,000! In 2000 Bush lost that county 99,234 (18%) to 441,834 (80%)."
SO... for this years result to be TRUE, we must believe that in an election that saw W's portion of the Black vote DOUBLE, and his share of women increase, and his margins in PA and NY INCREASE, that Philly went for Kerry in GREATER NUMBERS than for Gore!? I'm sorry: this is SIMPLY NOT CREDIBLE; this indicates massive voter fraud - without which Bush carries PA. REMEMBER: Philly is where they found a few machines that had votes in them BEFORE the polls opened --- MAYBE there were many more that they never found? Maybe?

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

If the worst happens... WHERE WILL THEY BE DANCING?

If the worst happens and the DNC/ACT massive voter fraud works - and as a result Kerry wins the election (GOD FORBID!) then WHERE DO YOU THINK THEY WILL BE DANCING!?
In the Upper West Side of NYC, in the salons of the OLD MEDIA, in Paris, at th UN, and in Gaza and Fallujah.
Zarqawi and OBL will be as happy as Chirac, TUHRAYSUH and McAuliffe.
That says it all.

I saw W's final rally of the campaign, and....

I watched W’s last campaign rally for 2004, in Dallas - on C-SPAN. The crowd was very enthusiastic, and the president looked in great spirits and gave a great speech.
It made me look back at the campaign, and think of THREE MORE reasons why I am confident that W will win reelection, and win big:
Bush started his speech with a litany of thanks to prominent polticians there - a few in tight races. KERRY NEVER DOES THIS. WHY!? Well, Kerry has NEVER really campaigned with an incumbent who was running for reelection in a tight contest. If Kerry was a strong "vote magnet" then other candidates lower down on the ticket would’ve sought him out - instead, incumbents like Daschle ran away from Kerry. THAT'S A REAL BAD SIGN!
(2) The pro-Bush crowd broke out into spantaneous cheers of "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!"
I never ONCE saw a Kerry rally break out into a spontaneous cheer "U-S-A! U-S-A!" - NOT ONCE! The only cheer they seemed to have was a sort of countdown to election day, so tonight they were cheering "ONE MORE DAY! ONE MORE DAY!" This negative chant really captures the whole core or essence of the Democrat Party: they’re the"anti" party, and they’re running a mediocre, Left-wing, dove candidate who gets their applause only because he is "ABB" anybody but Bush.
This negative/REACTIONARY theme cannot propel him - or the party to victory. Especially when the theme - and the party - is lead by a Senator who NEVER had ANY leadership in the Senate or in his party - EVER! If Kerry had true leadership qualities, don’t you think that the Democrats would’ve sought him out for some/ANY leadership position in the last 20 years!?!? Of course they would’ve. Has Kerry EVER had a proactive leadeship role in ANY important legislation? NO, not once.
SO... how did Kerry get the nomination, then? BY DEFAULT! When it became apparent that Dean was a "wacko", IOWANS placed their bets on Kerry; he then won NH because he was a "virtual" native son/neighbor - and the rest is history...HE WAS NEVER CHALLENGED AFTER THAT.
(3) I saw A LOT of young people at W's rally at SMU. And at other Bush rallies across the USA. I think that the whole idea that the youth vote and/or the "new voter" will break foir Kerry is FALSE. Here's why:
Dean was SUPPOSED to be propelled to victory in IOWA by the new youth vote, the new internet voter - Joe Trippi's "DEANIACS.". IT DID NOT HAPPEN FOR DEAN, AND IT WILL NOT HAPPEN FOR KERRY, EITHER!
That’s how the Democrat Party - MY OLD PARTY - ended up with a guy who won’t release his medical records, or his wife’s holdings, or his own military records. A candidate who other candidates run away from - and who inspires not a whit of patriotism or optimism.
That is a candidate who MUSTN’T win - and who cannot win, thank God.

Monday, November 01, 2004


(1) Bush will win the popular vote by MILLIONS. Guaranteed. And (2) he will win the EC handily. Guaranteed.
WHY? Because he has picked up votes in CA, NY, MA, NJ, MI, MN, IA, NM, and WI. In EVERY case, the result in each of the sdtates will be SUBSTANTIALLY better for Bush in 2004 than in 2000. By millions in total. NO ONE CONTRADICTS THIS.
Okay... NOW: IF Bush is getting more BLUE votes in BLUE states, doesn't it necessarily follow that he will also gain BLUE votes in RED states!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Of course it does.
SO: if Bush is doing better with BLUE voters in BLUE States, and as well or better with BLUE voters in Red states then he MUST poll many MANY more overall voters this year than he did in 2000.
Meanwhile, Kerry has higher UNFAVORABLE numbers than Gore did in 2000 - (hard to believe, I know!) and he has a much less enthusiastic base tha Gore did in 2000, or than Bush this year. (REMEMBER: in 2000, Gore out-polled every Democrat ever to run for the presidency except LBJ!) SO Kerry CANNOT get more votes this year than Gore did in 2000 - NOT REAL VOTES, FROM REAL PEOPLE THAT IS!
Okay... so, if Bush is UNEQUIVOCABLY going to do better in BLUE states this time out, the how can ANYONE believe that he will do worse in RED states - especially RED states which have strong GOP organizations - like FL (GOP guv and GOP state legislature, and a GOP challenger for the US Senate seat who is a head) and OH - which has a GOP guv and two GOP Senators?!?!?!?!?
Like I said: it CANNOT happen --- not without fraud, that is. SO Bush will hold nearly every Red state, and pick up one to a several BLUE states, and also do better in EVERY BLUE state - even the ones he fails to win!
Sure: Bush can do better in ther BLUE states WITHOUT putting a single one in his column; therefore a CLOSE Electoral College tally is POSSIBLE. BUT IT IS NOT LIKELY, because BLUE voters CA in FL are not too different than BLUE voters in FL: if more in CA are voting Bush this timeout in CA, than more will in FL, too.
SO it SHOULD be a blow-out PV & EC - unless there is massive voter fraud.
I feel that there is massive voter fraud already underway. The issue is will it be enough to make the races close?
I pray not. What else can I say? Except: RUDY 2008!

Another reason why Jewish voters should vote Bush

Fully ONE-QUARTER of the Congressional Democrats vote consistently anti-Israel.
The Democratic Leadership of the Congress - especially Nancy Pelosi - owe their jobs to the CBC and they are all BEHOLDEN to the CBC.
The Leadership of the Democrats in Congress CANNOT afford to lose the support of the CBC. They can afford to lose the support of the pro-Israel lobby - which has been very supportive of George W, Bush, and is now split nearly 60%-%-40% in favor of the Democrats - a figure that this election may show has changed even more greatly.
Against this backdrop (of increasing strength of anti-Israel bloc in the Democratic Congressional Caucus, and decreasing "knee-jerk" support by Jewish voters for any Democrat candidate), is this FACT:
the MOST SALIENT part of Kerry's foreign policy: he will be more internationalist.
That means Kerry will work more closely with - and agree more with/capitulate to - the UN (which is anti-Israel) the EU (which is pro-Arafat and anti-Israel) and France (which is the home of the new anti-Semitism in Europe) and Germany.
The only way for Kerry to do this - and NOT lose precious Democratic support in the Congress is to DUMP ISRAEL.
This proves that Krauthammer is right. And it's another reason Jewish voters should not voter for Kerry.