Monday, October 25, 2004

Inmates ‘Have A Plan’ To Run The Asylum -by Ann Coulter

Inmates ‘Have A Plan’ To Run The Asylum
October 20, 2004

While the people of Afghanistan are celebrating their first democratic election and the Iraqis are taking their first steps to democracy, the great thinkers in the Democratic Party are still polishing up their conspiracy theories about the war to liberate Iraq.

There’s no consensus position, but the Democrats are pretty sure the real reason we went to Iraq was one of the following:

Bush family’s connections to the Saudis,
the Carlyle Group,
something about the Texas Rangers needing more left-handed pitching,
the neoconservatives,
the Straussians,
the Jews,
oily Jews.
This may be the first time in American history that the decisional calculus for many voters will be: Do I really want to throw my hat in with these crazy people?

John Kerry has called the war with Iraq “a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake.” He said it was no excuse that “Saddam might have done it 10 years from now” – use weapons of mass destruction against Americans, apparently. (New Kerry campaign slogan: “Let Radical Islamic Iraq Be Radical Islamic Iraq!”)

The Democrats want Saddam back. I suppose it was only a matter of time for the party that also welcomed back Marion Barry, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Al Sharpton, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Clinton, etc., etc.

When Bush pointed out that Saddam would still be in power if Kerry were president, Kerry contradicted him, but provided no theory of how Saddam would be gone. Instead, he simply said: “Not necessarily be in power” – and then trailed off into a long-winded explanation of one of those positions on which he’s “always been consistent.” Maybe Saddam would still be in power – but there would have been an extremely effective and persistent opposition led by brave media pundits!

Speaking of which, where are the feminists on war with Iraq? Cameron Diaz’ statement about Bush’s policies – “if you think rape should be legal, then don’t vote” – would have been perfectly true had she been speaking to an audience in Iraq. These people think it is constructive rape to have sex with your husband. America has just gone to war against a regime for which rape – not date rape, or pseudo-rape, or virtual rape, but real rape – was part of the official policy, and they’re against regime-change.

Among his other pointless carping about the war in Iraq, Kerry keeps claiming the military is overextended. His supporters claim Bush has a secret plan to bring back the draft. Whatever happened to all those gays who wanted to join the military? We haven’t heard a peep out of them lately. How about rounding up a “Coalition of the Fabulous,” Sen. Kerry? And what does his good pal Mary Cheney tell him about that?

With the election a few weeks away, the two main reasons Kerry has settled on for why you should vote for him are: (1) Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter, and (2) Halliburton!

The highlight of the debates for members came whenever Edwards or Kerry managed to work “Halliburton!” into an answer. Kerry explained he voted against the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq because, “I didn’t want to give a slush fund to Halliburton.” (Nor equipment to the troops, apparently.) This week, he also tied Halliburton to the flu-shot shortage, telling a Florida audience, “If Halliburton made flu shots, there would be more flu here than oranges.”

Edwards raised the Democrats’ brilliant “Halliburton!” point, saying: “While [Cheney] was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company – just like Enron and Ken Lay.” Not only that, but Bush and Cheney have offices – just like Enron and Ken Lay. They have employees – just like Enron and Ken Lay. They pay their employees – just like Enron and Ken Lay.

The Party of Ideas is now equating Halliburton with Enron. The only surprise is that Edwards didn’t throw in Watergate and Abscam just for good measure.

As even the New York Times admitted the day after the vice presidential debate, “[T]here is no evidence Mr. Cheney has pulled strings on Halliburton’s behalf” and “The independent General Accountability Office concluded that Halliburton was the only company that could have provided the services the Army needed at the outset of the war.”

Most amazingly, the Democrats have the chutzpah to complain that Bush claimed he was a “uniter” and yet(!), “have you ever seen America more divided?” – as the Democrats’ Demosthenes Edwards put it.

This from a candidate (I almost said a “man”) whose campaign falsely accused the president of stealing an election, barring a million black voters from the polls, and sending a thousand American soldiers to their deaths just for oil.

Coincidentally, the very day of the vice presidential debate, a gun was fired into a Bush-Cheney campaign office in Bearden, Tenn. – one of a series of violent attacks on Republican offices around the country. (You can tell it was Democrats firing those guns because none of the shots ever hit anything.)

Also that day, a group of liberal loonies stormed a Bush-Cheney office in Orlando, Fla., and ransacked the place. A few weeks earlier, a 62-year-old woman in Manhattan was beaten with a cane by an 86-year-old woman for carrying a Bush-Cheney sign.

On the basis of their own insane, violent behavior toward Republicans, Democrats demand to be put in the White House – so the violence will stop. At this rate, it’s only a matter of time before the Kerry campaign announces that anti-Bush insurgents control most of the Bush-Cheney 2004 headquarters, and that the sooner the U.S. pulls out of those quagmires the better.

If only we could get Democrats to show a little of that manly anger toward the terrorists, maybe Americans would be able to trust them with national security.

You can find more of her vitriolic insights at:

Hysterical women for Kerry by Michelle Malkin

Hysterical women for Kerry
Michelle Malkin

October 20, 2004

Rosie the Riveter has given way to Sally the Sniveler.

During World War II, young Rose Will Monroe was the face of American women in adversity: strong, supportive and resolute against the enemy forces that threatened our existence. Tens of thousands like Rosie rolled up their sleeves, gritted their teeth, and flexed their muscles in factories and shipyards and arsenals across the country.

They made rockets and rifles and bombs and boats. They painted and drilled and welded. When they got home to their kids, they cooked and cleaned and collapsed in bed after praying for their husbands and brothers and uncles on the battlefield. Rosie and her sisters in arms didn’t have the luxury of complaining about their lack of “me time.” There was a war to be won. And so, as this presidential campaign season has constantly reminded us, there is today.

But Rosie is gone. And in her place, we have Hysterical Women for Kerry. They are self-absorbed celebrities who support banning all guns (except the ones their bodyguards use to protect them and their children). They are teachers’ union bigwigs who support keeping all children hostage in public schools (except their own sons and daughters who have access to the best private institutions). They are sanctimonious environmentalists who oppose ostentatious energy consumption (except for their air-conditioned Malibu mansions and Gulfstream jets and custom Escalades.)

They are antiwar activists who claim to love the troops (except when they’re apologizing to the terrorists trying to kill our men and women in uniform). They are peace activists who balk at your son bringing in his “Star Wars” light saber for the kindergarten Halloween parade (but who have no problem serving as human shields for torture-loving dictators). They are ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women (but not the unborn ones or the abstinent teenage ones or the minority conservative ones or the newly enfranchised ones in Afghanistan).

In battleground states, the Kerry campaign has dispatched such incoherent nervous Nellies to scare the pantyhose off of young women and moms.

Kerry’s sister, Peggy, landed in Ohio at a Women for Kerry rally to scare up female votes to oppose President Bush’s “war against women.” At a time when Islamofascists are chopping off heads and kidnapping aid workers and plotting to kill schoolchildren, and at a time when untold numbers of malefactors are crossing into our borders, Peggy Kerry chose to whine about the alleged gender gap in white-collar salaries. “That is not fair,” she said. “Let me tell you what my brother is going to fight for -- pay equity.”

Meanwhile, a teacher for Kerry complained: “If we lose the White House again, it is very possible we will lose public education.” In Michigan, actress/legal observer Christine Lahti rallied Kerry women by warning: “Listen up. If (Bush) is re-elected, he will appoint a (Justice) Clarence Thomas clone and reverse Roe versus Wade.” The Kerry campaign has also sent actress Sharon Stone -- who recently blamed President Bush for preventing her from kissing fellow actress Halle Berry in the awful movie “Catwoman” -- to drum up female votes in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

But if Hollywood had to crown a poster girl for the new Sally the Sniveler campaign, it would be Cameron Diaz. Rosie the Riveter delivered a unifying message to her fellow American women with simple, rousing clarity: “We can do it!” In stark contrast, here’s a painful partial transcript of Diaz’s vote-beseeching appearance on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” last month:

Diaz: “We have a voice now, and we’re not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo -- if you think that rape should be legal, then don’t vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the .

Winfrey: “It’s your voice.”

Diaz: “It’s your voice. It’s your voice, that’s your right.”

We’ve come a long way, baby. The wrong way. Get a grip, girls. You are an embarrassment to a nation at war.

Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and maintains her weblog at

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

ABC News or ABC spin? - by Thomas Sowell

ABC News or ABC spin?
Wednesday, October 20 2004 @ 07:00 AM PDT
-- by Thomas Sowell

As if Dan Rather's use of forged documents to try to discredit President Bush shortly before the election was not enough of a clue to the mainstream media's political agenda, ABC News has now joined CBS News in the political spin game.

What ABC News has done was too elaborate to be called a "mistake." Now that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have become too well known for the mainstream media to continue ignoring them, ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel has broadcast its "investigation" of one of the Swift Boat veterans' charges against John Kerry.

The charge was that Kerry received a medal for an incident in Vietnam that he falsely reported. How did ABC's Nightline try to establish the truth? Interview crew members who were on Kerry's boat at the time? No! Interview veterans who were in other boats near John Kerry's boat at the time? No!

Nightline went to Vietnam to interview people whom they had been told were among the Communist guerrillas involved in the disputed incident.

It would be an unwarranted insult to Ted Koppel's intelligence to believe that he does not understand the unreliability of what is said publicly by people living in a totalitarian society, especially when it is said in the presence of a Communist official who took Nightline to the people who were to be interviewed.

What is the Communist government's stake in all this?

In recent years, high officials of the Vietnamese government have openly admitted that they were losing the Vietnam war on the battlefields but hung on, waiting for a political victory, based on their belief that the anti-war movement in the United States would eventually force American withdrawal.

When much of the American media became part of the anti-war movement, the gamble obviously paid off. One of the Vietnamese Communists' museums pays tribute to the American anti-war movement in general and features a picture of John Kerry in particular.

Against that background, how surprising is it that what was said in the interview backed up John Kerry's version of the disputed incident? Yet Ted Koppel described the people interviewed as "witnesses" who "have no particular axe to grind."

The clincher, according to Mr. Koppel, is that the interviewee's version of what happened matches the combat report and the official Navy citation with the medal. Surely ABC News knows that the combat report was written by John Kerry and that the Navy citation was based on what Kerry said in his report.

Nevertheless, according to Koppel, John Kerry's awards "should have been the most unassailable part of Kerry's record."

This kind of reasoning reminded me of an episode in a New York department store some years ago when I bought a sweater and gave the sales lady a credit card. She pointed out that there was no signature on the back of the card.

After I signed the credit card in her presence and then signed the bill, she compared the two signatures that she had just seen me write and, since they matched, it was OK with her. But at least she didn't say that this procedure was "unassailable."

Who would have dreamed that ABC News would compare what Kerry said in his report with what was said in a citation based on that report and find it convincing that they matched?

Everything about the Nightline program reeked of contrived "ambush journalism," to ambush John O'Neill with the words of Vietnamese villagers who were put on the program before him, and thereby exonerate John Kerry from O'Neill's charges.

If this program were a serious attempt to get at the truth, it would hardly have completely ignored all those Americans who were on the scene during the disputed incident and instead go to the other side of the world to talk with people in a Communist country with a Communist official present.

Other boats from John Kerry's unit fought that day in the same vicinity. Even with the best of intentions, the Vietnamese villagers interviewed on Nightline had no way of knowing which of the many Americans who opened fire that day 35 years ago was John Kerry. The Americans in that unit knew -- but they were not interviewed on Nightline.

That is what stamps this as spin, rather than news.

Do media elites think we are all fools? Probably.

This article was originaly published by


Sunday, October 24, 2004

Kerry’s Dishonorable Discharge - From “The Federalist”

Excerpts from:
22 October 2004
Federalist Patriot No. 04-42
Friday Digest


“Never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing...” --Thomas Jefferson


Top of the fold -- Kerry’s Dishonorable Discharge...

“Reporting for duty”?

For a guy who’s hitched his entire presidential campaign to his military service record, John Kerry sure is parsimonious when it comes to releasing that record. As noted in this column on more than one occasion, Kerry has consistently refused to sign a Standard Form 180 authorizing the Department of Defense to release all of his records.

George W. Bush’s military records were so spotless that Dan Rather gleefully trotted out some fabricated documents in order to kick up a little dust. Of course, if Rather were a real journalist rather than just a TV talking head, he might actually develop a source who could find out what the remaining (approximately 100) pages in Kerry’s DoD service jacket reveal.

What, exactly, is Kerry hiding? It is already common knowledge that most of his celebrated heroics were spurious, and that most of his medals were without merit (see “Kerry’s Quagmire” at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/ ). But given that the cat’s already out of the bag, why not just sign the Standard Form 180?

For his part, Kerry claims he received an “Honorable Discharge” and that all his records have been released and are posted on his website, -- uh, make that But Kerry has refused to say when he received an Honorable Discharge. Indeed, some of his military records are posted on his site -- but not all of them. Here, an experienced eye can read enough into what has been released by Kerry to develop a good profile of what hasn’t been released.

It is our considered opinion, therefore, that John Kerry was separated from the military under a less than honorable discharge -- most likely a Dishonorable Discharge.

Among Kerry’s released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter’s Navy Secretary, W. Graham Claytor. What is revealing about this document is that it notes Kerry’s original discharge was subject to review by a “board of officers” -- yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge.

The review was conducted in accordance with “Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163,” which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service.

As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall, Jimmy Carter’s first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483 --less than an hour after his inauguration on 21 January 1977. EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders, war protesters and other offenders of that era. Its corresponding, and equally dubious, DoD directive took effect in March of 1977, expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges. The DoD specified an appeal procedure whereby discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether the status of a particular discharge could be revised.

Having lost his first bid for Congress, Kerry no doubt decided that his political future would be brighter as a war hero rather than a war protestor. While there are several categories of discharges beneath honorable, including general, medical, bad conduct and other than honorable, it is very likely that Kerry’s discharge was dishonorable.

Supporting this assertion is the fact that Kerry had all his medals mysteriously reinstated in 1985. He claims that he lost his medal certificates (perhaps these are what he famously threw over that Capitol fence in protest), but when a military officer is subject to a Dishonorable Discharge, in addition to the loss of pay benefits and allowances, all medals and honors are revoked. In any case, it would be a cinch for John Kerry to refute our claim by simply signing that Standard Form 180. But he won’t. Nor will hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Dr. Phil press him on this issue.

Thus, while Kerry can correctly say -- thanks to Jimmy Carter -- that he received an Honorable Discharge, he could also say with equal precision that he received a Dishonorable Discharge. His activities as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were, indeed, forgiven by Carter’s EO 4483 and the subsequent DoD directive.

However, according to legal scholars, John Kerry’s meetings with enemy agents from Communist North Vietnam on multiple occasions between 1970 and 1972 are not covered under EO 4483. For that reason, we delivered to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft on Monday of this week a “Petition for Investigation and Indictment,” calling on the Department of Justice to determine conclusively whether Kerry’s actions, in direct violation of UCMJ (Article 104 part 904), U.S. Code (18 USC Sec. 2381 and 18 USC Sec. 953) and other applicable laws and acts of Congress, constitute treason. (To read the text of the petitioners’ request, link to -- )

Why prosecute Kerry now?

In October, 2003, Mr. Kerry chose to make his disputed Vietnam War record the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency. In response, the more than 180,000 signatories of the above-referenced petition chose to make Mr. Kerry’s war record the centerpiece of their campaign to determine whether his actions are subject to the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3.

The pertinent language states: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

While it is clear that no action will be taken on the petitioners’ request prior to 2 November, we remain committed to holding Senator Kerry accountable for his actions regardless of the outcome of his presidential bid. Indeed, we are all committed to serving Kerry with an irrevocable dishonorable discharge from public office.

Quote of the week...

“They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. They’re his entire chain of command, most of the officers in Kerry’s unit. ... And they’re the men who spent years in North Vietnamese prison camps. Tortured for refusing to confess to what John Kerry accused them of being -- war criminals. ... Why is this relevant? Because character and honesty matter. Especially in a time of war.” --Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and POWs for Truth in their most recent ad on Kerry’s war record and character.

On cross-examination...

“On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. ... As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator’s understanding of events doesn’t square with reality. ... Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never ‘took his eye off the ball’ when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.” --General Tommy Franks

Open query...

“[W]hen was terrorism only a nuisance? Was it a nuisance four years ago, when the USS Cole was attacked and we almost lost the ship and we did lose 17 sailors? Was it a nuisance six years ago when they attacked simultaneously two of our embassies in East Africa and killed hundreds of people, including many Americans? Was terrorism just a nuisance 11 years ago, when they first bombed the World Trade Center? Or 16 years ago, when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland? Or 21 years ago, when a truck bomb was driven into a barracks in Beirut and killed 241 American Marines?” --Vice President Cheney

From the JFK DEMO-lition derby...

On the subject of giving international terrorism a new impulse and added power, John Kerry’s campaign has portrayed him as many things -- a war hero and a war resister; a scion of privilege and a man of the people. He has cleverly likened himself to the original JFK, how different could they be?). And now, he’s evoking memories of 1932, recasting President Bush as Herbert Hoover and himself as Franklin Roosevelt.

Team Kerry has droned on incessantly that Bush is the first president to run for re-election since Hoover with fewer jobs in America than when he started, so it stands to reason that Candidate Kerry would cast himself in the role of Hoover’s 1932 opponent for the White House. This week on the campaign trail, in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, Kerry said, “Seventy-two years ago today, another candidate for president by the name of Franklin Roosevelt came right here to Pennsylvania. We share that in common.”

That they do, as well as a penchant for budget-busting government programs dedicated to running people’s lives.

(For the truth on jobs during President Bush’s tenure, see Jerry Bowyer’s latest stats -- Mr. Bowyer is Chairman of the Newsmakers Leadership Group and can be reached at )

Besides the jobs lie, Kerry and his cronies have been using every scare tactic they can to smear Bush in the final days of the campaign. Chief among them are the accusations that Bush is going to ruin Social Security, a specious charge. Allowing younger workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private investment accounts would help relieve the extreme strain on the program. You can be sure that strain will not be alleviated by any of the phantom plans that Kerry has been deliberately sketchy about implementing.

Kerry’s pledge to fix Social Security and eradicate the federal budget deficit without cutting benefits or raising taxes on the middle class is pure hot air.

An especially cynical charge from the Kerry camp is that Bush will reinstate the draft. Despite clear, unequivocal language by the President and his campaign to the contrary, Kerry has done a fine job of scaring young voters into believing they will be drafted. (We’re struggling to find a gentler word for Kerry than “liar.”)

First, the Pentagon, the White House and many military planners from every branch of the service have maintained that we have the right number of people we need to do the job, and that a draft would not help the situation. Second, it was Democrat Charles Rangel who introduced a bill to reinstate the draft. And no one would ever confuse Rep. Rangel’s actions with those of Republicans.

In other news from the Political Front...

As the election winds down to its final days, stories of electoral misdeeds are springing up in key battleground states. And there should be no surprise that the Demo-crusaders are involved.

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office is investigating the filing of some 130 fictitious-voter registration forms by a man paid for his hard work in crack cocaine by a woman affiliated with the NAACP National Voter Fund. The culprit was arrested by the Defiance County (we didn’t make that up) Sheriff’s Office, and it now appears that this scandal may spread to other individuals in counties around the state.

America Votes, an umbrella organization of anti-Bush groups funded by America-hating billionaire George Soros, has attracted the attention of state and federal authorities. In several battleground states, hundreds of duplicate voter registrations have been filed and there are reports that workers have been shredding Republican voter registration forms.

America Votes claims to be a non-partisan organization dedicated to voter outreach, but its membership includes 32 overtly anti-Bush groups, and its president, Cecile Richards, is a former deputy chief of staff to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Candyland).

The BIG lie...

“America must fight and win two wars. The war in Iraq and the war on terror. ... President Bush likes to confuse the two.... In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war [on terror] and the battle against the enemy.” --John Kerry, still refusing to acknowledge that terrorists are connected with other terrorists.

Memo to Senator Kerry: “Just the other day, [Abu Musab] Zarqawi publicly announced his sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces in Iraq, does Senator Kerry think he would be leading a productive and peaceful life? Of course not. And that’s why Iraq is no diversion, but a central commitment in the war on terror, a place where our military is confronting and defeating terrorists overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.” --President George W. Bush

In other news from the Left...

John Kerry and his Breck Girl sidekick have been desperately trying to attract evangelicals. Last week, you’ll recall John Edwards’ utterly trial-lawyerly proclamation that if elected, quadriplegics would “walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.” As for Kerry, his handlers have coached him on how to look more messianic (see ).

Speaking of looks, have you ever wondered why John Edwards is called “The Breck Girl”? (See -- ) Really, fellow Patriots -- you’ve got to see this one.

Undoubtedly, you know of someone who insists John Kerry is “fit for command.” We recommend you direct them to -- -- the Internet’s most comprehensive resource on the REAL JFK. is updated constantly. If they continue to insist that Kerry is fit, we recommend you direct them to the nearest detox center.

As the race moves into the final stretch, perhaps the two stupidest things said during the entire campaign have been said not by the candidates, but by their wives, Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards.

On Thursday, after Kerry’s calculated comments about Mary Cheney’s being a lesbian, and the subsequent reaction of outrage by Lynne Cheney, Elizabeth Edwards said, “I think that [Lynne Cheney’s reaction] indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter’s sexual preferences.” Smooth move, Liz.

Not to be outdone, multi-million dollar heiress Teresa, with French-like accent in tow, came out with that mind-boggling ‘I-doubt-Laura-Bush-has-ever-had-a-real-job’ comment, when conceivably everyone in the English-speaking world knows the First Lady was a librarian and teacher.

“For Pete’s sake, ladies,” their hapless hubbies must be thinking, “stay OFF our side!”

Like their Demo matriarch before them, now-Senator and prez-nominee-in-waiting Rodham-Clinton-Rodham, these women have proven that there is absolutely nothing they won’t say to get their “partners” elected. After this year’s poison from Michael Moore, George Soros, Terry McAuliffe and Al Gore, and from candidates like Kerry, Edwards and Dean, it’s no wonder the Demo wives’ have likewise headed for the gutter. First- and Second Lady material? We think not. Even our “Breck Girl’’ has a better chance.

From the “Non Compos Mentis” Files...

We are shocked -- SHOCKED -- to report that more political contributions come from lawyers than any other profession. And would you believe it, the vast majority of the $132.4 million in graft they shelled out this year went to Demos. (To be sure, those evil oil and gas folks did give most of their political donations to Republicans -- but theirs was a trifling $12.8 million.)

From polls within the “margin of error,” to results within the “margin of litigation”... Eric Holder, formerly of the Clinton “Justice” Department and now a honcho with the Demos’ “Election Task Force,” made this startling prediction Sunday: “If every vote is allowed to be cast, and if every vote is counted, John Kerry will be president within a day of that election.” When pressed on the claim, Holder reiterated, “You heard it right here. If every vote is allowed to be cast and every vote is counted, John Kerry will be president.” Camp Kerry evidently is counting on (literally!) swamping the ballot boxes and demanding that even illegally cast ballots be counted. Otherwise, how could Holder make such a claim?

Memo to Mr. Holder: George W. Bush appears to have doubled his support among black voters since the 2000 election. So much for your party’s tried-and-true tactic of “keeping ‘em on the plantation.”

Predictably, Kerry and Edwards have signed up thousands -- yes, thousands -- of their lawyerly brethren to “observe” polling places in key states, like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If the national election is not a landslide for President Bush (at least an eight- to ten- point spread) look for a landslide of legal challenges in any key state with less than a five-point spread.

We now can see the brilliant prescience of Richard Nixon. After losing the 1960 presidential race, he decided not to file legal challenges against the plethora of dead voters in Illinois and Texas because, while it may have been good for Nixon, it would have been bad for the country. Unfortunately, Algore was never so magnanimous. Neither, we believe, is John Kerry.

Thanks to Algore’s egotism and inability to accept defeat (a rather critical characteristic of a healthy democracy), this year we have more than the usual maneuvering over poll monitors. In fact, lawyers have already begun to file lawsuits. Whether those are legitimate actions intended to protect the integrity of the process or merely intimidation tactics, we do not know. (We do know, however, that if you can make $200-600 per hour ginning up lawsuits you can make a lot more money starting early and litigating all through the election.) Suffice it to say that after the Algore mess of 2000, we’re hoping for an electoral blowout.

Yet instead of ensuring the integrity of our voting process, such as by requiring picture ID, proof of citizenship, cross-checking of duplicate voter registrations (including those across state lines), and purging of felons, corpses and pets from the voter rolls, we have the carnival of litigating an election before the election is even held. Is it that important to ensure full employment of lawyers? Can we do nothing without involving lawyers? While we pray for an electoral blowout to send these lawyers packing early, indications are that Election Day could drag out well beyond 2 November.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Stem cells, Stem cells & Stem Cells

This has become an issue of confusion, but there is no need for it.
Bear with me as I try to infuse some insight…

President Bush has not issued anything prohibiting ‘stem cell research.’

President Bush is the first President to allow federal money to be used for this research.

I have found that there is a huge misunderstanding about this issue. I’d like to clarify what it is all about.

Stem cells are cells that, with some programming, can become any type of cells. They are the type of cell, that in an embryo, that can become any other type of cell. They can become heart cells, muscle cells, bone cells, nerve cells, eye cells, etc., etc., etc.

They are a fertile area of research that could lead to many cures for human ills.

This research should be promoted and encouraged.

President Bush is the only President to allow federal money to be used for this research.

There are several ways to procure stem cells; out of the fat cells gathered from liposuction; cells harvested from placentas, cells garnered from umbilical cords, and cells removed from human embryos are among the most fertile sources from which they come. All are allowed and supported with federal money. The embryonic stem cell are those that are under contention.

There are some seventy lines of embryonic stem cells that are being researched using federal money; there are no problems with them.

What the President is holding money back from is from the creation of new embryos for the purpose of killing them and harvesting their stem cells. It would seem that he doesn’t approve of making babies for the purpose of grinding them up to get new stem cells.

Understand that stem cells from the existing (70) lines can be made to reproduce more stem cells forever. There will be enough of them to provide for all research on them forever. There is no need to make babies and put them into a grinder for any reason.

President Bush has allowed research on everything except making babies and killing them for research!

George Bush has not prohibited anybody from doing that either; that is his shame!

President Bush is the only President to allow federal money to be used for this research.

Superman is still dead!

Neither of the John/John’s are the Messiah.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

John Kerry: More “aid and comfort”... - by Mark Alexander

John Kerry: More “aid and comfort”...

Mark Alexander


10/8/2004 1:06:04 PM

“In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home.” --George Washington

In recent months, this column has set about to distinguish manifestly between President George W. Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry in regard to character, policy matters and competing visions for our nation’s future.

After George Bush’s razor-thin and highly contested victory over Albert Gore in 2000, many political observers argued (and continue to insist) that there are few distinctions between the Republican and Democrat parties. Indeed, in regard to some seminal issues that once distinguished party lines -- most notably central government spending -- those lines are now blurred. Additionally, the recent Republican National Convention headlined party moderates like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who disagree with significant elements of the Republican Platform, while also featuring Democrat Zell Miller, who agrees with most of the GOP Platform. This, understandably, leaves some with the impression that the two parties have all but merged.

To be sure, there is a semblance between the background of the presidential incumbent and his challenger. Bush and Kerry are contemporaries who hail from wealth and privilege, from prestigious prep schools and Ivy League universities, and from political dynasties in their respective home states. During their tenures in national office, both Bush and Kerry have advocated, respectively, for big and bigger central government spending programs.

But are there notable variances in policy matters between George Bush and John Kerry? You bet -- which is precisely why this presidential campaign is being bitterly waged, mostly between centrist Republicans and leftist Democrats. While the national party lines may seem fluid, the political lines which separate Bush and Kerry and their respective ranks are cast-iron.

Volumes have been written about the sizeable chasm separating the character of President Bush and John Kerry -- the distance between their values as reflected in their disagreement over public policies concerning family and faith, their diametrical selection criteria for federal-bench nominees, and their opposing views on taxation. While these are important distinctions, their most significant policy divergence relates to U.S. national security -- the first order of a president’s Constitutional duties, the palladium without which all other duties become meaningless. And it is this critical difference which should be foremost in the minds of voters on 2 November.

Indeed, this difference couldn’t have been any clearer than during the first presidential-candidate debate (see “We will not waver...” at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/). In a discussion about the President’s obligation to protect the country with pre-emptive military action, Kerry insisted that such pre-emption must first pass “the global test.” In other words, any pre-emptive action by a “President Kerry” would first require a thumbs-up from the likes of France, Germany and the perennially hostile United Nations.

For his part, George W. Bush has steadfastly advocated Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy dictum -- Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum (to maintain peace, prepare for war), which has deep roots in our national foundation. George Washington, in his first address to the nation (8 January 1790), proclaimed, “To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”

That resolve notwithstanding, on 11 September 2001, after eight years of military-budget depredation, foreign-policy ambiguity and outright appeasement under the Clinton regime (with full collusion from John Kerry), George Bush and our nation were dealt a heretofore-unimaginable blow by a suicidal gang of Islamist cutthroats. As a result, President Bush was forced to demonstrate not only his commitment to military readiness, but also his willingness to use the ultimate instrument of diplomacy, military force, in defense of our nation. Consequently, his proficiency as Commander in Chief is well established.

John Kerry, on the other hand, has spent much of his political career denigrating American military personnel and the nation they defend, while advocating for policies of appeasement -- the same policies that made lower Manhattan, Northern Virginia and a field in Pennsylvania the front lines in our war with Jihadistan (see “Jihadistan: A clear and present danger...” at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/).

On its face, Kerry’s endorsement of appeasement resembles the yellow streak of his contemporary Leftist ilk; long gone are the days of robust, hawkish Democrats like Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. But on closer examination, Kerry’s sordid history of collaboration with Communist regimes for more than three decades, even in times of war, raises much more serious questions about his motives and his fitness for the highest office in the land.

Kerry is, indubitably, the Left’s most “useful idiot” (as V.I. Lenin famously labeled Western apologists for socialist propaganda) in contemporary politics. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, said of Kerry’s anti-American activities during the Vietnam War, “KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements.”

But Kerry’s infamous (and unlawful) coddling of Vietnamese Communists some 35 years ago (see “Aid and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry Record...” at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/) was not his last rendezvous with the Reds. After his election to the Senate in 1984 (as Ted Kennedy’s understudy), Kerry spent years dismissing claims by POW family groups that some Americans were still being held in Vietnam and Cambodia. And he has, since, given aid and comfort to plenty of other Red regimes, including some in this hemisphere.

For example, in 1985 Kerry courted Daniel Ortega and his Communist regime in Nicaragua, even traveling to visit his “Dear Comandante” in Managua. Kerry returned to the U.S., where he advocated a policy of appeasement rather than continued funding of Ortega’s opponents, the anti-Communist Contras. In 1988 Kerry attempted to make political hay of U.S. policy in Central America by using his Senate committee as a launch-pad to accuse George H.W. Bush of sanctioning a Contra drug-smuggling operation that was importing cocaine into California. The unfounded charges were, not surprisingly, timed to coincide with the elder Bush’s campaign against Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, under whom Kerry had served as lieutenant governor.

In 1996, Kerry accepted a $10,000 campaign contribution in return for arranging a meeting between Honk Kong businesswoman Liu Chaohying and a senior Securities and Exchange official in order to get Chaohying’s company listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange. Chaohying was a lieutenant colonel in Red China’s People’s Liberation Army. That same year, Kerry traveled to Beijing on a “U.S. trade mission.” Here it’s worth noting that the ChiComs never forget their useful idiots; the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, has endorsed Kerry’s presidential bid.

But Kerry’s fondness for despotic regimes did not subside in the ‘90s. In March of this year, Kerry was asked on a campaign stop in Florida about his affiliation with Cuba’s Fidel Castro and his oppressive regime. Given the number of Cuban expatriates in Florida who fled Castro’s slave island, Kerry answered, “I’m pretty tough on Castro. ... I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.” (Would someone kindly cue the laugh track?)

Helms-Burton, you may recall, strengthened the U.S. embargo against Cuba after Fidel’s fighter jets shot down two single-engine civilian aircraft over international waters, killing four Cuban ex-pats. The small planes belonged to Brothers to the Rescue, an organization of small aircraft owners who volunteered their time flying over the waters between Cuba and the Keys, and alerting the Coast Guard when they came upon Cuban refugees on makeshift rafts who needed rescue.

However, Kerry voted against Helms-Burton, and he later clarified his support for Castro by arguing that the embargo should be lifted. “The only reason [Cuba is treated differently from other Communist nations] is the politics of Florida,” said Kerry. Of course, the ever-opportunistic Kerry wasn’t campaigning in Florida at the time of that “clarification.”

Indeed, John Kerry has a well-documented record of anti-American activities, especially aiding Communist regimes. But the “aid and comfort” he gave to North Vietnamese Communists in 1971 (while still a U.S. naval officer, and while Americans were still fighting, dying, and being held captive by that regime) is the most grievous of these transgressions.

His treasonous actions in 1970-1971 are the subject of an indictment that will be delivered to Senate President Dick Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Attorney General John Ashcroft on 12 October. The indictment [http://www.PatriotPetitions.US/Kerry] notes both Kerry’s UCMJ and U.S. Code (18 USC 2381) violations, and it calls for his disqualification for public office in accordance with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President...having previously taken an support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Why issue this indictment now? Because John Kerry chose to make his Vietnam war record the centerpiece of his presidential campaign (see “Kerry’s Quagmire...” http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/). In response, more than 160,000 signatories of the aforementioned indictment have made it the centerpiece of their campaign to disqualify him from public office.

Clearly, there will be no determination on these charges until after 2 November, but Kerry will be held to account for his treasonous actions -- for there is no statute of limitations on treason.

For those who would argue that Kerry’s anti-American activities in 1971, which clearly cost American lives in Vietnam, do not reflect the nature of the man today, we refer you to this statement from Kerry from the first debate. On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked, “It is vital for us not to confuse the war -- ever -- with the warriors. That happened before.”

Indeed, it did happen before, and it is happening again today.

Kerry can’t have it both ways. There is a direct correlation between his undermining of U.S. and Allied resolve in the war against terrorism -- specifically on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan -- and American and Allied causalities on that front. Those forces, including countless Iraqis, are being injured and killed in larger numbers because of the political dissent Kerry and his ilk are fomenting.

During Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate, John Edwards unwittingly provided the evidence for this very correlation: “We lost more troops in September than we lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in July than we lost in June.”

As the hand-wringing of the Kerry/Edwards ticket grows stronger, so too does the spirit of the enemy. And while the net effect can certainly be felt in American and Allied casualties in Iraq, it may also yet be felt more dramatically in al-Qa’ida’s efforts to ensure the election of its useful-idiot appeasers.

Perhaps the most instructive question that can be asked regarding U.S. national security, the protection of Americans and our vital interests, is this: Given the chance, would Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao vote for a) George Bush, or b) John Kerry? How would Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan vote?

Editor’s Note: A Correction, sort of...

In Patriot 04-29, we mistakenly stated that the Communist Party USA (now there’s an oxymoron) had “endorsed” Comrade Kerry for president. The CPUSA website has since corrected the record by saying, “We do not endorse the candidates of other political parties. We have refrained from fielding our own candidate so as not to distract from the main effort of defeating Bush and the ultra-right extremist agenda.”

There are only FOUR weeks left before the election. Let ‘em know where you stand! We have great items at our Patriot Shop located at

Don’t even think about ending your week without arming yourself with The Federalist Patriot’s comprehensive, conservative digest of the week’s most important news, policy and opinion. Requested by more Americans than any other e-journal, The Federalist Patriot is a concise, highly acclaimed (see endorsements) digest of anecdotal rebuttal to contemporary political, social and media Leftists -- now delivered FREE by E-MAIL directly to your inbox Friday morning. Compiled each week by a national editorial panel, The Federalist Patriot’s highly condensed format is an informative and entertaining survey and analysis a wide spectrum of reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations. Don’t leave home without it!

Subscribe to The Federalist Patriot -- It’s right and it’s free!

Monday, October 11, 2004

Hydrogen economy looks out of reach - Mark Peplow

Published online: 07 October 2004; doi:10.1038/news041004-13

Story from

Hydrogen economy looks out of reach

Mark Peplow

US vehicles would require a million wind turbines, economists claim.

Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen power would demand so much electricity that the country would need enough wind turbines to cover half of California or 1,000 extra nuclear power stations.

So concludes a British economist, whose calculation is intended to highlight the difficulties of achieving a truly green hydrogen economy.

“This calculation is useful to make people realize what an enormous problem we face,” says Andrew Oswald, an economist from the University of Warwick.

The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

Most hydrogen is currently made from methane, in a process that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Splitting water molecules with electricity generates hydrogen - but the electricity is likely to have been generated from fossil fuels.

Although this may shift urban pollution to out-of-town electricity plants, it makes little difference to greenhouse-gas output. “Today, hydrogen is not a clean, green fuel,” says Oswald’s brother Jim, an energy consultant who assisted with the calculation. “You’ve got to ask: where did the hydrogen come from?”

The only technology that can currently make large amounts of hydrogen without using fossil fuels relies on renewable power sources or nuclear energy, the Oswalds argue. Hydrogen will only mitigate global warming when a clean source of the gas becomes available, they say.

Unpopular options

The duo considered the United Kingdom and the United States. Transport accounts for about one third of each country’s energy consumption.

UK transport uses only a tenth as much energy as the United States, but there is less land available: the hydrogen switch would require 100,000 wind turbines, enough to occupy an area greater than Wales.

It unlikely that enough turbines could ever be built, says Jim Oswald. On the other hand, public opposition to nuclear energy deters many politicians. “I suspect we will do nothing, because all the options are so unpopular.”

“I don’t think we’ll ever have a true hydrogen economy. The outlook is extremely bleak,” he adds. The brothers outline their calculation in the current issue of Accountancy magazine.

“Hydrogen is not a near-term prospect,” agrees Paul Ekins, an energy economist at the Policy Studies Institute, London. “There will have to be a few fundamental breakthroughs in technology first,” he says.

Politicians eager to promote their green credentials, yet unaware of the realities, have oversold the hydrogen dream, says Ekins. “I’m amazed by the number of politicians who think you can dig hydrogen out of the ground,” he says.

However, he thinks that the Oswalds are too pessimistic about the possibilities of new technology. “An enormous amount of attention is being paid to generating hydrogen cleanly,” he says.

If we could trap the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuels underground, we could convert them to hydrogen, says Ekins. “It’s not tried and tested, but it’s a possibility.” And it could become a reality by the time we have enough hydrogen-powered cars to make it necessary, he says.

So do the Oswalds have a more immediate answer to the hydrogen problem? “We could always use less energy, but that doesn’t seem very likely,” Jim Oswald says ruefully.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Murderous Monotheists -- by Stephen Schwartz

Murderous Monotheists
From the October 11, 2004 issue: What Zarqawi believes.
by Stephen Schwartz
10/11/2004, Volume 010, Issue 05

FACED WITH the series of beheadings and other grisly crimes committed in Iraq by the followers of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Westerners may wonder why this gang should call itself “Monotheism and Jihad.” The group’s Arabic name, Tawhid wa’al-Jihad, is often misleadingly translated “Unity and Jihad,” which could lead English-speakers to suppose that Zarqawi and company are acting in the name of a united Iraqi nation, or of Arab unity, or of solidarity among jihadists or Muslims generally.

But Tawhid does not mean “unity,” much less “unification”; it means “uniqueness,” as in the uniqueness of God the Creator. To understand the theology behind this word is to appreciate the identity of the “foreign fighters” around Zarqawi--himself born in Jordan--and the purpose of their kidnappings and beheadings.

All Muslims, of course, are monotheists. Islam rejects the multiple gods and goddesses of the pagan religions, and proclaims the creation of the universe by a single God. But in the 18th century, Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of the Wahhabi sect, asserted that Muslims had fallen away from true monotheism back into pagan unbelief: worship of multiple gods, or polytheism. Wahhabism, now the state religion of Saudi Arabia, continues to assert that Islam as practiced in nearly the whole of the global Muslim community outside the Saudi kingdom is actually apostasy.

The Arabic term for polytheism is shirk, or “assigning partners to Allah.” According to the Wahhabi creed, in recent centuries, only the followers of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and their descendants have been true monotheists. All non-Wahhabis--whether nominally Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist--are steeped in shirk and deserve to be killed so that pure Wahhabi monotheism can reign supreme.

In this twisted view, the majority of Iraqis are guilty of shirk. Up to 70 percent of Iraqis belong to the Shia sect of Islam, and as such follow the guidance of their imams and ayatollahs, wise theologians recognized for their study and insight. According to the Wahhabis, to follow a supreme cleric or marja like Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, leader of the Iraqi Shias, is to place him on an equal level with God. Shias should therefore be killed as polytheists, their property confiscated, and their women dishonored.

Wahhabis also hate Shias because they erect elaborate tombs for their martyrs and outstanding clerics and pray at these graves. Wahhabis believe that the very existence of graveyards and tombs is a kind of double polytheism, in which the person memorialized in the grave is elevated to equality with God, and the gravestone or tomb becomes an idol; to pray in cemeteries is, in Wahhabi eyes, to commit an abomination. Thus, once the Shias are killed, their holy sites must be torn down and their graveyards desecrated.

For this reason, the beheadings carried out in the name of “monotheism” in Iraq are aimed not only at terrorizing Westerners, but equally at intimidating Shias. We must understand that Iraqi Shias know this, and will help us in the struggle to extirpate Zarqawi and his gangsters.

Wahhabis equally accuse Sufis of polytheism. Sufism is a spiritual Islamic tradition influenced by Christianity and Eastern religions that is the dominant form of Islam in much of the world, notably French West Africa, much of North Africa, the Balkans, Turkey, Central Asia, India, and Indonesia. Once again, the Wahhabis’ virulent hatred is excited by the Sufi practice of discipleship, with sheikhs as teachers, and the Sufi devotion to praying at graves and maintaining the tombs of saints. Westerners sometimes believe that saints are absent from Islam. But they are not; in Kazakhstan, a country dominated by Sufism, a common, traditional prayer runs: “Thousands of saints in Turkestan / Thousands of saints in Turkestan / I pray for your aid.”

Prayers to saints and to the Prophet Muhammad for intercession with the Creator, along with obedience to sheikhs and preservation of burial sites, make the Sufis, from the Wahhabi viewpoint, deserving of slaughter and pillage. Since Sufism is the dominant form of Islam among Iraqi Kurds, each beheading by the Zarqawi conspiracy threatens them.

Obviously, Jews and Christians do not fare well in the Wahhabi scheme. As the historian Bernard Lewis pointed out in his authoritative volume The Jews of Islam, the Ottoman caliphate recognized and honored the “unflawed monotheism” of the Jews. But the Wahhabis hated the Ottomans as patrons of Sufism and friends of Shiism. Indeed, the Wahhabis loathe the Jews for treating rabbis as religious authorities, and considered them fit only for beheading even before the state of Israel existed. They also deride the Jews for their love of life. Wahhabis brag that they love death.

Finally, there are the Christians, whom Wahhabis despise as practitioners of polytheism because of their faith in the trinity. Above all, their belief that Jesus was God’s son and fully divine qualifies all Christians for murder, without argument.

Still, there is a special edge to the Wahhabis’ hatred of non-Wahhabi Muslims. As Saudi Wahhabi bigots typically put it: We know the Jews and Christians are our enemies; but the Shias and Sufis are worse, because they want to change our religion. (As if Islam had been invented by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab 250 years ago!) This may explain the otherwise peculiar news report in mid-September that a Turkish hostage in Iraq, apparently a born Muslim, was released after he “converted to Islam.” Wahhabis believe that mainstream, traditional, moderate, and normal Muslims must undergo a Wahhabi conversion to become real Muslims.

The principal writing of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab is entitled Kitab al-Tawhid, or the Book of Monotheism. Therein Wahhab proclaimed that Islam had become idolatry, and that he alone had found the perfect means of resolving this “grave problem”: namely, the purging of the guilty, whose “blood and property” were no longer to be respected. Wahhab’s poisonous tract, published in English translation in Riyadh in 1991, has been widely circulated in the United States, especially among young Muslims on college campuses.

There are additional political lessons here. Zarqawi’s Wahhabism did not originate in the country of his birth; it is a Saudi invention. Saudi Arabia prides itself on being known as “the land of tawhid.” The rhetoric of Monotheism and Jihad betrays the Saudi origin of the terror its acolytes sow far and wide. And in the mosques of Saudi Arabia, state-employed Wahhabi clerics continue to deliver Friday sermons inciting the faithful to “monotheism and jihad”--meaning, first and foremost, passage across Saudi Arabia’s long northern border into Iraq to kill and die.

There is a grotesque footnote to this nightmare. As the historian J.B. Kelly has pointed out, Western academic and political apologists for the Saudi state and Wahhabism have often translated the Arabic term “muwahid’dun”--or “believers in tawhid,” the Wahhabis’ preferred term for themselves--as “unitarians.” If certain powerful figures in the Middle East Studies departments at universities in the United States and elsewhere had their way, current headlines would read “Unitarians Behead Another American.”

The final significance of the atrocities committed in the name of Monotheism and Jihad should be obvious: The monsters who perpetrate these crimes are not partisans of resistance to foreign occupation, or Iraqi patriots, or ordinary Muslims angered by a non-Muslim intrusion into an Islamic land. They represent Islamofascism in its purest, Saudi-backed form--ideological, fanatical, and nihilistic. War against them is war to the death, a war they have chosen and from whence, in the view of traditional Muslims, divine punishment awaits them.

Stephen Schwartz is the author of The Two Faces of Islam.

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004



Playing the draft card
Kathleen Parker

October 6, 2004

The latest fear factor being injected into the presidential election equation is a ghost from our past -- the military draft.

For the past several weeks, moms of the soccer and security persuasion, as well as the demographic known as The Youth Vote, have been targeted by an e-mail campaign promising reinstitution of the military draft should President George W. Bush be re-elected.

One e-mail that's been circulating and posted on the Internet says, for example, that there's pending legislation in the House and Senate, (HR 163 and S 89) to reinstate a mandatory draft for men and women (ages 18-26) starting June 15, 2005.

Portentously, the e-mailer writes: "The Bush administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections. The Bush administration plans to begin mandatory draft in the spring of 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election."

Those chilling bullets of doom, though untrue, have gained traction with the help of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland. Both recently have told college audiences that another Bush presidency will mean the draft for young Americans.

"America will reinstate the military draft" if Bush is re-elected, Cleland told an audience at Colorado College in Colorado Springs.

"I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person who doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him," Dean said in a speech at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Get the picture? Now that the draft meme is loose in the land and everyone is nearly hysterical, let's all take a deep breath. No draft. It ain't gonna happen for at least two reasons: Americans don't want it, and the military doesn't need it.

Talk of the draft was born -- like most bad rumors these days -- of a political liaison. Indeed, the two pieces of legislation mentioned in the scary e-mail both were introduced by Democrats almost two years ago (January 2003) as part of a strategy to discourage support for the Iraq war.

The House version was sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and the Senate version by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C. Neither bill has much support in the Congress, which authorizes a draft, nor is that fact expected to change. Not even Rangel is pushing the bill, according to FactCheck .org, a political fact-checking project of the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

Nearly everyone agrees that we need more troops both in Iraq and to meet future challenges, but Rangel's primary arguments for fairness and equality in the military arena are easily refuted. Contrary to some of Rangel's earlier claims, today's military front lines are not filled disproportionately with minorities.

Defense Department figures show that though there are more blacks in the armed services as a whole (22 percent, compared with 13 percent of all 18-to-44-year-old civilians), the difference is because blacks re-enlist at a higher rate than whites. In a report last year, military analysts found that 36 percent of African American soldiers held support and administrative jobs; 27 percent of workers in the medical and dental fields are black.

"These young men and women are high-school graduates with above-average aptitude," the report said, "They are not the 'poor and uneducated.' "

The best arguments against a draft are common-sensical: (1) people who don't want to serve don't serve well; (2) a draft by lottery, which is necessary in order to ensure random selection, would cull the dregs as well as the cream of the nation's youth crop, thus reducing quality; and (3) today's military, on average better educated than the U.S. civilian population (96 percent of enlistees have high-school diplomas compared with 75 percent of all in their age group), requires well-trained, professional soldiers.

The question isn't whether to draft, but how to encourage quality individuals to volunteer for military service during wartime. The answer should be obvious to any self-respecting capitalist: money. If we want a professional military -- and the Department of Defense and the American people seem to -- then we should offer professional wages.

I'm betting most Americans gladly would pay a little extra in taxes (read my lips: no more tax cuts) to ensure our military men and women are justly compensated for a job few of us could or would willingly do.

Kathleen Parker can be reached at or 407-420-5202.