The streets of New York City today are filled with perhaps a historically significant show of ant-opponent demonstrators, all protesting the present administration of the American government, and its president George W. Bush. It is indeed something to observe, whether the media will give more time to the demonstrators than to the Republican National Convention. Let's hope someone is clocking the media time.
Manhattan, 2004, for self, for self, and for self. Never "for God, for Country," or
even for an alma mater like Yale. Notice the watchful spirit of the American
flags brooding over the selfish assembly. A sad feeling.
The operations of the Leftist machine have been well-analyzed, and indeed giant web sites like Front Page Magazine are devoted to exposing the Left and all its mechanisms.
From what has been shown thus far, the NYC demonstrators are not making a show of patriotism. They are not claiming to be great, American-loving patriots. Kerry's campaign makes a big show of American flags, of course, but, he can never sell himself as a patriot. Evidence is against him. It is curious, however, that the demonstrators apparently aren't even trying to disguise themselves with the mask of Americanism.
The one important thought to think is this: Americanism is what allows the kind of display the protesters indulge in. Americanism is what our soldiers ultimately fight for. Americanism, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, is what America is all about. The Left, however, does not love this freedom. The Left would squelch it at every opportunity. They demand the right to have it, to say what they want, but they are very quick to deny the same right to others.
The second important thing to observe is the absense of patriotism in the protesters. There are no attempts to present themselves as superior Americans, as better citizens, as somehow more qualified patriots. They are all mostly special interest groups, self-oriented, issue focused, and really have little idenity with the United States of America. They are not there demonstrating for America. They are in the streets for themselves, and what they want.
The demonstrations are not really pro-Democratic Party. They are anti-Republican, and specifically anti-Bush. Remember Richard Poe's essays on George Soros, who vowed to spend every last nickel of his billions to make sure Bush is ousted from office? I wonder how many nickels he will have left after the Republican Convention? Probably enough to support Hillary's October Surprise.
In an unprecedent bit of political antics, Kerry supporters took former Senator Max Cleland in his wheelchair up to the gates of President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, to protest the Swiftboat campaign ads.
Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost both legs and and his right arm, would surely provide the convincing gesture, with the transcendent authority, that would move Bush to publically condemn specifically the Swiftboat Veterans against Kerry, and their devastating ads.
Max Cleland, at the Bush ranch, in earnest?
So now it's, "Who's more patriotic than whom?" "I'm more patriotic than you, because I lost half my body," Cleland seems to say. This is what it's come to. This is nearly unbelievable. As American veterans vie with one another for authority, one must remember it is all because of Kerry's own dubious, disgraceful behavior as a soldier and veteran. Kerry was willing to play the card, win or lose. He's always been willing to play the card, never mind the thousands of veterans affected by it. He doesn't care about them, and never has. That is the record. Kerry is a man without honor. He doesn't understand the concept. "Unfit for Command"? "Unfit" doesn't cut it. Kerry is anti-fit.
The matter of who is qualified, who is representative, who has authority to speak, has long been an issue in my own efforts as an American Indian Patriot. "Who's more Indian than whom?" has been one of the most basic questions of my journalistic experience. But BadEagle.com has also see the issue arise in the matter of ethnic representations, like, "Who's more Scottish than whom?," "Who's more Persian than whom?," and with the Gotti post, "Who's more Italian than whom?"
Methods of validation, tactics of authority, all come into play now in American society more than ever before. With the Clinton legacy of lies, the very accusation of lying is not about truth, but merely a tool to use against the opponent. When the liar accuses another person of being a liar, what difference does it make? It comes down to who uses the accusation more effectively. It is the wild, wild west. You must beat your opponent to the draw. Truth seems irrelelvant. Indeed, "What's truth got ta do with it?"
The quest for validation, for authenticity, for truth, is nevertheless essential to psychological health, despite the diseased tactics of the Left, and the current rhetorical manners of the Democratic party. Though they consciously do everything they can to degrade the value of truth, the truth is still the most valuable item on the board. The truth is still the highest stakes. Though some Democrats can lie till they die, age does not make error truth. Repetition does not qualify. Quantification is not qualification.
That the American veterans should now fall into this trap of "Who's more patriotic than whom?" is indeed a tragedy, but one that is clearly committed, dramatized, and perpetuated by none other than John Kerry.
Hang your head in shame, Mr. Kerry. Time for you to quickly disappear. Your "courage" in lying, your consistent and willful warp of reality is not impressive. It is now more destructive than the Clinton legacy. The damage you have done is unprecedented. Do the country a favor, and bow out now. That might evince just a shread of sincerety, more evidence than your purple hearts were based on.
In a natural blend of media, feminism, victimhood, heroics, and Americanism, a new star is born. Victoria Gotti, daughter of a notorious Italian American mobster, is now herself king-pin of a massive media wave to make her a triumph of American culture. The campaign is using all the major issues in American society. And there's nothing like a TV show "Growing Up Gotti," to legitimize and dramatize the whole story, and a new magazine "Red Carpet" on top of that. All the issues, all the tools.
Yet America has always had a certain ambiguity of emotion regarding the Italian gangster. There is an unspoken admiration for the raw strength and initiative taken by the historical murderers, who've created their own enconomic niche. Like Dracula, they suck blood, but dress very nicely. Keep all the horror out of sight. They have families, they go to church. Why, they're just like everyone else. They're perfectly normal.
That is the secret of success for Victoria Gotti's campaign theme. With double the effort of the old Godfather campaign, Victoria's image will convince the public that the Italian mobster is a lovable, even wonderful person after all. Why, gansters are people too. Just think, Victoria is a deprived wife, (ex-husband Carmine Agnello is in prison for racketeering and tax evasion), with three sons to raise. What could be more typically American? A single mother with sons. Such a challenge. It's called the perfect set-up.
Victoria Gotti
After all, the woman can't help who her father was, John Gotti. She didn 't chose her family, her environment, nor probably even her husband. We are to understand her to be a victim, not a criminal. Just born into a rough situation. Why, she is to have our whole heart of sympathy, not condemnation or loathing.
And of course, whatever the unseen emotions seething within us as we see yet another morally depraved creature exalted to the heights of public recognition and remuneration, Victoria does have a lot to see, as well. A lusty bleach blonde, she appeals to all the typical, lower-end of society who live on dreams of being 'queen for a day.' Her story just makes her personal appearance the more effective.
A talented woman, made for the part.
That there should be any real success to her campaign only shows how low the media really wants to bring America. The career criminal family is held out as not only normal, but exemplary. Victim becomes hero, once again. It's the Liberal way.
I would hope to see the Italian American community form some sort of counter-campaign against this nonsense. I mean, weren't The Sopranos enough? Is there no other image of the American Italian? Think of all the Italian mothers, who have sacrificed everything for their families, who are law abiding, who raise their children to be law abiding, who are faithful to their husbands, and who go to church, and are truly patriotic. How can they bear the image of Victoria Gotti?
When the 'wicked' are exalted and prosper, it's really discouraging to those who live moral lives. This Gotti thing is just another classic example of how the world offers glitz for crime, and nothing for true respectability. Yes, Benjamin Franklin said virtue is its own reward. But, I also like what Salvatore "Lucky" Luciano's father said to him, after young "Charlie" had managed to bribe the mayor of New York into cooperation. Charlie really thought he was hot stuff, but his hard-working, honest father said, "You're a bum!"
Victoria is not a tramp, but her story is not honorable. It can never be, but only in the most subjective, personal terms, and those terms are never useful to society, but instead encourage more illigitimacy. It is a delusion.
"Give me a chance!" her life seems to say.
And if Victoria really wants to impress everyone with the legitimacy of her life, and the sincerety of her heart, then she should never say her son is going to Harvard Law. That begs the whole question. Rhode Island School of Design would be much more convincing. Does she want herself and hers sons to be free of association with glitzified murderers, or does she just want them all to cash in on it, as if they have no choice? Of course, that's victimhood. You don't have a choice. Cashing in is certainly their move for now.
Have no fear, Oprah's here. Oprah Winfrey is on the jury. She'll judge rightly! She just voted to convict a black man of murdering another black man in Chicago. She just proved the American Negro does have dignity, integrity, and honor. Forget the OJ syndrome. (Of course, we really don't know how she would have voted in that situation, trying a black man who was married to a white woman. Eight black women jurists in that trial let free a black man with blood on his hands, the blood of two white people. For Oprah, was it an easier decision to convict a black man who killed another black man? She claims it was agonal...)
The point is, Oprah is presented by the media as exemplary. In her, America has the most qualitifed, most authoritative, most authentic personage in the country, a billionaire no less, 'humbly' serving jury duty like a perfect citizen. How stunning. Oprah has always been sold to the public not as celebrity, but as a black woman, and therefore one who sees things from the foundation, from the bottom, and thus from the truest perspective. It is authenticity of the stereotypical black female ghetto realist that makes Oprah top token. The media glorifies her. The court honors her The people bow in awe. Oprah is queen of America.
Sure. That's why she's on the jury. That's why she's making a spectacle of it. That's why she's doing a TV special out of it. If the truth were known, it was probably all planned. Her selection for jury duty was so perfectly apropos. Now she once again identifies with "common" America, not the criminal, but the jurist.
Maybe that helps make up for the fact that a black male juror lied in the selection process to get on Martha Stewart's jury.
But what would happen if Oprah were serving on Koby Bryant's jury, (if there's ever going to be one)? Would she deny a black man the right to have a sexual relationship with a white girl at will, under any circumstance? Everyone else in Eagle, Colorado seems to be apprehensive about denying Kobe such a right. Kobe's trial will prove forever that it is a black man's right to have a white woman. No one will ever accuse a black man again for such a relation.
But it doesn't end here. White women running Planned Parenthood are now accused of racism themselves!
Nnamdi Nkwuda says his white female superior called him a nigger. "I am African and was shocked by her cultural insensitivity," Nkwuda stated. Oh. So the African is insulted by being associated with the American Negro? So what's the foreigner doing on a job which he got no doubt due to his color?
Worse, a fellow employee, a black female in the same office, said "I am an African-American who witnessed and experienced it ... It upset me because if they allowed her to call him one, they were probably calling all of the African-American[s] nigger too." So she nobly overlooks the prejudice of the African towards her, and blends into the color of the argument, so to speak.
WorldNetDaily.com, who posted the cited article on Planned Parenthood, is a conservative site, and posted this story to demonstrate how the most liberal organizations commit the very offenses they accuse conservatives of committing. (The fact is, some people even wonder if Planned Parenthood is in fact liberal, and not rather a terribly biased, race-hating organization! Now there's as irony. This is where liberal meets conservative, at birth control.)
But never mind. The American Negro has risen to great heights of justic now, right up on the new auction block of courtroom entertainment. The next thing we know, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton will be appointed judge. Then we'll have a full stage. White people will yet bow to the true superior race, the People of Color!
White people apparently will have it so. It isn't the "minorities" who are in charge. It is white people. Why are they doing this to themselves? Why are they punishing themselves so? Is this their own idea of justice? Is this self-inflicted scourging? They'll never be satisfied until the white race is enslaved. Thus, they display wonderous ignorance of history. On the social evolutionary scale of history, the white race has only recently risen above slavery itself.
But the Dark Races will triumph once again. This time it's all through the idolized American "white" court. OJ got his. Bryant's getting his. Oprah had her's. No doubt Mr. Nkwuda will have his. Black is beautiful? I say, in utter sarcasim, white is what's really beautiful here.
It's very easy to use children these days. They make lucrative business. The state looks for foster homes, and will pay plenty, every month, to a person who seems qualified and can offer the proper home circumstances. Many people these days take in children (as well as invalids, elderly, or crippled), and make a living from it. A separate check comes for each child or person.
But here's a twist. A Houston woman assumed responsibility for seven children (from three from Houston and four from Dallas), took them to Nigeria, left them there with her boyfriend's relative who lived there, and then later she went to work in Iraq as a private dining service worker. The children were enrolled in a Nigerian school, but when tuition payments suddenly stopped, they wound up in an abandoned shack own by the boyfriend's relative. Nigerian authorities were tipped off about the neglect, and the children were placed in a Nigerian orphanage in July. They were abandoned last October, or, eleven months ago.
Texas Child Protective Services (Houston) representative Estella Olguin, who would not identify the Houston woman, said the seven American foster children were terribly( malnurished, diseased, and enduring great privation. Their ages ranged from 8 to 16. The children were returned to America, to Houston CPS custody. (Now that should really make them feel safe!)
The criminally negligent woman (not to ever be referred to as a "mother," thank you) has already been in court once, after she was found, and a hearing is set for August 26. She was receiving at least $3,600 a month, even though the children were not under her care.
A youth minister from a church in San Antonio just happened to be doing missionary work in the village area there in Nigeria, and just happened to hear children speaking "fluent" English. It was he who contacted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and Sen. John Cornyn, both of whom contacted CPS.
Gimme that ol' time religion, indeed.
Notice that Dale Lezon, the Houston reporter, says the youth missionary heard the children "speaking with US accents." What sort of accent is that? English? Ebonic? Since when does a person (apparently speaking English) speak in a US accent? Is the youth minister from San Antonio an Englishman, or a European English speaker?
It is quite clear that there is an attempt here to hid the ethnic identity of the people involved, plus some ethnic problems on the part of the journalist Lezon. The AP version of the story uses the term "American accent." Again, what might that be? Texan? American Negro? It all depends on the reporter, or the ethnicity of the missionary, or both. We certainly can never trust the media on matters of ethnicity. But one wouldn't take white children to a village in Nigeria and expect them to be unnoticed.
In any case, it's all about using children. The states have tens of thousands of children who need homes, desperately. Standards are fluid. Money is available. So, taxpayers pay the state to pay someone to take care of someone else's children. Make money off your relative's children. Keep it in the family. Make money off anyone's children. The more kids you take, the more money you get. Great set up. You can use the poor to raise yourself out of poverty! All compliments of the taxpayer, via the state.
Well, who knows? Maybe the whole scheme was this woman's idea of re-patriation of African-Americans to the homeland.
Florida is devastated. The attack was deadly. At the present moment, Sunday morning, August 15, 2004, there isn't even a sure figure for the number of casualties--people killed or missing in action. The financial losses, always the first figures broadcast, say it's anywhere from $6 to $10 billion for Florida alone. The attack is not over yet.
Roseanne Pisa is overcome by emotion as she looks over the Hurricane Charley wreckage of a mobile home in the Windmill Village mobile home park in Punta Gorda, Florida, August 14, 2004. Charley moved across the Florida peninsula yesterday, went out to sea in the Atlantic Ocean, and returned to land today, hitting the South Carolina coast. Reuters
So who's the attacker? Al-Qaeda?
No. It's Nature. It's not man against man. It's Nature against man. Nature, which can do irreparable damage as surely as any bomb, is the one force to which modern man is pleased to ascribe no morality, no guilt or culpability. We have a completely different set of emotional reactions to Nature's attacks. Much pain, much sorrow, but never anger, revenge, or cry for justice, or none that we articulate very loudly.
Nature is not God, after all. Yet, would some people hold God responsible? Job would say no. Satan is the attacker. (Job 1:12; 2:6). Harold Kushner, in When Bad Things Happen to Good People (1981), says we often tend to blame the victim so that the evil doesn't seem so irrational and therefore threatening to everyone else. Why, there's a reason this happened, a reason connected to the person it happened to. This is how the Democrats reacted to the Al-Qaeda attack of 9-11. They questioned, What did America to to offend the murderous Arab Muslims? They imply that it is America's own fault.
But insurance companies steer clear of such moral assessments of their clients. Insurance companies allow for "acts of God," and no Christian activists or atheists have sought to remove that phrase. And yet that's the phrase most accusatory of the Divine, and the most theologically inaccurate. Insurance companies sell their product (the promise of money) on the basis of the likelihood that disaster will happen, yet their profit is based on the likelihood that it won't. What kind of theology is that? Gambling on God?
When nature does attack, the Democratic "theologians" certainly don't assess the victims the same way they do when it's man against man. Florida will be the recipient of compassion and sincere sympathy, but, there will be no grand triumphs. Storms leave no political heroes. There may be stories of survivors and of great rescues, but, there will be no grand memorials, no medals of honor for combatants. There will be no cry for justice, no equitable judgement, or real compensation for what is lost. Storms leave us disheartened, sick, hurt, and suffering, but Nature has no will or conscience, so we have no protest, no hope of changing Nature, and must simply take it on the chin, with no recourse, and no politically correct victimhood.
Liberals need a different kind of victim. They can't get mileage out of a storm victim. Only when man attacks man, there are heroes to be had, and plenteous political opportunities. Storms, without culpability, render no accusation, and no opportunity for leaders to display superior righteousness. Therefore, Liberals always perfer human attacks.
The Florida weather may be an ill-wind to them, indeed. Republicans may benefit, in the over-all scheme of things, with the right tack. With no one but God to accuse of moral wrong, the Democrats come up empty after the storm, adrift in their own manipulated guilt schemes.
Nothing evinces the weakness of John Kerry more than the strength of Teresa Heinz. That a person of her strengths and personality should be attracted to a life-long waffler like Kerry only shows that opposites still attract, at least in the realm of romance.
Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira
Teresa Simoes-Ferreira was born and raised in Mozambique in East Africa. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in romance languages and literature (French, Italian, and Portuguese) from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. She speaks five languages. After graduating from the Interpreters School of the University of Geneva, she worked for the United Nations in New York. She has three sons, John, Andre, and Christopher, and two stepdaughters, Alexandra and Vanessa, Kerry's daughters from his first marriage.
But it's not her numerous and significant awards and accomplishments (achieved mostly through money) that are the concern here. The concern is how she could possibly be attracted to someone of such a weak, vascillating character, of such obvious depression and languid overtone, with such an overbearing drone of uncertainty and burdensome demeanor. Kerry is fundamentally a drag. Teresa is serious, yet upbeat, and cheerful.
There is all kinds of information about her now on the internet, but I haven't found any that puts two and two together.
Teresa is a real man of a woman, and the only explanation of her involvement with Kerry is that her strength needed a place to manifest itself, a personal place, a woman's place. Many strong women have been attracted to weak men. This is perfectly natural and normal. Such a woman saves the man. She makes the man. She is the man.
Apparently they're both genetically Jewish, but both were raised Catholic. In a way, that would make Teresa somewhat of a modern marano, born in the Portugese colony of Mozambique (East Africa). Kerry's Catholicism is of course as questionable as any other position he holds on anything. He's under fire for his stance on abortion, and there are those who feel he should not be allowed communion. But Teresa, a life-long Republican (until switching last year, 2003), has yet had no such disputes over her Catholicism. Her encounter with the abortion issue 30 years ago is moot. It never happened.
Teresa has all the charm a foreigner in America could ever dream of. She looks rather terrific for her age (66), and has lived life of philanthropic "compassionate conservatism" we might say. And even more so since her late husband, Senator John Heinz was killed in a plane crash in 1991. She represents tradition, stability, and strong character, as a woman.
In short, she's just too classy a woman for John Kerry. She's too grand a person. Yes, he also comes from wealth, but he seems like a neglected child compared to her. He's like a pitiful, lost soul, and she is the strong, saving female figure. He did do time in a Swiss boarding school, and another in New Hampshire. Maybe he appealed to Teresa's strong maternal instincts. The overgrown kid needed some serious consistency in his life.
Let's hope Teresa doesn't turn out to be more embarrassed by him than Julia Stimson Thorne, his first wife, the heiress from Philadelphia. With his insistence on being a Vietnam war hero, I say he's 'shoving' the issue.
It's over. There is surely no way Kerry will survive the Swift Boat attackers--the men who served in Vietnam with him, and who testify that he is Unift for Command. Their new book, before it was released, was previewed by the Washington Times, and stunning as that was, the preview was weak in comparison to what is really coming out now. Michael Savage has gone nuts over this, talking it up on his radio show the last several nights.
Of course the DNC is trying to fight back, but only with routine legal jargon, about as meaningless as the legal profession normally is. And the Kerry camp is in deep disarray already, over key issues of American values, like religion, patriotism, and principles of the republican foundation of the country. Important leaders in the DNC are just too Communist in ideology.
So, we can expect something unusual before November. The DNC cannot afford to let Kerry blow their campaign. Kerry's out, by expediency.
Remember Hillary's prediction? Something will happen in October, some outside influence will turn the election. Richard Poe has suggested that its all going to be in the hands (i.e., pockets and dollars) of George Soros. If this is true, then one of two things will happen: John Edwards will become the official candidate for president, or it will be Hillary Clinton.
Senator John Edwards, vice-
presidential candiate for the
Democratic Party, 2004
Edwards would be the first vice-presidential candiate to replace a fallen presidential candidate in American history. While there doesn't seem to be a clear rule available about changing a nominee, some Democrats are already wishing it were Edwards instead of Kerry. Of course, Kerry could be a gentleman and step down, but that is not likely.
That leaves Hillary's October surprise and the intents of multi-billionaire George Soros. This could all prove to be an unprecedented breach of rules, tradition, and expectations, the kind of action the Clintons have always relished. All globalists tend to live outside the laws of any given nation, even if it's America. The Clintons are particularly fond of despising American law and tradition. Hillary might be the Soros choice. She's well-suited for the occasion. And remember Soros has vowed to spend every nickel he has to remove Bush.
Senator Hillary Clinton, a 2004
presidential candidate?
The political 'body' of Kerry will be reabsorbed into the senate, no doubt, or into some global, communist enterprise. Everyone knows he doesn't need money. He just needs power, like Bill Clinton. (Jimmy Carter was able to escape such a mean reputation, interestingly, globalist that he is.) Old politicians never die, they just philanthropize away. Or, should we say, "communize" away?
Media people are accepting Kerry's war stories across the board. The McLaughlin Group (August 1, 2004) had nothing but praise and commendation for the Democratic Convention, and even Pat Buchanan's remarks were only about the inconsistencies of Kerry's senate voting record with Kerry's present claims of American patriotism. Their questions were directed at Kerry's challenge of overcoming his senate voting record, not about whether his war stories are true, and whether or not he is the biggest fake, the biggest liar of all time in American politics.
John Kerry, as pictured on FrontPageMagazine
July 30, 2004, and the Horowitz article.
Even David Horowitz, who denounces Kerry indeed as the biggest liar, still does not enter the question of Kerry's dubious military service. Though Front Page Magazine posts numerous articles about Kerry's confounded contradictions, wafflings, (even about his wife Teresa) and anti-American ideologies, and his outrageously anti-American voting record in the senate, there is no confrontation about his lies about his own military service.
Right now, Michael Savage is the frontline attacker. We must note this. Michael was no patriot in the '60's himself, but, in his present outlook, he recognizes others who weren't either, and he won't allow anyone to claim the honors of military patriotism who doesn't deserve them, who is misleading the public, and who is lying about it. Especially someone who had intentional political motivations for even going to Vietnam in the first place.
All Michael Savage does is give voice to the military men who were eye-witnesses of Kerry's egregious chicanery. Savage, and the Wasthington Times. It's the new book, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, by John E. O'Neill (Regnery Publishing). Mr. O'Neill served in Vietnam at the same time as Mr. Kerry and followed him as commander on the swift boat.
But, with the Clinton legacy of everyone calling everyone else a liar, there is no point in accusing anyone of being a liar. It's a hackneyed accusation. The Democrats have won that battle. It doesn't matter whether or not they're lying. Lying doesn't count against you, and a good lie, a lie of good things, works for you. So, lie.
George Neumayr has an interesting opening liner for his recent American Spectator article: "The line refuge of the modern liberal is patriotism." Kerry is cashing in his counterfeit patriotism in the banks of all unprincipled feel-good centers.
In August, 2001, I was at an annual convention of David Horowitz, in Colorado Srings. I had just lost my job at Oklahoma State University over the publicity I generated with my agenda of teaching patriotism in public schools. I was well aware of the potential of this word, "patriotism." I was walking with Mr. Horowitz between buildings there at the Broadmoor. I confided, "Mr. Horowitz, whoever owns the word patriot wins. " I awaited an answer, but there was none. Mr. Horowitz pondered the remark. This was less than a month before 9-11.
My point is, I knew that patriotism was the issue back then. I knew politics would become an emotional contest as never before, and it would all boil down to who loved the country the most, who could sell themselves as the true patriots, who could own the word, "patriot."
Yet, if lying is acceptable, and undisputed, even by leading conservative sources, then the Democrats win. If they say they are patriots, they win. With a military record like Kerry's, based on lies, they still win. In fact, that's why they win. The bigger the lie, the more emotion somehow aggregates around it, the more power is concomitant. It is thrilling, to be deluded in a glorious lie, a national pretense. It feels so good to escape the hard core realities of the country and the world.
Just remember, it's a lie. The Kerry is a fraud. The Democratic party is generating the biggest political fraud in American history. It is a media image. A media creation. Do you want to entrust the country to a fraud? Do you think Kerry can fake America through the real world like he's faked himself? That is the real question.
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001