(The following is an accumulation of blogs, articles, news reports and quotes that have been gathered during the past two weeks).

While Katrina was still in the Gulf, two days before it hit the coast, Max Mayfield of the National Hurricane Center took the unprecedented action of calling Nagin and Blanco personally to plead with them to begin MANDATORY evacuation of New Orleans. They said they’d take it under consideration. This was after the NOAA buoy 240 miles south had recorded 68′ waves before it was destroyed.

President Bush spent Friday afternoon and evening in meetings with his advisors and administrators drafting all of the paperwork required for a state to request federal assistance (and not be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act or having to enact the Insurgency Act).

Friday evening, August 26, the President called Governor Blanco and pleaded with her to sign the request papers so the federal government and the military could legally begin mobilization and call up.

He was told that they didn’t think it necessary for the federal government to be involved yet. After the President’s final call to the governor she held meetings with her staff to discuss the political ramifications of bringing federal forces. It was decided that if they allowed federal assistance it would make it look as if they had failed so it was agreed upon that the feds would not be invited in.

Saturday before the storm hit the President again called Blanco and Nagin requesting they please sign the papers requesting federal assistance, that they declare the state an emergency area, and begin mandatory evacuation.

After a personal plea from the President, Mayor Nagin agreed to order an evacuation, but it would not be a full mandatory evacuation, and the governor still refused to sign the papers requesting and authorizing federal action.

But if you go way back before Katrina even had a name, look at the Orleans Parish Levee Board, which is supposed to manage the safety and maintenance of the Levee . . .that broke causing such devastation, was spread a little thin. They also manage hundreds of acres of parks, dozens of commercial properties, and a pair of marinas, an airfield, and a riverboat casino. The state-appointed Levee Board has spent $2.8 million developing “a proposal to build a 4-mile-long island on Lake Pontchartrain with beaches, camping areas, and possibly hotels, restaurants, and an amusement park.” Cost: $200 million.

None of this money was earmarked to hold the waters back and shore up the levees. Yet Al Sharpton and other democrat apologists immediately blamed the federal government, Bush in particular, for not giving enough money to this part of the country. No Al . . .that was not the problem. You really need to get your facts together before screaming racism every time you see a camera pointed in your direction. Just an aside . . .you would not have even KNOWN about the tragedy of the stranded people at the Super Dome if it hadn’t been for white anchors hanging in their for days to bring the news to the world. Mayor Nagin wasn’t down there with his people, pleading for food and water for them, he was busy on the talk show circuit blaming the President for HIS failures.

And, why was the emergency preparedness plan that was submitted to the federal government for funding and published on the city’s website, never implemented? In fact it may have been bogus for the purpose of gaining additional federal funding as we now learn that the organizations identified in the plan were never contacted or coordinating into any planning – though the document implies that they were.

And, why did Blanco refuse to even sign the multi-state mutual aid pack activation documents until Wednesday which further delayed the legal deployment of National Guard from adjoining states?

And why does Nagin keep claiming that the President should have commandeered 500 Greyhound busses when he had, at his disposal, over 500 busses to use, but he never raised a finger to prepare them or activate them.

Associated Press reported Saturday evening, August 27:

“President Bush declared a state of emergency in Louisiana on Saturday because of the approach of Hurricane Katrina, and his spokesman urged residents along the coast to heed authorities’ advice to evacuate.”

“We urge residents in the areas that could be impacted to follow the recommendations of local authorities,” White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said that day.

According to a Sunday morning August 28 AP dispatch, “Bush also lit a fire under Governor Blanco while Katrina twirled furiously across the Gulf of Mexico.”

“Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor [Nagin] at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.”

Here’s the story in Blanco’s own words:

“Just before we walked into this room, President Bush called and told me to share with all of you that he is very concerned about the citizens. He is concerned about the impact that this hurricane would have on our people. And he asked me to please ensure that there would be a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans.”

It was reported Monday that “Blanco refused to sign over control of the National Guard to the federal government and turned to a Clinton administration official, former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief James Lee Witt, to help run relief efforts.”
Finally, on thursday, September 1, three days after Katrina struck, Governor Blanco called for 40,000 National Guard troops.

President Bush dispatched four Navy ships to the region,
asked Congress to return from vacation and approve an initial $10.5 billion in federal assistance to the region (which he signed Friday), and recruited his father and President Bill Clinton to raise private and corporate money to aid Katrina’s survivors.

Mayor Nagin, failed to move to higher ground and deploy at least 255 school buses. Rather than easily evacuate 12,750 New Orleanians per journey last week, these buses sat in formation on a soaked parking lot where AP photographer Phil Coale found them last Thursday, September 1.

While his citizens sat hungry, thirsty at the Super Dome, and ignored by their mayor, Ray Nagin, he ordered that 400 tourists from outside of his state and outside of our country be evacuated from the downtown hotels, and were sent to the front of line to be evacuated from the city.

Also, Nagin announced Monday that he would dip into the city’s rapidly dwindling coffers to fly exhausted New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) officers to Las Vegas for five-days of rest and relaxation — even as city residents sleep on cots in sports arenas, and local attics.

And who is to blame for the snipers and blatant Crimes? Bush, the Mayor, the governor . . . or people who preyed on their fellow citizens during a crisis?

Snipers fired at doctors and nurses who tried to evacuate patients from Charity Hospital. Terrified of bullets, medical personnel kept the infirm in sweltering rooms where some died.

A flotilla of private boats prepared to rescue stranded hurricane survivors. The boat owners turned back and went home when they were shot at. Those dying on their rooftops had to wait longer, perhaps fatally, thanks to their own murderous neighbors.

“Spoke to my uncle this morning (Thurs) in Riverbend near Carrolton and St. Charles. He and several (elderly) residents are holed up there and the security situation is getting desperate. Heat is extreme, and there are roving gangs of looters with guns. The looters have also
commandeered a backhoe and are ramming homes… While Leake Avenue and River Road are dry, they are afraid to leave as they fear they will be shot, carjacked etc.”

Michael Shellie of Oregon told the New York Post about looters who broke into his New Orleans hotel: “They threw everything out the windows just for the fun of watching it crash — televisions, vending machines, beds. And they robbed the manager at gunpoint, so he fled.”

Rather than applaud as 14 contractors crossed the Danziger Bridge to fix the 17th Street Levee that faltered and submerged their city, a well-armed band of hoodlums instead opened fire on these engineers. NOPD.

The Democrats immediately began the blame game, starting with Senator Robert Kennedy who said that God was punishing Haley Barbour for not encouraging president Bush to sign the Kyoto Agreement. And that if the agreement had been signed, the hurricane would not have happened. Yes, it was a literate hurricane, incredibly savvy of political nuances and would have started its trek toward the coast, been presented with a copy and stopped in its tracks saying, “Oh, I apologize, I didn’t realize you had signed the Kyoto Agreement, and that even though Haley Barbour was against it, and is now the governor of Mississippi, I will retreat, subside and not inflict the damage I had intended to inflict.” Where do they get these guys who call themselves leaders?

I can understand Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore repeating the talking points they are spoon fed by the Democrat party, and know that their livelihood depends on disseminating hyperbole and racial accusations. But an elected official? Since Robert is blaming God for Haley’s actions, would he blame God for wiping out New Orleans because 100,000 gays had planned their annual Southern Decadence march the weekend that Katrina hit, promising greater debauchery than ever before? No because that would be politically incorrect for a loving God to kill people for a moral reason, but it’s not for a political reason. That makes a lot of sense Senator Kennedy.

But if anyone is really to blame it is the gurus of the welfare mentality who have kept these poor people trapped on the government plantation, dependent upon the masters of the plantation to tell them where to go, what to do, where to get food . . . or to wait, and starve in the hot sun. Why is it that only people on government assistance trusted the government, listened to them and sat for days waiting for help, while others who have zero trust in the government got the heck out of Dodge?

Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Democrat party has created such a dependency class that fully grown adults are clueless as to how to take care of themselves when a disaster hits the plantation. This shame of a failed system is what was exposed in this disaster and that is why the Mayor, the Governor and the other democrat leaders have to scream and blame ANYONE else for not only their failure in helping their citizens, but for relegating these poor citizens to a life of total and complete dependency, void of motivation and initiative. That is a hidden crime across the country that needs to be revealed.

After the incredible, miraculous victory of Elijah* in the “God vs the Baal Worshippers” bout, Elijah did an amazing “victory lap,” outrunning King Ahab’s horses and chariot all the way from Mount Carmel to Jezreel. He was pretty pumped by the experience and saw it as a clear mandate for God to reign supreme in the hearts of all the people. Until he saw Jezebel that is. Then she threatens him, invoking the names of her irrelevant and disproved “gods” and what does Elijah do? He looks her square in the face and . . . turns and runs for his life. What???

Let me back up here for a minute and put the story in context. You have Elijah, the only prophet of God that was not killed by Jezebel, challenging her “prophet team” to a huge God-off, he overcomes the odds, God brings down fire from heaven, hearts are changed, the false prophets killed, Elijah supernaturally runs several miles ahead of a team of horses, and a woman, with zero power at this point, puts such fear in him that he runs away and hides in the dessert. And, he was so afraid and bummed out he asked God to take his life.**

This just doesn’t compute. He just witnessed the most incredible display of God’s power on earth, totally eviscerating his enemy and the Wicked Witch of the West scares him so badly he wants to die?

The Republican party has so many similarities to Elijah. They have this uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I can only hope, in light of this last election, that being handed an overwhelming mandate that they look fear in the face, they don’t run, they don’t hide, and the don’t forget why they were put in office.

With all the odds against President Bush’s reelection, he prevailed, while increasing seats in both the house and Senate, and the key issue for most voters was determined to be moral issues. Every move to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman passed overwhelmingly in every state with it on the ballot.

There is no reason to fear the unknown or the threats of a woman whose “gods” have just lost their version of the “Super Bowl.” But, will the party gird up its loins of resolve, outrun the chariots of division, and face down the voices that have tried to silence the majority as they fight to maintain moral absolutes in society?

Well, I think it depends on the power they perceive our modern “Jezebel” to have. Republicans, conservatives, born again Christians, the military, homeschoolers, business executives and people who talk about a need to maintain strong moral values, have all been targeted for either destruction or defeat, by our nation’s Jezebel. This “threat” of reprisal serves to restrict the forward movement and vocalization of these beliefs and systems.

Why are conservatives, Republicans and the other “suspicious groups” which are identified by this “Jezebel” as right wing conspiratorial, radicals so intimidated by words when they comprise the majority of the voters in the nation? Elections have shown in the past when a candidate who knows who they are, what they believe, why they believe it, and has the courage to stand up to Jezebel, that they are a huge favorite of the electorate. Look at the Reagan paradigm. It is not a mystery that an entire moniker was coined for a huge block of voters called “Reagan Democrats” for people who liked everything about their party except their platform, their elected leaders, their views on moral issues and their stance on national defense. Other than that, they were proud to be Democrats.

But that image died on Mount Carmel when the false impressions and superficial characteristics of the old Democrat party were run through with the sword of truth and insight. The party that fought to keep slavery in tact, and then move to keep blacks from voting and disenfranchised from the body politic in the past two centuries, had to remake their personae in the light of changing values and shifting priorities. Also, in light of the fact that the Republican party was always there to keep them honest on the issues of racial discrimination, government control, tax increases, national defense, encroaching socialism and a deference to international control of our sovereignty. The only thing is . . . standing there in a face off with Jezebel, the Republican party never remembers the power it has by the numbers it almost always pulls in the polls. They shake in fear at a hollow movement and antiquated party because they have been told that to act on any of their beliefs would define them as “right wing extremists” and cause them to shrink in fear.

We need to put a mirror in front of Elijah so that not only does it reflect the incredible man of God that just believed for the most amazing miracles, but it blocks out the nagging, whiney, insipid voice of the Jezebel that has as its goal the destruction of greatness, replacing it instead with controllable, malleable mediocrity that can be frightened, manipulated and defined by her image.

So . . . as we see the incredible mandate that President Bush and the Republican party has just received from the American people, I pray that they don’t shrink in fear before the impotent forces that have as their goal the silencing of all opposing views and opinions. The President has a chance to shape courts in the image of the constitution with honorable men and women who will not legislate from the bench using judicial activism, but who will see the boundaries of their power in the four corners of the documents that define our laws and freedoms.

What would be so horrible about having as a litmus test the belief that a child in the womb should be protected? Common sense tells you that anyone who would condone the murder of an unborn child, would not stop there at injecting their mayhem in other areas of our society. If a child can’t be defined, then marriage can’t be, freedom can’t be, liberation of oppressed nations can’t be, ad infinitum. The failure to base decisions on absolutes paves the way for anarchy where everyone determines for themselves what they think is right and wrong. One man thinks it is their right to cut off another man’s head, while another feels that a pastor’s voice should be silenced for reading “politically incorrect” scripture from their church pulpit. The purpose of both views is to silence and intimidate, it is just their methods that are a different.

So, instead of shrinking in fear, and running to the dessert of political safety to hide out these next four years, the President, our elected officials and the Republican party need to stand firm in their resolve and finish the job they started. The Jezebel of negativity, divisiveness, oppression, intimidation and hypocrisy needs to be challenged, overcome and replaced. But that takes courage . . . it takes conviction . . .and takes a memory of past miraculous victories. We can chose to run and hide after such an amazing victory . . . or we can stand and finish the fight. The choice is ours.

*I Kings 18: 18-46 **I Kings 19: 1-4

This is the second part of a commentary I wrote the day before the election, called, “With This Much Water on the Alter . . . Expect a Miracle in the Election.”

If you want a copy, let me know. It is not posted any place.

Have you ever known a real war hero and asked them about their time in the service? Little boys especially love to hear about the medals of their grandfathers and uncles and are always disappointed when the real hero, inevitably, touches the medal with tenderness and proceeds to say, “Oh, I’m not the hero . . . all my buddies were the heroes. I was just fortunate to get back home.” The little boys of course are looking for grand stories of fire fights and blood and guts recounting war adventures, but anyone who has ever served will tell you it is not something they feel comfortable talking about.

A real war hero does not go around bragging about his exploits. If anything, with a real hero, they will only give credit to their fellow fighting men, downplaying anything heroic that they may have accomplished. They are very reluctant to toot their horn because they know there are fellow soldiers who didn’t make it out either alive or in one piece and forever in their minds they feel as though they failed in some way: That they were not able to protect, save, preserve, prevent. They feel a sense of awesome responsibility that supercedes what the war was, the battle, the conflict, even the poltical and philosophical nuances surrounding the circumstances of them fighting for their lives.

All of this is really at the heart of the controversey with the very conflicted, confused, and desparate, John Kerry. He wants it both ways. He wants to be lauded as the conquering hero, while being respected and honored for abandoning his fellow soldiers and working to turn public opinion against them while they are still being shot at. You can call it what you want, but I choose to call this the traitorous act of a coward with an ego too big to recognize the truth.

If his purpose was to spend as much time in a battle zone as boy scouts spend on a summer camp out, collecting as many bobbles as possible to pad his political resume while escaping battle with no wounds to match his medals, then he succeeded. He should have taken his medals, put them on the wall, run for Senate in the hopes of one day being president. People today, would have no reason to question his patriotism, his honor, his integrity and veracity. He would, by everyone’s determination, be considered to be a war hero.

But because the accolaides issue forth from his own agenda laden lips, and self produced video clips of “reinactments”, the claims are as empty as his war chest. The medals meant nothing to him, because the receiving of the medals meant nothing to him. They didn’t cost him what they cost a true war hero like Max Cleland, who left three limbs on the battle field. Ironically, because his devastating injuries were obtained at the same time . . they only warranted one medal. Do three medals for three superficial scratches equal one medal for the loss of three limbs? No wonder John felt no emotional attachment to the medals, ribbons or whatever he threw over the fence to show the world he had officially turned his back on his fellow soldiers who weren’t as fortunate as he was to get out after only 4 months.

Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., earned a Soldier’s Medal and Silver Star medal for valor, but in his autobiography (1986), on page 87 he says, “[I was awarded the Soldier’s Medal] for allegedly shielding my men from the grenade blast and the Silver Star for allegedly coming to the aid of wounded troops…” He continues, “There were no heroics on which to base the Soldier’s Medal. And it had been my men who took care of the wounded during the rocket attack, not me. Some compassionate military men had obviously recommended me for the Silver Star, but I didn’t deserve it.” And on Page 89 of the same book he says, “I was not entitled to the Purple Heart either, since I was not wounded by enemy action.”

My gosh, if anyone has earned the right to not only brag about his ribbons, but do anything he wants with them, it is a man who served his country with the ultimate sacrifice of irreplaceable limbs. But instead, his response echoes those of thousands of other true war heroes who are humble in the face of praise, and reluctant to acknowledge that they are true heroes.

John Kerry needs to make up his mind whether he wants to be considered a war hero and hopefully get the votes of Americans who don’t know about all the weapons systems he has voted against. Or, he needs to decide that he wants to appeal to his natural base, the left wing extremists who helped undermine the mlitary in the ’70s, hurt our global image, and maligned the character of real heroes who were laying down their lives because their country called them to service. He cannot have it both ways, and he can’t compare his service of 4 months and bogus medals, to six year service of people who chose the option of the National Guard, knowing at any time their troop could be called to serve, and possibly die. By challenging Bush’s choice of service in the National Guard, Kerry, and the Democrats insult every single person who has ever served in the Guard . . . oddly while defending Bill Clinton’s “choice” to dodge the draft in the military that he loathed, and, lied about it.

I challenge John Kerry to call the Witmer family and tell them that their daughter and sister Michele, who served and died in Iraq, was less honorable than his service because she only served in the National Guard. He can’t choose just one man he is running against, who served honorably in the National Guard, trash his record, without necessarily besmirching the service and duty of every other National Guard member. Again . . . he can’t have it both ways. He can’t claim to the car manufacturers that he is proud to own a fleet of SUVs then deny to the environmentalists that he owns any. He can’t claim he never falls at skiing but then blame someone else when he does fall. He can’t rail against the rich when he is married to one of the wealthiest women in America, owns five homes, a private jet and, oh, a fleet of gas guzzling cars. He can’t be committed to connecting with the less fortunate while flying his personal hairdresser to coif his hair so he can address them. He can’t claim to be strong militarily when he has voted against almost every weapons system in the country. He can’t claim to be a patriot while proudly admitting he slapped the military in the face. He can’t be a compassionate liberal while claiming to have committed war attrocities, with no repercussions from the usually squeemish left. One person’s war criminal is another person’s war hero. He can’t have it both ways. Is he an SUV driving, priviledged wealthy war criminal or is he an environmentally senstive, anti-military, war hero who supported the attack on Iraq and acknowledged that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? He should probably have decided who he was before he decided to run for office.

A uniform and medals do not make a hero. If that was the case, we should let Saddam out, give him back his fatigues and guns and set him and Castro up as the new leaders of America. At least their outfits would match. As I recall, Hitler liked to wear a uniform with lots of medals. So what? So John Kerry once wore a uniform with medals. He denounced the uniform, the medals and the US . . . so let’s judge him by his actions now. He is a pitiful characture of a man in a 15-minutes-of-fame time warp who really thinks Americans can’t connect the dots that lead to the conclusion that this man is out of touch with reality . .. and with the pulse of the American people who really get that the war we are engaged in is totallly different than his point of political reference, Vietnam.

And sadly, the entire platform of the Democrat party and their candidate is to recreate that same destructive, demoralizing climate for the troops who are now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Inspite of what Kerry does or doesn’t do . . inspite of what the kangaroo 911 Commission did . . . inspite of how the Democrats exploit the body count in the Iraq war, the vast majority of the Ameircan people remember that we were attacked, 3000 innocent people were killed, and these terrorists will not stop until the country is utterly destroyed. So . . .it is up to the American people to decide to return to a pre-911mentality with a Commander in Chief who is stuck in the ’70s, or stay the course of a defended homeland, offensive military objectives to destroy terrorism, and re-elect George W. Bush.
*I wrote this a month ago, but wanted to hear John Kerry and see how the people who accused Bush of grandstanding for flying a jet onto an aircraft carrier would act when Kerry used the same military “props” for his speech and entrance into Boston. I must say, nothing in his speech made me change a word in this commentary.”

It is so cute to hear people, like Andrea Mitchell and even Geraldine Ferrara, cooing about John Edward’s youthful good looks suggesting that women would be dumb enough to vote for the ticket just because of that. Now which party is being sexist? If I could spell the noise of a tape recorder rewinding, it would appear here. Then I would play all the negative sound bites that flooded the airwaves the minute that Dan Quayle was announced as Bush’s running mate in 1988.

These same voices denounced the GOP for trying to recreate the Kennedy magic by tapping a young, handsome senator telling the country, immediately that they were never allowed to refer to Dan’s good looks. The same people who, 12 years ago, dismissed the female vote saying women were too smart to fall for good looks only, are now falling all over themselves between heaves of girlish blushes to remind the very smart women of America that Edwards is not just another pretty face… he is THE pretty face. Gee, if all America wants is a pretty face to lead them, let’s go to Central Casting to find one.

Then we have the all important military issue. Why was service so important just six months ago, and now no one cares that Edwards did no service in the military? Why is it that Republicans who honorably serve in the National Guard, like both Dan Quayle and George W. Bush, are equated to war criminals, while draft dodgers like Bill Clinton, and antiwar activists like John Kerry are lauded as men of courage and conviction? And if the Dems think military service is so important… why didn’t they vote for George 41 and Bob Dole?

As I heard the sound clip during the Democrat primary of Kerry asking what Edward’s military record was, reminding the world, once again, that when he served in Vietnam, that Edwards was in diapers, I had a vision. It was like this amazing flash of familiarity that hits you like a ton of bricks. It really dealt more with the similarities that they share on almost every issue, making them number one and four in “The Most Liberal in the Country” contest. But, it just hit me… Edwards is Kerry’s clone. My gosh, he is… Mini-Me. The diaper quote actually helped me fashion the vision with Edwards in the carryall, strapped to Kerry’s breast like Dr. Evil in Austin Powers. *

Think about it… John and John… wow, he really is a Mini-Me. Same name and everything. Isn’t that cute? Not only do they both represent only 19% of the American public who identify themselves as “liberal”, but their voting records are practically carbon copies of each other. They can’t out liberal each other. While claiming to be men of the people… the two Johns are very very very very wealthy. They are in the top part of the top part of the top part of that little percent part that says you are very very very very wealthy. But they both, with a cloned straight face, actually tell the voters that they are for “the little people.” Well, they don’t use the word “little,” that is too pejorative and their handlers would have a heart attack, so they use words like “victims of the Republican tax cuts.”

Boy, that is a head scratcher. Don’t tax cuts help tax payers who have been paying the bills for a bloated bureaucracy and out of control politicians who spend with abandon? So the two Americas that Edwards talks about are those who work hard and pay taxes and what… those who don’t work and don’t pay taxes? What exactly are these two Americas? Which America is he in and does he just absolutely hate the other America? His ridiculous, divisive rhetoric has every American asking, gee am I the good one or the bad one? Which side am I on? I know I am not as wealthy as either of them, or George Soros, or Michael Moore, or all those other loudmouth elitists who pretend to speak for me and mine.

So 81% of the people defined by Edwards as being in the “other” America say to themselves, “I must be in the hard working middle-class America, paying taxes to support the incredible burden of the government, while Kerry and Mini-Me are in the America reserved for rich liberal elitists.”

So as John [Kerry] parades his cute little dimpled clone around, hoping his southern accent will cast a magic spell over every southern voter, imagine them both with the tip of their pinky at the edge of their mouth saying, “We belong to the America where everyone is worth… ‘One Billion Dollars.’”

*If you have seen Austin Powers III, you will get this, if not, see it and tell me what you think.

Are we really supposed to believe that the Clinton Administration bent over backwards to make sure the new Bush Administration was informed about what the real threats of terror in the US were? This is the same group that challenged the election returns in Florida, while disallowing hundreds of absentee ballots to be counted. This is the group that refused to allow for a smooth transition to the new Administration, possibly losing precious weeks, days, and hours that could have been used to brief them about what they knew about terrorist groups. But then, this is also the group that was so well informed that several US installations, including the World Trade Center, were attacked. So much for their brilliant “intelligence.”

This is the same crew that left the new Administration with a vandalized White House complete with missing “w” keys on many of the keyboards. The intelligence that Clinton’s people gave Bush’s people is as jumbled as the phone lines that were maliciously mislabeled. The trash and graffiti left in the offices of the White House by Clinton is very symbolic of the mess he left our nation in, and is another indication that he was clueless about the dangers of terrorism in the world, shrugging off the first World Trade Towers attack . . . not even visiting the site in the aftermath. The symbolism of the missing “w” on the keyboard was a sophomoric prank to prick president-elect Bush, but what it illustrates is that the Clinton Administration was not used to asking questions like, “who, what, when, where and why?” They must have assumed no one else used that “w” key either.

I am relieved to see that Dick Clark’s seventeen and a half minutes of “fame” have evaporated into laughable infamy. With only thirty seconds to go on the clock, he gave away his agenda by apologizing to the family members who have now made a career out of politicizing their loved-one’s deaths. I guess now we will expect every policemen to go around apologizing to victims because they didn’t stop the robber, the raper, the mugger. And every fireman should start apologizing that they couldn’t save your home from burning. Anyone can be a hindsight quarterback and “claim” they called the shots before the game, blame the coach for not following his advice, and then “drama queen” their way into the varacity-challenged hearts of the mainstream media. But most people don’t have million dollar book deals at stake when they are doing it.

You can’t, on one hand, claim you were so important that but for you the world would stop turning, but then claim you had nothing to do with the failure of your mission which was to protect the country against terrorist attacks. And then, being a failure at your job, complain that no one listened to you and followed your advice on how to combat terrorism. He failed under Clinton, and wanted to take the “w’s” off the intelligence keyboards of the Bush White House, and then is shocked, appalled and apologetic when letters from the White House are typed with “w’s” missing.

The demand was so great by the gleeful Gottcha Chorus to have Dr. Rice testify in public that the constitutional separation of powers became irrelevant and ignored. The truth is more important than the Constitution, yet no one was clamouring to have President Clinton testify in public before the 911 Commission, the way they insisted that Dr. Rice did.

That will be the only way of knowing if they asked him the hard questions, like about his own personal PDB, (Presidential Daily Briefing), back in 1996 where the head of the FBI, George Tenet, warned President CLINTON about Osama’s plan to hijack planes and fly them into buildings in the US. Why wasn’t that memo shared with the Bush Administration? Why was it only shared in August of 2001 in the form of a historical document but only mentioned potential plane hijacking, not the possibilities of making them lethal weapons? They could ask him, for all of us to hear the answer we already know, if he met with George Tenet or Monica Lewinsky more.

Did they ask Clinton why he turned down Osama when the Sudanese offered to extradite him to the US for prosecution? Even though this was after his proven attacks on US properties, including the World Trade Towers, Clinton claimed we had no legal authority to have him brought to the US and claims he “pleaded with” the Saudis to take him. Did he mention, behind closed doors the fact that he assigned Al Gore the task of making our airports and flight systems safe, and even he suggested profiling, but when it was rejected by the agencies responsible for air safety, Clinton, and Gore, dropped the ball and never pursued that line of protection for the US against terrorist attacks?

Did they ask where he was for one whole hour when Sandy Berger was trying to reach him to get the authorization to kill Osama when they had him in their sites in Afghanistan? Can you imagine the head of the NSC not able, at any given minute of any given day, to reach the President of the US when our national security is at stake? If Osama had been taken out then, would 911 have happened? Did they ask him that question? Did they ask Clinton about his 45,000-word terrorist report to the new Bush Administration in Dec. 2000, that doesn’t even mention Al Queda, and Osama, only 4 times? If they treated him like Dr. Rice, insisting he testify to the world, we could hear him respond to the question of why his administration was solely responsible for erecting a wall between the FBI and CIA for sharing information on would-be terrorists, basically guaranteeing the type of attack we saw on September 11, 2001.

Since the Democrats claim to speak for the American people all the time, let me take a crack at it. The American people are not stupid. We lived through Clinton’s wag the dog years. We know of the multiple US targets that were hit by terrorists. We know that Gore in his desperation to continue failed policies, caused the transition of the government to be postponed, allowing the enemy to get a stronger foothold on our soil. Which begs the question, “If terrorism was such a key issue, why did they not insist that the reigns of power be handed over quickly to prevent the enemy from having an opportunity to regroup?” Everyone, except Madeline Albright, knows that Clinton was offered Osama three times and refused him. We know that every attack to try and “get” Osama just happened to coincide with an episode of the “Clinton Sex Scandal Show.”

We have seen the video from the drone showing Osama Bin Laden, in the open with some of his fellow terrorists . . . yet no action was taken to try and kill him. We have read all the letters written in 1998 by Clinton declaring there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, justifying his bombing there. For those who continue to claim that Bush arbitrarily chose Iraq to attack, even before the attacks on 9/11, forget that we have been in a “conflict” with them for over thirteen years and our soldiers were constantly being shot at by the Iraqis well before 9/11.

But there was no outcry when the US, without provocation, or national security threats, unilaterally attacked Serbia under the pretense of stopping the genocide against the Albanians. The Albanian liberation front, interestingly enough, was a pet project of Osama Ben Laden. Why was it imperative that we send our troops to fight a war on Osama’s behalf? Since when did he change from enemy to ally? There was not even an outcry when Reno and Clinton torched the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. Selective cries of outrage by liberals serves to seal their personification as revisionist hypocrites.

The CYA poster child, Dick Clarke, can blame Dr. Rice, who was in an 8 month transition from his 8 YEAR position as being the weak link in national security, and get away with it, with the Democrat PR machine (the mainstream media), slobbering over his every word. But it just shows the rest of us in middle America, that the truth is irrelevant, the 911 Commission is a sham, and Democrats can play politics with the tragedy of 911, get away with it, get paid for it, and claim the Republicans are the ones exploiting tragedy. We learn that what the Kennedy’s, Kerry’s, and liberal wing of the democrat party are all really saying is that fighting terrorism is not as important as embarrassing the US and Bush, apologizing for terrorist acts committed by others, capitalizing on the 911 tragedy, and exploiting a failed war that they started, never supported and denounced when their butts were home safely.

The Clinton Administration stole a lot more than the “w’s” off of some keyboards in the White House. They stole our ability to protect ourselves from attacks at home and abroad. If this Commission was really after the truth, they would realize what the vast majority of Americans already know, that if they insist on pointing a finger at a President who dropped the ball, allowed us to be vulnerable, and caused the deaths of over 3,000 people, it would have to be “W”illiam Jefferson Clinton. They started this . . . let the truth end it.

The Democrat party is sort of like the abusive husband who blames his wife for getting her face in the way of his fist. He is somehow the victim and deserving of sympathetic responses, while she is the one who suffers in silence because either no one will believe her, it is her word against his, or she fears that worse will happen if she accuses him of being the yellow bellied, chicken-livered, scum bag psychopath that he is.

When Terry McAuliffe can sit straight faced and claim that the Republicans are going to go negative in the presidential race, when all we have heard for a year are the rantings of nine people lacking any positive idea of what they would do if President, then we must look at what he is trying to hide. He claims that the Republicans are so desperate for power, that they will question the patriotism of a great war hero like John Kerry as he engages in preemptive abuse. Terry stands over a pool of bloody water where the remains of countless Republican bodies lie at the bottom of slash and burn political campaigns claiming he and his party are the victims. The drums of special interest accusations beat in rhythm to the sound of the cash register logging in the millions of dollars from special interest Democrats like George Soros, the environmentalists, the abortionists, the trial lawyers, the Hollywood elite, and the corporate giants who always butter their bread on both sides. He claims the religious right will use their churches and synagogues to support their candidate but is appalled when it is pointed out that inner city churches have been promoting, supporting and fielding Democrat candidates for years. If not for the church, Mary Lou Landrieu would not be the Senator for Louisiana and Terry knows this. But if the wife points out this little inconsistency, she gets whacked again with the same old label of right-wing religious fanatic.

The claims of a stolen election are never met with the question, well, if you think it was stolen, why didn’t you guys just run Al Gore again, avoid this divisive primary, and let the electorate finally decide who they really want to be their Commander in Chief? Could it be that they know Al Gore, their biggest and best excuse for questioning the legitimacy of Bush, really did not win as many popular votes as he did, and Bush was cheated out of the correct tally of military absentee ballots? Could it be that they know a rematch would totally destroy the myth of a stolen election, therefore they can’t afford to go down that lane?

The claims that President Bush lied about WMDs are met with angry glances and quick denials when asked if Clinton is as culpable because he relied on the same intelligence, and bombed not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and the Sudan as well. He even said on several occasions that we had proof, years ago that there were WMDs in Iraq. Democrats don’t seem to understand how silly they look when questioning Bush’s claim that our national security is at stake since the attack of 9/11, when they never questioned Clinton’s excuse for bombing Serbia. So why did Clinton’s America risk it’s global reputation by invading a sovereign nation without assistance from the French and Germans, congressional authority, or the permission of the United Nations? Wasn’t the argument that we had a moral obligation? Isn’t it interesting how liberals see a moral obligation to drop bombs on innocent people in the Balkans as a justification for such action, but fail to connect the dots when our national security really is threatened? And why, again, did we bomb the Chinese embassy, other than to destroy the evidence that the secrets for money exchange did indeed take place. Ice down your knuckles before the police get there and stick to your story that she slipped down some stairs.

The newest accusation by the Democrats, that is the most pathetic and laughable, reminds you of the guy who has just been caught red-handed cheating on his wife with, then smacks her around for getting upset. They are now all referring to John Kerry as a war hero, even though he threw his medals away and protested a war they all despised, while other brave men were still over there getting shot at . . .and dying. By the way Terry . . .it is going to be difficult to see John Kerry and his chest full of medals debate President Bush when he bragged about throwing them over a fence in protest. Did he lie about doing that? Did he lie about being against the war on that fateful day, then crawled back under the fence later that night to retrieve them? Who is making a desperate political ploy to appeal to a certain segment of our society? If it is a political stunt to land on an aircraft carrier or risk your life flying behind enemy lines on Thanksgiving, then it must be the same to rely on the claim of war hero when you openly protested against the war, and returned your medals to the government you now opposed, then, created a voting record to confirm this disdain for the military and national defense.

You guys really think people in the military are that stupid? When asked about Bill Clintons loathing of the military and draft dodging escapades, McAuliffe slaps the facts around for exposing his hypocrisy and dalliances. He refuses to acknowledge that Clinton was a draft dodging coward, while daring Bush to say anything about Kerry’s record. Oh, suddenly war records matter to the Democrats? As I recall, the Democrats set the ground rules in ’92 about questions concerning Clinton’s military record saying they were mean spirited, divisive, and hurtful to a nation just trying to . . . move on. Isn’t it odd that the Democrats are always so desperate to move on when their hypocrisies and indiscretions are showing, yet, they have no problem dragging up past records of their opponents all the way to conception? Heh Terry, move on. If we are supposed to have forgiven Clinton for being a real schmuck, then, why can’t you extend the same compassion to others? The charges against Bush as being AWOL and deserter are as inflated and suspicious as your $18 million profit in Global Crossing from a $100,000 investment. Ask anyone in the military what a TDY, and Honorable Discharge are, and I am sure they will be glad to enlighten you, John Kerry, and the new mouth of the DNC, Michael Moore.

But we already know that John Kerry will put the makeup of patriotic rhetoric over the black eye of defense spending cuts, base closings, and support for bills that attack our national security and continue to put the nation at risk. Makeup, like Botox, does not hide the fact that our intelligence community has been weakened and compromised during the Clinton Administration, aided by their liberal accomplices in Congress. For them now to claim they support the military, the soldier, the fighting man and woman just because once upon a time they wore the same uniform, while their actions belie this, again, is a pure exercise in situational ethics and values clarification.

Democrats claim THEIR country was stolen as though they own it and the people in it. These wives, who are treated as objects and possessions of a twisted party, need to expose the abusive husbands as hypocritical little weenies who say one thing and do another, hoping no one notices the bruised eyes, the swollen lip, and broken arm. And maybe, the abused victims will stop allowing the Democrats to continue lying to them, using them as a scapegoat for their pathetic posturing, and demand that the truth be told and the abuse stop.

Well, like the abusive husband who claimed his wife deserved to be hit, they are that wrong. But the women aren’t taking it any more and they are fighting back. They know they are not that bad, that evil, that horrible, just because they want to be taxed less. They are not to blame for his rage, just because they want to be protected in their own homes, offices, and skyscrapers from would-be terrorists. They are not failures because they support the overthrow of tyrants who slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And frankly, they are sick of being characterized as such . . .especially by a party that stood by and allowed Clinton to abuse the nation with his lies, spins, sexual appetite, bombing and hypocrisy. Americans are not stupid . . .and don’t like being sucker punched. The quiet Americans refuse to be the victims any longer and will fight back. So John Kerry . . . in your own words . . . Bring it On!!

Where in the world are the Democrats finding these compassionate, empathetic, rocket scientists who would be president? It was entertaining enough seeing Dean twist in the wind as he tried to convince middle America that the Bush tax cut was really bad for them. Now you have Clark giving all women the power of God to decide when life begins when he says, “Life begins with the mother’s decision.” With the mothe’s decision to what? To have sex? She can’t decide when life begins because it is a done deal when sperm meets egg. If it began when a woman merely decides, well you would have as many decisions about the beginning of life as you have women. Most would probably prefer to skip the 9 month process and decide that life begins when a child is plucked from under a cabbage leaf. . . or when the stork drops them by the front door. Certainly not when she is screaming in pain and hating the sound of the word, “push!”

And let’s say a woman does decide when life begins, displacing the God of the universe who has the ultimate hand in all life and death . . . what does that have to do with deciding when it ends?

By His standard, I can say it begins at conception, therefore should be protected, while someone else says it begins at conception and should be destroyed.

But let’s look at his next statement which should send chills down the spine of most thinking, feeling people, especially big hearted liberals. Clark says, “Until the moment of birth, the government has no right to influence a mother’s decision on whether to have an abortion.” But according to polls, over 93% of the American people reject his cavalier and chilling statement and have overwhelmingly rejected the barbaric practice of “partial birth abortion,” which is what he is advocating here, and more.

As mothers and fathers sit in premature wards praying that their child born in the 7th and 8th months, and sometimes earlier, survive their short term gestation, they realize that a man who would be president does not see their child as a whole person . . . as a fellow citizen, but just a choice a woman has to destroy and kill. Move to the next floor ‘ the room full of pink and blue bassinets contain the cause for mature adults to make fools of themselves and realize that just moments before this jubilant encounter, these children could have all been legally slaughtered under a President Clark. And the democrats dare compare Bush to Hitler. Hello?

Is a fully viable child really the “property” of a woman who can decide up until the moment of birth if that child should live or die? Is that unborn child not even 3/5 of a person without any rights or privileges of full citizenship just seconds out of the womb? Well Mr. Clark (sorry, but it is hard to refer to you with the time honored title of General with such a genocidal view of life and disregard for and understanding of who and what women are), why stop there? Why not give her up to a month to decide if motherhood is for her? Remember your tiny, sick, constituency actually saw Angela Yates, the mother who killed her five kids, as a victim and tried to justify their deaths.

Liberals need to start being as honest in public as they are in private about their passion for abortion. It has nothing to do with the woman as evidenced by their lack of concern for woman who have suffered the emotional, physical, psychological and even mortal consequences of abortion. Like their heroine and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, who was a racist and eugenicist of the first order, liberal elitists really believe that abortion does rid our society of the “unwanted,” the “unwelcome,” and the “unlovable.” They are the population control freaks who selfishly think their doodoo is odorless, and extra people on earth impede their ability to flourish. They are the meat merchants whose currency is human flesh receiving billions of dollars in blood money to exploit women who are desperate for an answer beyond the extermination of their child. They are the irresponsible man who parades his pro-abortion credentials as he ships his “woman” off to the butcher to destroy the evidence that he is a coward, while she alone suffers the consequences of his lack of self control. They are the smug, silent racists who by their pompous support of a liberal cause can hide their desire to promote abortion to minority women and couch it in terms of choice, power, and self-determination when they are really promoting genocidal tactics that they hope will result in less of the race they secretly disdain. They are the smug whites who graciously promote a way for poor black and hispanic women to annihilate their race while claiming they are doing it for the women.

Everyone has wondered for years the type of person that could grow and develop without a spirit, a soul, and conscience and see their fellow human being as merely a stumbling block to greater power and control. We have seen dictators in the past slaughter millions of people because they did not see them as “whole people.” They were lacking either in philosophical and religious purity, or were handicapped by imperfections, whether physical, emotional, or cultural. But decisions were made by people like Wesley Clark that they were disposable, irrelevant and of no consequence to those who would decide they should be exterminated. It was irrelevant to them that they were precious to someone else and not the burden these perverted leaders perceived them to be.

A man who is so desperate to become president that he authorizes, sanctions and approves of the murder of full term babies is a reminder of the season we have just passed through, when King Herod had babies who were new born and up to two years old, killed because of the prophecy that a new King had been born. And just as he was unable to satisfy that thirst for power by destroying the Christ Child, and as women really do not decide when life begins, only God does . . . so Wesley Clark will not prevail in his quest for power because there are not enough evil, sick people in this country to elect a man who would kill healthy, viable, precious little babies who are full term.

Inspite of what liberals, and www.moveon.orgthink, it is not Bush who resembles Hitler in this race.