Bush Does Not Care About Artist's Rights

The Bush campaign apparently doesn't really care about artist's rights over their work. The campaign has been using the song: "Still the One" for opening and closing its event. However the song writer John Hall, a Democrat, just recently learned about it's use. Of course he did, because the Bush administration doesn't allow just anyone to attend these rallies. In fact, you need to sign a George W Bush loyalty oath before you are admitted to the event. This may very well be to keep the music play list secret from the songwriters. Somehow the secret slipped out and John Hall is upset about it. He demanded that the song not be used, because he and his band are supporting John Kerry. He commented that it would be nice if someone would ask permission before they used his songs. However, the Bush administration isn't in the habit of asking permission to anything that they want to do.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws- tune30.html" title="http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws- tune30.html" target="_blank"http://www.suntimes.com/outpu...

Osma Tries to Give Bush the Election

Osma bin Laden is attempting to effect the US election. It is quite clear that bin Laden prefers to face George W Bush. If you just look at it from bin Laden’s point of view George W Bush has basically ignored him for most of the last three years. When Bush went into Iraq he left a rag tag band of soldiers to search for bin Laden. Therefore, bin Laden doesn’t want that to change. If Kerry were to change the emphasis in Afghanistan it could mean trouble for bin Laden.

Even though the new Osma tape doesn't specifically support either candidate, I think it will effect Bush supporters to be more fervent in support of Bush. Those opposed to the running of the Iraq war may be more fervently in support of John Kerry. Those in the middle will still be in the middle.

However, as we have seen from experience, every time the threat of terrorism increases George W Bush’s poll numbers go up. So, just the release of Osma bin Laden’s videotape may push Bush’s numbers up 3 points. This could be just enough for him to win the battleground states and win the election.

So, it really is hard to know what this videotape release will do, but I don’t really see it helping John Kerry. This may be exactly what Osma bin Laden wants.

NRA Lies for Bush

Now, the Bush campaign has the National Rifle Association (NRA) lying about Kerry's voting record in the Senate. It's bad enough when the exaggerate votes. Then they leave words out of quotes to try to get their agenda out. Now, this is just out right lying.



NRA Ad Falsely Accuses Kerry

It says he's sponsoring a proposal to ban "every pump shotgun" and voted "to ban
deer-hunting ammunition." Don't believe either claim.

Summary

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund began airing a TV ad Oct. 26 falsely
accusing Kerry of voting to ban deer-hunting ammunition. In fact, what Kerry voted for was a
proposal to outlaw rifle ammunition "designed or marketed as having armor piercing
capability."

The NRA ad also claims Kerry is co-sponsoring a bill to "that would ban every semiautomatic
shotgun and every pump shotgun." That's false. Kerry co-sponsored extension of the
now-expired assault-weapon ban, a measure that would have expanded the ban to cover military-style
shotguns but specifically exempts pump-action shotguns.



Click the link below for the full article:

http://www.factcheck.org/article296m.html" title="http://www.factcheck.org/article296m.html" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/arti...

Birth of a Bush Hater

I have to admit that back in 2000 I voted Libertarian. I didn't care who would win at the time. But, as the Bush administration dragged on I became more and more angry about the way he decided to run the country.

I was a little upset that Bush decided not to re-count the Florida vote. What could be more un-American than that? Shouldn't it be more important to make sure that all of the votes were counted fairly?

But I still wasn't so upset, because the vote was so close and George H W Bush was a moderate. I wrongly assumed that George W Bush would be the same moderate type of president. However, he went off on the right wing crusade for social issues. I am libertarian and I don't think that the government should be in anyone’s home or bedroom. I believe religion is a personal matter and one religion shouldn't be preferred over another. George W Bush’s first plan was faith-based initiatives. This seems benign, but the idea is to have the government take tax money and give it to religious organizations to give out, as they deem appropriate. Many of these conservative religions require that you read the bible, pray and listen to preachers in return for food. This seems a bit like coercion to me.

Then when 9/11 happened I thought that surely the government would get together and battle the enemy united. It was already clear on the first day that the enemy was al Qaeda and most of us news junkies knew that they were based in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Attacking Afghanistan seemed to make sense, and I supported that.

When Bush decided that the next war would be in Iraq I was totally disgusted. Surely he was using this 9/11 attack as an excuse to attack a country he had a vendetta with. The way that he pushed his plan through the congress and senate disgusted me further. Then the way that he dealt with the United Nations proved that he was certainly not a moderate George H W Bush.

Since the beginning of the war in Iraq I became a Bush hater as they say. I can't imagine four more years of this destructive behavior.

Small Problem with Small Businesses

Afghanistan now produces nearly 75% of the world’s opium and heroin. Thanks to the Bush administration invasion of Afghanistan and the lack of government afterward Afghanistan has gone from 0% opium production to 75% in less than three years. I wonder if this is what Bush means when he claims that he would be good for small businesses.

Brush With Fame

On one of the late night talk shows they used to have a segment called brushes with fame, where a person from the audience would get up and tell a story about the time that they met a celebrity. So, while reading Al Franken’s book “Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right” I began to think about the time I met Al Franken. Of course Al Franken would never remember meeting me, because I am sure that he meets so many people he would never remember a drunken college student in Ohio. In fact, I am lucky that I even remember it at all.

It was the Halloween weekend and a fraternity was holding a Halloween Party. This was way back when the drinking age in Ohio was 18 instead of 21. This meant that everyone on campus could drink legally and the main form of weekend recreation was drinking. The fraternity was not only hosting this Halloween party, but they were also the fraternity that put on concerts and shows at the University that I attended. I don’t remember the details, but I believe that the comedy duo Franken and Davis were doing a show the following or previous night, so the fraternity was entertaining them on an off night.

Since it was Halloween I needed to find a costume for the party. I wasn’t a very creative costume designer, so I thought that I would do something strange and easy. My concept was to be a patient that escaped from a mental hospital. But, since I had escaped I needed clothes. So, I grabbed surgical smocks from my roommate’s mom. Of course I was an escapee that was at a Halloween party, so I needed a costume. So, as an escapee I decided to be Abraham Lincoln. So, I got a hat and put it on my head. And, I taped a piece of crape paper on my chin for a beard. Of course since it was Halloween the crape paper was black and orange.

Of course I had no idea that Al Franken would be at the party, so I didn’t plan anything. However, since I was drunk by the time Al entered the party I had no problem going up talk to him. I don’t know if many other people even recognized him because I don’t remember anyone around him. So, I walked up to him and said hi. Then I said, “Can you guess what I am.”

Of course it wasn’t obvious. So, Al looked at the piece of crape paper attached to my chin and said, “The Flag of Chad.”

I said, “No, Abraham Lincoln.”

He sarcastically said, “Yea, I can see that.”

Anyway, that was my brush with fame. Of course I have met other famous people by now, but those stories will have to wait for another day.

Unfit for Command

John F Kerry uses George W Bush's words against him. You can read this statement for yourself, but the point is that George W Bush has jumped to conclusions more often than he has actually listened to his advisors. That's to bad, because George W Bush says that someone like that shouldn't be commander in chief.


TOLEDO, Ohio., Oct. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Senator John Kerry released the following statement today:

"This week's revelations about the missing explosives speaks to the president's continuing misjudgments in Iraq. According to the commanders on the ground, our forces were not ordered to secure a weapons dump in Iraq where 380 tons of explosives were stored. Now, the president's former chief weapons inspector says it's likely that these explosives are being used against our own troops. The president's shifting explanations and excuses demonstrate, once again, that this president believes the buck stops anywhere but his desk.

"Lately, George Bush has been invoking the name of John Kennedy. But can you imagine President Kennedy, in the wake of the Bay of Pigs, standing up and telling the American people that he couldn't think of a single mistake he'd made? That he would do everything again exactly the same way? Mr. President, John Kennedy was a leader who knew how to take responsibility for his actions.

"Mr. President, it's time for you to take responsibility for yours. Our troops in Iraq are doing a heroic job -- the problem is our Commander-in-Chief isn't doing his.

"Yesterday, George Bush said, 'a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief when it comes to your security.'

"I agree.

"George Bush jumped to a conclusions about 9-11 and Saddam Hussein.

"He jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction and rushed to war.

"He jumped to conclusions about how the Iraqi people would receive us.

"He not only jumped to conclusions -- he ignored the facts.

"Here are the facts, the bottom line, about these weapons: they're not where they're supposed to be -- they're not secure.

"Well, guess what, according to George Bush's own words, he shouldn't be our commander in chief. I could not agree more."


http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=39045" title="http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=39045" target="_blank"http://releases.usnewswire.co...

Vote or Die

The Use of Distortion is Worse than Ever!

“On the whole, analysts say Bush's use of distortion has been more audacious than Kerry's. But the Massachusetts senator has left much of the dirty work to outside advocacy groups whom Jamieson blames for one of the most serious attacks of the campaign.”

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6631134" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6631134" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

You need to click on the link to see the “Vote or Die” picture!

Fear

Why would Americans want a president that buckles to fear? Why would Americans want a president that does not want to hear the truth? Why would Americans vote for a president that is afraid to be honest with the American people?

We are living in different times. We have a president who makes the attendees of his campaign rallies sign a loyalty oath. I believe that this action alone shows that we have a wimp for a president. George W Bush is afraid to take on a heckler. If he is afraid of a heckler the terrorists must scare the shit out of him. Why would Americans choose to be governed by a president that is scared of hecklers and terrorists?

We are most certainly living in different times. We have a president that won’t even allow people from other countries read his campaign web site. Is this a brave man? Is he afraid that a hacker from France might put a moustache on his picture? Why would Americans elect a man that is afraid of hackers?

We used to have presidents that were brave in the face of danger. George Washington attacked Valley Forge in the face of almost certain death. Eisenhower attacked the Germans at Normandy when he knew so many would die. John F Kennedy stood tall against the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis. FDR said that we had nothing to fear but fear itself. But now we have a president that is afraid of hackers, hecklers and civil rights.

Tis the Season

The election season is upon us and people’s tempers are showing their ugly head.

In Florida a driver was arrested for trying to run over Rep. Katharine Harris. She is the infamous person who stole the 2000 election for George W Bush. For her trouble she was awarded a Republican safe seat in the congress.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...;jsessionid=KAFZ5KHZFCLBY CRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&s toryID=6631866


All across the country people have lost their elections signs to theft. http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/...

Two Good Reasons

My daughter is in first grade and her teacher asked this class to find to good things about each candidate in the Presidential Election. Of course my wife couldn’t think of anything about George W Bush, so she called me up to ask me if I knew anything good about him. Well, I told her that I would make a post on tblog and ask a Bush supporter to post something they like about him. I thought that maybe I could find something that I could agree with and have my daughter write it down for her homework. In the mean time I checked the George W Bush web site in order to find something. I told my wife that the only thing that I found so far was that his wife was a teacher and a librarian. She told me that it had to be something about him and that wouldn’t cut it. So, I checked my blog and there were no comments. So, I figured that Bush supporters couldn’t think of anything good about him either. My wife in the mean time thought that even though both Bush and Kerry care about America otherwise they wouldn’t be running for president and she was going to use that for one of the reasons. I wasn’t so sure about that, but we were desperate, so I just told her to go ahead and I would try to think of something else. I found something on his web page that says that he wants to crack down on drugs in school. I thought that was funny, in a sophomoric way. Crack, drugs, get it, ha ha... So, I told my wife to use that.

Anyway, two days later and no one even bothered to comment on my query. I guess the Bush supporters can’t come up with anything either.

So, my wife volunteers up at school, and she was talking to another mother of a first grader. She was so upset about the assignment. “Shouldn’t we keep religion and politics out of the classroom?” she cried to my wife.

“Religion and politics are not the same thing,” my wife told her. “The assignment was good for the kids and got them to think about the election.”

“But, we talk about that stuff at home, why should they be forced to bring this up in school?”

Well, the conversation went on and this mother was extremely upset. She ended up going to the principal to complain. My wife told me that this mother also complained when the third grade teacher selected a book about a black family that drove from Chicago down to the south to visit family during the 1960s. And, she complained about a book the third grade class had read about the plight of the Cherokee Indians. “There is no reason that my daughter should be exposed to these ideas,” she told my wife, “We talk about them at home and my daughter knows what she is supposed to think.”

Talk about scary. And the Republicans are afraid of liberal ideology. I think that they have a considerable problem with the conservatives in their own Party.

Republican Slime

In the California 15th District Senate race there is a close battle between Republican candidate Abel Maldonado and Democratic candidate Peg Pinard. But there is slime in the water as well. A Green Party candidate for the same seat has come forward to tell the world of the Republican slime machine. It turns out that Brooke Madsen was registered as Green Party member, but had no intention of running for office until two guys showed up at his door asking him to run. They had told him that they were with the Green Party and that they would pay his $1,000.00 filing fee. Brooke thought he had nothing to loose. Then he called the Green Party to thank them for their support. To his surprise he didn’t have their support. They had never heard of paying for anyone’s filing fees. But now he knows the truth . Two Republicans posing as Green Party members were the ones to show up at his door and pay his filing fee. The intention was to draw votes away from the Democratic candidate Peg Pinard.

What Slime!

http://www.theksbwchannel.com/politics/3859116/deta il.html" title="http://www.theksbwchannel.com/politics/3859116/deta il.html" target="_blank"http://www.theksbwchannel.com...

California Prop 72

If you were to arrive in California from outer space you would be confused with this election. Well, actually many people who have been here all along are confused with this year’s election proposition. Prop 72 is an example of how Republicans are just mean people. Republicans have said that they don’t want the government to provide Health Care for the people. OK, that’s fine. They are on the record of not wanting to provide Health Care for immigrants. Republicans don’t want anyone to get Health Care unless they are working and they can pay for it themselves. So, moving along those lines Prop 72 says those companies with more than 50 employees will be mandated to provide 80% of Health Care insurance for their employees. This seems reasonable to me. If you can’t get Health care from the government and the majority of Americans get their Health Care through their employer, then why shouldn’t the state just mandate it and make it a law? The Republicans in California are upset about this. In fact, they lie about the proposition on the TV ads. This means that they are really, really upset about it. In the TV ad they say that prop 72 would be government health care. Of course this isn’t true, it is just saying that employers need to pay 80% of the cost of ordinary Health Care insurance. How can they lie like this? Well, lies seem to work, so they may be able to defeat the proposition, but the people are not being told the truth.

So, where do Republicans want the working poor to get their Health Care? Do they need to wait until they are sick enough to go to the emergency room? What about the non-working poor?

Simple Frustration

I am frustrated that there is very little we can do now. Many supporters of George W Bush can not be swayed by the truth. Education is hard, as George W Bush might say. You can't just open up your head and pour the education in. Some people think that this is almost true. They opt for memorizing facts but not thinking about the relationships between the facts. True education happens when a person contemplates the information and he tries to understand how things relate to each other.

The funny thing is that fundamentalists by their very nature expect their followers to just memorize the meanings of the Bible quotes, but not to understand them. And, many of these fundamentalists support George W Bush. So, it shouldn't be any surprise that these people can't rethink their positions, because they never thought them out in the first place.

Lies

I really don’t understand anything any more. The Republican Party is the political Party that the fundamentalist Christians gravitate to. Christians are supposed to obey the Ten Commandments. And, on that list is “Thou shall not bear false witness.” This means that you shouldn’t tell untruths. George W Bush himself is a professed Christian and should uphold these same Ten Commandments.

However, all I hear is lies coming out of his mouth. During the debate John Kerry told the American people that he would not raise taxes on those who make less than $200,000.00 but Bush continues to frighten those same people by claiming that John Kerry will raise taxes. This is just one of the many out right lies of George W Bush.

George W Bush tells another lie over and over again. He says that John Kerry would “cut and run” in Iraq. Once again this is an out right lie. During the debate John Kerry explained his position. He told the American people that he would appeal to the world for more support. He believed that he could gain this support and with the increased force in Iraq he could provide stability and under that stability Iraq would more quickly be turned over to the Iraqi people and US forces could be brought home. George W Bush continues to say that John Kerry has some kind of timetable. George W Bush just makes this stuff up and I am afraid that some of the American People actually believe him.

George W Bush also lies about the expansion of firefighters and police. He has actually cut funds for firefighters in the west, which need to fight wild fires.

George W Bush also lies about being pro-life. He put 34 prisoners to death while he was governor of Texas. He killed over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers in the Iraq war. He killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians in the Iraq war. He killed over 1100 American soldiers in fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq. He also began research into the development of “small” nuclear weapons to attack underground bunkers. The radiation from such weapons would harm many more people than just the enemy targeted.

Beyond the Call of Duty
A whistle-blower objected to the government's Halliburton deals—and says now she's paying for it
By ADAM ZAGORIN & TIMOTHY J. BURGER


Sunday, Oct. 24, 2004
In February 2003, less than a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse walked into a Pentagon meeting and with a quiet comment started what could be the end of her career. On the agenda was the awarding of an up to $7 billion deal to a subsidiary of Houston-based conglomerate Halliburton to restore Iraq's oil facilities. On hand were senior officials from the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and aides to retired Lieut. General Jay Garner, who would soon become the first U.S. administrator in Iraq.

Then several representatives from Halliburton entered. Greenhouse, a top contracting specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers, grew increasingly concerned that they were privy to internal discussions of the contract's terms, so she whispered to the presiding general, insisting that he ask the Halliburton employees to leave the room.

Once they had gone, Greenhouse raised other concerns. She argued that the five-year term for the contract, which had not been put out for competitive bid, was not justified, that it should be for one year only and then be opened to competition. But when the contract-approval document arrived the next day for Greenhouse's signature, the term was five years. With war imminent, she had little choice but to sign. But she added a handwritten reservation that extending a no-bid contract beyond one year could send a message that "there is not strong intent for a limited competition."

Greenhouse's objections, which had not been made public until now, will probably fuel criticism of the government's allegedly cozy relationship with Halliburton and could be greeted with calls for further investigation. Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) subsidiary has been mired in allegations of overcharging and mismanagement in Iraq, and the government in January replaced the noncompetitive oil-field contract that Greenhouse had objected to and made two competitively bid awards instead. (Halliburton won the larger contract, worth up to $1.2 billion, for repairing oil installations in southern Iraq, while Parsons Corp. got one for the north, worth up to $800 million.) Halliburton's Iraq business, which includes another government contract as well, has been under particular scrutiny because Vice President Dick Cheney was once its CEO. The Pentagon, concerned about potential controversy when it signed the original oil-work contract, gave Cheney's staff a heads-up beforehand. (TIME disclosed that alert in June.)

Greenhouse seems to have got nothing but trouble for questioning the deal. Warned to stop interfering and threatened with a demotion, the career Corps employee decided to act on her conscience, according to her lawyer, Michael Kohn. Kohn, who has represented other federal whistle-blowers, last week sent a letter—obtained by TIME from congressional sources—on her behalf to the acting Secretary of the Army. In it Kohn recounts Greenhouse's Pentagon meeting and demands an investigation of alleged violations of Army regulations in the contract's awarding. (The Pentagon justified the contract procedures as necessary in a time of war, saying KBR was the only choice because of security clearances that it had received earlier.) Kohn charges that Greenhouse's superiors have tried to silence her; he says she has agreed to be interviewed, pending approval from her employer, but the Army failed to make her available despite repeated requests from TIME.

"These charges undercut months of assertions by Administration officials that the Halliburton contract was on the level," says Democratic Representative Henry Waxman. As the Corps's top contract specialist, the letter says, Greenhouse had noted reservations on dozens of procurement documents over seven years. But it was only after she took exception to the Halliburton deal that she was warned not to do so anymore. The letter states that the major general who admonished her, Robert Griffin, later admitted in a sworn statement that her comments on contracts had "caused trouble" for the Army and that, given the controversy surrounding the contract, it was "intolerable" and "had to stop." The letter says he threatened to downgrade her. (As with Greenhouse, the Army did not make Griffin available.) When the Pentagon's auditors accused KBR of overcharging the government $61 million for fuel, the letter says, the Army bypassed Greenhouse. Her deputy waived a requirement that KBR provide pricing data—a move that looked "politically motivated," the letter says.

The Pentagon maintains that it awarded Halliburton's Iraq contracts appropriately, as does a Halliburton spokeswoman. A senior military official says the Army "has referred the matter to the inspector general of the Department of Defense." As for Halliburton, it has faced alleged cost overruns, lost profits and seen at least 54 company contractors killed in Iraq. Greenhouse, meanwhile, has requested protection from retaliation. But her career—and reputation—are on the line.

From the Nov. 01, 2004 issue of TIME magazine


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article /0" title="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article /0" target="_blank"http://www.time.com/time/maga...,9171,1101041101-733760,0 0.html

Don't Let Bush Use Fear to Extort Your Vote

George w Bush is continuing to use fear to scare you into voting for him. If you know anything about the Mafia, this is how they extort money from the businesses in the area. They ask you to buy protection buy giving money to them so they won't burn down your building. What George w Bush is doing is scaring you into voting for him. He claims unproven ideas about the danger the country would be in if John Kerry were elected. This is simply not true. In fact, based on George w Bush's first four years one should expect the country to be in more danger if Bush were to be elected, but no one knows for certain.

In a speech today Bill Clinton said:

"In the closing days of this campaign, John Kerry is going on being John Kerry -- talking about his hopes for America; his plans for America; his commitment to our security and our prosperity. Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this, if one candidate's trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best. My fellow Americans, we can do better. And in eight days we're going to do better, with President John Kerry."

Just Two Things

A couple of months ago someone asked Kerry supporters to come up with one good reason to vote for George W Bush. Likewise they asked Bush supporters to come up with one reason to vote for John Kerry. The result was very little input.

However, I got to thinking that I couldn't come up with one reason that George W Bush deserved my vote. So, if any Bush supporters read this blog could you please give me two reasons why I should vote for him. I'm asking for two reasons, because I don't care to read a whole string of Bush supporters saying that he started the War in Iraq so we should let him finish it. I want to hear something else.

Thanks in advance.

Why Does the World Hate George W Bush?

Notice the title says George W Bush and not America. The Republicans continue to say that the world hates America, and does not distinguish between America and George W Bush. The truth is that the world hates George W Bush because of his total disregard for the rest of the world.

As an American one might believe that a president who only concerns himself with the welfare of America is just what the doctor ordered. However, this would be a false assumption. Like it or not the United States must live in a world that consists of more than just one country. When the world prospers the United States prospers.

Imagine the plight of an immigrant. Why does an immigrant want to leave his country and culture and go to a large strange country like the United States? The answer of this question lies in the whole world picture and not just in the picture of one country. The United States has opportunities for the world population because the American corporations need labor. Whether these companies hire workers in the US for manufacturing plants in the US or in other countries doesn’t really matter to them. US foreign policy determines what these companies will do. When a disproportionate number of people are living in poverty in other countries the motive for these workers to seek jobs in our country increases. The point is, the larger the gain the greater the risk that a potential immigrant is willing to take. This implies that if the United States helped other countries come to the economic level of the US fewer immigrants would be tempted to immigrate to the US.

But, it is more than just economic inequality that insights people of the world to hate George W Bush. It is the policies that George W Bush has implemented since he has taken office. The Kyoto protocol’s rejection was the beginning of this. The US is the number one producer of pollution in the world. This makes sense, because manufacturing and pollution go hand in hand. Pollution is produced when fuel is burned to create the energy required to make things. The world knows that this pollution is causing global warming and acid rain. These things effect the whole world, not just the United States so it is irresponsible for the United States to ignore its responsibility and the world knows it.

So, before the Iraq war and the war on terrorism the people of the world already disliked George W Bush. But after 9/11 the people of the world united behind the United States and they agreed that the attack was horrific and deserved a response. And, when al Qeada was attacked in Afghanistan the world supported this.

However, the world views the United States as the biggest kid on the block. So, when the United States attacks another country without just cause the world sees it as if they could be attacked as well. What if France had elected an extreme left or Right Wing Prime Minister? Would the United States attack France? France doesn’t know for sure if the United States might attack it. Now, after the invasion of Iraq France knows that international law does not protect it from an invasion. If the United States wants to attack someone it will. So, the world like the hypothetical France in this example fears that the United states may be the bully on the block picking on countries when it sees fit.

Funny Stuff

Well, I saw Al Franken’s book at the library the other day, so I checked it out. When I first saw it at the bookstore I thought that I should read it, but I didn’t want to spend the money on something that was surely Left Wing extremism. I wouldn’t buy Bill O’Reilly’s book either, but I did read it when I was visiting my parents a couple of years ago.

I do have to say that Al Franken’s book is much funnier than Bill O’Reilly’s book. However, I am guessing that Bill O’Reilly wasn’t trying to write a funny book. Bill O’Reilly is pretty sneeky in the way he write’s his book. He begins with subjects that very few people can argue with and then goes into right wing social issues as the book goes on. So, the unaware reader begins by saying: “This guy isn’t so far out of the mainstream.” So, when he starts introducing other issues like abortion, school vouchers or teaching sex education in schools you might be persuaded to go along with him.

Al Franken on the other hand starts out tongue in cheek from the beginning. He begins by saying that God told him to write the book. Unfortunately, the people on the right will be offended right away and most likely don’t have enough of a sense of humor to be able to understand his points. Al Franken’s book points out the hypocrisy and lies of the right by using facts and humor. In one of his most creative illustrations he uses the exact methods of deception to point out how Ann Coulter lies to get her point of view out into the mainstream. Al Franken tells us that Ann Coulter uses endnotes instead of footnotes to support her “facts.” He says that Ann Coulter does this on purpose to mislead the readers that he knows doesn’t check the footnotes. He illustrates this with an example of how Ann Coulter claims that a guys father was a socialist and ran for president as the Socialist candidate. Al points out how this is wrong and how Ann could have verified the facts by calling up the guy and asking him herself and she would have found that his father had never run for president at all, let alone for the Socialist Party. Al endnotes this instead of footnoting it, like he does the rest of the book. If you check the endnote it says that the guy’s grandfather actually ran as the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate. It points out how this type of deception works by example.

Al’s book points out that Ann Couter goes on about Al Gore claiming that he invented the Internet. Al points out that Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet, he claimed that he created a bill that provided money to research the development of the Internet. So, when Al Franken challenged Ann Coulter on this she told him that “Create” and “Invent” are synonyms in any Thesaurus. So, in the book Al Franken points out that friendly and intimate are synonyms in any Thesaurus. And, Ann Coulter claimed to be friendly with Al Franken at one point.

So, if you want to read something that is very funny, and you know something about politics consider checking out Al Franken’s book. This book is called “Lies, and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.”

Tblog Challenge Entry

In response to: http://www.tblog.com/template...

What do you think is the single most important issue in this year's presidential race, and who do you think will win?

In my opinion the single most important issue in this election is leadership. Most presidents in our recent history have had leaderships in one form or another. Sometimes the president is able to work to bring countries to together to support US interests. Sometimes a president is able to unify the country in times of trouble, like FDR did throughout the Great Depression and WW II. However, I feel that George W Bush does not show this leadership in any way, shape, or form. During his presidency George W Bush hid himself away and had his press secretary issue statements. George W Bush only addressed America when he was compelled to by current events and at no other time. Even during the presidential campaign he demands that attendees at his rallies sign a loyalty oath that includes their name and address. This is not a president that is a leader of all Americans. In his first campaign in 2000 he declared that he was a uniter not a divider. However, he has proven differently over the last four years.

This being the case he may end up winning this years election. However I would like to remain optimistic and predict that John Kerry will win the election, even though the vote will be very close. My optimism is based on the fact that undecided voters usually go for the challenger 2:1. This is explained by the fact that the incumbent hasn’t proven himself when he had the chance to, so they believe that a change will be an improvement. This will give Kerry the swing states that he needs by a slim margin.

Does John Kerry have a consistent position on the war in Iraq, and, if elected, would he be an effective leader in this war?

I believe that John Kerry has actually been more consistent on the war in Iraq than George W Bush. The attacks that the Bush campaign has been throwing at Kerry has been debunked by factcheck dot org several times, but it doesn’t matter. Even after John Kerry pointed out his consistency at the debate the Bush administration continues to call Kerry names that don’t fit the reality. In most campaigns this would discourage undecided voters from voting and turn off many of the people leaning in the Bush direction. However, I believe that there is more to the American voter’s psyche this year. Americans just don’t want to believe that their president would lie to them. Because of this Americans who support Bush can’t believe that he would lie no matter how much evidence is shown that he did. Cheney continues to tie the war in Iraq to 9/11 and Americans believe it regardless of the proof in the major reports released in the last few weeks. Even new reports will not sway those who choose to support Bush. http://pipa.org/

Has George W. Bush misled the country regarding Iraq, and is his doctrine of preemption in our nation's best interest?

Yes, I guess I answered some of this one in the previous argument. Preemption is not in America’s interest at all. What this idea does is give a green light to any country who believes that America is a threat to them they could now sight the example of America’s invasion of Iraq when they take an offensive action against any of their enemies. For example, in 1990 Saddam attacked Kuwait. If he were in power and chose to do that today he could claim that Kuwait was planning an attack on him. He could sight the preemption policy as a valid case. Any country could do this. China could attack Taiwan. North Korea could attack South Korea and justify it.

$8 Million Worth Of Distortions

Two Bush ads full of misleading and false statements ran more than 9,000 times in 45 cities last
week.

Summary

Two misleading Bush ads accusing Kerry of supporting tax increases on gasoline and middle-class
parents were running heavily last week. According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS
Media Intelligence, which tracks TV ads in the top 100 markets, the two Bush ads accounted for
nearly half of the estimated $16 million spent by Bush and the Republican National Committee
during that week alone.

Both ads repeat claims we've repeatedly disputed here. They both attempt to portray Kerry as eager
to raise taxes on middle-income taxpayers, which Kerry has said consistently he won't do. One ad
characterizes Kerry's votes against proposed tax cuts as votes to "raise taxes," an
outright falsehood.



Click the link below for the full article:

http://www.factcheck.org/article286m.html" title="http://www.factcheck.org/article286m.html" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/arti...

Poll Says Bush Backers Can't Handle the Truth

A new poll out shows that Bush supporters continue to believe the lies of the Bush administration. This is because if they were to accept the truth they could no longer be able to support the President. So, instead of accepting the truth they would rather deny it and accept the lies of the Bush administration. This is amazing, seeing that the major reports on the subject of Iraq and 9/11 show the oposite to what the Bush administration is telling them.

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25967" title="http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25967" target="_blank"http://www.ipsnews.net/intern...

What do Republicans really want?

It certainly isn’t the truth. It isn’t free speech. We know this, because of the ways in which the Republicans use security and police to monitor and shape their “public” events. This gives the illusion that all is well and no one objects to the president. The United States fought governments that used this type of misinformation. At the time the United States claimed that they were fighting the Soviet Union because they were protecting American freedoms. Freedom of speech was often invoked during the cold war. Now that the conflict is over, the Bush administration is using the same control of the freedom of expression that they criticized the Soviets of doing. The truth is that the cold war was not about freedom. Instead it was about protecting personal wealth. The Soviets were a threat to the United States, because they were saying that the assets of the Soviet Union belong to the entire country. Since Western companies owned assets in Russia before the revolution western companies lost billions in assets. The cold war was the effort to get those assets back.

In the long run Republicans want to control the world. They want their capital to be used to purchase as much of the world that they can. When the government taxes them it takes some of that potential away. Republicans know that concentrating the world’s wealth in the hands of a few will reward those few with the control of most of the world.

Republicans believe that using as little money as possible to accomplish this assures that the capitalist can pressure workers to do as much work as possible for as little money as possible. Republicans desire a higher unemployment rate, because this keeps the cost of labor down. Republicans believe in no minimum wage, because this keeps the cost of labor too high.

The one problem that Republicans have is the number of voters needed to accomplish their goals. Since Republicans desire for only the top 1% to succeed at everyone else’s expense it would be difficult to find the 50% of the votes needed to elect these elite Republicans to office. This can only be accomplished by finding a group to be suckered into supporting their cause. The Republicans have found this group in the Fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist Christians don’t care about money (except for the few leaders to get wealthy from the donations like Jimmy Swaggert). In this way the Republican Party can promise the Fundamentalist Christians benefits that don’t cost any money. These promises tend to be social laws that don’t cost much to implement. This strategy manages to dupe the Christians into voting Republicans into office so that the wealthy can make more money in exchange for social laws.

California Republican Flip Floppers

About one year ago the California Republicans supported the overthrow election of Arnold Schwarzenegger to the Governor of the state. On Monday, however, Arnold came out in favor of proposition 71 which proposes that the state of California borrow 3 billion dollars and spend the money on stem cell research. Suddenly Republicans began calling into the local conservative talk radio programs saying that Arnold is a girly-man and even worse.

Personally, I am actually against this proposition, because the state of California doesn’t need to borrow any more money in order to put the state into further debt. This is not fiscally responsible. Republicans used to believe this, but under George W Bush borrowing money is suddenly a good way to run a government. So, if someone wants to fight an unnecessary war they just borrow the money. Now, someone wants to do stem cell research lets just borrow the money. Borrowing money should be reserved for certain investments that benefit the state. Building a road may come under that category. One can predict the benefit to the borrowing. With scientific research, this is not the case. No one knows with certainty whether this borrowing will result in anything more than a big debt. At least in a pay as you go program you know when to stop spending the money. In this case scientists will have the money and they will continue to spend it until it’s gone.

However, the Republicans are not mad at Arnold because of the fiscal side of the issue. No, instead they are mad at him on the moral side of the issue.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...

Current Electoral College Polls and Predictions

The current Electoral College results based on current polls is beginning to look good for John Kerry. He was down after the Swift Boat ads and the Republican convention. But, the debate seemed to turn the tables on President Bush. Of course I believe this is good news for America. When I see the lies coming out of the Republican Party and the Bush administration I pray that the American public is not persuaded. America is a Democracy, but like they say in the computer industry: Garbage in results in garbage out. If the American people listen to lies they begin to believe them. Even when the media points out that these are lies the entire public is not exposed to the retractions, fact checks and truth. The debates offered John Kerry the chance to get out there and expose the lies that the Bush administration has been spreading to a large enough audience that it may actually make a difference in the election. Of course there are supporters of George W Bush that either believe the lies, or they really want the rich to control the country. They have that right. But the point is that if people actually voted their self interest, John Kerry would win hands down. The American people have been tricked into listening to George W Bush and worse yet some of them actually believe him.

Current Polls map: http://www.electoral-vote.com...

Predicted Electoral Vote map:
Method 1: http://www.electoral-vote.com...
Method 2: http://www.electoral-vote.com...

The Bush administration uses deceit to get votes, and today the Holy See in the Vatican revealed that they used deceit to get a statement to be used against John Kerry. Even though the Catholic Church does not support abortion, it does not claim that a politician can not support allowing women of other faiths from obtaining an abortion. A member of the Bush campaign team posed as a student submitted a general question to the Holy See asking whether a politician who endorsed abortion should be excommunicated from the church. Since the premise did not involve a specific case the answer said that it could. This is what the Republicans want to hype in their campaign, and when they started to do this the priest at the Holy See announced that it did not apply to the specific case of John Kerry.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6557312" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6557312" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc: We Can't Handle the Truth

It is interesting that Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc cares so little for the truth. When their Washington bureau chief Monday after he publicly criticized the company's plans. So, Sinclaire is another authoritarian company that would rather broadcast what it feels will influence the election instead of broadcasting the truth. But aparently the Sinclaire lawyers told the authoritatians that if they went through with airing the lies about Kerry they would most likely need to broadcast a pro-Kerry or anti-Bush film. Michael Moore had volunteered Farenheit 9/11, so the Democrats had some matterial. Sinclaire quickly changed position and now they are airing a portion of the Lies about Kerry durring a news story that supposedly looks at the influence of such films. So, are they going to present part of Farenheit 9/11? I doubt it.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap /20041020/ap_on_el_pr/ker ry_film_shareholders&cid= 694&ncid=2043" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap /20041020/ap_on_el_pr/ker ry_film_shareholders&cid= 694&ncid=2043" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

Video i - Seniors for Peace

Video i is a PBS show that puts independent films on TV. Many of the films are exactly what you would expect, far out strange stories with mediocre acting.

However, yesterday Video i broadcast an independent film called Seniors for Peace. It was about Senior Citizens protesting against the start of the Iraq War. It is an extremely powerful piece. You can read more about it or get a copy at:

http://www.kteh.org/productions/videoi/se ason10_1016_1020.html" title="http://www.kteh.org/productions/videoi/se ason10_1016_1020.html" target="_blank"http://www.kteh.org/productio...

And you can read about the film at:

http://www.dlbfilms.com/seniorsforpeace.html" title="http://www.dlbfilms.com/seniorsforpeace.html" target="_blank"http://www.dlbfilms.com/senio...

Civil Liberties

Yesterday on tblog Winston Smith http://www.tblog.com/template... pointed out that George W Bush’s campaign had kicked three teachers out of a pro-Bush rally for wearing t-shirts that said, “Protect Our Civil Liberties.” Why, one might ask, would such a statement be contrary to the Bush administration policy? If the Bush administration continues to argue that the Patriot Act does not take away our civil liberties, then why would the Bush administration see this T-shirt as being controversial. I would think that no matter what the Bush administration believes it wants to put the idea of protecting civil liberties forward as a positive thing. But, apparently some of the enforcers have found religion in the Republican Party and they feel threatened by those who wish to have their civil liberties protected.

It turns out that this isn’t the only case of Republican enforcers taking away the freedom to voice an opinion. A few weeks ago three men decided to protest when the president’s motorcade passed by. They chose to completely disrobe, except for their underwear and stack themselves as a pyramid. This is, in reference to the Abu Graib prison scandal were soldiers had forced prisoners to do the same thing, sans naked. However, these men had not blocked the path of the motorcade in any way, and actually violated no city ordinance; they were removed by the police and taken to a police station. This is a violation of the first amendment. The police are taking away these men’s right to voice their opinion in their creative way.

These incidences are happening all over our country everywhere the president goes. And, the silence of these protests is deafening. Not to long ago these very Republicans argued that the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire because they did not allow the people to speak up and be heard. The Soviet government was a one party system and no opposition was allowed. It seems very strange that the Republican Party is beginning to behave in exactly the same way in which it had criticized the Soviets not so long ago. I suppose they feel that if the system enables them to achieve their agenda then an authoritarian one Party system is the efficient solution.

Once again, only the American People can save America.

The Bush Strategy

George W Bush has demonstrated that he would do anything to be re-elected and accomplish his agenda. He has such a far right agenda that he is pushing that many people are disgusted with him. He uses the polls to figure out just how far to the right he can go without loosing the election. That is why the election is so close. Hopefully he'll go just a fraction too far in his miscalculation and loose the election. That would be the best thing for America.

Republican Governor Endorses Kerry

No, it’s not Arnold Scwarzennagger, it is Michigan Governor William Milliken. Governor Milliken sighted the far right positions that George W Bush has taken.

"This president has pursued policies pandering to the extreme right wing across a wide variety of issues and has exacerbated the polarization and the strident, uncivil tone of much of what passes for political discourse in this country today," Milliken said in the statement.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=6 94&ncid=696&e=7&u=/ap/200 41018/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_g op_endorsement" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=6 94&ncid=696&e=7&u=/ap/200 41018/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_g op_endorsement" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

Cartoons

Nixon Organized The Swift Boat Liars

This is an interesting excerpt From the frontline documentary. It claims that John O'Neill attack on Kerry was created by the Nixon White House. Then 30 years later the George W Bush White House is paying these guys off. It's also interesting that they were afraid that Kerry could become another Ralph Nader.... 

John O'Neill was another Navy swift boat captain who had served in the Mekong Delta.

O'Neill: I never saw one war crime committed by allied forces. ... To say that war crimes are commonly committed in Vietnam as a matter of public policy is a lie.

O'Neill headed a newly formed group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace.

O'Neill: The president does our talking for us, as with most Americans. Mr. Kerry certainly does not.

According to Nixon's aide Charles Colson, O'Neill's group had been created by the White House. O'Neill denies this. Nevertheless, Nixon's office recorded the president urging O'Neill to keep after Kerry.

Nixon: Give it to him, give it to him. And you can do it because you have a pleasant manner, and I think it is a great service to the country.

After the meeting, Colson wrote in a White House memo, "I think we have Kerry on the run. ... But let's not let up. Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader."

 

 

Frontline Choice 2004

If you want to listen to a really fair comparison of the two candidates listen to the American Radio Works version:

http://americanradioworks .publicradio.org/features/choice/index .html" title="http://americanradioworks .publicradio.org/features/choice/index .html" target="_blank"http://americanradioworks .pub...

Or watch your local PBS station for the TV broadcast version.

 

Caoilfhionn Lies

Caoilfhionn lies but there is no way to correct the errors, because he does not allow comments to his postings. This is the typical way that lies are spread around the Internets, as George W Bush likes to call it. If you don't have a place for a rebuttle, it makes it safe for you to spread lies. So, if you want to make sure that you know what is not true, then check out caoilfhionn:

http://caoilfhionn.tblog.com/" title="http://caoilfhionn.tblog.com/" target="_blank"http://caoilfhionn.tblog.com/...

Bush is the problem

With this historical understanding of Korea-US relations, one would assume that Korea should be a country that is most friendly and appreciative to the United States.

But that assumption is wrong.

In recent years, the perception of the United States among many Koreans has changed drastically. This is especially the case for the younger generation.

Now, many see the United States as having moved from a benefactor to an impediment to inter-Korean reconciliation; from a protector to a country that could shatter peace on the Korean peninsula with hardline policies towards North Korea. There is fear of a pre-emptive US strike against the north.

Less a benevolent friend, the United States is seen as a hegemonic power that takes unilateral military action without regard to enormous consequences.

The poll of America's image in Korea provides insight into why Koreans have changed their minds about America: the US fall from grace, it appears, can be traced to George W Bush's ascent to the presidency.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/viewso famerica/story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/viewso famerica/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/use...,15221,1327462,00.html

Free Market Medicine

The current shortage of influenza vaccine is an example of the problem with free market medicine. Free market medicine we all know is when consumers pay doctors and doctors provide services to the people who pay. Doctors are free to charge whatever they want and patients pay what they can pay. Americans tend to think that this is a fair system, because those who have the money or the insurance get the service that they want.

The influenza vaccine shortage points out the flaw in this plan. Some doctors that have already received the vaccine have increased the price for the vaccination. This makes sense in the free market system. A low supply and a high demand drives the price up. The doctors should not be faulted for making the most of an opportunity, right? The problem comes when we look at who actually gets the vaccine and who should get it. Scientists have said that the very old and the very young are at risk of dying from influenza. So, if we want to save lives the very old and the very young should get the vaccine. However, the wealthy have the money to pay for the vaccine, and they want it so that they don’t get sick and miss a few days of work. If they miss work they may actually make less money and this is a serious problem for them. So, in our current system the wealthy get the vaccine so that they don’t miss work and the very old and the very young who are at risk of dying from influenza just need to do without. (Unless they are one of the wealthy.)

Of course this is only one example of our current system of health care and there are many more. But, when president Bush tries to scare the American people by saying that having a National Health care program would lead to rationing I think that he should look at the current system. It looks like we have rationing right now. The only difference would be who gets priority treatment. Should it be the wealthy who might miss a couple of days of work, or the very old and the very young that may die?


It's funny how Bush claims that Canada will come to the rescue, but they only have 1 million spare flu shots and the US is short 45 million.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041015 -123802-9810r.htm" title="http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041015 -123802-9810r.htm" target="_blank"http://washingtontimes.com/up...

28 US Soldiers Face Charges in Deaths of Afghan Prisoners

It’s funny how these stories come out in Canada first when they are bad news and they come out of the US first when they are good news. I guess its that damn liberal media in the US. The good conservative Canadian media gets the story first. But, that doesn’t explain why the socialist Chinese press also has the story. Then there is Russia, and the Philippines as well. Strange?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerro rism/2004/10/14/669401-ap .html" title="http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerro rism/2004/10/14/669401-ap .html" target="_blank"http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/W...

The American People Were Suckered in 2000

The only way that I can imagine anyone voting for George W Bush are the people who support the Republican ideology, or they voted for him in 2000 and they don’t want to admit that they were suckered. There is actually only a small number of Americans that actually support the idea that there should be an aristocracy. However, this is the Republican ideology. Whoever else voted for George W Bush in 2000 was suckered into believing that the Republicans actually cared about you. They heard the line that George W Bush spouted about being a compassionate conservative. He said this, because it got him elected in Texas. He wasn’t compassionate for four years, but he is spouting it again in 2004.The fundamentalist Christians believe that George W Bush will pass laws that will make religion part of the US government. He may try and he may succeed, but he won’t let it interfere with his true goal of creating an American Aristocracy. He only does this to make sure that he has the votes to keep the congress Republican. When your ideology is to benefit 1% of the American public you need to find cheap votes that don’t mind being taken advantage of. That is why the merger of Christian Fundamentalists and the Wealthy works. The Fundamentalists provide the votes and don’t care about the money. The Wealthy don’t care about religion, but they are willing to pay for their sins because its worth it to them to have the power to create their aristocracy

More Republican Cheating

In the Kentucky Senate Race incumbent Senator Jim Bunning used a TelePrompTer during a debate with his Democratic opponent, Daniel Mongiardo. Why? Kentucky is heavily Republican and George W. Bush is running away with the race. Why would a Republican need to cheat in this race? I assume it’s because he wants to tell the people what they want to hear, but he doesn’t actually know what they want to hear.

So, if this Republican campaign admits to this, why doesn’t President Bush admit to his cheating in the first debate? Apparently the radio devices are not that easy to get used to, so that may explain why Bush did so poorly in the first debate.

http://www.kypost.com/2004/10/13/bunn101304 .html" title="http://www.kypost.com/2004/10/13/bunn101304 .html" target="_blank"http://www.kypost.com/2004/10...

Bush Talks in Code

In the second debate President Bush was asked who he would pick for the Supreme Court. He answered in some detail about who he would not pick. And he said:

“Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

“That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.”

Well, Bush mentions Dred Scott because it is code for Roe v. Wade. In fact Robert, P. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania gave a speech explaining how they are the same. So, when Bush mentions Dred Scott in the second presidential debate he is talking to the anti-abortion groups that are familiar with this in order to avoid saying what kind of judge he is looking for to fill any Supreme Court seat. You can read the Governor’s speech online: http://prolife.liberals.com/a...

So, in the third debate George W Bush answers the following question:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said -- and this will be a new question to you -- he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?

BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test.

But, in the second debate he used code to tell the anti-abortion group that he would find someone that would not support Dred Scott II as the anti-abortion groups call it.

So, why does he talk in code? This is because women don’t want to give up their right to choice. They may never need to or want to exercise it. But America is a free country based on freedoms and rights are not given away easily. So, if George W Bush sounds like he isn’t trying to take your rights away from you, then you may vote for him. It is so disgusting how George W Bush resorts to hiding the truth from people in order to coerce them into voting for him.

The Economy Since 2000

I bet that you will be surprised to hear this. The economic downturn was not Clinton or Bush's fault. It was also not the fault of 9/11. Instead, it was the fault of greedy stock investors who believed that the market would continue to climb forever.

Now, the market isn't the whole economy, but with all the easy money available in the market companies bought lots of manufacturing capacity. They made it easier to manufacture things with fewer workers. This has been going on since the turn of the century and it happens in bursts and stalls continuously, therefore it isn't smooth. So, the manufacturing part of the economy needed fewer workers and people began to get laid off. They were easily hired in other parts of the economy, but most often they made less money. After the 2000 election people began to worry and not spend as much money. People used their money to pay off credit cards instead. This caused a surplus in the warehouses of all the products that were being manufactured at lightening speed because of all the over-capacity in manufacturing.

The solution is to this slow down is to put more money into the pockets of those who will spend it. George W Bush didn't do this very well. There are many ways it can be done, but Bush decided to give the money in the form of tax credit to those who had children and to cut taxes on those who owned stock. The money going to those who had children helped the economy because most of them would spend the found money, but more than half of the money went back into the stock market because it went to those who owned stock. This money did not add value to the stock market; it only increased the price of stocks. This made it look like the value of the stock market was increasing, but it was actually only the price of stocks.

Regardless, George Bush used his power to help the wealthy and only partially helped the economy. He could have done a much better job. Other more effective and cheaper ways to turn the economy were out there, but George Bush chose not to use them.

One more effective way that had been suggested would have been to temporarily suspend the collection of Social Security payments. This money is mainly collected from those who haven’t earned $80,000.00 dollars yet in this fiscal year. The money would almost completely go into the economy and it could be collected again once the economy turned around. However, according to Paul O’Neil’s book Cheney said that it was time for them to take their winnings because they were in charge. Does this sound like a compassionate conservative?

Summary of Fact Check Dot Org

Month	Bush Lies	Kerry Lies
March	7	3
April	3	3
May	3	3
June	2	1
July	6	3
August	5	3
September	6	3

I encourage you to go there and actually see what the lies are. Kerry’s lies are mostly exaggerations. Bush’s lies are complete distortions.

A Simple Tax Code

Today Cheney announced that he and President Bush would work to simplify the tax code. This is quite interesting that he would say this the day after the tax code was complicated by the special interests just yesterday. Since the Republicans are in total control of Congress there is no excuse for the special tax breaks for the special interests. If the Bush administration really wanted a simple tax code, then why didn’t they do it while they were in control of the congress?

The truth is that they really don’t care whether the tax code is simple. Instead the bill passed yesterday proves that the Bush administration wants to give tax breaks to special interest corporations.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/Senate-Passes-1 36-Billion-Corporate-Tax- Bill-37259.html" title="http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/Senate-Passes-1 36-Billion-Corporate-Tax- Bill-37259.html" target="_blank"http://www.ecommercetimes.com...

Lying and Cheating

When I grew up lying and cheating were considered sins. However, we have a Fundamentalist Christian in the White House that believes that lying and Cheating are a means to a just end.

How do I know this? Well, www.factcheck.org (factcheck dot org) was touted by Dick Cheney as the source for the truth in this election. And, if we take his word for it you will quickly see the difference in the election. The Kerry-Edwards team has been guilty of exaggerating some number and some facts, but the Bush-Cheney team has told direct lies that change the entire perspective of the election. They continue to hammer John Kerry on being a flip flopper by misrepresenting what John Kerry actually said. When John Kerry explains the truth the Bush-Cheney team continues to lie about it as if he had said nothing. I once believed that the American public could listen to lies and see what they were, but the 10 second sound bite continues to misrepresent the truth.

Over and over I still hear talk radio callers who believe that Iraq and 9/11 are connected. This is because of the way Dick Cheney continues to call Iraq a war on Terror and allude to 9/11. Even after being told that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush and Cheney continue to lie to the American public about what they said prior to the war. Before the war WMD was the issue that was used to get the majority of Americans to follow the Bush administration into Iraq. And, without that issue the president would not have had enough support to pass the bill giving the president authority to attack Iraq. John Kerry wouldn’t have voted for the bill if he had known the truth. Bush also misrepresents what he was going to do with the authority. He told congress that he would go to the UN and form a coalition. Well, we all know how that went. After not getting support he went to war anyway. After the facts he changes his version of the truth by lying about the past. It’s funny how Republicans dislike revisionist history when new things are learned about the past. But, they except the lies of George W Bush when he changes the past that happened only one year ago. I guess the point is that Republicans just can’t handle the truth.

Somehow Republicans continue to justify the lies that George W Bush and his team continue to tell. They except when George W Bush calls himself a compassionate conservative, even though he has never shown a compassionate bone over his last four years in office. They continue to believe that George W Bush is going to cut taxes for them when the majority of the tax cuts have been for the wealthy stockowners and the corporations. All the while he is spending like it is going out of style. He claims to believe that National Security is the number priority when he continues to under-fund the Department of Homeland Security. Ninety-five percent of shipping containers continue to enter our ports unchecked. And illegal immigrants continue to enter our country uncontested. We don’t have enough men on our borders, and terrorists could come in just as easily as the illegal immigrants do today.

But somehow all of this lying is justified. But how is it justified? Why should we put the liar back in office for four more years? Is it because Americans are just too stupid? Do Americans feel safer when they hear the lies that they want to hear? Apparently half of the Americans feel this way. I just don’t understand how an American that has heard the president lie to them for the last four years believe that he will do anything that he says he is going to do, except keep sending American troops to their deaths in Iraq. How could a good Christian believe this liar? How could a good Christian even support his policies?

George W Bush Dusts Off the Compassionate Conservative Misnomer

In a speech today George W Bush started talking about compassionate conservatives again. The American people should know that George W Bush doesn’t care for the average man. Few four years we haven’t seen George W Bush do anything compassionate. He has killed thousands in the Middle East, many of them children. He has denied children education funding that they need. He has taken Army Reservists away from their families and sent them to an unnecessary war in Iraq. Through his faulty economic policy George W Bush will be the only president who has lost more jobs than he has created since the Great Depression. That doesn’t sound compassionate. He cut the taxes on dividends, while he cut programs for the poor. He has done everything that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld told him to do. And, none of these guys are compassionate.

Three Weeks to Go and Everyone is Going Nuts

They always talk about violence happening in third world countries before an election. Americans look at these countries and think to themselves “glad I live in the United States where people are sane around election time.” However, this year things are already going crazy. I was listening to a moderate local talk show host today. He is one of the few hosts that honestly doesn’t favor either side of the political isle. He was telling the audience about the hate e-mail he was getting. He shared a few to show how ignorant the senders were.

So, this is related to the post I wrote earlier. However, once again the talk show host who began supporting Bush and is now admittedly sitting on the fence has gotten the majority of hate e-mail from Bush supporters although there were also some deranged Kerry supporters as well.

The talk show host asked callers to suggest why they think that people go out and make stuff up and send the e-mail with such hate.

One caller called in with the answer. George W Bush has used hateful lies against John F Kerry and now the entire country believes that he gave the green light to “do whatever it takes.” This is a scary thought as the election gets closer and closer. People are currently at the point that hate e-mail and lying are justified. But, two weeks from now the conflict could escalate. After all, George W Bush believes that in his heart that if you aren’t winning you need to step up the violence. Why would the election be any different?

More Lies from George W Bush Corrected at Factcheck Dot Org


New ad claims Bush inherited an economy "already in recession" and that 41 million
seniors "now have access to lower cost prescriptions." Wrong on both counts.



The ad by the pro-Bush group Progress for America Voter Fund claims the economy was already in a
recession when Bush took office, but the National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates
business cycles) says the recession actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in
January.

The facts also get stretched when the ad claims "41 million seniors now have access to lower
cost prescriptions (emphasis added)." Bush's new prescription drug benefit will cover seniors
on Medicare for an extra premium of about $35 a month, but not until 2006. Even the currently
available drug discount cards have been used much less than expected. Current enrollment is less
than 5 million.

Click the link below for the full article:


http://www.factcheck.org/article278m.html" title="http://www.factcheck.org/article278m.html" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/arti...

Republicans Resort to Cyberterrorism

It’s interesting that Republicans say they believe in free speech, but they really don’t want the truth to be known. President Bush continues to distort the things that John Kerry has been saying during the entire election. But it isn’t just President Bush, it’s Dick Cheney, Condolesa Rice, Donald Rumsfeld as well. But, it isn’t just the administration. The Republican bloggers continue to tell people they disagree with to shut-up or worse. Many of these bloggers sign their comments with crude language, even though they claim to be part of the Religious Right. But once again it isn’t just the bloggers. Several very informative web sites have been getting hate mail mainly from Republicans. One web site Electoral Vote Predictor 2004 http://www.electoral-vote.com... not only got hate mail from Republicans, they were attacked by hackers. They were not attacked only once, but many times over the last several days. This web site does have a Kerry/Democrat leaning commentary, but it also presents the facts from polling services and it shows who is in the lead.

I don’t understand what the point of bringing the system down is. Perhaps, because Kerry was ahead in the electoral college count for the last few days they didn’t want the truth to be known. But, the point is that it doesn’t matter who is ahead in the polls now, it matters on November 2, 2004. I wonder if factcheck.org gets the same hate mail from Republicans that don’t want people to know the truth about George W Bush and Dick Cheney.

Cheney, Halliburton Helped Saddam Fleece Oil for Food Program

by Jason Leopold


When the Iraqi Survey Group released its long awaited report last week that said Iraq eliminated its weapons programs in the 1990s, President George W. Bush quickly changed his stance on reasons he authorized an invasion of Iraq. While he campaigned for a second term in office, Bush justified the war by saying that that Saddam Hussein was manipulating the United Nation's oil-for-food program, siphoning off billions of dollars from the venture that he intended to use to fund a weapons program.

The report on Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, prepared by Charles Duelfer, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of the Iraqi Survey Group, said Saddam Hussein used revenue from the oil-for-food program and "created a web of front companies and used shadowy deals with foreign governments, corporations, and officials to amass $11 billion in illicit revenue in the decade before the US-led invasion last year," reports The New York Times.

"Through secret government-to-government trade agreements, Saddam Hussein's government earned more than $7.5 billion," the report says. "At the same time, by demanding kickbacks from foreign companies that received oil or that supplied consumer goods, Iraq received at least $2 billion more to spend on weapons or on Saddam's extravagant palaces."

The oil-for-food program was supervised by the U.N. and ran from 1996 until the war started in Iraq last year. It was designed to alleviate the effects sanctions had on Iraqi citizens by allowing limited quantities of oil to be sold to buy food and medicine.

But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Vice President Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil. Since the oil-for-food program began, Iraq has sold $40 billion worth of oil. U.S. and European officials have long argued that the increase in Iraq's oil production also expanded Saddam's ability to use some of that money for weapons, luxury goods and palaces. Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq was skimming off as much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program thanks to companies like Halliburton and former executives such as Cheney.

U.N. documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had controversial dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney's tenure at the company and played a part in helping Saddam Hussein illegally pocket billions of dollars under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. The Clinton administration blocked one deal Halliburton was trying to push through sale because it was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to U.N. documents. That deal, between Halliburton subsidiary Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. and Iraq, included agreements by the firm to sell nearly $1 million in spare parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore oil terminal, Khor al Amaya. Still, Halliburton used one of foreign
subsidiaries to sell Iraq the equipment it needed so the country could pump more oil, according to a report in the Washington Post in June 2001.

The Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show. Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts -- later blocked by the United States -- according to the Post, to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led military forces destroyed in the Gulf War years earlier.

Cheney's hard-line stance against Iraq on the campaign trail is hypocritical considering that during his tenure as chief executive of Halliburton, Cheney pushed the U.N. Security Council, after he became CEO to end an 11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil related equipment, to Iraq. Cheney has said sanctions against countries like Iraq unfairly punish U.S. companies.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Cheney adamantly denied that under his leadership, Halliburton did business with Iraq. While he acknowledged that his company did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, Cheney said, "Iraq's different." He claimed that he imposed a "firm policy" prohibiting any unit of Halliburton against trading with Iraq.

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," Cheney said on the ABC-TV news program "This Week" on July 30, 2000. "We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990,
and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

But Cheney's denials don't hold up. Halliburton played a major role in helping Iraq repair its oil fields during the mid-1990s that allowed Saddam to siphon off funds from the oil-for-food program to fund a weapons program, which Cheney and President Bush insist was
the case.

As secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, Cheney helped to lead a multinational coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War and to devise a comprehensive economic embargo to isolate Saddam Hussein's government. After Cheney was named chief executive of Halliburton in 1995, he promised to maintain a hard line against Baghdad.

But that changed when it appeared that Halliburton was headed for a financial crisis in the mid-1990s. Cheney said sanctions against countries like Iraq were hurting corporations such as Halliburton.

"We seem to be sanction-happy as a government," Cheney said at an energy conference in April 1996, reported in the oil industry publication Petroleum Finance Week.

"The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments," he observed during his conference presentation.

Sanctions make U.S. businesses "the bystander who gets hit when a train wreck occurs," Cheney told Petroleum Finance Week. "While virtually every other country sees the need for sanctions against Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime there, Cheney sees general agreement that the measures have not been very effective despite their having most of the international community's support. An individual country's embargo, such as that of the United States against Iran, has virtually no effect since the target country simply signs a contract with a non- U.S. business," the publication reported.


http://progressivetrail.org/articles/041011Leopol d.shtml" title="http://progressivetrail.org/articles/041011Leopol d.shtml" target="_blank"http://progressivetrail.org/a...

No New Taxes

It is amazing what you can hear on the radio these days. During a story on registering voters in the battleground states the reporter was asking why they hadn’t voted before and why they wanted to vote this year. One guy answered that he wanted to vote this year for Bush because he didn’t want his taxes raised. Apparently he hadn’t heard Kerry’s pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. Or, the guy wasn’t middle class. The reporter should have followed up with a question about Kerry’s pledge. But, it seems like people only hear what they want to hear.

Taxes were the last elections issue, or maybe several years before that. I don’t believe that it matters in this election, because neither candidate will raise taxes explicitly. Instead if they need money they will follow George W Bush’s revenue plan. They will borrow the money and pay it off over thirty years. This actually doubles the cost of whatever project that needs to get done, and it puts off paying off the loan until the next generation. So, instead Bush is taxing our children instead of us. Of course Bush will tell you that the economy will be so great in the future that these loans will be tiny.

Bush's Timber-Growing Company

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

This is from factcheck.org which was mentioned by Dick Cheney in the Vice Presidential debate. (He called it factcheck.com, but the traffic was eventually routed to factcheck.org.)

Thinking and Voting

I heard an interesting radio program this morning. A reporter went to Nebraska and interviewed quite a few people "off the street." She asked how the people were going to vote and what the thought the main issues were. She asked how people felt that Nebraska was not being campaigned in because it was felt that Bush had the state sewn up. Needless to say the majority of people were declared Republicans that were going to vote for Bush. The responses to the questions would surprise most people though. Most people had problems with George Bush running the country and starting the war in Iraq. However, the Nebraskans were still going to vote for Bush regardless. They were willing to give him so much leeway that it didn't make any sense. People even went so far to say that John Kerry may actually do a better job, but they were still going to vote for Bush.

I guess once you buy into the Republican Party you give up thinking before you vote.

Howard's End?

Australia's John Howard is one of George Bush's closest international allies. Will that cost him his job tomorrow?

Jeff Fleischer
October 08 , 2004

John Howard, Australia’s three-term prime minister, tomorrow faces what promises to be one of the closest elections in his nation’s history. The polls of the past few weeks have shown Howard taking a slight lead for the first time since his opponent, Mark Latham, claimed leadership of the opposition Labor Party in December. In those ten months, Howard has tried steering the discussion toward the robust economy he’s overseen, while Latham campaigns on social programs like health care and education.

But the war in Iraq could prove the pivotal issue, with Howard the first of the Big-Three coalition leaders (the others being Bush and Blair) to face the electorate since combat began.

From the start, Howard has been one of George Bush’s closest allies in the war, sending 2,000 Australian troops to Iraq and publicly pushing Bush’s "weapons of mass destruction" and "links to Al Qaida" arguments for removing Saddam Hussein. (This despite widespread popular skepticism on those scores.) As former senior intelligence analyst Andrew Wilkie told MotherJones.com in August:

"Howard was in the U.S. on Sept. 11, and I think that’s one reason why he feels so much a part of this. But his personal ideology is strongly inclined that way, much more than even his Liberal Party’s ideological position. The Iraq war in Australia is very much John Howard’s war; it reflects his obsessive relationship with the Bush administration."

The war was, of course, unpopular worldwide, and Australia was no exception. Polls showed anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of the population opposed the decision to send troops. When Bush traveled to Canberra last October to address Parliament, he drew -- depending on the estimate -- the largest protests in Australia’s history, or merely the largest since Australian troops were dying in Vietnam.





http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article .pl?url=http" title="http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article .pl?url=http" target="_blank"http://www.motherjones.com/cg...://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/1 0/10_505.html

Bush Kerry Debate Update

Here's an interesting story:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/ 08/bulge/index_np.html" title="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/ 08/bulge/index_np.html" target="_blank"http://www.salon.com/news/fea...

It says that George W Bush may have been cheating during the debate that he lost last week. Apparently Bush may have had a radio earphone in his ear receiving cues from offstage. If he was getting cues from off stage and he still lost that just shows that the Republican foreign policy is just extremely weak at best. But, maybe the system was not working. Then that means that they may use the same thing tonight and it could lead to an even closer debate. The format for tonight is Bush's strong suite. He likes to schmooze with a friendly audience. However, tonight the audience is supposed to be half Kerry supporters and half Bush supporters. Bush wouldn't accept the proposal of having a completely undecided audience. This is because he wants to get response to his applause lines that he has been using through out the campaign.

Toyota Prius

My car was in the shop this week. Therefore I needed to rent a car in order to perform my normal functions, like go to work and go home again. When I went to the car rental place I asked for an economy car, because the rates are usually cheapest and I don't really care what I drive in to and from work. To my surprise they had a Toyota Prius for me. Many of you may not know this, but the Prius is a hybrid car. This means that it has an electric motor and a gasoline engine in it. The point of having the two engines is that energy created by the gasoline engine can be stored in a battery and the battery can power the car as well. This may sound complicated, but the main point is that the MPG (Miles per Gallon) for the Prius is around 50.

I wasn’t sure what to expect when I got into the car. First of all the car doesn’t use a traditional key. Instead it is an electronic key and a big round power button on the dashboard. When the key is inserted into the holder and the power button is pressed the lights and computer inside the car come on. That’s right there is a large computer screen sitting on the dashboard of the car. But there is no sound of an engine starting, because it is in electric mode at first. When you put the car into reverse the car makes that annoying truck backing-up noise. But, the noise seems to be inside the car only. This may be the worst part of the car, because the rest of the story is so positive.

Once you start driving the computer screen can display the current MPG that the car is getting as you drive. This is quite interesting, but you need to remember that you are driving a car so keep your eyes on the road. By using the MPG monitor you can learn how to best drive in order to conserve gasoline. On another panel on the computer you can monitor how the car is using the electric and gasoline motors. It turns out that both the electric and gasoline motors can be and are used at the same time. In this way the gasoline engine can produce fast starts, and the electric motor can be used to keep the car moving at a constant rate of speed. The gasoline motor also charges the battery.

What this all means is that I was able to get 57 MPG going to work on one day and 52 MPG coming home one night. Apparently I drive uphill as I go home, because I consistently got lower MPG going home in the evening. This also means that I only used 10 gallons of gas this week compared to about 23 gallons of gas on a normal week. At $2.00 a gallon I saved $46.00 dollars this week. And if I were to purchase one of these I could save over $200.00/month (because I do some driving on the weekends as well.)

Imagine that if they put this same technology in a mini-van one could get over 40 MPG. Or, if one were to put it into an SUV one could get over 30 MPG. And for all the skeptics out there I drove between 70 and 75 mph each way as I usually do, and the acceleration is great.

Kerry is back on top in the Electoral College Poll

Even though the margin is razor thin, Kerry has regained the lead in the Electoral College Poll, the only Poll that really matters. The pollmaster for this site does a very good job incorporating the data from all of the polls available. I believe that with so much data being combined together this represents an accurate snapshot of the race. It also demonstrates the sensitivity of the polls and the closeness of the race. You can check out this poll and a ton of data at:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/" title="http://www.electoral-vote.com/" target="_blank"http://www.electoral-vote.com...

Based on these numbers Kerry needs to at least tie the debate tonight if he is going to win the election. Loosing the debate, which is in a format that favors Bush, would turn the tide again. Surely Bush will use his applause lines to get his supporters to applaud. The debate is supposed to only include people that are either leaning toward Kerry or leaning toward Bush, but the Republicans aren’t beyond cheating. Chances are they have the audience stacked.

Tom DeLay Continues the Republican Tradition of Lying

Tom DeLay was Rebuked by the House Ethics Committee for illegal fundraising in Texas and several other things.

http://www.iht.com/articles/5...

However, despite the rebuke Tom DeLay gave a talk where he thanked the committee for dismissing the charges.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story .php?storyId=4075584" title="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story .php?storyId=4075584" target="_blank"http://www.npr.org/templates/...

Apparently he believes that if you say something often enough people will begin to believe it. Where I come from they call this lying. Unfortunately since he is the most powerful congressman in Washington he will continue to be re-elected. People in his district will continue to reap the windfall of his power, despite the fact that Republicans claim that they are against special interests.”

Bill O'Reilly Sucks

So, someone created an anti-Bill O'Reilly website.

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/" title="http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/" target="_blank"http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/...

I found it while surfing and I'm passing it on. I just that it was funny that someone would spend time on this. Maybe it was Al Franken.

Positive Trip to the Library

I went to the Library today. I actually go quite often, because it’s the cheapest source of information anywhere. I also like to shop at Borders because there are always books that you would like to have on your bookshelf after you finish reading them.

Today the Democrats were registering voters. I’ve spoken with one of the guys before. It was interesting to note how the dynamics has changed from before the debate last week. People were coming up to the table asking for Kerry buttons and bumper stickers. Before the debate the attitude with the people who came to the table was, “... Bush is bad, I guess I’ll vote for Kerry.” Now people are digging into their pockets and putting money into the donation box and putting the buttons on as they talk to the other supporters standing around.

There was much excitement about the coming debate. One guy said that he wanted to watch Bush commit suicide on the stage. Harri – Kerry: it could be called! Of course, I hope the same thing, but the town hall format is George W Bush’s strong suite, so it won’t be as easy as the last time. I would just go for Kerry continuing to sound more presidential than Bush.

The Right-Wing Revolution
Populism still has a place in America. That place should be the Democratic Party.

By Robert B. Reich
Web Exclusive: 10.06.04

That America’s political center is to the right of every other modern democracy is nothing new, but why has it recently lurched so much further right? A belligerent cowboy president who says he’s doing God’s work seems on the verge of being elected to another term of office; both houses of Congress are in the hands of conservative Republicans who, thirty years ago, would have been considered wild extremists; most state governments are dominated by born-again bible-thumpers. To describe the recent takeover of America by the right wing of the Republican Party as a revolution is only a slight exaggeration. Liberal enclaves still exist along the east and west coasts, and in America’s biggest cities. Most Americans are only dimly aware of the ideological coup. And America’s radical conservatives are not nearly as bizarre or xenophobic as Europe’s "far Right." But there should be no doubt that the right has taken over America, with revolutionary consequences for America and the world.

========================= ========================= ===========

To read the rest of this story: http://www.prospect.org/web/p...

Republicans Increase Cross Burnings as the Election Draws Near

There have been increases in cross burnings across the country. These are most likely Republicans that are not happy with the likely outcome of the election in November.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/05/l oc_loc2across.html" title="http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/05/l oc_loc2across.html" target="_blank"http://www.enquirer.com/editi...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/n ation/9814970.htm" title="http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/n ation/9814970.htm" target="_blank"http://www.kansascity.com/mld...

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/break ing_news/9630107.htm" title="http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/break ing_news/9630107.htm" target="_blank"http://www.philly.com/mld/phi...

http://pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1094866 14248170.xml&storylist=penn" title="http://pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1094866 14248170.xml&storylist=penn" target="_blank"http://pennlive.com/newsflash...

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/articles/2004/10/06/c eres/local_news/news04.txt" title="http://www.mantecabulletin.com/articles/2004/10/06/c eres/local_news/news04.txt" target="_blank"http://www.mantecabulletin.co...

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sport s/motorsports/9854878.htm" title="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sport s/motorsports/9854878.htm" target="_blank"http://www.miami.com/mld/miam...

http://www.reason.com/rauch/100704.shtml" title="http://www.reason.com/rauch/100704.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.reason.com/rauch/1...

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5012650.html" title="http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5012650.html" target="_blank"http://www.startribune.com/st...

http://www.redding.com/redd/nw_local/article /0" title="http://www.redding.c