The thing that I hate the most about this election year is the greed, the what's in it for me attitude.  I was raised to be responsible for myself and to never expect anything from anyone else.  I was blessed in that my parents paid my college tuition, but if they weren't able to do so, I never would've expected the government to foot the bill.  I don't view the government as a "Robin Hood" if you will.  Why on earth should I expect anyobody else whether rich, or poor to spend the money they have earned to pay for my education?  Where does that kind of mentality come from?  How does someone think that the government owes them something?  I am no saint, but I feel like one after watching the nightly news programs.  All I see is people stating that the reason they are voting for someone is because of what they want to get from the government, like heathcare, tuition, jobs, tax cuts, marriage and abortion rights, draft status, social security and welfare checks, education, etc, etc, etc...  It's driving me crazy!!! 

I believe with all my heart that it is not the government's job so solve all the nations social problems.  What I believe is that it is the church's job to solve social problems (when families cannot).  The governments' job is to do all the stuff that churches and families cannot, like build highways and protect us. 

Whatever happened to JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country."  The issues that are important to me this election are: First and foremost, the security of our country, second, Supreme court nominations, and the last issues I am concerned with are issues that are hugely impacted by those Supreme court nominations, abortion and gay marriage.  Now not one of these issues have any affect on me personally, but they do the nation.  That is how I determine who I will vote for.  I am voting for G.W. Bush because I KNOW that he is what is best for our country.

All John Kerry has done for two years is pander and monday morning quarterback.  He promises the world to everyone and criticizes the president for everything after the fact when it is politically advantageous for him to do so.  He has no plan of his own, all he does is say he would do the same things as the President, except he would do them better and faster.  I once heard a saying thast said any old mule can tear down a fence, but a it takes a strong horse to build one.  Or take the President's words, "A litany of complaints is not a plan."

The thing I hate most about this election year is the blatant liberal bias we see everyday in the media.  How is it that Kitty Kelly's hit piece on the President's family gets three days on the Today show, but John O'Neil, author of the NY Times #1 book for 4 weeks, doesn't get one?

How is it that John Kerry has never had to answer any questions concerning his weak senate record? 

I could go on andd on and on, but if you can't see the bias yourself, then you're blind.

Oh and one last thing, if you are still one of the coveted "undecided" voters left in America, you are a moron.

4 Stories You Should, but Won’t Hear About until maybe after the Election.

1) Sandy Berger: Docs in the Socks.

2) Memogate: Dan Rather, CBS and the Story that Just Disappeared.

3) John Kerry’s Military Records: Missing in Action.

4) Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Tax Records.

Homer Simpson in 2004! Everyman Homer Simpson would be the ideal candidate for President of the United States, it was reported today by local Springfield news anchor Kent Brockman. Simpson detailed his would-be platform after downing several cans of Duff beer at his favorite watering hole, Moe's Tavern. Simpson has yet to name his running mate, but it is rumored to be either Barney, Moe, Lenny or Carl. It is unlikely Homer would choose Krusty the Clown, given Krusty's failed bid for the presidency in 1992. Vowing to make a change, Simpson revealed the following campaign platform:

Homer Simpson's Campaign Platform:

"Remember Edwards, I'm the #1 liberal, you're just #4.  So don't you ever forget who wears the pants, uh... I mean tights... in this relationship."

My friend Seth sent me this picture.

You rule. in 15 years, you won't be as known as you
are now, but most of the people that will know
you then will like you (or else I'll beat them
with a stick). You're nice to listen to.

What band from the 80s are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry headed a soccer ball during his visit to a girl's soccer practice in Brown Deer, Wisconsin October 15, 2004.  Later that day, the "Princesses'" head coach, Benjamin Dover, was reportedly so impressed with Mr. Kerry's athletic skills that he made him an honorary member of the under 13 girls' soccer team. 

In a scene reminiscent of the 1986 Corey Haim film, LUCAS, Mr. Kerry was all smiles as the team presented him with an official "Princesses" jersey.  He then broke into tears and confessed that he was always the last one picked to play soccer and "Red Rover" at recess while in middle school, but that all those scars were now healed by the "Princesses'" generous act.  He left that day promising to fight for the "Princesses" in Washington.

"There's a reason that they're saying Kerry is the No. 1 liberal in the Senate... it's because he is the No. 1 liberal in the Senate.  Sleep till noon, drink beer, vote for Kerry Nov. 2, that's the slacker motto." - Michael Moore

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. announced today that on Friday, Oct. 22, 2004 at 8:00 p.m. EST certain television stations owned by Sinclair will air a special one-hour news program entitled "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media."

In order to minimize the interruption of normally scheduled programming in those markets where Sinclair owns and/or programs more than one television station, the news special will be broadcast on only one of those stations.

The news special will focus in part on the use of documentaries and other media to influence voting, which emerged during the 2004 political campaigns, as well as on the content of certain of these documentaries.

The program also will examine the role of the media in filtering the information contained in these documentaries, allegations of media bias by media organizations that ignore or filter legitimate news and the attempts by candidates and other organizations to influence media coverage.

Contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts, the Sinclair stations will not be airing the documentary "Stolen Honor" in its entirety.

"A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media" will air in Columbus, Ohio on channel WSYX this Friday 10/22 @ 8pm.

The Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush (10-17).
"There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. ... But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age — a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate — the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States."

The Carlsbad Current-Argus, Carlsbad, N.M., endorsed Bush (10-17).
"We believe President Bush should be re-elected because he is better prepared to lead the war on terror. We believe his firm conviction and stalwart stance to pursue the terrorists and destroy them is the only way America can navigate toward a secure tomorrow."

Omaha World-Herald, Omaha, Neb., endorsed Bush (10-17).
"This election is an opportunity to demonstrate to terrorists throughout the world that America is not tired of the fight. A vote for George W. Bush will keep in the White House a president who will carry on that fight and do so more forcefully and effectively than his opponent."

Rocky Mountain News, Denver, endorsed Bush (10-17).
"If it weren't for 9/11, the 2004 presidential campaign would be a weary reprise of the one four years ago, with John Kerry substituting for Al Gore. ... What was different four years ago, of course, is that America was not at war. Now it is, and George W. Bush's vision for American foreign policy is a major reason we support him."

Liberals know all about compassion. What's more, they practice what they preach, which is more than the president can say.

by Helen Thomas

WINNER!!!

Could it be that "CBS Evening News" anchorman Dan Rather has lower journalistic standards than even Michael Moore, whose conspiracy film "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be a model piece of political propaganda but doesn't come close to qualifying as "journalism"?

Last week the Web site Ratherbiased.com quoted Moore saying he rejected the same forged military records Rather used in his disastrous Sept. 8 broadcast to trash President Bush.

"Back when I was making Fahrenheit, I was offered the same documents that were given to CBS but I didn't use them because we couldn't verify them," Moore said following a speech at the University of Central Arkansas.

The radical filmmaker said he also rejected other scoops that sounded "too good to be true," like the story from a woman who claimed she had dinner with Bush and the family of Osama bin Laden.

According to Alan Skorski, a former congressional candidate who's writing a book about Al Franken, Rather and Moore have something in common - a London-based reporter named Greg Palast.

In fact, Palast has claimed credit for reports broken by both Moore and Rather over the years.

In a recent screed he titled "The Lynching of Dan Rather," Palast wrote, "Dan is in hot water for a report my own investigative team put in Britain's Guardian papers and on BBC TV years ago" - referring to the story that Bush got favorable treatment in the National Guard.

On the eve of the 2000 election, Palast interviewed Bill Burkett, the former National Guard officer who would later pass bogus Guard records to Rather's news team. Burkett talked about Bush's records being scrubbed, but at the time had no documents to back the claim up.

The expatriate journalist says he's also been feeding movie-maker Moore info on Bush for years. This past May Palast wrote:

"In fact, our joke in the London newsroom is that if we can't get our story on to American airwaves, we can just slip it to the fat guy in the chicken suit. Moore could sneak it past the censors as 'entertainment.'"

Palast says Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a direct rip-off of his material, claiming in the same report:

"I know, because, with my investigative team at BBC television and The Guardian of Britain, I wrote and filmed the original reports on which Moore's new documentary are based."

Could it be that Rather and Moore actually share the same sources? Not exactly. At least Moore deserves credit for not getting conned by Bill Burkett's phony documents.

Maybe when Rather retires, CBS should replace him with the more discerning "fat guy in the chicken suit."

by Carl Limbacher

"Get in my belly!!!"

The item below is a popular e-mail spreading like wildfire across the Internet, something for the undecided crowd to think about:

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad

Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good
Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad

Clinton bombs Chinese Embassy - good
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in flight suit - bad

No mass graves found in Serbia - good
No WMD found in Iraq - bad

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad

Clinton refuses to take custody of bin Laden - good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad

Milosevic not yet convicted - good
Saddam turned over for trial - bad

Ahh, it's so confusing!

I'm losing my mind...

When asked to comment on the Israel-Palestinian conflict during the debate Tuesday night, Edwards had another personal story:

Now, if I can, just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of 2001, staying at the King David Hotel. We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed.

A strange psychological compulsion compels some people to inject themselves into all historic events. On cross examination, it generally turns out they were not actually in New York City on 9-11, but had visited New York a week earlier. They did not march in Selma, but knew someone who knew someone who did. They were not near the Sbarro Pizzeria, but in the same country where it happened.

John Edwards managed to turn the deadly bombing of the pizzeria into another story about himself. On the basis of his brush with death, Edwards concluded: "What are the Israeli people supposed to do? ... They have not only the right but the obligation to defend themselves." (The scariest part of the story was that Edwards just had his nails done at the manicure place next door to the pizzeria that very day!)

So are we to surmise that if Edwards had not been at the King David Hotel the day the Sbarro Pizzeria was blown up, he would not think Israel has a right to defend itself?

Cheney did not need to stay in the King David Hotel to know what to do about ruthless suicide bombers. He said: "With respect to Israel and Palestine, Gwen, the suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. I personally think one of the reasons that we don't have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we've had in the past is because Saddam's no longer in business."

Edwards lamely boasted, "I would find terrorists where they are" – but not in Iraq, the one nation miraculously free of all al-Qaida terrorists – "and stop them and kill them before they do harm to us." For some reason, Democrats always feel the need to proclaim that they would kill terrorists too – just like they must constantly proclaim their support for "the troops."

Edwards expressed his support for "the troops" by describing the brave men fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan – the war liberals claim to support – as evidence of America's decline. In his rousing closing statement – about himself again – Edwards said, "Here's the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America." (Technically, it was the not-such-bright-lights who sit on juries that turned Edwards into a multimillionaire trial lawyer.)

"But that light is flickering today," he said. (Or is that the light from the tanning salon?) As evidence of the flickering light of America, Edwards said: "You see it when you sit at your table each night and there's an empty chair because a loved one is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan." How precisely is the Kerry-Edwards team going to "find terrorists where they are and stop them and kill them before they do harm to us" – if no one is going to be away from the dinner table doing the capturing and killing?

It's very confidence-building that the Democrats' argument for replacing the current team in the White House during a battle for America's survival is Edwards' capacity to recite the first draft of a Hallmark card inscription about flickering lights.

by Ann Coulter

Can I just ask, who the hell does John Edwards even think he is to run for President of the United States?  Edwards has some gall to seek the highest office in the land after serving as a senator for only 5 1/2 years, 2 of which have been spent running for President.  So basically he is a former trial attorney who has served 3 1/2 of his first term and now he thinks he is qualified to be President of the United States?  What an arrogant rat fink.  He couldn't even win re-election in his home state of North Carolina!  I guess you can't totally blame John Edwards because it was Bill Clinton who lowered the standard for every President.  I can imagine what Ronald Reagan's response would have been if heard what Bill Clinton had done with a 21-year-old intern in the the office he (Reagan) held in such a high regard that he would not even enter it without his coat on.  

Kerry and Edwards are just a mirage.  They sound good (to useful idiots), but there isn't any substance to anything they say, or do.  Unfortunately for John Kerry, no matter how many botox treatments, manicures, $1,000 Christophe haircuts, crown teeth, or spray-on tans he gets, he will always be an uncoordinated Lerch stand-in who will SAY ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED.

President Bush and Dick Cheney are more concerned with substance than their appearances.  President Bush selected Dick Cheney not for his image, or oratory skills, but to help him govern.  Who knows why John Kerry selected John Edwards.  The only thing I can come up with is to try to balance out his own fugliness.     

Anyone with half the brains of Barbra Streisand can see that the Kerry Edwards ticket is based on image and the Bush Cheney ticket is based on substance.  Take for example the pre-debate activities of the President and his opponent, John Kerry.  While President Bush was touring hurricane torn parts of Florida, John Kerry was busy getting himself a manicure and selecting the right lipstick for the debate.  Call me crazy, but I think Osama (as well as all terrorists) would feel a hell of a lot more threatened by a cowboy who mangles and invents words, than he would an orange metrosexual. 

JUST WHO IS PROPOSING A DRAFT?

Democrat Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) Introduced The "Universal National Service Act Of 2003" To Reinstate Military Draft.  "A BILL To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." (H.R. 163, Introduced 1/7/03 By Rep. Charles Rangel)

ü    & nbsp; Today, House Of Representatives Will Vote On Rangel's Proposal, Which House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Vows Will Receive "Very Little Congressional Support."  "Later today, the House of Representatives will debate and vote on H.R. 163, the Universal National Service Act - commonly known as the Reinstate the Draft Bill.  There is very little Congressional support for reinstating the draft."  (House Armed Services Committee, "House To Vote On And Reject Military Draft Bill," Press Release, 10/5/04)

Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) Has Introduced Identical Military Draft Legislation.  "A BILL To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." (S. 89, Introduced 1/7/03 By Sen. Ernest Hollings)

KERRY AND EDWARDS CLAIM IT'S REPUBLICANS WHO
WANT DRAFT, BUT KERRY IS OPEN TO DRAFT

Kerry Raised Possibility Draft Is Returning Under Bush. "Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush. ... Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: ‘If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you.'" (Mary Dalrymple, "Kerry Raises Possibility That Military Draft Could Return If Bush Is Re-Elected," The Associated Press, 9/22/04)

Edwards Hinted Draft Would Return Under President Bush. "Edwards drew his biggest applause from the audience, which was heavy on union members and laid-off workers, when he responded to a question from a woman who said that her 23-year-old son recently graduated from college, and that she is worried about a draft being instituted for the war in Iraq. ‘There will be no draft when John Kerry is president,' Edwards said, to applause and a standing ovation." (Jim VandeHei, "Kerry Accuses Bush Of Dishonesty On Iraq," The Washington Post, 9/16/04)

by Joseph Farah

Silly Republicans. Rules aren't for liberals!

"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,
but humility comes before honor." (Proverbs 18:12)