At long last, the troops are coming home. No, not the troops in Iraq -- the job there isn't yet finished. America has more than 200,000 military personnel stationed all over the world, almost half of them in Germany. In most cases those soldiers are there for reasons that no longer exist, protecting old allies against enemies long gone. It's about time the Pentagon has taken a serious look at our overseas deployments and began the process of reconfiguring them to meet our current needs. While speaking before a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, President Bush announced his plan to remove some troops from foreign bases altogether, and to move others to where they can be more effective. Over the next ten years, more than 70,000 soldiers -- including two divisions in Germany -- will be based in the United States instead of places like Germany and North Korea. Not only will having them home benefit them and their families psychologically, but with today's faster transportation methods, they can get to the action just about as quickly.

Naturally, Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry attacked Bush's plans, as he is bound to do no matter what the President says or does. If Bush buys a puppy, Kerry is sure to hold a press conference lambasting the President for buying yet another dog instead of a cat, choosing the wrong breed of dog, and for feeding another mouth on a salary paid by the taxpayers. Kerry would also complain about the dog's name, sex, and the brand of dog food Bush bought. It's an election year, after all. Even one's dog food choices aren't safe from criticism.

In this case, however, Kerry raised some questions about the redistribution plan that simply aren't valid. Kerry called it a "hastily announced plan" and asked, "[W]hy are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea — a country that really has nuclear weapons?" It was an interesting remark from a man who stated on the Senate floor in 2002, "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." Perhaps someone ought to let the Senator know that no amount of American soldiers -- no matter how well-trained and well-equipped -- can stand up against nuclear weapons. Those 37,000 soldiers became more like hostages than protectors the minute North Korea developed the Bomb.

The redeployment plan is neither hasty nor unilateral -- although why the United States would need another country's permission to bring our own troops home is another question for Senator Kerry. What would he do if, as President, he decided to move troops out of Germany and the German government refused to agree to it? The fact is that these moves have been planned meticulously, and have been discussed with the leadership of the countries involved. A December 2003 UPI article called it "a long-studied repositioning of U.S. forces and bases" as the US was negotiating with Poland for the use of several bases there. "Informal talks have been under way for weeks with old allies such as Japan, South Korea and Germany about a possible reduction of U.S. troops in their countries, and there have been negotiations, too, about establishing new bases in the former Eastern Bloc countries of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria." In February 2004, Germany and America agreed to a schedule of US troop reductions. It was during talks in June 2004 that the government of South Korea may have suggested that the troop withdrawal take place over ten years, as the Associate Press reported at the time. The only person surprised by President Bush's announcement, it seems, was Senator Kerry.

Why are Democrats so opposed to a better, more efficient use of American troops? What is wrong with repositioning US forces to meet the needs of the war we're currently fighting, instead of a Cold War that ended more than a decade ago? Does John Kerry expect Soviet tank divisions to smash through France the minute we walk out of Wiesbaden? Germans and South Koreans have held massive demonstrations against the presence of American military personnel. According to the New York Times, the German people say we can't leave fast enough to suit them. "Once viewed as a potent symbol of Cold War vigilance - eagles standing against the Soviet bear - the American soldiers in Germany are now seen by some people here as something approaching a nuisance." Should we not be responsive to the feelings of our allies? Frankly, the only purpose served by the American servicemen in Germany is spending their salaries -- American tax dollars -- to shore up the European economy. If the Democrats were as concerned for the American economy as they pretend to be, they would welcome the idea of bringing that tax money home, to be spent here.

The US has been making pacts and agreements with allies around the Middle East to base more troops in the area for years. For instance, the Bush administration has been expanding the Abu Dhabi air base in the United Arab Emirates since the spring of 2003. The Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar has been upgraded and expanded to house as many as 10,000 troops. The US presence in Qatar is neither new nor unwanted. In 1999, according to GlobalSecurity.org, "Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad, reportedly told US officials that he would like to see as many as 10,000 US servicemen permanently stationed at Al Udeid." Since our main enemies today are from the Middle East rather than Moscow, the move makes logical sense... except to those who would politicise our national security. 

The punchline is that just two weeks before President Bush made his announcement, Senator Kerry himself was advocating the very same thing. Once again, John Kerry has shown that he can take either side of any issue, as long as he believes it will get him votes. "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry said on 1 August 2004, on ABC's "This Week", declaring his intention to remove troops from Iraq. "If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there, but elsewhere in the world; in the Korean peninsula, perhaps; in Europe, perhaps." The problem with his Iraq hopes is that no country that doesn't already have troops in Iraq will send troops, no matter who is President. The French and German governments have made it clear that sending troops is out of the question. If "help is on the way," it's not speaking French or German.

Kerry's insistence that other countries will suddenly, mysteriously reverse their positions -- flip-flop, if you will -- is solely based on wishful thinking, like his belief that creating a more business-hostile environment will create jobs in America. Unless he starts coming across with specific, credible plans to explain exactly how he intends to accomplish his aims, Senator Kerry is campaigning on smoke and mirrors.

Jim McGreevey's resignation from his position as Governor of New Jersey has plunged politics -- never a field for the naive -- to a new low of cynicism. On 12 August 2004, McGreevey announced that he was stepping down because he is a "gay American" and that he had cheated on his wife with another man. Let's leave aside the question of whether he really believes gay people are a separate ethnic group of some sort. McGreevey's attempt to sidestep questions about the rampant corruption in his administration by wrapping himself in a Gay Pride flag is about as transparent as a sheet of plate glass.

McGreevey's administration has been troubled from the start. He appointed Joseph Santiago as superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, but Santiago resigned after only 11 months due to his reported ties to the mob. In 2003, McGreevey aides Paul Levinsohn and Gary Taffet made millions by apparently using their influence to get billboards (run by a company they worked with) approved without a public hearing. In an unrelated investigation, the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) charged Taffet with insider trading. Roger Rajesh Chugh, McGreevey's assistant State Department commissioner, was forced to resign after promising favors to Asian-American businessmen in return for campaign donations. Elizabeth Wong, head of the State's college loan agency, used public funds for a personal makeover, Broadway tickets, limousine rides, parties, lunches, gifts, trips, and office equipment for her home. Wong resigned earlier in 2004.

In July 2004, David D'Amiano was indicted on Federal charges. McGreevey's top fundraiser was caught soliciting bribes and political donations from a Piscataway farmer who was negotiating to preserve his lands from condemnation. D'Amiano told the farmer that in exchange for $20,000 in cash and $20,000 in political contributions, D'Amiano could have the condemnation halted by the intervention of a "high-ranking government official." The farmer voluntarily cooperated with Federal investigators and taped conversations between himself, D'Amiano, and others. McGreevey himself used the chosen code word "Machiavelli" during a meeting, a pre-arranged signal to let the farmer know that the deal was approved.

The same month, Commerce Secretary William Watley was forced to resign amid allegations that he mishandled State funds. An $11.5 million loan to a church in which Watley is a minister was canceled after it was determined that he was also a member of the partnership that would have received the money. Watley somehow neglected to mention his partnership on the financial disclosure forms submitted with the loan application. Watley also awarded a no-bid consulting contract to his chief-of-staff's sister.

The tale of Charles Kushner is more sordid by far. Kushner was McGreevey's largest campaign donor, as well as being a fundraiser for NY Senator Charles Schumer, former President Bill Clinton and Presidential hopeful John Kerry. Kushner's income tax filings and campaign contributions were under investigation by Federal authorities. In an attempt to gain leverage over the chief witness against him, Kushner sent two minions to find a hooker willing to help them videotape the witness having sex with her. The two men spent three months and an unknown amount of money in various go-go bars and gentlemen's clubs (expensive go-go bars), with no luck. (This raises the important question of whether New Jersey's state motto ought to be "We Have the Most Inept Criminals" or "We Have the Most Virtuous Exotic Dancers." Someone ought to run a poll.) Kushner took matters into his own hands, contacting a NYC call girl he happened to know. The call girl successfully seduced the witness -- using the old "damsel in distress" ploy -- and taped the encounter. Instead of using the threat of exposure as leverage to force the witness to refuse to testify against him, Kushner simply mailed the tape to the man's wife... his own sister. The witness, you see, was his brother-in-law. Kushner even timed the delivery to occur during an engagement party for his own nephew. Conversation over this year's Thanksgiving dinner ought to be somewhat... strained. Though McGreevey is not personally named in this case, it raises important questions about his judgement and the sort of people he surrounds himself with. Kushner had been McGreevey's pick for chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but withdrew from consideration due to the campaign contribution investigation.

The incident that directly prompted McGreevey's resignation makes the other examples of corruption pale in comparison. Whether McGreevey is gay is immaterial, as is the other man's insistence that he himself is not. McGreevey hired Golan Cipel without a background check for the critical and sensitive position of Homeland Security Advisor, despite the fact that Cipel was an Israeli national and could not obtain the neccessary Federal security clearance. McGreevey chose Cipel over Louis Freeh, the former FBI Director who offered to fill the position without salary. Isn't security -- especially in a state that lost so many on 9/11 -- too serious a business for the Governor to be handing out Homeland Security positions to the unqualified like party favors? Not to be denied, McGreevey simply reassigned Cipel to a job as "counselor to the governor" with no specified duties when the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Cipel's appointment. Whether McGreevey approached Cipel with bribes in return for his silence about the affair (which Cipel insists never happened) or Cipel attempted to blackmail McGreevey is simply bad street theater at this point. Either way, it's barely a blip on the NJ corruption radar.

The punchline of the whole McGreevey resignation joke is his decision to step down in November, instead of right away. By holding onto the office until November 15th "to facilitate a responsible transition," McGreevey will ensure that the Democratic political machine retains control of the Governor's office until the 2005 election. That will give them a year to spin the story to their advantage. If McGreevey steps down before 3 September, then -- as New Jersey has no Lieutenant Governor -- the citizens will get to elect a new Governor in a special election at the same time as the Presidential election. Rather than take the chance, McGreevey is using his sexual orientation as a smokescreen to avoid demands that he leave office in time for the citizens of NJ to elect a new Governor this year. Now that's cynical.

Watch as the "mainstream" media plays right along, calling him "brave" and "courageous" for discussing his homosexuality in public while ignoring the real story. As the Seattle Times reported, "Gay-rights groups expressed support and compassion for McGreevey, but their reactions were tinged with sorrow because McGreevey announced his resignation just as he became the nation's first openly gay governor." With the backing of such lobby groups, McGreevey will be able to turn any indictment, impeachment or demand that he step down immediately into a personal attack based on his sexual proclivities. Corruption of any magnitude can be excused by the media, if one is a member of a Liberal-protected group... and you can bet McGreevey knew that when he announced his delayed resignation.

Presidential hopeful John Kerry has been telling the American people that he would fight a "better" war against terror, but not exactly how. At the UNITY 2004 conference for minority journalists, Kerry stated, "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." (This was the same conference, by the way, at which the neutral, non-partisan journalists broke out in wild cheers and whistling for Kerry, but heckled Bush as he spoke the very next day. But remember, folks, there's no media bias!)

I wondered just how one would fight a "sensitive" war against the kind of subhuman slime who cut the heads off innocent victims on videotape. Kerry has offered few specifics on his plan for fighting terror, aside from forming a "real coalition" of nations (a massive slight on the British, Italians, Poles, Australians, Japanese, Spanish, and dozens of others who have been with us in both Afghanistan and Iraq, if you ask me). He has said he sees fighting terrorism as "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation." On his web site, Kerry's plan for making America safer consists mainly of tracking terrorists once they arrive, "hardening targets," and making sure first responders have what they need to clean up the carnage after the terrorists strike. Apparently, the lack of mess is supposed to discourage them. Nothing about preventing them from coming here in the first place, of course... nothing about letting them know it's not going to be worth the price. Nothing about stopping the nations which support them from doing so, by either diplomatic or military pressure. That sort of thing just isn't done, it seems.

In any case, it looks as though John Kerry needs help coming up with specific ways in which he can fight a more thoughtful and sensitive war on terror. In the spirit of cooperation, I'd like to suggest the following helpful list...

10. Stop calling it a "war." Rename it to the "Protest Against Terror." Protests always get people's attention and let them know that what you're protesting against is wrong.

9. Use softer bullets. Metal bullets hurt the terrorists, and that makes them hate us more.

8. Perhaps President Kerry can invite Osama bin Laden to the White House for a "cuddling party" with Kerry/Edwards. Nothing makes friends faster than a good cuddle.

7. Only go to war if the French and the UN say it's okay. Everyone knows how skillful the French are at dealing with other nations, and the UN has proven time and again its efficacy in dealing with terrorists.

6. Pull the troops out of Iraq within six months, but stay the course and even send more troops. If you have to ask, it's too nuanced for you.

5. Gently but firmly remind the terrorists that he was in Vietnam for four months thirty-five years ago. They won't dare pull anything then.

4. Ensure government owned and operated health care for all Americans, paid for with higher taxes. Terrorists won't bother to attack if they know all Americans have health care; it won't do any good then.

3. Stop eating pork and cover the women. Don't let them read or vote. That will show the terrorists that we understand them and appreciate their culture.

2. Don't call them "terrorists." They feel bad enough about our bullying, abusive foreign policy as it is. Call them "armed peace demonstrators." They'll feel more... peaceful.

1. Don't send soldiers; send social workers. All they really need is love and understanding.

"Armed" with these suggestions, I'm sure John Kerry will be able to convince the terrorists to stop hating us in no time, should he win November's election. As for me... I'll be in the mountains building a bunker.

Florida has been declared a state of emergency and the National Guard put on alert due to a pair of so-called "hurricanes" sources claim are going to hit the state sometime in the near future. Named "Bonnie" and "Charley," the storms are supposedly entering the US from Cuba, a declaration some see as a prelude to a declaration of war against the dicta... er, beloved president-for-life Fidel Castro. Many prominent Democrats see the storm threat as being hyped for political purposes.

"I think there has been an exaggeration," Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said when asked whether President Bush and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, have overstated the threat of hurricanes. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." Kerry relentlessly reminded reporters, a few curious passers-by, a group of mimes and a janitor that such storms were dealt with in a multilateral, sensitive fashion when he was in Vietnam. "This administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path," Mr. Kerry declaimed. "I will make America safer from hurricanes than they are." Mr. Kerry also stated that he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations," instead of unilaterally declaring a state of emergency in Bush's "go-it-alone" fashion. Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards added that while storm security is important, Mr. Bush has ignored other pressing issues. "The President of the United States actually has to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time," he said, blowing a rather large bubble. Howard Dean, the former front-runner for the Democratic nomination, questioned the timing of the hurricane threats. "This administration knew about this at least three weeks ago," a red-faced, angry Dean raged at reporters. "They could have chosen any date they wanted to reveal this to the public." Suddenly calmer, Dean rolled down his sleeves and said,"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is hurricanes." Added Dean, "I think in some ways, unfortunately, the hurricanes have already won."

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) even suggested the administration was using the fear of hurricanes to aid President Bush's political campaign. "I am deeply concerned that the Bush administration is copying and pasting old hurricane alerts that were later found to be fabricated. This administration has a long track record of using deceptive tactics for political gain," said Wexler. "One cannot help but question whether their aim was to deflect attention from the Kerry-Edwards ticket right after their inaugural week," he said.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, also panned the announcement as "a reminder of the Bush administration's ... politics of fear," adding that the administration "is primarily focused on covering its political behind between now and November." A spokesperson for the think tank added,"Oh, I almost forgot... Bush is Hitler."

Everyone knows by now that John Kerry served for four months on a "swift boat" in Vietnam. Don't say you haven't heard, unless you've spent the last year in a cave. Kerry mentions it several times per minute in every campaign speech he intones. He deflects nearly every question asked of him by holding up his Naval service in 1968 and 1969, especially questions about his plans for national security and defense should he become President. His campaign ads feature pictures of him in uniform. Former servicemen flank him at every campaign stop, some of whom even served with him. When he made his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, he made a show of saluting the audience and "reporting for duty." (Perhaps President Bush should take him at his word, and send him to Iraq.) The "highlight" of the evening was a nine-minute biographical movie directed by Steven Spielberg protege James Moll, and narrated by Morgan Freeman. The bulk of the movie featured -- surprise! -- John Kerry in Vietnam, including footage filmed at the time by Kerry, or at his direction. (No one, of course, seems to have asked who gave him authorisation to use military personnel to shoot his personal home movies if the films were actually shot while in combat. No one has asked who authorised him to take military transport and personnel to visit areas where action had taken place in order to recreate the action for his own purposes, if the films were shot while off duty.)

No matter what response the Bush Administration concocted to the recent discovery of specific terrorist targets, the Left was bound to condemn it as "wrong." It's an election year, and attacking President Bush is far more important to most Democrats than cooperating to ensure the safety of American citizens. Following the arrest of al-Qaeda operative Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani in Pakistan, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge announced a list of specific buildings that are targeted for al-Qaeda attacks, most likely by truck or car bombs. Extra security has been put in place at the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup in New York City, the World Bank Headquarters and the International Monetary Fund buildings in Washington DC, and Prudential Financial in Newark NJ. Unless an attack actually takes place, the Left will claim this is deliberately causing fear in order to rally support for President Bush. They consider the announcement ridiculous, since no specific date was mentioned for the planned attack. If a terrorist attack does happen, of course, they will claim that not enough was done to prevent it. Why can't the Left be consistent in their views?

When the now-infamous 6 August 2001 PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) was declassified, the outrage from the Left was as palpable as it was laughable. The memo, titled, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US," contained not a single specific threat. However, those on the Left continue to use the title of the memo as "proof" that President Bush had ample warning of the 9/11 hijacking, and insist that he should have made the public aware of the imminent danger. During the 9/11 inquisition, Democrats on the Commission attempted to use the memo's title as a blunt instrument with which to bludgeon National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. Unfazed by Richard Ben-Veniste's and Bob Kerrey's unfair attacks and grandstanding, she explained that the memo was merely a historical list of general threats from al-Qaeda. The memo did make a reference to a five-year-old threat to hijack airplanes, but in the "standard" context of using hostages to bargain for the release of prisoners. "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists." The memo did mention New York -- but only stated that federal buildings there were under surveillance. Note that no federal buildings in New York were attacked on 9/11. However, with that magical 20/20 hindsight the Left seems to possess, they can see that these bits and pieces of fragmentary intelligence clearly spelled out a new type of terrorist attack just over a month later. Now, President Bush has informed the public of specific and detailed threats -- and is castigated for it. Where is the consistency?

If the Bush administration keeps a lid on newly-uncovered threats and an attack occurs, the Left will slam the President for not informing the public. If they release what details they have and nothing happens, the Left will claim that there never was a threat. According to the New York Times, "News of the terror threat on Sunday also stirred renewed suggestions from some Democrats that the White House was manipulating terror alerts for Mr. Bush's political gain." Howard Dean, once the favorite for the Democratic Presidential nomination, said during an interview on CNN, "I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism." The biggest shame in this country is how the Left has politicised the struggle to keep Americans safe in order to score political points against President Bush.

The "mainstream" news outlets have been fairly busy lately, spinning the story of the investigation into Sandy Berger's adventures in the National Archives. Whether that's because Berger was former President Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor or because he was an advisor to John Kerry's campaign at the time, we may never know. Berger was billed as a "chief foreign policy advisor" to Kerry until he quit, whereupon he was retroactively demoted to an "informal advisor." While researching in the Archives for his appearance before the 9/11 inquisition, Berger stole documents from the secure document viewing room by sneaking them out hidden in his pants and socks (according to what Archive staffers told the FBI), as well as his jacket and briefcase. Not just once, but three times, Berger removed classified papers and took them home.

The National Archives is not like your local library, and the secure reading rooms are supposed to be kept, well, secure. No documents brought into those rooms for viewing may be removed except by Archive staff. Notes taken on those documents may not be removed either. Documents relating to the nation's response to terror attacks contain details on the inner workings of government that must not be seen by anyone not authorised to do so. Berger's actions were not only illegal, but also potentially dangerous.

One of the documents Sandy Berger was reportedly examining was Richard Clarke's after-action report on the Clinton administration's response to the Millennium bombing plot. For those who don't know, a car packed with explosives was stopped on the Canada border on New Year's Eve 1999 by an alert border guard who thought the driver seemed jittery. Ahmed Ressam was on his way to blow up the control tower at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The guard wasn't forewarned to watch for potential terrorists by an alert; she was simply good at her job and extraordinarily lucky. According to Janet Reno, in her testimony before the 9/11 commission, "I think that was just good police work, and it was a lucky break for us." The after-action report was reported to be quite critical of Clinton's lackluster response to this and other terrorist attacks. This and other supposedly secure documents made their way, secreted in Berger's clothing, to his home in Arlington. The FBI began investigating when it was discovered that some documents were missing, and found some of the missing documents in Berger's home, on his desk. Some were missing, and Berger claims that he "inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives" and "accidentally discarded" a few of them. Nobody has been able to explain how one can "inadvertently" stuff papers into one's pants and socks and then, upon discovering them, "accidentally" discard them instead of returning them.

The mainstream media isn't interested in Berger's illegal and potentially disastrous actions, however, nor his repeated breach of security and protocol. Berger excused himself by saying, "I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission." This is entirely believable; the fact that most of what Berger stole were copies of documents can only mean that he took them to share their contents with someone not authorised to view them. Clinton laughed off the breach of national security, saying, "all of us who've been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers." Is that really good enough? If Berger was the sort of sloppy bumbler who might inadvertently leave classified documents lying about or even destroy them, what was he doing in charge of our national security for so many years? Was his "sloppiness" somehow responsible for letting al-Qaeda go unpunished after bombing the Khobar Towers, bombing the embassies in Dar es Salaam and Kenya, and attacking the USS Cole? Why did he take the documents, and did it have anything to do with his position as a campaign advisor to John Kerry? These questions remain unasked as the Liberal lapdog media, following the Democrat lead, focuses on the timing of the "leak" of the investigation, accepting without question that the Republicans did it to draw attention away from the Democrat convention in Boston. "The timing is very curious, given this has been underway now for this long," said Senate minority leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), and THAT'S the story the press is telling.

They've done this before, remember? In October 2003, a memo from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee became public. The memo, an annotation to his testimony before the Committee, summarised details of an operational relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden gathered by various intelligence agencies since the early 1990's. The media, quickly playing down the real story, concentrated on a rather misleading press release from the Department of Defense which stated, "reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate." The statement was "interpreted" by the press, desperately clinging to its "no cooperation" stance, to mean that the memo itself was inaccurate. In November 2003, talk show host Sean Hannity broke the story of a memo from a staffer to Senate Intelligence Committee member Jay Rockefeller. The Rockefeller memo discussed the timing of the investigation into pre-Iraq war intelligence in such a way as to cause the maximum embarrassment to President Bush during his re-election campaign. The memo recommended that Democrats "prepare to launch an investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the [Senate] majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time -- but we can only do so once ... the best time would probably be next year." Another memo revealed the reason for Democratic opposition to Miguel Estrada's appointment to the 6th Circuit Court. "He is dangerous," the memo read, "because he is Latino." Rather than ask how the Democrats could dare to politicise their intelligence investigation for political gain, or question their blatant racism, the media launched a campaign to "out" the leaker.

Once again, the "mainstream" news sources are acting to divert attention from what should be the real story: the Democrats have become so hungry to regain power that they willingly put this country at risk in order to do so.

Here's a quiz: What political group published this list of reasons they hope George W. Bush will be defeated in the upcoming Presidential election? Read them carefully and see if you can tell.

1. Bush is destroying workers rights and outsourcing jobs instead of protecting the right to organize and creating new jobs rebuilding schools, bridges, roads and hospitals.
2. Bush is privatizing Medicare, Social Security and public education with phony reforms instead of enacting health care for all, protecting retirement funds and full funding for public education through college.
3. Bush is bankrupting the Federal Government with giant tax cuts for the very rich and super-funds to the military instead of securing the budget for human needs by taxing the rich and spending on human needs.
4. Bush is rolling back civil rights gains instead of enforcing and expanding affirmative action to end racism in all areas of life.
5. Bush is curtailing women's rights and choice by undermining Roe v. Wade instead of upholding the right to choice and ending the gender wage gap.
6. Bush is abusing immigrant workers in low-wage jobs instead of providing a clear path to citizenship and equal rights.
7. Bush is exploiting and ruining the environment by protecting corporate polluters instead of conserving our natural resources for the public good.
8. Bush's war in Iraq is a disaster for our security and economy. He is pushing for more preemptive wars and for first strike nuclear military policy instead of negotiations and cooperation utilizing the UN.
9. Bush is denying civil liberties and free speech in the name of fighting terrorism instead of repealing the USA Patriot Act and helping cities, towns and states fund firefighters and police.
10. Bush discriminates against Gays and Lesbians with a Constitutional Amendment instead of expanding civil rights and liberties for all.

Just how true is the old phrase, "birds of a feather flock together?" As the Democratic party has drifted further and further left, many have speculated that it was only a matter of time before they became indistinguishable from our old enemies the Communists. Lo and behold, the Communist Party USA has recently published on its web site the above document, "Top Ten Reasons to Defeat Bush." It could just as easily have been taken from the Democratic National Committee's web page, word for word. In fact, the list could double as Kerry supporter talking points. Let's take them one by one.

1. Calling for a government jobs program is as close to Communism as one can get. The WPA was a necessary evil during the full-blown depression America suffered in the early 1930's, when unemployment rates ran as high as thirty percent. It was dismantled as soon as the economy recovered. Making more citizens dependent on the government for income isn't the sort of thing a society based on freedom and capitalism should advocate as a normal matter of course. As for outsourcing jobs, Democrats and Communists pretend not to know that outsourced jobs have been more than balanced by insourced jobs. That's free market capitalism at work. As long as the US provides an environment in which small businesses -- the backbone of our economy -- can thrive, business will be good.

2. Health care for all, a neat euphemism for socialised medicine, only increases one's dependence on the government -- an important pillar of Communism. Socialised medicine is unworkable. Under Great Britain's national health care system, for instance, patients often wait months for heart surgery... unless they have their operation in another country. As for public education, the interests of children would be far better served by holding the system accountable for giving them a real education, instead of processing them through the system like so many head of cattle. What good are functional illiterates with college degrees they can't even read? The No Child Left behind Act will force the system to actually educate children, although school vouchers would put the power to hold school systems accountable directly into the hands of the parents.

3. Democrats and Communists always say that they want to tax "the rich," but they never say how they plan to do so. Since the truly rich -- like Teresa Heinz-Kerry, for instance -- don't have an actual income, raising or lowering the income tax will never affect them in any way. When Democrats and Communists say they plan to raise taxes on the rich, they mean business owners and entrepreneurs -- the people who drive our economy. Raising taxes on their businesses would cause them to cut back on expansion, fire workers, and raise the prices of their goods and services to make up the loss. No one has yet been able to get a Democrat, Communist or Liberal to explain how that will improve the economy... unless large industries are nationalised, owned or at least controlled by the government. The last political party to do that was the National Socialist Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazis.

4. Affirmative Action will never end racism; it only covers it up while making it worse. As long as people are given advantages based on skin color, others will resent it and racism will flourish. It's just the usual Democrat attempt to keep people divided along racial and economic lines so they can promise reforms in exchange for power. The only way to end racism is to stop teaching people that their differences are more important than their similarities, that their character and abilities mean far less than the color of their skin. Racism will continue as long as groups like the NAACP -- now little more than a mouthpiece for the DNC -- undermine powerful black people like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice for purely political motives. Instead of praising their high-level appointments, based on their suitability for the jobs, so-called "civil rights" organisations denigrate them as "sellouts."

5. Many people in this country continue to oppose abortion, despite "mainstream" media's euphemistically calling abortion exercising a "right to choose." A plurality believes it should be legal only under tighter restrictions than currently exist. President Bush has never tried to outlaw abortion, because he doesn't believe "the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions." A clear majority (68%, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll taken in October 2003) supported the President's bill to make partial-birth abortions illegal. This puts Democrats and Communists in the bizarre position of demanding that the current President be replaced for doing what the people actually wanted him to do. Note that those polls were taken before it was shown that babies in the womb cry, smile, yawn and even play, as ultrasound pictures have since proven. Women who choose to stay home and raise their children are the largest contributors to the gender wage gap. (They could call it exercising their right to choose, but that choice isn't acceptable to the Left.) The only way to legislate it away would be to mandate that all children must be raised in State-run daycare centers... something that would please the Communists no end.

6. Obviously the Democrats and Communists are referring to illegal immigrants. The only "clear path" they should get is one that leads to the nearest border... and the majority of Americans agree. Three fourths of Americans say that the United States should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens, according to a January 2004 Gallup poll. 

7. Regulated private industry is actually the best guarantor of conservation of natural resources, as long as the laws are enforced. Unlike Liberals, Democrats and Communists, corporations plan for long-term use of natural resources, the same way a farmer plans to harvest his fields year after year. Locking sections of the country behind glass will never serve "the public good." Consider the terrible California fires of 2003. They spread so quickly and so far because the forest was unregulated and unharvested due to environmentalism gone wild. Dead trees were never removed and undergrowth never cleared. The animals that would have performed that function ceased to inhabit California decades ago; humans are responsible for taking on the job of forest maintenance. Instead, due to environmentalism, we have been forced to abandon that responsibility in the name of "preservation." American industry already has the most restrictive pollution controls in the world. According to the CIA World Factbook 2003, there are very few countries without environmental problems, most of them far worse than can be found in the US.

8. By removing a brutal totalitarian dictator who supported international terrorism and replacing him with a democracy, President Bush hopes to attack terrorism at its very heart. Congress approved the liberation of Iraq when they voted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq into law, otherwise it could never have taken place. What kind of people argue against freeing people from brutal oppression? At one time, it was believed by some that Liberals actually stood for freedom from oppression, but their support for Communism and totalitarian dictatorships has finally uncovered the lie. As for the United Nations, it's doubtful that another such corrupt, self-serving, amoral gathering of international villains could be assembled outside of a James Bond film.

9. No one has yet been able to find a single case of a single American citizen's civil liberties being impacted by the PATRIOT Act. (Before you scream, "Jose Padilla," be aware that he is being held under the 1942 case ex parte Quirin, not the PATRIOT Act.) No one's free speech has been taken away, no one has been herded into death camps, no one has lost the right to own a gun. Whoops... that's one civil right the Left actually does want to remove from American citizens.

10. The proposed Constitutional amendment to define marriage was done in a perfectly legal manner, and was defeated fairly in the Senate. Preventing runaway courts from forcing a redefinition of marriage down the throats of a people that neither want nor need it is not discrimination, it's protecting the rights of the majority from being abused by a tiny minority. Marriage has deep roots in religion, biology and millennia of tradition; gay "marriage" is an attempt to force a change in a society by legislation when the people clearly want no such thing. According to a CBS poll taken in February 2004, the public "seems to have become even less receptive toward gay marriage in the past seven months. Although a majority has always opposed gay marriage, last July, 40% said they would favor allowing homosexual couples to legally marry, as did 34% in December. That figure is now 30%." Why do Democrats and Communists continue to push the issue? It divides people, creates tension, and distracts voters from the booming economy and successful prosecution of the war on terror. The Left believes that fomenting tension and division will convince Americans to vote for John Kerry, though there's no logical reason to do so.

And if the American citizens suffer from a damaged economy, lose ground in the fight against terrorism and take a severe blow to their self-confidence as Kerry raises taxes and moves the war on terrorism into the courtroom, then so be it, right? As long as the Democrats -- and by association, the Communists -- win.

For his running mate in the 2004 Presidential election, John Kerry would have been wise to pick Dick Gephardt. A solid, respected, experienced man who appeals to voters on both sides of the aisle, Gephardt would have brought with him a great deal of union support (the rank-and-file, not the fat-cat union bosses who think they have Democratic politicians in their pockets while the politicians think the same about them). He might have picked Governor Tom Vilsack, with his years of experience in the executive branch of government. Either one would likely have brought with him at least one midwestern state, where the votes just might decide this election. Instead, Kerry chose to cast his lot with a slick-talking trial lawyer who couldn't even carry his home state in the Democratic primary elections.

What does Kerry think Edwards might bring to his campaign? Does he think the soft Carolina drawl and smug good looks will remind voters of Bill Clinton? So many pundits are cooing over Edwards' appeal to women that female voters should be insulted. Democrats seem to think of them of as nothing more than walking hormone factories with the inexplicable ability to vote. Women, it is believed, will vote for the "prettiest" candidate without doing all that nasty thinking about his policies or experience. Contrary to Democrat opinion, women do think. Just like men, they're thinking, "Is this man really ready to be Vice-President of the United States?"

During the Democratic primaries, Kerry attacked Edwards for not being experienced enough to run for office. Asked by a young woman at an event in Des Moines why she should vote for him instead of Edwards, Kerry said, "When I came home from Vietnam in 1969, I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then yet or not, I'm totally not sure. I don't know." John Edwards' entire political career consists of less than one term as a junior Senator. He decided not to seek reelection, possibly due to voter dissatisfaction over his abysmal attendance record. Edwards missed 32% of the votes in 2003 (90% in September alone), while Kerry missed a whopping 60% during the course of the year. (Note that President Bush is expected to be President 100% of the time while campaigning, vacationing or even sleeping.) During his short time in the Senate, Edwards introduced precisely zero bills that made the passage into law. That's it -- that's his entire political resume. His appeal on the campaign consists of a smooth line of patter, a wide smile and "better hair."

When asked by a reporter how John Edwards stacked up against current Vice President Dick Cheney, President Bush snapped right back, "Dick Cheney can be President. Next." Think about that for a second.

What is the job, the real job, of the Vice President? Besides presiding over the Senate -- a sure cure for insomnia -- his or her job is to be ready to step in and take over the country in the event of the President's death or incapacitation. In the best of times, that's an awesome and heavy responsibility to bear. In wartime, the most likely scenario for such a change would be the assassination of the President, with America in a state of chaos. In the kind of fight we face today, the Vice President may need to take over and run the United States smoothly in the midst of economic and social upheaval and fear the likes of which have never been seen before. The slightest mistake could cause a crash -- economic or otherwise -- from which the country would take decades to recover. What would an inexperienced politician like John Edwards do when faced with sole responsibility for America at war during a new terrorist attack, perhaps with weapons of mass destruction, with the President and thousands or tens of thousands of Americans dead in their own homes or places of business, and with no way to tell when or where the next strike will hit? What good will his smile and slick talk do any of us then? Who's he going to sue?

For that matter, what life experience makes John Kerry think he's capable of running any country, much less the United States of America? What experience does he have at running anything at all? Was he the mayor of even a small town? Has he been governor of even a small state? How about a list of the companies he has personally run as CEO? Has he managed a professional baseball team, or even coached Little League? Has he even been a board member of the local PTA? Kerry's entire list of qualifications (besides being in a war thirty years ago for a few months) consists of taking up one side of every issue, then the other, then maybe switching back to the first. Neither Kerry nor Edwards is qualified to run a hot-dog cart, much less the most powerful country on Earth. It would be equivalent to installing someone whose boating experience is limited to white-water rafting as Captain of the Queen Mary 2. Without a truly great first officer to balance the Captain's inexperience, that ship is destined to end up on the rocks, even without terrorists in the engine room. A Governor like Tom Vilsack might have provided the experience necessary to balance John Kerry's lack of executive credentials, but John Edwards can not do so.

This is wartime, and a new kind of war to boot. This is no time for on-the-job training in the White House. We just can't afford it.

According to some Democratic lawmakers, you aren't capable of voting this year without a United Nations monitor making sure you get it right. Eleven prominent Democrats, elected members of the House of Representatives, have sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, begging him to send UN monitors to oversee the 2004 election. Texas representative Eddie Bernice Johnson led the latest effort to subvert the sovereignty of the United States and place us under the control of the increasingly-corrupt United Nations. Besides Johnson, the letter was also signed by Julia Carson of Indiana, Jerrold Nadler, Edolphus Towns, Joseph Crowley and Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Raul Grijalva of Arizona, Corrine Brown of Florida, Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, Danny K. Davis of Illinois and Michael M. Honda of California.

Let me get this straight. A group of Democrats want to bring some people from countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, China and Cuba -- people that have never seen a democratic election in their lifetimes -- to sit in judgment on our elections? What kind of voodoo politics is that? The last time a foreign body had any direct influence over the political process of this country, the situation was corrected by a war for our freedom from British rule. Are these so-called Americans so willing to surrender that hard-won right of self-determination now, and to such a shamelessly scandal-ridden group of anti-American dictatorships and terrorist sympathisers? We may as well dissolve the Union now and save ourselves the pain of watching it done for us.

Generations of Americans have fought, and many have died, to preserve this independent nation as a single sovereign entity, free of outside control. Those men would be appalled who declared "for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Where is the honor in those Democrats who can't admit that Al Gore lost the election fair and square according to the existing laws, four years after the fact?

That's what this election and this kind of partisanship is all about, in the end -- the bitter, unquenchable anger of Democrats who tried and failed to overthrow the election process when Al Gore lost the 2000 election. After calling President Bush to concede the election, Gore decided that he still wanted to win after all, and demanded a recount. As per Florida law, a machine recount was taken, and Gore still lost. Unfazed by and unwilling to accept his loss, unable to consider the good of the country more important than his own wounded pride and unfulfilled ambition, Gore sued the State of Florida to demand a manual recount. When the Florida Supreme Court allowed it... Gore still lost, even when the absentee votes of the military -- people whose votes deserve to be counted if anyone's are -- were throw out. After the recount was officially certified the second time and the deadline for recounts was reached, the Florida electors cast their votes. At that point, the election was over. In an act of almost unbelievable hubris, Gore demanded another manual recount, and the FSU allowed it again. Gore still lost. Never mind that the entire country was in an uproar over this subversion of the democratic process. Never mind that the pride and anger of Democrats was interrupting the smooth transfer of power as mandated by the Constitution. Finally, the Supreme Court decided that more recounts would be unproductive, and would be in violation of the Constitution. They decided that the three-times-verified election results would stand. Though the Democrats have resented that decision for nearly four years, it's important to remember that in the case of an unclear Presidential vote result (which this wasn't), Congress would have the right to decide. Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution states that "if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President." (The Twelfth Amendment shortened the list to the three highest.) George W. Bush would still have won in any case.

This latest attempt to brand the 2000 election as somehow "wrong" is an offshoot of Rep. Johnson's own unfounded attempt to claim that black voters were deliberately disenfranchised due to their color. According to the 17 August 2001 dissenting statement by members of the US Commission on Civil Rights, "Dr. John Lott, an economist at Yale Law School, was unable to find a consistent, statistical significant relationship between the share of voters who were African Americans and the ballot spoilage rate." In fact, the only people that weren't allowed to vote by Florida law were convicted felons. While there were problems with the 1998-mandated purge of convicted felons from the state's voting rolls, there was ample time for anyone who had been convicted, served their time and been released to ensure that their restored voting rights were properly recorded. As usual, personal responsibility is never an issue with Democrats. The problems with the voting rolls actually went both ways -- over 6,500 convicted felons who had no right to vote were allowed to do so anyway. The Democrats don't seem at all concerned with votes that were illegally cast for Gore, however. They also didn't seem concerned with the fact that the "mainstream" news outlets declared the Florida vote for Gore an hour early. 187,000 registered voters in Florida's heavily-Republican panhandle -- in the Central time zone -- did not vote. A poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates indicated not only that two-thirds of them would have voted for George W. Bush, but that "the early and incorrect news network announcements declaring Al Gore the winner in Florida may have influenced thousands of last-minute voters." The Democrats are not concerned, as they pretend to be, for the rights of all voters... only those who might have voted for Gore. It's the ultimate in partisanship.

As Civil Rights Commissioners Abigail Thernstrom and Russell G. Redenbaugh stated in 2001, "[b]y basing its conclusion on allegations that seem driven by partisan interests and that lack factual basis, the majority on the Commission has needlessly fostered public distrust, alienation and manifest cynicism." Frankly, that sounds near-prophetic in retrospect. What have the Democrats done for the last four years except foster public distrust, alienation and manifest cynicism? It could almost be the party's motto.