John Kerry has still not apologized, and at this point, nobody expects him to. He had an opportunity to do the right thing yesterday in Seattle, but instead tried to turn the focus onto President Bush and his policies. John Kerry does not owe an apology to me, or to the president. He owes it to the troops that he offended. Instead, he can't see past the perceived right-wing Republican "conspiracy" to realize the damage his statement causes to the moral of our troops. That's quite a telling piece of information, as we head towards next week's election. What does it tell me? It tells me that the Democratic Party has become so focused on opposing President Bush that they have "horse blinders" on.

This has been called an "October surprise" that has been handed to the Republicans on a silver platter, and it would be nice if that were so. I sincerely doubt that it will change people's mind in the voting booth, especially since John Kerry isn't running for any office, and it is doubtful that this will influence elections on a local level.

If there's one thing I would like voters to take away from this event, it is that if the Democrats assume control of Congress, they will not have the wider interest of people like you and me in mind. Like John Kerry's response to calls for an apology, the agenda of opposing Bush at all costs will supersede any meaningful consideration of our concerns. Keep that in mind as you go to vote next Tuesday.

Previous:
Shame On Who?
John Kerry: The Undistorted Truth

Click here to enlarge this image in new window

John Kerry finally apologizes... sort of. Rather than facing the public, as he did on Tuesday in Seattle (when he stated most emphatically, "I will apologize to NO ONE..."), the apology appears on his website in the form of a text statement. I guess that will allow us to close the door on this event, as well as John Kerry's career. Many pundits are saying he will not recover from this one. SEE YA...

Previous:
John Kerry's "Horse Blinders"
Shame On Who?
John Kerry: The Undistorted Truth

The upcoming elections are being presented as a referendum on Iraq. Democrats look to take over Congress, and perhaps the Senate as well. If that proves to be the case, Democrats will try to make good on removing our troops from Iraq. A scarier scenario I could not imagine.

What is at stake here is not just local politics. To withdraw from Iraq will endanger all of us. The Iraq war has been compared to the Vietnam war many times, and withdrawing from Iraq without winning will finally make the comparison a valid one. If we are to withdraw without a victory, we will be repeating the mistake made after the end of the Vietnam war. Remember, despite 30 years of misinformation from liberals, that we did not "lose" the Vietnam war when the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973. We pledged our support to South Vietnam to enforce this treaty. It was not until the Democrats in Congress withdrew this support that we finally lost this war in 1975. In the next 4 years, millions of people in Southeast Asia were subjugated or killed.

We are now on the verge of repeating this mistake. If the Democrats succeed in getting our troops withdrawn, the terrorists will have won. And this time, the enemy will not be content to confine their killing and subjugation to their own corner of the world. They will be emboldened, and they will come after us.

Kanye West's disgusting spectacle in Denmark recently just goes to show you that you can't buy popularity. It kind of reminds me of how Democrats reacted after the 2000 and 2004 elections. Hopefully, this will show him as the selfish loser he is. Anybody who is not offended by his behavior deserves to be bought off by him.

Bryan Preston at Hot Air is posting a collection of "Absolute Moral Authority Cards," featuring numerous ideologues getting a pass for bad behavior because of their absolute moral authority. View them here.

Here's my contribution:

*** update ***
Here's a few more that I made...

At several times last weekend, Fox News aired about 30 minutes of a film entitled "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West." If you haven't seen the film or Fox's airing of excerpts, you can view 12 minutes of the film here online. In fact, even if you saw Fox's airing, I recommend taking a look, as it has some excerpts that weren't shown on Fox. In any case, this should be on your mind as you go to vote tomorrow.

What struck me the hardest were the insidious hate filled speeches put forth by Muslim extremists, and the brainwashing of children to recruit new ranks for their jihad. The speeches and propaganda reminded me of both the Nazis in World War II and the "Two Minute Hate," scene from George Orwell's classic novel 1984. The scenes of children being subjected to hate-filled ideology at incredibly young ages should put to rest the thought that we are creating more terrorists by fighting back.

For those who believe the U.S. is exaggerating the threat of War On Terror, or that if we change our behavior we will not be attacked, this should be a wake-up call. The Fox News broadcast showed an excerpt that shows terror attacks all over the world, and clearly illustrates that this isn't just an American problem. The growth of radical Islam is a threat to virtually every nation on earth.

So, watch this film excerpt if you haven't already, and when you go to vote tomorrow, think of how this relates to what might happen if the Democrats take control of Congress.

Here's another contribution from me. I can't believe I didn't think of this one earlier...

Previous:
Absolute Moral Authority Cards

I just returned from voting. Voting in my precinct was quick and easy, with no lines or any visible problems. One thing caught my attention, though. On the ballot that I voted on, there was one question to vote on that I don't believe should have been on the ballot:

"Shall the United States Government immediately begin an orderly and rapid withdrawal of all its military personnel from Iraq, beginning with the National Guard and Reserves?"

This "Countywide Referendum" seems to me to be nothing more than a political ploy by the Democrats of my area, trying to gather ammunition for the demand to eventually withdraw our troops before victory is achieved. I would have preferred not to see that question on the ballot for several reasons, the main one being that it is not a vote that really means anything. My county does not make such decisions; our federal government is in charge of those decisions. In addition, no foreign policy decisions of this nature should be decided by majority rule straight from the voter. The average citizen has no business making military decisions or foreign policy decisions. We elect people to do that, so that decisions are (hopefully) made on the basis of what is right for our country, with access to strategies and intelligence the average voter may have little knowledge of. Of course, we owe it to our elected officials to let them know what results we would like to see, but they may have to make decisions that go against that because they believe it to be in the best interest of our country.

In any case, on that particular referendum, I voted no.

Democrats have taken control of the House, according to current projections and finals. It's not looking good for Republicans in the Senate either... it's looking like all three remaining contended seats are going Democrat. The fat lady has not begun to sing yet, but she's getting ready.

It's not looking good for the Senate at this point, so I am moving forward with the assumption that the Democrats have taken control of both houses of Congress. But I'm not glum! I'm really looking forward to higher taxes, income redistribution and a shameful retreat and eventual failure in Iraq.

All kidding aside, it is a pivotal moment in these first few years of the twenty-first century. It seems that local elections were decided on a national level, as all the pundits seem to be saying this was driven by dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. The Democrats promised a phased withdrawal from Iraq and a seeming abandonment of a policy goal of achieving victory there. The people seemed to have listened, so here we are today, with Congress firmly in control of the Democrats, and the Senate teetering on the brink.

The problem with the Democrats' policy on Iraq is that it is based on getting us out, not winning. There is a fatal misunderstanding of the enemy we are facing. Years of anti-Bush rhetoric have blinded Democrats and liberals to the truly dangerous nature of the enemy we face. The "blame America first crowd" has been so focused on opposing Bush that they have have stretched that blame back well before he was president, blaming him for all the evils in the world. They are convinced now that if we suffer a terrorist attack, it is because of Bush's policies, conveniently overlooking the terrorist attacks in the 90s, 80s and 70s. They seem to think the world is experiencing a series of completely unrelated events, and that the terror war should be fought only in Afghanistan. They blindly ignore the very words of our enemies, excusing it as "Bush propaganda." Karl Rove must be pretty good if he can put words in the mouth of Al Qaeda leaders, radical Muslim clerics and heads of state like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Garrison Keillor said in his column today "if you can't accomplish the mission, then you accept it and find a graceful way out." This is the key to the Democrats failure to understand what we are up against. There is no graceful way out. This isn't like the Vietnam war, where we can send our troops home, then look the other way while the people we abandoned are slaughtered by the millions. When we leave, the enemy will follow us here. They have said they will. They are amassing followers all over the globe, and if we're not fighting them in Iraq, we will be fighting them somewhere, and there is a good chance it will be here.

And it won't be because of Bush's policies. The radical Muslims are on the march, and their goal is to unite the world under Islam. This was their goal before Bush was president, and it will be their goal after the Democrats abandon Iraq. They are fighting in Russia, in Southeast Asia, in Africa from the Sahara to South Africa, all over the Middle east, in London and Germany and France, etc., and they are already here, and soon they will be escalating the fight here. Liberals can revise history all they want, but history is written by the victors, and their policies are about to take away their ability to write any more history. If we abandon Iraq, when the enemy comes knocking on my door, I won't be blaming Bush. I'll be blaming the Democrats.

It looks like Nancy Pelosi is going to be the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, the most powerful position in Congress and the third most powerful politician in the country. Does this mean San Francisco values are going to infect our country at large? Not as likely as you might think. Many of the newly elected Democrats are conservative Democrats, and they are not likely to follow her lead on every issue, especially with the more liberal positions she is expected to take.

And there is also the Joe Lieberman factor -- strangely enough, he is poised to be one of the most important figures on Capitol Hill. His voting record is quite liberal/socialist, but it was his support for the Iraq war plan that got him passed over by his own party. Now unbound as the only Independent in the Senate, he is freed to follow his conscience on many issues without being rebuked by his own party, as he was not elected as a Democrat. Of course, it's likely he will vote with the Democrats on most issues, but he obviously hadn't toed the party line as a Democrat, especially on foreign policy and national security. His potential as a swing factor may likely make him one of the most watched figures in the Senate.

As for pulling the troops out of the Iraq war, which most certainly will be on Nancy Pelosi's agenda in the House, that's also not as likely as one might think. Kenneth R. Timmerman has a pretty good piece in Front Page Magazine today about how it might be hard to achieve this. Here's a quote:

"Democrats will simply be unable to deliver on the main campaign promise, because 1) they do not have the power to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, and 2) because any effort to defund the U.S. war effort would be political suicide.

Read the whole thing.

One additional thing to think about in all this Democrat self-congratulation is that the margin of Democratic victory was hardly a landslide. The Democrats barely have a majority in the Senate, and the margin of victory in the House is close to the average number of seats historically lost by an incumbent President's party in the 6th year of the President's term in wartime. Ann Coulter has some numbers in her column this week breaking out some of these Congressional turnovers. With margins such as this, the House may send a lot of bills up the hill, but most will not make it through a veto and further voting. I would expect George Bush's dusty veto stamp to see much more light. Given this, Democrats in Congress are likely to pursue doable bipartisan legislation so as not appear as a "do nothing" Congress in 2008.

So, business as usual? Of course not -- Congress is now in the hands of Democrats, and they will impose a new tone on Washington. Thankfully that doesn't appear to mean San Francisco values for the rest of us.

For their bravery, for their service to our country, for their selflessness in keeping our country free. Today is Veteran's Day, and I would just like to take a moment to say to all veterans and current military personnel -- thank you. It is with great appreciation that we honor you on this 11th day of November.

Click here to enlarge this image in new window

Less than one week after the election, just under two months until the swearing in, and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA.) has already begun to shake things up on Capitol Hill. The big news today seems to be her support of John Murtha (D-PA.) for House Majority Leader. After pledging bipartisanship and cooperation, this endorsement cannot be seen as anything but antagonistic and divisive. Murtha has repeatedly called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, as opposed to the more moderate Steny Hoyer (D-MD.), who has been quoted as saying that too rapid of a withdrawal would be a "disaster."

The election last week has been called a referendum on the Iraq war, which is a dubious claim at best. This is underscored by the fact that many of the Democrats elected were more conservative than many Democrats currently serving in Congress, and that the liberal views of Nancy Pelosi do not accurately reflect the Democratic majority in Congress. The choice of House Majority Leader gives conservative Democrats a chance to put some distance between themselves and the extreme left wing of their party, showing a more moderate side that more accurately reflects their voting base, and at the same time repudiates that the entire election was a refenderum on Iraq.

In other words, if Murtha gets chosen as House Majority Leader, the "Chicken Little" pundits will have been right -- San Francisco values have taken over. But if Steny Hoyer is chosen, the moderate middle of the Democratic party will have asserted itself against the Pelosi-Murtha faction, and we will all rest a little easier.

John Bolton is looking to be another casualty of the Democrats' takeover of Congress, and at the rate they are going, the Democrats are going to be more divisive than they claimed George Bush to be. Gone is the "kumbayah" feeling of just days ago when President Bush and Nancy Pelosi had their first meeting since the election. In the ensuing days, Pelosi has endorsed an ethically challenged uber-liberal to be House majority leader, and now the Senate is getting ready to throw John Bolton under the bus, despite an admirable record at the U.N. His recess appointment expires in January, and it is likely that a vote to confirm him either will not happen or will not go his way.

Editorials across the country today are urging for Bolton's confirmation. The New York Post, both Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune, and the Wall Street Journal, among others, are urging his confirmation in their pages today, with the Wall Street Journal adding, "The opposition to Mr. Bolton is based on nothing save vindictiveness." And with good reason. Bolton's performance in the U.N. has been considerably impressive. From the Chicago Tribune, October 26, 2006:

In his 15 months as ambassador, Bolton has negotiated with other members of the Security Council to win unanimous or near-unanimous votes on such divisive issues as North Korea, Lebanon and the Darfur region of Sudan. The council also unanimously recommended Ban Ki Moon of South Korea, a U.S. ally, to be the next secretary general.

The council approved an Aug. 31 deadline for Iran to stop enriching uranium. With that deadline well-past, Iran figures to be the subject of the next major resolution that Bolton will have to shepherd through the 15-member council. Discussions about what should go in that resolution are under way..

"I think he's done very well in the Security Council and dealing with the other major powers," said Edward Luck, a Columbia University international affairs professor and former head of the United Nations Association of the USA, which works to build American support for the UN.

Despite this performance, the Senate seems prepared to close out the term without confirming Bolton's appointment. They are cutting and running from this issue, both Republicans and Democrats. Still, there are signs of hope. Many who were opposed to Bolton at first have been swayed by his performance and, if a vote is able to take place, they will vote to confirm him. George Voinovich (R-OH), a member of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, wrote this in the Washington Post, July 20, 2006:

Ambassador Bolton's appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists -- and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort -- than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives. For me or my colleagues in the Senate to now question a possible renomination would jeopardize our influence in the United Nations and encourage those who oppose the United States to make Bolton the issue, thereby undermining our policies and agenda.

Should the president send his renomination to the Senate, I will vote to confirm him, and I call on my Democratic colleagues to keep in mind the current situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world should the Senate have an opportunity to vote. I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a U.N. ambassador who does not have Congress's full support.

For the good of our country, the United Nations and the free world, we must end any ambiguity about whether John Bolton speaks for the United States so that he can work to support our interests at the United Nations during this critical time.

Michelle Malkin has more on this issue, including several editorial excerpts, as well as information on how you can help to support a confirmation vote for John Bolton. I urge everyone to do whatever they can to support John Bolton's confirmation as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. His performance has been more than satisfactory, and his efforts on our country's behalf have furthered our interests in the world in a positive way. There is no reason to deny his appointment at this time, and many good reasons to confirm him.

After hearing that John Murtha was decrying "swift boat-style" attacks on his ethics record today, I expected to see "Boo-Freakin' Hoo" on a certain conservative bloggers' website today. I haven't seen it yet, so I'll say it. "Boo Freakin' Hoo." And I couldn't agree more. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have spent months, if not years, spreading malicious propaganda about the Republicans and President Bush, and now they expect to put forward John Murtha for House Majority Leader and expect a cake-walk? Oh please...

It looks like John Murtha did not win the position of House Majority Leader. The more moderate Steny Hoyer is now reported to have won that particular position. That's one big defeat for Pelosi, and one small victory for the rest of us.

Previous:
Pelosi/Murtha vs. Hoyer/Moderate Democrats

Michael Moore recently published a letter on his website titled "A Liberal's Pledge To Disheartened Conservatives." I don't know if he thinks this reads like a "bridge-building" effort, showing that liberals are uniters and not the dividers that they claim conservatives to be, but to me it reads like a smarmy self-congratulation dripping with condescension. Further, Michelle Malkin has reported that it may have been (in part) plagiarized. That's not my prime concern, although that is funny if it's true. My concern is the tone of the discourse; once again, a liberal viewpoint is delivered with a smug attitude that suggests that liberals know our problems and concerns better than we ourselves do. And one can't help but notice the megalomaniacal "we're in power now" undercurrent that suggests these liberals are neglecting the fact that politicians in Washington make the decisions about these issues, not the 17,000+ liberals who have so far signed the petition.

With that in mind, I would like to give them my answer to some of their pledge points:

A Conservative's Rebuttal To Condescending Liberals
A Response to A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives

Moore writes:
"We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you 'unpatriotic' simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us."

You may not call us unpatriotic, but are you going to continue to call us "stupid?" When we dissent and disagree with you, are you going to continue to throw food at us, and make statements like "No free speech for fascists?" Should we redefine the word patriotic so that it includes going to foreign countries and saying that you are ashamed of the President, or that the "dumbest Brit... is smarter than the smartest American?"

"We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be 'different' or 'immoral.'"

How about a pig? Can I marry a pig? How about a ferret? I actually would find that to be pretty offensive. Certainly "immoral."

"We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you."

No, I suspect you'll spend it on your ideology of socialistic income redistribution. We know you would like to see the tax cuts repealed. Then you will spend our money on your utopian ideal, because you sure seem to think you know better how to spend it than we.

"When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie."

When you bring our sons and daughters home, you neglect the fact that the war comes with them. You won't have to send our kids off to war, because they'll be able to fight it from home!

"Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you."

There you go again. This shows that you seem to have a huge misunderstanding about the nature of the enemy we face. Your reference to a "mass murderer," and your statement "bringing him to justice" shows that even though you pledge to protect us, you can't. You talk about this as if it's some law enforcement issue, where once the perpetrator is caught, problem solved. You act as if we caught Osama bin Laden, we can call this whole thing over and done with, and just get on with our lives. You routinely disregard actual statements made by the enemy and dismiss them as some kind of Rovian propaganda. With that in mind, I think I'll politely disagree with you on that last statement. I have sincere doubts that you will be able to protect us.

"When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too."

I have no doubt that you will. For me, it would mean a tremendous pay cut, but with your deft handling of the economy and increased taxation, I'm sure I will feel like I'm making minimum wage. If this income redistribution plan of yours ultimately works, nobody will have to excel at anything. Motivated individuals and slackers alike will have guaranteed income equalization, so nobody has to put in an extra effort anymore. At least you state there at the end that you are going to pay my employees for me, maybe I can recoup some of my losses that way.

"We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism."

I am sure that will include denying the rights of the many over the wants of a few. How many more communities are going to have to have a long-standing monument removed, or be told they can't say 'Merry Christmas' in the public square? Every time I hear liberals talk about respect for religious beliefs, it's usually in conjunction with telling someone they can't do or say something.

"We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST."

Putting John Murtha up for House Majority Leader was a bad start. At least he was denied the position.

"We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one."

When the Republicans controlled Capitol Hill, you were going out and disparaging our intelligence, writing books and making movies that called us liars while rearranging facts to fit your ideology, throwing pies, and denying free speech by shouting people down and trying to intimidate them. You perpetuated the "us and them" mentality, and tried to sabotage everything a conservative or Republican did, and insulted us the entire time. And now you want to reach across the aisle and make up? I don't think so. The bad behavior on your part cannot be simply swept under the rug. It won't be forgotten. An elephant never forgets.

Or maybe not...

There is word that some in Congress are advocating Jim Leach (R - IA) to replace John Bolton and be confirmed as the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N. If so, Front Page Magazine has some information we all should be aware of. Ben Johnson has a critical evaluation of Jim Leach and what he would bring to the position. Here's an excerpt...

Jim Leach has been a vocal advocate of retreat, appeasement, disarmament, and increasing the power and authority of the United Nations. He supports immediate troop withdrawals from Iraq, "carrots" for Iran, "commercial ties" with North Korea, a global test on the exercise of American military power, and submitting to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Scary. Read the entire article.

Previous: Support John Bolton

I just received this e-mail... I don't know if it's true...

"Citgo, being aware that sales are down due to U.S. customers not wanting to buy from 'Chavez,' have started to change the name of some of their stores to 'PETRO EXPRESS.' As true about Citgo, Petro Express is 100 percent owned by Chavez."

If it is true, let that send a message to Chavez that perhaps coming to the U.S.A. and calling our president "the devil" may have some consequences.