There really are two ways of looking at the world. To most of us, the world works in rational, linear, fairly predictable ways. Drop a hammer, for instance, and it will always fall, accelerating at thirty-two feet per second, every second. Science works. Reason works. We're capable of understanding the world, and using our understanding of it in small ways to advance ourselves. The world around us makes sense.

Then there are people who see the world through emotionalism, symbolism and magic. The world makes sense to them, too, but in a completely different way. They believe in Grand Gestures and symbolic attacks. They can't merely disagree with someone, that person must become a larger-than-life Enemy of All Humanity. Their emotions drive their thoughts and fears. Those who believe in a symbolic world don't see the universe as working along the same rational, linear lines as the rest of us. Liberals and terrorists both belong to this latter group of people.

Terrorists attack representative symbols of things they hate. Innocent people are symbolically representative of the larger group they want to hurt -- they're emotionally incapable of separating the individual from the group. To attack America or Israel, they kill random Americans or Israelis; to attack America's military, they attack the Pentagon or blow up a truck full of American soldiers; to attack America's economic might, they attack the World Trade Center and other financial buildings. Even the symbolic gesture of burning American flags is, by magic, supposed to be an attack on America itself. Rational people would strive to build a better economy or military to increase their position in the world. By making the Grand Gesture of killing themselves along with the symbol that represents their chosen enemy, terrorists ensure that their attack "means" something -- it's the magic that translates the attack on the symbol to the hated real thing. Because their world functions by magic instead of rationality, they believe that they can hurt America by hurting symbols or representatives OF America.

Most Liberals have the same magical, emotional worldview as terrorists. Liberals feel that magic, of a sort, actually works. Their speeches are full of metaphor and emotional overtones instead of fact and realism. Like terrorists, they are fond of the Grand Gesture and symbolic attacks. When you see them dancing wildly and chanting obscenities in the streets of New York City to protest the Republican convention all next week (ironically using their freedom of speech to protest other people's freedom of speech), understand that what they do makes sense in a magic-run emotion-driven universe. If they can out-shout the Republicans, they can "beat" them. If they can project their hate loudly enough, they can "win." That is why arguments with Liberals almost inevitably devolve into shouting matches. When they burn American flags, they're burning a symbol that represents America -- and in their minds, they are burning America itself. Their weird costumes, hate-spewing signs and slogans are all designed to symbolically attack the things they hate -- law, order, capitalism, common decency and morality, freedom (to disagree with them), American power, the rational world and George W. Bush -- the current symbol of all these things. It doesn't matter that their arguments are irrational and not based on all the available facts -- they feel right, and, magically, they can become right by the power of emotion. As for the giant puppet heads... okay, no one can explain the giant puppet heads.

Knowing that they can't possibly hurt any of these things only makes protesters redouble their efforts. Watch them carefully through the week and ask yourself whether they represent your way of thinking. Where terrorists kill themselves to seal the magical deal, as it were, Liberals merely get more outrageous and outlandish in their symbolic street theater -- wearing hateful, scary costumes, staging "die-ins," painting their faces and bodies, making criminal accusations without proof (or even evidence), running around naked and so on. The shock value of their appearance and actions, they feel, is sufficient to translate their attacks from the symbols of the things they hate to the real thing. Having felt better for making the Grand Gesture, they return to their comfortable world, bought and paid for and protected by the very things they profess to hate. Their main difference from the terrorists lies in this hypocrisy.

We survived the Cold War only because our enemy was generally as rational as we are. We could foresee the Soviet response to any action on our part because they thought the same way we do -- in rational, linear terms. Each move, like a chess game, led to a response from a set of rational responses. We're not so lucky this time. Terrorists are not really crazy, though they appear so to the rational thinker. Their belief in symbolic magic merely makes them seem insane to us. Liberals, likewise, view the world in an irrational way... they're only slightly less incomprehensible.

Prepare for a shock. This post has nothing to do with Conservative ideals, history, politics, or anything "normal" for this site.

New Jersey, original home of the drive-in movie, has a drive-in theater once again, according to the Drive-Ins.com website. The Delsea Theater in Vineland NJ opens tonight, 27 August 2004, with a double-feature of Alien vs. Predator and Collateral.

Save me some popcorn.

In a startlingly bad piece of political theater, John Kerry sent his supporter Max Cleland to hand-deliver a letter to President Bush at his ranch in Texas. The 25 August 2004 letter contained a plea for the President to infringe upon the free speech rights of a group known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: 254 Vietnam veterans who have collectively questioned the circumstances under which Kerry earned three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star in only four months, without spending any time in the hospital. Many of the SBVT are decorated themselves. Because of their questions, however, John Kerry feels they must be silenced. What Kerry pretends not to know is that President Bush trying to direct their activities in any way would constitute the coordination with the group Kerry is accusing him of. It's a neat trap, and Bush is not falling for it.

So why a hand-delivered letter? Did Kerry forget the password to his email account? (Hint: try "ketchup") Couldn't he wait three days for the Post Office to deliver it? Perhaps Kerry never heard of Federal Express? No, nothing like that... Kerry callously used wheelchair-bound Vietnam veteran Max Cleland, a man who lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, as a photo-op delivery boy, just to stir up your emotions. What an incredibly low opinion Kerry seems to have of the American public. "Oh, that poor guy," you're supposed to say. "He has to deliver mail for Kerry because Bush is so mean. I'm voting for Kerry now!" (If this "thought" actually did cross your mind, please stop reading this now. Really.) And Cleland is allowing Kerry to use him, his disability and his Vietnam service just to score political points.

President Bush has praised Kerry's service many times, and denounced the activities of all 527 groups (so named for the section of the tax code which allows them). "All of them," Bush responded to a reporter's question about whether he specifically condemned the SBVT ad. "That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s." Kerry and the Democrats don't want anyone denouncing MoveOn.org and the Media Fund, however -- two of the 527 groups that have spend over a year and millions of dollars bashing President Bush in the most vicious ways possible, under cover of the First Amendment right of free speech. They demand that President Bush "order" SBVT to take their ads off the air -- an abridgement of their own right of free speech. According to a March 2004 press release from Kerry's web site, however, those two left-wing groups have been "assailing the president and serving as the Democrats' answer to Bush." The press release also declared that "when [Kerry's ad] buy is combined with those from the Media Fund and MoveOn, the Democratic message saturates the airwaves in some places." Collusion? Collaboration? Of course not!

Rather than answer the claims of the SBVT by signing form 180 to release all his military and medical records and possibly prove himself in the right, Kerry has sent platoons of lawyers to threaten TV stations running their ads and bookstores selling their book, Unfit for Command. He has operatives compiling "incriminating dossiers" on the Swift Boat Vets in preparation for a personal smear campaign. He sends the pathos-inspiring figure of Max Cleland to trundle up to Bush's door in a wheelchair -- followed by a fleet of camera-wielding media types -- to hand-deliver a letter asking that the President denounce this group of people exercising their right of free speech and this group alone. The letter was signed by Senators Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Tom Carper of Delaware and Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, both of New Jersey. It should go without saying that they're all Democrats.

In response to Kerry's accusatory letter, a group of Republican veterans prepared a letter of their own for Senator Kerry:

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That’s why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that’s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We’re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 “we do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too – and proud to support President Bush. He’s been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He’s made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 – in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he’s praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran’s right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham [CA]
Rep. Duncan Hunter [CA]
Rep. Sam Johnson [TX]
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)

Senator Kerry may be forced to release his records soon enough. Judicial Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that investigates government corruption. Now they've turned their sights on the allegations made against Senator Kerry. On 18 August 2004, Judicial Watch filed a "Request for Investigation, Determination and Final Disposition of Awards Granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, USNR." The request makes special mention of Kerry's anti-war activities (including meeting with the leadership of the enemy during wartime, while still an officer in the Naval Reserve). The request concludes:

Serious, credible reports of dishonorable conduct; false official reports and statements; aiding the enemy; dereliction of duty; misuse and abuse of U.S. government equipment and property; war crimes; and multiple violations of U.S. Navy regulations and directives, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and U.S. Code by Lieutenant (jg) John Forbes Kerry, USNR (Senator Kerry) are now before you.

These reports are specific as to the nature of the wrongdoing, the timeframe and location.  There are corroborating witnesses.  These witnesses have made public statements detailing their specific knowledge of wrongdoing by Senator Kerry.  The claims against Senator Kerry – both concerning his fraudulently obtained awards for valor and combat wounds, as well as his dishonorable and potentially illegal conduct as a commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve – are gravely serious matters that demand your immediate and direct action.

The truth will come out... one way or the other. When the SBVT came out with their book and their first TV ad, Kerry blamed the attacks on President Bush rather than answer them directly. He intoned, "Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on." The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have indeed brought it on, and not even a direct order from President Bush -- were it legal for him to do so -- can make it stop.

I only hope we can find time between now and election day to debate plans for the future instead of the past.

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.